How old is man?

[Salvador]

According to "science" man is over 190,000 years old, but according to the Bible man is only about 6,000 years old. Now who is right? If science is right, why does the Bible only tell a story about 6,000 years old? What happened in the other 184,000 years? Were Adam and Eve really the first humans?
If the Bible is right; then why does the "science" lie?

Who do you believe, the "science" or the Bible?

Biblical Adam and Eve were allegedly created about 6,000 years ago; this according to Biblical chronology as follows:,1,948 years elapsed from the creation of Adam until the birth of Abraham ( Genesis 5 ) , then 529 years elapsed from Abraham's birth until the Ten Commandments were written ( Genesis 17:1-4) , ( Galatians 3:17). 480 years passed after this time until King Solomon's Temple was built during the fourth year of his rule in Jerusalem. ( 1 Kings 6:1 ) According to the Bible, Solomon ruled Israel for another 36 years afterwards, and several other kings ruled Jerusalem all together for 345 years after Solomon until the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem in 587 BC. ( Kings 1 and 2)

The ancient relics of the earliest Australian people are scientifically dated to be over 65,000 years old; this according to "Carbon dating and optically stimulated luminescence dating (that) were used to assess the artifacts' antiquity, the latter being a technique that measures the radioactive signature of a grain of sand revealing when it was last exposed to sunlight. In the deepest levels of sediment, some artifacts were estimated to be about 80,000 years old – or at least 95% likely to be older than 70,000, the report noted."

Reference: Artifacts suggest humans arrived in Australia earlier than thought

Reference: Chris Clarkson, Zenobia Jacobs, Ben Marwick, Richard Fullagar, Lynley Wallis, Mike Smith, Richard G. Roberts, Elspeth Hayes, Kelsey Lowe, Xavier Carah, S. Anna Florin, Jessica McNeil, Delyth Cox, Lee J. Arnold, Quan Hua, Jillian Huntley, Helen E. A. Brand, Tiina Manne, Andrew Fairbairn, James Shulmeister, Lindsey Lyle, Makiah Salinas, Mara Page, Kate Connell, Gayoung Park, Kasih Norman, Tessa Murphy, Colin Pardoe." Human occupation of northern Australia by 65,000 years ago". Nature, 2017; 547 (7663): 306 DOI: 10.1038/nature22968

Biblical Adam being the first man and Biblical Eve being the first woman are mythological characters rather than historical persons who actually existed; proof of this being there were people who lived 60,000 years before the Bible alleges Adam as being the first man and Eve supposedly being the mother of all the living. ( Genesis 3:20 )

 

[BSM1]

New International Version Genesis 3:20:
Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.

Another contradiction?

Gen 1:26....then Gen 2:15. First man was created, then a man was placed in the garden.

 

[PruePhillip]

How are you defining "man?" Homo habilis? Homo erectus? Homo sapiens?

There is evidence of homo sapiens that existed 260,000 to 350,000 years ago in Africa.

Interesting article this week showing these "other" humans were also responsible
for the extinction of African carnivores. So even in this we aren't alone.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

According to "science"

What's up with them quotes?

man is over 190,000 years old, but according to the Bible man is only about 6,000 years old. Now who is right?

Science, obviously.

If science is right, why does the Bible only tell a story about 6,000 years old?

Because it's just a mythological story.

What happened in the other 184,000 years?

Apparantly, nothing that the bible has any knowledge about.

Were Adam and Eve really the first humans?

No. Adam and Eve didn't exist. I'm sure people with that name have existed, and still exist (I know both an Adam and an Eve actually...), but those biblical characters are just as mythological as the story they are mentioned in.

If the Bible is right; then why does the "science" lie?

1. IF the bible is right, why does that mean that the default is that science is telling a lie? Why can't it be just honestly mistaken? I think your bias is showing.

2. genesis isn't right.

Who do you believe, the "science" or the Bible?

I accept the science because of the evidence.
I don't accept the bible because of the same evidence, which contradicts the stories in the bible.

And whenever the evidence of reality doesn't match a story, then it's not the evidence of reality that is "incorrect".

 

[exchemist]

But this is not clear. It never even occurred to anyone before Ussher did his genealogical addition in the 1600s.
Was the genealogy correct? Were the astonishing ages correct? Were any generations left out?

Again: evidence vs folklore. Why do you believe the bible an authoritative historical text?

