Welcome
Welcome to Joel's Trumpet!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!

Is the Universe Only 6,000 years old?

Follow the latest news and articles here

Moderator: Moderators

Is the Universe Only 6,000 years old?

Postby ROCK SOLID » Sun May 28, 2017 9:29 pm

http://www.ancient-origins.net/human-or ... nopaging=1

28 May, 2017 - 18:52 Caleb Strom
Is the Universe Only 6,000 years old? Young Earth Creationists Say Yes!

(Read the article on one page)

Although most mainstream scientists and most of the developed world now accept the theory of evolution and the scientifically established age of Earth and the universe, there is still a group of people that resist the status quo and insist, based on a particular literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 in the Hebrew Bible, that the universe is only 6,000 years old and was created in six literal days. As of 2014, 42% of Americans believe that the universe was created about 10,000 years ago and that all life was created more or less in its present form at that time. This has, of course, been a common belief in Christian circles for most of the history of the faith, but the modern Young Earth Creationist movement has relatively recent origins in the Seventh Day Adventist movement. The prevalence of Young Earth Creationism in the United States is also related to the history of Christianity in the United States, from the founding of the Republic to the culture wars which have raged for the past few decades.

‘The Creation of Adam’ (c. 1511) by Michelangelo.

‘The Creation of Adam’ (c. 1511) by Michelangelo. (Public Domain)
Guessing and Dating the Age of the Universe

For the first 1700 years of Christian history, belief in a literal six-day creation and a world that was a few thousand years old was widespread within Christendom. This is because, until the early Modern Period, there was no reason to think otherwise. The early Church Fathers and Medieval theologians did not know about radiometric dating or how rock layers formed, so a few thousand years was a reasonable guess for the age of the universe.

In 1650, the Anglican archbishop James Ussher calculated that the world was created around 4004 BC based on the genealogies recorded in the book of Genesis. In terms of what was known about human history and the history of the universe at the time, this was a perfectly reasonable date. It was compatible with the science of the day.

Portrait of James Ussher by Peter Lely.

Portrait of James Ussher by Peter Lely. (Public Domain)

Problems with this interpretation began to arise in the 18th century, when scientists began to study geological formations and found that they had been laid down slowly over long periods of time rather than rapidly in a great flood as described in the book of Genesis. This concept is today referred to as deep time. Deep time was further popularized by Charles Lyell. By the early 19th century, almost all geologists had embraced deep time, including geologists who were professing Christians. These Christian geologists did not originally see belief in long ages as conflicting with the Bible.

The 130-Million-Year-Old Human Fossil Heist
Mormons’ creation theory: Christian creation with a twist
The Immense Collection of Strange Acambaro Figurines: Evidence of Dinosaurs Living Among Us?

Geological time spiral.

Geological time spiral. (Public Domain)
Denial of Deep Time Emerges

Between 1910 and 1915, a group of conservative Evangelical Christians published The Fundamentals which laid out what they believed to be the fundamentals of the Protestant Christian faith. This launched the Fundamentalist movement. One thing that might surprise many people considering the modern connotations of the term “fundamentalist” is that the leaders of the Fundamentalist movement did not have a problem with evolution or deep time. One of the original Fundamentalists, Benjamin B. Warfield, a prominent conservative theologian of the day, even talked about how evolution could be the process used by God to create life.

As evolution became widely accepted in the 1870s, caricatures of Charles Darwin with an ape or monkey body symbolized evolution.

As evolution became widely accepted in the 1870s, caricatures of Charles Darwin with an ape or monkey body symbolized evolution. (Public Domain)

It was not until the 1960s that denial of deep time and evolution became prevalent in Evangelical circles in the United States. If this is the case, then where did the Young Earth Creationist movement come from? Why did the position of many American Evangelicals shift so dramatically?
Modern Young Earth Creationists

Although most conservative Christians did not reject evolution or deep time in the early 20th century, there was one group that did, the Seventh Day Adventists (SDA). The Seventh Day Adventists are an unusual but nonetheless theologically orthodox sect of Christianity which was founded by the prophetess Ellen White in 1863. One of their more visible beliefs is that church services should be held on Saturday instead of Sunday. Ellen White had a series of visions which her followers took to be divinely inspired. Among these visions were visions of how the world was created. From her visions, she concluded that the universe was created only 6,000 years ago in six literal days and that all the rock layers and fossils within them were laid down in a global deluge based on the flood account recorded in Genesis 6-9.

Ellen G. White in 1899

Ellen G. White in 1899. (Public Domain)

Seventh Day Adventist scientists, such as the geologist George McCready Price, defended this view with scientific arguments for a young earth and a global flood. These arguments had a significant influence on the writers of the book, The Genesis Flood. That book was written in 1961 by Henry Morris and John C. Whitcomb who both had read the writings of SDA young earth creationists.

