How old is Humankind?

[Howze]

Others have noted that civilization actually began about 12 to 10,000 years ago as the post glacial world changed the climate, vegetation and to some extent the landscape making agriculture favorable.

I am not sure what you mean behave like animals. Many if not most animals behave better than humans. Evidence indicates that humans and Neandethals have shown attributes of civilization dating back to 100,000 years or more. These attributes include ceremonial burial and sacred places of worship.

There were many places, even during glacial times that agriculture could have been practiced and civilization flourish - but it never happened - and nobody knows why. Ceremonial burial is not civilization - I gave a definition pages back - read it!

I only threw this one out there for interests sake - it doesn't really tell you how old humanity is only is fits somewhat with a Biblical timeframe. It is curious, thats all. Thanks to Doug Shaver on a previous page for his honest reply. I'm going to finish up on this thread on that note.

[Kia ora]

I only threw this one out there for interests sake - it doesn't really tell you how old humanity is only is fits somewhat with a Biblical timeframe.

How do you figure that the facts fit the 'Biblical timeframe'? By which I suppose you mean a creationist interpretation of the Bible.

Speak for yourself, mate!

You should see my room.

[Tassman]

So we are animals but definitely don't live like them!

BTW you totally misrepresent the history of Australian Christianity and its relationship to it's native people in only once sentence, well done!

I suggest you study the history of the Christian colonialists in Australia. The entire culture of the Australian Aborigine was destroyed and the official position of the Australian Government was for the "Assimilation (not Integration) of the Aborigine" into the community, aided and abetted by the Christian Missions. This is depicted quite well in the recent Baz Luhrmann movie 'Australia'. It wasn't until 2008, to our shame, that the Australian Government issued a formal apology for past wrongs inflicted on the Aboriginal community.

[Rushing Jaws]

Bible history seems to support the idea that humankind, on the earth, is about 6000 years old. Science seems to think that humankind is much older than that.

Thoughts?

## The Bible has no bearing on the matter. The idea that it does is fostered by the impression that Genesis 1-11 was written as a consecutive & connected historical account. It wasn't. That impression is based on the final editing of the Masoretic text, and ignores the history of the editing of literary traditions that make up those chapters.

Certain sciences profess, taken together, to speak of the age of the earth - Genesis does not profess to do so, for the reasons explained. So only one of the two parties is talking about the age of the earth - but two speakers are needed for a contradiction; therefore, there is no contradiction.

[Rushing Jaws]

Thanks, Frank.

I was wondering when someone would offer more than just silly stuff. I tend to believe the earth is billions of years, but mankind, being on the earth, is about 6000 years.

I was curious where you came up with 7800 years, and whether you are referring to the age of humankind, or the age of the earth, or what?

Again, we aren't establishing doctrine here, just philosophizing and conjecturizing.

## By the 1690s, there were at least 70 different dates for the creation. I don't know the details

[OtherCheek]

## The Bible has no bearing on the matter. The idea that it does is fostered by the impression that Genesis 1-11 was written as a consecutive & connected historical account. It wasn't. That impression is based on the final editing of the Masoretic text, and ignores the history of the editing of literary traditions that make up those chapters.

Certain sciences profess, taken together, to speak of the age of the earth - Genesis does not profess to do so, for the reasons explained. So only one of the two parties is talking about the age of the earth - but two speakers are needed for a contradiction; therefore, there is no contradiction.

I'm really addressing the age of HUMANKIND on the earth, more than the age of the earth itself.

I think the genealogies given in Luke and Matthew seem to assert that there are only so many generations between Adam and Jesus. So, the question becomes, "is this genealogy somewhat accurate?" And was Adam really the "first man" on the earth?

[Zguy28]

I'm really addressing the age of HUMANKIND on the earth, more than the age of the earth itself.

I think the genealogies given in Luke and Matthew seem to assert that there are only so many generations between Adam and Jesus. So, the question becomes, "is this genealogy somewhat accurate?" And was Adam really the "first man" on the earth?

Perhaps Adam was the first Homo Sapiens made in the image of God (Homo Divinus to quote John Stott) but not the first Homo Sapiens?

[OtherCheek]

Perhaps Adam was the first Homo Sapiens made in the image of God (Homo Divinus to quote John Stott) but not the first Homo Sapiens?

