How Long have Humans Lived on Earth?

Dale · Saturday at 6:54 PM

Many creationists firmly believe that the earth cannot be more 6,000 years old. I am not going to discuss the age of the universe but I will discuss the development of civilization on earth.

When was fire domesticated?

“ Here we present evidence of fire-making on a 400,000-year-old buried landsurface at Barnham (UK), where heated sediments and fire-cracked flint handaxes were found alongside two fragments of iron pyrite—a mineral used in later periods to strike sparks with flint.”

ttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09855-6

Fire led very quickly to cooking. The application of fire to metalworking was much slower.

On Copper:
“Its use was known in eastern Anatolia by 6500 BCE and it soon became widespread.”
That is 8,500 years ago.

Bronze Age | Definition, History, Inventions, Tools, & Facts | Britannica

When were dogs domesticated?

“Dogs were domesticated from their wolf ancestors over 15,000 years ago.”

The Evolution of Dogs, Accidental Best Friends
This is Ohio Wesleyan University

When were cats domesticated?

“Together the transport of cats to the island and the burial of the human with a cat indicate that people had a special, intentional relationship with cats nearly 10,000 years ago in the Middle East.”

The Evolution of House Cats

When were sheep domesticated?

“Now, research at an 11,000-year-old settlement in Turkey shows that some early farmers kept wild sheep penned up in the middle of their village—thus setting the stage for the dramatic changes that led to today's domesticated animals.”

A Brief History of Goat Domestication - The Livestock Conservancy

When were cattle domesticated?

“All cattle are descended from as few as 80 animals that were domesticated from wild ox in the Near East some 10,500 years ago, according to a new genetic study.”

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2012/mar...mall-herd-domesticated-around-10500-years-ago
This is University College, London, England

When were goats domesticated?

“Judging by early signs of domestication, such as bones from the slaughter of male young [goats], this started around 10,500 years ago in Anatolia (Turkey) and the Zagros Mountains (Iran)

A Brief History of Goat Domestication - The Livestock Conservancy

When was wheat cultivated?

“Cultivated for 10,000 years, wheat is one of the world’s most important plants.”

Wheat 101 | National Associate of Wheat Growers
This is the National Association of Wheat Growers

When was barley first cultivated?

“Remains of barley (Hordeum vulgare) grains found at archaeological sites in the Fertile Crescent indicate that about 10,000 years ago the crop was domesticated there from its wild relative Hordeum spontaneum.”

https://www.researchgate.net/public...mestication_History_of_Barley_Hordeum_vulgare

When was rice cultivated?

“...the earliest archaeological evidence [for cultivation of rice] comes from central and eastern China and dates to 7,000-5,000 BCE.

That would be between 9,000 and 7,000 years ago.

Rice | Description, History, Cultivation, & Uses | Britannica

Everything we know about the history of humans on earth contradicts the claim that the earth could be only 6,000 years old. The Bible is a source of moral and spiritual truth, but it is not a history text.

lismore · Saturday at 7:05 PM

Dale said:
Everything we know about the history of humans on earth contradicts the claim that the earth could be only 6,000 years old. The Bible is a source of moral and spiritual truth, but it is not a history text.

Hello Dale. I wouldn't say what you presented was 'everything we know'. Seems like vague and unverified dates given arbitrarily to fragmentary evidence. A better question could be how far do Historical Writings go back in time? God Bless You

Dale · Saturday at 8:27 PM

lismore said:
Hello Dale. I wouldn't say what you presented was 'everything we know'. Seems like vague and unverified dates given arbitrarily to fragmentary evidence. A better question could be how far do Historical Writings go back in time? God Bless You

The things I was talking about happened before written history began. While creationists tell me that the world is only 6,000 years old, I have seen one source that says that written history alone goes back 6,100 years.

lismore · Saturday at 8:42 PM

Dale said:
The things I was talking about happened before written history began. While creationists tell me that the world is only 6,000 years old, I have seen one source that says that written history alone goes back 6,100 years.

