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Ussher traveled throughout Europe, gathering much information from the actual historical documents.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:
Also, several of my friends are practicing medical doctors, and they believe creationism makes more sense than evolution, as far as explaining our origins. One of them is one of the most respected oncologists in the Texas panhandle, and the other is a pathologist that also greatly admired and respected. Yes, they both graduated from accredited medical schools. No, they are not kooks or charlatans. No, they are not pushing books or videos to old widows on fixed incomes. Any more questions?
I know, it was a joke. (Although I give you credit, not many people are willing to put personal identifying information out there where anyone can get a hold of it. Some would call that foolish...)
Also, several of my friends are practicing medical doctors, and they believe creationism makes more sense than evolution, as far as explaining our origins. One of them is one of the most respected oncologists in the Texas panhandle, and the other is a pathologist that also greatly admired and respected.
Well, good for them. Of course, being medical doctors, without more, establishes diddly squat in terms of credibility on this issue.
Moreover, I'd be willing to bet that their opinions on this issue has nothing to do with any medical training and education they received and everything to do with their religious convictions. The only question is: which flavor of Christian are they? Curious minds want to know... (I'm betting Baptist.)
Yes, they both graduated from accredited medical schools. No, they are not kooks or charlatans. No, they are not pushing books or videos to old widows on fixed incomes.
I'm sure their pillars of the community. Fine, upstanding men (and/or women). But that doesn't make their opinions on the question of the origins of our favorite African Great Ape, H. sapiens, scientific or even reasonable.
Nor does it change the fact that there are charlatans out there who are preying on the ignorance and/or religiosity of people like your friends. Those charlatans know, or should know, that what they're peddling as scientific fact is, at best, religious dogma and, at worst, nonsensical lies.
Any more questions?
Sure. (This is a serious question, one which I've yet to get any Biblical literalist to answer.) If the Bible said, "all cats reproduce by laying eggs" would you believe it to be factually true? And if not, why not.
I believe it was included to show the four the four kingdoms that Alexander's empire broke up into, to fulfill a prophecy in Daniel 8. Well, to make a long story short, I managed to track down the programmer responsible, and persuaded him to give me credit in the next edition of the work (I wasn't in it for the money, since we're both creationists).
The opinions of medical doctors about evolution are about as useful and informed as the opinions of paleontolgists about oncology. Both are highly specialized fields of study, professionals in one don't usually study the other.
Also, it is quite possible that research into the evolution of multicellular life could shed great light on what goes wrong in various cancers.
No, they are not kooks or charlatans. No, they are not pushing books or videos to old widows on fixed incomes. Any more questions?
Only the professional ID-ists and creationists, the ones who profit from DI, AiG, etc. fit that profile. Other ID-ists and creationists are often their victims.
It doesn't. But if it did, I would think that when it was written people called chickens cats:)
As for your concern about my personal information . . . well, there is no such thing as keeping personal information private anyway. But thanks.
I only posted it because I doubt you really thought I was a lawyer anyway. The so called academic elite in this country have sufficiently demonized and belittled evangelicals for so long that people now think we are idiots. I just post to say that there are plenty of smart people that subscribe to the THEORY of creation. I really don't care if people disagree with me. I just get tired of being talked down to like I am just a toothless brainless drone. I have actually read up on the topic, and it is my OPINION that there is room for discussion on this topic without resorting to condescending personal attacks. As far as I know, evolution is still a theory, is it not?
My pathologist friend was explaining to me some things about the human body that blew my mind the other day. He told me numerous examples of internal body parts that depend on one another. He said that there are so many things that cannot exist apart from another, that he could not begin to fathom how such distinct and complex organs could come into existence on their very own at all, let alone simultaneously. I was trying to follow him, and it was admittedly tough to keep up. I got the point he was making though.
He said that just one living cell occurring by chance is about as likely as a tornado hitting a scrap yard, and creating a 747 ready to take off. I'm not a scientist, but I know those are not good odds. Anyway, I am not throwing flame bait, just asking for your side to be a little less condescending. We are people too.
"I saw it in a Jack Chick tract, So it must be true!" placemark
Sometimes I fail to see the futility in arguing over such matters, but I'll heed the advice.
A number of physicians and other professionals in my hometown are thoroughly Christian, one even does a Christian radio program in his spare time, and I would have to say I know where you are coming from as far as your colleagues and their religious beliefs.
I could just as easily respond that you know how to cut and paste evolutionist garbage. You express prejudicial language like, "full of horse manure," and you merely offer inadequate, vague notions because you don't seem to read any more heavily than I do other than your ability to mount antagonizing language and sneering tones...or in essence...pretend you have a monopoly on science and like the world that believed that a flat earth was a scientific fact...attack any contrary idea. You seem to view science more like an ideology.
No, there are serious doubts about how reliable radio carbon dating and tree ring data can be, but I suppose in as far as we encounter "anti-science" people who don't want to be bothered by "peasky" facts...they tend to have no healthy skepticism whatsoever and they absolution drives their supposed science...i.e., "we have actual tree ring data going back 5,000 years before the supposed creation."
