In your understanding. How old is human race? and when was the first being alive on earth?

[dad]

So earth is not billion pf years old? Only a few thousand years old, or is the earth old, but human race very very young?

Question, in your understanding how old is the 3 big pyramids in Egypt ?

The whole thing including the universe is the same age. All created in the same week. If we wanted to get technical, the earth is older than the stars because it was created earlier in the week.

 

[rational experiences]

Says a human being talking about dead human beings.

A human being discussing other bodies of forms looking at them, is a human being living today, as old as that human bio life body is today. Asking questions and doing the thinking, discussing other bodies he or she is looking at just today.

Yet the male science human self always feel superior, as he is the inventor/thinker for all human scientific quotes. Why he infers he is the superior being from his own memories, human.

So in relevant self advice, the study human researching could only in truth claim any other body he looks at PERSONALLY discussing only in his or her self human presence can only be as old as what the thinker thinking is.

The relative truth, if all humans suddenly died, there is no other thinker claiming age or status to naturally present bodies.

Seeing you claim you are thinking on behalf of all other bodies you are looking at.

Which science completely always has ignored as being relevant...you are all only as old in the living thinking concept, self and human, as the thinker. Thinking does not own rationally what you are thinking about.

Then science should ask itself, how old is stone sitting in space just as stone.

Then ask self when stone never existed as stone how old was the hot dense mass state.

To see what sort of false thoughts you own.

 

[Bree]

The title says it all
In this thread, I want to hear people's answers to when they think humans began to walk on earth, and when life started. I looking for years back in time.

A: How old is the human race in your understanding?
B: When did the first living being come to life? (not only on earth if life is other places)

I will not take part directly in the discussion but can answer questions directed toward myself.

my belief is the biblical one.

Adam and Eve were created a little over 6,000 years ago. So the human race began at that time and have spread out over the earth since the year 4026BCE (the year of adams creation)

This also ties in with the development of languages. The oldest written languages ever found have come from the Mesopotamia region which they call 'the cradle of civilisation' for that reason. And the languages found there date back around 6,000 years.

 

[MNoBody]

IMO the origins of life, in the frame of Universal time, are unknowable to us.
The place seems infinite.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

my belief is the biblical one.

Adam and Eve were created a little over 6,000 years ago. So the human race began at that time and have spread out over the earth since the year 4026BCE (the year of adams creation)

Are you aware that the vast majority of christians consider this not to be the biblical account at all and instead seriously malinformed nonsense based on the ignorant opinions of a medieval priest named Ussher?

This also ties in with the development of languages.

It doesn't. Not even by a long shot.

The oldest written languages ever found have come from the Mesopotamia region which they call 'the cradle of civilisation' for that reason. And the languages found there date back around 6,000 years.

That is simply false.
In reality, the development of writing and languages was spread out.
Not to mention the multiple independent developments of distinct cultures.

 

[Bree]

Are you aware that the vast majority of christians consider this not to be the biblical account at all and instead seriously malinformed nonsense based on the ignorant opinions of a medieval priest named Ussher?



It doesn't. Not even by a long shot.



That is simply false.
In reality, the development of writing and languages was spread out.
Not to mention the multiple independent developments of distinct cultures.

Not all christians believe the bible, thats true. But I do. Jesus did and he spoke of Adam and Eve as the first man and woman. I have no reason to doubt it.

And yes, languages did 'spread out' because after the flood they were forced to spread out as the bible explains. Cultures developed, languages changed, people kept spreading out and thousands of years later here we are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not all christians believe the bible, thats true.

Nowhere in the bible are the years written that you mentioned. All that comes from a medieval priest named Ussher. The bible doesn't give these timetables at all.

Secondly, those people would seriously resent you accusing them of not believing in the bible.

But I do

So much so that you even believe it concerning things it doesn't even say.

Jesus did and he spoke of Adam and Eve as the first man and woman. I have no reason to doubt it.

Except for all the actual evidence from reality that you instead ignore or handwave away, off course. Like all the evidence that demonstrates that homo sapiens roamed the earth as far back as 200.000 years ago.

And yes, languages did 'spread out'

Together with homo sapiens when groups migrated away from africa, 10s of thousands of years ago.

because after the flood

Which never happened.

they were forced to spread out as the bible explains

The bible is demonstrably wrong about that, then.

Cultures developed, languages changed, people kept spreading out and thousands of years later here we are.

All this unfolded long before abrahamic religion existed and over a timespan about 10 to 20 times of what you suggest. And without physically impossible floods.

 

[Astrophile]

Are you aware that the vast majority of Christians consider this not to be the biblical account at all and instead seriously malinformed nonsense based on the ignorant opinions of a medieval priest named Ussher?

