A question about possibility

How is it possible for somebody to actually believe that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old?

This is a matter that I would genuinely like to get to the bottom of.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
How is it possible for somebody to actually believe that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old?

This is a matter that I would genuinely like to get to the bottom of.

Now do you mean in dog years or human years or God years?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
How is it possible for somebody to actually believe that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old?

This is a matter that I would genuinely like to get to the bottom of.

How is it possible for somebody to believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead?
How is it possible for somebody to believe that there is a being called God who created the universe, and is actively involved in the affairs of men?

I don't think one can say that the earth is only 6000 years old. All we know for sure is that, according to Biblical chronology, man was made about 6000 years ago. That is, Adam and Eve were booted out of the garden about 6000 years ago. Who knows how long they lived there until the fall.

I don't know if you are aware of the "gap" theory or not, but the time between, "God created the Heaven and the earth", and, "the earth was without form and void", could be a very long time.

But to answer your question. It's simply a matter of believing what God has said. You can think I'm crazy if you want to, but I believe God inspired 40 men over a period of 1600 years to write down what He wanted man to know, and that He also has preserved that information through time.

And I not only "believe it", I "know it" for a fact.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
How is it possible for somebody to actually believe that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old?

This is a matter that I would genuinely like to get to the bottom of.

How was it possible for 2nd Lt. Hiroo Onada to convince himself that WWII was still going on until 1974 when he finally surrendered? For 29 years he lived in the jungles of Lubang Island, in the Philippines, and dismissed every attempt to convince him that the war was over as being a ruse. It's amazing how he managed to take every bit of evidence he came across and incorporate it into his world view in which Japan was still fighting the war and would triumph if he held out just a little longer.

I think it's an exact comparison between him and the fundamentalist Christians. They live in a self-imposed intellectual isolation and have an amazing ability to disregard every bit of evidence that doesn't fit into their preconceived world view. People's beliefs are not always rational.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
How is it possible for somebody to actually believe that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old?

This is a matter that I would genuinely like to get to the bottom of.

Well, it's logically possible because the statement "There exists a person believing that the earth is at most 6 000 years old" doesn't entail a contradiction.

It's probably physically possible, even in the absence of an example, because there are lots of other similarly silly beliefs whose maintenance doesn't create conditions which violate any observed laws of nature, so there's no good reason why holding such a belief involves, say, turning one's brain into a big synaptic perpetual motion machine.

That said, it would be awesome if our brains tried to violate a law of physics every time we had a stupid idea.

Less literally, there could be a lot of reasons, even in the absence of the religious beliefs you're probably talking about, for one to hold this belief. For example, someone who, in complete opposition to everything religion is about, only believes things on the basis of xyr direct perception, wouldn't even be able to conceive of anything existing which is older than xe is, and nobody is more than 6000 years old.

Originally posted by rwingett
How was it possible for 2nd Lt. Hiroo Onada to convince himself that WWII was still going on until 1974 when he finally surrendered? For 29 years he lived in the jungles of Lubang Island, in the Philippines, and dismissed every attempt to convince him that the war was over as being a ruse. It's amazing how he managed to take every bit of evidence he came ac at doesn't fit into their preconceived world view. People's beliefs are not always rational.

[b]"How was it possible for 2nd Lt. Hiroo Onada to convince himself that WWII was still going on until 1974 when he finally surrendered?"

Because he had the self induced deranged egotistical delusion that somehow he was the center of the universe and the world revolved around himself, just as all those who think they are an entity unto themselves and will enter into eternity without being held accountable for the way they lived their lives. 🙄

How can one believe that life ends when the body dies?
And what on earth does "preconceived worldview" mean? One develops a world view after examining the evidence! How is that "preconceived?"

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
How is it possible for somebody to actually believe that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old?

This is a matter that I would genuinely like to get to the bottom of.

Did you read the part in "Goedel, Escher, Bach" about the SubjuncTV?

Originally posted by rwingett
How was it possible for 2nd Lt. Hiroo Onada to convince himself that WWII was still going on until 1974 when he finally surrendered? For 29 years he lived in the jungles of Lubang Island, in the Philippines, and dismissed every attempt to convince him that the war was over as being a ruse. It's amazing how he managed to take every bit of evidence he came ac ...[text shortened]... at doesn't fit into their preconceived world view. People's beliefs are not always rational.

It's amazing how he managed to take every bit of evidence he came across and incorporate it into his world view...

