6000 bc
If i m right(according to religious stories) thats the date when Adam and Eve been created.How the hell it can be possible when archeologists discover human remains aged over million year.And if we r talking about a modern man its age estimated 60,000 .Doesn't it mean that religions which support this theory is just cannot be serious?
Comments (18)
I also have problems explaining that one.
I can come up with some fantastic explanations a la God or the devil planted the evidence, as a puzzle for us so it woulden't be THAT easy believeing God
Me u see, im fine nomater what the explenation is, cos science logic stops just as fast as the religious variante.
One simple exsample: Big bang? must have come from somewhere this materie that exploded.. (the god beleivers argument)
God? who created him? (the non-believers argument).
So its all fantastic.. now choose your (il)logic.
Allow me to post for you few things to get the whole picture:
"In 1905, the earth was declared to be two billion years old. By 1970, the earth was determined to be 3.5 billion years old, and by the 1990's, the earth had become 4.6 billion years old. However, Young Earth advocates have identified quite a few Young Earth chronometers in recent years. Currently, there are approximately five times more natural chronometers indicating a "Young Earth" than an "Old Earth." Each discovery is a separate "Limiting Factor" that places a constraint on the possible age of the earth. For example, moon drift, earth rotation speed, magnetic field decay, erosion rates, chemical influx into the oceans, ocean salinity, etc, all constrain the possible age of the earth. Each Limiting Factor is distinct. If one were successfully challenged, there is still the problem of all the rest. Furthermore, there are Limiting Factors constraining the possible age of the universe, such as spiral galaxies where they're maintaining their spiral shapes despite their centers spinning faster than their extremities. "
"the Big Bang does not explain many things, including the uneven distribution of matter that results in "voids" and "clumps," or the retrograde motion that must violate the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. Furthermore, the Big Bang does not address the primary question at hand, "where did everything come from?" Did nothing explode? How did this explosion cause order, while every explosion observed in recorded history causes disorder and disarray?"
"The dating of rocks is done by dating the index fossils which are found in the rocks! The scientist dates the fossils by determining when he thinks those fossils best fit into the assumed general theory of evolution. Any measurement, whether done radiometrically or otherwise, that disagrees with the assumed general theory of evolution is deemed incorrect and is discarded. The scientist then finds that when the rock samples are arranged according to the age he has determined, the fossils in them progress along the time line in accordance with the general theory of evolution. But it was the assumption that the general theory of evolution was correct that was used to date the rocks in the first place. This is circular reasoning, plain and simple. But of course the scientists will conceal enough of the facts and disguise their arguments well enough so that most people will not recognize their circular reasoning for what it is.
Here is an example to show just how illogical this circular reasoning is. A person could assume that no life existed on the earth prior to one hundred years ago. He would then logically conclude that all fossils must be no more than one hundred years old. Then one could use the fossils to date all rocks that contain fossils to one hundred years or less. Then he could say that all of the rocks are evidence that no life existed on the earth prior to one hundred years ago. This argument and conclusion are ludicrous of course. One could prove anything they wanted about the earth's age by this process, but this is just the kind of thinking that is used to support the general theory of evolution."
Btw I m not an atheist.I believe in Creation followed by the evolution which is more logical to me.
"Lack of Transitional Fossils - Charles Darwin wrote, "Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1859). Since Darwin put forth his theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record."
"Lack of a Natural Mechanism - Charles Darwin, in his Origin of Species, proposed Natural Selection to be the mechanism by which an original simple-celled organism could have evolved gradually into all species observed today, both plant and animal. Darwin defines evolution as "descent with modification." However, Natural Selection is known to be a conservative process, not a means of developing complexity from simplicity. Later, with our increased understanding of genetics, it was thought perhaps Natural Selection in conjunction with genetic mutation allowed for the development of all species from a common ancestor. However, this is theoretical and controversial, since "beneficial" mutations have yet to be observed. In fact, scientists have only observed harmful, "downward" mutations thus far."
Did you know that Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin wrote a book called Zoonomia, or the Laws of Organic Life in 1794, it was basically, a early version of Charles book, On the Origin of Species written 67 years early, But it was still a bit to risky to replace God at this time so they had to wait. In fact Charles Darwin came to an agreement with Alfred Russel Wallace to take the glory for the theory of evolution due to natural selection as Wallace was about to release his book. But Wallace was not of the correct social class, so a deal was done so that Darwin took the glory. Arnold Brackman wrote a very interesting book on it called A Delicate Arrangement.
As for the Adam and Eve story,well people put a number there.I don't know where people came up with that number.It shouldn't be taken literally anyway.I have always thought that the whole eating of the apple and gaining knowledge then being kicked out of the garden of eden meant we became self aware.We became aware of our own mortality which no other animal is.We know that one day each of us will be worm food.We are aware that who and what we are ends.
Another interesting little fact. Meteors and meteorites have been the source of dust on the moon. Dr. Harold Schlusser said, that the dust that is deposited on the moon is doing so at the rate of 14.3 million tons per year. After 4 to 5 billion years, the layer on the moon would have been extremely deep. So the NASA scientists constructed the lunar lander to be able to land on that blanket of dust without sinking through it, but equipping it with huge feet. When Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon, everyone at NASA was amazed that there were only 3 inches of dust. They couldn’t explain why. But 3 inches comes much closer to the biblical/creation view of our existence. 3 inches equates to about 8,000 years.
If man did in fact really land on the moon which is open to question.