Actually, I have read that Bede came up with something similar in around 700.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No need to apologize.

The line of forum members who have no idea what the poster is talking about is already out the door, down the street, and around the corner where it stretches out and disappears into the darkness that envelops incomprehensibility.

Idd. I just stopped reading his / her posts. It's an exercise in futility to try and decipher them.

 

[exchemist]

The first of the two accounts in Genesis gives us the exact sequence
of events for our being here. So long as you see the seven days as
symbolic and you posit an earth bound observer.

Nope. How can you have day and night before the sun was created?

And how can you have the earth created before the solar system?

And then Genesis 2 has a different sequence that contradicts Genesis 1, saying that Man was created first and then the animals and plants afterwards.

Face it, there is no sensible way to take these stories literally - and this was apparent to the earliest scholars of Christendom. They were not fools.

 

[exchemist]

I am male. I also do consider myself to be a novice astronomer, not a professional scientist by any stretch of the imagination. ....

I've observed the Martian polar caps through my Orion XT10i (10" refelector), NEQ6 Pro motorized mount, Imaging Source DMK41AF02 astronomy camera, Astronomik Type II LRGB filterset, 2x barlow lens.

Salvador, before you go any further with this person, you might care to glance at this, on "word salad": Word salad - Wikipedia

I came across this recently and found it instructive, regarding a few individuals I have come across on discussion forums. I am fairly certain this poster is mentally ill.

 

[PruePhillip]

Nope. How can you have day and night before the sun was created?

And how can you have the earth created before the solar system?

And then Genesis 2 has a different sequence that contradicts Genesis 1, saying that Man was created first and then the animals and plants afterwards.

Face it, there is no sensible way to take these stories literally - and this was apparent to the earliest scholars of Christendom. They were not fools.

I am referring to Genesis 1. It's the older and clearly more authentic account.
God made the heavens (ie stars, sun, moon etc)
and the earth.
(we are now an observer upon the earth - because to the ancients there simply
was no other way to be an observer)
the earth was dark and oceanic (a cloud planet like Venus, Titan etc)
and an ocean planet (like probably many rocky planets in the universe)
and the skies cleared
and the continents rose (process of subduction and formation of granite)
and life appeared on land
and then in the ocean
and finally man.

 

[exchemist]

I am referring to Genesis 1. It's the older and clearly more authentic account.
God made the heavens (ie stars, sun, moon etc)
and the earth.
(we are now an observer upon the earth - because to the ancients there simply
was no other way to be an observer)
the earth was dark and oceanic (a cloud planet like Venus, Titan etc)
and an ocean planet (like probably many rocky planets in the universe)
and the skies cleared
and the continents rose (process of subduction and formation of granite)
and life appeared on land
and then in the ocean
and finally man.

On what basis do you think Genesis 1 is "clearly" more authentic than Genesis 2? Just because you think it is older? It seems far from obvious to me.

And you have not dealt with the absurdity of having day and night before the sun was created, or of the scientifically unsound notion of the earth being older than the sun. The sun is NOT treated as part of the heavens but was created on the fourth day, AFTER the plants!

So the order of events makes no scientific sense, however you argue it.

It's just an allegorical story, limited by the understanding of ancient people of the time.

 

[sooda]

According to "science" man is over 190,000 years old, but according to the Bible man is only about 6,000 years old. Now who is right? If science is right, why does the Bible only tell a story about 6,000 years old? What happened in the other 184,000 years? Were Adam and Eve really the first humans?
If the Bible is right; then why does the "science" lie?

Who do you believe, the "science" or the Bible?

Rambam said that science trump's scripture.

 

[PruePhillip]

On what basis do you think Genesis 1 is "clearly" more authentic than Genesis 2? Just because you think it is older? It seems far from obvious to me.

And you have not dealt with the absurdity of having day and night before the sun was created, or of the scientifically unsound notion of the earth being older than the sun. The sun is NOT treated as part of the heavens but was created on the fourth day, AFTER the plants!

So the order of events makes no scientific sense, however you argue it.

It's just an allegorical story, limited by the understanding of ancient people of the time.

