Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Happy birthday, Earth - Creation occurred 6,010 years
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | October 24, 2006

Posted on 10/24/2006 1:33:25 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan


How old is the world?

Most people would say: "Nobody knows."

But the author of the book frequently described as the greatest history book ever written, said the world was created Oct. 23, 4004 B.C. – making it 6,010 yesterday.

In the 1650s, an Anglican bishop named James Ussher published his "Annals of the World," subtitled, "The Origin of Time, and Continued to the Beginning of the Emperor Vespasian's Reign and the Total Destruction and Abolition of the Temple and Commonwealth of the Jews." First published in Latin, it consisted of more than 1,600 pages.

The book, now published in English for the first time, is a favorite of homeschoolers and those who take ancient history seriously. It's the history of the world from the Garden of Eden to the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.

Of course, there will be those who disagree with Ussher's calculations of time – especially evolutionists who need billions of years to explain their theory of how life sprang from non-life and mutated from one-celled animals into human beings.


Ussher's arrival at the date of Oct. 23 was determined based on the fact that most peoples of antiquity, especially the Jews, started their calendar at harvest time. Ussher concluded there must be good reason for this, so he chose the first Sunday following autumnal equinox.

Although the autumnal equinox is Sept. 21 today, that is only because of historical calendar-juggling to make the years come out right.

If you think this is a startling fact – an actual date for Creation – you haven't seen anything until you've pored through the rest of Ussher's "Annals of the World." It's a classic history book for those who believe in the Bible – and a compelling challenge for those who don't.

The new edition of "Annals" is one of the most significant publishing events of the 21st century.

In this masterful and legendary volume, commissioned by Master Books to be updated from the 17th-century original Latin manuscript to modern English and made available to the general public, is the fascinating history of the ancient world from the Genesis creation through the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple.

Find out:

Ussher traveled throughout Europe, gathering much information from the actual historical documents. Many of these documents are no longer available, having been destroyed since the time of his research.

Integrating biblical history (around 15 percent of the text is from the Bible) with secular sources, Ussher wrote this masterpiece. Considered not only a literary classic, but also an accurate reference, "The Annals of the World" was so highly regarded for its preciseness that the timeline from it was included in the margins of many King James Version Bibles throughout the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.

"The Annals of the World" is a necessary addition to any church library, pastor's library, or any library – public or personal. The entire text has been updated from 17th-century English to present-day vernacular in a five-year project commissioned by Master Books. Containing many human-interest stories from the original historical documents collected by Ussher, this is more than just a history book – it's a work of history.

Special features:

About the book:



TOPICS: Books/Literature; History; Religion
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-203 next last
To: be4everfree
The article at the link above goes to great lengths to refute the age of the "hammer", which is not the point.

The point is the age of the "rock".

And your conclusion is?

141 posted on 10/24/2006 4:48:00 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
And your conclusion is?

There seems to be some pretty big discrepancies in carbon dating as well as what the geologic record contains.
I have not come to a conclusion yet.

142 posted on 10/24/2006 4:54:00 PM PDT by be4everfree (Liberals are "Thick as a Brick" ......JT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: be4everfree

There seems to be some pretty big discrepancies in carbon dating as well as what the geologic record contains. I have not come to a conclusion yet.

Yes you have. Your conclusion is..."There seems to be some pretty big discrepancies in carbon dating as well as what the geologic record contains", and all you think that implies, but don't have the courage to state outright. Some people here do recognize connotative statements and what they mean.

143 posted on 10/24/2006 5:00:26 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: be4everfree
And your conclusion is?

There seems to be some pretty big discrepancies in carbon dating as well as what the geologic record contains.

I have not come to a conclusion yet.

Actually, carbon dating is not used to date stone. It could be used to date the handle, but I don't think anyone really disputes the recent age of the hammer.

About the rock deposits, I found these sentences in the article:

Other relatively recent implements have been found encased in by similar nodules, and can form within centuries or even decades under proper conditions (Stromberg, 2004). The hammer in question was probably dropped or discarded by a local miner or craftsman within the last few hundred years, after which dissolved limy sediment hardened into a nodule around it.

Does not seem to be a very good issue with which to be supporting the young earth idea.
144 posted on 10/24/2006 5:02:18 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: ml1954

Wow, you have got me all figured out.

