Changes

[[Image:Landscape.jpg|right|300px]]

[[Image:Landscape.jpg|right|300px]]

=== Widespread Historical Acceptance of Biblical Account ===

=== Widespread Historical Acceptance of Biblical Account ===

For most of recorded history humans of many backgrounds, such as St. Barnabas and St. Irenæus,<ref>Burnet, p. 259.</ref> viewed the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years.<ref>Burnet, p. 258.</ref>

For most of recorded history humans of many backgrounds, such as St. Barnabas and St. Irenæus,<ref>Burnet, p. 259.</ref> viewed the age of the Earth to be around 6,000 years.<ref>Burnet, p. 258.</ref>

|title=Proglas

|title=Proglas

|publisher=sme.sk

|publisher=sme.sk

|url=http://zlatyfond.sme.sk/dielo/93/Filozof_Proglas4.54 billion years

|url=http://zlatyfond.sme.sk/dielo/93/Filozof_Proglas

|language=Slovak

|language=Slovak

|access date=05.05.2012

|access date=05.05.2012

For example, in his 1619 book the ''Harmonices Mundi'' (The Harmony of the World), [[Johannes Kepler]], [[mathematician]] and [[astronomer]], wrote that he does not care if his book will need to wait a century for a reader, as [[God]] has waited '''six thousand years''' for him as an [[Scientific observation|observer]].<ref>{{cite book |title=The Harmony of the World |author=Johannes Kepler |publisher=American Philosophical Society |year=1997 |pages=IX, XXXVII, 391, 410 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=rEkLAAAAIAAJ&q=six+thousand#v=snippet&q=six%20thousand&f=false|quote=O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee! ... The book is written, to be read either now or by posterity, I care not which. It may be well to wait a century for a reader, as God has waited six thousand years for an observer.}}</ref> Kepler calculated a Creation date of 3992 BC, and [[Isaac Newton]] also strongly defended biblical chronology.<ref>{{cite book |title=The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution |author=Jonathan Sarfati |publisher=Creation Books Publishers |year=2010 |place=Atlanta, Georgia, USA |pages=311 |isbn=978-1921-643064 |url=http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php |quote=Kepler calculated a Creation date of 3992 BC, and Isaac Newton (1643-1727), probably the greatest scientist of all time, also strongly defended biblical chronology.}}</ref><br>  

For example, in his 1619 book the ''Harmonices Mundi'' (The Harmony of the World), [[Johannes Kepler]], [[mathematician]] and [[astronomer]], wrote that he does not care if his book will need to wait a century for a reader, as [[God]] has waited '''six thousand years''' for him as an [[Scientific observation|observer]].<ref>{{cite book |title=The Harmony of the World |author=Johannes Kepler |publisher=American Philosophical Society |year=1997 |pages=IX, XXXVII, 391, 410 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=rEkLAAAAIAAJ&q=six+thousand#v=snippet&q=six%20thousand&f=false|quote=O, Almighty God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee! ... The book is written, to be read either now or by posterity, I care not which. It may be well to wait a century for a reader, as God has waited six thousand years for an observer.}}</ref> Kepler calculated a Creation date of 3992 BC, and [[Isaac Newton]] also strongly defended biblical chronology.<ref>{{cite book |title=The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution |author=Jonathan Sarfati |publisher=Creation Books Publishers |year=2010 |place=Atlanta, Georgia, USA |pages=311 |isbn=978-1921-643064 |url=http://creation.com/the-greatest-hoax-on-earth/main.php |quote=Kepler calculated a Creation date of 3992 BC, and Isaac Newton (1643-1727), probably the greatest scientist of all time, also strongly defended biblical chronology.}}</ref><br>  

