The 6000 Year Earth

  • Thread starter Thread starter heiscominginthe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I used to love to get into the idea of the Earth being billions of years old, and that everything came about naturally, over the eons of time. Neither do I believe in strictly a 6,000 year old Earth.

What I believe, is that all the pre-history of the Earth, before man, was huried up, where time was compressed, to allow the Earth to be both created and evolved over time. In the bible, where God said he put the stars in the heavens, before that time, the stars were too far away, in billions of light-years, that HE took the light from the too-distant star light, and instantly brought that light to the Earth. There is NO way that I know of that the most powerfull telescopes could ever see near the begining of the universe in the BIG-BANG theory.

I look at this whole of existence, like a controlled experiment.

So the two things I see are:
  1. GOD huried up the time-line of the creation, so things evolved quickly, through the stages of developement of the Earth.
  2. Genesis 1:14 "And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years”
    So I believe that, when GOD put the light from stars billions of light-years away, instantly in the night skies of the Earth, people here are getting the mistaken impression that the Universe is Billions of years old, for which I think there is a big ERROR, and not 12 billion years old.
On the most part, I believe the history of the Earth and universe, is only known by those who have passed on.

I do believe though, that time does not exist in Heaven, so anything is possible, with the methods that were used, to get the Earth to where it is today.
 
Geocacher said:
There is NO way that I know of that the most powerfull telescopes could ever see near the begining of the universe in the BIG-BANG theory.
Click to expand...
This is not true. Astronomers have seen galaxies that were formed very early in the history of the universe, not long after the Big Bang.
 
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created…

Does not God get the glory and honor and praise deserved for the creation, regardless of how long it took?

I mean…the point is?

By faith it is accepted that God is the the one and only creator, that He created Adam of which we are decedents, that He gave us god like abilities, and paid the price for it, so that you and I could be individuals with a name and with our own character.

How wonderful is that?

And here we are missing the whole point of Genesis, and that is to give God His due glory.

If we wish to look into the 6,000 year theory, let’s look at it with an attempt to build God’s praises and see just how He accomplished it.

Time is nothing to God since He is infinite.

If we understood time we would understand it was notched out of infinity for the sole purpose of our existence.

Just to throw a bit of a clue to time, did you know that there was one day taken out of time?

The dividing of time is the cross, can you believe it?

The end of the old and the beginning of the new.

Here is the scripture reference to that: Job 3:6 As for that night, let darkness seize upon it; let it not be joined unto the days of the year, let it not come into the number of the months.

The day taken out of time was the day Jesus died.

Don’t believe me, count the number of days Jesus was to be in the tomb.

If your short half a day in your calculations, then you’ll know that a day was taken out of time.

If you take the 6th day out of the week, the vacancy must be filled with the 7th, and the following week 1st day slides into the 7th day slot, completing the week.

Now you have the full 3 days and 3 nights in the tomb.

Check it out and get back to me.

Blessings’, AJ
 
heiscominginthe said:
Many believe that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. Yet, with the use of the scriptures, common sense and science, proof that
Click to expand...
While I can understand where your coming from, a lot that stuff is conjecture just like the other side. Check out this site for some Creation science answersingenesis.org/
Dirk_Skene said:
The Bible is not a science book. Regardless of what you protestants believe.
Click to expand...
True that, but what do you really mean. The Scriptures disagrees with secular Science and Evolution, now this brings up some rather interesting questions. Do we say and more importantly do Catholics agree that God inspired Scripture? If the answer is yes and since God can not sin then everything in the first 2 chapters of Genesis really happened the way God said it did.

Now I know exactly the argumentation that some will bring up, is that ancient man was not able to understand so God had to inspire them in a way they would understand. That presupposes that 20th/21st century man is smarter than any earlier time which archeology is showing not to be the case. It would further presuppose that God in effect lied and instead of telling Ancient Man that what He really did (according to Modern Man it would be - God made proto plasmin, it turned into something He could use so He did) had them write down a fairy tale, a myth, a LIE.

Now we have a bigger question to ask if since God did that did He do that, in other words did God lie. I think we can say no to that, then that means then that Scriptures were not inspired. That then brings other questions to bear - How do we know Christ even came, that He died, Rose again there then would be nothing in the Bible that can be believed. Indeed we all would be fools to believe anything in there.

