Age of solar system on the premises of the Bible

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

Well yeah. I am confused as I can't understand why you brought Einstein up considering the thread topic. It seems off topic or tangential at the most. Especially with how you didn't describe why he is related to how you think Genesis is an accurate depiction of the creation of the universe and how it spells out how the Solar System came to be.

First off, Einstein defined the relativity of time and theorized that time is relative based on nearby energy and gravity. He did not specifically define time though.

But hey, here's a fun thought. Since you brought up Einstein and now we are talking about relativity, how does relativity apply to God? He doesn't have mass (or does he?). So if he doesn't have mass then he doesn't produce gravity.

that is a really interesting question when you think about it, Does God have mass?

If so and he is bound by the laws of pysics but has all those special powers how does that change the questions we ask?

How fast was he travelling when he created the heavans and the earth?

My science if really poor but I think that from his perspective the time taken would be dependant on the speed he was travelling at the tie in relation to our speed right?

a reply to: nonspecific

Yeah. Once you start factoring E=MC^2 into the equation then things start becoming murkier. The "god" explanation becomes harder to reconcile. Though I think that Genesis already discounts itself because it can't even get the basic order of events correct in how the universe developed over time. Almost like the people who wrote it down were guessing or something. Surely God would know the correct order of events he created things in. So it's hard to believe that Genesis came from him.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Why project our shortcomings onto God?

God made man in His Own Image....And man returned the favor.

-dex

originally posted by: Utnapisjtim
Now, what do you guys think? That's pretty close, aye?

I think that it is an ignorant shame that some people take metaphoric words of wisdom to be literal. Wise words, parables, and proverbs are meant to portray meaning - that is exactly why a parable is a parable - so that the individuals who take the words literal will not know or understand the parables true meaning.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

but hey - please persaude the xian wingnuts that your are " correct " - at least it will shut them up if they believe you

Why are you so hateful?

For a person who wants "tolerance" you sure as hell sound like a bigoted jerk.

Is this the tolerant treatment we can expect towards anyone with a different view? seems hypocritical

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I do not agree.

The world today is 5769 years old by Judaic calendar.
5767 Judaic calendar years X 365 gentile days which are actually 360 lunar days = 2,005,685 [over estimated] days to this year.

2,005,685 of the over estimated gentile days of 365 days to a year x 1,000 God days to the 2,005,685 gentile days = 2,005,685,000 God days to the 5769 God years. This 2,005,685,000 God days from creation to now does not include corrections of the lunar dates.

So the corrupt answer that I get is that the biblical world is 5769 years old to date.
The number of God days is 2,005,685,000 from creation to this date.
The number of gentile days from creation to this date should actually be counted as in the same manner as the lunar years are counted. Kind of like mixing apples with oranges and getting bananas.

The whole thing is that God made the sun stand still for Joshua and that puts a ringer in all of what we don't know in the first place. Try spinning a coin on the table and count the length of each rotation. I bet you the coin spins faster at the start then at the end.

Then do it again and I bet you get a different count.

Then do it again and I bet you get another different count.

I bet God laughs every time you try to figure Him out.

a reply to: Seede

Are you trying to suggest that orbits change speed over time? Because I severely hope not. A coin spinning on a table is reduced by friction which eventually causes it to stop spinning and fall over. There is no friction in space to slow an orbit down.

Also this:

So the corrupt answer that I get is that the biblical world is 5769 years old to date.

Well at least you admit that the number you just calculated isn't the real age of the planet.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you trying to suggest that orbits change speed over time? Because I severely hope not. A coin spinning on a table is reduced by friction which eventually causes it to stop spinning and fall over. There is no friction in space to slow an orbit down

Don't have the will or the time to dig out the paper but yes that is exactly what I am saying. Friction is not the only factor involved in variation of rotation and it could never be agreed upon by everyone because not everyone is on the same page.

Issac Newton’s laws of motion explain how those quantities are related to the Earth's rotation rate (leading to a change in the length of day) as well as the exact position in which the North Pole points in the heavens (known also as polar motion, or Earth wobble).

To understand the concept of angular momentum, visualize the Earth spinning in space. Given Earth’s overall mass and its rotation, it contains a certain amount of angular momentum. When an additional force acting at a distance from the Earth's rotational axis occurs, referred to as a torque, such as changes in surface winds, or the distribution of high and low pressure patterns, especially near mountains, it can act to change the rate of the Earth’s rotation or even the direction of the rotational axis.

