Is the world 6000 years old?

[q_q_]

If anything, these "random" forms of evolution coming to the point where we are today makes Gd's creations even more beautiful than the zap here and zap there 6 days of creation story.  If anything this randomness of evolution to create our current world only proves even more so Gd's existence than the simple 6 literal day story that fossils were planted by Gd..I'm sorry, that's a cop out of an arguement that can't be explained by creationists and anti-evolutionists.

I understand what you mean. The one time I tried to go to church, I left after a few weeks because they said that fossils were planted in the ground. That wasn't the only mind-numbing thing I had heard there, but it was one of the things that really frustrated me. The final straw was when they started saying that people in several other denominations were likely going to hell.

I really wish that more people would accept science. It would be a better world.

Exactly, I know what you mean Ruby, it feels like they are questioning my intelligence and expect me to be an idiot because they don't know the answer so they tell me to accept it just because. That's not the word of G-d, that's the people that rn the church mixing the word of G-d and their own personal morals and beliefs.

I will not and cannot accept that fossils were just put here as a "test" or "planted", that's rediculous. The bible must say something about it which is why I brought up the question of the age of the earth and how our time differs from the Roman calender.

I can't recall who said it, but I like the idea that someone had stated there is no evidence that cavemen were human and that "civilization" as we know it started 6000 years ago, that would make a heck of a lot more sense. The idea of the Earth it's self only being 6000 years old though doesn't add up, not saying that it's impossible, just that I think people nitpick and stereotype the bible when I hadn't seen the verse myself that actually stated the age.

You are being a bit arrogant assuming people are nitpicking and steriotyping when after these 7 pages of thread you still haven't understood where the numbers come from. So you don't understand either side of the argument.

The ~6000 figure is not in one verse, it is derived by adding the ages of people from Adam.  Thus it is from Adam.

Those that say the earth is that old, are assuming that 6(or 7 or some of those) days were 24 hours (a fair assumption).  But there are other good  reasons to say eras.

Now, regarding people only telling you that the fossils are planted. Well, you obviously haven't looked very far to ask your questions to rabbis. (i know you live far away from vibrant jewish life)
The big outreach organisations outreach organisations, Aish, Ohr Sameach, both teach the eras possibility.   
The only "outreach organisation" that teaches 24h, is chabad, because it's a chassidic group whose Rebbe said they were 24 hours.

If you actually read the popular books on the subject. Shroeder, or Natan Aviezer, you see ample explanation about them being ERAS. Neither of them even entertain the idea that the evidence was planted.

[Muck DeFuslims]

Yes, it seems silly to think the Earth is 6,000 years old.

I'm not an expert, but I don't believe the Torah directly states the age of the Earth. The figure 6000 is derived by adding the number of years of each generation after Adam.

A common misconception is that Rosh Hashanah celebrates the birthday of the Earth. A more profound understanding is that Rosh Hashanah denotes the anniversary of the creation of the soul of man.

So in reality the 6,000 year figure doesn't mean the Earth is 6,000 years old, but rather the creation of mankind - humans with souls - occurred 6,000 years ago.

Jewish sages teach that there were only 3 creations. The first creation was the creation of the universe. This was the only physical creation. The second creation was the soul of animals. The third and final creation was the soul of man.

Our sages also teach us that the 6 days of the physical creation of the universe is not on the same earthly time scale or calendar that we humans use to measure time now. In other words, there is a separate clock - a divine clock - being employed when describing and measuring those 6 days. This divine clock measures time looking forward from the beginning. Our human measurement of time which only begins after Adam's soul is created is entirely different than the divine clock.

So in essence, we are dealing with 2 clocks or methods of measuring time. The divine clock, which looks forward from the beginning, encompasses the first 6 days of creation and can be extrapolated to being equal to approximately 15 billion years from our earthly perspective in the space-time continuum.

It is interesting to note that a 'day' on the divine clock is indeed 24 hours. But each of those 24 hour divine days encompass billions of years as measured from our earthly perspective. And each of the divine days is a different length of time as measured in earth years.

Without going into too much detail, it can be computed that divine 'day one' lasted about 8 billion of our earth years. The second 24 hour divine day lasted about 4 billion earth years. The 3rd divine day lasted 2 billion earth years. The fourth, 1 billion. The fifth, 1/2 billion and the sixth, 1/4 billion. Adding these numbers up we find that the 6 divine days of creation equal about 15 billion earth years.

