1

I think the interpretation of Genesis-1 concerning the age of the earth and universe is still open, but is there consensus on the age of human civilization or on the date of first man Adam? Can I say both literal interpretation and human history all agree that the age of human being is around 4000~10000 years?

Daniel
  • 432
  • 1
  • 3
  • 12
  • Sounds kind of off topic... consensus among who? Christians? Catholic vs Protestant? If you want some opposing points of view, check out 'answers in genesis' and 'reasons to believe' respectively. – aceinthehole Oct 28 '13 at 18:51
  • I heard someone at reasons to believe say they would place the flood event at some point around 60k years ago based on a genetic choke point, for context. – aceinthehole Oct 28 '13 at 18:56
  • 1
    @aceinthehole: The question is asking if there is a consensus--that would mean among everyone. He wants to know if the debate between YECs and Evolutionists revolves only around the age of the planet and universe, or also the age of humanity. At least that's how I take it. – Flimzy Oct 28 '13 at 20:00
  • @aceinthehole: A "genetic choke point" only exists if you believe in a global flood. If you believe the world is 60k years old, you almost certainly don't believe in a global flood. :) – Flimzy Oct 28 '13 at 20:00
  • @Flimzy well not necessarily: consider someone who believes the flood was localized to a region, and in that region lived all the humans on earth. Now you have a choke point AND a localized flood. I could be wrong, but I think that is RTB's actually stance on this. – aceinthehole Oct 28 '13 at 21:20
  • @aceinthehole: I suppose that's possible. But I still contend that anyone who believes the world is > 60k years old has no reason to believe in a global flood. Why would someone take the flood account literally, but not the creation account? Those who take one literally, take the other literally, and vice versa. – Flimzy Oct 28 '13 at 22:21
  • 3
    This question appears to be off-topic because it is basically about anthropology. Although the historical data are problematic for young-Earth creationists, the question as currently written is not about the YEC response, but about the scientific and archaeological facts themselves. – James T Oct 28 '13 at 22:39
  • @Flimzy Oh no, I think we are on the same page. I am not saying global flood. I am saying localized flood in a particular region. So humanity is (almost) completely wiped from the face of the earth, so its universal in that narrow sense, but if a flood is occurring only in a small region of the entire planet earth, then no, not global. – aceinthehole Oct 30 '13 at 14:03
  • @aceinthehole: "universal in that narrow sense".. haha... I love it. But I understand what you mean. – Flimzy Oct 30 '13 at 14:06

1 Answers1

2

It'd depend on how you go about defining civilization. The Lascaux cave paintings are dated by archeologists to 17000 years ago. Farming communities, along with animal domestication and pottery started roughly 10000-12000 years ago at the beginning of the paleolithic. Actual written language started possibly as early as 5000 years ago.

Edit: So to clarify... the definition of civilization is ambiguous. A Biblicist creationary view and a secular archeologist could probably agree on the date of written language. They would very likely disagree on the date range of the first farming communities, they most certainly would disagree on the date range of the cave paintings.

The "age of human being" taken to be the accepted date of the first homo sapiens sapiens would be well beyond any kind of reconciliation between the two viewpoints (on the order of a couple hundred thousand years).

Eclipse
  • 361
  • 1
  • 8
  • So are you saying that there is no consensus? –  Oct 28 '13 at 17:09
  • 2
    @CharlesAlsobrook: No, Eclipse is saying that it depends on your definition of "civilization." Funny--those were even the exact words used! – Flimzy Oct 28 '13 at 18:36
  • Okay, I was trying to ask about the exact date of first man "Adam". – Daniel Oct 28 '13 at 18:37
  • 1
    @Daniel Even the young Earth creationists can't come up with a specific date. That range is based on the ages of people in the Bible (And when so and so was 115 he became the father of such and such...) and there are still significant gaps in the records. If this happens to be more than just a curiosity for you then you'll have to ask yourself why is it so important to know. – crownjewel82 Oct 28 '13 at 19:08
  • @Daniel: If your question is on the date of the first "human," then there is absolutely NOT a consensus. Estimates range from 50,000+ years ago to a few thousands of years ago. – Flimzy Oct 28 '13 at 19:13
  • @Flimzy "It'd depend on how you go about defining civilization." That statement is saying that the definition of "civilization" is subjective...which means that the only form of consensus that could be established is one that embodies a group of subjective opinions. Subjectivity by definition is intrinsically opposed to the possibility of consensus.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subjectivity

     –  Oct 28 '13 at 19:26
  • @CharlesAlsobrook: I think Eclipse's point was that the question was ambiguous. It asked about human civilization, but then also seemed to ask about "human history" (which could include pre-civilization). The answer to the OP's question depends only on what the OP meant. – Flimzy Oct 28 '13 at 19:32
  • @Flimzy I couldn't have stated better myself. My question was intended to pin down the ambiguity. –  Oct 28 '13 at 19:37
  • @CharlesAlsobrook: Well, an ambiguous question does not necessarily mean the answer is "there is no consensus." That's the contrast I'm trying to make. – Flimzy Oct 28 '13 at 19:49
  • @Flimzy I see :) –  Oct 28 '13 at 21:14