Do You Think It's Possible,The Universe Is Only 6000 Years Old

a reply to: peter vlar

Is it too cryptic and too philosophical for you to reply?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: rnaa

Science can only look at what is present.
All looking happens now.
Can anything appear outside of now?

How long is now?

Now is where the future happens. There can be no future without a present now to inform it. Cause and effect, action and reaction. This is the basis of inductive reasoning.

Future is a word..... that can appear now.

Can any word appear outside of now?

History.

a reply to: TzarChasm

The point is that observation is happening presently so what is appearing has to appear when observation is happening.

The word 'history' is appearing now...... nothing can appear outside of now.

Now is what is appearing to happen.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: peter vlar

Is it too cryptic and too philosophical for you to reply?

No, I must have missed in the ATS T&C where I had to stop loving my life and reply to gobbledygook. I have A life and a family that comes before posting on ATS.

Observing something in the present doesn’t preclude the existence of something prior to observation. If I’m
Working a dog, I can differentiate the different layers and strata and easily discern whether or not something is a new deposit or something a few hundred years old or 10’s of thousands of years old. When organic samples are passed along for dating, the rate of nuclear decay is well known and dates are easily discerned so I know the difference between “now” and “then”. It’s not brain surgery and it’s not philosophy. I’m not some fool sitting behind a keyboard, I’ve done the work myself, got my hands dirty and engaged in my own research as a professional. You can look at your reality however you choose and it doesn’t change reality.

"Do You Think It's Possible,The Universe Is Only 6000 Years Old"

Yes, but it doesn't look a day older than 5000 Years old.

In my humble opinion.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: TzarChasm

The point is that observation is happening presently so what is appearing has to appear when observation is happening.

The word 'history' is appearing now...... nothing can appear outside of now.

Now is what is appearing to happen.

I just looked at some history books. None of that stuff is happening right now. But it did happen, outside of the present moment. And none of now would be here without that stuff.

The more rational question should be. Where did this absurd idea a 6000 year old earth come from and why?

Here is a good quote from rational Wiki.

”How did Young Earth Creationists decide that the Universe was only 6,000 years old? A 17th century monk added up the obviously dubious ages of generations of fictional characters from his favorite folklore, and from that, he determined that the world was magically created on October 23rd, 4004 BCE.''
—AronRa, How Dendrochronology Disproves Noah's Flood[9]

originally posted by: DBCowboy
"Do You Think It's Possible,The Universe Is Only 6000 Years Old"

Yes, but it doesn't look a day older than 5000 Years old.

In my humble opinion.

Awww, you just made planet earth blush!

I have heard this before, that the Earth isn't as old as we are lead to believe.

Well, something odd.

Around my neck of the woods, there dosn't seem to be enough dirt, soil, that their should be for millions of years. Seems to me that their should be at least a foot or two. We are lucky to get 4 - 6 inches.

Odd.

originally posted by: Ohanka
The universe being a hologram or simulation is even more farcical than the flat earth theory or creationism.

This is an amazingly stupid comment.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
I have heard this before, that the Earth isn't as old as we are lead to believe.

Well, something odd.

Around my neck of the woods, there dosn't seem to be enough dirt, soil, that their should be for millions of years. Seems to me that their should be at least a foot or two. We are lucky to get 4 - 6 inches.

Odd.

And this comment is somehow even more idiotic! Wow. Impressively dumb...
You realize there are things such as erosion, right? That soil doesnt just stay there in one place forever after it forms? Or that there is little to no correlation between the age of the earth and the depth of topsoil?
Aside from, again, blatantly obvious factors such as erosion (which should have occured to you with even a moment of actual thought), areas have a maximum depth of topsoil, which is determined by factors such as climate, composition of the ground, etc etc.
Good grief. You actually thought that soil just continually accumulated forever and ever, and stayed in one place forever and ever.... wow...

a reply to: MaroboduusUmmm, how to respond...


Erosion has made some of the most beautiful places on earth. I recently saw a cave that was made by erosion, it was massive. The waterfall responsible for it was basically a trickle, must have taken millions of years to create.

But on the other hand there are places that erosion has had no effect, or very little. Some places are layered so deep, the layers themselves are used to "Age" the area.

Back to my neck of the woods.

