Oooh ... some googled.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
how long do you think humans have been on earth?
- Thread starter kloth
- Start date
I was going to say source Wiki, but that was pretty lame.
Actually, I knew most of the dates, just double checked for accuracy. The first axial age wasn't it in however, nor the fact that we're still pretty dumb, all in all.
DallasApple
Depends Upon My Mood..
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
From my understanding it is claimed at least 100,000 years, perhaps 250,000 years (though there is insufficient evidence to be certain) - I'll split the difference, 175,000 years.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
vindication!!!!
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
What do you make of scientific consensus on some socities being older than that, such as Göbekli Tepe, or Star Carr?
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
i think their dating of such places is debatable.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
Is there any particular reason(s) why you find it debatable?
If later on you change your mind and think that it isn't debatable because it is accurate, would it have an impact on your belief? If so, how much?
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
it would certainly change my mind on the literal interpretation of Genesis
I wouldnt change my belief in a creator or that humans were created by him. It might change my view of how he did that and how it relates to the genesis account.
james2ko
Well-Known Member
They're called young earth creationists. Unfortunately, they ignore much of the scientific and biblical evidence suggesting otherwise.
The flood implied in Gen 1:2 predates Noah's flood. As far as starting over, as you well know, God is a God of mercy but we sometimes forget He is also a God of judgment. As Christians, should we dare question God's sovereign judgment and dealings with His creation? He warns us against doing so. (Rom 9:18-23)
I consider myself one.
Last edited:
That implies a "smart" that we're going to get.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
Is there a reason you think that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the most correct one, or, why do you believe it should be interpreted literally?
What kind of things do you think are necessary for you to have answered in order to accept the current scientific standard of how long humans have been here, and of evolution?
And regarding belief in God, I don't think it can challenge it, even though some anti-theists really wish it could.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Jesus himself expressed belief in the genesis account and spoke of it as a literal event with real people.
So the creation of Adam and Eve can be a literal creation....and if so, it had to have happened at a set point in the past. The chronology of the family line of Adam is traceable by time. Thats how we know Adam was created in the year 4026bce...that date is linked with a timeline. I have no reason to doubt that the creation of the first man and woman is real.
but i think we can doubt scientists views on the timing of events for many reasons.
where Adam and Eve fit into the picture. Either they were the first two humans, or they weren't.
If they were'nt, then the creation account could not be literal. And if they were, then the scientists must be wrong.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
Would you mind sharing what reasons you think are the case?
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Would you mind sharing what reasons you think are the case?
well firstly, they begin with the premise that humans have descended from animals....so naturally their view is that we have been here for a very long time.
They very quickly learn to interpret the physical findings to fit into that frame of reference.
Dating methods vary, but all have their difficulties. For example, in radiocarbon dating they can measure the present-day rate of radioactive carbon formation but have no way of measuring carbon concentrations in the distant past. So they base all their calculations on the known rate of today. But they dont know what the rate was in the past. So their dating may be way off.
Even when using radioactive potassium, uranium, or thorium, for dating rocks, they are unable to establish the original levels of those elements through ages of time. So no one really knows if the rate of decay is being calculated correctly. They may be correct based on todays rates of decay, but they are looking at very old specimens from the past, so they need to know the rates in the past and they simply dont know them.
And what happens when an ancient sample is disturbed through earthquake or avalance, or melting glaciers...suddenly they are exposed to todays rates of decay and other elements,....how can they be sure that their dates are reliable? The truth is hey cant' be sure, but they still publish the dates regardless.
But you can "be sure" about a creation myth written in a language that you know nothing about in a time that you know nothing about by people that you know nothing about from a culture that you know nothing about - sure enough that you pretentiously deprecate the overwhelming consensus of a science that you know nothing about. Make sense to me.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
But you can "be sure" about a creation myth written in a language that you know nothing about in a time that you know nothing about by people that you know nothing about from a culture that you know nothing about - sure enough that you pretentiously deprecate the overwhelming consensus of a science that you know nothing about. Make sense to me.
you need more faith in Gods Word. (and a little more respect
)
You need more faith in God's science. (and a little less gullibility )
)