I think that’s the key. As children we all imbibe a certain worldview. Some people never are able to question it, because the terms of that worldview are what they use to pose questions. Some people challenge that worldview, only to convert to another one which then becomes, to them, beyond question.

The difficulty is in turning the questioning mind upon such worldviews themselves. Nietzsche’s answer to the problem was that one ought to adopt as many worldviews—as many perspectives—as possible, and follow them through intellectually as far as one could.

The only “worldview” that we are born with is the framework of the grammar of our own consciousness. Every other adopted worldview is an adopted perspective: imposed or chosen “rules of grammar”. Every other worldview that I adopt—in the past, now, or in the future—is no more than a chosen view. And my ability to interpret the facts are limited by whatever worldview I adopt.

The problem probably requires constant vigilance. But the trick is to remember that a given worldview is only a map: the territory is the territory—and when they do not match, it is not the territory that needs to be adjusted to fit the map. That is illusion. We are adept mapmakers, and it can be done—but it is still illusion.

You have repeated on here, ad nauseum, that we are all born a-theists. I have repeated one here, ad nauseum, that reality—and our existential place in and of it—precedes everything that we think about it. The territory precedes the map.

I do sometimes think that our attachment to our maps has the character of post-hypnotic suggestion, whether that suggestion is planted by others or by ourselves (self-hypnotically). The good lieutenant was, perhaps, psychologically incapable of adjusting his map. If one realizes that one is operating under a kind of hypnotic suggestion, that does not necessarily break the spell. (One can, for example, go into denial.) Basically, one needs to break the spell—over and over and over again—by deliberately adjusting oneself to the territory. And one needs also to be vigilant about not becoming hypnotically attached to any new maps that one makes along the way.

Until one can wander in the territory—even get lost in it—without any maps at all. Barring that, one can at least take something of an ironical view of whatever maps they are still using...

Originally posted by rwingett
I think it's an exact comparison between him and the fundamentalist Christians. They live in a self-imposed intellectual isolation and have an amazing ability to disregard every bit of evidence that doesn't fit into their preconceived world view. People's beliefs are not always rational.[/b]

Thats right, nicely wrap ALL the fundamentalists into one great big package and then kindly, or not so kindly, disregard it. As for this fundamentalist, I do not question the age of the earth and universe etc. In fact, any scientist worth his weight would rightly point out that TIME IS RELATIVE. For example, if you saw a train speeding past you at the speed of light everyone on board would appear to be barely moving if moving at all yet they exist at the very time you do as well. The problem is that time can be distorted and twisted and manipulated. The question then becomes, relative to what or whom? As for the creation account, man is no where to be seen except at the very end.

Originally posted by whodey
Thats right, nicely wrap ALL the fundamentalists into one great big package and then kindly, or not so kindly, disregard it. As for this fundamentalist, I do not question the age of the earth and universe etc. In fact, any scientist worth his weight would rightly point out that TIME IS RELATIVE. For example, if you saw a train speeding past you at the spee ...[text shortened]... o what or whom? As for the creation account, man is no where to be seen except at the very end.

That seems to be a pretty poor interpretation of the theory of relativity.

Someone on a train passing by you at the speed of light (assuming you are stationary) would appear to be traveling at the speed of light - their speed relative to you is the speed of light.

Can you actually explain how "time being relative" is relevant to the idea that the earth is 6000 years old or not? Is it 6000 years old relative to what? Saturn? Jupiter?

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
That seems to be a pretty poor interpretation of the theory of relativity.

Someone on a train passing by you at the speed of light (assuming you are stationary) would appear to be traveling at the speed of light - their speed relative to you is the speed of light.

Can you actually explain how "time being relative" is relevant to the idea that the earth is 6000 years old or not? Is it 6000 years old relative to what? Saturn? Jupiter?

My beliefs have been influenced by a Book called Genesis and the Big Bang written by Dr. Gerald Shroeder. In it he says,

"A billion cosmic clocks were (and still are) ticking, each at its own, locally correct rate. Universally, they all started at the Big Bang and, at the very same instant, reached the moment when Adam appeared. But the absolute local time that passed from the "beginning" to the instant of their particular contribution to humanity was very different for each star and so for each contribution of matter. Although the processing started and concluded at the same times, the legacy of Einstien proves for us that the age of each bit of matter was very different from the other bits of matter with which it utlimatly mixed to form the solar system and then mankind......We can better understand this proven fact with the help of Einstien's thought experiment, in which the scientists aboard a speeding rocket and those in a stationary laboratory measured two very different times for a single event......If, during those first 6 days, a clock had been suspended in that part of the universe now occupied by earth, it would not necessarily have recorded 15 billion years. In the early universe, the curvature of space and time in this spot was prabably very different from what it is now."

