Where does the "6000 Years" number come from?

[jmowreader]

Your Young Earth Creationist will tell you the earth is six thousand years old and not a day older. Where, please tell, does that number come from?

[Spider Jerusalem]

1. Bishop Ussher

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher

who calculated the date of creation as 4004BC.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. ^^^^this^^^^

And I found his logic decent given what was known at the time.

He was a fascinating person

[Posteritatis]

24. Yeah; he deserves far more respect than his 21st-century fans do. (nt)

[Phillip McCleod]

12. yep.

hard to believe anyone takes it seriously, but there ya go. ..most of these 'date-setters'*

*sir isaac newton called apocalypse-date who tried to predict the apocalypse himself a date-setter.. 2060-ish)

this is exactly why we need more math focus.. not just science & tech, but pure math & logic.. proof-writing.. at earlier grades. it demystifies math quicker than anything, even if it does feel like boot camp.

[bemildred]

14. +1. nt

[longship]

18. Yes. Calculated using the Genesis genealogies...

and the outrageous long lifetime claims therein.

In other words, it's all made up shit, just like the rest of the Bible.

[Posteritatis]

23. While wrong in the end, I always thought Ussher's chronology was a neat piece of work

He was writing in a time where they couldn't firmly nail down a lot of dates for even the not-too-distant past, and a lot of the other ones that were known were in different dating systems, some of which were very high-context ("in the third consulship of So-and-so&quot , etc. So to get the dates he had, he had to assemble most of that into a coherent form, figure out at which point that linked into the more recently-set chunks of the Biblical narrative, and then run back from there until he ran out of information and got his zero point.

Obviously he was starting from a few mistaken assumptions, and most of the denominations in succeeding centuries never really bought into the 4004 date (and fewer still do today), but piecing together large-scale chronologies from disparate sources in anything close to a consistent manner is really damned hard. Even today we'll stumble on those kinds of time scales now and then and that's with vastly greater resources on hand.

Say what you will about the guy's disciples afterwards (especially today, embarrassing as they are), but I've always respected Ussher's work on its own merits.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

2. Bible most likely.

Adam + Eve begat Seth, and Seth had a wife and she beget and so on and so forth.

[shraby]

3. My question is where did Seth find a wife if Adam and Eve were the first two people?

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. The Land of Nod ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Nod

But that got left out of the Bible that we are to take literally ... except when we aren't supposed to take it literally.

[we can do it]

6. Is that where Winken and Blinken are from?

[XemaSab]

8. +1

[alphafemale]

16. Also another wife before Eve. But she not obedient enough. Lillith? not sure on the name

It is so convenient when horseshit myths are malleable.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

20. Lillith.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith

[Elwood P Dowd]

21. I thought Lillith was Frasier Crane's wife?

[lunasun]

19. They have been talking lately of man cross mating with others

PUBLISHED: 07:25 EST, 22 April 2013 | UPDATED: 07:48 EST, 22 April 2013

A leading evolutionary researcher has claimed that sleeping around may have been the secret to the success of modern humans.

Experts have long debated exactly how Homo sapiens became the 'last human species standing' among several human ancestors.

Now it is claimed that interbreeding gave humans the advantage.

A 2011 study came to the same conclusion, and researchers claim that the first modern humans protected themselves against unfamiliar illnesses by interbreeding with Neanderthals.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2312932/Was-sleeping-secret-evolution-Researchers-claim-interbreeeding-key-homo-sapien-human-standing.html#ixzz2RFjSEdwb

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

22. The same place that Adam found his. And Adam's father, and his father and his father.

The bible can not be taken literally. It is a ruse designed to distract from the true nature of the universe.

The Great Old Ones are certainly laughing their asses off about their hand in that.

[defacto7]

27. incest

[ladjf]

7. I could tell you where the "number" comes from but it would be to vulgar to say. nt

[MrMickeysMom]

10. Oh, allow me...

If it was up their ass, they'd know...

[we can do it]

9. The combined IQ of all those who believe this shit?

[arcane1]

11. The funny part is, if you ask most creationists, it's explicitly in the Bible.

But the Bible is like the Constitution: the ones who shout about its divinity the most are those who never read it

[Wounded Bear]

26. Yep, right there in the side notes....

Following the text chronologically.....or chrono-illogically, if you prefer.

[arely staircase]

13. fundies trace the geneology of jesus back to adam

and it gets you to about 6000 BC - coincidentally about the time writing was developed and people began to live in cities (including the ancestors of the Jews in Babylon as slaves.)

they take the creation myth literally.

here is what my church teaches and I believe on the matter:

On Wednesday, June 14, 2006, the Episcopal News Services reported that the bishops had approved Resolution A129 Affirm Creation and Evolution. The Resolution reads as follows:


Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That the 75th General Convention affirm that God is Creator, in accordance with the witness of Scripture and the ancient Creeds of the Church; and be it further,

Resolved, That the theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation for the emergence of life on earth, and that an acceptance of evolution in no way diminishes the centrality of Scripture in telling the stories of the love of God for the Creation and is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian faith; and be it further

Resolved, That Episcopalians strongly encourage state legislatures and state and local boards of education to establish standards for science education based on the best available scientific knowledge as accepted by a consensus of the scientific community; and be it further Resolved, That Episcopal dioceses and congregation seek the assistance of scientists and science educators in understanding what constitutes reliable scientific knowledge.


EXPLANATION

The theory of evolution is broadly accepted by the overwhelming majority in the scientific community as the most adequate explanation for the emergence of life on earth, and the ongoing adaptation of life to changes in environments. For example, knowledge of how evolution functions is essential in understanding the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics, the resistance of insects to insecticides, and the appearance of viruses such as HIV and influenza.

The teaching of evolution is a crucial contribution to the development of scientific literacy among the nation’s youth, yet state legislators and state and local school boards continue to challenge, limit, or seek to supplant the teaching of evolution. Limiting the teaching of evolution in our schools has the potential to compromise students’ ability to understand constantly changing living systems, and may undermine, for instance, the understanding and treatment of diseases of the future.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/episcopal-churc.html

"Evolution most definitely should be taught in school. It's a well-tested premise and the best model that fits the data available. Creationism can't make that claim. I believe in the creeds. They say God created the world, but they don't say how."

http://archive.wfn.org/2006/06/msg00414.html

[Cleita]

15. They added up all the genealogies in the Bible and came up with

that as a ball park figure. I do believe the actual figure is over 6,000 though. Heck it was such a long time ago since I had to study such nonsense it evades me.

[WillyT]

17. Here... This Should Explain Everything...

[The2ndWheel]

25. That's around the time what we call civilization started to develop

Give or take a few years.

Religion is an organized effort. Civilization is an organized effort. They're linked in a lot of ways. They're similar in a lot of ways.