In 1771, the first edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, the oldest English-language general encyclopedia that was first published as a 3-volume set in Scotland, included a table of world events under the heading ‘Astronomy’ on page 493. These events begin with the [[creation]] of the world in the year 0, which they dated at 4007 years before Christ.<ref name="YECBritannica"/><ref>{{cite web |title= Encyclopaedia Britannica: supporting a young earth! |publisher= creation.com |url=http://creation.com/media-center?fileID=Rj4PFM_od9U |quote= The notion that the world in billions of years old has only been popular for about 200 years. Before that time most scientists understood that Noah's Flood was responsible for laying down the rocks which today are associated with millions of years. Richard Fangrad and Calvin Smith discuss the details. |accessdate=November 8, 2014}}</ref><br>4.54 billion years

In 1771, the first edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica, the oldest English-language general encyclopedia that was first published as a 3-volume set in Scotland, included a table of world events under the heading ‘Astronomy’ on page 493. These events begin with the [[creation]] of the world in the year 0, which they dated at 4007 years before Christ.<ref name="YECBritannica"/><ref>{{cite web |title= Encyclopaedia Britannica: supporting a young earth! |publisher= creation.com |url=http://creation.com/media-center?fileID=Rj4PFM_od9U |quote= The notion that the world in billions of years old has only been popular for about 200 years. Before that time most scientists understood that Noah's Flood was responsible for laying down the rocks which today are associated with millions of years. Richard Fangrad and Calvin Smith discuss the details. |accessdate=November 8, 2014}}</ref><br>

In 1830, Dr. Hales published a list of 120 historical authorities from various cultures who had decided on an official [[date of creation]].  These ranged from 6984 B.C. to 3616 B.C.<ref>Batten 2002 quotes from "Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Holy Bible", 1879 8th Edition, 1939, which relates this, and reproduces the selection of the dates from Young.</ref>

In 1830, Dr. Hales published a list of 120 historical authorities from various cultures who had decided on an official [[date of creation]].  These ranged from 6984 B.C. to 3616 B.C.<ref>Batten 2002 quotes from "Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Holy Bible", 1879 8th Edition, 1939, which relates this, and reproduces the selection of the dates from Young.</ref>

Included in Hales' list is [[James Ussher]], who calculated the '''famous date of 4004 B.C.''' for creation.  Young Earth creationists still consider this date to be close to the actual date.

Included in Hales' list is [[James Ussher]], who calculated the '''famous date of 4004 B.C.''' for creation.  Young Earth creationists still consider this date to be close to the actual date.

=== Evolutionists vs. Kelvin ===4.54 billion years

=== Evolutionists vs. Kelvin ===

George-Louis Lecrerc, Count of [[Buffon]], rejected [[Christianity]], adopted [[Evolutionism|evolutionary thought]], and thus searched for [[materialistic]] explanations for the [[origin science|origin]] of earth.<ref name="Larson">{{cite book

George-Louis Lecrerc, Count of [[Buffon]], rejected [[Christianity]], adopted [[Evolutionism|evolutionary thought]], and thus searched for [[materialistic]] explanations for the [[origin science|origin]] of earth.<ref name="Larson">{{cite book

|author=E.J. Larson

|author=E.J. Larson

In the early nineteenth-century, the so called [[uniformitarian]]s conspired to overthrow the [[Biblical chronology]] that would measure geologic time in generations of man.<ref name="Richter">{{cite journal |title=Geological Notes: Kelvin and the Age of Earth |author=F.M. Richter |publisher=Journal of Geology |year=1986 |volume=94 |pages=395-401 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/30068713}}</ref> The dictum as a fundamental maxim for their geological speculation was expressed through [[James Hutton]]’s 1785 aphorism<ref name="ingv"/>: ''“The revolt, therefore, of this physical inquiry is, that we find [[Singularity#Antipathy_to_the_idea_of_beginning|no vestige of a beginning]], no prospect of an end.“''<ref>{{cite web |title=On Geological Dynamics |author=W. Thomson (Lord Kelvin) |publisher= Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow |year=1869 |url=http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_geological_dynamics.html |aaccessdate=May 17, 2015}}</ref>