Archbishop James Ussher was born in 1581 and died in 1656, not during medieval times. He was also a very learned man, who had a private library of about 10,000 books, was fluent in many languages, and spent most of his life working out the chronology of the Old and New Testaments. In particular, his dates for the death of Nebuchadrezzar (562 BCE) and the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians are still accepted by historians.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Archbishop James Ussher was born in 1581 and died in 1656, not during medieval times. He was also a very learned man, who had a private library of about 10,000 books, was fluent in many languages, and spent most of his life working out the chronology of the Old and New Testaments. In particular, his dates for the death of Nebuchadrezzar (562 BCE) and the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians are still accepted by historians.

It makes sense that at least parts of the Bible are correct. I don't know of any scholar that rejects all of it. The problem is that some argue because one part is right that means all of it is right. One only needs to apply that reasoning to the holy books of other religions which usually are at least partly factual. That makes that sort of error clear.

 

[Bree]

Nowhere in the bible are the years written that you mentioned. All that comes from a medieval priest named Ussher. The bible doesn't give these timetables at all.

Secondly, those people would seriously resent you accusing them of not believing in the bible.



So much so that you even believe it concerning things it doesn't even say.




Except for all the actual evidence from reality that you instead ignore or handwave away, off course. Like all the evidence that demonstrates that homo sapiens roamed the earth as far back as 200.000 years ago.

Together with homo sapiens when groups migrated away from africa, 10s of thousands of years ago.

Which never happened.

The bible is demonstrably wrong about that, then.

All this unfolded long before abrahamic religion existed and over a timespan about 10 to 20 times of what you suggest. And without physically impossible floods.

the bible has a chronology that allows for a methodical count back to the beginning of human history using its references to certain large periods of time. The calandar we use was not invented thousands of years ago...its fairly recent. Thats why dates prior to the first century are 'B.C.E' have to be counted backwards from known events of our common era. And biblical chronology works exceptionally well this way. To get an accurate date for the flood of Noahs day for example, you can count the years between some of the bibles major events that are known also in secular sources. The year 539 B.C.E. is supported by various historical sources as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus of Persia and this is a good event that can be used to trace back other major events recorded in the bible including the flood of Noahs day and the creation of the first man.

And i guess if you believe in the evolutionary threory that the human race began as some kind of monkey,, then sure, they have been here for hundreds of thousands of years. But that is unproven really and it can never be proven because its just a theory about something no one saw happen. You can believe that if you feel its the most likely senario though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

the bible has a chronology that allows for a methodical count back to the beginning of human history using its references to certain large periods of time. The calandar we use was not invented thousands of years ago...its fairly recent. Thats why dates prior to the first century are 'B.C.E' have to be counted backwards from known events of our common era. And biblical chronology works exceptionally well this way. To get an accurate date for the flood of Noahs day for example, you can count the years between some of the bibles major events that are known also in secular sources. The year 539 B.C.E. is supported by various historical sources as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus of Persia and this is a good event that can be used to trace back other major events recorded in the bible including the flood of Noahs day and the creation of the first man.

And i guess if you believe in the evolutionary threory that the human race began as some kind of monkey,, then sure, they have been here for hundreds of thousands of years. But that is unproven really and it can never be proven because its just a theory about something no one saw happen. You can believe that if you feel its the most likely senario though.

And when we apply science to a literal interpretation of the Bible we find out that it is wrong. You in effect just told us that the Bible is false. As to the theory of evolution it has been "proven" in the sense that you used that word. Scientists use a different standard when they point out that no theory is "proven" than the one that you are using. Like it or not you are still a "monkey". And you are definitely an ape.

 

[oldbadger]

What's not scientific about the world's first successful rib transplant?

Stop it!
I nearly choked on my tea!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

the bible has a chronology that allows for a methodical count back to the beginning of human history using its references to certain large periods of time.

That's Ussher's claim, yes. And the vast majority of christians don't believe it.

And if we assume the claim is true, and we then match up the book against reality, we see that reality shows the book is incorrect.

The calandar we use was not invented thousands of years ago...its fairly recent. Thats why dates prior to the first century are 'B.C.E' have to be counted backwards from known events of our common era. And biblical chronology works exceptionally well this way. To get an accurate date for the flood of Noahs day for example, you can count the years between some of the bibles major events that are known also in secular sources. The year 539 B.C.E. is supported by various historical sources as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus of Persia and this is a good event that can be used to trace back other major events recorded in the bible including the flood of Noahs day and the creation of the first man.

And regardless which data you come up with for that flood, once you test its predictions against reality, you see that the predictions don't check out, which means that flood never occurred.

And i guess if you believe in the evolutionary threory that the human race began as some kind of monkey,, then sure, they have been here for hundreds of thousands of years.