He goes on to say:

"When the Bible describes the day-by-day development of our universe in the 6 days following creation, it is truly referring to six 24 hour days. But the reference frame by which those days were measured was one which contained the total universe. This first week in Genesis is not some tale to satisfy the curiosity of children, to be discarded in the wisdom of adulthood. Quite the contrary, it contains hints of events that mankind is only now beginning to comprehend. Biblical sages long ago warned us that our perception of the events of the first 6 days of Genesis would be inconsistent with our understanding of nature for the time following Adam. They learned this from the descriptions of Sabbath rest contained in the Ten Commandments. If we were to compare the text in Exodus 20:11 with Zechariah 5:11 and 2 Samuel 21:10, we would find that the same word for resting is used. The usage in these texts reveals that the intent is not that God "rested" on the Sabbath. Rather the Creator caused a repose to encompass the universe that had been made during the first 6 days. Our perception of this repose, according to Maimonides, is that from this first Sabbath and for all thereafter, the laws of nature, including the flow of time, would function in "normal" manner. In contrast, the flow of events that occurred during the first 6 days would appear illogical, as if the laws of time and nature had been violated. The sages predictions of a perceived incongruity between the biblical and scientific views of the early universe have, in fact, been met. The first Sabbath marks the start of the post-Adam calendar. It is this first portion of the biblical calendar that satisfies our perception of reality based on logic. The extradordinary fact of the relations of time, Einstien's law of general relativity, has extended the validity of the biblical calendar into those first 6 days. It has obviated the need to explain fossils as being placed in our world by the Creator to test our belief in Genesis or to satisfy our curiosity. Radioactive decay in rocks and meteorites and fossils accurately records the passage of time, but the passage as it was and is measured by the clocks of our earth bound reference frame. That time was, and still is, only relatively, that is only locally, correct. Other clocks in other reference frames record earthbound events at a very different, but equally correct times. This will always be the case so long as the universe follows the laws of nature."

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
How is it possible for somebody to actually believe that the earth is no more than 6,000 years old?

This is a matter that I would genuinely like to get to the bottom of.

Probably the same way it is possible for some people to whole-heartedly believe the universe is x billion years old at one point in time, and then perhaps six months or six years later, believe the universe is x+y billion years old.

Bottom line: does it really matter how old the universe is, i.e., for those unconcerned with Ussher's chronology? Does it change anything?

Originally posted by rwingett
How was it possible for 2nd Lt. Hiroo Onada to convince himself that WWII was still going on until 1974 when he finally surrendered? For 29 years he lived in the jungles of Lubang Island, in the Philippines, and dismissed every attempt to convince him that the war was over as being a ruse. It's amazing how he managed to take every bit of evidence he came ac ...[text shortened]... at doesn't fit into their preconceived world view. People's beliefs are not always rational.

they ARE winning: Sony, Toshiba, Toyota, Nintendo, Honda, Nissan, Canon, Mitsubishi

Originally posted by whodey
My beliefs have been influenced by a Book called Genesis and the Big Bang written by Dr. Gerald Shroeder. In it he says,

"A billion cosmic clocks were (and still are) ticking, each at its own, locally correct rate. Universally, they all started at the Big Bang and, at the very same instant, reached the moment when Adam appeared. But the absolute local t ...[text shortened]... . This will always be the case so long as the universe follows the laws of nature."

What a charlatan...
You can bend whatever you want to fit what suits you... that's what that Dr. GS did.
It's good science fiction, though.

Don't take any Big Bang for granted. It's a lousy theory. But it's incredible how so many try to validate their beliefs by trying to adapt them to science. But in doing so they are bending both their beliefs and science itself.
To the common people, it sounds great "science and religion complement each other", they shout.

But what science really does is to say religion is wrong and doesn't make sense. Now you can deny science, or religion. Your choice. They are not compatible.

Originally posted by whodey
My beliefs have been influenced by a Book called Genesis and the Big Bang written by Dr. Gerald Shroeder. In it he says,

"A billion cosmic clocks were (and still are) ticking, each at its own, locally correct rate. ... [Shortened]

Thats many things but it ain't science........ If you have belief keep it, but stop trying to justify it by using the bits of science that suit it.....

I hate when people take theories and quotes of great men, pull them out of context and use them to prove the unprovable