The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

Pherekydes

J C wrote: »

... so are you saying that I'm presidential !!!:)

Thanks !!

I think your posts are unpresidented. And braggadocious. Bigly.

Samaris

J C wrote: »

One-upmaship ... is obviously alive and well within science !!!

What have the poor Sociologists done to be at the 'bottom of the barrell' ... and to make them the most 'impure' of them all?

... are they spending too much time in Ibiza ... or what??? :eek:

Of course it is, humans being humans and all. It is generally a joke, but surely you have heard of the science/arts culture wars? All the slagging about Humanities?

I think it's a bit short-sighted myself, although the majority of it is actually from without than within - how often do you hear of someone doing some sort of "liberal arts degree" getting slagged off for making themselves unemployable? Studying why the human biosphere works is also important and has great impact on the other studies.

Be that as it may, there are certain things that the big science subjects rely on each other for - you can study physics or any of the rest alone perhaps bar a good chunk of biology, which is reliant on certain aspects of chemistry and physics - the physics of how muscles work, digestion is both reliant on physics (i.e. peristalsis) and chemistry (i.e. nutrition and cell chemistry) population dynamics (maths/statistics), but once you want to apply any of them, you need elements of the other main sciences to get anywhere, albeit it's more obvious the "lower" down the ladder you are and tend to rely mostly on those "higher" on the ladder. You need a certain amount of maths for any of them, hence they get to the top of the row. "Pure" Maths doesn't actually require any of them, but there's relatively few people who can play with numbers for their entire career without wanting to apply it to a problem that requires elements of other sciences - physics being a big one, same as economics, which is kinda maths with psychology (i.e. game theory, what people will do when confronted by mathematical options with a win/lose scenario on the line).

It's not taken particularly seriously. Pure etcetera is important in its own right, but right at the moment, it's applied sciences we need and generally a mixture of them.


Evolution requires maths (particularly statistics again), chemistry, physics, biology and a certain amount of sociology and psychology to understand the issues of how people accept, reject or otherwise use the evidence.

Climate requires a reasonably in-depth understanding of the connections between maths, chemistry, physics, biology, macro- and micro-biology, oceanography, statistics, atmospheric physics, some knowledge of extra-terrestrial physics, psychology, sociology, economics and very human lunacy.

Everything gets more complicated with the addition of politics, which is why many scientists dislike politics impacting their work. Finally, scientists love one-upmanship, it's a form of competition. We're practical, not necessarily "nice".

oldrnwisr

pone2012 wrote: »

Perhaps you are right, in any event you seem to have identified where I am coming from?

I dont keep up to date with this creationist literature you're speaking of, but who exactly claimed the earth was 6000 years old? Ive never seen this before

Nozz has already explained this but just to add to his answer the claim of a 6000 year old earth goes back to James Ussher who was a Church of Ireland Archbishop in the 1600s. In truth there were many other thinkers of the time who attempted a calculation of the age of the earth but Ussher is usually the one who gets mentioned. Ussher used genealogies listed in the bible (Genesis 5, 11) references to spans of time between historical events (Galatians 3:17, Exodus 12:40, 1 Kings 6) and other extrabiblical sources to calculate the date of creation as 22nd October 4004 BC.

"Professional" creationist organisations like Answers in Genesis often make both implicit and explicit reference to this chronology on their websites. For example, Answers in Genesis has a section titled "Statement of Faith", which, among other things, states:

"Scripture teaches a recent origin for man and the whole creation, spanning approximately 4,000 years from creation to Christ."

"The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the earth, and the universe."

Statements similar to the second one above claiming Genesis as a factual account are also found on the websites of the Institute for Creation Research:

"The biblical record of primeval earth history in Genesis 1-11 is fully historical and perspicuous, including the creation and Fall of man, the Curse on the Creation and its subjection to the bondage of decay, the promised Redeemer, the worldwide cataclysmic deluge in the days of Noah, the post-diluvian renewal of man's commission to subdue the earth (now augmented by the institution of human government), and the origin of nations and languages at the tower of Babel."

and the Creation Research Society:

"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."

