| Author |
The first man on earth? |
*Jojo*
Joined: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
. . . . . oh, OK then. I really thought it was: stop, LUKE & listen 
[addsig] | |
|
amnesia
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Doha, London, Tokyo, Shanghai
PM, WWW
|
spot on Scotsboy.
At others, seems that you don't understand.
I don't KNOW what the first man on earth's real 'name' is.
However he can be referred to as Adam.
For example, if you find a dead person and don't know who he is, you call him John Doe, it's not his real name.
So basically, if you believe in religion or not, you could argue that Adam is simply a name given to the first person on earth.
So if you believe in evolution, religion, a sudden seed, the first human form can be called Adam.
(you could also call him John, Michael, Mohammed, Nerf, or any name in the world, but I'm simply trying to make the point that you can believe that Adam is the first person in the world, you don't have to believe it from a religious point of view)
|
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-09-19 11:25:49, carkitter wrote:
@scotsboyuk
While I am not expert in the evidence behind the young earth claims, I am aware that much of the Bible can be supported other non religious texts and archealogical discoveries. The Dead Sea Scrolls is an example of an archealogical discovery which supports statements in the Bible that were previously unsupported.
Again my apologies for the length of this post.
'Much' is not the same as 'all'. Selectively proving parts of the Bible is not the same as proving all of it is true. One can find evidence, for example, that there was a king Herod and that there was a Roman called Pontius Pilate, but corroborating those parts of the Bible does not automatically corroborate Genesis. Take another example, the Winnie the Pooh stories. There was a real Christopher Robin, the author's son. Does the fact that there was a real Christopher Robin prove that the events in the stories were real?
Relying on carbon-dating to set dates for items as millions of years old is dubioius so I am told.
I am actually rather surprised at your choice of wording here; '...so I am told'. In other words you are saying that you yourself don't actually know how valid carbon-dating is, but that you have been told that it isn't reliable and thus you will accept that.
I shan't go into the physics of it here since I don't want to make this post too long, but suffice to say that radiocarbon dating is accurate for date sup to around 40,000 years ago and has a margin or error of around plus or minus 50 years.
There are other forms of dating of course; potassium-argon dating is used for periods earlier than radiocarbon dating is accurate for. The half life of potassium 40 is 1.3 billion years so it can be used much further back than radiocarbon dating.
Thermoluminesence can also be used to help validate other dating methods. It isn't very accurate in and of itself, only around 15%, but can be used in conjunction with other dating methods.
Cosmogenic isotopes can be used for geological dating.
You can find out more about radiocarbon dating here.
Have you heard of the Gap theory? There is some discussion in Christian circles that Genesis chapter 1 verses 1 and 2 may not have happened at the same time and that something else may have happened between these two verses, like dinosaurs for instance. As dinosaurs have no relevance to Man's Salvation (the purpose of the Bible) there'd be no reason to include them anyway. Who knows (or cares) even?
From the bibleonline website, Genesis Ch 1, NIV version:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
Verse 1 states that the earth was created, verse 2 says that the earth was formless and empty. We know that the Earth was neither formless nor empty during the time of the dinosaurs and during the time after their extinction until the emergence of human beings. Verse 2 would therefore have to be referring to the immediate beginning of the planet when it was coalescing and forming into a planet.
There is a problem with such an interpretation though because if verse 2 does refer to the very early Earth, a period known as the Hadean eon (Hadean coming from the Greek 'Hades' meaning Hell ironically enough), then the reference to 'the waters' would be out of place since there were no oceans on Earth until sometime between 350 and 750 million years after the formation of the Earth, towards the end of the Hadean eon.
Of course verses 1 and 2 could therefore be dealing with the early formation of the Earth and take in a huge expanses of time, from the initial formation of the planet until the formation of the first oceans. However, verses 3 -5 state:
"3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day"
The primary source of light that shines down upon the Earth is of course from the Sun. These verses must be referring to the Sun since they mention the first night and day, which, as we know, are created by the Earth's rotation. However, the Sun would have formed before the Earth meaning that these verses should be at the beginning of the Bible. As they stand they contradict the earlier verses since they speak about the creation of something that would have already existed.
By verse 13 we are onto the third day and trees have been created. However, the first trees didn't appear until the end of the Devonian period around 354 million years ago, approximately 4.25 billion years after the formation of the Earth. Certainly not three days.
Verses 14 - 18 throw up some real problems for those interpreting the Bible literally. It's in these passages that we see mention of the creation of the Sun and Moon and the stars. The first question to ask is what the earlier light was if not the Sun since the Sun is apparently created after the light mentioned in the earlier verses? Since night and day are produced by the Earth rotating to face and face away from the Sun the earlier verses must have been talking about the Sun or some other earlier star in our solar system. Of course there is no other star in our solar system and the nearest star to us is over 4 light years away and thus incapable of producing the effect of night and day.
The mention of the Moon being created after the emergence of life on Earth is another important point to focus on. The moon is thought to have formed some 4.527 billion years ago, shortly after the formation of the solar system and before there was life on Earth. Some samples of the Moon have been dated to 4.2 billion years ago.