Just under the surface their is a curious rock, and its everywhere, mixed in a red clay. This rock is a whitish color while the native bedrock is medium to light gray. The rocks are jagged in nature, except when you find it before it was broken. Then it is rounded somewhat. But those are found deep in the red clay, as if the clay itself cushioned the rocks from fracturing. Actually, I hesitate to call it a rock.

It seems to be a concretion of some type except the rocks all have what appear to have growth rings. Its origins seem to be a mystery, or for that matter, when it arrived.

The local trees do grow through these rocks, but have a difficult time remaining anchored in the rocky ground. When the wind blows one over the root ball brings up the soil, and rocks below. It is not uncommon to walk up on a small mound of dirt and rock with no tree present, as the tree rotted away hundreds of years ago, but the mound remains. Erosion over the short term has little effect on the clay soils.

I have partially excavated a side of a hill to find it full of rounded rocks. The shapes are unique, but generally have a rounded appearance, and again, what appear to be growth rings. There are also boulder size rocks of the same material strew about.

The rocks themselves show little to no erosion on them. Which means they have not been in the elements that long.

The only thing I can see that is idiotic is your assumption of knowing the erosion patterns, in my neck of the woods. And if erosion was that prominent, as you suggest, we would have no ocean beds as they would have filled up with sediment and soil, a long time ago.

I believe the Earth has been around for a very long time, but life? well, that's another matter.

Seems to me that you have something personal going on with this subject. I don't know what it is or why, but because of your insulting mannerisms, your on my ignore list.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

What are you talking about? None of that has anything to do with the age of the earth!! Round rocks means no erosion??? WHAT? Why do you think they are round in the first place? Look up water erosion. Jagged edges are broken and rounded off do to grinding with other rocks and smoothed over time by running water. What makes you think there is not enough top soil? The argument doesn't make sense.

a reply to: Barcs

Quiet suggestion: don't let trolls get under your skin.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
It seems to be a concretion of some type except the rocks all have what appear to have growth rings. Its origins seem to be a mystery, or for that matter, when it arrived.

Concretion of rocks and minerals really isn't much of a mystery. Layer upon layer of sediment are deposited around a nucleus over time, forming concentric rings around that nucleus.

arkansasgeological.wordpress.com...


Besides concretion, other rocks with "rings" might have been form through more linear sedimentary processes.

Surprise! 'Tree Rings' Not Limited to Trees—Rocks Have Them Too

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I have partially excavated a side of a hill to find it full of rounded rocks. The shapes are unique, but generally have a rounded appearance, and again, what appear to be growth rings. There are also boulder size rocks of the same material strew about. The rocks themselves show little to no erosion on them. Which means they have not been in the elements that long.

Sounds like these are sedimentary rocks. These are laid down as sediment on lake beds for instance. If they are now rounded rocks rather than a flat bed that does rather suggest that the sedimentary layer has been broken up and eroded so not sure why you might think they show "little to no erosion" - sounds like quite a bit of erosion to me.

The fact that they are now rounded individual rocks/boulders should tell you that.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I have partially excavated a side of a hill to find it full of rounded rocks. The shapes are unique, but generally have a rounded appearance, and again, what appear to be growth rings. There are also boulder size rocks of the same material strew about. The rocks themselves show little to no erosion on them. Which means they have not been in the elements that long.

Sounds like these are sedimentary rocks. These are laid down as sediment on lake beds for instance. If they are now rounded rocks rather than a flat bed that does rather suggest that the sedimentary layer has been broken up and eroded so not sure why you might think they show "little to no erosion" - sounds like quite a bit of erosion to me.

The fact that they are now rounded individual rocks/boulders should tell you that.

I'm going to have to upload photos of the "Rocks" themselves and the location they were excavated.

To me, they do not appear to be formed from a "Native" process.

Its going to take me some time to upload, so please try to find the patience.

P.S

I do have these old pictures from another thread. They really do no justice to these rocks, Objects. These will have to suffice till I get more photos.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

What makes you think this?

To me, they do not appear to be formed from a "Native" process.

Round sedimentary rocks are pretty common. Here:

Clastic Sedimentary Rocks

Look forward to pics.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I'm no expert but i am sure there may be posters on here that might be able to help.

Would help to know where rocks are from.