Of course, sometimes you have to look a little deeper than operating principles or FAQs but the same claim is still there. For example, Creation Ministries International has a handbook called "Refuting Evolution" which is presented as a guide for students, parents and teachers. Chapter 8 of this book deals with the question: How old is the Earth? where it states:

"On the other hand, basing one’s ideas on the Bible gives a very different picture. The Bible states that man was made six days after creation, about 6,000 years ago."

I'm not sure exactly how it is that you've never seen this claim as it's one of the more prominent (and laughably false) claims that creationists (well YECs) make.

oldrnwisr

pone2012 wrote: »

...At what point does one believe, that the larger part of the chart could be explored. After all if the universe consists of approx 95% currently unobservable material...why are so many fixated on the minute observable part?

This is what intrigues me about the argument that if it is not observable, it is not real..im not saying anyone in particular here is posing it.. but some passers by do...it doesn't seem to hold up...even in science the unobservable is a reality

There are several problems with your line of reasoning here.

Firstly, with regard to dark matter and dark energy, as OscarBravo and Nozz have pointed out, unobservable ≠ undetectable. It is observed astronomical evidence which has prompted cosmologists to propose the existence of dark matter. There are multiple lines of observable evidence which suggest the presence of dark matter and dark energy like redshift distortions, anisotropic behaviour of the CMBR, distribution of galactic pairs, gravitational lensing etc. For example, gravitational lensing is a prediction of general relativity which states that light from any distant source will be distorted by an intervening large mass like a galaxy. When we measure the lensing effect produced by this intervening object, we get an expected value for it's mass. If we compare this to the light emitted by the obstructing object we find a discrepancy which is explained by the presence of dark matter.
There are several explanations for what this matter could be. One of the older explanations, which has mostly fallen out of favour is that dark matter is composed of neturinos. Dark matter could also be composed of MACHOs (massively compact halo objects) like black holes, brown dwarfs etc. which would mean that dark matter is really just baryonic matter with no EM emissions making them hard to detect. It could also be composed of WIMPs (weakly interactive massive particles) which don't interact with the EM field. Of course, it could also be the case that each of the above particles contribute toward the overall amount of dark matter in the universe.
Now, if you'd like we could go deeper into the observational evidence which suggests the existence of dark matter or we could explore the candidates for dark matter. In the meantime, here's two good discussions on dark matter and dark energy from Sixty Symbols:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77yXhAibQp4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJYDcXZMe9c

Secondly, the actual nature of dark matter and dark energy is a physics puzzle, a question for science to eventually answer. It isn't an argument for or against God. It doesn't pose a problem for a naturalistic explanation of the universe nor does it suggest the need to invoke a god to explain the origin of the universe. Anyone suggesting that dark energy or matter suggests a god is making an argument from ignorance. Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains exactly why this is a bad argument here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HooeZrC76s0

However, the really big problem is what dark matter has to do with evolution in the first place. This thread and its predecessors has to do with evolution and the various claims about it that have been made by creationists and why all of these creationist claims are wrong.

looksee

I have an ancient encyclopedia/dictionary affair somewhere that has Bishop Usher's theory in it, pages of it.

Samaris

looksee wrote: »

I have an ancient encyclopedia/dictionary affair somewhere that has Bishop Usher's theory in it, pages of it.

I did the whole count when I was eleven or twelve and came to the conclusion that there's too many bits missing, at least in the English-language translations. Used several bibles, but there were still too many people that kicked the bucket without ages being given or with gaps that could have been any length of time, given the people in the Old Testament keep getting referred to as living unlikely lengths of time.

Whole thing just doesn't work, not if you're working off English translations anyway.

looksee

No that was not unlikely lengths of time, it was something to do with random genes that have done missing since. I think. Anyway they did actually live 900 years. Assuming that a year was the same measurement that we have now. Or maybe time has speeded up or slowed down or something in the intervening 6000 years.

Samaris

looksee wrote: »

No that was not unlikely lengths of time, it was something to do with random genes that have done missing since. I think. Anyway they did actually live 900 years. Assuming that a year was the same measurement that we have now. Or maybe time has speeded up or slowed down or something in the intervening 6000 years.

Well, if time isn't going to behave consistently, I suppose that explains a lot.

