Well, My Opinion Of The US Public Just Went Down Again...

[Sionnach Glic]

Ok, I figured it was something like that, see, I think that we, humans, were created recently, 10,000 yrs or something close to that... But that the earth is a few Billion years old... But that's just me, well, Jehovah's Witnesses as a general group believe this.

And what about the fossils that show humans to be over 200,000 years old?

I personally believe that they were, but that the earth may have been around billions of years before that,

So, if I'm understanding you right, God made the Earth billions of years ago, yet didn't actualy populate it until 10,000 years ago?

and that we may have coexisted with dinosaurs

We really didn't.

and that some of the dating they have done may be wrong...

And on what do you base that belief?

[Tsukiyumi]

...Adam and Eve as the sole ancestors of humanity would be out.

See, in my Bible, it says Cain (one of Adam and Eve's two sons) settled in the land of Nod, to the east of Eden, and had "relations" with his wife, had a child, and founded a city.

So... If there are only like five people on Earth, that's one small city. Actually, it would just be a house.

I always took it to mean that Adam and Eve were the first "perfect" people, and not actually the only people on Earth. I mean, where did Cain's wife come from?

[Nickswitz]

And what about the fossils that show humans to be over 200,000 years old?

Truthfully, I'm not sure, maybe their wrong, maybe I am, but as of now, I'm sticking to what I believe...

So, if I'm understanding you right, God made the Earth billions of years ago, yet didn't actualy populate it until 10,000 years ago?

Yeah... So? Why would that be a problem at all, just wondering, maybe he didn't feel like it... IDK, I'm not him...

We really didn't.

How do you know? and we may have, but I was unsure of what he meant when I said that... I have no problem believing dinosaurs were dead long before we were around...

And on what do you base that belief?

The fact that they have been wrong before on carbon dating...

I can't find the source right now, but a few years ago there was a university student that used some radiological dating method, and got a reading of like 3,000 years... And they proved that it had to be incorrect due to the rock formations that it was found in. And I know Carbon dating is rarely accurate, because of it's short radiological decay, but the one used had a rating of like 300 million years, or some insanely large number of years...

I'm sorry I can't find the article right now... I found this article however, just for laughs... inaccurate carbon dating

[Nickswitz]

...Adam and Eve as the sole ancestors of humanity would be out.

See, in my Bible, it says Cain (one of Adam and Eve's two sons) settled in the land of Nod, to the east of Eden, and had "relations" with his wife, had a child, and founded a city.

So... If there are only like five people on Earth, that's one small city. Actually, it would just be a house.

I always took it to mean that Adam and Eve were the first "perfect" people, and not actually the only people on Earth. I mean, where did Cain's wife come from?

I always thought it would be his sister, however, your idea makes sense as well, as in the bible it never did say they were the first, just that he created them...

But the way I always saw it was that it was his sister... weird now, but back then, as they would have been closer to perfection, inbreeding would have been a lot less hazardous.... however, I like your idea better, it actually makes a good deal of sense...

[sunnyside]

Yeah. I've never understood people who take Genesis completely litterally. In addition to what Tsu said when Cain was going to be kicked out he was worried about other people killing him. So there were already, well, other people around.


Hurm. Anybody know when Jews first show up historically? I mean the religion/ethnicity/culture had to get started off somewhere sometime, and it had to be thousands of years ago.

@Ian You can say that you don't feel abiogenesis is part of the theory of evolution, what I'm telling you is over here the two are generally convoluted together. In addition the experimentally falsifiable aspects of the theory, such as genetics and minor mutations, are combined with what is closer to forensic science and that is not reproducable.

In part you are trying to combine what some people call "hard science" and "soft science". They have theories in political, social, and economic science, however often they are accepted by some community, certainly getting through peer review, before they could ever possibly be tested, if they can even be tested at all.

[Tsukiyumi]

however, I like your idea better, it actually makes a good deal of sense...

Thanks.

I've read the thing cover to cover several times; it's part of why I don't see why religion and science always seem to be at odds.

[Nickswitz]

however, I like your idea better, it actually makes a good deal of sense...

Thanks.

I've read the thing cover to cover several times; it's part of why I don't see why religion and science always seem to be at odds.

Haha, thank you for saying that, it reafirms my belief in the fact that people can think intelligently about things... And I really had never thought of it that way...

And yes sunny, some people take Genesis way to literally...

[Captain Seafort]

@Ian You can say that you don't feel abiogenesis is part of the theory of evolution

This isn't a matter of "feeling". It's a matter of explaining what evolution is and is not.

what I'm telling you is over here the two are generally convoluted together.

So what?

In addition the experimentally falsifiable aspects of the theory, such as genetics and minor mutations, are combined with what is closer to forensic science and that is not reproducible.

Examples?

In part you are trying to combine what some people call "hard science" and "soft science". They have theories in political, social, and economic science, however often they are accepted by some community, certainly getting through peer review, before they could ever possibly be tested, if they can even be tested at all.

Neither political, social or economic "science" are science.

[Lazar]

See, in my Bible, it says Cain (one of Adam and Eve's two sons) settled in the land of Nod, to the east of Eden, and had "relations" with his wife, had a child, and founded a city.

