Talk:Dating creation/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

This page is an exercise in Comparative Mythology. It would be highly inappropriate to combine it with one on scientific facts. --Tediouspedant (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

Removed from article: E.W. Faulstich

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)

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)

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.

Not if you're not talking about Abrahamic creation. --King ♣ Talk 14:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

This is an article on Comparative Mythology that compares the views of many faiths. In this context BCE [Before the Common Era] is far more appropriate than BC. --Tediouspedant (talk) 14:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

about the Hebrew AM count

why isn't the exact count specified (5767 right now)? why would anybody prefer a translation over the original text? anyone who reads the original text can calculate the count on their own. all birth dates from Adam till Abraham are specified. Abraham was born 1948 AM. Isaac was born when Abraham was 100 years old. thats 2048 AM. the Egyptian exile starts with his birth and is 400 years long so exodus is 2448 AM. (kings A:6:1): 480 years after the exodus king Solomon built the temple (2928 AM). the temple stood 410 years until 3338 AM. it was rebuilt after the 70 years of Babylonian exile in 3408 AM and stood for 420 years until it was destroyed by the Romans in 3828 AM. minus the 3760 years difference between Christian count and Jewish count = 68 AD. after that I don't know how we kept count, but we did and so we know that it is now 5767 AM. -Shyisc 23:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The above appears to be the account of history since the beginning of time according to the Seder Olam. Is this correct? The largest problem with the Seder Olam is the shrunken time period given to the Persians. It forces the time between the two temple destructions to be 490 years after a tradition stemming from Daniel 9. (70 weeks of years) Without too much detail the widely accepted D-dates are about 650 years apart. Upphouse (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Creation dates

why not specify the "native" dates instead of, or in addition to, the Christian-Gregorian ones? oh, and by the way, pretending that the count of the years since the death of that man isn't Christian is intellectually offensive. using that count, even under disguises and pretenses, is religiously offensive. it's catch 22, and you can't even use a different count since any count you choose would offend some very large group, most probably many large groups. Shyisc 23:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Lower case?

Shouldn't "creation" be lower case? According to |this section of the MoS:

Doctrinal topics or canonical religious ideas that may be traditionally capitalized within a faith are given in lower case in Wikipedia, such as virgin birth, original sin or transubstantiation.

It would seem that creation qualifies as a suitably doctrinal topic. Although there is some precedent (see the cited section of the MoS) for capitalizing transcendent ideas used in a Platonic sense, the word creation is used in this article to refer to an actual event, and so should not be capitalized on this basis. Are there any thoughts to changing the capitalization in the article and moving it to Dating creation? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it a title though? I thought titles use capital letters for the first letters of (most) words. If all the other pages that reference the things you describe have lower case letters I suppose it would be okay but if not why? --60.240.4.155 (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the Mayan date a 'creation' date

Neither Mesoamerican Long Count calendar nor its source for 'long period counts' describe August 11, 3114 BCE as a 'creation' date. So why is it included in this article? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

BCE vs BC

In spite of the two previous threads on BCE vs BC, the usage was still inconsistent throughout. It is now consistent - with "BCE." Although, arguably, either use would be acceptable as long as it is consistent - since this article does not focus solely on Christianity the use of BCE is preferred, in my opinion. I believe that would be the most NPOV.

Yet, I imagine someone might argue to revert to "BC" in the future. I'd simply recommend providing a rationale that contributes to NPOV before doing so, as opposed to: "the article started out like this." Airborne84 (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Isaac ben Samuel of Acre

Isaac then makes some other calculations based on the Talmud and the Biblical sabbatical year, and arrives at the number 15.3405 billion. This estimate is approximately 2 billion years off the scientific estimation, which places the occurrence of the Big Bang at 13.7 ± 0.2 billion years ago.

I changed the text from making a subjective judgment by saying that 15 billion years is 'quite close' to the scientific estimation of 13 billion years.

