Humans have been on the earth for 6,000 years?

by make yourself 76 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  James Brown

  JB: Who's scaming who here?

  .

  Interesting wording, JB. I fail to see where anyone here is "scamming" anyone else. Bohm is asking you a simple question, which you cannot/will not answer, others here have posted links and supporting information to offer a counter-point to your assertions, yet you interpret all of this as a 'scam'.

  .

  I think I can safely say this is an open discussion, not a scam.

  Does not anyone here have an education? History and prehistory is history 101.

  If any of you would at least take a history course at your local comunity college you would know that.

  You have to start with a solid foundaition of a basic education before you start pontificating about evolution and the age of the earth.

  At least if you want to have any credibility.

  Why is he asking me about dating methods when I have stated repeatedly I am speaking from popular highly aclaimed history books.

  I have given the names and posted the link to the explanation of prehistory.

  This is what educated people are taught in college and university.
• 

  cofty

  James look at the thread title.

  Your first post contributed the fact that the time before written records is referred to as "pre-history". Not very helpful but so far so good.

  Then you went on to make strange assertions..

  pre-history is conjecture, guessing, assuming.

  Of course this is complete nonsense.

  That is why there is a debate and controversy over God, the bible, creation and evolution

  Evidence for evolution does not in any way depend on ancient written records. This is a complete non sequitur.

  There is no debate about evolution. To have a debate you need conflicting evidence on both sides of an argument. Creationism has zero evidence.

  If you believe in God and the bible the earth could be young.

  That is a bit of an insult to lots of educated believers.

  In any case, your definition of prehistory is too arbitrary...
• 

  bohm

  JB:

  I am reading 2 very popular secular history books. I dont think they get into how things are dated in prehistoric times. They don't even tell how they are dated in historical times.

  Bottom line: You don't know how things are dated. Thats okay.

  I would think they gather documents and then find older documents by reading the earlier documents and noting the references.

  That is *not* how ancient written remains are dated. Ancient written remains usually consist of fragments of clay tablets. These tablets can be written about anything and they are most certainly not full of cross-references. Even if ancient civilizations cross-referenced their written work (As Yodoko the elder wrote 540 years ago in his tablet: 'Upon the design and utillity of the wheelborrow and other modern gadgets' ...) we would nearly certainly not have enough remains of Yodokos tablet to identify the title (not that things was titled..).

  I feel pretty comfortable beliving that history began in Sumer. I have read it in numerous places througout my life.

  and it did. Try to read my post you are STILL missing my point: Ancient writing may well have started in Sumer. *the way we know when and where it started is by applying dating techniques to ancient remains*. The point being, if you accept those dating techniques when applied in ONE situation, then WHY do you not accept them when applied in another situation?

  Seriously, why is this point so hard for you to grasp? Are you just skimming every post i write or do you have problems with elementary reading comprehension?
• 

  jam

  Adam and Eve were the first JW.
• 

  jam

  Not the first human...
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  JB: I am reading 2 very popular secular history books

  Does not anyone here have an education? History and prehistory is history 101.

  ..

  You mean more education than two "popular" history books as a basis?? Probably.
• 

  zound

  James Brown I read that book too "A little history of the World".

  It's supposed to be a 'history' book - but then he starts preaching about how Jesus is the son of god and he came and did miracles, and we can only be saved through accepting his sacrifice etc etc etc. That book made me so angry. I would be wary of it's other 'facts'.
• 

  cofty

  Really!

  According to James it's a standard textbook at secular universtities.

  Have you not been entirely honest about that James?
• 

  zound

  An excert from the book:

  "You can read about Jesus Christ in the Bible. You probably know the essentials of what he taught: That all men are God's children. That the love of this father is infinite. That.... sinners. That... mercy. You know what mercy is: The great and forgiving love of God. And that is why we should treat others as we hope our God, our Father, will treat us."
• 

  cofty

  Oh dear.