I think that idea deserves some attention. I think similarly. Perhaps there were man-like creatures before Adam, but Adam was the first being created with God-like intelligence, and a conscience. One who could live on more than mere instinct like the animal world does.

[Howze]

I suggest you study the history of the Christian colonialists in Australia. The entire culture of the Australian Aborigine was destroyed and the official position of the Australian Government was for the "Assimilation (not Integration) of the Aborigine" into the community, aided and abetted by the Christian Missions. This is depicted quite well in the recent Baz Luhrmann movie 'Australia'. It wasn't until 2008, to our shame, that the Australian Government issued a formal apology for past wrongs inflicted on the Aboriginal community.

OK note it was mainly the government and people of Australia who were in the wrong - Aboriginal people didn't even get the vote til 1966. Australia is and always has been a very secular nation - Christian colonists is a joke - unless you think the enlightened crime and punishment policies of enlightenment Britian consitituted some sort of warped missionary activity.

I suggest you stop parroting propaganda and study history mate - you'll find churches, missions and Christians have always been in the forefront of trying to help Aboriginal people. They still are.

LOL @ learning anything useful from the movie 'Austrialia'.

[Tassman]

OK note it was mainly the government and people of Australia who were in the wrong - Aboriginal people didn't even get the vote til 1966. Australia is and always has been a very secular nation - Christian colonists is a joke - unless you think the enlightened crime and punishment policies of enlightenment Britian consitituted some sort of warped missionary activity.

I suggest you stop parroting propaganda and study history mate - you'll find churches, missions and Christians have always been in the forefront of trying to help Aboriginal people. They still are.

LOL @ learning anything useful from the movie 'Austrialia'.

Um, so “it was mainly the government and people of Australia who were in the wrong”. I see. So, you are saying that Christians in Australia were not people or ever in government?

Certainly, Australia is a very secular nation nowadays but Australia considered itself a Christian nation until relatively recently as did the colonizing British.

BTW: I saw the movie ‘Australia’ in Lima, Peru, where it got a standing ovation but I gather it wasn’t a success in Australia itself…too close to the bone, perhaps.

[Howze]

Um, so “it was mainly the government and people of Australia who were in the wrong”. I see. So, you are saying that Christians in Australia were not people or ever in government?

I expect there were. But implying there was some sort of 'Christian' impetus in colonising Australia is a joke. It was British imperialism pure and simple.

Certainly, Australia is a very secular nation nowadays but Australia considered itself a Christian nation until relatively recently as did the colonizing British.

OK fair comment. I still maintain Australia as a nation/colony has always been very secular because of it's history. It simply does not have the deep seated Christian roots somewhere like the US does. Christian nation is a nodding acceptance, nothing more. This is not to say there are not strong churches here.

BTW: I saw the movie ‘Australia’ in Lima, Peru, where it got a standing ovation but I gather it wasn’t a success in Australia itself…too close to the bone, perhaps.

Didn't it get a critical panning virtually everywhere? I saw it and enjoyed it, but I must have missed the biting social commentary. Oh yeah the 'gubberment fellas want to take away my boy'. Stolen generation etc. A better treatment of this is 'Rabbit-proof fence'. Personally I think we as a nation need to move on from the guilt trip stuff and try to find workable solutions to the issues of Aboriginal disadvantage. Anyway wrong thread for this stuff.

[Tassman]

I expect there were. But implying there was some sort of 'Christian' impetus in colonising Australia is a joke. It was British imperialism pure and simple.

I didn’t imply there was a Christian impetus in colonizing Australia, i.e. in the name of Christianity. My argument is that Britain and the other European powers which colonized the world, destroying entire cultures wherever they went, were self-identified Christian nations. The dominant social paradigms were Christian ones and the values the colonizers carried with them and exercised were, at least in their own minds, Christian ones.

OK fair comment. I still maintain Australia as a nation/colony has always been very secular because of it's history. It simply does not have the deep seated Christian roots somewhere like the US does. Christian nation is a nodding acceptance, nothing more. This is not to say there are not strong churches here.