This article cannot pass judgment on whether or not 15 billion is close to 13 billion. Indeed, a 2 billion year difference is pretty huge for modern day science.

So I have changed the text to say, 'this is approximately 2 billions years off'...

In this manner, no body is, especially christians, can satisfy their need to match bible to science. An encyclopedia is not here to satisfy what people want but to present unsubjective 3rd person knowledge.

So, leave this edit as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.153.120 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 10 June 2010

For the record, this text was removed entirely in this edit. Melchoir (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Creation myths vs creation accounts

Comment: "creation myth" seems to be unobjectionable in this context;

Reply: The article leads off with-

"Cultures throughout history have believed the world formed or was formed at some time in the past, so methods of dating Creation have involved analysing scriptures."

How does "analysing scriptures" align with the idea of "myths"? Myths don't require analysis, but an account (i.e., a narrative or record of events) would (e.g., Bishop Ussher's Biblical analysis). Additionally, the label "creation myths" presumes Biblical creationism to be a myth, which would be quite objectionable to both Jewish and Christian readers (not to mention an obvious policy violation "Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view"). If this is truly an article to prove creation is a myth, then the title of the article should be changed from "Dating Creation" to something reflecting the true nature of the article. 71.100.192.226 (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand the word myth. See Creation myth. Dougweller (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Material from Anno Mundi

I have concerns about:

1. Adding material that triples (10k→30k) the size of this article, without prior discussion. The shear volume of material transferred makes it effectively a WP:SPLIT-and--WP:MERGE.
2. The fact that the size of the material added to this article (20k) is quadruple the size of the material removed from Anno Mundi (5k) -- implying a considerable overlap between the two articles (15k or half this article, presumably).
3. It probably unbalances the article, giving WP:UNDUE weight to the 'Greek tradition'.

I would therefore request that either (i) the material being added be slimmed down cosiderably, or (ii) a more detailed explanation be given as to why all this material belongs here. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I make no apologies for transferring a large slab of material from Anno Mundi and other articles to here. The material in question deals extensively with various efforts to date Creation, and even now it is not exhaustive. I will try to bring in more material. My objection with it being in Anno Mundi is that that article should deal with actual calendar eras which have been actually used or are still being used based on a calculation of creation - namely, the Byzantine and Hebrew eras. All the other material relates to all other academic efforts at dating creation, and are not, in my view, directly relevant to these AM eras. These articles are all linked to each other, however.

I have not trimmed the AM article at this stage, to await a reaction to the effort to incorporate the material intro this article.

Also, I propose to create a separate section for a discussion on the "date" of creation, and not just the year. At the moment this is lost in the discussion on the year.

Ewawer (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Tell me Ewawer, why is the 'Greek tradition' of dating creation twice as important as all other dating traditions put together? Why does this excessive material belong here rather than in Anno Mundi, which is the article specifically on Greek dating traditions? And why didn't you discuss this MASSIVE 'transfer' first, before implementing it? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Another problem with this material is that it puts primary emphasis on the chronologies, whereas the emphasis in this article is the start/creation date. Therefore the information on the chronologies themselves needs to be trimmed down to only what is needed to provide context for the date (could probably be <wikilink-to-article-on-chronology>:date, e.g. "Chronicon Paschale: 21 March 5507 BC"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

We need to have some sort of agreement here. I've removed it again, sorry Hrafn but that removed your last two edits also. I'm also concerned about the imbalance this seems to create, and the fact that we already have an Anno Mundi article which means that the AM bit here should just be a short summary of that material. Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No problemo -- my edits were just tagging the new material & creating a second {{reflist}} that its footnotes required -- neither are needed unless and until the material comes back. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

