The Bible is wrong about 6,000 creation myth. You can say that we shouldn't take the passage literally but thats what the Bible implies, that earth and everything in it cannot be older than 6000years. That's wrong

I like the illustration.

The earth could have been inhabited by several civilizations/ species even before Adam. But Adam was the first of Modern man.

donnie:
The earth could have been inhabited by several civilizations/ species even before Adam. But Adam was the first of Modern man.

You are still saying this when we have radiometric dating of a modern human that is 300,000years old found in Morocco.

Workch:
You are still saying this when we have radiometric dating of a modern human that is 300,000years old found in Morocco.

EARLY HUMANS...not modern humans. There's a huge difference. These ones did not descend from Adam. Even their physical features were different.

Besides, there's usually too much exaggeration with that their radiometric or radiocarbon whetever.

donnie:


EARLY HUMANS...not modern humans. There's a huge difference. These ones did not descend from Adam. Even their physical features were different.

Besides, there's usually too much exaggeration with that their radiometric or radiocarbon whetever.

Do you know how radiometric dating works?
If yes, kindly explain

Donnie, I’m waiting for you to explain the mechanism of radiometric dating which you claim is exaggerated.
At least you have to understand the basics before reaching that conclusion.

donnie:


EARLY HUMANS...not modern humans. There's a huge difference. These ones did not descend from Adam. Even their physical features were different.

Besides, there's usually too much exaggeration with that their radiometric or radiocarbon whetever.

What's the scientific term for modern humans?

Workch:
Do you know how radiometric dating works?
If yes, kindly explain

Anyone can google that. All I'm saying is there's a lot of propaganda involved in this thing you call science. So while you appreciate their findings, ensure that you are woke and don't swallow all their lies.

My point has been made, Adam was not necessarily the beginning of the earth. There could have been other beings on the earth, including some that may have been called MAN before Elohim decided to make this man in his own image.

Even the the 7-day creation story might have been thousands or even millions of years. So don't use that to discredit the scriptures.
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

A001:

What's the scientific term for modern humans?

Homo sapiens

donnie:


Anyone can google that. All I'm saying is there's a lot of propaganda involved in this thing you call science. So while you appreciate their findings, ensure that you are woke and don't swallow all their lies.

My point has been made, Adam was not necessarily the beginning of the earth. There could have been other beings on the earth, including some that may have been called MAN before Elohim decided to make this man in his own image.

Even the the 7-day creation story might have been thousands or even millions of years. So don't use that to discredit the scriptures.
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

So in other words, you don’t understand the basic principles of radiometric dating, you just want to say rubbish and quote the Bible?

donnie:


Homo sapiens

So the human fossil found in Morocco that dated 300,000years old is not Homo sapiens?

Workch:
So in other words, you don’t understand the basic principles of radiometric dating, you just want to say rubbish and quote the Bible?

I think I have successfully challenged and debunked your initial bogus claim of 300,000 years as the age of modern man (Adam). The rest is not my concern now.

donnie:


Homo sapiens

And you believe Adam that lived 6000 years ago was the first Homo sapiens, the species of human that first evolved in Africa around 300,000 years ago?

donnie:
The earth could have been inhabited by several civilizations/ species even before Adam. But Adam was the first of Modern man.

donnie:


I think I have successfully challenged and debunked your initial bogus claim of 300,000 years as the age of modern man. The rest is not my concern now.

Who takes the opinion of a nairaland Christian fundamentalist seriously on issues regarding science?

One that cannot even explain basic principles of radio metric dating for that matter

Workch:
Who takes the opinion of a nairaland Christian fundamentalist seriously on issues regarding science?

One that cannot even explain basic principles of radio metric dating for that matter

Lols

A001:

And you believe Adam that lived 6000 years ago was the first Homo sapiens, the species of human that first evolved from Africa around 300,000 years ago?