Okay, your observer is standing/floating UPON THE EARTH.
You are not speaking to a people about orbiting a planet as orbit means to go around and planet
means a wandering star. There's no concept of orbits, planetary bodies, stars as suns, galaxies,
vacuum, micro-gravity, cosmic rays, supernova etc..
So you are saying, "Imagine you are on the waters, because there was no ground back then."
Now it was dark - the sun was weaker, lots of left-over debris in orbit and vast amount of
aerosols (sulphur, methan, carbon dioxide, water etc.) caused earth to be like Venus today
cloud-wise.
And then the sun starts to shine. "Let there be light"
Sure, there's plenty of light OUTSIDE OF THE EARTH, but Genesis is speaking to you, the
observer. And when we say "the sun rises in the East" we are talking as observers, not as
astronomers. We are thus talking plain, common sense. So suddenly, our boat guy, bobbing
around on green water and deep orange/black sky, sees the sun shining through, illuminating
the world for the first time in several hundred million years.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ex-Chemist, learn science from Bible and our Christian friends like PruePhillip, Etritonakin, etc. What you learnt in the college was trash.

 

[exchemist]

Okay, your observer is standing/floating UPON THE EARTH.
You are not speaking to a people about orbiting a planet as orbit means to go around and planet
means a wandering star. There's no concept of orbits, planetary bodies, stars as suns, galaxies,
vacuum, micro-gravity, cosmic rays, supernova etc..
So you are saying, "Imagine you are on the waters, because there was no ground back then."
Now it was dark - the sun was weaker, lots of left-over debris in orbit and vast amount of
aerosols (sulphur, methan, carbon dioxide, water etc.) caused earth to be like Venus today
cloud-wise.
And then the sun starts to shine. "Let there be light"
Sure, there's plenty of light OUTSIDE OF THE EARTH, but Genesis is speaking to you, the
observer. And when we say "the sun rises in the East" we are talking as observers, not as
astronomers. We are thus talking plain, common sense. So suddenly, our boat guy, bobbing
around on green water and deep orange/black sky, sees the sun shining through, illuminating
the world for the first time in several hundred million years.

Are you telling me that the "great light" by day, created on the fourth day, after the plants, is NOT the sun?

What is it, then?

 

[Salvador]

Salvador, before you go any further with this person, you might care to glance at this, on "word salad": Word salad - Wikipedia

I came across this recently and found it instructive, regarding a few individuals I have come across on discussion forums. I am fairly certain this poster is mentally ill.

I'll try better to empathize and understand those having special needs, my Asperger's Syndrome condition makes me struggle with being empathetic. I also like discussing my own special interests or needs as opposed to addressing the interests or concerns of other people.

 

[PruePhillip]

Are you telling me that the "great light" by day, created on the fourth day, after the plants, is NOT the sun?

What is it, then?

Didn't say it's easy to read! No different really, reading Genesis or some
parchment or clay tablet. The great light is simply a repeat - there's a few
repeats in this account that are quite obvious. Put it down to the guy who
was charged with writing up the oral tradition.

 

[exchemist]

Didn't say it's easy to read! No different really, reading Genesis or some
parchment or clay tablet. The great light is simply a repeat - there's a few
repeats in this account that are quite obvious. Put it down to the guy who
was charged with writing up the oral tradition.

I see. So, if you hold it up to the light sideways, shut one eye, squint a bit, and ignore anything that you feel like, you get a coherent scientific account.

Very persuasive.

But at least we are in agreement that Genesis 2 is not a factual account. That is something, I suppose.

 

[james bond]

Boy, many of you are way, way, way old. The evidence we are still relatively young is through radiocarbon dating. You're using the wrong dating method of radiometric dating. The methodology isn't wrong, but your assumptions are.

 

[PruePhillip]

I see. So, if you hold it up to the light sideways, shut one eye, squint a bit, and ignore anything that you feel like, you get a coherent scientific account.

Very persuasive.

But at least we are in agreement that Genesis 2 is not a factual account. That is something, I suppose.

No, I am sorry Genesis 1 has repeated several things. There shouldn't be
an argument about it. Nor should there be an argument that it's written in
theological language. But you can discern the underlying intent of the text.
The basic statements are factual - in as much as they agree with science.
And I think I worked it out here once that the probability of getting each of
the sequences correct and in order was one in several thousand?

You are just trying to squint and hem and haw and find some way to get
out of admitting the similarities are so significant.

 

[exchemist]

Boy, many of you are way, way, way old. The evidence we are still relatively young is through radiocarbon dating. You're using the wrong dating method of radiometric dating. The methodology isn't wrong, but your assumptions are.

What rubbish.