This book is most often associated with the beginning of the modern Young Earth Creationist movement. After this book was published, Young Earth Creationism began to become popular in mainstream Evangelical circles. By the 1970s, it was common among conservative Christians in the United States and a few other countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, to reject the mainstream scientific account of cosmic origins in favor of a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 which describes the period from creation to right after the flood of Noah.

‘Noah’s ark on the Mount Ararat’ (1570) by Simon de Myle.

‘Noah’s ark on the Mount Ararat’ (1570) by Simon de Myle. (Public Domain)

This movement reached a peak in 1982, when Young Earth Creationists pushed for a creationist science curriculum to be taught in schools. This curriculum would explain natural history from the perspective of a 6,000-year-old earth, a global flood, and the idea that all life was essentially created in its present form. The attempt was ruled as unconstitutional in the famous Mclean vs Arkansas case. Since then, Young Earth Creationism has become less of a force in American cultural life, but a little less than half of Americans still believe in Young Earth Creationism.
Why Did Young Earth Creationism Take Root So Strongly?

One question that can be asked is how and why Young Earth Creationism took root so strongly in the United States. There is a sizeable creationist presence in in Britain, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and a few other countries, but Christian Young Earth Creationism remains a predominantly American phenomenon. What is it about the American cultural and religious landscape that makes creationism particularly attractive to Americans? One possible explanation is how religion fits into American political philosophy.

After the Revolutionary War, churches came to be considered by many people, especially conservative Protestant Christians, as central to the development of a healthy republic. This is partly because the Founding Fathers believed that for a republic to flourish, its citizens had to be virtuous. They believed that the best way to instill virtue in citizens was through the moral teachings of religions such as Christianity, though many of the Founding Fathers themselves would have accepted any religion that had satisfactory moral teachings. Since Christianity was overwhelmingly common in the Thirteen Colonies, they believed that it would be best to encourage Christian morality to instill virtue in American citizens.

Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States (1940) by Howard Chandler Christy.

Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States (1940) by Howard Chandler Christy. (Public Domain)

Also, as a byproduct of the rise of American republicanism, all sources of authority that came from the state or a state church came to be viewed with suspicion. One source of authority which was not viewed with suspicion was the Bible because it could be read by anyone and was thus believed to belong to the common people and was therefore democratic.

Because of this and the perceived importance of religion in the maintenance of a healthy republic, the Bible came to be considered central to the continuing prosperity and success of the American nation. As a result, anything that threatened Biblical authority was considered a threat to the social and moral fabric of American society by American conservative Christians.

Did the Beginning of Life on Earth Depend on Black Holes?
The Truth Behind the Christ Myth: Ancient Origins of the Often Used Legend – Part I
Scientists debunk fundamentalists claim that humans lived at same time as dinosaurs

How Young Earth Creationism is Maintained

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, liberal theologians and other academics began to question Biblical authority and literal interpretations of the Bible. They advocated non-literal interpretations which, to many conservative Christians, seemed to rob the Bible of its authority and relevance. This was considered a threat to traditional Christianity but probably also to the American republic and to liberty and freedom itself - since a truly free republic was only possible with virtue, and virtue, according to American Christians, came from the Bible.

In response, conservative Christian theologians began to emphasize literal interpretations of the Bible. This preference for a literal interpretation of the Bible gradually led to the acceptance of literal interpretations of Genesis, even ones that conflicted with what was known of human or natural history. Which brings us to today.

Display at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, USA.

Display at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, USA. (David Berkowitz/CC BY 2.0)

Thus, it could be said that Young Earth Creationism lives on in America because it is intertwined with the history of American religion and political philosophy and things that don’t necessarily have anything to do with orthodox Christianity itself.

Top Image: Detail of ‘God creating the Sun, the Moon and the Stars’ by Jan Brueghel the Younger. Source: Public Domain

By Caleb Strom
Willard

Gal 6:14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world
ROCK SOLID
 
Posts: 5456
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:57 am

 

Re: Is the Universe Only 6,000 years old?

Postby FactFinderFrank » Mon May 29, 2017 3:50 pm

I don't believe the universe (or the earth) is only 6000 years old. I believe they are both much, much older.

The only reason so many people today believe that all of Creation is only 6000 years old is because, in Genesis 01, John Wycliffe, and then subsequently William Tyndale followed by the King James Bible translators, chose to render the Hebrew word, “Yom” as “day”, when in fact, there are other possible meanings that could considerably change one's concept of Genesis 01, but without removing one iota of YHVH's sovereignty over the creation process, and also without introducing one iota of false evolution doctrine.

One of the possible meanings of "yom" is "age" or "eon". If one considers looking at Genesis 01 from this point of view, and then one also takes an objective (as in NON-evolutionist) viewpoint with empirical paleontological data about the beginnings of life on the Earth, it is astonishing to find that the progression of events outlined by non-biased paleontologists and the progression of events given in Genesis 01 occur in almost the exact same order.

For instance, the so-called "Cambrian Explosion", when the fossil record shows that, apparently out of nowhere, animalistic life forms suddenly appeared on the earth, with not one ounce of "evolutionary development", matches perfectly with "Day" # 5 and "Day" # 6 in Genesis 01.

This point of view is known as "Progressive Creationism". A number of ill-informed Young-Earth Creationists have told all sorts of lies about Progressive Creationism, such as that it depends on evolution (not true) and that it removes YHVH from the creative process (also not true).

One of the most amazing things about Progressive Creationism is that it brings science (true, objective science) and religion (true, humble, and honest religion) into agreement.

The last century+ of war between pastors and scientists could have been entirely avoided if somebody among the pastors had simply considered the possibility that our English translations might need some tweaking. It's a very great tragedy.
Truth is such an inconvenient thing that gets in the way of pet preconceptions. But there's a simple solution - just throw the Bible, linguistics, and logic all in the trash and then everybody can believe whatever they want to and it'll be no problem.
User avatar
FactFinderFrank
 
Posts: 3815
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:58 pm
Location: At My Computer and Out of My Mind

Re: Is the Universe Only 6,000 years old?

Postby ROCK SOLID » Mon May 29, 2017 6:03 pm

I believe 100% in a 6 x 24 hr day creation 6000 plus or minus years - and the fossil record proves it for me - all fossils are found only on sedimentary formations - coal deposits and the marine life found in them - to me there no doubt at all - being an old oil well driller I seen too much evidence come out of the well bore - green wood and leaves from 900 feet below the per-ma-frost - pure endless amount of sea shells from 3000 feet deep - oil and gas are never found without formation fluid (water) - I have studied the evidence and the fossil record extensively and for me there is no doubt at all

Peter advised us that

2Pe 3:3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires.
2Pe 3:4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”
2Pe 3:5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.
2Pe 3:6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.
2Pe 3:7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
2Pe 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day

Jesus also warned us of false prophets in the last days

https://www.google.ca/search?q=fossiliz ... 80&bih=611
Willard

Gal 6:14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world
ROCK SOLID
 
Posts: 5456
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:57 am

Re: Is the Universe Only 6,000 years old?

Postby ROCK SOLID » Tue May 30, 2017 8:22 am

There is an unanswered question as to how long Adam and Eve were in the garden before sin God said to the women that her birth pains would be "increased" which to me suggest that there were births before sin entered in the world - but that is just a question that I have maybe the earth is slightly older than 6000 years - but regardless I see no reason at all that this would effect the facts for a young earth


Ge 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children.............................
Willard

Gal 6:14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world
ROCK SOLID
 
Posts: 5456
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:57 am

Re: Is the Universe Only 6,000 years old?

Postby jay » Tue May 30, 2017 3:52 pm

Willard, I would have to agree with Frank that the English translation of the creation story of the Hebrew text leaves a lot to be desired. The six "days" אֶחָֽד of creation is a very different Hebrew word to the 24 hour solar day created on the fourth "day" of creation. The Strong root definitions do not help us to solve this. What is needed is a listing of every Hebrew word found in the Old Testament sorted along with their Strong Root Number and the verse references where they are used in the OT, to help us understand the intended contextual meaning of the Hebrew words in the text where they are found.

Now is the Creation story told with respect to God's time frame of reference or Man's time frame of reference?

It is my view that it is told with respect to God's timeframe of reference and that the "days" of creation should be as Frank has suggested be considered as "ages" or "eons."

The other question is has man's timeframe of reference been consistent with respect to God's timeframe of reference?

Does not relativity theory suggest that "time" is speeding up over the passing of time such that man's timeframe of reference is very different in length today than what it was in the distant past.

Perhaps, it is not an argument of how long creation took, but it is an argument of faith and trust in God and my understanding of how long the creation story took is what I hang all of my faith in God on and if I cannot get that "story" right then my belief system crumbles around me and I have nothing.

For me, how long God took to create the universe and the earth is irrelevant to my faith. What little of the creation story that we know of, tells us of God's greatness and His delight in what He created for mankind to live in for the working out of His purposes. Hanging my faith on this hook means that my faith has no reason to crumble around me if and when the time it took for the creation story to be completed is finally understood.

Shalom
jay
 
Posts: 1583
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:36 pm
Location: Beyond the Black Stump Outback

Re: Is the Universe Only 6,000 years old?

Postby ROCK SOLID » Tue May 30, 2017 5:27 pm

Willard, I would have to agree with Frank that the English translation of the creation story of the Hebrew text leaves a lot to be desired. The six "days" אֶחָֽד of creation is a very different Hebrew word to the 24 hour solar day created on the fourth "day" of creation. The Strong root definitions do not help us to solve this. What is needed is a listing of every Hebrew word found in the Old Testament sorted along with their Strong Root Number and the verse references where they are used in the OT, to help us understand the intended contextual meaning of the Hebrew words in the text where they are found.


This has been debated over the centuries likely from the first day and I doubt agreement will ever be found until Christ returns and we can ask him

God affirms what he is telling us regards the length of a day was when he clearly refers to "and there was evening and there was morning" giving us a time frame of how long a day was - 6x he tells us that at the end of each day of creation - the Hebrew day still begins in the evening

Ge 1:5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning the first day.


Now is the Creation story told with respect to God's time frame of reference or Man's time frame of reference?

It is my view that it is told with respect to God's time frame of reference and that the "days" of creation should be as Frank has suggested be considered as "ages" or "eons."


That view is certainly a commonly held view and it may be your view as well but can you support that with scripture - I cannot find one verse in the bible that would support anything other than a 24 hr day - that does not mean that I am right and you are wrong it just means that I can find nowhere to support that theory other than the fact that God does say that one day is as a thousand years which to me simply means in God day or time there really is no measure of time - he is without beginning or ending and that it points to his time frame of 6000 years of work misery and suffering followed by a well deserved 1000 years of Sabbath rest

Perhaps, it is not an argument of how long creation took, but it is an argument of faith and trust in God and my understanding of how long the creation story took is what I hang all of my faith in God on and if I cannot get that "story" right then my belief system crumbles around me and I have nothing.

For me, how long God took to create the universe and the earth is irrelevant to my faith. What little of the creation story that we know of, tells us of God's greatness and His delight in what He created for mankind to live in for the working out of His purposes. Hanging my faith on this hook means that my faith has no reason to crumble around me if and when the time it took for the creation story to be completed is finally understood.


Having stated what I believe already I would agree with you that regardless how long God took to create the world it does not affect my faith in the least - I just think we rob God of his majesty when we suggest that he needed all this extra time which than points to the evolution theory - Lazarus and Jesus were raised in an instant - Paul tells us in 1 Cor 15 that we hundreds of millions of living and dead will be raised from the dead and changed in a flash in the twinkling of an eye so why is it so hard to believe that we have a young earth - you and Frank and others may well be right but I cannot see where that can be proven from or within scripture regardless how word for day is understood in the Hebrew - we still have to deal with the - there was evening and there was morning - 6x
Willard

Gal 6:14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world
ROCK SOLID
 
Posts: 5456
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:57 am

Re: Is the Universe Only 6,000 years old?

Postby 5thfeast2016 » Tue May 30, 2017 5:42 pm

One of the problems with the young earth theory is how can we see light from stars that are billions of light years away. It would take billions of years for the light to reach us. So the problem is if the universe is only 6000 years old there wouldn't be enough time for light to travel that distance.
Likewise=
Now gravitational time dilation effect chances the speed of time around gravity wells (earth) versus less dense areas which can help support the young earth theory. Now i would like to know if the GTDE is enough to support the 6000 year universe?
5thfeast2016
 
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 3:38 pm
Location: kansas

Re: Is the Universe Only 6,000 years old?

Postby FactFinderFrank » Wed May 31, 2017 1:29 am

Another question that I have also is, if the sun and the moon were created on the 4th "day", then how could there have been evening and morning during the first three "days"? But if we allow for the 6 stages of Creation which are commonly interpreted as "days" to, instead, be viewed as phases or stages, probably with some overlapping, then it would not be difficult at all to imagine how the sun and the moon could be around during at least part of the first stages of Creation to cause evening and morning to occur. And again, I want to emphatically point out that in no way whatsoever does this theory of Progressive Creationism take away even one iota of YHVH's absolute sovereignty over the entirety of the Creation process, nor does it suggest even one iota of false evolution doctrine. Evolution as a source of life is an absolute lie.

Yet another question: Romans 1:20 states that "since the creation of the world YHVH's invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made."

I have heard some (and I emphasize "some", I'm not making any sweeping generalizations here) Young-Earthers suggest that, in answer to 5thfeast2016's excellent point and also in answer to paleontologists who show us that the sedimentation rate of the earth's surface clearly indicates an age for our planet of well over 6000 years, that “Maybe God created the earth and the universe with an appearance of age to (ahem, cough) ‘test’ us.”