Hello Dale. Good to hear from you. So the age of the earth given by Creationists and the age of Written History more or less coincide. The outlier is the proposed dates given for fragmentary evidence of various kinds. God Bless You

Dale · Saturday at 9:44 PM

lismore said:
Hello Dale. Good to hear from you. So the age of the earth given by Creationists and the age of Written History more or less coincide. The outlier is the proposed dates given for fragmentary evidence of various kinds. God Bless You

No, the dates do not coincide. For the creationist view to make any sense, there would have to be at least a thousand years between the Garden of Eden and Noah's Flood, and at least another thousand years until the Tower of Babel. All that would have to be before written history begins.

You mention "fragmentary evidence." There are many lines of evidence for the figures that I am quoting. Recently, DNA evidence has been used to shed light on when animals are domesticated. This new form of evidence has only backed up what researchers had concluded by other means.

Sir Joseph · 2025-12-14T03:54:40-0600

Dale said:
Many creationists firmly believe that the earth cannot be more 6,000 years old. I am not going to discuss the age of the universe but I will discuss the development of civilization on earth.

When was fire domesticated?

“ Here we present evidence of fire-making on a 400,000-year-old buried landsurface at Barnham (UK), where heated sediments and fire-cracked flint handaxes were found alongside two fragments of iron pyrite—a mineral used in later periods to strike sparks with flint.”

ttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09855-6

Fire led very quickly to cooking. The application of fire to metalworking was much slower.

On Copper:
“Its use was known in eastern Anatolia by 6500 BCE and it soon became widespread.”
That is 8,500 years ago.

Bronze Age | Definition, History, Inventions, Tools, & Facts | Britannica

When were dogs domesticated?

“Dogs were domesticated from their wolf ancestors over 15,000 years ago.”

The Evolution of Dogs, Accidental Best Friends
This is Ohio Wesleyan University

When were cats domesticated?

“Together the transport of cats to the island and the burial of the human with a cat indicate that people had a special, intentional relationship with cats nearly 10,000 years ago in the Middle East.”

The Evolution of House Cats

When were sheep domesticated?

“Now, research at an 11,000-year-old settlement in Turkey shows that some early farmers kept wild sheep penned up in the middle of their village—thus setting the stage for the dramatic changes that led to today's domesticated animals.”

A Brief History of Goat Domestication - The Livestock Conservancy

When were cattle domesticated?

“All cattle are descended from as few as 80 animals that were domesticated from wild ox in the Near East some 10,500 years ago, according to a new genetic study.”

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2012/mar...mall-herd-domesticated-around-10500-years-ago
This is University College, London, England

When were goats domesticated?

“Judging by early signs of domestication, such as bones from the slaughter of male young [goats], this started around 10,500 years ago in Anatolia (Turkey) and the Zagros Mountains (Iran)

A Brief History of Goat Domestication - The Livestock Conservancy

When was wheat cultivated?

“Cultivated for 10,000 years, wheat is one of the world’s most important plants.”

Wheat 101 | National Associate of Wheat Growers
This is the National Association of Wheat Growers

When was barley first cultivated?

“Remains of barley (Hordeum vulgare) grains found at archaeological sites in the Fertile Crescent indicate that about 10,000 years ago the crop was domesticated there from its wild relative Hordeum spontaneum.”

https://www.researchgate.net/public...mestication_History_of_Barley_Hordeum_vulgare

When was rice cultivated?

“...the earliest archaeological evidence [for cultivation of rice] comes from central and eastern China and dates to 7,000-5,000 BCE.

That would be between 9,000 and 7,000 years ago.

Rice | Description, History, Cultivation, & Uses | Britannica

Everything we know about the history of humans on earth contradicts the claim that the earth could be only 6,000 years old. The Bible is a source of moral and spiritual truth, but it is not a history text.

You've presented an interesting, diverse case against the Bible's historicity and authority - too much for anyone here to want to read actually. After glancing at 5 of the articles, I'll offer this response:

Your secular articles and sources are naturally going to oppose any Biblical world view of timelines.

