I did say: "This is a process that repeats itself across several thousands of years". I don't have a specific date, but only an order of magnitude. Something in the range of ~25,000 years or less due to it being also in the first and second planetary position phases, where it is still a planet just not as we see it today. Our planet being in the third position is likely much shorter, and I wouldn't be opposed to the possibility of 6,000 years though I am also open to longer ranges if the evidence leads that way. There is a lot to it and evidence can take us away from an interpretation when it may just be misunderstood and so typically I just say "????" when something seems to oppose the biblical interpretation and keep the observations in mind as I keep considering rather than completely abandoning the biblical interpretation as "disproven" by something altogether.
So, for sure not millions or billions of years old. These ranges of dates come from radiometric dating which is a fundamentally flawed process. At best, it is good at showing relative dates but the absolute dates it produces are completely invalid due to the vast array of assumptions being made as I mentioned previously.
I grew up atheist, so I am well acquainted with the philosophy. I would argue that radiometric dating was not sufficiently critically analyzed for its holes or flaws because people literally wanted to prove the bible (and similar interpretations) to be wrong and random chance across billions of years to have a basis. The universe works in funny ways; when we want to believe something sufficiently, even if it is wrong, it can give us the evidence to believe it. Those looking at radiometric dating saw a means to do so and latched onto it and propagated the concepts all while disregarding its extreme weaknesses. The oldest rocks on Earth are still the oldest, in my interpretation from a "Mercury phase", but the actual date of their formation based off radiometric dating does not appreciate that they could have gone through drastic environmental changes. Radiometric dating, from a physics standpoint, depends on the environment because radioactive decay is a function of the environment. If the environment changed substantially, the rate of decay likely changed substantially as well. Regardless of what science may claim, their claims are based on invalid models built on approximations rather than recognition of the infinite nature of the universe.
I would say you are on the scientific fringe. This theory implies that so much science is wrong and what you are proposing comes close to FE theory in its radicalness. The problem with this is how we got technology to work so well and be so advanced if all the science behind it is false.
But, I too am a theist although I argue for a secular humanist societal substrate as I don't want the Noahide Laws to be the end of my head:).
Here is what I believe as an Agnostic Gnostic:
-the earth is an oblate spheroid within a 15. billion-year-old universe (give or take).
-natural selection is an evolutionary fact.
-non-biological evolution is much more speculative.
-it's the worst idea ever to transfer billions of tons of C)2 from the earth to the atmosphere.
-that we live in an incredibly sophisticated simulation.
-that humans are not the only players on this earth.
-I consider my theism rational although speculative.
-I'm the least religious person one can meet!
-I have an unquenchable penchant for seeking truth and justice throughout my life and won't settle for anything that smells like B.S. This odd character trait has cost me dearly but it's been worth it.
I've suggested the world needs a new type of university dedicated to reexamining our spiritual heritage and a part of that academy should be exploring alternate cosmologies and theories.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Like I said, I can't explain it in a short comment--I've written an entire book on the subject. Regardless, yes--much of scientific interpretation of observations is unequivocally wrong.
The question of how we got so much to work technologically is because we have 1) observations that are basis for technology, and 2) very good approximations of how systems work within narrow bands of infinity.
For example, if someone recognizes electricity, they do not need to fundamentally understand it mechanically to use it technologically. They can grasp enough principles (conduction and insulation, voltage, etc.) to apply those understandings to create a device that uses electricity without ever actually having any grasp of what is actually happening.
This is a common misunderstanding; where the power of the observation itself is considered trivial whereas the interpretation of that observation is considered the true cause of technological advancement. This is not typically the case. Even when our interpretation leads to extrapolation that leads to technology, this is due to improving our approximate descriptions of the systems we are focused on to a degree where the approximation can be applied to a decipher other characteristics that are also related. Still, all models in physics are approximations that fall apart beyond a certain range of observations because they are not actual, real, tangible descriptions of what is but are precisely approximations.
What I have proposed above is perhaps the last thing I would talk about typically, as the order of operations is important. Starting at the end is not easy, I was just answering. "Fringe" is a matter of perspective. The Big Bang is as fringe as can be, a complete and utter non-reality that in no way describes any aspect of the nature of reality nor the actual mechanisms behind the observations it aims to utilize as its basis. From a purely philosophical standpoint, there is no difference between a 1 day old universe, a 6,000 year old universe, or a 15 billion year old universe. They are all nothing next to an eternal universe. Moreover, time is observer dependent and 15 billion years in our perception is an instant in another observer's and vice versa. Alas.
Thanks for sharing your take. For the record, I am not "religious". I just know God, and know God to be in everything--including the Bible. There is truth everywhere. These issues are not so simple, I do not in any way agree with human-based global warming. It is not remotely scientific. It is as if we understand how the universe functions exactly, when we do not. The truth is that it is an attempt to brainwash the general public to accept their own enslavement through further means of taxation and oppression by convincing enough people that "it is your fault" and "we will fix it, just pay us." Regarding natural selection, I wouldn't call something which science admits to be a theory "fact". When science knows it can't even call something that it wants to call a "fact", and has to admit it to be a "theory", its not due to lack of recognition of it as a fact. It's due to anomalies that simply cannot be overcome. However, that doesn't stop people from speaking of the theory as if it is factual and presenting their belief system into the mix while never addressing the anomalies.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit