Talk:Dating Creation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Question about Ussher

An interesting question that someone might address: did Ussher date the beginning of the Creation to the beginning of the Jewish year? i.e. did he determine by counting genealogies what year it took place and by astronomical calculations when the Jewish year began and call that the day that Creation began? If so, we should put that in the article, as it's interesting. If not, we should find out why he picked October 23 and put that in the article. kpearce 00:13 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If that's what he did, he didn't so it very well, since the Jewish year can never begin later than October 5. - Efghij 03:21, Sep 6, 2003 (UTC)
I believe part of the confusion is that he used a Julian calendar, not Gregorian. The date chosen was that of the first Sunday after the fall equinox, if I recall correctly. Mdotley 21:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

I think that the current title of this article, 'Estimates of the date of Creation', is too long. I propose changing the title to 'Dating Creation'. Agree or disagree? — Joe Kress 17:28, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

I finally changed the title. Joe Kress 07:15, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Eastern Orthodox Church calendar

Adam Bishop recently changed Byzantine calendar to Eastern Orthodox Church calendar, yet the linked page has no year information (nor did the original link). My question is: Do current Eastern Orthodox calendars use world years, years from Creation? If so, can you provide a link to an example? — Joe Kress 07:19, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merging this article with Age of the universe

I just rewrote this article to move it away from what I perceived was a Biblical bias and an assumpion that Creation was fact. In my mind this article should be merged with age of the universe, simply because that is what it refers to. One problem might be that the 'age' article currently deals purely with scientific dating, but it should be possible to either merge this article into a subsection of that article, or to at the very least put a link here into a slightly rewritten version of the intro of that article. The age of the universe is, after all, not merely a scientific point, as is evidenced by this article. -- Ec5618 15:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your edits (except for the title), but I disagree strongly with merging the articles—for the same reason that you cite, the different tones of the articles. Furthermore, this article is predominantly about the age of the Earth, not the Universe. You will also run into a serious problem with categories, since this article is in the Creationism category and is part of the Creationism series. I don't think that the editors of the Age of the universe will appreciate being included in Creationism. Nor have you even mentioned the proposed merger on their talk page. — Joe Kress 17:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually, this article does deal mostly with creation of the universe, however, not with just the Earth. I'll agree that merging this article with the age of the universe article was a bit of a stretch, though. I've added a short notice to the top of the article, referring here.
I'm sorry, when did I change the title?-- Ec5618 09:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
When you rewrote the intro, you made a minor change in the bold title from dating Creation to date creation, which no longer matches the title of the page. In order to fix it, the intro must be reworded. — Joe Kress 18:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merging new material

I put in new material that was previously found at the Timeline of the Universe (now merged with timeline of the Big Bang). I think it fits in well here. --Joshuaschroeder 20:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Joshuaschroeder, editing to make a point is unacceptable and goes against Wikipedia policies. The Timeline of the Universe should outline the various timelines if scientific and religous thought . JDR 22:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The material fits in Dating creation. I did not edit to make a point. Joshuaschroeder 22:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed from article: E.W. Faulstich

[edit] Date of Creation according to E.W. Faulstich

The only research tested by the scientific method is E.W. Faulstich's 4001 B.C. chronology. All of the ancient peoples used combinations of the sun, moon, and stars to record time. Calendar conversion programs synchronizing near-east calendar systems allow examination of the biblical texts, for they are written with a lunar-solar system. Other synchronous systems include the 24 week continuous priestly cycle, the Sabbath day, year, and jubilee. (7x7 years) Precise astronomy programs allow observation of the skies of ancient civilizations. The reconstructed history of the Hebrew nation show patterns in time surrounding the number seven, the loss of the Hall of Hewn Stones in 30 CE and the Temple Destruction in 70 CE.