The articles make a lot of date assumptions without actually supporting those assumptions with evidence.

Date evidence that is provided, such as DNA, is based upon debatable assumptions - unlike pottery dating.

Your statement that " Everything we know about the history of humans on earth contradicts the claim that the earth could be only 6,000 years old." is patently wrong. I've been reading books and articles and watching videos for 25 years that support a human history of 6-10,000 years. Perhaps everything YOU'VE read and learned negates a 6000 year old earth, but in no case does it represent everything WE KNOW. Everything I know suggests the exact opposite.

The truth is, each side can find abundant evidence to support their young versus old earth world view. Sources matter though, as does one's biased world view in interpreting the evidence.

Concerning your conclusion that "The Bible is a source of moral and spiritual truth, but it is not a history text." I understand that many people believe that, but know that Jesus, James, Peter, Paul, John and Jude didn't. Were they liars or wrong to reference the Genesis scriptures as real historical events? If so, then one would best dismiss whatever else they said or taught. In other words, if one rejects the historicity of Genesis, one rejects the credibility of Moses, Jesus, the apostles, the Bible, and the entire Christian faith.

Any serious Bible scholar knows through textual criticism that the Bible's inspired authors wrote what they beleived to be historical accounts or revealed knowledge from God. The fact that 40 authors in 3 continents, writing over a period of 1500 years, wrote thousands of specific names, places, and event details that we can now verify through archaeology, written records, fulfilled prophesies, and scientific insights demonstrates that the Bible's historical reliability and authority is as valid and true as its moral and spiritual truth.

Consider, either the whole Bible is to be trusted, or none of it is - as 2 Timothy 3:16 says:

"All scipture is God Breathed ..."

Lost4words · 2025-12-14T04:49:58-0600

Humans have lived on the earth exactly 2 years and 3 months before Corgis!!

Bob Crowley · 2025-12-14T04:56:32-0600

I thought you were older than that!

Unless you have successive lines of forebears all using the same meme!

Jerry N. · 2025-12-14T08:15:36-0600

The question seems to be, “What is a human?” I am a creationist, but I have no idea what a “day” is in Genesis 1. If you believe science, all of the humanoids were human, but the Bible says Adam was the first man and seems to have been created 6000 or so years ago. The logical conclusion is that the humanoids were not what we think of human, even if they could interbreed with the decedents of Adam. The humanoids could also have been the source of Cain’s wife. My guess is that Adam received a soul or spirit in the image of God, and that made him different. Certainly, Neanderthals were not capable of sin, but Adam was. The fact that civilization became prevalent 6000 years ago seems important.

AaronClaricus · 2025-12-14T08:32:50-0600

lismore said:
Hello Dale. I wouldn't say what you presented was 'everything we know'. Seems like vague and unverified dates given arbitrarily to fragmentary evidence. A better question could be how far do Historical Writings go back in time? God Bless You

Giving all the evidence in one go is quite an incredible task. Historical writing shows up in the Early Bronze Age. But it's in archaeology sites that are tells(mounds, with many layers) have many illiterate layers just below. Even before we knew the "absolute" dates as determined by the physical properties of organic materials we had a pretty good idea of how long these "Tells" had been around. The houses contained in the tell layers have the same style construction as some houses being built in modern day Iran.

These layers overlap with written history. There's historical dates for the later layers. You can even verify the dates with known astronomical events. What's more curious is Tells that are essentially next to each other don't always overlap. Eridu and Ur are about 10 miles from each other. We have 3rd dynastry of Ur(2100 BCE) records of archaeology of Eridu. Some buildings in Ur are made up of millions of stamped bricks with inscriptions of who built it and when. Eridu on the other hand has 18 temples built one on top of the other out of mud bricks before this time(2100 BCE) because it's from time immemorial. Imagine being an archaeologist in 2100 BCE, there's no way they would think the city of Eridu was built in 2200 BCE after a global flood.