Sure you could, if you wanted to avoid the facts and dishonestly describe well-established science as "garbage". Do you want to do that?
You express prejudicial language like, "full of horse manure,"
That's not "prejudicial language", that's my deeply considered opinion after following this issue very closely for over three decades.
and you merely offer inadequate, vague notions because you don't seem to read any more heavily than I do
Say what? I'm very familiar with the science that's being distorted by the creationists. I've written thousands of detailed debunkings of their twaddle. I've read tens of thousands of primary research articles. Don't tell me I'm not any more competent in this topic than you are or that I don't offer anything more than "vague notions".
other than your ability to mount antagonizing language and sneering tones...or in essence...pretend you have a monopoly on science and like the world that believed that a flat earth was a scientific fact...attack any contrary idea. You seem to view science more like an ideology.
You seem to be frothing at the mouth at me rather than refuting anything I've actually posted.
Only among those who make the mistake of try to "learn" about dating methods from creationist propaganda.
but I suppose in as far as we encounter "anti-science" people who don't want to be bothered by "peasky" facts...
In my long experience with them, yes, indeed, that is the case. You're doing nothing to dissuade me from that conclusion.
they tend to have no healthy skepticism whatsoever and they absolution drives their supposed science...
Your comment is so laughable that it's clear that you've never actually read anything in primary science journals. No one who actually is familiar with the real science could ever say anything as transparently ridiculous as what you just did. Scientists have more "healthy skepticism" and less "absolution" than most any non-scientist, and creationists have far more "absolution [sic]" and a very UNhealthy kind skepticism.
i.e., "we have actual tree ring data going back 5,000 years before the supposed creation."
We do. Would you like to dispute the actual science, or do you just want to fling more spittle in my general direction because you don't like my well-founded conclusions?
The "serious doubts about how reliable radio carbon dating and tree ring data can be" are generally based either on twisted facts or outright non-scientific claims.
As I have mentioned to you before, I do a lot of carbon 14 dating in my work (archaeology) and have studied the method for decades. I have also examined many of the comments made on the method on the creationist websites, and can tell you that they are a mix of misrepresentation, wishful thinking, and outright lies.
Tree-ring dating involves finding a type of tree that is long-lived and has reliable one-ring-per-year rings. The bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of southeastern California fit the bill nicely.
The method involves coring standing dead bristlecone pines and then matching up the various cores (they use computers to eliminate the subjectivity of humans). As a cross-check they look for known climatic events that would show up in the rings: volcanic eruptions are among the best. These have been found to show up in the tree rings when expected. That is a pretty good confirmation that the oveall method works.
The individual rings are then radiocarbon dated. The recent ones (back to about AD 1650) are dated each year, while the older ones (earlier than AD 1650) are dated in ten-year increments. This is used to establish the atmospheric variation (how much the levels of C12 and C14 in the atmosphere varied from the expected values), creating a calibration curve for the radiocarbon method. The calibration curve based on bristlecone pines is now past 12,500 years.
Other methods of cross-checking the accuracy of the method include dating historic items of known ages (Egyptian scrolls or artifacts, for example). The method has been shown to be accurate within its limits.
When you check out the creationist sites they make a lot of hay out of dating coal or dinosaur bones and obtaining dates in the 30,000-50,000 year range. For many labs this is the upper limit of their detection equipment. These dates being cited by creationists are meaningless.
If you want, I can explain some of these points in more detail. Are you willing to learn, or is your mind already made up?
Hey, royalties. ;') That one is a classic "imagine my surprise..."
I know. It's a hypothetical.
But if it did, I would think that when it was written people called chickens cats:)
Non responsive. Let me put it another way: if the Bible makes a clear statement of fact that is absolutely contradicted by science--such as "all cats reproduce by laying eggs"--would you believe the Bible or the science?
I only posted it because I doubt you really thought I was a lawyer anyway. The so called academic elite in this country have sufficiently demonized and belittled evangelicals for so long that people now think we are idiots. I just post to say that there are plenty of smart people that subscribe to the THEORY of creation. I really don't care if people disagree with me. I just get tired of being talked down to like I am just a toothless brainless drone.
I don't think people who believe in creationism are necessarily idiots. (Some are, of course. Appallingly so, in fact.) But the fact that they're not idiots doesn't mean that the creationists are right.
Those creationist that aren't idiots, from what I can gather having read their words for many years, are ignorant of (or unreasonably deny) what the science of evolutionary biology actually is and what it actually says. They are also religiously motivated to remain ignorant in order to avoid the unpleasantness of having their core religious beliefs challenged. (In fact, some creationists are proud of this fact, asserting that they find strength in their ignorance in the subject.)
So, no, I don't believe you're an idiot; I just know you're wrong.
I have actually read up on the topic, and it is my OPINION that there is room for discussion on this topic without resorting to condescending personal attacks. As far as I know, evolution is still a theory, is it not?
Evolution is both a theory and a fact. It is a fact that populations of organisms have diversified and changed throughout the ages. (See, e.g., the law of faunal succession.) It is also a theory in the sense that the modern synthesis, often called neo-Darwinism, explains the manner in which that diversity of life arose.
