Can someone please explain to me in scientific terms how the earth could be 6000 years old.

and please dont use the bible as the only thing to back up your claims.

Maybe this is the seventh day and god is resting. Maybe it has been 6,000 years since "man" was created.
Though I am a believer, facts are facts and evidence is evidence which points in the direction of this as being nothing more than an issue of faith

That is my problem. why cant you just have faith in god and leave it at that. I hear people of religion spouting off about how corrupt mankind is. if man kind is so corrupt, how can you trust something that was written 400 years after the fact just by "word of mouth" and stories told over the years. That was kind of off topic, but just helps my point. Im at work and it block my access to youtube.com, however there is a video on there about the Answers in Genesis Creation museum. A local news anchor goes there and just asks the manager of the museum how certain things could only be 6000 years, such as dino fossils. The manager continues by saying, well Genesis says these things are 600 years old so i dont see how they can possibly be any older. WHACK JOBS!

Sorry if that offended anyone. I just have a problem with people making claims and trying to push them onto other people with out any proof what so ever!

The Earth is not 6000 years old. Genesis was written by Moses as a poem, so a lot of people take it literally. Each "day" could just represent generations millions to billions of years. A proof is that the Bible spoke of a prophet that looked into the past and saw prehistoric creature that was said to be "long before man." If man was created on the 7th (literally) day, I doubt one or two days when prehistoric animals existed counts as long before man.

Thank you Dragohunter, you should write a letter to the Answers in Genesis Museum.

There's a Genesis Museum?

yup i cant look it up in you tube cuz im at work. but just look up Answers in genesis or creation museum.

I don't know if this is true or not but my Dad says that maybe God created a grown up world.

You know how God created Adam as a man and not a little baby, maybe God had to make the world as a mature world so that it could be inhabited by humans. Maybe the world is 6,000 years old but it is in its mature stage of billions of years old, like Adam was probably created at around 18 or 21 years old or something but in reality he was really only 1 day old.

Like I said.. I don't know if this is true its just a thought.

I'm with the scientific crowd on this issue. the world is most likely to be far older...

did he do it for the whole universe then? just for us to inhabit? i somehow doubt that, but who knows you may be right. I happen to think God isnt a person or some one with the same concept as conciousness as us. i think god is a Universal Presence thats is just everywhere. like God is all laws of physics and governs everything. and so only god knows how things were started. it a little naive to think god is here for us. Also if god made everything in 6 days. how long was a day? can you prove that it was a earth day? maybe it was a day that was really like 30000 earth days. who knows

and one more thing that just popped into my head. People of religion say that man is evil and corrupt. so how then can u trust something that has been handed down over the ages? Its most likely corrupt. Actualy it IS corrupt. that catholic church omitted storys from the bible that they felt didnt portray jesus as he was in the other books.

Genesis was written for People to read not just for God to understand. It is written in Genesis chapter 1 verse 5

"God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day."

I thought it might have been possible for him to have extra long days too but it seems pretty clear that they weren't long days, if you actually believe the bible.

I remember hearing somewhere that in the original Hebrew Bible, the word for "day" actually means 24 hr. period. As for if this is credible or not, I haven't the slightest idea. But if it is, just remember how cool I am for telling you all about it

As astounding as it seems, there's not just one but quite a few museums claiming to have evidence for a young Earth.

So, if you have money to waste, go there.

You'd have better laughs at a comedy club, though.

Plus, they sell alcohol at comedy clubs.

Harte

Good call Harte!


Either that or you could go there and maybe have drink of apple cider with Ned Flanders

Which then, in turn, affects the rest of Christianity with regards to validity, say nothing of the dubious historicity of the man Jesus.

I don't believe the Earth is 6000 years old, but I can see why religious people claim it so.

Day 1 - God created everything. By Day 7 there were humans. The Jewish calander states we're in year 6000 something. So they stick the two together.

I believe that these 7 days of creation were really 7 periods of 2000 years. Each 'day' corresponds to the period in which our sun rises under the same sign on the day of the vernal equinox (about 2000 years on Earth).

This would have given our ET creators ample time to create the life we have today.

-Josh

I agree with you on the ET creators thing. I happen to think theres a huge chunk of forgotten (or hidden) human history. But to be honest I think you pulled that 2000 years thing out of you butt. i can almost bet theres way more to it than that.

Well heres my proof against This theory.


9,550 Year Old Spruce Tree Discovered in Sweden

Somewhere in the bible it says that one day is a thousands years and a thousand years is one day. I think the earth is much older then any book can explain, but I post it because it shows that time back then is not like time today, even the bible itself says that a day was a thousand years. Im not using the bible as truth, I am using to show that time was different back then.

Time back then, during time of Adam and Eve, the atmosphere was different. The rainbow was not here until after the flood, stories say that immortals roamed the earth (men of renown, or what ever) and men had much longer longevity. I think these differences help us understand that time back then is not like time today. I look at it like this, after the flood, we were quarantined. A prismic atmosphere was layed a pone us to protect this realm from the outer beings who were banished from here. This new atmosphere brought the rainbow, so its used as a sign as a promise.

Is it possible that ADAM the first born mortal of a holy spirit and mabey he was brought life 6000 yrs ago, mabey....but earth is ancient, the sooner religions stop limiting them selves to a book, the sooner we all can share faith and science. Earth is very very old, 6000 yrs doesnt touch her. My problem with religions is that you are told what to think. God is oh so real, and your connection with God should be a open minded one. Earth is a living organism, she deserves to be acknowledged as old but oh so wise. To say earth is 6000 yrs. is like telling a old man he knows nothing.

The 2000 year thing wasn't made up by me - Yahweh, the head of the ET creators told Rael this fact. I believe it.

-Josh

Yeah? That's funny, because Iksgork, the REAL leader of the ET creators told me that Yahweh is a jerk and that each "day" period was 5500 years.

Sorry, but where did you get the idea that the earth is 7000 years old. It certainly wasn't from christians was it?

I say that , because the bible doesn't give an age for the earth, merely for the creation of mankind and even then with huge gaps in the written biblical record.

Funny you should say such a thing since the catholic church didn't even exist back in the time when the books that would compose the New Testament were chosen to be so.

Young earth is neither theory or scientific.

Since the time of its inception, the sky was divided into twelve signs not seven. By inception I mean the creation of astrology. The process you are referring to is called the precession of the equinoxes and is calculated to be around 2160 years per age. For the complete revoluton or Cycle (Great Year or Platonic Year), the period is about 25,920 years.

So, your ET's would have had to be around for the last 200,000 years for your calculations to be correct, give or take. The kicker is that life on this planet was pretty much all over at the time in question, not to mention hominid life. So the didn't create, it was already there wasn't it. What you might mean is manipulate, genetically speaking.

If that is the case then they aren't our creators anyway. Besides, who created them?

Oh, the literalists.....lol. You know, I actually believe that a good portion of the Bible IS true, but not this. The Book of Genesis is completly metaphoric. The earth was not created in 7 days. There was no literal Adam and Eve walking the earth, thats a spirtual concept; allegory. I don't think there's one shred of REAL history in the Bible, until maybe you get up to Noah and the flood. There may have been a Biblical flood, there are the cave drawings and the Epic of Gilgamesh; other sources to back that one up a bit. Genesis is a metaphoric account of creation and our place in it.

Maybe so, maybe not. Either way we certainly can never know for certain. The point is that the earth was "created" in a period before those 7 days. The 7 days are completely distinct from the creation of the earth. They do not refer to the creation of the earth but rather the regulation and population therof. Something that has happened quite a few times in earths biological and geological history.

I'm only passing on information that Rael got from Yahweh. But your calculations referring to the precession of the equinoxes is calculated to be around 2160 years per age, or per 'day'. This is the period he was talking about.

These ETs started life on Earth around 22,000 years ago. They are able to extend their cell life to 750-1000 years for a normal life span, and when they die they can recreate themselves by cloning a cell sample and downloading their brainwaves/memories/thoughts/personality into the new clone. This is how they were able to create life over such a long period of time.

No, they did create us from scratch. No genetic manipulation or anything. They designed us.

I'm sure we've talked about this before in other posts - the ones who created the Elohim (our creators) were another bunch of advanced people from another planet. When we are able, we will travel to another planet and create life.

-Josh

Ok, sure, great. So who created those guys? And who created those? And those? Et cetera.