Maria Billingsley · 2025-12-14T09:12:45-0600

Dale said:
Everything we know about the history of humans on earth contradicts the claim that the earth could be only 6,000 years old. The Bible is a source of moral and spiritual truth, but it is not a history text.

People who believe in a young earth do not believe in the science behind metric dating. So no use in trying to convince. That being said, they do believe in forensic DNA so once we connect that " science " it is difficult to deny one and not the other.
Let us reason, please.

Thanks for sharing!

AaronClaricus · 2025-12-14T09:17:11-0600

Dale said:
The things I was talking about happened before written history began. While creationists tell me that the world is only 6,000 years old, I have seen one source that says that written history alone goes back 6,100 years.

The first historical figures that have names we can see and translate are from about 3100 BCE(5,100 years ago). And they are correctly credited with the invention of writing. Even without all the modern archaeology to confirm it, the Egyptians knew the oldest names of their kingdom. That being said all the histories written in this time are gone. Just the stonework remains. But given the later findings it's apparent that full writing developed 100s of years before them.

Dale · 2025-12-14T10:30:02-0600

Sir Joseph said:
You've presented an interesting, diverse case against the Bible's historicity and authority - too much for anyone here to want to read actually. After glancing at 5 of the articles, I'll offer this response:

Your secular articles and sources are naturally going to oppose any Biblical world view of timelines.

The articles make a lot of date assumptions without actually supporting those assumptions with evidence.

Date evidence that is provided, such as DNA, is based upon debatable assumptions - unlike pottery dating.

Your statement that " Everything we know about the history of humans on earth contradicts the claim that the earth could be only 6,000 years old." is patently wrong. I've been reading books and articles and watching videos for 25 years that support a human history of 6-10,000 years. Perhaps everything YOU'VE read and learned negates a 6000 year old earth, but in no case does it represent everything WE KNOW. Everything I know suggests the exact opposite.

The truth is, each side can find abundant evidence to support their young versus old earth world view. Sources matter though, as does one's biased world view in interpreting the evidence.

Concerning your conclusion that "The Bible is a source of moral and spiritual truth, but it is not a history text." I understand that many people believe that, but know that Jesus, James, Peter, Paul, John and Jude didn't. Were they liars or wrong to reference the Genesis scriptures as real historical events? If so, then one would best dismiss whatever else they said or taught. In other words, if one rejects the historicity of Genesis, one rejects the credibility of Moses, Jesus, the apostles, the Bible, and the entire Christian faith.

Any serious Bible scholar knows through textual criticism that the Bible's inspired authors wrote what they beleived to be historical accounts or revealed knowledge from God. The fact that 40 authors in 3 continents, writing over a period of 1500 years, wrote thousands of specific names, places, and event details that we can now verify through archaeology, written records, fulfilled prophesies, and scientific insights demonstrates that the Bible's historical reliability and authority is as valid and true as its moral and spiritual truth.

Consider, either the whole Bible is to be trusted, or none of it is - as 2 Timothy 3:16 says:

"All scipture is God Breathed ..."

Sir Joseph: “ I understand that many people believe that, but know that Jesus, James, Peter, Paul, John and Jude didn't. Were they liars or wrong to reference the Genesis scriptures as real historical events?”

Jesus did not make the age of the earth an issue. Why are you making it an issue?

I don’t believe that Jesus ever said that the first chapters of Genesis are literal events. The same goes for the Apostles. You are reading your own view into the Gospels.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
John 1:1 NIV

The Book of John opens with “In the beginning …” the same as Genesis. Yet the first chapter of John does not mention Adam, Eve or the Garden of Eden.

As is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet:
“A voice of one calling in the desert, `Prepare the way for the
Lord, make straight paths for him.’
Luke 3:4 NIV

I once quoted this verse to a Biblical literalist and he put me on ignore because he thought I made it up. A phrase like “book of the words of Isaiah” sounds like newfangled revisionist nonsense to a strong literalist. I find that literalists know surprisingly little about what is really in the Bible.

eleos1954 · 2025-12-14T12:33:24-0600

Dale said:
Many creationists firmly believe that the earth cannot be more 6,000 years old. I am not going to discuss the age of the universe but I will discuss the development of civilization on earth.

