Is the world 6000 years old?

[zachor_ve_kavod]

<snip>
Major agriculture and large cities don't mark the beginning of humanity though.

what would you say does? / when do you think the beginning of humanity started?

When humanity became anatomically modern and began to communicate with one another in more complex ways that could be considered a true language.

Of course if you go back far enough there is a sticky situation. You don't know exactly what generation that 'humanity' started. There were several species of hominids alive at the same time. Some of them were probably at least as intelligent as the Kung San in Africa or Aboriginals in Australia, which are considered to be modern humans. When the Aboriginals of Tasmania were discovered by white people, they didn't even have fire, yet they are considered to be modern humans. Homo erectus had fires, but they're not considered to be human. For a period of history it's hard to determine where 'humanity' begins.

Here is an image of "Tasmanian Aboriginals"
<snip image>

The jewish ~6000 figure puts Adam at 3760BCE

I guess the 6000 figure is held by christians too, because you have the bible, which puts Abraham after around 2000 years. And Abraham , judging by the laws of the place he lived, a historian would put him around 1800BCE.  So you get around 3800BCE.. nearly 4000BCE  As oppose to something like 14,000BCE

I heard one guy.. I don't think he was trying to make the case that outside evidence shows that humanity started ~6000 years ago..

But he just wanted to show that civilization 10,000 years ago doesn't mean it's human.. He basically said that linguistic evidence would be something we can look at to determine it.. seeing what they think and feel.. what they value.  We don't have it > 6000 years ago.

I found something about the oldest writing being 3200BCE.

homo sapians - human in body - meant to be around as far as back as 200,000 years ago.. would have been the ones that did cave paintings which are as old as 30,000 years..

He argued that a cave painting shows the thing that drew it is good at drawing, but they don't show much more. Sometimes a picture of an animal.. so maybe  the person that drew it was hungry and decided to draw the animal.  We don't know.

They would have had a voice box, but that doesn't prove they are human. Maybe their language was simple.. we don't know the content of what they were saying..  

I suppose what he says works to say to bible skeptics "hah, you haven't disproven me.. you have to provide linguistic evidence, because that is one thing that, an analysis of might show they were human".

The lack of linguistic evidence, I suppose, would strengthen the biblical position alot if  people expected it but couldn't find it.  But , it's interesting that apparently blacks didn't have any writing until around 1800CE   or so, when christian missionaries introduced it to them.
Some of them are decent human beings, so I'd say they are part of the  human "race" - from Adam.

You suggest earlier that Adam represents Humanity.  I heard a much more literal statement on that.. That the thing that distinguished Adam  from other creatures, or even things before him if there were. Was that Adam had a human soul.  G-d breathed it into him.  Anything before him is not considered man. So from a biblical perspective, it's a human body and a human soul - both literally -  that maketh the man.

By the way.. one of the funniest things I saw.. was in a museum(I think it was the Natural History Museum in London), there was this life size model of what early woman looked like. It think it was earlier than homo sapian.  It basically looked like a black woman. Naked.  (perhaps particularly ugly, but the body was very human looking).  So people come into the hall of the museum and they stare at it wondering/thinking the obvious privately to themselves, and they could justify staring scientifically!   I stood around because I liked the psychology of it.. Eventually a mother came in with some kids.. the little boy is staring, wondering.. and his mother pulled him away!  then you got black women coming in, having a look, and getting a bit embarrassed and irritated and walking off.  Or more aware ones embarrassed at how other people are staring and wondering.  Somebody should take a small video camera  into that museum in that spot!  I did wonder if any were white.. I just read that homo sapians entered europe 150,000 years ago and skin got lighter.

I happen to believe that q_q_, that Adam was the first man that G-d breathed a soul into.  Therefore you might say that Adam was the first man in the sense that a man without a soul is less a man than an animal.  Incidentally, I believe that there are some people still who have no souls and are consequently more like animals.