How would you feel about an introductory paragraph plus a simple table of sources (with link to article on the source) vs creation-dates for the Greek tradition material? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs some pruning, which I did not do until the actual structure was settled. However, the issue should not be one of pruning "to balance" the material. The areas where there is a deficiency should be built up. Also, the pruning and avoiding of duplication should also encompass the AM article, as well as Byzantine calendar and Chronology of the Bible. Other articles also overlap. But, I think most of the material in question here is more relevant to this article then to AM. Ewawer (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Then why bring all this material here to an article that is not on chronologies (just on their starting dates) rather than to one of the other articles that are on chronologies? Discussion of the individual chronologies, beyond the bare minimum to establish context for the start dates (or explain any wide divergence in them), is not relevant to this article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The answer is that you cannot date creation without a chronology. That is the only way of doing it. There is no "just a starting date". But, as I've said before, there material brought is open to pruning for relevance. For most of it, this is the best place for it to appear. Ewawer (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That "you cannot date creation without a chronology" does not make the details of each individual chronology (particularly details that don't have a direct or major impact on the dates) relevant to this article, which is meant to be a summary of the different dates. This means that most of the material brought in will be pruned away, so it makes little sense to bring it all here in the first place. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Traditionalist Catholic claim

The newly-introduced material cites a claim about Traditionalist Catholic to a 1958 work. Given that Traditionalist Catholicism is mostly a reaction to the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s, I find this reference to be somewhat anachronistic. Could somebody provide a quote (and a translation) confirming these claims? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving section out of the lead

This is the article on "dating creation" in general. Since other religions that Christianity/Judaism are discussed in this article, the lead should not be 1 general sentence followed by a big fat paragraph about only Christianity/Judaism. I moved that whole paragraph down into the "Biblical" section. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Jewish tradition paragraph

I'm removing the following paragraph here to talk because, given its ubiquitous use of bald Jewish calender language, it would make little sense to the average English language reader. It needs to be rewritten to be comprehensible to a reader only familiar with the Julian/Gregorian calendars (i.e. use as few Jewish calender terms as possible, and explain those terms that it does). It should also not use AM without prior discussion explaining the term (not simply wikilinking it in its last use of the term).

Scholars subscribing to literal interpretations give two dates for creation according to the Talmud. They state that the first day of creation week was either Elul 25, AM 1 or Adar 25, AM 1, almost twelve or six months, respectively, after the modern epoch of the Hebrew calendar. Most prefer Elul 25 whereas a few prefer Adar 25. When these dates were chosen, both were the first day of the week (Sunday), but in the modern calendar, developed later, they are not. The sixth day of Creation week, when Adam was created, was the first day of the following month, either Tishri or Nisan, the first month of either the civil or biblical year, respectively. In both cases, the epoch of the modern calendar was called the molad tohu or mean new moon of chaos, because it occurred before Creation. This epoch was Tishri 1, AM 1 or October 7, 3761 BCE, the latter being the corresponding tabular date (same daylight period) in the Julian calendar.<ref>Edgar Frank, ''Talmudic and Rabbinical Chronology'' (New York, 1956)</ref>

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Alfonsine tables

• Alfonso X of Castile did not write the Alfonsine tables, he merely sponsored their creation -- so it is inaccurate to discuss "Alfonso X of Castile's estimate of the age of the creation"
• Google Books has a copy of Hales here. The search reveals no hit on Alfonsine or Alfonso, and page 210 makes no mention of it.
• Given the age of Hales (1830) and Young (1879), they can no longer be considered reliable secondary sources, but rather should be treated as WP:PRIMARY sources, and treated with care.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

pp210-211 in Hales lists Alfonso's date of creation. Its clear you have some sort of biased agenda here (perhaps because you are a darwinist) and are deleting perfectly valid info on creationism? Furthermore Hales work has been accepted as trustworthy on the Young Earth Creationism page, so i'm not sure why you ar picking a fuss. I also added a 2003 source and another on Alfonso's date of creation. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hales' book does actually mention "Alphonsus", though not on page 210. Favonian (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

its on page 211 (which is a single page after 210) Hrafn is just mucking around for the sake of an argument. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