I hope this clears up and helps resolve the apparent differences regarding the age of the universe between the Torah and modern science. The two are not incompatible.

[Kerber]

The Earth is old about 6000 years.And it's not silly,it's not funny nor anything like that.You should not watch or read evolutionist's,satanist's lies and imaginations.

One of the best proves is the Earth's magnetic field.First you should know that there are 2 kinds of magnets.The first kind is natural magnet,the second one is electromagnet(made by someone).Natural magnet lose its field when the temperature rise above 750 Celsius degrees.

For many years scientists thought that the Earth is one giant natural magnet,but temperature in the Earth rises(on every 3 meters the temperature rises by 1 Celsius degree) above 750 Celsius degrees on the depth of just 25km(15,6 miles).So,it means that the Earth is an electromagnet,which implicates that in the middle of the Earth we have circulating electrical streams(intensity of 6 billions Amperes).That shocked evolutionists,because there are no evolutionist model which can explain creation of such a thing in a middle of the Earth.What or who started those electrical streams?They can't answer who put it inside by any of their evolutionst models.

Scientists concluded that those electrical streams are going to decay,because theya re not connected to any source.Friedrich Gauss started to measure it in 1835,and today we can see that every century the intensity of the field is decaying by 5%.There are mathematical formulas for those calculations and using them we can conclude this:
1.if the Earth is only 10 000 years old,the intensity of the field was 98 gauss(unit named by F.Gauss),which means that the Earth was a "magnetic star".And that's impossible!
2.if the Earth is old about 52 000 years,than we get the calculation of magnetic field intensity showing the Earth was "pulsing star"(pulsar),which is also impossible!
That means the Earth CAN'T BE OLDER MORE THAN 10 000 years(more precisely 8700yrs)!

And that's regarding the age of our God's created planet...
*****************************************************
Considering lies and illusions about symbolism of days...
There are many scientific proves telling us that God's words written by Moshe in his books are literal and there are no symbolism in it.The words are simple,written on the way that could be understood by uneducated(unlettered) Jewish shepherds.So,there is no reason that we shouldn't understand it,today.
Creation of Earth did happen in 6 days(day=24 hours) and one of the biggest proves for that is dr.Robert Gentry's research on granite.His research shows us that granite was made immediately,in 2 or 3 seconds.It declines millions and billions of years.

Evidence for Earth's Instant Cretaion-Polonium Halos in Granite and Coal
http://www.halos.com/


Videos on this subject:
1.Young Age of the Earth,http://www.halos.com/videos/0003-TheYoungAgeoftheEarthSpanish-217k.htm
2.Fingerprints of Creation,http://www.halos.com/videos/0002-FingerprintsofCreationSpanish-215k.htm

An Overview

Etched within Earth's foundation rocks — the granites — are beautiful microspheres of coloration, halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have only a fleeting existence.

The following simple analogy will show how these polonium microspheres — or halos — contradict the evolutionary belief that granites formed as hot magma slowly cooled over millions of years. To the contrary, this analogy demonstrates how these halos provide unambiguous evidence of both an almost instantaneous creation of granites and the young age of the earth.

A speck of polonium in molten rock can be compared to an Alka-Seltzer dropped into a glass of water. The beginning of effervescence is equated to the moment that polonium atoms began to emit radiactive particles. In molten rock the traces of those radioactive particles would disappear as quickly as the Alka-Seltzer bubbles in water. But if the water were instantly frozen, the bubbles would be preserved. Likewise, polonium halos could have formed only if the rapidly "effervescing" specks of polonium had been instantly encased in solid rock.

An exceedingly large number of polonium halos are embedded in granites around the world. Just as frozen Alka-Seltzer bubbles would be clear evidence of the quick-freezing of the water, so are these many polonium halos undeniable evidence that a sea of primordial matter quickly "froze" into solid granite. The occurrence of these polonium halos, then, distinctly implies that our earth was formed in a very short time, in complete harmony with the biblical record of creation.
**********************************************

[q_q_]

The way things work in science is scientists look at it and it gets into a peer reviewed journal.

I know a scientist that flatly refuses to read "popular" science books. For that reason..

I did have a book called Fossils and Faith by Natan Aviezer, he points out that there are many scientific techniques from different scientific disciplines, that all point to an old earth.  It's unlikely that the dating is wrong
(unless perhaps there's some common thing amongst all of them that invalidates them.. like if the flood affected the atmosphere and affected all of them)

So even if your thing is valid.. why choose it over other techniques that point to an old earth?

Evolution aside, fossils are an issue for one that talks of a young earth.
Fossils don't prove evolution. But they date to being very old, so do point to an old earth.

[✡ Hindu Zionist ॐ]

for me the world is as old as me

[Dr. Dan]

for me the world is as old as me

very wise...but it's the way young children think..therefore, it's a primitive way to think that the world is only in being because you exist...but then again, each one of our existence is important for the world's...

[q_q_]

for me the world is as old as me

very wise...but it's the way young children think..therefore, it's a primitive way to think that the world is only in being because you exist...but then again, each one of our existence is important for the world's...

He was obviously joking, Dr.

[Rubystars]

I still think anyone with a hard science background who thinks the earth is 6000 years old is silly. If you believe it for strictly religious reasons I can respect that belief, but it will never line up with the evidence.

[New Yorker]

The earth is 4.5 billion years old. The Universe, is 14 billion years old, and every atom & sub-atomic particle in your body has existed since the begining of the Universe, the material you are made of is 14 billion years old, some of it forged in the cores of massive stars at millions of degrees heat, then blown out in supernovas long before our sun even formed. Mind boggling when you think about it.
 

[zachor_ve_kavod]

Roughly 6000 years ago is when what we would recognize as civilizations began.  The beginning of Genesis, ie the first 5 or 6 days is probably allegorical for the 4.6 billion years of Earth's history before the beginning of civilization.  The dates in Genesis I think are largely symbolic.  I do believe that Abraham was roughly 4000 years ago.

That there are disputes about what is and isn't allegorical, and what dates are and are not accurate does not particularly disturb me.  It is after Abraham that the literal timeline of the bible takes over.  At least that is my opinion.

[q_q_]

<snip>It is after Abraham that the literal timeline of the bible takes over.  At least that is my opinion.

For goodness sake, it's after ADAM , you can't just invent when the count starts.

The fact that it starts from Adam was mentioned on the first page. And no doubt on other pages too. There are 8 pages already. Let's not make it 16 by repetition.

[syyuge]

It is interesting to note that a 'day' on the divine clock is indeed 24 hours. But each of those 24 hour divine days encompass billions of years as measured from our earthly perspective. And each of the divine days is a different length of time as measured in earth years.

Without going into too much detail, it can be computed that divine 'day one' lasted about 8 billion of our earth years. The second 24 hour divine day lasted about 4 billion earth years. The 3rd divine day lasted 2 billion earth years. The fourth, 1 billion. The fifth, 1/2 billion and the sixth, 1/4 billion. Adding these numbers up we find that the 6 divine days of creation equal about 15 billion earth years.

I hope this clears up and helps resolve the apparent differences regarding the age of the universe between the Torah and modern science. The two are not incompatible.

The length or period of each divine day may be proportional to the average outer velocity of the expanding universe during that particular day.

[zachor_ve_kavod]

<snip>It is after Abraham that the literal timeline of the bible takes over.  At least that is my opinion.

For goodness sake, it's after ADAM , you can't just invent when the count starts.

The fact that it starts from Adam was mentioned on the first page. And no doubt on other pages too. There are 8 pages already. Let's not make it 16 by repetition.

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.  

Then in relating Abraham, the bible says that Abraham lived to the age of 175 years and died at a very old age.  Why would it say that Abraham died at an old age of 175 years, when 900+ years is so much older?  My point is that it is around the time of Abraham that the dates of the bible become literal and precise, not before.

[muman613]

<snip>It is after Abraham that the literal timeline of the bible takes over.  At least that is my opinion.

For goodness sake, it's after ADAM , you can't just invent when the count starts.

The fact that it starts from Adam was mentioned on the first page. And no doubt on other pages too. There are 8 pages already. Let's not make it 16 by repetition.

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.  