When was fire domesticated?

“ Here we present evidence of fire-making on a 400,000-year-old buried landsurface at Barnham (UK), where heated sediments and fire-cracked flint handaxes were found alongside two fragments of iron pyrite—a mineral used in later periods to strike sparks with flint.”

ttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09855-6

Fire led very quickly to cooking. The application of fire to metalworking was much slower.

On Copper:
“Its use was known in eastern Anatolia by 6500 BCE and it soon became widespread.”
That is 8,500 years ago.

Bronze Age | Definition, History, Inventions, Tools, & Facts | Britannica

When were dogs domesticated?

“Dogs were domesticated from their wolf ancestors over 15,000 years ago.”

The Evolution of Dogs, Accidental Best Friends
This is Ohio Wesleyan University

When were cats domesticated?

“Together the transport of cats to the island and the burial of the human with a cat indicate that people had a special, intentional relationship with cats nearly 10,000 years ago in the Middle East.”

The Evolution of House Cats

When were sheep domesticated?

“Now, research at an 11,000-year-old settlement in Turkey shows that some early farmers kept wild sheep penned up in the middle of their village—thus setting the stage for the dramatic changes that led to today's domesticated animals.”

A Brief History of Goat Domestication - The Livestock Conservancy

When were cattle domesticated?

“All cattle are descended from as few as 80 animals that were domesticated from wild ox in the Near East some 10,500 years ago, according to a new genetic study.”

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2012/mar...mall-herd-domesticated-around-10500-years-ago
This is University College, London, England

When were goats domesticated?

“Judging by early signs of domestication, such as bones from the slaughter of male young [goats], this started around 10,500 years ago in Anatolia (Turkey) and the Zagros Mountains (Iran)

A Brief History of Goat Domestication - The Livestock Conservancy

When was wheat cultivated?

“Cultivated for 10,000 years, wheat is one of the world’s most important plants.”

Wheat 101 | National Associate of Wheat Growers
This is the National Association of Wheat Growers

When was barley first cultivated?

“Remains of barley (Hordeum vulgare) grains found at archaeological sites in the Fertile Crescent indicate that about 10,000 years ago the crop was domesticated there from its wild relative Hordeum spontaneum.”

https://www.researchgate.net/public...mestication_History_of_Barley_Hordeum_vulgare

When was rice cultivated?

“...the earliest archaeological evidence [for cultivation of rice] comes from central and eastern China and dates to 7,000-5,000 BCE.

That would be between 9,000 and 7,000 years ago.

Rice | Description, History, Cultivation, & Uses | Britannica

Everything we know about the history of humans on earth contradicts the claim that the earth could be only 6,000 years old. The Bible is a source of moral and spiritual truth, but it is not a history text.

One either believes the clear teaching of scripture of not. The estimated 6,000 years is derived from the careful record of genealogy that was kept (history of decedents)

People Poo poo the 6,000 years ... the animals on the ark were in pairs according to their family kind with the ability of variation within their own kind .... 6,000 years is plenty of time for us to see all that we see. There is no definite proof of macro evolution. It is based on theory. We have collected information and the interpretation of that information varies.

While the scientific method aims for objectivity, the process is carried out mostly by human researchers who have inherent subjective biases (no consideration of a divine creator)

Archaeology is not foolproof; it's a science with inherent challenges, prone to human error, misinterpretation, biases, and even deliberate fraud.

Job 33:6 · 2025-12-14T13:08:45-0600

eleos1954 said:
One either believes the clear teaching of scripture of not. The estimated 6,000 years is derived from the careful record of genealogy that was kept (history of decedents)

People Poo poo the 6,000 years ... the animals on the ark were in pairs according to their family kind with the ability of variation within their own kind .... 6,000 years is plenty of time for us to see all that we see. There is no definite proof of macro evolution. It is based on theory. We have collected information and the interpretation of that information varies.