In the early nineteenth-century, the so called [[uniformitarian]]s conspired to overthrow the [[Biblical chronology]] that would measure geologic time in generations of man.<ref name="Richter">{{cite journal |title=Geological Notes: Kelvin and the Age of Earth |author=F.M. Richter |publisher=Journal of Geology |year=1986 |volume=94 |pages=395-401 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/30068713}}</ref> The dictum as a fundamental maxim for their geological speculation was expressed through [[James Hutton]]’s 1785 aphorism<ref name="ingv"/>: ''“The revolt, therefore, of this physical inquiry is, that we find [[Singularity#Antipathy_to_the_idea_of_beginning|no vestige of a beginning]], no prospect of an end.“''<ref>{{cite web |title=On Geological Dynamics |author=W. Thomson (Lord Kelvin) |publisher= Transactions of the Geological Society of Glasgow |year=1869 |url=http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/papers/on_geological_dynamics.html |aaccessdate=May 17, 2015}}</ref>

In 1830 [[Charles Lyell]] supported Hutton's idea in ''Principles of Geology'' <ref name="ingv" />, a book that later influenced [[Darwin]]. Lyell started his book with a self-serving history of geology that [[Academician Burdenko syndrome|uncritically hailed]] any insight anticipating uniformitarianism and [[Kerkut’s student syndrome|utterly dismissed]] the contributions of [[Catastrophism|catastrophists]]. Before Darwin boarded the HMS Beagle, his Cambridge tutor Adam Sedgwick, who had supplied Darwin with a reading list for the voyage, conspicuously omitted controversial Lyell’s ''Principles''.4.54 billion years4.54 billion years Darwin was however given a copy of the book by Robert FitzRoy.<ref name="Larson"/><ref>{{cite web |title=The Voyage of Charles Darwin, Part 1 |publisher=BBC |year=1978 |pages=7-part series Part 1, 46min:15sec  |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hoDaxVIVPE&feature=youtu.be&t=2850 |accessdate=May 17, 2015 |quote=}}</ref> Darwin was fascinated by book, he dedicated his own writings about the voyage to Lyell, and in his letters claimed that ''"I always feel as if my books came half out of Lyell's brains ... the great merit of the Principles, was that it altered the whole tone of one's mind & therefore that when seeing a thing never seen by Lyell, one yet saw it partially through his eyes."''<ref>{{cite web |title=Darwin Correspondence Database: Darwin, C. R. to Horner, Leonard 29 Aug 1844 |author=Ch.Darwin |publisher=Darwin Correspondence Project by Cambridge University Library |url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/entry-771 |accessdate=May 17, 2015}}</ref> It is believed a feeling of guilt at having helped Darwin arrive at his 4.54 billion years heretical theories was a factor that might have contributed to FitzRoy’s tragic decision to suicide on 30th April, 1865.<ref>{{cite web |title= FitzRoy's Bicentenary|publisher= The Friends of Charles Darwin |url=http://friendsofdarwin.com/articles/fitzroy/ |quote= The ridicule over the weather forecasts was probably the last straw that drove FitzRoy to suicide on 30th April, 1865. But there were numerous other factors that might have contributed to his tragic decision: his failed New Zealand governorship; a feeling of guilt at having helped Darwin arrive at his heretical theories; his belief that suicide was a family trait; who knows what else might have helped push him over the edge? |accessdate=May 17, 2015}}</ref>