Written from an obvious POV, should be a subset of '.. according to the Old Testament', I can't verify a word of it. -- Ec5618 22:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] E.W. Faulstich deserves hearing

Faulstich may have a POV, but no one comes to the table without one. There is no neutral observer. However, Faulstich understands that the Biblical chronology is tied to astronomy making something testable according to computers. While Ussher had a "shoot-from-the-hip" method of reckoning Biblical chronology, Faulstich employs calandar and astronomy programs to observe events to the day if they are provided. For more information, please see Science and God in Balance

Upphouse 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Archbishop Ussher was a scholar of the highest caliber, and scrupulously honest. He had tens of thousands of footnotes documenting his research. He was so well regarded in his own time that, even though he was a Royalist, Oliver Cromwell had him in the Privy Council (or equivalent) for Ireland. Ussher's gravestone (?) calls him, "Among scholars, most saintly; among saints, most scholarly." He may have been wrong, and he certainly made mistakes, (everyone does), but his research was certainly the equal of any writer today.
That being said, I see no reason Faulstich's calculations should not also be presented, in an NPOV manner. NPOV means that authors' works should be described fairly, not that biased authors are excluded. (What author is not biased?) Mdotley 21:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

Why is "Creation" capitalized throughout this article and in the article title? Is it a proper noun? Peyna 21:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Yes because it refers to a significant even. you'd never see the united states or declaration of independence uncapitalized. For Willy Mays' fans "The Catch". Its significance calls for Capitals.

[edit] BCE v. BC

The dating conventions dictate that unless one has a reason otherwise, an article should follow one of the two completely, based on which was used at the start of the article. I would think that given the senstitivity and multiple religions discussed in this article we should use BCE. However, if we do not, we should use BC everywhere. In any event, it should be standardized. JoshuaZ 15:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. --ScienceApologist 15:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Intra-article consistency is more important than anything. Whatever dating method was first introduced into the article is the usual standard if nothing else applies. This goes along the same lines as varied regional spellings of English words in my opinion. Peyna 20:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] China

I notice that it's possible to obtain a date of sorts for the creation of the universe using the chinese myths - would this be worth a mention?HappyVR 02:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to the birth of Pan Gu from the Cosmic Egg related in Chinese Creation and Chinese Myths About Creation. These sites disagree — was he born 18,000 years before he broke the egg or was he always in the egg? Furthermore, which event would correspond to Creation: his birth or when he cracked the egg. And by how many years did this Creation precede the Three August Ones and Five Emperors, let alone precede the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties? I don't see how any specific year or even a rough approximation can be determined for this Chinese Creation. Only after it is dated would it appropriate for this article on dating Creation. — Joe Kress 04:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Oops, sorry I released later I was thinking that the creation of the first humans could be dated not the age of the earth, sorry.HappyVR 12:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Big Bang thing Removal

The page here is DATING CREATION. What does Big Bang crap do here?

Creation refers to the entire universe being created by a metaphysical designer. Big Bang implies that the entire universe just exploded and it all began like that.

Big Bang here is just crap and senseless. It does not deserve a place here, this page is for CREATION.--Arturo 7 06:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Arturo Subercaseaux

The term "creation" is used in this context to mean universe, and note that many theists accept that the Big Bang occured and some of them attribute it to a deity or deities. So it does make sense to list it here. JoshuaZ 01:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


The term "CREATION" refers to a process on the origin of something, perhaps, according to the First Law of Thermodynamic, matter and energy cannot be created nor deleted. The Big Bang things implies everything starting from NOTHING, so it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, therefore the word creation itself cause it denies a creator. I'll procceed in erasing that senseless thing, that theory has got his place on Big Bang, you can go there and do whatever you want, but just analyze what you're talking about before posting something 'cause this is a serious encyclopedia.--Arturo 7 06:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Arturo Subercaseaux
Please see WP:ENC and WP:NPOV for more on the standards for writing this encyclopedia. We aren't here just to parrot your beliefs. --ScienceApologist 07:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The Big Bang theory has nothing to do with what the Universe came from, just how it emerged. The Big Bang does have nothing to do with the creation of the Universe, however. Therefore I don't think it belongs here. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 18:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of specific opinions on the legitimacy of the Big Bang, the article does imply that "historical cultures" have to initiate the dating. I fail to see how the Big Bang is a historical culture. On this note, I will remove it from the list.UberCryxic 03:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Big Bang thing (unnecessary and totally out-of-place)