1. The citations of "Alphonsus" are on pages 211, 261, 266 & 303.
2. None of these pages mention Alphonsus in connection with the Septuagint or Panvinio, or appear to discuss their popularity.
3. The point remains that this is a highly outdated source.
4. I would suggest that Anglo Pyramidologist cease and desist his muck-flinging and assume good faith.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I would note that Celestial treasury: from the music of the spheres to the conquest of space confirms (on p26) that Alfonso merely commissioned these tables, he is not their author. It likewise makes no mention of the Septuagint in relation to them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Likewise Worship of Augustus Caesar makes no mention of Panvinio or popularity. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Someone call a mod, as Hrafn is clearly just mucking around. First he claimed Alfonso was not in Hales, when in fact he is referenced on page 211, a page just after 210. Secondly the work Worship of Augustus Caesar mentions Panvinio (Panvinus), and in fact even references Hales p.211. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Let's get it straight -- you reference the wrong page, which uses a different spelling of the name, and does not support most of the information you cited to it -- and it is me who you claim is "just mucking around"? How ludicrously WP:POT! Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"Worship of Augustus Caesar By Alexander Delmar ... No results found in this book for Panvinus". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Page 65. As i said stop mucking around and wasting peoples time. Repeatedly you have claimed sources are not on pages, when they are. You also are getting highly emotional here and are leaving comments on my page to provoke a reaction (which i deleted). I suggest you review your own behaviour posting further posting. Anyway i have informed a mod and am not reading any further of your replies, you have already wasted enough of my time. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Except you didn't cite page 65, and that page makes no mention of the Alfonsine tables. In fact I can see no evidence that Delmar connects them to Panvinus, let alone states that he "revived" them. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn deleting more material

Hrafrn is still trolling/stalking any edits i make and then just reverts them. I don't see how people who make no contributions to wikipedia and just delete others contributes should be tolerated. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Also note Hrafn is deleting my posts even when they are sourced in the text. One should also ask why a darwinist is viewing this page on creationism everyday (insecurity?). Any edit i make he reverts. So flattered i have a stalker. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks. Hrafrn is not a troll, even using the most broad definition of the word. Hrafrn has been editing these articles for years. As for contributions, his long history speaks for themselves. I would ask that you stop the continuing personal attacks across several pages. I'm not sure it will work well for you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

His userpage says he is a darwinist, and for the last week or so he has just stalked me and reverted all my edits on related creation pages (viewing his history also reveals his troubles with non-evolutionists, so he is clearly biased). Like i said before, allowing a biased darwinist to sit monitering/stalking creation pages is breaching wikipedia laws on neutrality. It gets annoying that i type stuff out and then Hrafn just deletes. For some reason he thinks he owns the 'dating creation' article, but because of his biased darwinist beliefs is reverting many edits. Now i don't mind if he does that on the darwinist or evolution pages on wikipedia, but why are biased darwinists stalking creationists and creation pages? You tell me. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean he accepts science? OK, and your point is what? Science has no innate biases, it is a logical methodology for understanding the natural world. Moreover, like a lot of us "Darwinists", we watch all pages related to science and myths of evolution. And please point to the rule/regulation/recommendation that only people who believe in a particular pseudoscience is allowed to edit that page? It doesn't work that way, because a neutral point of view means that when an article is written, we only accept reliable sources for any statements. If we "Darwinists" actually ran this place, we would delete the article. No, since we "Darwinists" have an open mind, we read articles like this. Hrafn is not saying that you or anyone can or cannot edit this article. He is demanding reliable sources for comments. You really need to understand that. You can write that there is a Korean creation myth. Neither of us (and I'm not speaking from the official "Darwinist" Handbook here) care that you write that. We care that it is not your own research and that we can verify what you write with reliable sources. It's simple as that. So, if you want to make personal attacks, you will be blocked, and you won't be able to write. But if you accept that you can only add comments and statements to an article with verifiable evidence, then no one is going to revert anything. It is time that you stop making this personal, and just edit. I'm guessing you know more about this myth than I do, but I'm not going to stand by and let you edit in a way that makes the article read like one huge blog. Take a breath, go dig up some reliable sources, write it, and I bet you'll learn something and add a lot to this article. Continue down your current path, and you'll get nowhere. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually no. User:Hrafn only states that I subscribe to M:darwikinism -- the view that Wikipedia exhibits socially darwinian traits -- such as a view that people, who spend more time making personal attacks than constructively editing, are unlikely to make a significant difference to the encyclopaedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