I personally find this suggestion patently offensive, because the implication is that YHVH is being intentionally deceptive about the age of Creation, when Romans 1:20 states precisely the opposite, that real Truth (with a capital "T") can be found by observing the Creation. All we have to do is look around us, and the empirical facts of the world and the universe around us will plainly reveal the "intelligent design" behind the origin and existence of everything that exists. Progressive Creationism reconciles this perfectly, and points the seeker to YHVH as the source from which everything originated.
Truth is such an inconvenient thing that gets in the way of pet preconceptions. But there's a simple solution - just throw the Bible, linguistics, and logic all in the trash and then everybody can believe whatever they want to and it'll be no problem.
User avatar
FactFinderFrank
 
Posts: 3815
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:58 pm
Location: At My Computer and Out of My Mind

Re: Is the Universe Only 6,000 years old?

Postby ROCK SOLID » Wed May 31, 2017 10:18 am

One of the problems with the young earth theory is how can we see light from stars that are billions of light years away. It would take billions of years for the light to reach us. So the problem is if the universe is only 6000 years old there wouldn't be enough time for light to travel that distance.
Likewise=
Now gravitational time dilation effect chances the speed of time around gravity wells (earth) versus less dense areas which can help support the young earth theory. Now i would like to know if the GTDE is enough to support the 6000 year universe?


That is a valid question maybe unanswerable 5thfeast but not saying that I am right but I would argue that a God that can create on the scale that our creator created including the entire universe would not have any problem with stars billions of light years away BUT

What we see visualize and understand may not be what we think it is - reading the book of Enoch if it is factual or somewhat factual there are some very amazing insights into heaven and the universe - Some have suggested that the universe is holographic or like a hologram which if it were would change everything we think that we now know and understand

One thing that I am sure about is that our creator is far above my /our understanding - we can only get small glimpses of his character and what I have learnt over the last 50 years is that I really do not know a whole lot about his power over creation he surprises me every day
Willard

Gal 6:14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world
ROCK SOLID
 
Posts: 5456
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:57 am

Re: Is the Universe Only 6,000 years old?

Postby ROCK SOLID » Wed May 31, 2017 11:28 am

Another question that I have also is, if the sun and the moon were created on the 4th "day", then how could there have been evening and morning during the first three "days"? But if we allow for the 6 stages of Creation which are commonly interpreted as "days" to, instead, be viewed as phases or stages, probably with some overlapping, then it would not be difficult at all to imagine how the sun and the moon could be around during at least part of the first stages of Creation to cause evening and morning to occur. And again, I want to emphatically point out that in no way whatsoever does this theory of Progressive Creationism take away even one iota of YHVH's absolute sovereignty over the entirety of the Creation process, nor does it suggest even one iota of false evolution doctrine. Evolution as a source of life is an absolute lie.


Valid question Frank on the 4th day never thought about that and not sure that I have or that there is an answer or an argument other than Jn 9:5 While I am in the world, I am the light of the world - Just my opinion but I really have a hard time with Progressive Creation - for me it robs YHVA of his majesty - to me it is adding something that I just cannot see and defend within scripture -

Yet another question: Romans 1:20 states that "since the creation of the world YHVH's invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made."


Romans 1:20 I would argue when Paul tells us "since the creation of the world" that there was a specific point - period in time or history were creation occurred - you may disagree with me and thats Ok but if creation was progressive than Paul would have said something like "through out the time of" the creation of the world

Additionally I would add that from the fall of Adam to the flood when the earth was re-created generations of people are recorded in years - if we were to look at creation as progressive than we need to ask - How long did Adam live before he sinned was it through out the 6th stage and how long would that 6th stage have been or was it something else - it opens a Pandora's box of questions on the book of Genesis

I have heard some (and I emphasize "some", I'm not making any sweeping generalizations here) Young-Earthers suggest that, in answer to 5thfeast2016's excellent point and also in answer to paleontologists who show us that the sedimentation rate of the earth's surface clearly indicates an age for our planet of well over 6000 years, that “Maybe God created the earth and the universe with an appearance of age to (ahem, cough) ‘test’ us.”


What we see around us today is not the original creation - the original creation can only be seen in the fossil record - the sedimentary evidence that you mentioned is what we see today and it is everywhere we look the plains the mountains the desert above the earth surface as well as below the earths surface is all evidence of and from Noahs flood as Peter said in 2 Peter "by Gods word creation happened"

2Pe 3:5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.
2Pe 3:6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed

When consider what Peter meant when he said deluged and destroyed we need only look at the crust of the broken earth the Great Rift Fault line - the Ring of Fire - Indonesia is fractured to no end - East coast of Russia - North America breaking away from Europe the volcanoes - earthquakes - tsunamis that the earth must have sustained through out the flood period easily explain the sedimentary process that took place separating rocks, gravels, clays, massive rafts of floating vegetation creating our coal beds - I live right next to the Rocky Mountains and it always amazes me when driving through them seeing the different seams of geology - these were laid down through a process and that process was water related and that was Noahs Flood - like Jerry Lee Lewis said - there was a great shaking going on
Willard

Gal 6:14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world
ROCK SOLID
 
Posts: 5456
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:57 am

Re: Is the Universe Only 6,000 years old?

