Yes or No. Is the universe 12,000 years old? Dont hide behind your bible. No but

[muon2]

The best scientific estimate for the age of our physical universe is 13.7 billion years (plus or minus 1%).

Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1916 set the stage for the prediction of a background of cosmic radiation and the Big Bang theory later in the 20th century. The observation of the cosmic microwave background in 1965 provided powerful support for the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe, and resulted in the 1978 Nobel Prize. But the best estimates from the background gave a rather inaccurate measure of the age of the universe. Subsequent refinement to the original theory predicted small differences in the background, and in 1989 the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) was launched to make measurements. It found those differences at one part in 100,000.

After the observation of small differences in the microwave background in 1992, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) was proposed in 1995. It was launched in 2001 and obits at the L2 Lagrange point 1.5 million km from earth. WMAP makes very precise measurements of the temperature and polarization fluctuations in the cosmic microwaves. The first data analysis was released in 2003, and improving precision in the data measurements have resulted in the age quoted at the start.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Prior to Kings, where Biblical history finally begins to mesh with secular history

Actually, if I may correct myself, secular history is in agreement all the way back to the Tower of Babel, the existence of which was a well known fact to the ancients:

"I have completed its magnificence with silver, gold, other metals, stone, enameled bricks, fir and pine. The first which is the house of the earth’s base, the most ancient monument of Babylon; I built and finished it. I have highly exalted its head with bricks covered with copper. We say for the other, that is, this edifice, the house of the seven lights of the earth, the most ancient monument of Borsippa. A former king built it, (they reckon 42 ages) but he did not complete its head. Since a remote time, people had abandoned it, without order expressing their words. Since that time the earthquake and the thunder had dispersed the sun-dried clay. The bricks of the casing had been split, and the earth of the interior had been scattered in heaps. Merodach, the great god, excited my mind to repair this building. I did not change the site nor did I take away the foundation. In a fortunate month, in an auspicious day, I undertook to build porticoes around the crude brick masses, and the casing of burnt bricks. I adapted the circuits, I put the inscription of my name in the Kitir of the portico. I set my hand to finish it. And to exalt its head. As it had been in ancient days, so I exalted its summit." King Nebuchadnezzar, c. 605 B.C.

[MaC]

God created me and gave me the responsibility of creating the universe.  Therefore I know as a fact, no, it was not created 12,000 years ago.  More like 11,978 years ago.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Prior to Kings, where Biblical history finally begins to mesh with secular history

More info on the Tower of Babel from "secular" history:

Herodotus was a Greek Historian who lived between 484 - c.424 BC.

Herodotus visit the ruins of the Tower of Babel in 440 B.C. and wrote:

"It has a solid central tower, one furlong square, with a second erected on top of it and then a third, and so on up to eight. All eight towers can be climbed by a spiral way running around the outside, and about halfway up there are seats for those who make the journey to rest on."   

----

But I don't think most members of this forum are ready to face the thousands upon thousands of "secular" historical samples which dovetail exactly with the accounts of the bible....so we'll just let the slumbering continue in their slumber.

[afleitch]

....so we'll just let the slumbering continue in their slumber.

(Yawns) Wake me up when the rapture happens.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

....so we'll just let the slumbering continue in their slumber.

(Yawns) Wake me up when the rapture happens.

Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord's will is.

[J-Mann]

Where did this 12,000 years come from?

Good question...yet you ended it in a preposition.   Your question should read, "From where did this 12,000 years come?"

LOL -- asshole!   That's a Kansas accent, to be honest.  We end a lot of our sentences in unnecessary prepositions, even moreso than most people (and I think most people would say, "Where did that come from" as opposed to "From where did that come?" )

[Gustaf]

Science is democratic; its about debate.

Religon is anti-democratic; its about control.

How is science about debate?

[opebo]

Science is democratic; its about debate.

Religon is anti-democratic; its about control.

How is science about debate?

New theories.

[John Dibble]

Science is democratic; its about debate.

Religon is anti-democratic; its about control.

How is science about debate?

New theories.