(Though my acceptance of its descriptive value does not mean that I'm not at times ambivalent on its prescriptive merits. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC) )

As to why I reverted the insertion of the Korean material -- I did so because it was unsourced -- which is perfectly normal reaction on Wikipedia. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Your ENTIRE page has evolution/intelligent design etc references or quotes on it. Anyone who views your page knows you are not neutral on the subject of origins but are biased. Clearly you are one sided, don't deny the obvious, if you were neutral you would have a neutral normal looking userpage, but you don't. Your page looks very bizarre and reveals origins is a very emotional topic for you. My only complaint is that a moderator overlooks sometimes the darwinists or other biased posters on creation related pages. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

All the Korean sources (chronicles etc) were cited in the text. Previously you also removed traditional or early historical sources, its apparent you have not studied early literature or classics - as they count as sources. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Anglo, wikipedia does not require that editors be neutral. It requires that content be so. Every editor has biases. Discussing an editor's background on an article talk page, however, is inappropriate, and the way you are doing it particularly is a violation of WP:Talk and WP:PA. This page is for discussing the article. If problems arise with other editors, those problems need to be addressed on their user talk page, or on a noticeboard such as WP:ANI. Considering you've been blocked twice now for this sort of thing, I'm sure this has been pointed out to you in a variety of ways, which should be an indication that how you're handling this isn't productive. I would suggest focusing instead on the specific content dispute occurring, and leave out all assumptions about the editors taking place in that dispute. In particular, which sources specifically are you referring to being in the text? Can you please provide a link to a diff with those sources included, and point them out? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind. You were blocked again. I guess we'll just leave it at that. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why he was blocked? I didn't see anyone request it specifically. Admin must have been watching the page. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Irish Celtic mythology

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In After The Flood, Bill Cooper says the annals of Anceint Irleand placed the Creation around 4000 B.C. and the Dates he gives imply 4004 B.C. agreeing exactly with Ussher. But he doesn't explain why he interpets the annalls that way. Most other sources I've read place every Invasion of Ireland several hundred or even a Thousand years sooner this Cooper's dates.-Olorin I see no indication that Cooper is a WP:RS on this. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC) I"m trying to find out why he did that the way he did, Wikipdia is susped to be about Information, not just "realiable" information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.234.80 (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC) You are incorrect. (i) Per WP:Verifiability, Wikipedia is about reliable information. (ii) Per WP:NOTFORUM this talkpage is for discussing improvements to the article, using reliable sources, not for general discussion of the article's topic. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

BC vs. BCE - could we finally get a consensus on this, please?