Does the Bible comment at all why God felt the need to occasionally upset the timeline and/or how Ussher could tell when "400 years" meant 400 years and when it meant 400 months or 400 seasons?

J C

Samaris wrote: »

Well, if time isn't going to behave consistently, I suppose that explains a lot.

Does the Bible comment at all why God felt the need to occasionally upset the timeline and/or how Ussher could tell when "400 years" meant 400 years and when it meant 400 months or 400 seasons?

Archbishop James Ussher, Anglican Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland calculated the Creation Event as starting on 23rd October 4004 BC ... and you can read about how he did this here:-
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/the-world-born-in-4004-bc/

James Ussher was Chancellor of St Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin in 1605 and Prebend of Finglas. He became Professor of Theological Controversies at Trinity College and a Bachelor of Divinity in 1607, Doctor of Divinity in 1612, and then Vice-Chancellor in 1615 and vice-provost in 1616.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher

Archbishop James Ussher has been honoured by Trinity Collge Dublin by having their new main library named after him when it was opened in April 2002.
http://www.ocsc.ie/project-by-sectors/education/james-ussher-library-trinity-college-dublin/
This illustrates the academic esteem with which Archbishop Ussher, who died 361 years ago, is still held.



The date of 4004 BC is slightly earlier than the date as currently measured by the Jewish Calendar. The Jewish year is currently 5777 and it will turn 5778 on 20th September 2017, which is the Jewish New Year or Rosh Hashana, this year.
It is supposed to measure the number of years since the date of the Creation of Adam and Eve and it would therefore give a putative date for The Creation of 3761 BC.
https://www.hebcal.com/holidays/rosh-hashana

Here is a graphical summary of Ussher's Chronology:-

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

This illustrates the academic esteem with which Archbishop Ussher, who died 361 years ago, is held.

Ptolemy is held in academic esteem, but that doesn't mean his geocentric model was correct.

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ptolemy is held in academic esteem, but that doesn't mean his geocentric model was correct.

... but James Ussher's academic esteem continues ... with Trinity College honouring him as recently as 2002.
Quote:-
"Archbishop James Ussher (1581–1656) was one of the most important biblical scholars of the 17th century. His research and scholarly work have even earned high praise from some who are opposed to his conclusions. Called “the greatest luminary of the church of Ireland” and “one of the greatest scholars of his day in the Christian Church,” his work has influenced generations of Christian thinkers with a force still felt today.

An expert on the writings of the early church fathers, Ussher majorly impacted Reformation theology. The 18-volume set titled The Whole Works of James Ussher contains his most important writings. Today, he is best known for his chronology research that concluded Adam was created in 4004 B.C. Consequently, anti-creationists heavily criticize him, often picturing him as naive, ignorant, anti-science, and someone whose research was superficial and based solely on the biblical record. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote that Ussher “is known to us today almost entirely in ridicule—as the man who fixed the time of creation at 4004 B.C.”

In reality, Ussher was a first-class scholar very involved in scholarly research. He regularly interacted with “the most learned men of the day” to intellectually savor their ideas. He was also “a real connoisseur of books,” and there was scarcely a book in any British library that he was unfamiliar with.

History and Scholarship

In the West, our knowledge of the ancient world has historically been determined largely “by a straightforward reading of the Old Testament” plus a study of history. This practice conflicted with many “Eastern religions [that] allowed for a far older universe than was common in Judaism. And the Greeks, Aristotle for example, thought that the world was eternal. Early Christian theologians like Augustine dismissed pagan estimates that ran into the hundreds of thousands of years as myths.”

According to the Jewish calendar, the creation event occurred in 3761 B.C. The Greek translation of the Old Testament, known today as the Septuagint, put the date at 5500 B.C."

Sounds like many Creation Scientists that I know today, actually.:)

smacl

J C wrote: »

Sounds like many Creation Scientists that I know today, actually.:)

Indeed, a theologian and academic, but not actually a scientist

robindch

J C wrote: »

Quote:-

Text plagiarized from the ICR page on James Ussher:

http://www.icr.org/article/james-ussher-his-chronology-reasonable/

But would the good Dr Ussher still be a creationist if he were to discover what humanity has learned over the four hundred years?