While the scientific method aims for objectivity, the process is carried out mostly by human researchers who have inherent subjective biases (no consideration of a divine creator)

Archaeology is not foolproof; it's a science with inherent challenges, prone to human error, misinterpretation, biases, and even deliberate fraud.

Genesis is written through the lens of an ancient near east context and cosmology. It doesn't say anything about the age of the earth:

Dale · 2025-12-14T21:17:43-0600

Sir Joseph said:
You've presented an interesting, diverse case against the Bible's historicity and authority - too much for anyone here to want to read actually. After glancing at 5 of the articles, I'll offer this response:

Your secular articles and sources are naturally going to oppose any Biblical world view of timelines.

The articles make a lot of date assumptions without actually supporting those assumptions with evidence.

Date evidence that is provided, such as DNA, is based upon debatable assumptions - unlike pottery dating.

Your statement that " Everything we know about the history of humans on earth contradicts the claim that the earth could be only 6,000 years old." is patently wrong. I've been reading books and articles and watching videos for 25 years that support a human history of 6-10,000 years. Perhaps everything YOU'VE read and learned negates a 6000 year old earth, but in no case does it represent everything WE KNOW. Everything I know suggests the exact opposite.

The truth is, each side can find abundant evidence to support their young versus old earth world view. Sources matter though, as does one's biased world view in interpreting the evidence.

Concerning your conclusion that "The Bible is a source of moral and spiritual truth, but it is not a history text." I understand that many people believe that, but know that Jesus, James, Peter, Paul, John and Jude didn't. Were they liars or wrong to reference the Genesis scriptures as real historical events? If so, then one would best dismiss whatever else they said or taught. In other words, if one rejects the historicity of Genesis, one rejects the credibility of Moses, Jesus, the apostles, the Bible, and the entire Christian faith.

Any serious Bible scholar knows through textual criticism that the Bible's inspired authors wrote what they beleived to be historical accounts or revealed knowledge from God. The fact that 40 authors in 3 continents, writing over a period of 1500 years, wrote thousands of specific names, places, and event details that we can now verify through archaeology, written records, fulfilled prophesies, and scientific insights demonstrates that the Bible's historical reliability and authority is as valid and true as its moral and spiritual truth.

Consider, either the whole Bible is to be trusted, or none of it is - as 2 Timothy 3:16 says:

"All scipture is God Breathed ..."

Sir Joseph: “ I've been reading books and articles and watching videos for 25 years that support a human history of 6-10,000 years.”

Really? What I’ve seen is that creationists are retreating from what they once thought they could prove. Take the Glen Rose footprints, or Paluxy River footprints. For about a generation, from the 1950’s to the 1970’s, creationists saw them as evidence that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. Many creationists thought it was the best evidence they had. Take a look at the quote below.

John Morris was President of the Institute of Creation Research from 1996 until 2020.

Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs

BY JOHN D. MORRIS, PH.D.

SATURDAY, MAY 01, 2010

<< Perhaps the most notorious footprint-containing layer is the Glen Rose Limestone in central Texas, in the Paluxy River bed. Ever since the early 1900s, footprints of dinosaurs have been excavated here, along with elongated human-like footprints. To many, this proved humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. For years while on the faculty of the nearby University of Oklahoma, I studied and documented these markings, and eventually wrote the definitive source book, Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs--and the People Who Knew Them, published by Master Books in 1980. Continued research led me to question the human interpretation of the human-like prints and, feeling the data were too ambiguous at that time to be certain, withdrew my book from circulation. Films for Christ withdrew their award-winning film Footprints in Stone from circulation at the same time. Research continues, and while I don't question the fact that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, I don't use the evidence from the Paluxy anymore. >>

Link: Tracking Those Incredible Dinosaurs | The Institute for Creation Research

Dale · 2025-12-14T21:18:51-0600

eleos1954 said:
One either believes the clear teaching of scripture of not. The estimated 6,000 years is derived from the careful record of genealogy that was kept (history of decedents)

People Poo poo the 6,000 years ... the animals on the ark were in pairs according to their family kind with the ability of variation within their own kind .... 6,000 years is plenty of time for us to see all that we see. There is no definite proof of macro evolution. It is based on theory. We have collected information and the interpretation of that information varies.