For BC - apparently this was the way that the article started out. For BCE - it doesn't seem appropriate using BC when citing non-Christian sources. Let's discuss this, and come to a conclusion, one way or the other, rather than just bringing it up every couple of years and then dropping it. TomS TDotO (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Isnt it totalitarianism the way even a TALK page is controlled and deleted by those who are evil. (This will be posted in Google News concering Wiked-Pedia.) Defining the ERA without changing the system is best. However, to merely say this is the "false Era" our world uses does not resolve it. People will take BCE (before common era) and claim it means before Christian Era. The AD system is not in error when used as whole years. January 1 of 1 AD is not the first year but rather completes 1 year. And January 1 of 2011 is not the 2011th year but completes 2011 years. So it is the BC system that destroyed our AD system making it all look wrong (both BC and AD), when only the BC is wrong. This is proven by the fact that the Era created was 532 years (19x28), whole years, not 532nd year. But nor should anyone lie and say there was no Zero year which comes from Zoro-aster, and even the Maya of 1314bc have a zero, which to them means a complete circle of 20. In reality you do not need a zero year, because the zero point or day is January 1 of AD. Yes of AD, not 1 AD. In other words what we call 1 BC, or astronomy calls 0 year, is the year AD before the year 1 AD, it is the first year before one year. Thus current 2 BC or astral (-1) could be called 1 BC (first year BC). By leaving the BC systems as is would best be resolved by defining it as ordinal years, preceding the Era of Jesus at the age of 1 (1 AD Jan 1). Born in autumn of 2bc, his 1st calendar year runs 1bc Jan 1 to Dec 31, so he is age 1 for his 2nd calendar year of 1AD Jan 1 to Dec 31. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.71.174 (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Biased Edits by a Darwinist/evolutionist

There is an evolutionist darwinist (i presume a troll) deleting large sections on the dating creation page. His reason is that the sources referred to are either Christian or creationist - which is a bizarre claim especially since half the article is based on the Bible and Christianity. Clearly this user (Hrafn) is biased, going to his personal userpage reveals he is a darwinist who has previous troubles with christians and creationists. Clearly he is not neutral, see also the trouble he caused just above. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

He's a serious editor and you really need to stop name calling (not just here). You can use creationist sources to establish creationist claims, but not facts --Snowded ^TALK 10:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

This is really stupid to think that ANY creation date whether bible or pagan myths is a FACT. How can you say Hindu creation of world (by Flood) in 3102bc is a fact and that Christian Eusebius creation of world (Adam) in 5200bc is not fact. How can you say a myth is truth, and bible is not. This is not an argument to say bible is truth, but to show malice intent and evil in your heart to exalt a myth epoch as truth above bible because equating both as myth isnt good enough to satisfy your hate for a Christian god or jewish god. This is exactly like how you have taken american atheistic medicine and have chosen Hindu religious medicine to say it is true science above americans as long as you no longer label the Hindu as religion, and take all american doctors and call them those damn christians. In essence YOU are indeed attacking christians by this exalting of the pagan and saying the pagans had science not american bible crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.71.174 (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Anglo Pyramidologist: your comment is in violation of both WP:NPA & WP:TALK (misrepresentation of another user). I would ask you to cease and desist. The citations you are defending were removed as being unreliable because they were outdated, WP:FRINGE and/or WP:SELFPUBlished. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

- And your edits are in violation of vandalism. Hence you are reported. Stop also leaving personal attacks on my page. By the way your edits are LOGGED so to claim you only deleted my sources because they are 'outdated' is a lie, one of your posts states you are deleting material because of sectarian Christian sources, despite the fact half the article is about the BIBLE. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Snowden i would also appreciate it if you stopped stalking me across this pages. Every page i edit you then comment on or revert my edits - so its obvious all you are doing is stalking my contribs list. Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

ALL the sources used on this article on the Bible etc are used on the Young Earth Creationism page. On that page they have been ACCEPTED as trustworthy sources, so to remove them here is VANDALISM. Hence you are reported. Its you guys breaking rules not me. One would also ask why militant fundie darwinists are on dating creation (creationism) pages, hardly neutral is it? Anglo Pyramidologist (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"Militant fundie darwinists"? You're being unacceptably hostile, I'll just leave it at that. --King Öomie 15:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the sources for Arabic dating - we need modern reliable sources. I've also reported AP to ANI for attacks on two editors. I'll add that YEC sources can be reliable for YEC articles but not necessarily for other articles. Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Maya section