Granted that Australia never had the equivalent of the Pilgrim Fathers etc and thus was able to move more easily than the USA into the secular status it enjoys today. Nevertheless, until relatively recently, most people identified as Christian and the culture was based on Christianity. My grand-parent’s generation automatically equate Christianity with decency and respectability and very much frown on the “loose standards” of us “young ones”.

I don’t know about the ‘Top End’, but certainly in Sydney and the east coast plus Adelaide, which I’m familiar with, the churches are virtually empty on Sundays...with the exception of a handful of Pentecostal churches.

Didn't it get a critical panning virtually everywhere? I saw it and enjoyed it, but I must have missed the biting social commentary. Oh yeah the 'gubberment fellas want to take away my boy'. Stolen generation etc. A better treatment of this is 'Rabbit-proof fence'. Personally I think we as a nation need to move on from the guilt trip stuff and try to find workable solutions to the issues of Aboriginal disadvantage. Anyway wrong thread for this stuff.

Indeed ‘Rabbit Proof Fence’ was a far superior treatment of the ‘stolen generation’. There was hardly any biting commentary in 'Australia', given that it was a commercial movie primarily designed to entertain....but it gently made the point, I feel.

I agree that it is time for Australia to move on. And now that the government has issued a formal apology we should be able to do so.

[Howze]

I didn’t imply there was a Christian impetus in colonizing Australia, i.e. in the name of Christianity. My argument is that Britain and the other European powers which colonized the world, destroying entire cultures wherever they went, were self-identified Christian nations.

In your opinion. What their motivations were is pretty obvious Land, Gold and Trade. Chistianity did use this as an opportunity for evangelism. Cultures were destroyed but more by the diseases Europeans brought rather than anything Christians did. I would say Aboriginal culture has survived to some extent due to the intervention and caring of Christians.

The dominant social paradigms were Christian ones and the values the colonizers carried with them and exercised were, at least in their own minds, Christian ones.

A Huuuuge generalisation. Who knows what they were thinking - probably what all conquerers throughout history were - for the Glory and the Loot!

Granted that Australia never had the equivalent of the Pilgrim Fathers etc and thus was able to move more easily than the USA into the secular status it enjoys today. Nevertheless, until relatively recently, most people identified as Christian and the culture was based on Christianity. My grand-parent’s generation automatically equate Christianity with decency and respectability and very much frown on the “loose standards” of us “young ones”.

OK if you say so - but the 60s are now nearly 50 years ago.

I don’t know about the ‘Top End’, but certainly in Sydney and the east coast plus Adelaide, which I’m familiar with, the churches are virtually empty on Sundays...with the exception of a handful of Pentecostal churches.

Christianity and Church going is a minority sub-culture in Australia and always has been. But there is a move away from traditional Church buildings to peoples homes, storefronts etc.

Indeed ‘Rabbit Proof Fence’ was a far superior treatment of the ‘stolen generation’. There was hardly any biting commentary in 'Australia', given that it was a commercial movie primarily designed to entertain....but it gently made the point, I feel.

I agree that it is time for Australia to move on. And now that the government has issued a formal apology we should be able to do so.

Agreed

[Tassman]

In your opinion. What their motivations were is pretty obvious Land, Gold and Trade. Chistianity did use this as an opportunity for evangelism. Cultures were destroyed but more by the diseases Europeans brought rather than anything Christians did. I would say Aboriginal culture has survived to some extent due to the intervention and caring of Christians.

Indeed gold, land and trade. You are suggesting that Christians were above such motivation. They were not. Atheism was virtually unknown at this time and ALL the perpetrators of colonization would have considered themselves Christian.

In Latin America the conversion of the ‘natives’ to Christianity was a primary part of the charter and the end result was that the cultures of the Inca and Aztecs were completely wiped out as well as their gold being transported back to Spain and Portugal.

In Australia Christian organizations and Churches stole Aboriginal children from their parents and converted them in missions. They were supported in this by the government with its policy of assimilation. Pope John Paul apologized for the Catholic participation in this in 1998, but ALL the churches were involved, e.g. the Salvation Army claimed the country's indigenous people as “its spiritual property”.

Sadly Christianity is expert at destroying ancient cultures and repressing efforts to pass native traditions to succeeding generations in ALL countries.