And, of course, the theory of evolution will always remain a theory because there is nothing higher in science than a theory. (And, in fact, the theory of evolution is one of the most well-established theories in all of science, with literally millions upon millions of data points supporting it.)
My pathologist friend was explaining to me some things about the human body that blew my mind the other day. He told me numerous examples of internal body parts that depend on one another. He said that there are so many things that cannot exist apart from another, that he could not begin to fathom how such distinct and complex organs could come into existence on their very own at all, let alone simultaneously. I was trying to follow him, and it was admittedly tough to keep up. I got the point he was making though.
This is the logical error known as the argument from personal incredulity. Just because your friend cannot fathom how these organs came into existence through evolution is no evidence that they did not. Other people have fathomed how they came about and the theory of evolution works just find in bringing these organs about. One book I would recommend you read on this particular subject is by Richard Dawkins, called, "Climbing Mount Improbable." In that book he shows how small, nominal evolutionary changes in organic structures can quickly (geologically speaking) results in fantastically complex organs.
He said that just one living cell occurring by chance is about as likely as a tornado hitting a scrap yard, and creating a 747 ready to take off. I'm not a scientist, but I know those are not good odds. Anyway, I am not throwing flame bait, just asking for your side to be a little less condescending. We are people too.
That is an old and quite discredited canard, although professional creationists are still fond of it. (Probably because they are either ignorant of its being rebutted or betting on the fact that their audiences will either not know or not care that it's been debunked.) Basically the answer lies in the gradual accumulation of small, minute changes, none of which is, in itself, implausible or even unlikely.
The analogy is false because evolution doesn't act like a hurricane. An analogy I've used is this: You see a cat in a second floor window. The creationist says that God must have personally put the cat there because everyone knows that the cat couldn't have jumped that high in a single leap, so there is no alternative but to invoke God. The evolutionist just points to the staircase.
Furthermore, this objection is always fascinating to me, because it invariably comes from Christians who believe in the existence of an omnipotent God. But, if this argument is so good and the existence of a 747 resulting from a hurricane in a junkyard is so laughably improbable, isn't it even more laughable and more improbable that an infinitely complex 747 (i.e., God) just happens to exist??
I agree with you that micro-evolution is a fact. But macro-evolution is an entirely different matter. Natural selection only selects from preexisting characteristics, it doesn't actually add on additional and previously nonexistent characteristics.
We are not going to convince one another however. And BTW, the cat story was funny, but it was a bit of an oversimplification. It was also condescending to say the least. But you don't seem capable of not talking down to people (or maybe it is just me). You must be a professor, or I am I just jaded from years of crawling through the sewage of institutions of "higher learning"?
Have a good day by the way.
When one absolutely denies the existence of God, there is really no explanation for our origins other than evolution. You and I are both committed to our religions evidently.
Evolution is science, not religion. If the Theory of Evolution were scientifically proven wrong tomorrow, I'd be surprised, but excited to dive into that which replaced it. My guess is that you would find it inconceivable, tawdry or sacrilegious to consider whether there is no God or whether Christianity is false.
I guess when we are both dead we will see who was right.
Or neither of us is, or our consciousnesses will fade as our brains shut down and, therefore, we will "see" nothing...
I agree with you that micro-evolution is a fact. But macro-evolution is an entirely different matter.
No, it isn't. Macro-evolution, so called, is simply microevolution that occurred a long time ago. Nothing more.
Natural selection only selects from preexisting characteristics, it doesn't actually add on additional and previously nonexistent characteristics.
Correct, as far as it goes. But natural selection isn't the whole process. The "preexisting characteristics" arise from random changes in the genome which does generate "additional and previously nonexistent characteristics."
We are not going to convince one another however. And BTW, the cat story was funny, but it was a bit of an oversimplification. It was also condescending to say the least.
Well, certainly don't take it as an intentional insult; many of the concepts that really make up the science of evolutionary biology are actually this straightforward and even simple, in theory. (Obviously they get more complex and detailed when the actual mechanics are examined.) When creationists deny these concepts or refuse to see them, it is difficult to express the concepts in an even simpler way without it starting to approach condescension.
For example, creationists say that the Earth is only 6,000 years old; that statement is so wrong, it is difficult to explain how wrong it is without resorting to analogy: Compared to its real age, saying the Earth is 6,000 years old is the equivalent of saying that the Declaration of Independence was signed 2 1/2 hours ago, or saying that the distance between New York and San Francisco is 18 feet.
But you don't seem capable of not talking down to people (or maybe it is just me). You must be a professor, or I am I just jaded from years of crawling through the sewage of institutions of "higher learning"?
Nope, not a professor. And I am sorry if I seem like I'm talking down to you and don't take it personally, but, in my mind, life's too short to pretend that someone's ideas make sense when they really don't.
Have a good day by the way.
You, too.
Certainly one "man's" opinion anyway.
heh heh......
You said Annals......
heh heh, heh heh heh
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.