I feel it important to note that the Maya like many other belives in various recreations and their current Calander starting in 3114 B.C. (And infamously ending in 2012 A.D.) is only of this current Age. I'm also pretty sure they beleive it was a Global Flood that ended the previous Age. Don't some interpetations of the Septuigant numbers place the Flood within the vicinity of 3110? Which is also roughly when the Kali Yuga began in Vedic belif?-Olorin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.234.80 (talk) 08:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes it does. All pagan calculations of creation are of current world by Noahs Flood. The Maya have a Noah story, and the planet Venus rises to stop the Flood. This is how i used the Flood 3114bc and found its Venus, and then looked for it in the year 2370bc and found 2369bc January 6 as being day 40. The correlation is base don the Venus texts of Amizaduga (1646-1625bc) and it is why the 180 solar leap days of 744 years (2370-1626bc) is doubled to 3114-2370bc-1626bc. All Septuagint chronologies double all spans that Hebrew chronology had. This is due to believing Thoth was always the civil new year and not the month Pamenot. Septuagint chronologies also mistake Babylon's 3600-year prediction of current world (from Adams 2400 to 6000) and instead think the prediction was in year 3600 expecting 2400 to the end. This is why Moslem use 1778bc as year 3600, as 1344 after Flood 3122bc. It is why Mayan 1770bc is 1344 after 3114bc. Amizaduga is 1344 after 2970bc. Greek 1600bc is 3600 but the 2256+1344 is lost because it divides it as 2242+1358. It should be noted that 744 years are 755 in 360-day. And it should also be noted that 936x 365 days = 949x 360 days causing 13-year shift if debated. The Kali Yuga 3102bc is 12 years after 3114bc. It is based on 1200 years to 1901-1900bc as 3600 versus Greek 1601-1600bc. So Pagan does not defy Bible Genesis, rather it uses astronomy instead of geneology. Accepting BOTH is what unravels truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.71.174 (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Fraudulent quotes of Sources in this article

This whole article is governed by the power of some man or group who is doing nothing but conjecture. Cross figures are being used from one source to claim other sources have a creation 1000s of years before.

Egyptian section

The section on Egypt quotes many sources to add up years from Menes back to Creation and thus ignoring that Manetho claimed creation was both Adam and Menes. So how can creation be 1000s of years before Menes (Adam) other than astrally as these gods. The submitter of this material is speculation, favored by NOT deleting him, while they delete our posts as sepculation. The proof is all the quotes from different sources fraudulently pretending all these sources all use a 3050bc Menes which they do not. No where can you find all these scholars using the same 3050bc as Menes. It's fraud here in Wiki-Pedia. Thus the writer of this article is using his own choice for Menes. In reality Menes by Manetho begins 930 years after 5200bc in 4270bc confirming 1st dynasty Egypt regarded as the passing of kingship from dead Adam to SETH using 6 dynasties to dynasty 7 as 70 kings for 70 days in 2774bc (July 18 Sothis on Thoth 1).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.71.174 (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Newly-added text always gets more scrutiny than existing material.
2. I would however agree that throwing large amounts of numbers around does not help ease of reading -- and that explicit addition, in the article text, is most probably a bad idea.
3. I would also suggest that the Herodotus quote is too long.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

High bias towards Christianity

Why is it that all non-biblical creation myths are referred to as the creation myths they are, but not the biblical creation myth? Creation myths are creation myths, whether billions believe it or not. More bias towards the completely unfounded Christian creation myth is present in this article. I ask the Wikipedia community to correct this bias, as the so-called "free encyclopedia" should be unbiased.88.236.124.224 (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a problem. This version of Wikipedia has a high proportion of editors from a Christian background, some of whom find it difficult to objectively put their religion on the same plain as other religions. Posts like yours can only help. HiLo48 (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation - Age of the Earth

This article should have a disambiguation at the top - "For the Age of the Earth, see Age of the Earth". DHooke1973 (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Revision of lead/removal of alternative theories

The original version of this article defines what it should be, and I've restored some of it to make it clear that this is about religious beliefs based on text analysis. It may need tweaking but it needs to make it clear what the article is about. I removed the alternate theories about not dating creation as it didn't seem to fit into any version of the lead. Dougweller (talk) 18:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That was needed. -- LWG ^talk 23:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect reference to Plutarch

