humanity?

[Joshua-777]

There is NO recorded history prior to 4,000 B.C.--no writings, no carved stones, no battles, no wars, no countries, no nothing. IF, as evolutionists claim, the earth is billions of years old, and mankind has evolved from a lower and simpler form of life, then why has mankind gone from writing upon stones to computers in just the past 3,500 years? there is NO recorded history prior to 4,000 B.C. The world's history is CLEARY defined by SIX world powers since time began: Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome. Since Rome's fall in 476 A.D., there have been no world-powers. The Bible records the beginning of mankind at about 4,000 B.C., and secular history is eerily silent before 4,000 B.C. Prove me wrong. any recorded civilization before 4,000 B.C, I dont want to hear pottery that is claimed to be earlier with no evidence. I want to see civilization. if humans evolved in the last millions and millions of years, I want proof. How could we evolve in 3500 years so much, and advance so much? if we where evolved for a million, 2 million years, than there should be record of civilization.

[undone]

Incorrect.

LOL

RH, you're a trip...with the bold red "incorrect" signs like this was a game show or something.

[Joshua-777]

Incorrect. Anthropologists have found many, many works of human technology and art that are tens of thousands of years old. (Click the links for information.) We even have these things displayed in museums. Your claims are off by several thousand years, Josh

it's kind of funny how the link you sent me says possible, as in believed to be, I have read a few articals on these claims actualy, but truth is, they don't know the date, and the dating system we have actualy is not efficient. it is based on assumption.

Just to clarify, geologists, not biological evolutionists, have determined the Earth to be 4.6 billion years old.

"have determined" have assumed with insufficiant data to the actualy age.

This is a very good question. I've taken a lot of anthropology courses these past few years, and this is the subject of much debate. The general consensus is that a number of factors contributed to this boom in civilization, a major one being agriculture. Agriculture allowed for people to settle down, and the surplus it created allowed people to do other things than gather food all the time. This more stable culture was conducive to an intellectual and later industrial boom which has only accelerated into modern day.

True, which makes sence, but how come this didn't develop sooner? and if we are millions of years old, than why didn't any kind of civilization rise up known before 4000 bc? a

Permanent stone settlements--cities--have only existed for a few thousand years. Jericho is widely regarded as the oldest known city, being 11,000 years old. But as for "powers", your estimations look right, they have been around for not much more than 6,000 years.

Jericho actualy was recorded in the bible, as well as it's fall, and you canot claim that it was around before 4000 bc. There is no evidence to support that.

There is also a difference between biological and cultural evolution, Josh. Most of the recent "evolution" we have witnessed has to do with our increased information and technology. Without this, with only our genes, we would not be much different than cavemen. The changes in civilization over the past few thousand years have a lot more to do with culture than with genetics.

I understand this, very much so, Just stating a point by evidence, man hasn't existed before 4000 a.d. and if you want to see how accurate the dates on the link, have you tried looking at the methods they use?

[billie]

Incorrect.

LOL

RH, you're a trip...with the bold red "incorrect" signs like this was a game show or something.

Undone, you always crack me up!

[Joshua-777]

Not at all. It's based on the research, efforts, and results of thousands of people throughout the world. Wikipedia did not just "assume" anything. It is a much more reliable source than any creationist site

hahaha Thousands of peoples opinions and assumptions.

You are not a geologist, but you are completely sure they are wrong. Explain to me what radiometric dating is. And explain to me how it is wrong.

by Do-While Jones

Age Assumptions

People make assumptions all the time. Creationists do it. Evolutionists do it. Everyone does it. Often, we do it intentionally. Unfortunately, many people aren

[Joshua-777]

Jericho and other urban areas were around thousands of years before 4000 BC...

Proof?

Yeah, there is... Anthropologists did not just guess that age. They used several dating techniques on building material excavated from different settlements. You talk as though you think they just spun a dial or drew straws or something.

Yes I know this

I have. Have you?

Actualy from both sides, honestly, I feel it is assumption. And I looked into it, and so far my opinion is still the same.

[Observer of dreams]

You may have had more luck if you pointed out that the oldest PROVEN tree is 4,767 years old, that's a little younger than than the old testament genealogy. You could have also pointed out how no man has lived to be more than 120 years old, and commented on how the bible says no man will live past 120 years. You could ask them to pray to Jesus and be sincere and see if their prayers get answered..........

But hey, popcorn is better than getting stressed out! Just grab some popcorn and munch down while these people rip their hair out over nonsense

[Joshua-777]

The issue here is credibility.

What about carbon dating?

by Don Batten (editor), Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland

First published in The Revised and Expanded Answers Book

Chapter 4

How does the carbon

[asap]

http://www.3bible.com/articles/Answers%20i...on%20Dating.pdf

I found this article very informative

God Bless,

Amanda

[Guest K.R.E.B.S]

by Do-While Jones

Do-While Jones is a software engineer. Like most creationists, he has no formal training in geology, archeology, or biology.

Creationists seem to have a better handle on what they assume to be true by faith, and what they have experimental proof of, than evolutionists do. Evolutionists appear to accept many things by faith without realizing it.

That's a quote of the week, right there.

This guy might be a great software engineer but he has zero credibility in chemistry and geology. I don't say this because he is a creationist, I say this because he doesn't have any formal training in the field he is talking about. The issue here is credibility. If you're gonna post creationist nonsense, Josh, at least post it from a creationist who has a degree in the field he's discussing.

Well, why don't we look at what he says instead of attacking him and just disregarding it as nonsense? You should know, Runners, that Ad Hominem attacks do nothing to bolster your argument.

Nothing he says about lead is scientific because he's a software engineer? Seriously?

Huh...

I guess that goes for Battern, Ham, and Sarfati too...

So...WHO CAN CHALLENGE DATING, EVOLUTION, or ANYTHING else in science???

(If you say "scientists," well I assume you mean anyone with a degree other than a Creationists, which is...need I mention?)

With respect,

Joe

Edited December 5, 2006 by K.R.E.B.S