While the scientific method aims for objectivity, the process is carried out mostly by human researchers who have inherent subjective biases (no consideration of a divine creator)

Archaeology is not foolproof; it's a science with inherent challenges, prone to human error, misinterpretation, biases, and even deliberate fraud.

Eleos: “One either believes the clear teaching of scripture of not.”

People tell me that they believe in “newspaper exegesis,” you read the Bible like you read a newspaper. Here’s a question for you: What if the original target audience for the Book of Genesis, the Israelites, had never seen a newspaper? Guess what – they had never seen a newspaper! Symbolic or figurative speech was very common at the time.

Dale · 2025-12-14T21:22:10-0600

Sir Joseph said:
You've presented an interesting, diverse case against the Bible's historicity and authority - too much for anyone here to want to read actually. After glancing at 5 of the articles, I'll offer this response:

Your secular articles and sources are naturally going to oppose any Biblical world view of timelines.

The articles make a lot of date assumptions without actually supporting those assumptions with evidence.

Date evidence that is provided, such as DNA, is based upon debatable assumptions - unlike pottery dating.

Your statement that " Everything we know about the history of humans on earth contradicts the claim that the earth could be only 6,000 years old." is patently wrong. I've been reading books and articles and watching videos for 25 years that support a human history of 6-10,000 years. Perhaps everything YOU'VE read and learned negates a 6000 year old earth, but in no case does it represent everything WE KNOW. Everything I know suggests the exact opposite.

The truth is, each side can find abundant evidence to support their young versus old earth world view. Sources matter though, as does one's biased world view in interpreting the evidence.

Concerning your conclusion that "The Bible is a source of moral and spiritual truth, but it is not a history text." I understand that many people believe that, but know that Jesus, James, Peter, Paul, John and Jude didn't. Were they liars or wrong to reference the Genesis scriptures as real historical events? If so, then one would best dismiss whatever else they said or taught. In other words, if one rejects the historicity of Genesis, one rejects the credibility of Moses, Jesus, the apostles, the Bible, and the entire Christian faith.

Any serious Bible scholar knows through textual criticism that the Bible's inspired authors wrote what they beleived to be historical accounts or revealed knowledge from God. The fact that 40 authors in 3 continents, writing over a period of 1500 years, wrote thousands of specific names, places, and event details that we can now verify through archaeology, written records, fulfilled prophesies, and scientific insights demonstrates that the Bible's historical reliability and authority is as valid and true as its moral and spiritual truth.

Consider, either the whole Bible is to be trusted, or none of it is - as 2 Timothy 3:16 says:

"All scipture is God Breathed ..."

eleos1954 said:
One either believes the clear teaching of scripture of not. The estimated 6,000 years is derived from the careful record of genealogy that was kept (history of decedents)

People Poo poo the 6,000 years ... the animals on the ark were in pairs according to their family kind with the ability of variation within their own kind .... 6,000 years is plenty of time for us to see all that we see. There is no definite proof of macro evolution. It is based on theory. We have collected information and the interpretation of that information varies.

While the scientific method aims for objectivity, the process is carried out mostly by human researchers who have inherent subjective biases (no consideration of a divine creator)

Archaeology is not foolproof; it's a science with inherent challenges, prone to human error, misinterpretation, biases, and even deliberate fraud.

Eleos: << The estimated 6,000 years is derived from the careful record of genealogy that was kept (history of decedents) >>

Sir Joseph: << Consider, either the whole Bible is to be trusted, or none of it is - as 2 Timothy 3:16 says:"All scipture is God Breathed ..." >>

You should consider that the Bible does not say how old the earth is or how long people have been living on it. Eleos makes the point that the creationist figure for the age of the earth is derived from the genealogies in the Bible. Sir Joseph appeals to what Paul said about scripture. What did Paul say about genealogies?

But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and
arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are
unprofitable and useless.
--Titus 3:9 NIV

Here genealogies are associated with arguments, quarrels and unnecessary controversies. Paul seems to view genealogies as a waste of time even if they don’t lead to violent argument. Another passage:

As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in
Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach
false doctrines any longer
nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies.//
These promote controversies rather than God’s work —
which is by faith.
--I Timothy 1:3-4 NIV

Now genealogies are not only foolish, useless, and divisive, they are “myths.” Yet creationists claim to derive the age of the earth, and the universe, from these same genealogies.

John Bauer · 2025-12-14T23:27:06-0600

Dale said:
Many creationists firmly believe that the earth cannot be more 6,000 years old. I am not going to discuss the age of the universe but I will discuss the development of civilization on earth. … Everything we know about the history of humans on earth contradicts the claim that the earth could be only 6,000 years old.

Since I already agree with your opening post (more or less), I will be hanging out here mostly to engage young-earth creationist defenses.

However …

Dale said:
The Bible is a source of moral and spiritual truth, but it is not a history text.

That statement is false, I’m afraid, if it means that Scripture doesn’t narrate real events in space and time—because it does. Just off the top of my head: the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Literal history. Paul stakes the truth of the gospel on a public, datable event: “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is futile and your faith is empty” (1 Cor. 15:14).

Large portions of Scripture are historical, from patriarchal narratives to monarchic histories, from Babylonian exile to their eventual return, and so on. Luke explicitly frames his Gospel as an orderly “account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,” including “accounts passed on to us by those who were eyewitnesses” (Luke 1:1-4).

If by “historical” you mean exhaustive chronology, neutral description, or detached analysis, then it’s not historical. Scripture is theological, covenantal, and teleological. Events are narrated because of what God is doing with and through them, never because the author is trying to reconstruct the past for its own sake.

I think it would be a category mistake to treat “history” and “theology” as competing genres. (I am not saying that’s what you are doing, but it is often done around these parts.) In Scripture, history is theology. God reveals himself through acts, and those acts are interpreted within the text itself. Natural history is the stage upon which the drama of redemptive history unfolds, while it is redemptive history that reveals the meaning and purpose of natural history, all things pointing to Jesus Christ for the glory of God. Scripture contains real history, but it’s unique as a divinely authored, covenantally ordered witness to God’s redemptive acts, narrated for faith, obedience, and worship.

As for Genesis? I would call it a historical-covenantal account with symbolic narrative elements. Adam and Eve in a sacred sanctuary God prepared in Eden? Historical-covenantal. Its eastward orientation, God “walking” there, humanity “to serve and guard,” Adam made of dust, talking serpent, guarding cherubim? Symbolic narrative elements (a lot of temple architecture and language used elsewhere in Scripture).

John Bauer · 2025-12-15T00:06:01-0600

lismore said:
How far do historical writings go back in time?

Not as far back as human societies. If Adam and Eve lived 6,000 years ago, that would be ~3976 BCE. It would take another several hundred years for written language to appear (c. 3300 BCE), but large human societies already existed. Jericho and Tell Qaramel had been around for ~5,000 years by that point; Nevali Cori had been around for nearly as long; Catalhoyuk was over 3,000 years old by that point. (And this is just Mesopotamia.)

So, yeah, human societies pre-existed written records by thousands of years; even Adam and Eve existed ~700 years before writing. (They entered a world full of human societies, from the ancient Near East to the North American plains.)

How Long have Humans Lived on Earth?

Senior Veteran

Maranatha

Senior Veteran

Maranatha

Senior Veteran

Active Member

Jesus I Trust In You

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Senior Veteran

God is Love

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Reformed

Reformed

Similar threads