Because of the law of "conservation of angular momentum," small but detectable changes in the Earth’s rotation and those in the rotation of the atmosphere are linked. The conservation of angular momentum is a law of physics that states the total angular momentum of a rotating object with no outside force remains constant regardless of changes within the system.

An example of this principle occurs when a skater pulls his or her arms inward during a spin (changing the mass distribution to one nearer the rotation axis, reducing the "moment of inertia," and speeds up (increasing the skater's spin); because the moment of inertia goes down, the spin rate must increase to keep the total angular momentum of the system unchanged.

“The key is that the sum of the angular momentum (push) of the solid Earth plus atmosphere system must stay constant unless an outside force (torque) is applied,” Salstein said. “So if the atmosphere speeds up (stronger westerly winds) then the solid Earth must slow down (length-of-day increases).Also if more atmosphere moves to a lower latitude (further from the axis of rotation), and atmospheric pressure increases, it also gains angular momentum and the Earth would slow down as well.”
www.nasa.gov...

By the way in another of your posts you say that light was created in the Genesis account before the heavenly bodies. You had best re read the Genesis account because it is not said that God created light.

a reply to: Seede

Yes. I'm aware of Keplar's laws. I'm not referring to that. Your example with the coin suggested that orbits' decay in velocity and eventually slow down.

By the way in another of your posts you say that light was created in the Genesis account before the heavenly bodies. You had best re read the Genesis account because it is not said that God created light.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. -Genesis 1:3
If you don't interpret this as god creating light then ok, but the rest of what I said is true. The stars and the sun are created at separate points in the Genesis account despite the sun being a star itself. In fact, the sun came first when it is something like a 3rd generation star.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes. I'm aware of Keplar's laws. I'm not referring to that. Your example with the coin suggested that orbits' decay in velocity and eventually slow down.

Yes you are correct in that is the way you understand it today but if you could wait a bit longer you will see that Kepler is simply another guy with an opinion. God will eventually show that the terrestrial world will not only wobble like a drunkard but will stop altogether. Sooner or later everything terrestrial will run out of gas.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. -Genesis 1:3 If you don't interpret this as god creating light then ok, but the rest of what I said is true. The stars and the sun are created at separate points in the Genesis account despite the sun being a star itself. In fact, the sun came first when it is something like a 3rd generation star.

Psa_139:12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

Neither are created but only shown to us as for our benefit in terrestrial life. My own understanding of course.

The stars and the sun are created at separate points in the Genesis account despite the sun being a star itself. In fact, the sun came first when it is something like a 3rd generation star.

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

How could the sun be a third generation creation when it clearly shows that the sun was made in the fourth generation?

In fact according to Genesis the entire universe was empty of any heavenly bodies till the fourth generation of generating. Up to the fourth generation this world was the only created body in the universe. Does not Genesis tell us that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth? Nothing else existed at that beginning.

a reply to: Seede

I think the issue is that the bible has most of the stuff in a different order to what we currently think in a scientific manner.

Science uses stuff like evidence and very clever equations to give us reason to belive that it is correct whereas religion is very vauge and has nothing to back up any of what is claimed instead relying on us simply having faith in something totally groundless.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Utnapisjtim

I do not agree.

The world today is 5769 years old by Judaic calendar.
5767 Judaic calendar years X 365 gentile days which are actually 360 lunar days = 2,005,685 [over estimated] days to this year.

2,005,685 of the over estimated gentile days of 365 days to a year x 1,000 God days to the 2,005,685 gentile days = 2,005,685,000 God days to the 5769 God years. This 2,005,685,000 God days from creation to now does not include corrections of the lunar dates.

So the corrupt answer that I get is that the biblical world is 5769 years old to date.
The number of God days is 2,005,685,000 from creation to this date.
The number of gentile days from creation to this date should actually be counted as in the same manner as the lunar years are counted. Kind of like mixing apples with oranges and getting bananas.

The whole thing is that God made the sun stand still for Joshua and that puts a ringer in all of what we don't know in the first place. Try spinning a coin on the table and count the length of each rotation. I bet you the coin spins faster at the start then at the end.

Then do it again and I bet you get a different count.

Then do it again and I bet you get another different count.

I bet God laughs every time you try to figure Him out.

This isn't the age of the Earth. This is the timeline of mankind starting at the the Fall of Adam and Eve.

For example, Adam's age is listed at 930 years. This does not take into account how long Adam lived in the Garden of Eden both before and after Eve was created. I personally believe Adam and Eve lived a very long time in Eden and populated the Earth. There is some evidence alluding to this in the Bible if you wish to look for it.