So... If there are only like five people on Earth, that's one small city. Actually, it would just be a house.

I always took it to mean that Adam and Eve were the first "perfect" people, and not actually the only people on Earth. I mean, where did Cain's wife come from?

Yeah. I've never understood people who take Genesis completely litterally. In addition to what Tsu said when Cain was going to be kicked out he was worried about other people killing him. So there were already, well, other people around.

True - I guess even a literal reading of Genesis would have to acknowledge that God created some other people. Maybe you could say that Adam and Eve were the prototypes, so then he churned out a few more batches to get the population going. Although that still leaves Noah surviving the flood with a really inbred family and some really inbred livestock.

Hurm. Anybody know when Jews first show up historically? I mean the religion/ethnicity/culture had to get started off somewhere sometime, and it had to be thousands of years ago.

I'm not quite sure when the Hebrews are first recorded in non-biblical sources, but they were well established when the Assyrians conquered the northern kingdom of Israel in the eighth century BCE. Some people think the Hebrews may be the same people described in 3rd and 2nd millennium Egyptian and Mesopotamian records as the Habiru, although that's a subject of debate. (The Exodus isn't recorded in non-biblical sources, so we can't know for sure which pharaoh the bible is referring to.) The term "Jew" is really only properly applied after the Assyrian conquest, when the ten northern tribes of Israel were dispersed (becoming the Ten Lost Tribes of myth), and the remaining southern tribes of Judah became known from then on as the Yehudim or Jews.

[Mikey]

Judaism, as a distinct religion of monolatry, began (according to the Bible) with the conversion of Avram - who was a citizen of of the Sumerian city of Ur. That would put it before the conquest of Sumer by the Akkadians... let's see now... we can reasonably assume that this refers to the period before the abandonment and rennaisance of Ur. This could feasibly put the time frame anywhere from the 6th to 3rd millenium BCE. The Assyrian Empire didn't really begin until 2400 BCE or so, and in any event the Jews would have needed time to colonize Canaan and form the kingdoms; so 6th or 5th millenium BCE sounds about right, especially considering the fact that Jericho was considered a young, important metropolis in the Old Testament.

[sunnyside]

@Seafort. Actually, we're talking about what is and/or should be taught in classrooms, and is represented in polls. My commenbts are relevant to the *is* part.

As for the "not verifiable science" some examples would include the wide array of things they say about Dinsaurs (for example the now general not believe bit about having to be in water, and the array of things that are likely innacurate now). Abreogensis as well, they've zapped some amino acids, but no life . And, when you get down to it, even details that are well supported by the fossil record aren't verifiable in the sense of being repeatable, rather they simply fit the known data, much the same way social science, political science, and economic science create and support theories by applying hypothesis to history but without any ability to test them until you've dramatically changed society.

Granted many of those details are likely considered bypothesis. But again, what (most) Americans object to in the theory of evolution aren't the parts that are experimentally verifiable, rather it's the stuff that gets bundled along.

Judaism, as a distinct religion of monolatry, began (according to the Bible) with the conversion of Avram - who was a citizen of of the Sumerian city of Ur. That would put it before the conquest of Sumer by the Akkadians... let's see now... we can reasonably assume that this refers to the period before the abandonment and rennaisance of Ur. This could feasibly put the time frame anywhere from the 6th to 3rd millenium BCE. The Assyrian Empire didn't really begin until 2400 BCE or so, and in any event the Jews would have needed time to colonize Canaan and form the kingdoms; so 6th or 5th millenium BCE sounds about right, especially considering the fact that Jericho was considered a young, important metropolis in the Old Testament.

Hurm. I'd considered Adam and Eve to be mostly metaphorical. But I wonder if there actually were historical Adam and Eves who, whether you believe in god or not, served as the proginators of a race/religeon

[Deepcrush]

God made the Universe, and then the Universe took over from there. I don't see a problem with science and religion coming together. God gave us free will to learn and grow. By ignoring fact and science and basic common sense, we defy his will as far as I see it. IMHO.

[Mikey]

@ Deep - excellently put. @ Sunny - the metaphorical Adam and Eve (and Lilith, to speak apocryphally) don't factor into my above analysis at all. The name I mentioned, which I use as a reference, was Avram - the man who would become known as Abraham after adopting a monolatry.

[Lt. Staplic]

How do you know? and we may have, but I was unsure of what he meant when I said that... I have no problem believing dinosaurs were dead long before we were around...

Well seeing as we haven't ever found any dinosaur remains, dating anywhere close to human remains, I think we can be pretty sure. Even if we take into account the errors that may arise, their still far enough apart that it's nearly impossible for the two to have coexisted.

Then there's the fact that we'd have probably been killed off by whatever did them in if we were around too.

[Nickswitz]

How do you know? and we may have, but I was unsure of what he meant when I said that... I have no problem believing dinosaurs were dead long before we were around...

Well seeing as we haven't ever found any dinosaur remains, dating anywhere close to human remains, I think we can be pretty sure. Even if we take into account the errors that may arise, their still far enough apart that it's nearly impossible for the two to have coexisted.

Then there's the fact that we'd have probably been killed off by whatever did them in if we were around too.

Fair enough, as I said, that thought doesn't bother me at all, lol.