Is humanity less than 10,00 years old?

Simple question, I'm just curious where everyone comes down on this.

Chris

Hjman=human. I've got fat fingers.

 

Oooops! Sorry Chris,

I have just voted and managed to vote the wrong way!

So the poll is inacurate already.

I should have voted that humanity is more than 10,000 years old, of course thats only a guess!

Peace

 

I come down greater. While I concede science is a notoriously inaccurate science and we are all destined to find out more as time goes on and science improves....I don't think the margin of error on the is large enough to get down to 6-7k...

 

How are we supposed to know how old humanity is? Also, define humanity.

 

Humanity is humans. How many definitions of humanity are there.

Chris

 

Hi,

About 130,000 years; so more than 10,000.

Human Ancestors Hall: Homo sapiens

s.

 

There is the species Homo sapiens, which some people count only as humanity. Then there is the genus of Homo which can also be counted as humans. Then there are the ape guys, which some people would call human, I imagine.

Anyway, I say it's older than 10,000 years.

 

like the caveman on the geico commercials.

 

I'd vote if there was an option for 'both'

 

Etext Center: Collections

My refrence agrees with less than.

 

less than >

 

While the page to which you link may indeed agree with less than a quick perusal of the entire UVA collection of Etexts and those it links would find more discussion on evolution, science and indication that humanity is older than 10,000 years. In addition that university houses many of the works of that our illustrious President and author of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson, who had many issues with the Septugint and did rewrite the Gospels, omitting the virgin birth, the miracles, and the resurection of Jesus.

 

Humanity is about 100'000 years old, civilisation and organised way of living could very well be older then 10'000 years old. Even the ancients wrote of the wonderful land of Atlantis, the Egyptians and Plato.

 

Perhaps the real question should be how long it was that humankind could perceive God. The moment that we obtained that kind of awareness would mark the beginning of Humanity. All others before that were animals in development.

Adam and Eve could have been the first humans in that respect, and they could have existed less than 10k years ago.

 

Quite the concept, now how exactly would this fit into the creation story?

 

Exactly what I was thinking...however, there is also a strange point in Genesis when describing the "first" man. He is described as "ruddy" complected, or reddish, like the clay he was made from. This description is given by the authors of Genesis who for all practical purposes would be considered proto-Semites. They definitely were not "ruddy" complected, nor did they or their decendants live in lands where the clay was red...so why would the first man be different looking than them, and made from a colored soil they weren't used to?

just a few idle thoughts on the matter.

v/r

Joshua

 

Kindest Regards, all!

Can I play?

In even beginning to address the question, this is the fundament...er, umm, foundational element to establish.

Let's see, how many definitions of "Christian" are there? A rhetorical question asked only to make the point...kinda like Rabbis, ask 6 different anthropologists or sociologists and get 7 different answers as to what "humanity" means.

Are we limiting ourselves to our genetic connections to *all of* our ancient ancestors? Are we limiting ourselves to toolmaking and / or the use of fire? Are we delineating when "we" became carnivores rather than the typical ape vege / omnivore? Or do we step into a closer frame and use art and decoration to denote rational thought? Or how about the development of agriculture? Perhaps the establishment of government and rule of law?

Do we include, while we're are at it, other "species" of the genus *homo* that lived contemporaneously? Particularly if it can be shown that interbreeding was possible?

Homo Sapiens is a little bit over 100,000 years old, at leasst by conventional reckoning. While Atlantis is an interesting collection of mythos to consider, there isn't a whole lot of evidence to support it at this point. A lot of conjecture, sure. But one would think if a civilization as advanced as Atlantis did truly exist, that there would be something a bit more concrete and wide spread available to archeology.

Welcome to CR, xpdnc!

I have long thought similar. What anthropology holds is various pieces of artwork and decoration, dating back nearly 100,000 years. The painted cave walls are nearly universally held to be the work of Cro-Magnon, our purported direct ancestors, and generally don't go back much over 35,000 years. However, there are pieces of "portable art" of which the Venus of Willendorf is perhaps one of the more famous pieces, that date something like 65-80,000 years ago. I seem to recall some ostrich shell beads found in South Africa (Blombos cave?) that are tentatively dated around 80,000 years. There are also other works attributed to Neandertal that tend to be more geometric patterns etched on stones. Red Ochre was used pretty universally by both C-M and Nean, as body paint, etc.

Well, that depends how we delineate "G-d." Further, I could posit that "animals," including rudimentary humans, intuitively perceive G-d. I may go a step further, in saying that an animal mind unclouded by frivolous thoughts, may well perceive G-d even better than a rationally thinking human. Instinctive intuition.

Well...I'm not certain we can definitively say that "proto-Semites" were not ruddy complected.

Taking into account certain folklore pertaining to Ireland, the house of Tara in some accounts I have heard are direct descent from one of the daughters of the last king of Judah before Nebuchadnezzer had his eyes put out. The prophet Jeremiah is said to have escorted this princess and her entourage to the Emerald Isle. Which is how the Stone of Scone came to be first in Ireland, then Scotland, then England, now finally back in Scotland.

An alternate look would be to consider the interjection of a "unique" bloodline, tailor made genetically speaking, from an "alien" source. I think we know how much airplay that will get. But I do wonder sometimes....

 

Allow me to carry this thought out: a rational mind tends to think itself out of G-d over time. Whereas without conscious thought, relying on intuition and instinct, a critter is wide open to the *IS* for exactly what it is and nothing more (without embellishment of reason).

I have long thought that the symbolism in the Garden of eating of the Tree of Knowledge points to this moment, the point at which humans began to "think." This is when "we" gained conscious thought, compared to other creatures operating (only) by instinct and reaction.

 

Actually that was in my mind, however I wasn't about to pull a Mr. Chekov and claim everything originated in my particular ancestral home...

v/r

Joshua

 

Kindest Regards, Q!

Fair enough. And certainly this story is based on regional folklore. However, and this is a huge *BUT*, there must be something to the story if nearly all of the Kings and Queens of England have been coronated sitting on top of that very same stone. So this is obviously not a "run-o'-the-mill" folklore rumor, it is one that is believed, firmly, by the British Royal Houses (and I would think by extension the other Royal Houses of Europe).

To add further interest, the stone is of a kind not found in the British Isles, and the closest match is found in the Holy Land. AND it's presence in Ireland long predates (by record, so I hear) the Crusades, and perhaps even the Roman occupation of Britain. If this particular folklore is farce, it is a rather intricate and longstanding farce.