In 1830 [[Charles Lyell]] supported Hutton's idea in ''Principles of Geology'' <ref name="ingv" />, a book that later influenced [[Darwin]]. Lyell started his book with a self-serving history of geology that [[Academician Burdenko syndrome|uncritically hailed]] any insight anticipating uniformitarianism and [[Kerkut’s student syndrome|utterly dismissed]] the contributions of [[Catastrophism|catastrophists]]. Before Darwin boarded the HMS Beagle, his Cambridge tutor Adam Sedgwick, who had supplied Darwin with a reading list for the voyage, conspicuously omitted controversial Lyell’s ''Principles''. Darwin was however given a copy of the book by Robert FitzRoy.<ref name="Larson"/><ref>{{cite web |title=The Voyage of Charles Darwin, Part 1 |publisher=BBC |year=1978 |pages=7-part series Part 1, 46min:15sec  |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hoDaxVIVPE&feature=youtu.be&t=2850 |accessdate=May 17, 2015 |quote=}}</ref> Darwin was fascinated by book, he dedicated his own writings about the voyage to Lyell, and in his letters claimed that ''"I always feel as if my books came half out of Lyell's brains ... the great merit of the Principles, was that it altered the whole tone of one's mind & therefore that when seeing a thing never seen by Lyell, one yet saw it partially through his eyes."''<ref>{{cite web |title=Darwin Correspondence Database: Darwin, C. R. to Horner, Leonard 29 Aug 1844 |author=Ch.Darwin |publisher=Darwin Correspondence Project by Cambridge University Library |url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/entry-771 |accessdate=May 17, 2015}}</ref> It is believed a feeling of guilt at having helped Darwin arrive at his heretical theories was a factor that might have contributed to FitzRoy’s tragic decision to suicide on 30th April, 1865.<ref>{{cite web |title= FitzRoy's Bicentenary|publisher= The Friends of Charles Darwin |url=http://friendsofdarwin.com/articles/fitzroy/ |quote= The ridicule over the weather forecasts was probably the last straw that drove FitzRoy to suicide on 30th April, 1865. But there were numerous other factors that might have contributed to his tragic decision: his failed New Zealand governorship; a feeling of guilt at having helped Darwin arrive at his heretical theories; his belief that suicide was a family trait; who knows what else might have helped push him over the edge? |accessdate=May 17, 2015}}</ref>

In 1854 [[Hermann von Helmholtz]] estimated an age of between 20 and 40 million years.<ref name="ingv" />

In 1854 [[Hermann von Helmholtz]] estimated an age of between 20 and 40 million years.<ref name="ingv" />

*''The circumstances ... make it extremely unlikely that terrestrial contamination could explain the results for this meteorites.''  

*''The circumstances ... make it extremely unlikely that terrestrial contamination could explain the results for this meteorites.''  

*''... a considerable excess of radiogenic lead in most fractions ...is difficult to attribute to contamination,“''  

*''... a considerable excess of radiogenic lead in most fractions ...is difficult to attribute to contamination,“''  

rather than starting to reckon with possibility to challenge the established figures and methods, after recalling that ''“Patterson was the first to show that several stony meteorites yield a ... model of 4.5AE,”'' 4.54 billion yearshe proposed the new explanation for discovered discrepancy: ''"discordant results can be attributed to contamination."'' Consequently, his research of the Earth’s age turned into calculation of ''"the correct sample ratios"'' from ''"observed ratios"'' so that the Table in his paper could finally show the “correct” preconceived age, established in this field of research.<ref name=GALE>{{cite web |title=U-Pb studies of the appley bridge meteorite |author=Gale, N.H., Arden, J. and Hutchison, R. |publisher=Nature Phys. Science |year=1972  |volume=240 57 |url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/r741164v5162r447}}</ref>

rather than starting to reckon with possibility to challenge the established figures and methods, after recalling that ''“Patterson was the first to show that several stony meteorites yield a ... model of 4.5AE,”'' he proposed the new explanation for discovered discrepancy: ''"discordant results can be attributed to contamination."'' Consequently, his research of the Earth’s age turned into calculation of ''"the correct sample ratios"'' from ''"observed ratios"'' so that the Table in his paper could finally show the “correct” preconceived age, established in this field of research.<ref name=GALE>{{cite web |title=U-Pb studies of the appley bridge meteorite |author=Gale, N.H., Arden, J. and Hutchison, R. |publisher=Nature Phys. Science |year=1972  |volume=240 57 |url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/r741164v5162r447}}</ref>