Then in relating Abraham, the bible says that Abraham lived to the age of 175 years and died at a very old age.  Why would it say that Abraham died at an old age of 175 years, when 900+ years is so much older?  My point is that it is around the time of Abraham that the dates of the bible become literal and precise, not before.

Zachor,

You realize that some of those people you mentioned were alive at the same time. You cannot simply add up their lifespans and say that it is longer than history. Artscroll in their Chumash lists the generations and who lived when and how long. There are good explanations why the people lived as long as they did. I don't doubt that people could live as long as Hashem wants them to live.

Here is one explanation: http://www.vbm-torah.org/Parasha.64/01bereishit.htm

However, it is difficult to ignore the fact that Chanokh's lifespan is much shorter – less than half as long, in fact – than the lives of the generations that preceded and that followed him, especially his father and his son. In Tanakh we generally find that the number of years of a person's life is directly linked to his behavior. The reward for fulfillment of mitzvot is long life ("I shall fill the number of your days" – Shemot 23:26, and elsewhere), while a shorter lifespan is evidence of Divine punishment ("Nor shall there ever be an elderly man of your household" – Shemuel I 2:32, and elsewhere). What, then, is the meaning of this apparent contradiction in the description of Chanokh's character?

More about this @ http://www.ou.org/torah/tt/5761/bereshit61/aliya.htm

Shishi - Sixth Aliya - 24 p'sukim - 5:1-24

The lineage from Adam through Sheit (Seth) to No'ach (into the next Aliya) is set down, with the age of the father at the birth of the son, and each person's age at his death. These numbers help us construct the first part of our timeline. Although many sons and daughters are born to this list of patriarchs of the world, only one representative of each generation is named. Some say that only the named individual had the longevity that is recorded; the "average man and woman in the street lived much shorter lives. Others say that the lifespan of the human was much longer before the Flood.

Shishi concludes with mention of Chanoch, who was taken from this world (possibly not by death) at the relatively young age of 365.

[zachor_ve_kavod]

<snip>It is after Abraham that the literal timeline of the bible takes over.  At least that is my opinion.

For goodness sake, it's after ADAM , you can't just invent when the count starts.

The fact that it starts from Adam was mentioned on the first page. And no doubt on other pages too. There are 8 pages already. Let's not make it 16 by repetition.

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.  

Then in relating Abraham, the bible says that Abraham lived to the age of 175 years and died at a very old age.  Why would it say that Abraham died at an old age of 175 years, when 900+ years is so much older?  My point is that it is around the time of Abraham that the dates of the bible become literal and precise, not before.

Zachor,

You realize that some of those people you mentioned were alive at the same time. You cannot simply add up their lifespans and say that it is longer than history. Artscroll in their Chumash lists the generations and who lived when and how long. There are good explanations why the people lived as long as they did. I don't doubt that people could live as long as Hashem wants them to live.

Here is one explanation: http://www.vbm-torah.org/Parasha.64/01bereishit.htm

However, it is difficult to ignore the fact that Chanokh's lifespan is much shorter – less than half as long, in fact – than the lives of the generations that preceded and that followed him, especially his father and his son. In Tanakh we generally find that the number of years of a person's life is directly linked to his behavior. The reward for fulfillment of mitzvot is long life ("I shall fill the number of your days" – Shemot 23:26, and elsewhere), while a shorter lifespan is evidence of Divine punishment ("Nor shall there ever be an elderly man of your household" – Shemuel I 2:32, and elsewhere). What, then, is the meaning of this apparent contradiction in the description of Chanokh's character?

I understand your point.  But why would Abraham live a comparitively short life then?  And why would it say that he lived a long life?

[muman613]

<snip>

I understand your point.  But why would Abraham live a comparitively short life then?  And why would it say that he lived a long life?

From what I understand the nature of the air changed after the flood and it negatively affected the lifespan of humanity. I dont remember exactly why this occured.

http://www.shemayisrael.com/Parasha/alport/archives/noach68.htm

Eileh Toldos Shem Shem ben me’as shana vayoled es Arpachshad sh’nasayim achar hamabul Vayechi Shem acharei holeedo es Arpachshad chameish meos shana vayoled banim u’vanos (11:10-11)

In Parshas Bereishis, the Torah lists the ten generations from Adam to Noach to Avrohom and the years of their lives (5:3-32). A quick examination reveals that the average post-flood lifespan of the generations from Noach to Avrohom listed in our parsha (11:10-26) was significantly shorter than that of the post-flood generations. To what may this change be attributed?

