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Ussher traveled throughout Europe, gathering much information from the actual historical documents.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:
Yes, they do have a goal in mind and they are amassing their evidence...and you say that's not science? LOL...recont the scientific method...give me those 6 steps and then tell me that's not science either...LOLOL
Yes. It's that if you seriously believe that there's any evidence that the world is only 6,000 years old you are in fact quite seriously mistaken.
The article you just posted was the response that my article successfully rebutted. Your article may have pretty graphs and photographs and even scientific terminology (to a point), but it isn't science. Don't kid yourself.
I posted the rebuttal by Dr. Humphreys to Kevin Henke...given that you googled and came up with Henke's piece. As to having my own arguments...do you have your own arguments? What exactly am I responding to...I thought I was simply trying to show that there is evidence out there to support a creationist theory and it only takes a conditioned prejudice to cause people to automatically reject such a notion and disguise prejudicial language with scientific jargon...it comes down to bombastic laymen. I don't find the argumentation from your side to be that intellectual or noteworthy...there is a guy standing in the store telling me how President Bush is responsible for the rise and fall of gas prices...because he heard...and he heard.
A good friend of mine is a microbiology professor, and he believes in the creation account in Genesis. He rarely bothers debating people though. He basically thinks that most so called academics are really not interested in the facts, only their preferred conclusions. I tend to agree with him. But I am a lawyer, and admittedly we tend to see facts that we need to support our conclusions. Anyway, God bless.
Wrong.
Recent research has shown that diamonds may not take millions of years to form. They are
believed to form rapidly, rising from a depth of 150-250 Km, taking just 8-25 hrs to form. Geoscience
Canada, Vol 18, No. 1, 1991 p:1-16
A metal hammer, with its fossilized wooden handle, has been found in sandstone at Paluxy River
(Texas, USA). The sandstone has been dated as being 400 million years old. This is 399 million years
before the first human is supposed to have evolved. Also found inside rock has been a pair of pliers, a
bolt, and a set of car keys. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1984 p:16; Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1992 p:20; Creation Ex
Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986 p:10; Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1995 p:45 [photographs included]
Clearly we need to take this to the parking lot!
P.S. - Tautology isn't science!
And I posted Henke's counter-rebuttal. Did you even read what I posted before you ran away to Google?
What exactly am I responding to...I thought I was simply trying to show that there is evidence out there to support a creationist theory and it only takes a conditioned prejudice to cause people to automatically reject such a notion and disguise prejudicial language with scientific jargon.
You haven't posted an example of evidence supporting creationism. The Helium stuff is demonstrable pseudo-science masquerading as science designed to impress laymen with big words. But even IF it were true (which it obviously isn't) it would just suggest a different age to the earth. It would NOT be positive evidence in support of creationism.
"You are assuming there is a gap in Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2"
If you assume God would make the earth "without form, and void". I don't believe God screws up when He makes or creates anything. Then you have the problem with Lucifer having a war with God and then him being cast down out of heaven to the earth. Too many problems with no gap.
I think Europe's first totalitatian regime was Calvin's Geneva.
The "scientific" approach of most creationists is along the lines of the Creation Research Society (see below). That appears to be what the RATE group is doing as well.
This does not follow the scientific method.
The Creation Research Society has the following on their home page:
The Creation Research Society is a professional organization of trained scientists and interested laypersons who are firmly committed to scientific special creation. The Society was organized in 1963 by a committee of ten like-minded scientists, and has grown into an organization with an international membership.Lets see what else they say.
All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief:
1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.
4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior.
Does this sound like science to you? Does this sound like research?
Anytime preconceived beliefs, such as these, override the scientific method, an individual is doing apologetics, not science. It doesn't matter what scientific degrees one may have; to agree to a set of standards such as this, which is common (whether explicit or implicit) in creationist circles, is to cease doing science.
I suppose a nihilist would think so..
Excuse me, excuse me, can you please recount the scientific method...list six steps...starting with the first, and then tell me that isn't science.
Read the requirements for the CRS I listed in post #114. That is not science as it does not follow the scientific method.
You cannot start with a goal of, for example, supporting young earth and global flood and filter all data through that filter and call it science. That is what creationists are doing, and in fact must do, because otherwise there is no way the data supports their position.
Don't bother asking me about those six steps. If you can't see where the CRS and general creationist positions violate the scientific method you wouldn't understand the rest of the details either.
(Any questions on radiocarbon dating? That's something I do a lot of.)
Long story short: creationists are whores for publicity; it gives them prestige to further dupe their marks. (These would include the customers to Hamm's little "The-Flintstones-Is-A-Documentary" museum.)
The scientists get nothing out of it but the flim-flam men, like Hamm, get notoriety. They use that notoriety to scam little old ladies out of their pension checks and to push to get school boards to spread their filthy creationist/ID lies to children.
We have pretty good empherical evidence for the speed of light. If that speed holds true, then all of the observable universe must be within 4000-6000 light years from Earth, since some star maps date back at least a couple thousand years. So all those galaxies and stars are crammed into a pretty small space then, wouldn't you say? How does our Milky Way, estimated at 100,000 light years across, fit into the 12,000 light year wide universe, let alone the other 100 billion or so galaxies? 100 billion galaxies each with 100 billion stars is like 10 to the 22nd power, and a 12,000 light year diameter universe has about 2.3 x 10 to the 18th power cubic km, so there should be a star every .00023 cubic km. I thought stars were a bit bigger than that. Of course, look at the sun, it doesn't look very big, only a couple centimeters wide, so I guess the earth really is only 6000 years old.
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.