Postby FactFinderFrank » Wed May 31, 2017 2:42 pm

Agree completely about the Genesis Flood. :yes

Another thing to point out on the positive side about Young Earth vs. Progressive Creationism - both sides agree that, regardless, YHVH is still 100% sovereign over the creation process, no matter how it happened, and He is still sovereign over the universe and all of Creation today. The fact that we agree on that is far more important than precisely what process YHVH used to get the universe to the point where it is today.
Truth is such an inconvenient thing that gets in the way of pet preconceptions. But there's a simple solution - just throw the Bible, linguistics, and logic all in the trash and then everybody can believe whatever they want to and it'll be no problem.
User avatar
FactFinderFrank
 
Posts: 3815
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:58 pm
Location: At My Computer and Out of My Mind

Re: Is the Universe Only 6,000 years old?

Postby ROCK SOLID » Wed May 31, 2017 3:01 pm

Another thing to point out on the positive side about Young Earth vs. Progressive Creationism - both sides agree that, regardless, YHVH is still 100% sovereign over the creation process, no matter how it happened, and He is still sovereign over the universe and all of Creation today. The fact that we agree on that is far more important than precisely what process YHVH used to get the universe to the point where it is today.


Even though I am firmly on the young earth side mainly because of what I around me and what I have seen come out of well bores during my oil drilling career I would agree with you Frank the important thing is that we see God as being sovereign over all of creation - as I always say it these different ideas and thoughts that cause debate like this that keep Gods word a living word - I am sure if he wanted to he could have added a lot more in the bible to make some thing more clear but he had his reasons and I believe that one of those reasons was to cause debate
Willard

Gal 6:14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world
ROCK SOLID
 
Posts: 5456
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:57 am

Re: Is the Universe Only 6,000 years old?

Postby ROCK SOLID » Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:41 am

Gravitational waves: Third detection of deep space warping
By Jonathan Amos

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40120680
Willard

Gal 6:14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world
ROCK SOLID
 
Posts: 5456
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:57 am

Re: Is the Universe Only 6,000 years old?

Postby ROCK SOLID » Wed Jun 07, 2017 7:56 pm

http://wakeupside.com/the-universe-is-a-hologram/

Uncategorized
The Universe is a hologram (Theory

A new theory has emerged: The universe is a hologram
Some physicists, such as David Bohm of the University of London, have introduced the term “holographic universe,” as he believes that Alain Aspect’s discoveries prove that objective reality does not exist despite his apparent solidity. Bohm also believes that the Universe is the center of a fantasy, a gigantic hologram and remarkable creation, to the smallest details.

What is a hologram?


But before moving on to the theory, let’s first see what a hologram is. A hologram is a three-dimensional photograph made using a laser. To achieve a hologram, the object to be photographed is first “enveloped” in a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is directed toward the reflected light of the first ray, and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams are mixed) is recorded on a film. When the movie is developed, only turbulent lines of light and dark lines will be seen; But if this film is illuminated by a third laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object will appear


The three-dimensionality of such images is not only the remarkable feature of holograms. If the hologram of a rose is cut in half and then lit by a laser beam, each half will contain the whole image of the rose. And even if the two halves are again divided, each piece of film will contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photos, each part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.

The feature of the hologram “everything is contained in every part” gives us a whole new vision. Throughout history, Western science has worked with prejudice to understand each physical phenomenon, be it a frog or an atom, that phenomenon has to be divided and studied on its component parts. A hologram tells us that certain things in the universe can not be addressed in this way. If we try to divide a holographically constructed thing, we will not get the pieces from which it is made, but only the smaller “whole

Starting from this, Bohm suggests that the reason that subatomic particles remain in contact with each other, no matter what distance they are, is not due to their mysterious properties, but because their separation is Just an illusion. He argues that, at a certain depth of reality, such particles are not individual entities, but “extensions”, holographic images of one fundamental thing.
The aquarium model of the hologram

For people to better understand what they wanted to show, Bohm offers the following illustration. Imagine an aquarium containing a turtle. The aquarium images can not be seen directly with their eyes, so two video cameras have been installed that offer aquarium images: a video camera in front of the aquarium and the other on the other side. Each video camera has two monitors on which you can see the turtle. Because you look at two monitors, you will sometimes feel like the turtle is different, as there are two turtles in the aquarium, and that’s because the cameras are located at different angles.