The age of the Earth should then be: Point of Creation until Adam + amount of time Adam and Eve lived in the Garden of Eden pre-fall + the recorded history from the Fall until present time.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Seede

Yes. I'm aware of Keplar's laws. I'm not referring to that. Your example with the coin suggested that orbits' decay in velocity and eventually slow down.

By the way in another of your posts you say that light was created in the Genesis account before the heavenly bodies. You had best re read the Genesis account because it is not said that God created light.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. -Genesis 1:3
If you don't interpret this as god creating light then ok, but the rest of what I said is true. The stars and the sun are created at separate points in the Genesis account despite the sun being a star itself. In fact, the sun came first when it is something like a 3rd generation star.

Remember that the observation point is Earth. The text doesn't say God created Sol on day 4. The text actually says that God completed or made visible the Sun, Moon and stars. Obviously the luminaries were hidden behind thick clouds until God made them visible to humans. According to Genesis, the rainbow wasn't made visible until after the Great Flood. To see the rainbow, you need rain and sun at the same time. At the time of Noah (5-10 000+ years ago) this happened for the first time in this latter cycle.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Yes you are correct in that is the way you understand it today but if you could wait a bit longer you will see that Kepler is simply another guy with an opinion. God will eventually show that the terrestrial world will not only wobble like a drunkard but will stop altogether. Sooner or later everything terrestrial will run out of gas.

See Keplar's laws aren't opinions. They are mathematical expressions that definitively describe how the celestial objects behave as they orbit the sun. I don't need to wait for your god to do anything because those equations aren't going to magically change. Keplar analyzed and deduced them back in the 1600's and they've held true ever since. It reasons they'll hold true well after I'm dead too.

Psa_139:12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

Neither are created but only shown to us as for our benefit in terrestrial life. My own understanding of course.

That doesn't make any sense.

Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

The moon uses the sun's light to shine so this is also false.

Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

How could the sun be a third generation creation when it clearly shows that the sun was made in the fourth generation?

Because Genesis is wrong.

In fact according to Genesis the entire universe was empty of any heavenly bodies till the fourth generation of generating. Up to the fourth generation this world was the only created body in the universe. Does not Genesis tell us that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth? Nothing else existed at that beginning.

Yeah. Exactly. That is wrong. Science has literally proven that is a lie.

a reply to: Utnapisjtim

So you are saying that god obscured the planet in clouds for billions of years until he was ready to reveal the sun to humans which appear on the planet roughly 4 billion years after life develops? The first ray of sun shine on the planet was 5- 10,000 years ago? Because that sounds completely ridiculous to me.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

As you rightly say the order of creation is all out of whack in Genesis.

I wonder if from the idea of the earth as a habitable planet the order would make sense from a terraforming point of view?

a reply to: nonspecific

The sun being created before the stars is impossible to reconcile with logic. The sun and moon being two sources of light in the sky cannot be reconciled with logic. Science KNOWS that the moon merely reflects light. It doesn't produce it. We've been there after all.

You had a good thought, but the evidence isn't in Genesis. Like I said earlier, Genesis was likely just a bunch of guesses by old Hebrew people.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nonspecific

The sun being created before the stars is impossible to reconcile with logic. The sun and moon being two sources of light in the sky cannot be reconciled with logic. Science KNOWS that the moon merely reflects light. It doesn't produce it. We've been there after all.

You had a good thought, but the evidence isn't in Genesis. Like I said earlier, Genesis was likely just a bunch of guesses by old Hebrew people.

Yes I know that but I was just wondering if it could be explained? Not religious and looking for proof just curious as to if it could be.

Like if the sun was burning brighter at some point could it make the stars invisible and the moon reflect light so much it lokked more like the sun?

ATS is dead to anything other than politics these days so I am clutching at anything interesting lol.

a reply to: nonspecific

Yeah. I feel you on that. I just really don't see a connection there with what you are saying. Keep in mind. Just because you want to believe doesn't mean that you should believe.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nonspecific

Yeah. I feel you on that. I just really don't see a connection there with what you are saying. Keep in mind. Just because you want to believe doesn't mean that you should believe.

Yeah I guess my line of thinking is that at some point sombody fabricated the story of creation in Genesis.

So either they just made stuff up out of the blue or they based it on a series of events that although wrong from a modern scientific perspective were observed from a particular pont of reference.