The fact of the matter is that I have not come to a conclusion and maybe that's the type of courage that's lacking on both sides of this debate.


145 posted on 10/24/2006 5:06:11 PM PDT by be4everfree (Liberals are "Thick as a Brick" ......JT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
I think you've missed the point here.

It's my understanding that geologist use the surrounding strata to help date their fossil finds.

146 posted on 10/24/2006 5:11:18 PM PDT by be4everfree (Liberals are "Thick as a Brick" ......JT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: be4everfree
It's my understanding that geologist use the surrounding strata to help date their fossil finds.

I think the point of the article is that that type of stone can form in a short time, and that it is not of the same age as the surrounding strata.

Limestone and other soft stones are easily eroded and redeposited.

I see no way that this shows the earth is about 6000 years old.

The tree ring sequence for the bristlecone pines of southeastern California is continuous past 12,000 years.

147 posted on 10/24/2006 5:19:16 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: be4everfree; Coyoteman

The fact of the matter is that I have not come to a conclusion and maybe that's the type of courage that's lacking on both sides of this debate.

There's no debate in the scientific community. There hasn't been for a long, long time. That you think there is a debate when all of the science that eliminated any debate about a 6000 year old earth/universe has been available for all to see, read, and study for many, many decades says....what? That you choose to post your doubts here on FR instead of doing your own investigation using the almost limitless sources available to you on-line says what?

If you are looking to what is posted on FR to answerer all of your claimed doubts and skepticism, you are looking in the wrong place. The few scientists left here who either haven't been banned or left in disgust, like Coyoteman, will try to help you, but it is up to you to avail yourself of the great wealth of information at your fingertips that no other past generation could have even dreamed of.

148 posted on 10/24/2006 5:23:45 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Hammer of Thor Placemarker


149 posted on 10/24/2006 5:29:57 PM PDT by Jaguarbhzrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
15 billion or six days?

Today, we look at time going backward. We see 15 billion years. Looking forward from when the universe is very small
billions of times smaller - the Torah says six days. In truth, they both may be correct. What's exciting about
the last few years- in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the "view of time"
from the beginning, relative to the "view of time" today. It's not science fiction any longer. Any one of a dozen physics
text books all bring the same number. The general relationship between time near the beginning and time today
is a million million. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says
"I'm sending you a pulse every second," would we see it every second? No. We'd see it every million million seconds.
Because that's the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe.

The Torah doesn't say every second, does it? It says Six Days. How would we see those six days?
If the Torah says we're sending information for six days, would we receive that information as six days?
No. We would receive that information as six million million days. Because the Torah's perspective is from
the beginning looking forward. Six million million days is a very interesting number. What would that be in
years? Divide by 365 and it comes out to be 16 billion years. Essentially the estimate of the age of the
universe. Not a bad guess for 3000 years ago.

The way these two figures match up is extraordinary. I'm not speaking as a theologian; I'm making a scientific claim.
I didn't pull these numbers out of hat. That's why I led up to the explanation very slowly, so you can follow it
step-by-step. Now we can go one step further. Let's look at the development of time, day-by-day, based on the
expansion factor. Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half. Now when the universe was small
, it was doubling very rapidly. But as the universe gets bigger, the doubling time gets exponentially longer.
This rate of expansion is quoted in "The Principles of Physical Cosmology," a textbook that is used literally around the world.

(In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power.
That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy:
10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of
the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That's the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.)

The calculations come out to be as follows:

The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.
The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.
The third day also lasted half of the previous day, 2 billion years.
The fourth day - one billion years.
The fifth day - one-half billion years.
The sixth day - one-quarter billion years.

When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years.
The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

But there's more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days
. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world,
and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I'll give you a hint.
They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.

from The Age of the Universe
b'shem Y'shua

150 posted on 10/24/2006 5:52:25 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 144:1 Praise be to YHvH, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
Is it by chance?

No. Apologetics.

151 posted on 10/24/2006 5:56:31 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Is it by chance?

No. Apologetics.

You might want to read all the words in the excerpt.
b'shem Y'shua
152 posted on 10/24/2006 6:10:45 PM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 144:1 Praise be to YHvH, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt

Has this been published in a reputable peer reviewed scientific journal?