But when you carefully look at the two turtles in the monitors, you will become aware that there is a connection between them. When a frog returns, the other one seems to make a return, slightly different (due to the camera angle), but the equivalent. If you did not know what it was, you could conclude that a frog communicates instantly with the other, but that’s not the reality.

Illusion of separation of subatomic particles

This is how things stand between the subatomic particles in Alain Aspect’s experiment. According to Bohm, the seeming connection to the higher velocity of subatomic particle light tells us that there is a deeper level of reality that we are not aware of, a more complex dimension than ours, analogous to the above aquarium. We perceive these particles as separate from each other, as we only perceive a portion of their reality; These particles do not actually constitute “parts” of a profound, holographic and indivisible reality. And since the whole Universe is made up of these “shadows,” then the whole universe is nothing more than a projection, a hologram.
Cosmos, a super-hologram

Besides its ghostly nature, such an illusory Universe would have amazing features. If the apparent separation of subatomic particles is illusory, then, at a deeper level of reality, all things in the Universe are infinitely interconnected. Electrons from a carbon atom in the human brain are connected by the subatomic particles held by each over which swim, by each beating heart, by every star that shines in the sky. Everything intertwines altogether, and although human nature tends to categorize and divide all things in the Universe, all divisions are useless, because reality is one.

In a holographic universe, even time and space can not be perceived as fundamental things. A concept like space does not make any sense, because in reality nothing is separated; So also time has no meaning, because everything is happening simultaneously. On a deeper level, reality is a super-hologram in which past, present and future exist simultaneously. This suggests that if there was the necessary technology, one day we could plunge into a super-holographic reality, and we could see scenes from the distant past.

If we admit that the super-hologram is the matrix that gave birth to our entire Universe, it contains every subatomic particle that has been or will be, every configuration of matter and energy possible, from snowflakes to quasars, from Whales up to gamma rays. Everything should be seen as a kind of cosmic deposit of “everything that exists”.

Although Bohm says there is no way we can figure out what’s hiding in this super-hologram, he’s venturing into saying there’s no reason not to suppose there’s more. Perhaps the super-holographic level of reality is just a stage, behind which is an infinite number of other super-holographic or other structures.
The brain seen as a hologram

Bohm is not the only researcher who found evidence that our universe would be a hologram. Working independently in neurological research, Neuropsychiatric physician Karl Pribam of Stanford University (USA) has come to the conclusion that the reality is holographic.

In formulating the holographic model, Pribram wanted to know how and where memories are stored in the brain. Over many decades of research, a number of studies have shown that memories have no specific localization, being dispersed throughout the brain. In a series of experiments conducted in the 1920s, scientist Karl Lashey learned that regardless of what portion of the rat’s brain was removed, his memory (on performing certain tasks) remained intact. Thus, the mechanism of memory seemed like “everything in every part”.

In the 1960s, Pribram developed the holographic concept to explain how information is stored by the brain. He thinks memories are not stored on neurons or in small groups of neurons, but in patterns of nerve impulses that intersect the entire brain, just as patterns of laser lights intersect the entire area of ​​a film containing a holographic image. In other words, Pribram believes that the brain itself is a hologram.

Pribram’s theory can explain how the human brain can hold so many memories in such a small space. It has been discovered that the human brain has the ability to memorize 10 billion bits of information over a 75-year-old average age, which means the information contained in 5 sets of the Britannica Encyclopedia. Similarly, among other capabilities, holograms have an amazing ability to memorize information; By simply changing the angle through which two lasers hit a photographic film, it is possible to record different images on the same surface. It has been shown that a film cubic centrimetry can store up to 10 billion bits of information.

Our strange ability to quickly find any information we need from a huge amount of memory becomes more understandable if the brain functions according to holographic principles. If someone asks you what you mean by the word “zebra,” you will not have to wait and wait for alphabetical sorting of the information (until you reach “z”), but you will almost instantly respond ” Looks like a horse “,” an animal in Africa “.
Indeed, one of the most amazing things about human thinking is that every piece of information seems instantly correlated with other information – another intrinsic feature of the hologram. Due to the fact that each portion of the hologram is infinitely connected to another portion, this is an example of the interconnected hologram system.
The senses are also converted by the brain using the hologram

Memory storage is not the only neuro-psychological aspect that has become easier to explain using the holographic model of the brain. Another aspect relates to the ability of the brain to translate avalanche frequencies received by stimuli (visual, auditory, etc.) into the concrete world of our perceptions. Coding and decoding frequencies is best done by a hologram. Just as a hologram, as a kind of lens, a device to translate, able to convert the seamless mixture of senseless senses into a coherent image, Pribram also thinks the brain includes a lens and uses holographic principles to convert Mathematically the frequencies it receives from the senses in our inner world of perceptions.