Our great commentators suggest a number of explanations for this phenomenon. The Rambam writes (Moreh Nevuchim 2:47) that even before the blood, the average lifespan was only 70 or 80 years, and those who are mentioned as living much longer were exceptions to the rule. The Ramban disagrees and maintains that these individuals weren’t exceptional, but rather all people prior to the flood had longer lifespans. After the flood, natural conditions were no longer as supportive to humans, which resulting in declining lifespans. Finally, the Seforno suggests (8:21) that prior to the flood, there were no changes in the weather and in seasons, which allowed humans to remain much stronger. After the flood, unnatural changes in the earth and sun resulted in constantly changing weather conditions that left humans less healthy and shortened their lifespans.

[Rubystars]

Roughly 6000 years ago is when what we would recognize as civilizations began.  The beginning of Genesis, ie the first 5 or 6 days is probably allegorical for the 4.6 billion years of Earth's history before the beginning of civilization.  The dates in Genesis I think are largely symbolic.  I do believe that Abraham was roughly 4000 years ago.

That there are disputes about what is and isn't allegorical, and what dates are and are not accurate does not particularly disturb me.  It is after Abraham that the literal timeline of the bible takes over.  At least that is my opinion.

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

[q_q_]

<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?

[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?

This is a good question and I can tell you what the anthropologists say.  They say that music and dancing became a human characteristic 50,000 years ago.  Also that man began living in tiny communities around 10,000 years ago.  Sumer, which the anthropologists generally regard as the first civilization was roughly 6000 years ago.

This is not my opinion.  I'm only telling you what I've read from anthropology textbooks.

[Rubystars]

<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"

[Rubystars]

<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?

This is a good question and I can tell you what the anthropologists say.  They say that music and dancing became a human characteristic 50,000 years ago.  Also that man began living in tiny communities around 10,000 years ago.  Sumer, which the anthropologists generally regard as the first civilization was roughly 6000 years ago.

This is not my opinion.  I'm only telling you what I've read from anthropology textbooks.

Playable bone flute found in China, 9000 years old:
http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/1999/bnlpr092299.html

"In 1996, excavation of a Neanderthal cave site in northwestern Slovenia uncovered, what appears to be, the section of a transverse flute made from the femur bone of a young bear. This bone fragment was perforated with four round holes whose shape and alignment strongly suggested that it was, indeed, the remnant of a Neanderthal wind instrument. The artifact is dated between 43,000 to 82,000 years old, making it the flute ever to be associated with Neanderthals and oldest musical instrument ever found."

Note that Neanderthals were not exactly the same species as what we consider "modern humans". They were more like our close cousins. Nobody knows for sure if regular humans and Neanderthals could interbreed though. Our type of human lived at the same time their type of human did.

http://www.shakuhachi.com/CM-Fink-NEANDERTHAL.html

[Kerber]

First people,first civilization,before the Flood happened described in Bible were much bigger,stronger,with more potential in every aspect of life,because nature was different-climate conditions were different,atmosphere pressure was different with different concentrations of gases in the air.
I see that some of you are saying that fossils shows that the Earth is "old".That's not true.Methods used for that are not reliable at all.I can give an interesting example on this subject,too.

There are evidence,scientific proves(archeology,then physics&chemistry) for that,bit I don't have time to explain and show now.
Later...

[q_q_]

<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.

[Dr. Dan]

<snip>It is after Abraham that the literal timeline of the bible takes over.  At least that is my opinion.

For goodness sake, it's after ADAM , you can't just invent when the count starts.

The fact that it starts from Adam was mentioned on the first page. And no doubt on other pages too. There are 8 pages already. Let's not make it 16 by repetition.

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.  

Then in relating Abraham, the bible says that Abraham lived to the age of 175 years and died at a very old age.  Why would it say that Abraham died at an old age of 175 years, when 900+ years is so much older?  My point is that it is around the time of Abraham that the dates of the bible become literal and precise, not before.

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.

[Dr. Dan]

<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?

Humanity began when Man knew Gd.  Adam was the first man to know Him.