[q_q_]

<snip>
There's a problem starting the literal timeline from Adam, q_q_.  If you notice that the first people the bible gives their lifespans, this is problematic.  In Genesis: 5, it says Adam lived 930 years, Seth lived 912 years, Enos lived 905 years, Cainan lived 910 years, Mahalaleel lived 895 years, Jared lived 962 years, Enoch lived 365 years, Methusela lived 969 years, and Lamech lived 777 years.  Then came Noah.  So far, those 9 generations lived for 6,695 years.  That is longer than all of recorded history.  This cannot be taken literally; it has to be allegorical.  <snip>

well, it can be assumed to be what you say...but an assumption is an assumption...  Case and point...Gd exists, the Torah is real...allegorical or literal.

no, even muman showed that what zachor wrote in that post was completely wrong.

[muman613]

Here is a site which attempts to give a timeline:

http://www.jewishamerica.com/ja/timeline/adm2abr.cfm


Years                     Years Before
From Creation    The Common Era    

Day 6 3761    CREATION OF ADAM (Sixth "day of creation")(1)
130    3630    Birth of Shait (Seth)(1)
622    3138    Birth of Chanoch (Enoch)(1)
687    3073    Birth of Metushelach (Methuselah)(1)
930    2830    "P'tirah" (Death) of Adam (1)
1056    2704    BIRTH OF NOACH (NOAH)(1)
1558    2202    Birth of Shem (1)
1656    2104    THE FLOOD (1)
1723    2037    Birth of Ever (Eber)(1)
1757    2003    Birth of Peleg (1)
1948    1812    BIRTH OF AVRAHAM (ABRAHAM) (1)


http://www.jewishamerica.com/ja/timeline/timpersp.cfm

[Rubystars]

But he just wanted to show that civilization 10,000 years ago doesn't mean it's human.. He basically said that linguistic evidence would be something we can look at to determine it.. seeing what they think and feel.. what they value.  We don't have it > 6000 years ago.

I'm pretty sure that anatomically human creatures would also be spiritually human creatures. I think that there will be a lot more evidence around that will be discovered that breaks this imaginary 6000 year boundary. I've read about a lot of artifacts that are older than 6000 years and show clearly human (as opposed to purely instictive animal) behavior. This includes musical instruments, ritual burials, carved maps, relatively sophisticated tools, etc.

I found something about the oldest writing being 3200BCE.

Pictograms are a form of writing and I think that cave paintings are one of the earliest forms of writing. They're meant to convey a message that can be read. They also may have had spiritual meaning.

homo sapians - human in body - meant to be around as far as back as 200,000 years ago.. would have been the ones that did cave paintings which are as old as 30,000 years..

Yes the paintings in France were done by early Europeans. The details in the images show intelligence and artistry. I'm proud of those paintings. I consider them part of the European heritage in which I share a part.

He argued that a cave painting shows the thing that drew it is good at drawing, but they don't show much more. Sometimes a picture of an animal.. so maybe  the person that drew it was hungry and decided to draw the animal.  We don't know.

They're just too good of paintings to be random drawings. The artists were skilled.

They would have had a voice box, but that doesn't prove they are human. Maybe their language was simple.. we don't know the content of what they were saying..  

We do know that they had enough planning skill to live through the harsh environment of the European winters, which would have included communicating in hunting and storing enough food to survive through those bare months, and cooperation for such things as keeping fires going and working skins and furs with scrapers and other specialized tools.

I suppose what he says works to say to bible skeptics "hah, you haven't disproven me.. you have to provide linguistic evidence, because that is one thing that, an analysis of might show they were human".

I think expecting linguistic evidence from a long-dead language is a bit silly. However I do think there's sufficient evidence that they did communicate with one another in meaningful ways and produced some of the earliest technologies and works of art with their intelligent minds.

The lack of linguistic evidence, I suppose, would strengthen the biblical position alot if  people expected it but couldn't find it.  But , it's interesting that apparently blacks didn't have any writing until around 1800CE   or so, when christian missionaries introduced it to them.
Some of them are decent human beings, so I'd say they are part of the  human "race" - from Adam.