Aboriginal culture has really not survived as a viable culture any more then the American Indian culture has survived except as quaint relics of what they once were.

A Huuuuge generalisation. Who knows what they were thinking - probably what all conquerers throughout history were - for the Glory and the Loot!

Not at all! The undeniable fact is that the colonizing nations of Europe were all Christian and Christianity was the dominant paradigm. No doubt some individuals were nominal Christians while others were devout. But the fact remains that they were ALL Christians. You seem surprised at the notion of barbarities being committed by practicing Christians. It is very much the case. Study your history.

Christianity and Church going is a minority sub-culture in Australia and always has been. But there is a move away from traditional Church buildings to peoples homes, storefronts etc.

This is true of today, but not of the past. Church-going was a regular part of the culture until relatively recently and everything closed down on Sundays….cinema, shops, and pubs…the lot.

Re the home-churches and store-front churches, I would guess this is because the traditional church buildings are no longer a viable option for the small numbers attending. I wouldn’t know. Christianity is virtually invisible in Australia. I think this is a good thing; no doubt you disagree.

But the fact remains that the big traditional church buildings still exist, some of them are huge, and they were clearly built for an era when they could be filled.

[Howze]

Indeed gold, land and trade. You are suggesting that Christians were above such motivation. They were not. Atheism was virtually unknown at this time and ALL the perpetrators of colonization would have considered themselves Christian.

Funny stuff this - again you generalise ad infinitum and continue to push your barrow. If they were a bunch of politically correct Athiests all these disasters never would have happened! There would also be no such country as Australia! I am an indigenous Australian (as are you) despite the colour of my skin. My forebears have been here for 5 generations.

In Latin America the conversion of the ‘natives’ to Christianity was a primary part of the charter and the end result was that the cultures of the Inca and Aztecs were completely wiped out as well as their gold being transported back to Spain and Portugal.

Yes they were conquered - by a more technologically advanced nation - many more died from disease than rapine though. Their desendants still live there. Gold mining is still an industry in South America.

In Australia Christian organizations and Churches stole Aboriginal children from their parents and converted them in missions. They were supported in this by the government with its policy of assimilation. Pope John Paul apologized for the Catholic participation in this in 1998, but ALL the churches were involved, e.g. the Salvation Army claimed the country's indigenous people as “its spiritual property”.

Well the churches were Johnny on the spot as they were out with the people attempting to help and support them. Anyway the stolen generation was a two edged sword as most Australians recognise - most educated influential aboriginal leaders today are stolen generation.

Sadly Christianity is expert at destroying ancient cultures and repressing efforts to pass native traditions to succeeding generations in ALL countries.

Aboriginal culture has really not survived as a viable culture any more then the American Indian culture has survived except as quaint relics of what they once were.

In your opinion only. This is obviously your ideological barrow and you are a gonna keep pushing it. Aboriginal culture is well suited to being hunter-gatherers but not so well suited to 21st century life. There are still Aboriginal people who live a traditional lifestyle, but they are fast dying out, what is left is a huge mess - but a mess generated by the secular government policies of the last 30 odd years - not by churches.

Not at all! The undeniable fact is that the colonizing nations of Europe were all Christian and Christianity was the dominant paradigm. No doubt some individuals were nominal Christians while others were devout. But the fact remains that they were ALL Christians. You seem surprised at the notion of barbarities being committed by practicing Christians. It is very much the case. Study your history.

I think this is a questionable statement made by someone wearing ideological blinkers who wishes to paint Christianity in a poor light. Someone with a very shallow understanding of history.

This is true of today, but not of the past. Church-going was a regular part of the culture until relatively recently and everything closed down on Sundays….cinema, shops, and pubs…the lot.

Re the home-churches and store-front churches, I would guess this is because the traditional church buildings are no longer a viable option for the small numbers attending. I wouldn’t know. Christianity is virtually invisible in Australia. I think this is a good thing; no doubt you disagree.

But the fact remains that the big traditional church buildings still exist, some of them are huge, and they were clearly built for an era when they could be filled.

I don't think Christianity is at all invisible - you only need to look at the political landscape to see that. The rest is only really agreeing with what I said - times have changed I agree and only the truly committed are still in church. Personally I think that is a good thing.