AIG Proves Earth Is 6,000 Years Old

This just appeared at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo), the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else: It All Adds Up.

It was written by Roger Patterson. At the end it says he “taught in public schools for eight years before joining Answers in Genesis. He earned his BS Ed degree in biology from Montana State University–Billings.” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections [that look like this]:

A 6,000-year-old earth? When you look up the Bible references, the math’s not that hard!


For those who trust in an evolutionary view of history, determining the earth’s age is a complicated process. First, you have to find a meteorite, crush it up, and then send it to a lab for analysis. (Why a meteorite? I’ll get to that later.) Technicians measure the ratio of isotopes and enter that into a complex calculation that factors in the rate of radiometric decay. Out pops a number somewhere around 4,500,000,000 years (or at least that’s the expected result). That’s a whole lot of zeros!

Yeah — too many! Then he says:

But if you look to the Bible as the ultimate source of truth, a much simpler answer emerges. And you don’t even need to find a meteorite. All you need is a Bible and a calculator.

We certainly want to go with the simpler method. Patterson talks about the genealogies in Genesis and tells us:

These lists demonstrate the historical nature of the early chapters of Genesis. Real men had real sons, and we know how old each man was at the birth of his son. … Seth was born to Adam at 130, and Seth had Enosh when he was 105. So from Adam to Enosh, 235 years passed. … [Y]ou can run down the list and add the ages from Adam to Noah. … That brings the date at Shem’s birth to 1,558 years after the creation of Adam.

This is, more or less, the same process that was used in the Ussher chronology. It’s never explained why that genealogy is used, rather than, say, the genealogy of some other tribe, whose elders can piously recite: “And Ooga begat Booga, and Booga begat Shmooga …”

Anyway, Patterson goes on and on, through all the bible’s begats, and announces:

Adding all of this gives us a time span of about 2,008 years from Adam to Abraham.


So now we know [Hee hee!] there were about 2,000 years from Adam to Abraham, but how do we get to the present? Think backward from this point. Pop quiz: How many years have passed from Jesus’ life to the present? Since our modern calendar gives dates in Anno Domini (the year of our Lord), the answer is easy: about 2,000.

Ooooooooooooh! The man’s a genius! He continues:

All that’s left is to determine the time between Jesus and Abraham. This is a little more complicated, but with a bit of hopping from book to book, it is possible to calculate the answer from the Bible. Bible scholars disagree on a few details but the total disagreement covers only about 200 years. Most historians, even those who don’t believe the Bible, agree that Abraham was born around 2000 BC — and this dating agrees with the biblical record.

Isn’t this exciting? All the information is there! Let’s read on:

Now you have the three pieces to add together, but I bet you can do this part in your head. From creation to Abraham is about 2,000 years. Abraham to Jesus covers about 2,000 years, and you are 2,000 years removed from Jesus. 2 + 2 + 2 = 6. That means the earth, and the entire created universe, is about 6,000 years old.

Fantastic! And he’s right — the numbers all add up! Another excerpt:

Now that might sound radical if you have always heard the earth is 4.5 billion years old. But on what authority should you accept that claim? Christians should look to God’s Word to determine right and wrong, so why shouldn’t they do so on matters like the age of the earth? To do otherwise seems inconsistent.

We wouldn’t want to be inconsistent! Here’s more:

Scientists who believe the universe is billions of years old assume the earth and meteors formed at the same time from a spinning cloud of debris. On top of that, the radiometric dating methods they use to determine meteorites’ ages rely on still more assumptions. This chain of assumptions is unreliable and totally disagrees with the Bible. We are talking about thousands versus billions — that’s more than a rounding error.

Those scientists must be crazy! This is from the end:

Without these alleged billions of years, evolution cannot happen. Ideas like human evolution are bound up in the question of the age of the earth. You don’t need those vast ages if you trust that God created plants, animals, and humans supernaturally — as He says He did in Genesis 1.

Well, dear reader, you’ve gotta agree with Patterson — the math isn’t that hard. And the result is The Truth.

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

23 responses to “AIG Proves Earth Is 6,000 Years Old

  1. Jeez, I wish I’d had a calculus teacher who though the simple way to compute things was the best. What book of the holey bubble would Roger recommend to look up the integral of x^2?

  2. God created plants, animals, and humans supernaturally — as He says He did in Genesis 1.
    Genesis does not say that God created supernaturally. It says that animals and plants were created by growing from the Earth and the water, and that Adam created from dust, and tht Eve ws created by shaping a bone. Many Young Earth Creationists tell us that many modern species of animals arose by a burst of microevolution oafter the Flood. There is nothing inthe Bible about the origin of living things other than animals and plants.
    There is nothing about who is the author of Genesis, although an ancient tradition has it that Moses is the author.
    But we’re used to creationists making up stuff and attributing that to the Bible.

  3. Our dear SC complains: “It’s never explained why that genealogy is used …”
    But …. but …. because it’s the Holy Bible!

    “Bible scholars disagree on a few details but the total disagreement covers only about 200 years.”
    The ratio of 200 to 6 000 equals 1 to 30. Such an inaccuracy usually doesn’t satisfy physicists.

    “This chain of assumptions is unreliable”
    So much for Ol’Hambo and co accepting operational, observable, experimental (or what the fancy word of the day is) science.

  4. Michael Fugate

    Pity those poor students in Montana schools.

  5. Charles Deetz ;)

    Christians should look to God’s Word to determine right and wrong, so why shouldn’t they do so on matters like the age of the earth?

    I turn to my biology teacher to learn about frogs, so why shouldn’t I rely on him for advice on what clothes to wear to the prom? I wouldn’t want to be inconsistent, now would I?