Sad thing is, new theories aren't always debated seriously, even if they are valid theories. Just a couple examples:

Ignaz Semmelweis - the man discovered that by by washing his hands before delivering babies that the puerperal fever among the babies birthed was drastically reduced(and thusly deaths as well), indicating it was a contagious disease. This went against the scientific idea that diseases were caused by an imbalance in the four 'humours' in humans, and thus the idea was initially rejected by the established doctors even though he had statistical evidence backing his findings. Further, doctors didn't want to admit their poor hygiene had caused unnecessary deaths.

Alfred Wegener - the man came up with the theory of continental drift, the precursor to today's theory of plate tectonics. He showed that the continents had likely once been together through fossil records, continents with boundaries that were almost like matching puzzle pieces(such as Africa and South America), and other things. Many geologists rejected the idea outright because it lacked a mechanism for the continents moving. As more evidence turned up though, it fortunately becamed a subject of serious debate.

A big problem in the scientific community is that many established scientists have big egos, and don't like it when someone comes along and presents something contrary to what they've worked on for years(they don't like the idea of being wrong). These types will use their influence to shut out debate on a subject, which is terribly unfortunate.

[Schmitz in 1972]

The creation-scientists use 6,000 years as the earth's age, not 12,000.  I don't think I've even ever seen anyone say it's 12,000 years old.

Aye, if you believe the traditional count we're currently in year 6010, although I calculated it myself once and got a a number just a little higher (approximately 6022 I believe).

Prior to Kings, where Biblical history finally begins to mesh with secular history, most people (myself included sometimes) have trouble taking scripture at face value. However, in Luke we see a geneaology stretching from Jesus to Adam. If we cannot take this list of Chirst's ancestors as literally true how can we take his ressurection Luke records as literally true?

I didn’t mean to post this under my alternative moniker (Liberty).   Sorry for the confusion.

Oh, I just spilled the beans on myself.

To anyone who was confused I am NOT jmfcst.

Jmf, I have a higher respect for you than most of the forum does but this kind of stuff makes me wonder why I do.

[opebo]

The creation-scientists use 6,000 years as the earth's age, not 12,000.  I don't think I've even ever seen anyone say it's 12,000 years old.

Aye, if you believe the traditional count we're currently in year 6010, although I calculated it myself once and got a a number just a little higher (approximately 6022 I believe).

Prior to Kings, where Biblical history finally begins to mesh with secular history, most people (myself included sometimes) have trouble taking scripture at face value. However, in Luke we see a geneaology stretching from Jesus to Adam. If we cannot take this list of Chirst's ancestors as literally true how can we take his ressurection Luke records as literally true?

I didn’t mean to post this under my alternative moniker (Liberty).   Sorry for the confusion.

Oh, I just spilled the beans on myself.

To anyone who was confused I am NOT jmfcst.

Jmf, I have a higher respect for you than most of the forum does but this kind of stuff makes me wonder why I do.

Well, that's a relief, though 'Liberty' would be a good ironic name for jmfcst, the theocrat.

[Speed of Sound]

to answer the question, no, the universe is much, much, much older than that

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The creation-scientists use 6,000 years as the earth's age, not 12,000.  I don't think I've even ever seen anyone say it's 12,000 years old.

Aye, if you believe the traditional count we're currently in year 6010, although I calculated it myself once and got a a number just a little higher (approximately 6022 I believe).

Prior to Kings, where Biblical history finally begins to mesh with secular history, most people (myself included sometimes) have trouble taking scripture at face value. However, in Luke we see a geneaology stretching from Jesus to Adam. If we cannot take this list of Chirst's ancestors as literally true how can we take his ressurection Luke records as literally true?

I didn’t mean to post this under my alternative moniker (Liberty).   Sorry for the confusion.

Oh, I just spilled the beans on myself.

To anyone who was confused I am NOT jmfcst.

Jmf, I have a higher respect for you than most of the forum does but this kind of stuff makes me wonder why I do.

Chill bro, I was refreshed by the logic of your post and couldn't have said it better myself.  (though I still disgree with the statement "Prior to Kings, where Biblical history finally begins to mesh with secular history".)

I knew no one was going to actually believe you and I are the same person, for we are both too smart to be caught. 

[muon2]

Science is democratic; its about debate.

Religon is anti-democratic; its about control.

How is science about debate?

New theories.

Sad thing is, new theories aren't always debated seriously, even if they are valid theories. Just a couple examples:

Ignaz Semmelweis - the man discovered that by by washing his hands before delivering babies that the puerperal fever among the babies birthed was drastically reduced(and thusly deaths as well), indicating it was a contagious disease. This went against the scientific idea that diseases were caused by an imbalance in the four 'humours' in humans, and thus the idea was initially rejected by the established doctors even though he had statistical evidence backing his findings. Further, doctors didn't want to admit their poor hygiene had caused unnecessary deaths.

Alfred Wegener - the man came up with the theory of continental drift, the precursor to today's theory of plate tectonics. He showed that the continents had likely once been together through fossil records, continents with boundaries that were almost like matching puzzle pieces(such as Africa and South America), and other things. Many geologists rejected the idea outright because it lacked a mechanism for the continents moving. As more evidence turned up though, it fortunately becamed a subject of serious debate.

A big problem in the scientific community is that many established scientists have big egos, and don't like it when someone comes along and presents something contrary to what they've worked on for years(they don't like the idea of being wrong). These types will use their influence to shut out debate on a subject, which is terribly unfortunate.

You should read (if you haven't already) Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). It describes the way new ideas emerge in science, and coined the phrase "paradigm shift". It continues to be a key work in the history of science.

[Dr. Cynic]

No... We know that for sure.

[TomC]

No

[Joe Republic]

The best scientific estimate for the age of our physical universe is 13.7 billion years (plus or minus 1%).

Einstein's general theory of relativity in 1916 set the stage for the prediction of a background of cosmic radiation and the Big Bang theory later in the 20th century. The observation of the cosmic microwave background in 1965 provided powerful support for the Big Bang theory of the creation of the universe, and resulted in the 1978 Nobel Prize. But the best estimates from the background gave a rather inaccurate measure of the age of the universe. Subsequent refinement to the original theory predicted small differences in the background, and in 1989 the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) was launched to make measurements. It found those differences at one part in 100,000.

After the observation of small differences in the microwave background in 1992, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) was proposed in 1995. It was launched in 2001 and obits at the L2 Lagrange point 1.5 million km from earth. WMAP makes very precise measurements of the temperature and polarization fluctuations in the cosmic microwaves. The first data analysis was released in 2003, and improving precision in the data measurements have resulted in the age quoted at the start.

Don't blind the ignorant with science; it'll only confuse them.

[jokerman]

No (D)

[Michael Z]

No.

[GOP = Terrorists]

What does it matter from your point of view?  If there is no God, then everything is meaningless and has no consequence.

That kind of comment makes me really sad for you.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What does it matter from your point of view?  If there is no God, then everything is meaningless and has no consequence.

That kind of comment makes me really sad for you.

How so?  If there is no God, then neither you nor I are going to remember anything about this life, and the future of the universe will be a heat bath and everything will amount to nothing.  There would be no lasting future, and no hope of any kind.

If there is no God, then the fate of every particle in the universe is a decomposition into heat.  What hope is there in that?

[GOP = Terrorists]

How so?  If there is no God, then neither you nor I are going to remember anything about this life,

 

Live life for what it is man regardless of what you believe is after.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Live life for your friends and family.  For your parents and your children.

If what happens after death is different than what you believe your life still has value. =)

[12th Doctor]

Science is democratic; its about debate.

Religon is anti-democratic; its about control.

Hmmm... funny that not a single member of the Religious Party, has answered in the affirmative.  Do you want to change that claim any?

BTW... I can gurentee you that there is a lot more debate going on in the Theology department of my college on any given day than there is in the science building, so this kind of reasoning is just assinine.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

If what happens after death is different than what you believe your life still has value. =)

If the destiny of everything is nothing, then everything is completely meaningless and has no value.   If our destiny is nothing, then the value of nothing is nothing.  Period.