One could only imagine not and that he would be disgusted by the use to which his now-obviously misdirected output is now put.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Quote:-
"Archbishop James Ussher (1581–1656) was one of the most important biblical scholars of the 17th century. His research and scholarly work have even earned high praise from some who are opposed to his conclusions. Called “the greatest luminary of the church of Ireland” and “one of the greatest scholars of his day in the Christian Church,” his work has influenced generations of Christian thinkers with a force still felt today.

Robindch
Text plagiarized from the ICR page on James Ussher:

http://www.icr.org/article/james-ussher-his-chronology-reasonable/

Text clearly quoted from the above article.

wrote:

Robindch
But would the good Dr Ussher still be a creationist if he were to discover what humanity has learned over the four hundred years?

Who knows what he would think ... but there is a fair chance that he would have 'stuck to his guns' on the age of the earth with all of the weaknesses that have been discovered with the Evolutionist and 'long ages' position ... as Creation Scientists have looked closely at their claims since the 1970's, in particular.

wrote:

Robindch
One could only imagine not and that he would be disgusted by the use to which his now-obviously misdirected output is now put.

Wishful thinking on your part Robin methinks.
You can imagine many things ... but his output isn't misdirected at all IMO.
Like I have said, the Jewish people still believe that Adam and Eve were Created in 3761 BC ... and they date their calendar from this date.
http://www.chabad.org/holidays/JewishNewYear/template_cdo/aid/4762/jewish/What-Is-Rosh-Hashanah.htm

Archbishop Ussher dated it to 4004 BC using the Vulgate ... and depending on the average generation length between Abraham and Jesus Christ, Creation could be dated as early as 5,000 BC.
Either way, it's not the billions of years ... that the materialists have invented in the last few hundred years, to try and make their unbelieviable ideas about the origins of the universe and life itself, somewhat more believable!!!:)

J C

smacl wrote: »

Indeed, a theologian and academic, but not actually a scientist

Yes he was a high churchman all right ... but he was also the equivalent of a scientist and knew all there was to be know about the sciences of his time. He was widely read and would have interacted with the most learned men of the age, during his illustrious academic career. He was a first-rate scholar and was awarded his primary degree at the age of seventeen.
He was awarded both a BA and MA from Trinity College ... degrees that continue to be awarded by this eminent institution to graduates in both arts and science !!!:)

... anyway, next time you pass Trinity College Dublin and the new James Ussher Library therein, spare a thought for their eminent scholar and the fact that his timeline for the Creation of the World is still shared by equally eminent Creation Scientists to this very day.:)

J C

Samaris wrote: »

I did the whole count when I was eleven or twelve and came to the conclusion that there's too many bits missing, at least in the English-language translations. Used several bibles, but there were still too many people that kicked the bucket without ages being given or with gaps that could have been any length of time, given the people in the Old Testament keep getting referred to as living unlikely lengths of time.

Whole thing just doesn't work, not if you're working off English translations anyway.

Archbishop Ussher's is the 'rolls royce' version ... he went to great lengths to corroborate the ages by examining several sources outside the Bible as well as within it.

A quick approximation of the age of the Earth can be made from the Bible itself as follows:-
Gen 5 gives both the genealogy and timeline from Creation/Adam, to the birth of Noah's son Shem ... a total of 1556 years.
Gen 11:10-26 gives both the genealogy and timeline from Noah's son Shem, to the birth of Abram ... a total of 390 years ... or a grand total 1946 (1556 + 390) years from Creation/Adam to the birth of Abram.

Lk 3:23-38 lists the genealogy of Jesus Christ back to Adam, a total of 75 generations.
If we look just at that part of the genealogy from Jesus back to Abram we find 54 generations ... and if the average generation length was 40 years this would give a total timespan of 2,160 (54 X 40) years between Abram and Jesus Christ ... thereby putting the Creation of Adam at 4,106 BC (1946 before Abram's birth + 2160 after Abram's birth) ... this estimate is within roughly 100 years of that calculated by Archbishop James Ussher (4004 BC).

Interestingly, if the average generation length between Abram and Jesus Christ was 33.6 years, the timeline for the Creation would agree with the current Jewish calendar, which equates to a Creation date of 3761 BC ... and if the average generation length was 55, this would put it in the 'ballpark' of 5,000 years BC.

Professor Moriarty

J C wrote: »

Archbishop Ussher's is the 'rolls royce' version.

A quick approximation of the age of the Earth can be made from the Bible as follows:-
Gen 5 gives both the genealogy and timeline from Creation/Adam, to the birth of Noah's son Shem ... a total of 1556 years.
Gen 11:10-27 gives both the genealogy and timeline from Noah's son Shem, to the birth of Abram ... a total of 390 years ... or a grand total 1946 years from Creation.

Lk 3:23-38 lists the genealogy of Jesus Christ back to Adam. If we look at the genealogy back to Abram we find 54 generations ... and if the average generation length was 40 years this would give a total timespan of 2,160 years between Abram and Jesus Christ ... thereby putting the Creation of Adam at 4,106 BC (1946 + 2160) ... thereby putting this estimate within roughly 100 years of that calculated by Archbishop James Ussher (4004 BC).

Interestingly, if the average generation length between Abram and Jesus Christ was 33.6 years, the timeline for the Creation would agree with the Jewish calendar, which equates to a Creation date of 3761 BC.

How old do you think the Earth is, JC?

J C

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

How old do you think the Earth is, JC?

I used to think it was billions of years old, in accordance with the Zeitgeist of the ideas circulating in my youth ... but then I began seeing evidence that this might not be the case.
Here is some of the evidence pointing to a young earth:-
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-10-best-evidences-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/

Professor Moriarty

J C wrote: »

I used to think it was billions of years old, in accordance with the Zeitgeist of the ideas circulating in my youth ... but then I began seeing evidence that this might not be the case.
Here is some of the evidence pointing to a young earth:-
https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-10-best-evidences-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/

OK. But how old do you think it is?

J C

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

OK. But how old do you think it is?

I think that I will visit the new James Ussher Library in Trinity College ... to read up on it ... and get the definitive answer!!!:);)

... watch this space.:D

Professor Moriarty

J C wrote: »

I think that I will visit the new James Ussher Library in Trinity College ... to read up on it ... and get the definitive answer!!!:);)

... watch this space.:D

Fair enough but a bit odd that you don't have an opinion.

oldrnwisr

J C wrote: »

Lk 3:23-38 lists the genealogy of Jesus Christ back to Adam, a total of 75 generations.

Except that Luke's genealogy is wrong.

For the sake of clarity and as a visual guide, I have outlined the genealogies for Jesus (only from David onwards, there's no time or need for all of it) in Matthew and Luke.

Matthew | Luke

David | David
Solomon | Nathan
Rehoboam | Mattatha
Abijah | Menna
Asa | Melea
Jehoshaphat | Eliakim
Jehoram | Jonam
- | Joseph
- | Judah
- | Simeon
Uzziah | Levi
Jotham | Matthat
Ahaz | Jorim
Hezekiah | Eliezer
Manasseh | Joshua
Amon | Er
Josiah | Elmadam
- | Cosam
Jeconiah | Addi
x | Melki
x | Neri
Shealtiel | Shealtiel
Zerubbabel | Zerubbabel
Abiud | Resa
Eliakim | Joanan
Azor | Joda
Zadok | Josek
Akim | Semein
Eliud | Matthathias
Eleazar | Maath
Matthan | Naggai
Jacob | Esli
x | Nahum
x | Amos
x | Matthathias
x | Joseph
x | Jannai
x | Melki
x | Levi
x | Matthat
x | Heli
Joseph | Joseph
Jesus | Jesus


So, from this list we can already see some problems.

Firstly, Matthew's list is conspicuously shorter than Luke's (41 vs 57). This in itself creates problems. Matthew's list is clearly borrowed from the one in 1 Chronicles 3:5-19. However, Matthew omits names included in the earlier list (indicated by a dash above). Matthew also claims his list (the whole one, from Abraham to Jesus) contains 42 generations, 14 from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the Babylonian captivity and 14 from this to Jesus. However, his list only has 41 names. Even if we add back the missing names from Chronicles, his list is still shorter than Luke (indicated by x above). So already we have an unresolved contradiction.

Secondly, there are only 5 matches in the entire list (highlighted in italics). It's one thing for Matthew to have forgotten about or deliberately omitted a name, but the names themselves don't match. Another unresolved contradiction.

Also, Luke's list is objectively wrong. While Matthew's list has Jesus descending from David's son Solomon, Luke states that Jesus is descended from David's son Nathan. However, the OT disagrees with Luke's version of events. In 2 Samuel, God speaks about the future of David's lineage:

"When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, but My loving kindness shall not depart from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom shall endure before Me forever; your throne shall be established forever.”’”
2 Samuel 7:12-16

Here God speaks about David's kingdom lasting forever through one of his sons. Although the son is not explicitly named in the verse we do get some clues, particularly the reference to building a house for God (highlighted in bold above). However, God later clarifies exactly who he meant:

"Behold, a son will be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son and I will be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.’"
1 Chronicles 22:9-10

So here, we see Solomon named as David's heir and using the same language as that of 2 Samuel. So David's lineage, a necessary requirement to be considered Messiah proceeds through Solomon not Nathan, which means Luke is wrong.

Now, you've pinned your colours to Luke's mast as a reliable guide for dating the Earth, but in case you want to flip-flop and switch to Matthew's team we can go through the reasons his list is wrong too if you'd like.

robindch

oldrnwisr wrote: »

For the sake of clarity and as a visual guide, I have outlined the genealogies for Jesus (only from David onwards, there's no time or need for all of it) in Matthew and Luke.

It's always been clear enough to me why these sections of the bible were never read out in church, nor indeed were any of the other innumerable problems with the bible brought out from under their carefully-positioned shade.

Joseph Dunn's excellent 'No Lions in the Hierarchy' was instrumental - perhaps twenty-five or so years ago - in suggesting that christian thinking, as whisked out in front of credulous or uninformed believers, was a little different from christian thinking, as Christ, the Vatican or Luther might have thought.

https://www.amazon.com/No-Lions-Hierarchy-Anthology-Classics/dp/1856077829

Recommended reading, though I see that Joe Dunn is long - and sadly - gone himself.

Pherekydes

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Now, you've pinned your colours to Luke's mast as a reliable guide for dating the Earth, but in case you want to flip-flop and switch to Matthew's team we can go through the reasons his list is wrong too if you'd like.

Do you think flip-flopping between different gospel writers will make, oh, about 4 billion years difference? :pac:

robindch

J C wrote: »

Text clearly quoted from the above article.

Quoted, but not attributed as you've been reminded before innumerable times, and at least once this year. Dishonesty might be part and parcel of the creationist worldview, but if it happens here in A+A, it will be called out and shown for what it is.

J C wrote: »

Who knows what he would think ... but there is a fair chance that he would have 'stuck to his guns' on the age of the earth with all of the weaknesses that have been discovered with the Evolutionist and 'long ages' position ... as Creation Scientists have looked closely at their claims since the 1970's, in particular.

By all accounts, Ussher was an intelligent and resourceful man, but nonetheless, a man of his time in which the church's orthodoxy reigned supreme and against which one could only tread with bravery.

Given the evident idiocy of the proposition, I can't help but wonder if the intelligent Ussher - noting that his neighbour and approximate contemporary Peter Lombard, Archbishop of Armagh (one of the first inquisitors of Galileo) - was concerned then, as any smart person would be now, that the church elevated rote learning, gullibility and temerity above the abundant evidence of the natural world, and wrote - as did Jonathan Swift some 80 years later - a veiled, ironic jeremiad against the church and all its abundant foolishness.

J C wrote: »

Perhaps the most important lesson from this sorry affair, is that Churches should be very careful about endorsing controversial scientific orthodoxy as an article of faith!!!

Given their lamentable and violent history, churches would be best advised to restrain themselves to wander, aimlessly, in the realms of metaphor and allegory and leave the real world to those of us best capable of dealing with reality.

robindch

Pherekydes wrote: »

Do you think flip-flopping between different gospel writers will make, oh, about 4 billion years difference?

Depends on how long the generations were in the Epic of Gilgamesh, from which - as with JC and his unattributed quotes - the majority of the book of genesis was quietly pilfered:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh#Relationship_to_the_Bible

BTW, the Epic is a surprisingly enjoyable read with its splendidly sonorous names and resonant, but deeper, storyline.