  6. docbill1351

    @Charles D

    Frog Togs! Waterproof, too!

  7. I know a fair number of bible scholars, like the ones who have academic appointments at universities, and none of them believe that the earth is 6000 years old.

  8. Most historians, even those who don’t believe the Bible, agree that Abraham was born around 2000 BC — and this dating agrees with the biblical record.

    Those historians probably agree that Abraham took place 2000 BC on basis of the Bible. It’s not as if they found the man’s bones.

  9. bewilderbeast

    “the result is The Truth™.”
    Not just The Truth but The Immutable Holy Unchanging Truth.
    – um, as amended by men with beards from time to time.

  10. “Christians should look to God’s Word to determine right and wrong … To do otherwise seems inconsistent.” Indeed. And they should bring their stroppy adolescents to the city gates to be stoned to death, like it says in Deuteronomy 13. To do otherwse seems inconsistent.

  11. A BS Ed degree. A favorite Tx creaionist, affectionately known here in the comments section as “Babs”, has a science Ed degree. Apparently science ed degrees are a popular road for the creationist who wants to proselytize in the classroom.

  12. “… That’s a whole lot of zeros!…” Strange how hambone can do the age of the earth when he has such a problem with zeros. My be that is why he thinks it is 6000 yrs as he can only handle 3 zeros?!?!

  13. Yep no need to use science in calculating the ages of the earth when you can rely solely on the musings of some Bronze Age tribes men.

  14. (I get tired of saying this) Not Bronze Age tribesmen, but sophisticated mid-iron Age scribes and scholars, from the seventh century BCE onwards although drawing on much older traditions, and in the mainstream of the best educated opinion of their time.

    We criticise AiG for being unhistorical, as well as unscientific. We should therefore take the trouble to avoid being unhistorical ourselves.

  15. Eric Lipps

    When those “mid-Iron Age scribes and scholars” drew on “much older traditions” unquestioningly, they allowed “Bronze Age tribesmen” to dictate their ideas.

  16. Dang you Paul Braterman, you forced to me breakout my old paperbacks of Joseph Campbell but I got to agree with Eric Lipps. Many of the mythologies predate the Iron Age by a considerable amount, the classic being the Flood Mythologies, one going back to Sumerian times, clearly of Bronze Age origins. The roots of Adam & Eve can also be traced back to ancient Egypt. Just because a newer era picks up and embraces an older myth that doesn’t change its provenance or its original intonations.

    As to the best opinions of the time, no, the entire Christian movement can actually be viewed as a neo- conservative fundamentalist rebellion against the classical Hellenistic teachings and philosophies of the time culminating in the lynching of Hypatia in 415AD, a symbolic death to reason.

    You’re right to accuse of us of sometimes drawing in broad brush strokes for the sake of a pithy response but an opinion entered on a blog is hardly the place for a reasoned scholarly debate particularly when arguing with the likes of willfully ignorant creationist troglodytes.

  17. It’s a matter of tone. We don’t persuade people, nor do we deserve to, if we sneer at our opponents. There is a difference between critiquing (which SC does magnificently, largely by simple quotation) and sneering. And Rapoport’s rules, well expounded by Dennett at , lay out excellent guidance on how to actually come out ahead in an argument

    We are not aiming to convert the troglodytes, but to undermine their standing with the broader audience. The bronze age myths had indeed been redacted by iron age scholars, centuries before the rise of Hellenic philosophising.

    Your other interesting point: Should the label “neo- conservative fundamentalist rebellion against the classical Hellenistic teachings and philosophies of the time” be extended backwards to include the Hasmonean revolt? I suspect it might. Does anyone know to what extent it was an uprising as we’re told, and to what extent a civil war, as Hitchens, IIRC, suggested?

  18. I can’t say that I have any scholarly insights into the Maccabees or Hellenistic Judaism. I do believe fundamentalism arises out of times of discord, stress and a sense of opportunity against the established regimes. Leveraging religion for political gain is as old as agrarian humanity.

  19. @Paul Braterman – I agree with you. I prefer to make the discussion about the ideas, rather than personalities.
    But why does it work to convince so many people to tell them if you don’t agree with X, you are going to Hell, yu are not a True Christian, you are doing the work of the Devil, you are following H****r, etc.? That’s a lot worse than “Bronze Age goat herder”.
    I’m not using that as an excuse for stooping to their level.

  20. A further thought. If we refer to “an iron-age document” rather than “a bronze-age myth”, we have introduced the issue of textual dating and criticism, which implicitly but conclusively punctures the “God’s perfect word” argument.

  21. Michael Fugate

    If we were to take Genesis at face value, we also run into the issue of which god’s word are we referencing – there are several choices from which to pick.

  22. True; though if you’re speaking of the presently accepted text, for some 2000 years now some very able minds have been working at reconciling the irreconcilable, and for 200 years working at refuting the documentary hypothesis. A better argument might focus on differences between our traditional (Masoretic) text, and, say, the Septuagint; this leads straight into textual criticism, as I advocate in my last comment.

    My understanding is that the original documentary hypothesis (J, E, P) has been, not so much overthrown, as replaced by a more complex analysis in terms of smaller scale patchwork. Is anyone here au fait with this?

  23. Michael Fugate

    One interesting book I read recently is Reza Aslan’s Zealot. He puts forth a particular argument about who Jesus was, but what hit me was the relationship of Paul to James the brother of Jesus. I remembered during my first reading of the entire Bible many, many years as an undergraduate how I was struck by the contrast between the Gospels and the letters ascribed to Paul – they didn’t seem to be part of the same thought process. No wonder – Paul appears to have created an imaginary Jesus.