 

Using [[circular logic]] -- assuming that decay rates remained constant despite necessarily changing physical characteristics as time approached the origin -- Old Earth proponents insist that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old based on an assumption of constancy in [[Potassium-argon dating|Potassium-argon (K:Ar) decay rates]] and other radiometric methods.<ref>Peck, 2000, p.376.</ref>

Using [[circular logic]] -- assuming that decay rates remained constant despite necessarily changing physical characteristics as time approached the origin -- Old Earth proponents insist that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old based on an assumption of constancy in [[Potassium-argon dating|Potassium-argon (K:Ar) decay rates]] and other radiometric methods.<ref>Peck, 2000, p.376.</ref>

 

In 1978, ''Geotimes'' magazine published by American Geological Institute quoted John Eddy, a famous astronomer, who argued  that due to ''“some new and unexpected results“'' scientists could live with bishop Ussher’s 4004 B.C. value for the age of Earth and Sun, a fortiori since there is not much in the way of [[Scientific observation|observational]] [[Scientific evidence|evidence]] in [[astronomy]] to conflict with his calculations.<ref>{{cite journal |author=John Eddy quoted by R.G. Kazmann |title= It’s About Time: 4.5 Billion Years (report on Symposium at Louisiana State University)|publisher= Geotimes magazine  (from 09/2008 renamed to Earth magazine) of American Geological Institute |year=1978 |issue=23 |pages=18-20|quote=I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for some frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with bishop Ussher’s value for the age of Earth and Sun. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Jon Covey |title= Age of the Universe |publisher= Creation In The Crossfire |date= January 3, 2013 |url=http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/documents/AgeOfUniverse/AgeOfTheUniverse.html |accessdate=December 30, 2014 |quote= Evolutionary astronomers confidently argue the universe is 12-20 billion years old, although there is no certainty about any astronomical observations. John Eddy, a famous astronomer, once said that there isn’t much in the way of observational astronomy that proves the universe is old. He said that with “frantic theoretical readjustment” if new evidence showed that astronomers have been wrong, they could live with Bishop Ussher’s date of 4,004 B.C.}}</ref>

In 1978, ''Geotimes'' magazine published by American Geological Institute quoted John Eddy, a famous astronomer, who argued  that due to ''“some new and unexpected results“'' scientists could live with bishop Ussher’s 4004 B.C. value for the age of Earth and Sun, a fortiori since there is not much in the way of [[Scientific observation|observational]] [[Scientific evidence|evidence]] in [[astronomy]] to conflict with his calculations.<ref>{{cite journal |author=John Eddy quoted by R.G. Kazmann |title= It’s About Time: 4.5 Billion Years (report on Symposium at Louisiana State University)|publisher= Geotimes magazine  (from 09/2008 renamed to Earth magazine) of American Geological Institute |year=1978 |issue=23 |pages=18-20|quote=I suspect that the Sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for some frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with bishop Ussher’s value for the age of Earth and Sun. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |author=Jon Covey |title= Age of the Universe 4.54 billion years |publisher= Creation In The Crossfire |date= January 3, 2013 |url=http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/documents/AgeOfUniverse/AgeOfTheUniverse.html |accessdate=December 30, 2014 |quote= Evolutionary astronomers confidently argue the universe is 12-20 billion years old, although there is no certainty about any astronomical observations. John Eddy, a famous astronomer, once said that there isn’t much in the way of observational astronomy that proves the universe is old. He said that with “frantic theoretical readjustment” if new evidence showed that astronomers have been wrong, they could live with Bishop Ussher’s date of 4,004 B.C.}}</ref>4.54 billion years

== Geology ==

== Geology ==