So ultimately we have to ask ourseleves what we believe. Do we believe that Scriptures are God breathed, than Gensis must be neccestity be true. However if we don’t believe that or assume that ancient man was told different to understand than we must by neccesity question the whole of Scripture.

I chose to believe that Scriptures are God breath, God can not sin by lying so that makes the creation story true.
 
Orogeny said:
No science tries to disprove God. There are many scientists that do, but no science that does.

And I wonder why so many scientists do?

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
When a science that is false is used, claiming that even though it is theory, we must look at it as true, this science is not a true science, but a false science created with the sole purpose to deceive the hearts of men.
 
heiscominginthe said:
When a science that is false is used, claiming that even though it is theory, we must look at it as true, this science is not a true science, but a false science created with the sole purpose to deceive the hearts of men.
Click to expand...
What science are you claiming is a false science?
 
heiscominginthe said:
When a science that is false is used, claiming that even though it is theory, we must look at it as true, this science is not a true science, but a false science created with the sole purpose to deceive the hearts of men.
Click to expand...
Then you can relax. Neither evolution nor geology are false sciences, so you don’t have to worry about the hearts of men.

You didn’t answer my question about why so many scientists try to disprove God. Is it perhaps at least in part because of people like you who dismiss everything about science that isn’t explicitly spoken of in scriptures? People like you who, while having little or no science backgrounds love to publicly announce that evolution, geology, cosmology, etc… are false sciences that are nothing more than an athiest conspiracy to steal our souls? People like you who insist that we leave all logic at the church door?

Peace

Tim
 
Orogeny said:
Is it perhaps at least in part because of people like you who dismiss everything about science that isn’t explicitly spoken of in scriptures? People like you who, while having little or no science backgrounds love to publicly announce that evolution, geology, cosmology, etc… are false sciences that are nothing more than an athiest conspiracy to steal our souls? People like you who insist that we leave all logic at the church door?Peace Tim
Click to expand...
Tim, you’re right. I have heard sympathetic un-churched people say that if opposing science is what Christianity is all about, they want nothing to do with religion. I’ve also heard students walk out of a Richard Dawkins public lecture saying "If atheism is what evolution entails, I want nothing to do with evolution. I say a pox on both their houses!

StAnastasia
 
StAnastasia said:
Yes. And?..
Click to expand...
Nothing really. Just pointing out that an accepted theory, even if believed by hundred of thousands of scientists, may be supplanted by a new and radically different one although its acceptance by those of the old school may prove problematic. No one likes to be made fool of and pride will hamper the acknowledgment that they were wrong. Financial security is also a great pull to swim with the current. Who knows, maybe Darwinist evolution will be superseded by a new and totally different theory.🤷

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident” – Arthur Schopenhauer
 
avflf said:
Nothing really. Just pointing out that an accepted theory, even if believed by hundred of thousands of scientists, may be supplanted by a new and radically different one although its acceptance by those of the old school may prove problematic. …Who knows, maybe Darwinist evolution will be superseded by a new and totally different theory.
Click to expand...
That’s quite possible, although the chances are slim that the superseding theory will be the ancient cosmogony of a nomadic desert tribe.
 
Geocacher said:
I used to love to get into the idea of the Earth being billions of years old, and that everything came about naturally, over the eons of time. Neither do I believe in strictly a 6,000 year old Earth.

What I believe, is that all the pre-history of the Earth, before man, was huried up, where time was compressed, to allow the Earth to be both created and evolved over time. In the bible, where God said he put the stars in the heavens, before that time, the stars were too far away, in billions of light-years, that HE took the light from the too-distant star light, and instantly brought that light to the Earth. There is NO way that I know of that the most powerfull telescopes could ever see near the begining of the universe in the BIG-BANG theory.

I look at this whole of existence, like a controlled experiment.

So the two things I see are:
  1. GOD huried up the time-line of the creation, so things evolved quickly, through the stages of developement of the Earth.
  2. Genesis 1:14 "And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years”
    So I believe that, when GOD put the light from stars billions of light-years away, instantly in the night skies of the Earth, people here are getting the mistaken impression that the Universe is Billions of years old, for which I think there is a big ERROR, and not 12 billion years old.
On the most part, I believe the history of the Earth and universe, is only known by those who have passed on.