J C

The genealogies in Matthew and Luke are clearly two separate genelogies back to a common ancestor of David.
Matthew's genealogy is that of Joseph, the legal father of Jesus Christ, but not His actual father (who is God). It traces Joseph's antecedants back to David and establishes Jesus Christ's legal right to the throne as King of the Jewish Nation.
Both genealogies are common between David and Abraham ... and Matthew's genealogy stops at Abraham, whilst Luke's continues right back to Adam ... parallelling the genealogies from Adam to Abram (in Gen 5 and Gen 11:10-27) as it goes.

Luke's genealgy is that of Mary's male antecedants and it goes right back to Adam to establish Jesus Christ's human and genetic linkage back to Adam (via Mary) and his Human and genetic right to be called the second Adam.

Heli is listed as the father of Joseph, but he was the actual father of Mary and her sister, the wife of Zebedee. (Matthew 27:56; John 19:25). When there were no sons to preserve the inheritance in accordance with the Law of Moses (Numbers 27:1–11; Numbers 36:1–12), the daughters would marry within their tribe and the husband would become the legal son of their father, upon marriage, to keep up the family name. Therefore, Joseph, when he married Mary, became the legal son of Heli according to the Law of Moses and was therefore included in the genealogy.

J C

robindch wrote: »

It's always been clear enough to me why these sections of the bible were never read out in church, nor indeed were any of the other innumerable problems with the bible brought out from under their carefully-positioned shade.

Joseph Dunn's excellent 'No Lions in the Hierarchy' was instrumental - perhaps twenty-five or so years ago - in suggesting that christian thinking, as whisked out in front of credulous or uninformed believers, was a little different from christian thinking, as Christ, the Vatican or Luther might have thought.

https://www.amazon.com/No-Lions-Hierarchy-Anthology-Classics/dp/1856077829

Recommended reading, though I see that Joe Dunn is long - and sadly - gone himself.

No so fast Robin ... there are no issues with the genealogies ... see my previous post.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Quoted, but not attributed as you've been reminded before innumerable times, and at least once this year. Dishonesty might be part and parcel of the creationist worldview, but if it happens here in A+A, it will be called out and shown for what it is.

... so you prefer to engage in (unfounded) personal criticism and bile against me (on the nit-picking grounds that, while I clearly indicated that I was using a quote ... I didn't attribute the quote).
I note that you didn't address the substance of my argument ... but attacked me personally instead, by calling me 'dishonest' ... when there was no dishonesty in what I did !!!
In this day and age ... once a quote is indicated on an internet site ... the attribution is easily obtained (if anybody wants it) and is only a click away on google ... something you obviously did yourself, when you looked at my quote!!!
This is a gross exaggeration by you of an insignificant oversight on my part.

robindch wrote: »

Given their lamentable and violent history, churches would be best advised to restrain themselves to wander, aimlessly, in the realms of metaphor and allegory and leave the real world to those of us best capable of dealing with reality.

Your (outrageous) anti-christian comments are carefully noted.
... and the business of Creation Science, and indeed Christianity itself, is dealing with the reality that God created us and Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life.

robindch

J C wrote: »

The genealogies in Matthew and Luke are clearly two separate genelogies back to a common ancestor of David.

They're different because at least one, and probably both, were fabricated.

J C wrote: »

Luke's genealgy is that of Mary's male antecedants and it goes right back to Adam to establish Jesus Christ's human and genetic linkage back to Adam (via Mary) and his Human and genetic right to be called the second Adam.

The one-was-Joseph's and one-was-Mary's notion was debunked long ago. As with many christians today, the jews did not consider then women to be of much importance in the matter of child-bearing or parenthood and did not spend much time or interest in recording their lineage.

And quite apart from the massive differences all the way back to David which is ably pointed out by oldrnwisr above, the line dissipates again from Amminadab and then from Abraham backwards, with Luke deriving Mary from Adam, and thence God - much in the then-contemporary fashion for which notable Greek families were descended from Hercules, Zeus, Apollo or any of the other gods. As did the Egyptians and no doubt, the Zoroastrians too.

JC - the year isn't 1123 but 2017.