That humans are primates and share ancestors with the other primates (and by extension the other mammals, vertebrates, eukaryotes, etc...), is not a theory but a genetic fact.

The mechanism that drives evolution is theory.
That we share ancestors with chimps is a fact. A fact, which is explained by the theory.

If the theory is wrong, the facts remain what they are. Humans and chimps share ancestors. Regardless if evolution by natural selection is accurate or not. (it is, by the way)

But that is unproven

Every scientific theory is "unproven".
"Proof" is for mathematics. The natural sciences works with evidence instead.

really and it can never be proven because its just a theory about something no one saw happen

It can never be proven because of the very nature of what a scientific theory is.

You should read up on scientific jargon.

Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

You can believe that if you feel its the most likely senario though.

It is not just the most likely scenario, it is the only plausible and supported scenario.
It's explanatory power is true the roof and virtually unmatched in all of science even.
It actually is not at all a stretch to say that evolution theory is one of the best supported theories in all of the natural sciences.

 

[Wandering Monk]

the bible has a chronology that allows for a methodical count back to the beginning of human history using its references to certain large periods of time. The calandar we use was not invented thousands of years ago...its fairly recent. Thats why dates prior to the first century are 'B.C.E' have to be counted backwards from known events of our common era. And biblical chronology works exceptionally well this way. To get an accurate date for the flood of Noahs day for example, you can count the years between some of the bibles major events that are known also in secular sources. The year 539 B.C.E. is supported by various historical sources as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus of Persia and this is a good event that can be used to trace back other major events recorded in the bible including the flood of Noahs day and the creation of the first man.

And i guess if you believe in the evolutionary threory that the human race began as some kind of monkey,, then sure, they have been here for hundreds of thousands of years. But that is unproven really and it can never be proven because its just a theory about something no one saw happen. You can believe that if you feel its the most likely senario though.

Of course, Ussher's chronology disagrees with those derived from other OT manuscripts like the Septuagint.

 

[gnostic]

my belief is the biblical one.

Adam and Eve were created a little over 6,000 years ago. So the human race began at that time and have spread out over the earth since the year 4026BCE (the year of adams creation)

This also ties in with the development of languages. The oldest written languages ever found have come from the Mesopotamia region which they call 'the cradle of civilisation' for that reason. And the languages found there date back around 6,000 years.

The written language is indeed old, but not from 6000 years ago, but from 5300 or 5400 ago (or between 3300 and 3400 BCE), in the city that predated the Bronze Age Sumerian civilization - Uruk.

Uruk is the very same city that Genesis don’t exist until after the Flood, which in Hebrew translated as Erech.

Genesis 10 claimed that Nimrod was the one who built a number of cities in Shinar (Babylonia), which included Erech (Uruk), Babel, Akkad, Calneh, as well as cities in Assyria, they included Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Resen, and Calah (known back then as Kalhu.

The writing is proto-Sumerian written in more archaic form of cuneiform. The earliest inscriptions were found found at one of the temples at Uruk.

The problem with Genesis 10, is that no one by the name Nimrod ever exist in any records or literature from Sumerian and Akkadian (of which there were two Akkadian dialects during the 2nd millennium BCE: Babylonian and Assyrian).

Another things that archaeological evidence showed that Uruk (Erech), Nineveh and Kalhu (Calah) were first built in different times:

• Uruk (biblical Erech): the oldest layer have been dated to around 5000 BCE, hence 7000 years ago. Uruk didn’t rise to prominence until 4000 BCE, and a period was named after the city (Uruk Period, 4000 - 3100 BCE). From 3600 to 2300 BCE Uruk was the largest city in the world. It lost its importance during the Akkadian dynasty.
• Nineveh: was first built around 3600 BCE.
• Kalhu (biblical Calah): was constructed during the reign of Shalmaneser I (1274 - 1245 BCE).

Now unless Nimrod can lived several thousands of years, it isn’t possible for Nimrod to built these 3 cities.

 

[Goddess Kit]

The first human had to be there to feed the first cat. That's all I know.

 

[MNoBody]

The first human had to be there to feed the first cat. That's all I know.

bastet likes this comment....meow

 

[Audie]

It makes sense that at least parts of the Bible are correct. I don't know of any scholar that rejects all of it. The problem is that some argue because one part is right that means all of it is right. One only needs to apply that reasoning to the holy books of other religions which usually are at least partly factual. That makes that sort of error clear.

A con man always relies on stories that are partly true

 

[Tambourine]

The whole thing including the universe is the same age. All created in the same week. If we wanted to get technical, the earth is older than the stars because it was created earlier in the week.

Wrong, everything was created in a single day, which was yesterday.

 

[dad]

Wrong, everything was created in a single day, which was yesterday.

We should believe that because..?