Hologram used in the world of acoustic phenomena

Pribram’s theory has won enough supporters among the neuropsychiatrists. Italian researcher Hugo Zucarelli recently expanded the holographic model in the world of acoustic phenomena. Stunned by the fact that people can locate the source of the sounds without moving their heads, Zucarelli has discovered that holographic principles underlie this ability. Zucarelli has also developed holographic sound technology, a recording technique capable of reproducing acoustic situations with amazing realism.
Synthesis of the theories of Bohm and Pribram

But what if we unite the two theories explained above? As I have already said, according to Bohm’s theory, this physical world is just a hologram; If the brain itself is, in turn, just a hologram, because it selects only certain frequencies and makes them mathematically transformed into sensory perceptions, then what remains of the objective reality? It simply ceases to exist!
Holographic paradigm

As many oriental religions have been showing for thousands of years, the material world is a maya, an illusion, and although we believe we are physical beings that move into a physical world, even this is an illusion. We are just receivers that “float” in a vast ocean of frequencies, and what we extract from this ocean and transform it into the real world is nothing more than a channel extracted from so many extracted channels of this super-hologram.
This new look of reality is called the holographic paradigm, and although it is regarded by many scholars with skepticism, there are still some who believe that this is the most correct model oef rality that science has so far achieved. Moreover, it is believed that this paradigm can explain the mysteries that could not be understood by science, and which were described as paranormal. Thus, in a universe in which individual brains are in fact indivisible portions of a larger hologram, and everything is connected to infinity, then telepathy can be easily explained by traveling the information from the individual mind A to the individual mind B.
Consciousness creates reality

The holographic paradigm also has implications in biology. Thus, Keith Floyd, a Virginia Intermont University psychologist, explained that, as reality is merely a holographic illusion, then the statement that “the brain produces consciousness” can no longer be true. It is actually the opposite: consciousness creates the appearance of the brain, the physical body and all the things that surround us, which we perceive to be real. Such a view changes the view of medicine, as the body is a holographic projection of consciousness, each of us is more responsible for our own health. What some cases of medicine have been regarded as “miraculous healings” could be explained by changes in consciousness, which also affected changes in the body hologram.

And even though the holographic model would not provide the best explanation for simultaneous communication between subatomic particles, however, as noted by Basil Hiley, a physicist at Birbeck College in London, Alain Aspect’s discoveries indicate that we need to prepare for new visions and more Radically over the surrounding reality.
Willard

Gal 6:14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world
ROCK SOLID
 
Posts: 5456
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 10:57 am

Re: Is the Universe Only 6,000 years old?

Postby FactFinderFrank » Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:29 pm

This is vastly more complicated and involved than anything I have ever conceived of (brilliantly so, I might add), but I have had a layman's-level theory similar to this for a number of years regarding Creation. I have stated here before that scientists know that, when you get down to the basest level of matter substance, it turns out that sub-subatomic particles are actually nothing more than compressed light energy, which means that, from a purely physics point of view, the entire universe should have absolutely zero mass - which completely contradicts our entire experience of life, of course. But when you combine that with Hebrews 1:3 (“He sustains all things by the power of His word...”), then yes, in a way, it could be argued that the entire universe is a sort-of hologram being generated and maintained by its Creator.

This also supports the notion of there being at least one other plane of existence where we could find such things as Heaven, angels, YHVH Himself - the Apostle Paul's “Third Heaven” of II Corinthians 12:2.

It's especially sobering to let that sink in when one remembers II Peter 3:10 - “The heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.”

All YHVH has to do is loose the bonds on all that light energy being compressed into solid matter and the entire universe will instantly become a fission reactor.

Very interesting share, Willard, thanks! :thumbsup
Truth is such an inconvenient thing that gets in the way of pet preconceptions. But there's a simple solution - just throw the Bible, linguistics, and logic all in the trash and then everybody can believe whatever they want to and it'll be no problem.
User avatar
FactFinderFrank
 
Posts: 3815
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:58 pm
Location: At My Computer and Out of My Mind

Re: Is the Universe Only 6,000 years old?

Postby HopalongHappy » Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:32 pm

Now is the Creation story told with respect to God's time frame of reference or Man's time frame of reference?


I'm a bit late to this discussion, but I believe the Bible is written for man, to understand God. So with that in mind, I would go with the Creation story told with respect to Man's time frame of reference. To me, it seems pointless to go with respect to God's time frame as at this point God's references is somewhat incomprehensive to man.
HopalongHappy
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 5:53 pm


Return to News and Articles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
suspicion-preferred