Lotusflower Posted January 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 How long did it take Lord Brahma to create the earth? A day? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 How long did it take Lord Brahma to create the earth? A day? The universe seems to be about 13.7 billion years old, and the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years. Earth was formed from space debris attracted by a black hole that resulted from the collapse of a large star (supernova). This black hole is now the centre of our galaxy (the Milky Way). It attracted/attracts all matter that formed/forms our own solar system, along with hundreds of millions of other solar systems within our galaxy. The early formation of the earth was quite chaotic. By coincidence a lump of matter had formed orbiting our sun, which was large enough to capture enough debris (dust, asteroids, etc.) in its gravitational field to become a planet. Initially, planet Earth was very hot as a result of the energy of the impacting debris. But gradually debris locally run out and the earth cooled. First life may have appeared as early as 4.0 billion years ago. So, I would say 'it took Lord Brahma' about 0.5 billion years 'to create the earth'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted January 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 The universe seems to be about 13.7 billion years old, and the age of the earth is about 4.5 billion years. Earth was formed from space debris attracted by a black hole that resulted from the collapse of a large star (supernova). This black hole is now the centre of our galaxy (the Milky Way). It attracted/attracts all matter that formed/forms our own solar system, along with hundreds of millions of other solar systems within our galaxy. The early formation of the earth was quite chaotic. By coincidence a lump of matter had formed orbiting our sun, which was large enough to capture enough debris (dust, asteroids, etc.) in its gravitational field to become a planet. Initially, planet Earth was very hot as a result of the energy of the impacting debris. But gradually debris locally run out and the earth cooled. First life may have appeared as early as 4.0 billion years ago. So, I would say 'it took Lord Brahma' about 0.5 billion years 'to create the earth'. I was thinking, maybe when Earth was created, (we see creation in the material sense right), so was it created for the process of being 'alive' for 2Billion years? and ending at 2Billion years (Brahma day/night). So would'nt the Earth be 4Billion Years Old, already from its Birth? (aproxx calculations of course) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 I was thinking, maybe when Earth was created, (we see creation in the material sense right), so was it created for the process of being 'alive' for 2Billion years? and ending at 2Billion years (Brahma day/night). So would'nt the Earth be 4Billion Years Old, already from its Birth? (aproxx calculations of course) Basically the earth is as old as the universe itself (about 13.7 billion years).. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suchandra Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 Basically the earth is as old as the universe itself (about 13.7 billion years).. During Brahma's night only the heavenly planets remain. The lower planets are newly created every morning. "During his night Brahma sleeps and the three planetary systems meet destruction. This is called naimittika or occasional annihilation. (SB 12.4.2-4)" SB 3.10.7-9: Sitting on top of the lotus, which was spread throughout the universe, Brahma contemplated on how to create all the planets. Brahma then entered in the whorl of the lotus and divided it into three divisions and then into fourteen divisions. The seeds of all the planets in the universe were impregnated in the lotus by the Supreme Lord. The material world and the living entities were already generated in seedling forms by the Lord and Brahma was to disseminate the seedlings all over the universe. (SB 3.10.7 purport) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternity Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 Maybe men and dinosaurs did not live at the same period because the datations methods are not good. Currently datations are based on Carbon14 and 18 ; mainly chemical reactions. But atoms are just inventions of Leucippe de Milet and Democrite 500years BC. They are mathematical concepts ; can they be taken for pure evidence ? Have those chemical reactions proven to be good for more than 100 years (a human life span to check it out) ? What to say about 1 million yrs ? Also scientists are dating like that, considering that time is linear. What if time is not linear. What if time is circular or solenoïdal or sdfngsdflgnsbn-al ? In the Greek old texts, in the bible it is often mentionned evil monsters like dragoons fighting with early Christians and all. Maybe these dragoons are pterodactyles from the prehistoric times ; that's what I am wondering. Well, it is not stupid what I'm saying, no... By the way I'm looking for a girlfriend so if you think it is not stupid please write me milady. Thanks. Eternity, to be of service to you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narasingh Posted January 10, 2009 Report Share Posted January 10, 2009 Maybe men and dinosaurs did not live at the same period because the datations methods are not good. Currently datations are based on Carbon14 and 18 ; mainly chemical reactions. But atoms are just inventions of Leucippe de Milet and Democrite 500years BC. They are mathematical concepts ; can they be taken for pure evidence ? Have those chemical reactions proven to be good for more than 100 years (a human life span to check it out) ? What to say about 1 million yrs ? Also scientists are dating like that, considering that time is linear. What if time is not linear. What if time is circular or solenoïdal or sdfngsdflgnsbn-al ? In the Greek old texts, in the bible it is often mentionned evil monsters like dragoons fighting with early Christians and all. Maybe these dragoons are pterodactyles from the prehistoric times ; that's what I am wondering. Well, it is not stupid what I'm saying, no... By the way I'm looking for a girlfriend so if you think it is not stupid please write me milady. Thanks. Eternity, to be of service to you Go on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 During the night of Brahma the Sun is destroyed too. Thus it is called the night of the Universe. Everything is cyclical. Creation is gradual too, not a magic snap of the fingers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
primate Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 Maybe men and dinosaurs did not live at the same period because the datations methods are not good. Currently datations are based on Carbon14 and 18 ; mainly chemical reactions. But atoms are just inventions of Leucippe de Milet and Democrite 500years BC. They are mathematical concepts ; can they be taken for pure evidence ? Have those chemical reactions proven to be good for more than 100 years (a human life span to check it out) ? What to say about 1 million yrs ? Also scientists are dating like that, considering that time is linear. What if time is not linear. What if time is circular or solenoïdal or sdfngsdflgnsbn-al ? In the Greek old texts, in the bible it is often mentionned evil monsters like dragoons fighting with early Christians and all. Maybe these dragoons are pterodactyles from the prehistoric times ; that's what I am wondering. Well, it is not stupid what I'm saying, no... By the way I'm looking for a girlfriend so if you think it is not stupid please write me milady. Thanks. Continuous cosmic ray impacts transform nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere into carbon-14 atoms. Carbon-14 is an unstable variant of carbon, which will radioactively decay back into nitrogen with a half-life of 5730 years. In the mean time, carbon-14 reacts with oxygen in the atmosphere to produce carbon dioxide, just like (normal) stable carbon-12 and carbon-13. Plants take up atmospheric carbon dioxide by photosynthesis, and plants are ingested by animals. So every living thing is constantly exchanging carbon-14, 13 and 12 with its environment as long as it lives. Once it dies, however, this exchange stops, and the amount of carbon-14 gradually decreases through radioactive beta decay. By measuring the amount of carbon-14 (relative to stable carbon-12 and carbon-13) in organic materials, the age of the materials can be estimated. This method of dating (nothing to do with girlfriends) can be used up to an age of about 60,000 years. The amount of carbon-14 in older organic material is too small to reliably estimate the age of the materials. The accuracy of carbon-14 dating also dependents on the assumption that the amount of cosmic ray impacts in the atmosphere has been constant over time. It has been shown, however, that the concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere varies with time as well as with locality, indicating that the amount of cosmic ray impacts is in fact not constant. So, carbon-14 dating is not a reliable dating method, and it is obviously completely useless for determining whether dinosaurs and men lived at the same time. But it can be used to determine that certain (anatomically modern) human remains, that are proclaimed to be millions of years old, are in fact less than 60,000 years old, and therefore they can’t be the remains of anatomically modern humans that lived at the same time as dinosaurs, whose (fossilized) remains are most certainly much older than 60,000 years. What's carbon-18 dating? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melvin Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 Thesaurus asks why there`re no dragons in the Dinosaur age? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotusflower Posted January 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 What's carbon-18 dating? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suchandra Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 Thesaurus asks why there`re no dragons in the Dinosaur age? July 12, 1976, New York Ramesvara: They are convinced that dinosaurs, these gigantic animals, were living on this planet millions of years ago. They found some bones, and they have created the form of the animal body. Prabhupada: If they were, it is still now. We don’t say it is extinct. Tamala Krsna: But you’ve explained that even if not here then it must be on another planet. Prabhupada: Yes, another. Cannot be extinct, that is not possible. Yes, propaganda. That is the cause of India’s cultural falldown. These Britishers simply made propaganda that “Whatever you have got in India, this is all allegory, fiction. These sastras are nothing. But now you are learning from us England’s work in India, that is your real… You are becoming civilized now. Otherwise, you are in the utopia, and all these sastras, throw it out.” Because that was Lord Macauley’s policy. Lord Macauley was sent to report how Indians can be governed nicely. So he reported that if you keep the Indians as Indians, you will never be able to govern them, because they are superior. You make propaganda that they are inferior and they will imitate you and then you can… That they did. Jayatirtha: The Indians would never be able to compete on the Britishers’ platform. Prabhupada: No. Under the British rule, from the childhood they are subjected to the propaganda. We read one book, small book, by M. Ghose. The subject matter was England’s work in India. That was a compulsory reading book in the schools. And in that book, it was simply stated that “we are uncivilized, but since the Britishers have come, we are becoming civilized. “This is the subject matter of that book, “England’s work in India.” So everything Indian… The Jawaharlal is the typical example—everything Indian is bad. That was his philosophy. Gandhi was trying to get the Indians back to village. His philosophy was that these capitalists, they are exploiting these poor men, so all these poor men, they should go back to village and be satisfied with the village economy, not to come out. Actually that’s a very nice program. But as soon as Gandhi died, or he was killed, the whole program was changed—industrialization and attract the poor man and let them live in wretched condition of city life. Gandhi’s policy was to make them happy by agriculture in the village, produce their own cloth, not in the mill but in charka. Jayatirtha: Spinning wheel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skdas3739@yahoo.co.in Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 I don't understand why we jump into such debate. It is very simple to deny everything. Why taking shelter of religion then? There is only one option to you. Either look at this world materialistically and enjoy your living. That's very simple. But if you want to live spiritually, abandon everything including your all bogus curiosities and completely surrender.Suurender also includes surrender your so-called intelligence. Enjoying this world and once in a while jumping into the domain of spiritual world creating doubts does not fit into each other. Om Shri Radha Krishnabhyam Namoh S.K.Das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.