One of the great shortcomings of any belief system is when the information presented by that system conflicts directly with scientific fact (not theory). In this case, that the human race has been around for much longer than your proposed 22,000 years. Biological (genetic) testing of remains, demonstrates the effective existence of Homo Sapiens Sapiens for at least 50,000 years and fossil evidence indicates at least 250,000 years of the Homo Sapiens line in existence, if not much more. Some even put it around 500,000 years.

This is not theory or hearsay, this is science, mainstream science to be exact. Besides this there is ample evidence that life on earth has been around for around 3 Billion years, humans are just the latest development in the biological history of this planet.

So if there had to be a designer of the type you say, they would have had to have arrived over 3 billion years ago, for them to have actually created / designed life on earth.



That leaves us with the above statement, if yahweh was created by other advanced beings, then who created those? We can go back endlessly in this fashion until the beginning of the universe itself, but that still leaves us with the ultimate question:

Who created the universe and the 1st life to begin with?

The ultimate question of 1st causality is what this is really about in the end.

All life in this universe has been created.

Life never just 'happens'. It is caused by advanced designers who have the scientific knowledge to create life (and we are close to doing this ourselves).

There was no beginning to the universe - it has always been and will always be. Because man has a certain number of limited years, he'd like to think the universe is the same.

-Josh

Yes, the information that the Elohim presented to Rael does conflict with what we think we know with our science. You may say that Rael made it all up, but why would someone make up such simple and 'see through' theories? If we know that the closest star is 4.2 light years away, why would he say that the ET's planet is less than a light year away and other such 'underestimates'?

If you believe what we believe, the Elohim have said that a major mistake we are making with our science is that we measure something and then use that measurement as a constant. For example, when we measure the growth of a child from birth and see how quick it grows in the first year, we can see that it grows from 30cm to over 1 metre in its first year (not sure if that's possible for a child to be 1 metre at 1 years old, but you get the point). This would mean that if we used this measurement of growth of around 1m per year, we could conclude that we the baby grows up to be 25, it will be 25 metres tall!

This is wrong, as we know, because there are spurts of growth, then nothing for some years, then a giant growth again.

I apply this miscalculation to what our scientists have 'measured'.

According to the Elohim: -the first homo sapien (Adam) was created around 13,000 years ago.
-the Elohim STARTED to create life on Earth around 22,000 years ago.
-their planet is less than a light year away

In relation to who created the universe and who was the first....I tell that you there was no first. Man cannot get this theory into his head....that infinity is infinity. The universe is infinite and it had no beginning. It will have no end. But because we have limited years, we'd like to think that everything is like us, so we search for the beginnings.

I tell you, that there was no beginning.

However, all I've told you hear is information given by the Elohim. You don't have to believe it, I'm just presenting what I believe.

-Josh

The speed of light is the constant we use to measure galactic distance, since it is a constant in a vacum, which we know space certainly is. If light takes 8 minutes to get to earth we can measure the distance from the sun to our planet and to others with ease. The same goes for other stars and their distances.

The fact that your particular example does not include a constant but rather a variable measurement indicates the error of that bit of logic.

It is an accepted point of reference that the physical universe had a beginning and will eventually have an end. The basic law of entropy demonstrates this without a doubt.

Each person is free to believe whatever they want, but I wish that the terminology you use to communicate your ideas wasn't mixed with biblical references (like "elohim"), it might simply lend itself to confusion, unless that is the purpose of such similarity in terminology.

You've just admitted that when measuring the speed of light that scientists use this constant speed to measure - however light doesn't travel at that constant speed in all strata of the universe.

The fact that we can prove that we can speed up the speed of light shows that the speed of light is not a constant (thus this measurement needs to be re measured):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtm...scispeed116.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3308109.stm
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...d-ltt081905.php

To measure a constant is to assume. Nothing in space is constant - things speed up, then slow down, then stop, then speed up again. This isn't taken into account for anything as far as standard science is concerned.

It's like the spreading of the continents - we're told that they move about 2 cm away from each other per year. Knowing this, we can assume that 10,000 years ago they were 2000km away from each other (which isn't much). No one accounts that 10,000 years ago they could have moved over 50 metres in the first year, then nothing for two years, then 3cm for the next year, then 10km apart the next year.......do you see what I'm saying?

That's fine that you believe in 'accepted points of reference' but just because a majority have said it's the truth doesn't make it so. In fact, it's always the revolutionaries who stand up for the truth that are always ridiculed - then someone makes a discovery that proves them to be right.