Just look at your side. In the Dating Creation page on the right says CREATIONISM. Creationism does NOT accept Big Bang theory as it's senseless and non-scientifical. If you wanna keep it there, just remove the CREATIONISM index on the right, it could be more proper and acceptable for evolutionary theist like the Catholic Church and other non-creationist so-called-religious movements--Arturo 7 10:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Arturo_7

Many modern forms of creationism do accept an integration of empirically derived insights with scripture of the given faith tradition. ... Kenosis 03:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why that creationism thingy is there on the right - seems to be a POV pushing ploy. I'd be quite happy to see it gone. The article is about the age of the universe according to various philosophical, cultural and religious outlooks. Creationist concepts as well as scientific concepts belong. It is an encyclopedia article not a promotion of any religion. Therefore, feel free to remove the creationism template. Vsmith 11:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, I removed it. Happy editing!

--Arturo #7 20:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to point out, the so-called "scientific concepts" are based on philosophical assumptions just as much as the openly religious viewpoints are. It's just that some who hold to the former try to hide their bias, in an attempt to appear "objective". Mdotley 21:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Religions have faith and hold beliefs in the supernatural. Science never states anything is true without any doubt and Science does not deal with that which cannot be verified, through experiment or observation, for example. That isn't bias. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 18:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC
Religions have always made empirical observations and attempted to integrate those observations with the accepted scripture. In the last century or so, the emergence of variations such as Old earth creationism render the "big bang" reference quite relevant to the article, and to the section in which it's mentioned. ... Kenosis 03:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Big Bang is a scientific theory, not a religious conception. Either way, this all misses the point. Fundamentally, the Big Bang differs from the other entries in the list. It is not, again, a historical culture; it is a scientific theory. I would have no problem, for example, if a separate list was created saying, "scientific theories for creation," or something to that effect.UberCryxic 03:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is titled "Dating creation" ... Kenosis 03:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The principle of "don't judge a book by its cover" applies well here. Superficially, the title would lend credence for the inclusion of the Big Bang, but once the mechanics are analyzed, the Big Bang becomes the odd man out. By mechanics I am talking about the article's references to "historical cultures." As of right now, that's really the flaw. The Big Bang can stay in there if the article changes this initiating language to something like "historical cultures and scientific theories".....just anything that truly encapsulates the search for dating creation, which is by no means an exclusively religious or cultural adventure.UberCryxic 04:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If I may ask, what is the objection to providing the recently developed historical estimate of the date of creation? ...Kenosis 04:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I didn't say this originally, but the term "creation" is a bit muddled in several meanings. I don't consider that terribly important anyway. The only objection really is that the Big Bang is not a historical culture, and the list in which it currently sits is populated by other such cultures. It can stay if the language is modified to merit its inclusion (see above for what that would be).UberCryxic 12:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand better now. My sense is that there are many folks who do not know about the 11-20 billion year range that it's been narrowed down to using several methods proven to work dependably in assessing other aspects of the universe, most of the estimates clustering in the 13-15 billion year range, and the MAPI estimate derived from Penrose and Hawking's work applied to the data from Hubble and other observations of "deep space" red shift, 13.7 +/-0.2 billion years presently taken as the most credible figure. It's a different method than counting up all the known generations of ancestors (Abrahamic traditions), or multiplying aeons the length of the time it would take for one to wear away a mountain of granite by polishing it with a silk scarf (Buddhist), or counting up kalpas, yugas, years of Brahma (Hindu), etc. Given the wide range involved, including the estimate of "since infinity", the modern cosmological estimates would seem to deserve mention on the list.