In the "Greek and Roman" section, there is an incorrect reference to Plutarch in this last sentence:

"Among the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers there were different opinions and traditions pertaining to the date of the creation. Some philosophers believed the Universe was eternal, and actually had no date of creation, while Plutarch recorded a tradition among the Roman sages in Tuscany that the world was re-created every 25,868 years.[14]"

The reference is for Gerald Massey's 'Natural Genesis Volume II' quoting Plutarch's 'Life of Sulla'. 'Life of Sulla' can be found here:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Sulla*.html

There is no mention of 25,868 years in Plutarch, only a "great year" in section 7:4. Massey also does not mention 25,868 years either, he quotes Plutarch: "Plutarch, writing of the civil wars between Marius and Sulla, tells us that the Tuscan Sages reckoned Eight several kinds of Men whose total time or lives was limited by the circuit of the Great Year." I don't know if he mentions it elsewhere, but he does talk about axial precession which is obviously what the number is referring to.

H.P. Blavatsky is the one who mentions 25,868 years (in parenthesis) when quoting Massey quoting Plutarch in 'The Secret Doctrine'. That this "great year" refers to axial precession is a bit of 19th century astro-theologist wishful thinking in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.59.9 (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I will look up if I can find multiple information about the estimate of 25,868 years. For now, it has been removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Problems with second paragraph

The second paragraph of the article currently reads: "These estimates contradicted each other, and has been historically argued. Since the various discoveries of historical sites, homo sapiens, etc. Much of these estimates are regarded to be incorrect by majority of Scientists. While some, especially the estimates by Hinduism are regarded to be compatible with modern science.""

There are various problems here, grammatical, syntactical, and logical, but since I'm not entirely sure of the intent, I'm not able to correct them. The first sentence seems to involve an error in agreement between a plural subject, estimates, and a singular verb, has, but the sense of the statement is also illogical. Since the "estimates" in question come from disparate religious and cultural traditions, it would be very odd indeed if they corresponded, but strictly speaking they don't actually contradict each other; they ignore each other--that is, they have nothing to do with each other. The second sentence appears to be not a true sentence at all but a sentence fragment. I can't tell, however, if the upper-case M at the beginning of the third sentence is a typo and the second sentence is supposed to be an introductory clause. In any case, I can't imagine what "homo sapiens" has to do with the argument. The third sentence--missing an article ("the majority"?)--strikes me as superfluous considering that the article clearly states it is not about the scientific age of the earth or the universe. The fourth sentence seems to be missing a comma (after Hinduism), but the missing comma seems hardly worth supplying since this sentence, like the preceding three, is also illogical: Hindu "estimates", whatever they may be, were surely not arrived at scientifically, and thus are not logically "regarded" as "compatible" with science. If ancient Hinduism actually said the earth is 4.5 billion years old (and I'm dubious it did), that would nevertheless be purely fortuitous, a matter of happenstance, a remarkable coincidence and nothing more. TheScotch (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

If they are presented along, they obviously contradict or "differs" from each other. Homo sapiens quiet proves that most of these estimates are wrong. Suppose, there's a skeleton, 1.8 million years old. Such discovery proves most of these estimates to be wrong. Only the Hindu-estimates are considered by number of science writers, and scientists to be compatible, not any other. Like it has been described on the section itself. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

1) No: Differing does not mean contradicting. I contradict you only if you say x, and I say, "No, you're wrong; it's y." The cultures in question here are essentially autonomous. They don't contradict each other; they are oblivious to each other. 2) What is "homo sapiens quiet"? 3) It's as "it has been described" in "the section itself", and that description is incorrect as well, for the reasons I've given. 4) In any case, the second paragraph doesn't seem to be written in any intelligible language. I'm in favor of deleting it entirely. TheScotch (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed it. Will be re-writing anytime, probably later. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)