/what/ - ...

The universe was created in 4004 BC.

It's only 6,022 years old.

Atheist scholars all agree that recorded history goes back no longer than 4000 - 3000 BC.

Starting with ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. These are slightly flawed dates though, these civilizations actually started after the flood in 2348 BC, and particularly after the Tower of Babel event in 2242 BC.

When you realize just how young the universe is, your life feels much more significant. You are not living in an insignificant blip on the timeline of millions of years.

>The universe was created in 4004 BC.
>the flood in 2348 BC
>Tower of Babel event in 2242 BC.
Proofs?

Egypt was actually called "Mizraim"

Mizraim was a descendant of Noah.

Egypt today is still called "Masr" in Egyptian Arabic.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Masr

>>28552
God gives the dates through the chronologies in Genesis.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+5&version=NIV

If you think it's odd these people lived 900 years, go to Genesis 6, he decided that it was too long, and limited human life span to 120 years.

>Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

>>28550
The oldest building was built circa 12000bc

>>28559
According to radiometric dating, which doesn't work.

>>28560
So what does work? Carbon dating? That won't support your tales either.

>>28561
Carbon dating is a form of radiometric dating.

Carbon dating works by measuring the radioactive decay process of carbon-14.

Carbon-14 dating is the most accurate of radiometric dating methods, but carbon-14 will fully decay in about 50,000 years, so it can't be used to date farther back than about 50,000 years.

Still doesn't work. There's carbon-14 in diamonds that could only be millions of years old according to science, and it couldn't be due to contamination, diamonds are the hardest substance on Earth.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/radiocarbon-in-diamonds-confirmed/

>>28561
Carbon dating is radiometric dating, dum-dum.

>>28560
It absolutely does work, but it isn't the only way to date things that shows that the planet (and human existence) is much, much older than you propose.

>>28562
So radiometric dating would not work on a 12,000 year old object because it only dates things up to 50,000 years old but the earth is 4004 years old?

>>28564
I'm saying it doesn't work. Any form of radiometric dating makes many assumptions like:

- That the rate of decay was always constant
- That there is no contamination or false-positive evidence of radioactive decay
- That the testing methods aren't inherently flawed
- That things weren't just created this way

>>28563
> it isn't the only way to date things that shows that the planet (and human existence) is much, much older than you propose.

Ok tell me some proof of how the universe is older than 6,022 years.

>>28565
I told you on ota there is light from galaxies that are BILLIONS of light years away, but you said something like "God could have just created it traveling to us". Using that logic there's no reason to believe that the universe wasn't created only a few years ago (which it was, by Haruhi our Lord).

>>28566
>I told you on ota there is light from galaxies that are BILLIONS of light years away, but you said something like "God could have just created it traveling to us".

That or time dilation. You can slow down time the faster you move.

If you move at the speed of light you basically stop time.

It isn't understood how light traveling in the vacuum of space correlates with time. Human mind can't even understand time.

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/does-distant-starlight-prove-the-universe-is-old/

Again this a PhD astrophysicist.

>>28569
From what I understand, high-speed travel does slow the passage of time RELATIVELY. So from the relative perspective of the photon, a journey of billions of light years is instantaneous. But an observer on Earth, traveling much slower than the speed of light, would observe the photon taking one year to travel one light year.

The time dilation caused by the earth's gravity is not even remotely powerful enough to make it so the earth is only ~6,000 years old while the rest of the universe is nearly 14 billion.

>Again this a PhD astrophysicist.
Again, that means nothing. He is a PhD astrophysicist who starts with the assumption that the universe is 6,000 years old and looks for evidence to support it. Meanwhile respectable PhD astrophysicists posit the universe is billions of years old based on observable evidence, look for more evidence to confirm or deny such an age, and find overwhelming evidence supporting it.

>Human mind can't even understand time
Human minds can try to better understand time.

>>28565
Even if those were true they would only have a minor impact and the distribution would even out across many test subjects. So one could still tell the world is over 6000 years old.

>>28565
>- That the rate of decay was always constant
Whether a radioactive atom decays or not at a particular instant is completely random, as far as we know. It has a chance to decay in a certain amount of time. This has been consistently observed and measured and there is no reason to believe that the rate of decay was different at an earlier point in Earth's history.
>- That there is no contamination or false-positive evidence of radioactive decay
There are many examples of contaminated samples that make carbon dating inaccurate. The ways carbon dating can be flawed are known to scientists, and when a known flaw or contamination exists in a particular sample, scientists make it known.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating_considerations
>- That the testing methods aren't inherently flawed
Carbon dating consistently accurately dates samples of a known age. If the method was inherently flawed then this would be quite a remarkable coincidence.
>- That things weren't just created this way
http://www.last-thursday.org