153 posted on 10/24/2006 6:13:26 PM PDT by ml1954 (ID = Case closed....no further inquiry allowed...now move along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: XeniaSt
You might want to read all the words in the excerpt.

I have a better story:


The Creation of Men and Women

When the world was finished, there were as yet no people, but the Bald Eagle was chief of the animals. He saw that the world was incomplete and decided to make some human beings. So he took some clay and modeled the figure of a man and laid him on the ground. At first he was very small but he grew rapidly until he reached normal size. But as yet he had no life; he was still asleep. Then the Bald Eagle stood and admired his work. "It is impossible," he said, "that he should be left alone; he must have a mate." So he pulled out a feather and laid it beside the sleeping man. Then he left them and went off a short distance, for he knew that a woman was being formed from the feather. But the man was still asleep and did not know what was happening. When the Bald Eagle decided that the woman was about completed, he returned, awoke the man by flapping his wings over him and flew away.

The man opened his eyes and stared at the woman. "What does this mean?" he asked. "I thought I was alone!" Then the Bald Eagle returned and said with a smile, "I see you have a mate! Have you had intercourse with her?" "No," replied he man, for he and the woman knew nothing about each other. Then the Bald Eagle called to Coyote who happened to be going by and said to him, "Do you see that woman? Try her first!" Coyote was quite willing and complied, but immediately afterwards lay down and died. The Bald Eagle went away and left Coyote dead, but presently returned and revived him. "How did it work?" said the Bald Eagle. "Pretty well, but it nearly kills a man!" replied Coyote. "Will you try it again?" said the Bald Eagle. Coyote agreed, and tried again, and this time survived. Then the Bald Eagle turned to the man and said, "She is all right now; you and she are to live together.


154 posted on 10/24/2006 7:08:22 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker; JTHomes
I mean the evidence is so beyond overwhelming there isn't really much we can do except laugh at these people. For goodness sakes, we have actual tree ring data going back 5,000 years before the supposed creation of the world.

Shhhh, don't confuse the anti-science people with pesky facts.

155 posted on 10/24/2006 8:14:56 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan
How old is the world? Most people would say: "Nobody knows."

No, not "most", the only people who would say that would be those who are ignorant of the vast amount of independent cross-confirming evidence that indicates it's about 4.6 billion years old.

156 posted on 10/24/2006 8:17:03 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; Alter Kaker; JTHomes
For goodness sakes, we have actual tree ring data going back 5,000 years before the supposed creation of the world.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster touched those trees with His Divine Noodly Appendages, and they sprouted tree rings to confound the unbelievers.

157 posted on 10/24/2006 8:18:56 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse ( ~()):~)>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker; Conservative Coulter Fan
You need to learn to read. The article I posted was a rebuttal to your rebuttal. Let me guess... you didn't read either piece.

You're right, he didn't. He knows just enough to be able to cut-and-paste from kooky creationist sites, but not enough to read and understand and determine whether they're valid, or whether they're full of horse manure, much less read and understand the primary scientific literature on the subject and the rebuttals to the creationist nonsense.

158 posted on 10/24/2006 8:19:13 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: WildHorseCrash
filthy creationist/ID lies to children.

Wow!! The hostility is fantastic. It reminds me of when feminist law students would go ballistic and resort to mere ad hominem attacks when their view points were criticized. I love it.

Anyway, it is amazing that creationism is now viewed as "filthy". What is filthy is when children are taught that they are nothing more than highly evolved animals. We certainly can't expect them to behave in any other way when that is what they think they are. But I really don't think actual debate is going to happen here anyways.

159 posted on 10/24/2006 8:20:55 PM PDT by Clump
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Coulter Fan; Names Ash Housewares
Radiocarbon Assumptions and Problems

Congratulations, son, your meanderings about alleged radiocarbon problems does absolutely nothing whatsoever to address, much less refute, the article on the age of the Earth that you thought you were "rebutting", because nothing in that article is based on radiocarbon dating.

Care to try again after you have the slightest clue what in the hell you're talking about, and aren't just randomly flinging information that you don't understand in the hopes that it might have some relevance in some manner to the material you don't want to have to think about?

160 posted on 10/24/2006 8:21:44 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 201-203 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson