Was Adam 200,000 years ago?

[joshua 1 9]

Adam was a farmer and had domesticated animals. This begin no sooner than 10,000 B.C.

What is the difference between a wild animal and a domesticated animal? I would think that the animals on Noah's ark were domesticated. It would have been difficult if they were wild.

 

[Ronald]

Do the math .. The growth of our population only took about 4300 years to reach what we have today.
2017. 7.2 billion people
1987. 5 billion
1970. 4 billion
1927. 2 billion
1800. 1 billion
1200. 500 million
1200 BC. 250 million
So that leaves about 1100 years to get from three couples who just off the boat to 250 million.
It only takes about 400 years to produce 2 million. This was demonstrated during the Israelites Egyptian captivity. Double that number every 100 years and the you have it.
Forget the flawed dating methods and science. Arithmatic does the job.

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

Can't figure out why so many mark Christian when they don't believe the scriptures.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Arithmatic does the job.

The population doubles in half the time. First a thousand years, then 500 then 250 and so on. With people we develop greater technology so we can feed more people. Although it is the population of the cities that is on the increase so it would be very easy to cut the world population down in a short period of time.

 

[RadiantGrace]

Do the math .. The growth of our population only took about 4300 years to reach what we have today.
2017. 7.2 billion people
1987. 5 billion
1970. 4 billion
1927. 2 billion
1800. 1 billion
1200. 500 million
1200 BC. 250 million
So that leaves about 1100 years to get from three couples who just off the boat to 250 million.
It only takes about 400 years to produce 2 million. This was demonstrated during the Israelites Egyptian captivity. Double that number every 100 years and the you have it.
Forget the flawed dating methods and science. Arithmatic does the job.

It is sad that we live in a world so enriched by modern science that people have come to reject it. Women had, until recent centuries, a lot of babies. And a lot of those babies died. A lot of those women died having babies. A lot of men died fighting constant wars. Lots of people died of starvation.

Do you know how many died of starvation in the last century? In the absence of modern medicine, people didn't make it to adulthood. For the children they were able to produce, many died due to disease and other medical issues.

 

[RadiantGrace]

Can't anyone understand the power of God. He is in control of everything, including time. So, when He created Adam and he was only a few minutes old, was he a baby or a man? And when He created all life were they all babies or fully grown. So when God created all of this on earth it looked like it was around for many many years, but all of it was no more than a few days old. So why couldn't He create everything else in a day but we see it as billions of years old?

This sounds like the ending of a Greek play.

 

[Theo Book]

The point is that scientific theories are falsifiable. In the history of science theories have been modified or actually rejected. But this happens based on evidence not belief.

Scientific theories have also been believed, and defended, only to be LATER modified or rejected; i.e., the Flat Earth theory that ruled for several generations prior to being disproved, not just altered or rejected.

 

[Theo Book]

Modern Science demonstrates that anatomically modern humans appeared in Ethiopia 200,000 years ago and migrated to every continent by 60,000 to 30,000 years ago. The evidence of this is:

1. fossils
2. analysis of DNA and genetics from ancient remains

 

[Theo Book]

Modern Science is not the best judge of Modern Science.
RESULTS will always outrank theories. Remember the "Flat Earth" fiasco? "The Earth is flat" was the "Scientific Theory" of its day. AND it was protected by the church because most of the Elite Teachers were either priests or members of a clergy, and the clergy were doing most of the teaching at that time.

Galileo (17th century) was one who denied the "FLAT EARTH" scientific fact, and was tried by inquisition, placed under house arrest for life, and his books were withdrawn from public access.

After a few centuries of research and conscience checking, Science relented, and decided it was wrong. Galileo's books were released for public perusal (20th century?).

As for dating the origin of Man, begin "At the beginning." THAT involved several "DAYS" that could have been any length of time necessary for the creation of galaxies, suns, planets, moons, tidal surges of gravity, Echoes of time fluctuations, and a host of other anomalies not well known to this day.

The first three days of creation could NOT have been 24 hours, and there is no real necessity for claiming it was, other than religious stubbornness caused by ignorance. I know of at least one college instructor who was fired from his job for suggesting the creation was not all 24 hour days. He taught at Florida College in temple terrace, Tampa Florida.

If the sun, by which the day is "timed" was not created until the 4th day, and the entire creation only took six days, that means the first two-thirds of time for creation was comprised of days NOT 24 hours of duration.

And, since God is God by Nature, there is no real disagreement between God and Nature, there is only God and nature vs. the ignorance of foolish men.

And how do we know God is "God by nature?"

Gal 4:8 "Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods."

If God is not "God by nature," why does He find fault with those who are not "Gods by nature?"

And why would God use nature for a teaching tool? "Go to the ant thou sluggard, consider her ways and be wise;" "Doth not nature teach you..." etc.

Why would He suggest our faith relies upon the nature of "Things not seen" if He Himself is unnatural?

And who decided the first four days were comprised of 24 hours of time? "Flat Earth" Priest-Scientists?

 

[Sine Nomine]

Scientific theories have also been believed, and defended, only to be LATER modified or rejected; i.e., the Flat Earth theory that ruled for several generations prior to being disproved, not just altered or rejected.

There has never been a "Flat Earth Theory", the ancient Greeks knew it was a sphere. The word Theory itself is from the late 16th century. Which generations of scientists disbelieved the evidence of the Greeks?

 

[JackRT]

Galileo (17th century) was one who denied the "FLAT EARTH" scientific fact, and was tried by inquisition, placed under house arrest for life, and his books were withdrawn from public access.

Galileo was not tried for teaching that the earth was not flat. The spherical earth had been accepted for a great many centuries before him. What he denied was the cosmology of Ptolemy which envisioned a spherical earth at the centre of the universe with everything else in orbit around it.

 

[Sine Nomine]

Modern Science is not the best judge of Modern Science.
RESULTS will always outrank theories. Remember the "Flat Earth" fiasco? "The Earth is flat" was the "Scientific Theory" of its day. AND it was protected by the church because most of the Elite Teachers were either priests or members of a clergy, and the clergy were doing most of the teaching at that time.

Galileo (17th century) was one who denied the "FLAT EARTH" scientific fact, and was tried by inquisition, placed under house arrest for life, and his books were withdrawn from public access.

After a few centuries of research and conscience checking, Science relented, and decided it was wrong. Galileo's books were released for public perusal (20th century?).

As for dating the origin of Man, begin "At the beginning." THAT involved several "DAYS" that could have been any length of time necessary for the creation of galaxies, suns, planets, moons, tidal surges of gravity, Echoes of time fluctuations, and a host of other anomalies not well known to this day.

The first three days of creation could NOT have been 24 hours, and there is no real necessity for claiming it was, other than religious stubbornness caused by ignorance. I know of at least one college instructor who was fired from his job for suggesting the creation was not all 24 hour days. He taught at Florida College in temple terrace, Tampa Florida.

If the sun, by which the day is "timed" was not created until the 4th day, and the entire creation only took six days, that means the first two-thirds of time for creation was comprised of days NOT 24 hours of duration.

And, since God is God by Nature, there is no real disagreement between God and Nature, there is only God and nature vs. the ignorance of foolish men.

And how do we know God is "God by nature?"

Gal 4:8 "Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods."

If God is not "God by nature," why does He find fault with those who are not "Gods by nature?"

And why would God use nature for a teaching tool? "Go to the ant thou sluggard, consider her ways and be wise;" "Doth not nature teach you..." etc.

Why would He suggest our faith relies upon the nature of "Things not seen" if He Himself is unnatural?

And who decided the first four days were comprised of 24 hours of time? "Flat Earth" Priest-Scientists?

Alas, Galileo was tried for promoting Heliocentrism (that the sphere of the sun is the center of our solar system and that the earth is its satellite), not for challenging a "flat earth" theory. Scientist knew the Earth was round well before Galileo.

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

It is sad that we live in a world so enriched by modern science that people have come to reject it. Women had, until recent centuries, a lot of babies. And a lot of those babies died. A lot of those women died having babies. A lot of men died fighting constant wars. Lots of people died of starvation.

Do you know how many died of starvation in the last century? In the absence of modern medicine, people didn't make it to adulthood. For the children they were able to produce, many died due to disease and other medical issues.

I doubt if anyone reject advances which enrich the peoples of the world, I would rather think that rejecting any so called advances which sets aside the words of God is what Christians would reject. That takes faith in God's word being true rather than scientific revelations of what they have proven to be true. 1 Cor 3:18-21 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; 20 and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile. 21 Therefore let no one boast in men.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I doubt if anyone reject advances which enrich the peoples of the world, I would rather think that rejecting any so called advances which sets aside the words of God is what Christians would reject. That takes faith in God's word being true rather than scientific revelations of what they have proven to be true. 1 Cor 3:18-21 Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness”; 20 and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile. 21 Therefore let no one boast in men.

So let's all embrace foolishness!

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

Should that have a PS attached? Only the foolish need apply! or Oh me?

 

[Ronald]

It is sad that we live in a world so enriched by modern science that people have come to reject it. Women had, until recent centuries, a lot of babies. And a lot of those babies died. A lot of those women died having babies. A lot of men died fighting constant wars. Lots of people died of starvation.

Do you know how many died of starvation in the last century? In the absence of modern medicine, people didn't make it to adulthood. For the children they were able to produce, many died due to disease and other medical issues.