We also have mention of the stars being created on the fourth day, which would mean that they were created after the Earth was created. Whilst some stars have undoubtedly formed after the formation of the Earth there were stars before the Earth existed. Current observations place the age of the universe at approx 13.7 billion years, with some star forming galaxies having been seen 13.2 billion light years away and thus 13.2 billion years old, or some 7.6 billion years older than the Earth.
Edit: Oh and BTW, which part of the Bible has been successfully challenged? None, to my knowledge.
See the above points.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2007-09-20 04:07 ] |
*Jojo*
Joined: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
Aliens was on this Earth . . . . looooooooooooong before the dinosaurs and cro-magnon came !
[addsig] |
Twometre
Joined: May 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Manzini, Swaziland
PM, WWW
|
[quote]
On 2007-09-19 21:35:17, KingBooker5 wrote:
Its a fact
Bob and Barbara were the first people, you are all idiots for thinking anything else!
humbug!
Kingbooker you have just shown the greatest sign of immaturity in this post of I will not dwell much on it.
What I can say at this moment is that somewhere somehow there existed what bresembled human beings. They nay have not been physically and phenotypically like us but they were reffered to as humans. These may be the pre-adammites.
_________________
You live today and die tommorrow. So why do you have to wait for the unknown if you do not know the author of life. Grant me everlasting wisdom from above
http://www.esato.com/board/viewtopic.php?topic=154261
[ This Message was edited by: comfort mdu on 2007-09-20 10:49 ] |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
[quote]
On 2007-09-20 11:46:32, comfort mdu wrote:
On 2007-09-19 21:35:17, KingBooker5 wrote:
Its a fact
Bob and Barbara were the first people, you are all idiots for thinking anything else!
humbug!
Kingbooker you have just shown the greatest sign of immaturity in this post of I will not dwell much on it.
Now steady on there old boy, he was joshing. There's no need to take it so seriously.
What I can say at this moment is that somewhere somehow there existed what bresembled human beings. They nay have not been physically and phenotypically like us but they were reffered to as humans. These may be the pre-adammites.
The evidence is quite clear, other species of human did exist, the most recent arguably being Homo Floresiensis as recent as 12,000 years ago. For whatever reason the other species didn't survive; we did. I imagine our creation myths would be rather different had Neanderthals survived to the present day.
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC |
Twometre
Joined: May 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Manzini, Swaziland
PM, WWW
|
Well just to clear that @kingbooker, nothing pesonal mate just some contributions. However my point still stands on that Adam wasnt the first man, but he was rather the firs jew on earth.
|
Brightspark
Joined: Aug 19, 2007
Posts: 326
From: UK
PM |
the article below says all about how the neptunist view is as accurate as the bible. and it was irrefutably proved wrong by none other than edinburgh's mr hutton.
i'm really interested in geology and volcanoes and such, so that's why i came across the article.
it also shows you what edinburgh would have looked like 350-400 million years ago when arthur's seat(the ancient volcano in edinbugh) was erupting.
http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/arthurseat/geology/geology.html
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
Exactly.
there is just so much evidence that the world and even humanity is older than 6000 years. And creationists argue that all that evidence was fabricated by God to test our faith!
So God wants us to believe the literal interpretation of the bible, on faith alone, when all the evidence points elsewhere?
Personally I choose to believe that an omnipotent being (if it exists)wouldn't have the need to mindf@&k us so badly.
|
Evilchap
Joined: Aug 25, 2006
Posts: 57
From: New Zealand
PM |
@max wedge- Nice, very Bill Hicks. |
Twometre
Joined: May 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Manzini, Swaziland
PM, WWW
|
It looks like it probably goes back to the beging when religion and science work together. In the bible it doesnt state that Adam was the first human on earth. These fossils have all the truth. There existed other humans on earth before. Probably they are those that were created by the word of mouth.
|
joebmc
Joined: Jan 03, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Kent
PM |
Just a little note, the bible dosn't actually mention anywhere that the world is 6000 years old. It’s just that you can trace Jesus all the way to Adam apparently and all there ages of death are in there.
So you just add up all there ages at which they died and it totals to about 4000 then plus the 2000 since Jesus was around.
|
Twometre
Joined: May 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Manzini, Swaziland
PM, WWW
|
[quote]
On 2007-09-21 09:32:16, joebmc wrote:
Just a little note, the bible dosn't actually mention anywhere that the world is 6000 years old. It’s just that you can trace Jesus all the way to Adam apparently and all there ages of death are in there.
So you just add up all there ages at which they died and it totals to about 4000 then plus the 2000 since Jesus was around.
In short I can agree with the fact that the world is a way old than religion. Its a pity that this is about to push to where we have to try and figure out that when was God present. I knoe it sounds crszey but the chances of running away from that are limmitted if The present world is a lot more old than all the present religions.
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
God predates man. Religion is man made. therefore God preceded religion.
Problem solved 
|
Danny_BFC
Joined: Jun 18, 2006
Posts: 499
From: Barnsley, Phone,
PM |
I once writ a piece in R.E about how i figured that Christianity was the biggest prank ever made.
I'll type it up if i can be bothered and/or can find it 
Im not fussed about phones/gadgets no more. If im online im in the Non-Mobile discussion  | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2007-09-20 04:22
