Universe's 6,000th birthday ...

Guardian ^ | 22 October 2004 | Radford, Tim

[Publius Valerius]

Universe's 6,000th birthday ...

Tim Radford Friday October 22, 2004 The Guardian

Britain's geologists are about to celebrate the fact that the universe is exactly 6,000 years old.

At 6pm tonight at the Geological Society of London, scientists will raise their glasses to James Ussher, Archbishop of Armagh (below), who in 1650 used the chronology of the Bible to calculate the precise date and moment of creation.

Working from the book of Genesis, and risking some speculation on the Hebrew calendar, he calculated that it began at 6pm on Saturday October 22, 4004 BC.

Actually, he put the date at October 23, and then pedantically realised that time must have begun the night before, because the Bible said that "the evening and the morning were the first day."

The geologists selected the anniversary for a day-long conference on some of the fakes, frauds and hoaxes that have plagued geological and palaeontological research for centuries. "It's not that we think Archbishop Ussher's date was a fraud," said Ted Nield, the society's communications officer. "It's just that it was spectacularly wrong."

Dr Nield conceded, too, that in toasting the archbishop's calculations the geologists were committing another error. More than 6,000 years have passed since 4004 BC. The symmetry is only apparent. The date is a mere numerological reflection. The real anniversary passed unnoticed, in 1997.

[Publius Valerius]

Ok. So let's say, then, for argument's sake, that the date of the "beginning" of the universe (the time period at which God decided to create) was Oct. 22, 4004 B.C.

Now then, at that time, not only did he set in motion our current existence, but he also created the past.

What of the past, then? Did it exist? Did those people exist? Did they live lives or were they nothing more than a mere collection of dated bones from the very beginning of their existence? If they DID exist, I think you run into some fairly serious free will problems.

While you make some interesting points, I think the Aquinas Prime Mover understanding of creation makes more logical sense and avoids some of the problems contingent with your theory.

[yankeedame]

In biblical language 6 days can also mean 6,000 years. The seventh day, or 1,000 years comes next, and then the 8th day (8 being heavenly). Just a point to ponder.

Likewise, in ancient biblical language the term/number forty (40) meant a lot/ a long time/ a great length/ many times

As we today would say:
-"I told him a million times..."
-"About a million years ago when I was a kid...",
-"Man, her folks must have spent a million bucks on her wedding."

So too the Bible has it:
-It rained for 40 days and nights. (It rained a long time/it rained a LOT)
-The Jews wandered for 40 years (a long time)
-Christ went into the desert for 40 days. (for a considerable length of time.)

[AMHN]

AMHN(Amen) - actually pronounced ah-mean in Greek

[Raycpa]

Any one else out there that feel this way?Count me in. This is an image of Christ that affirms a culture of sin. In that he died for our sins, its hugely offensive. However, nonchristians who don't understand why its offensive should be given a pass.

[frog_jerk_2004]

Geologists, biologists and physicists. When distinct branches of the physical sciences all largely agree that the age of a fossils is "X million years old, plus or minus some small fraction," it's interesting that they are to be doubted because some vaguely written, non-peer-reviewed ancient text says something different.

Use the same underlying method and the results will be around the same figure. Once that underlying method is successfully challenged it throws all of the previous assumptions into chaos until order is restored, based on a "new" general assumption. The real question is whether the general assumption by the different disciplines of science you mention is valid.

[yankeedame]

I know a guy whose karma ran over his dogma

Oh yeah? Well, while we're at it: "If you don't talk to your cat about catnip, who will?"

[Publius Valerius]

Just as an aside, I, too, find it humorous. Satire is a beautiful thing. Sometimes you've just got to sit back and laugh, even if it is at yourself.

[Just mythoughts]

"Likewise, in ancient biblical language the term/number forty (40) meant a lot/ a long time/ a great length/ many times"

Forty also means "probation". 8 means "new beginnings"; 7 means "spiritual completeness".

[PAR35]

Lets take up the discussion/argument after the election. :-)

Probably not a bad idea.

[nightdriver]

"Working from the book of Genesis, and risking some speculation on the Hebrew calendar, he calculated that it began at 6pm on Saturday October 22, 4004 BC."

Actually, Ussher wasn't putting the date on the creation of the universe, but on the re-constitution of the Earth, with the subsequent creation of Adam, etc.

[AMHN]

Actually, the reference I was using was from the same source that Jude used in the NT book of Jude. It comes from the Pseudopigrapha, Book of Enoch. This book was common to most theologians during the 1st millenium (and was considered cannonical by many since it was used by NT writers...only to be discarded as NT material based on prime criteria that needed to directly reference Christ Ministry and life...don't mistake this for a belief that it was incorrect...those defining the cannon in the 4th century wanted to limit the NT to those strictly on focus with Christ Ministry). It is in this book that the reference is made directly to one day vs a thousand years. I'm not trying to state a theological opinion here, just presenting the facts and possibilities.

[AMHN]

Time is a difficult thing to get you mind around. Especially when trying to understand it outside of the context of everyday experience. Relativity is another example that has been proven "time and time" again (and is again being proven for those that are following the Einstein GP-B project). But, back to the point, no laws are broken here. The time before Adam is no different than the time after. It is no more or less real than the time we experience today. It is no more or less continuous and no more or less connected to any other point in time. God didn't create illusions. If this theory is the correct one (remember I only said that it could be one of many possibilities), it does not affect free will, or make Dinosaurs any less real. Just like the ripples on either side of the stone in the lake are any less real than the ripples on the other side. But being a bug on one of those ripples, only being able to see the ripples moving in one direction, can still look across the pond to see, figuratively, to see evidence of rock having been thrown at one point in time and evidence of ripples beyond that.

[orionblamblam]

> Use the same underlying method and the results will be around the same figure.

Ah, but the methods used to determine that the Earth is Really, Really Old are *not* all derivatives of the same method. Astronomical observations, radiactive decay rates of ores, and tectonic plate movement rates are all separate, unrelated things, but all show that the Earth is vastly older than 6K years.

Hell, dendrochronology shows an older earth than that.

[reformedcrat]

Yeah, agreed, This is a silly representation of my Lord and Savior.

hugs, Marty

[frog_jerk_2004]

I don't agree the earth is 6K.

My question about the certainty of the calculation is: why is it a theory if it is really certain? Because, science cannot be certain of anything and uses the word "theory" as an out. I'm not saying it is a wrong method but, I wish many more scientists would accept the fact that they are human and can be wrong about anything. Seems to me many scientists rely on carbon dating as an absolute when it really needs to be looked at objectively. Also, this goes to the point of the global warming BS data out there. This is taken as truth when it is some of the worst junk science out there.

[RadioAstronomer]

Because, science cannot be certain of anything and uses the word "theory" as an out.

Time to repost this. :-)

From an NSF abstract:

“As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.

In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.

Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.

Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have."

[frog_jerk_2004]

In summation, we can change anything or the meaning of any word at anytime for any reason.

[orionblamblam]

> we can change anything or the meaning of any word at anytime for any reason.

Only if you are a theologian. "Forty days really means 'Long Time.'" But if you are a scientist, such freedom does not apply.

[orionblamblam]

> I wish many more scientists would accept the fact that they are human and can be wrong about anything.

Errr.... that is one of these single most imporant and beasic tenets of science. Science is self-correcting. When scientists find that their hypotheses are wrong, they correct them or drop them. When the theological fidn that they are wrong, they produce lavishly complex Rube Goldberg explanations for why what is patently goofy really isn't.

> Seems to me many scientists rely on carbon dating as an absolute when it really needs to be looked at objectively.

Carbon dating is not used to measure the age of the Earth or of fossils more than a few tens of thousands of years old.

[frog_jerk_2004]

Science is self-correcting. When scientists find that their hypotheses are wrong, they correct them or drop them.

Or fudge the numbers so that it appears correct...cold fusion, global warming, silicon implants, etc...