How do we know that humans have been around for more than 6000 years?

by inkling 74 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  inkling

  After a conversation with my dad last night, I realized that it is fairly
  easy for JWs to weasel out of issues involving the fossil record because
  a) the WT has very little to say on the subject and b) witnesses are
  allowed to believe (at least in theory) that plants and animals have been
  around for millions of years.

  However, they DO have a clear problem with humans being around for
  hundred of thousands of years. To them, the Bible is quite clear:

  Adam and eve were the first humans to exist, and they were created
  some 6000 years ago.

  So, my question is what is the actually evidence we have to be sure
  that the bible is wrong?

  How long have recognizably human people been around, and how do we know?
  How long have humans lived in civilization, and how do we know?

  [inkling]
• 

  nvrgnbk

  If I know an automotive mechanic that has been working on cars for thirty years and he's gained a reputation from even his competitors as skilled and trustworthy, I won't consider his opinion on automotive matters to be infallible but I'll show respect for his experience.

  If he and three other equally experienced mechanics agree that my car has transmission problems, they may be onto something.

  One wants to rebuild the tranny.

  One wants to install a new one.

  One wants to install a salvaged one.

  One thinks that it's not worth putting any money into fixing it and advises me to consider buying a new car.

  They have unique opinions about my situation, but there is a consensus regarding the problem.

  If I insist that a paint job will make the car run better, because I like red cars instead of blue cars, I am deluding myself.

  If I think that their opinons are rubbish and that they're conspiring against me because they are anti-paint, I am insane.

  I think that those that stubbornly ignore all of the peer-reviewed findings of archaeologists and anthropologists are equally insane.
• 

  james_woods

  Archeological records show primative "counting" or "record-keeping" artifacts that to back as far as 35,000 B.C. Clay pictogram tokens have been found in the middle east dating to around 9,000 years B.C. Cave art found in Europe dates back thousands of years as well...and all this in addition to actual fossil human remains.

  But none of this is likely to have any effect on a group in such deep denial as are the witnesses. Consider the source - these people will only reluctantly admit that the dinosaurs really existed - some of them say God killed them off right before the flood!

  One example of their blindness was the old blue pocket size book on "Evolution". It devoted practically a chapter to a rant on how innacurate Carbon dating was. The arguments drew on legitimate scientific observations which showed that the method was an approximate, rather than an exact form of time measurement. The old strawman - well, if the scientists say it might be off by 300 years, then why can't it be off by 30,000 years? It also made the ridiculously shallow statment that "carbon dating is useless for finding the age of rock formations"...etc. Well, no duh - why do you think they call it "carbon dating".
• 

  sweetstuff

  http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0628-crops.html

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

  http://www.niu.edu/PubAffairs/RELEASES/2004/dec/peru.shtml

  Excellent analogy NRV.

  By educating ourselves.

  While some things may be theory or deduction, it could also be said, that letting a book (the bible) which contains no concrete evidence of its claims stand as factual is fallacy in and of itself. It would be logical IMO to take the agreed consensus of modern day experts who use scientifically proven methods and calculations to come to their agreed consensus in a given area over a book written by a group of men a few thousands years ago that contains no scientific proof whatsoever to back its claims. Ancient cities found by current archeologists predating six thousand years aren't some fantasy of a writer, they are tangable, documented, studied and tested realities. Unlike grand stories of a God who parts a sea, etc., as found in the bible.
• 

  james_woods

  In about 1651, the Jesuit bishop Martino Martini (cool name, don't you think?) was sent to proselytize the Chinese. He was met with a very amused resistance when he presented the idea that a global flood occurred in about 2300 B.C.

  The Chinese had a detailed chronology of their dynasties which went back to at least 2952 B.C., and there was no mention of a flood. There was, however, careful observations of eclipses - which match modern astonomical knowledge.

  Martini went back to Rome, and published a book on the subject that very nearly got him excommunicated.
• 

  isaacaustin

  Fred Franz said so.
• 

  nvrgnbk

  The Chinese had a detailed chronology of their dynasties which went back to at least 2952 B.C., and there was no mention of a flood.

  My otherwise intelligent father had no answer for this.

  So, as expected, he discounted their chronology as flawed.

  Besides, what good are some dead Chinese dudes?

  Only Jehovah can give him everlasting life.
• 

  hillbilly

  I am 4000 years old myself... I met a guy who was around back then when I was a kid. He drank over at my uncles VFW hall.

  sorry...no science here

  Hill
• 

  lonelysheep

  Humans have been around for millions of years. We know this by reading material on real archeological digs/discoveries that are not titled Awake or The Watchtower. The evidence is there. Denying it and believing something else does not mean 6000 years is correct. Of course, if it's not correct (which it isn't), then their numbers timeline is thrown off completely.

  Subscribe!
  http://www.archaeology.org/news/

  Gain knowledge even without college.
• 

  snowbird

  The problem is that those peer-reviewed finding are oftentimes thrown out as new information comes along. No one knows how long Man has been around - and for good reason.

  Whether Man has been on Earth for 6 thousand or 6 million years matters not a whit to my belief in the Bible.

  I do suspect, however, that the quest to prove Man has been around far longer than the Bible indicates is to destroy faith in the message that God is making things right for us.

  How long? is the cry that resounds throughout the ages. What better way to make it seem as if God doesn't care than to cast doubt on the length of our sojourn here?

  Sylvia