When you state that...
"It is an accepted point of reference that the physical universe had a beginning and will eventually have an end...."

...you are stating that I'm wrong on the basis that a majority accept the opposite. In fact, the universe is infinite and has never had a start and will never have an end.

-Josh

and if you believe the the earth is only 6000 years old you are in a ditch blind as a bat ,i am sorry to come across so forward but read what your saying??????????????

Jor-el you are showing a very poor understanding of the word theory in scientific terms there. I'd like to see the evidence for 250000 or 500000 of Homo sapiens though (btw never capitalise the species name, only the genus name).

A quick question, Josh - how do Raelians account for Ice Cores?

The evidence for 500,000 years ago is indirect and unsettled, but relies on the fossil discussed in the following article (I think.)
My emphasis.

Archaeology Magazine

That was regarding Homo sapiens.

Thjis regards Homo sapiens sapiens (us):

Source

Also:

Source

Also:

Source

Lastly:


Source

Harte

There are few people who believe that the earth is 6000 years old and even fewer to think it is flat... And yet so many still say evolution is bull?

I'm SO confused by that.

Hmmm.

I know!!

Because "Rael" figured you'd never bother to check?

Or, maybe, because Rael is an idiot that couldn't be bothered to pay attention in school?

Two very good answers.

Harte

Cheers mate, looks like some interesting reading.

It is because people don't understand science and it's terminology.

Interestingly enough, modern science does not agree with you or Rael. The universe, both space and time, had a beginning some 15 billion years ago. If you wanted a sloppy estimate, you could graph (based on red-shifts), a few galaxies over time. What you would see is that these galaxies compress down onto each other some 20 billion years ago. This is sloppy because one must account for the acceleration effects and small variances in velocities due to cosmic evolution.


Any religion that cannot account for what is well known by science, is a poor religion, in my opinion.

Einstein's traffic cop, is a reference to the speed of light in a vacuum. All electromagnetic radiation travels at different speeds through different substances, but the speed through a substance is static. Light (radiation) travels the fastest in a vacuum and slower in different medias. It is possible using group velocities to break the speed of light in these media, but not the speed of light in vacuum.


You can even use Maxwell's equations about the electromagnetic properties of waves and space to derive the speed of light. Though we have changed the definition of things based on this, it nevertheless is a constant in vacuum.

You can use the permittivity and permeability of space to do so.

Knowing; µ_o= 4π*10^-7 mKg/C²
and knowing; Σ_o=8.85*10^-12 s²C²/m³Kg

We can derive c by;
c=1/√(µ_o*Σ_o)

Crunching those numbers you'll find you get something very close to what you probably used for the speed of light in school.

This is true, an infinite universe would have become broken down by now abiding by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The universe (real time and space) is most certainly not infinite.

Copasetic,

I wish I knew how you made all those squiggly marks.

I could use them in making out my tests.

Is it hard?

Harte

P.S.

Nice work.

H.

Josh, I specifically statetd that the speed of light is measured in a vacum, which is what space is. Any other type of measurement in any other medium doesn't count for the purpose of this discussion which relates directly to galactic measurements of distance. Astronomy 101.

T any time in a vacum whether light is travalling close to a gravitational well like a star or a black hole, light speed remains constant, it cannot be increased. That is why we have the light barrier as the maximum speed that matter can go up to and even then only in the case of photons.

As has been explained overe and over again, for anything besides photons to achieve and break the light barrier would require more enrgy than the universe has available even if you concentrated all that energy in a machine to accelarate you to that point.

We didn't invent that mathematics of science, it was already in existence, we just discoverd those equations over time. The fact that they are true and real doesn't depend on any one persons belief or disbelief, just like the existence of God. Those equations demonstrate what I have said above, Einstein is a household name because of this fact.

Really?

I wonder what all the others who demonstrated exactly what I stated (with sources no less) think of that statement?

As for capitalisng the species, I was not aware I was writing a peer-review paper. This a discussion not an analysis between scientists. This doesn't mean I don't give you reason regarding your comment.

Thank you Harte for providing the background to my statements, although I believe they are unnecessary since anybody who has knowledge on this subject, knows that there are various dates given regarding the beginning of mankind according to the varying artifacts in existence.