That is included in the figuring. My wife had 9 siblings. Within only two generations, 35 grandchildren. Population growth has slowed in the last 50 years especially with abortion and this fear of over population in countries like China, limiting 1 child per family. But before that it was common to have 6 - 8 kids per family. Jacob had 12 sons and I'm sure at least that many daughters. One couple would multiply into 80 great-grandchildren in 100 years. 40 x 40 x 40 x 40 = 2.5 million. Of course half of those people die due to numerous causes and if not the population today would be 10 times or more. It really doesn't take long to exponentially grow the population to the totals we see today, even with death knocking it down.

 

[Job 33:6]

Do the math .. The growth of our population only took about 4300 years to reach what we have today.
2017. 7.2 billion people
1987. 5 billion
1970. 4 billion
1927. 2 billion
1800. 1 billion
1200. 500 million
1200 BC. 250 million
So that leaves about 1100 years to get from three couples who just off the boat to 250 million.
It only takes about 400 years to produce 2 million. This was demonstrated during the Israelites Egyptian captivity. Double that number every 100 years and the you have it.
Forget the flawed dating methods and science. Arithmatic does the job.

If you have 2 people at year 0, and every 100 years you multiply your value by 2, than at 4,300 years, you would have 17 trillion people.

If you had 6 people, at year 0, 12 people at year 100. 24 at 200 etc., then by the time you got to year 1100, you would have 4096 people.

if you have 2,000,000 at year 400, then at year 300, you would have 1 million, at year 200 you would have 500,000, at year 100, you would have 250,000 and at year 0, you would have 125 thousand people.

I think you need to re check your math.

 

[Ronald]

If you have 2 people at year 0, and every 100 years you multiply your value by 2, than at 4,300 years, you would have 17 trillion people.

This even proves my point more. You came up with much more, not accounting for causes of death, average lifespans, etc., but we are talking about 60 generations or so. A lifespan was about 70 years during King David's rule which was about 3,000 years ago, will use that as an average. Keep in mine some families are having 20 kids, some 10 kids, some are having 2, some not and then some families, towns or entire kingdoms are being wiped out by plagues or wars, etc. It's not easy to get exact populations in early times, but main point is man has been on this planet for a very short time.
Population estimates for 1AD are anywhere from 170 - 400 million. We know more accurately for sure in 1800 there were about 1 billion.
So going 2300 BC, is how long it took to multiply 170-400 million - 33 some generations.

If you double your family in every generation for 5 generations then just sustain them for the next 5 and repeat that for 60 generations, you'll come up with 7+ billion in 4300 years give or take. It averages out to 3 kids per family and allows for various causes of death.

 

[JackRT]

This even proves my point more. You came up with much more, not accounting for causes of death, average lifespans, etc., but we are talking about 60 generations or so. A lifespan was about 70 years during King David's rule which was about 3,000 years ago, will use that as an average. Keep in mine some families are having 20 kids, some 10 kids, some are having 2, some not and then some families, towns or entire kingdoms are being wiped out by plagues or wars, etc. It's not easy to get exact populations in early times, but main point is man has been on this planet for a very short time.
Population estimates for 1AD are anywhere from 170 - 400 million. We now more accurately for sure in 1800 there were about 1 billion.
So going 2300 BC, is how long it took to multiply 170-400 million - 33 some generations.

If you double your family in every generation for 5 generations then just sustain them for the next 5 and repeat that for 60 generations, you'll come up with 7+ billion in 4300 years give or take. It averages out to 3 kids per family and allows for various causes of death.

The technological level of the Hebrew tribes at the time of David was about the same as the North American Indian tribes in AD 1492. Historians and demographers estimate both to have had an average life expectancy of about 25 years. We also tend to overlook some mass deaths in times of famine and disease as well as floods, tsunamis, volcanos, earthquakes and the like. For example when the Black Death hit the city of Kiev in the modern Ukraine, it is reported that there was one survivor.

 

[David_AB]

Modern Science demonstrates that anatomically modern humans appeared in Ethiopia 200,000 years ago and migrated to every continent by 60,000 to 30,000 years ago. The evidence of this is:

1. fossils
2. analysis of DNA and genetics from ancient remains

You mention 'modern science'. Let's be clear.
There is Operational Science and Historical Science.
Operational science is empirical science. "We do this, we see this happen. We therefore deduce this."

Then there is historical science. This is the science you are referring to. It isn't empirical.
There is no "we do this, we see this happen" because it happened before our lifetime and no-one alive today saw it.
It's very prone to error and some would say it's a lot of guesswork.
So modern science cannot demonstrate it. It isn't operational science. Only operational science can demonstrate something.