Thus, an adaptation of the language would appear to make good sense in order to defray questions about whether the most recent cosmological estimates can reasonably remain on this list of interfaith presentations, a move I support. ... Kenosis 14:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The methods undertaken really differentiate the Big Bang from those other datings. Anyway, I have added the "scientific theories" part.UberCryxic 17:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it just occurred to me that one major difference between counting up known generations of ancestors, and calculating based upon currently observable physical attributes of the universe, is that the latter isn't put into scripture along with moral prescriptions, proscriptions or expectations for humankind that are dependent on the readers' perception of the insights having been mystically received by the writers. ... Kenosis 19:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be one difference, yes.UberCryxic 19:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Something else....I saw the article Age of the Earth and at the top it says: "This article details scientific methods. For religious and other viewpoints, see Dating Creation and Origin belief." That article seems to treat this article as one containing "religious" viewpoints. There is a disconnect there, but what should we do about it? Change the language in the Age of the Earth article? If so, to what?UberCryxic 20:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting little dilemma in how best to apply WP:NPOV to the situation. I like the way Origin belief integrates the scientific speculations with religious beliefs, discussing both in separate sections each with a fairly significant amount of specific content. Nonetheless the reference given in Dating creation to the big bang date (which arguably should quote a range rather than, or in addition to, the MAPI number of 13.7 billion) gives a useful reference in this article. Given, among other things, that some have accused science of being itself a religion of sorts (albeit one devoid of ethical prescriptions relating to the extension of life beyond one's current life), and given that a quick reference is not exactly an interference with this article's primary focus, I would still advocate letting the brief reference remain, with the explicit caveat that no section or significant amount of material in this article be devoted to the big bang theory, but rather merely linked to the relevant article on the big bang.

Reason is, if one tries to limit this article to traditional religious views only, out goes the "new age" speculations because they're not quite historical either (or at least are very recent history, as with the big bang). To some extent the Maya date arguably is not exactly religious either, but primarily cultural. It is a bit of a stumbler, and appears to require some further attention to adapting the language without detracting from the primarily religious focus of this article, which after all is it's main contribution and what's most interesting about the article. It's also interesting that the big bang falls somewhere in between the cited religious dates. I'd like to try playing around with the language a bit more and see if it helps bring some better consistency to all of this, such that it might sit better with editors such as those who've noted this issue before, and now. ... Kenosis 21:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to document majority viewpoints more heavily than others, and on that count it does not matter that a few isolated groups charge this and that against science. The criticisms must be notable on top of being numerous; the ravings of Uncle Joe on a summer evening are probably not relevant. Either way, I don't actually want the Big Bang removed now that we've sorted out the phrasing here. My only real concern was about how to rephrase the disclaimer at the top of the Age of the Earth article so it acknowledges that this article includes scientific viewpoints as well.UberCryxic 23:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

This article has no sources. The article could easily be violating the no original research policy, so could someone try to cite sources for all the claims in here? Thanks! ^_^ -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 18:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Two sources are listed under references, from which significant portions of the Pentateuch/Torah section are derived. I completely disagree that this article could possibly violate Wikipedia's no original reasearch policy. That policy does not address anything within this article, which is mostly a list of facts. I have encountered all of the dates (and the attached explanations) during my research on calendars (except for the traditional Catholic date). If a list of sources were included to satisfy Wikipedia's Verifiability policy (the only policy that the article could possibly violate), the list would be almost as long as the article itself. What claims do you doubt? Do you question the dates or the explanations? — Joe Kress 07:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
No, there's just a lot of unsourced claims, that's all. I never said I doubted anything that was written. -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 19:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BC vs BCE again

This article started off using BC, and maintained that usage for a long time, up to about the end of 2005. Given the clear Wikipedia policy on this matter, how come BCE is now used? Arcturus 22:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No comments recieved by 5 November 2006, so I'll revert instances of BCE to the original BC usage. Arcturus 16:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/t/Talk%7EDating_Creation_147f.html"