Oh I think they're part of the human race in the sense of being able to communicate with God, but they are different in significant ways from Asians and whites. I think they're a little further removed from those two than Asians and whites are from one another.

You suggest earlier that Adam represents Humanity.  I heard a much more literal statement on that.. That the thing that distinguished Adam  from other creatures, or even things before him if there were. Was that Adam had a human soul.  G-d breathed it into him.  Anything before him is not considered man. So from a biblical perspective, it's a human body and a human soul - both literally -  that maketh the man.

I'd agree with that for the most part, but I think we have to look earlier for that moment than most scholars are currently looking. I think human history goes back far earlier than the cities and irrigation agriculture. I think smaller communities were around a long time before that and were fully human.

I did wonder if any were white.. I just read that homo sapians entered europe 150,000 years ago and skin got lighter.

I tend to agree with a mixture between the Out of Africa theory and the multiregional theory. I think that originally all humans were from Africa but there were several waves of migration out of Africa with various closely related hominids. One wave that came out and went to Asia for example was Homo erectus, and then later another wave of humans came out and went to Asia and might have cross-bred with some of the earlier hominids. Europeans might have cross bred somewhat with closely related Neanderthals, and God-knows-what the Africans crossed with since all the hominids came from there anyway.

Another idea is that there wasn't any crossbreeding and the different races just developed differently on their respective continents. This could also be true.

It is true that the first people likely had dark skin and then the skin lightened as people moved north into Europe and Asia to absorb more Vitamin D.

[muman613]

What I find unbelievable about this theory is that it would seem that there would be much much more evidence of many varieties of intelligent life than there exists today. Why are we the only upright intelligent speaking beings? If this evolutionary theory is true then there should be much more variety in the fossil records and even in living beings today. Why are all humans made with 10 fingers and 10 toes and everything else is a fluke of nature? Why two arms and two legs? It would seem to me that there should be other speaking and upright beings. I would imagine that having more legs and more arms would make a being more fit to survive. I have thought about how great it would be to have an extra set of arms, so that while working on the keyboard I can also drink and eat.

This is my own personal reason for having reservations against the theory of evolution. There should be much more variety in life considering all the potential mutations which could have occured.

[Rubystars]

What I find unbelievable about this theory is that it would seem that there would be much much more evidence of many varieties of intelligent life than there exists today. Why are we the only upright intelligent speaking beings? If this evolutionary theory is true then there should be much more variety in the fossil records and even in living beings today. Why are all humans made with 10 fingers and 10 toes and everything else is a fluke of nature?

The five fingers on each hand and foot goes back to amphibian ancestors.

Why two arms and two legs? It would seem to me that there should be other speaking and upright beings.

Same answer as above, the four limbs were seen in creatures like Acanthostega, which was an early quadruped.

As for a speaking upright being, there are parrots that use a variety of sounds to communicate. African gray parrots can actually understand some of what they learn to say in human speech.

Besides birds and humans, kangaroos are also upright and stand on two legs.

In the past there were a lot of different types of hominids living at the same time, that walked upright. It's hard to determine exactly which of them would have talked to God in the way that modern humans can without meeting them.

I would imagine that having more legs and more arms would make a being more fit to survive. I have thought about how great it would be to have an extra set of arms, so that while working on the keyboard I can also drink and eat.

More limbs also require more energy, so the least amount of limbs that would allow the most function is ideal.

Evolution also works with what's come before it. So basically any descendants of quadrupeds are either going to be quadrupeds or have fewer legs (like snakes) rather than more legs, unless they have some kind of polymelia abnormality. Arthropods seem to have found a different solution, using their legs for precise movement and speed.

This is my own personal reason for having reservations against the theory of evolution. There should be much more variety in life considering all the potential mutations which could have occured.

If you knew more about biology you'd realize that life on earth is extremely various. Also there were a lot of body plans that came about during the Cambrian explosion but most of them don't survive today.