Reddit reviews Newton's Revised History of Ancient Kingdoms - A Complete Chronology

Basically when newton was inventing calculus in 1660 the establishment was busy convincing everyone that "j 660" meant "1660" when newton knew from observing the astronomical rotations and other observations that it had to be 660.

I don't Know if newton wrote about that specifically but you can read about the theory on the new chronology wiki.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Fomenko)

Newton did write about history himself and he attempted to correct what he saw as wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronology_of_Ancient_Kingdoms_Amended

https://www.amazon.com/Newtons-Revised-History-Ancient-Kingdoms/dp/0890515565

Newton was very probably aware of the work of Joseph Justus Scaliger, he would have known that nobody had attempted to write the history of the Persians, the Babylonians and the Egyptians the Jews etc until 1583. And being a mathematician he obviously new the odds of that history actually being correct were quite low. History that our mainstream modern understanding is built upon.

I am puzzled and even somewhat alarmed at the rise of the so called New Atheism. My understanding of Dawkins' current position is that even moderate, tolerant, liberal Christianity must be wiped out because it gives cover to fundamentalist Christianity.

Not too long ago, I found a person online who was ragging on Isaac Newton because the Newton was so ludicrous as to believe in a 6,000 year old earth. So I asked this guy whether he had even read Newton's Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms ( http://www.amazon.com/Newtons-Revised-History-Ancient-Kingdoms/dp/0890515565/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1290558149&sr=8-1 ). He admitted that he had not. I asked the fellow how, given that he lived before Darwin and Lyell, was Newton supposed to have come to the scientific understanding that the world was older than 6,000 (assuming that that was even Newton's position). He argued that Halley, a contemporary of Newton knew the world was older than 6,000 years because of the salinity of the ocean. I asked whether Halley had conducted any experiments on the salinity of rivers. I asked whether Halley had done any quantitative estimates of how saline the ocean would be based on various assumed ages. Apparently Halley had done neither. So then the guy starts accusing me of being ignorant of science.

Apparently the New Atheist doesn't bother to read books he is trying to refute, doesn't accept the validity of quantitative reasoning, doesn't accept the validity of experimental data and yet still somehow feels atheism is scientific.

As far as I am concerned, many "New" atheists are just fundies in a new set of clothes.