I do believe though, that time does not exist in Heaven, so anything is possible, with the methods that were used, to get the Earth to where it is today.
Click to expand...
Interesting theory, but I don’t believe it at all. The reason the light of the stars are seen in her night sky is simple. Before even the stars and celestial bodies were put in heaven, light was already in place. Genesis 1
 
Orogeny said:
Then you can relax. Neither evolution nor geology are false sciences, so you don’t have to worry about the hearts of men.

You didn’t answer my question about why so many scientists try to disprove God. Is it perhaps at least in part because of people like you who dismiss everything about science that isn’t explicitly spoken of in scriptures? People like you who, while having little or no science backgrounds love to publicly announce that evolution, geology, cosmology, etc… are false sciences that are nothing more than an athiest conspiracy to steal our souls? People like you who insist that we leave all logic at the church door?

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Why so many try to disprove God? The answer is simple, for their love of sin is greater then their love for God. Jesus said the road to hell is wide and most will travel it. Yet, he also said the road to heaven is narrow and few will travel it.

Science background? I will stick with the creator of science, God, the Holy Spirit.

As for people like me accepting logic, I do if it is not contrary to the Word of God. Do you not know that the wisdom of the world is but foolishness unto the LORD?
 
CAN MUTATIONS PRODUCE NEW INFORMATION ?

Scientists now know the answer is " no "
Dr.Lee Spetner, a highly qualified scientist from John Hopkins University makes this abundantly clear in his thoroughly researched book Not by Chance ’

quotes from his book : "I’ll bring several ewamples of evolution, particularly mutations and show that information is not increased…But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature I’ve never found a mutation that ADDED information.
All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it.

The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory ] is supposed to explain how information of life has been built up by evolution. The essential biological difference between a human and a bacterium is in the information they contain. All other biological differences follow from that. The human genome has much more information than does the bacterial genome.

Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it .
[A business can’t make money by losing it a little at a time ]

Evolutionary scientists have no way around this conclusion that many scientists , including Dr. Spetner have now come to. Mutations do not work as a mechanism for the evolutionary process.
This is also confirmed by Dr.Werner Gitt, a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology…
 
matahari said:
CAN MUTATIONS PRODUCE NEW INFORMATION ?
Click to expand...
Yes they can.

Take a piece of text: “3.1415”. This contains some information, it is an approximation to the value of pi. Now mutate that text. Many of the mutations are deleterious, reducing the information: “3.1415G”, “3.1X15”, “.1415” or “23.1415”. Some of the mutations are neutral, not changing the information of the text at all: "3.1415 " (with a trailing space). However a few of the mutations can increase the information: “3.14154” is a better approximation of pi than the original “3.1415”. That is a mutation that has increased information.
Scientists now know the answer is " no "
Click to expand...
Your source is wrong, as I have just shown. Mutations can descrease information, leave information unchanged or increase it. Even a simple example, like the value of pi shows all three.

Mutations have been observed to increase both Kolmogorov information and Shannon information. The existence of back mutations show that the information change cannot go just one way.

The best example of how mutations can increase information is gene duplication and subsequent mutation. Start with the pi gene: “3.14154”. Now duplicate that gene: “3.14154”, “3.14154”. Gene duplication is a known and observed process, one of the possible errors when organisms reproduce. There is no new information here, we just have two copies of the same gene. Now mutate one copy: “3.14154”, “2.14154”. This gives an approximation to pi and a (not very good) approximation to e (e = 2.71828…). Where there was previously only information about pi, we now have information about both pi and e. Both genes are free to mutate further to increase the accuracy of their approximations.

There are examples of gene duplication in our own DNA. Myoglobin and our different haemoglobins are the results of a series of gene duplications.

Mutations can produce new information.

rossum
 
Dr.Lee Spetner, a highly qualified scientist from John Hopkins University .

Rossum are you a scientist? I think you need to learn alittle humility and stand down my friend.

This man just proved evolution is WRONG!

👍
 
Thanks for the post Matahari. It is powerful proof.

Rosum, look up the word mutation. Mutation can be also called deformity or deteriation. It is moving away from the actual truth or origin. So when tests are done on that which is mutated, the tests in themselves can be tainted, mutated, untrue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top