The Homosapien did not evolve... That's a lie by those who want to hide their own origins and deny today's black man his right as the original modern man, and owners of this earth.

Workch:
Who takes the opinion of a nairaland Christian fundamentalist seriously on issues regarding science?
[s]One that cannot even explain basic principles of radio metric dating for that matter [/s]

I'm not a Christian, talkless of fundamentalist. And I'm not foolish and gullible. FOCUS.

donnie:


The Homosapien did not evolve... That's a lie by those who want to hide their own origins and deny today's black man his right as the original modern man, and owners of this earth.

You're very confused.

Let's leave evolution out of the matter, since you're clearly Ignorant about some key concepts in biological science.

The origin of Homo sapiens is Africa, and according to the available body of archeological evidence, modern humans originated 300,000 years ago.

And yet you said Adam is the first modern man (a homo sapiens) that lived 6000 years ago, according to the Bible contrary to concrete scientific evidence about the period.

How do you reconcile these contradictory statements?

Workch:
So the human fossil found in Morocco that dated 300,000years old is not Homo sapiens?

Nope it is not. Reason they said it had certain features that resembled that of modern man. https://www.google.com/amp/s/api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/history/article/morocco-early-human-fossils-anthropology-science

donnie:
Nope it is not. Reason they said it had certain features that resembled that of modern man. https://www.google.com/amp/s/api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/history/article/morocco-early-human-fossils-anthropology-science

Read about evolution and stop embarrassing yourself in public.

https://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution

Everything in life changes or evolves and humans are not an exception. It's strange to see people saying they don't believe in evolution or that evolution is bogus.

Whether you believe in evolution or not, you evolve or change like every other human and living and non-living things.

A001:

You're very confused.

Let's leave evolution out of the matter, since you're clearly Ignorant about some key concepts in biological science.

The origin of Homo sapiens is Africa, and according to the available body of archeological evidence, modern humans originated 300,000 years ago.

And yet you said Adam is the first modern man (a homo sapiens) that lived 6000 years ago, according to the Bible contrary to concrete scientific evidence about the period.

How do you reconcile these contradictory statements?

First the bolded above is a lie as even the source below proves. Yes Adam is the first modern man, but kindly share where I said Adam certainly lived 6000 years ago. In fact, I quoted...

donnie:

Even the the 7-day creation story might have been thousands or even millions of years. So don't use that to discredit the scriptures.
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

The point I'm making, is don't use the little knowledge you have to denigrate the scriptures or anyone who believes in it because there's a lot you still don't know. And a lot of lies have been put out there deliberately.

But that's not to say that the bible is 100% accurate in everything, no. There's been a lot of mistranslation, deliberate adding and removing etc.

A001:

Read about evolution and stop embarrassing yourself in public.

https://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution

Everything in life changes or evolves and humans are not an exception. It's strange to see people saying they don't believe in evolution or that evolution is bogus.

Whether you believe in evolution or not, you evolve or change like every other human and living and non-living things.

Cry all you want.... the Evolution teaching has its root in propaganda. Modern man did not evolve after Adam. Period.

donnie:


First the bolded above is a lie as even the source below proves. Yes Adam is the first modern man, but kindly share where I said Adam certainly lived 6000 years ago. In fact, I quoted...


The point I'm making, is don't use the little knowledge you have to denigrate the scriptures or anyone who believes in it because there's a lot you still don't know. And a lot of lies have been put out there deliberately.

But that's not to say that the bible is 100% accurate in everything, no. There's been a lot of mistranslation, deliberate adding and removing etc.

The book of lies and half-truths, the Bible, is the source of your confusion and your lack of understanding of how science works.

donnie:


Cry all you want.... the Evolution teaching has its root in propaganda. Modern man did not evolve after Adam. Period.

Who cares about your ignorant opinion?

If I want to learn anything about the origin of man, I know who to consult: experts in archeology and paleontology.

A001:

The book of lies and half-truths, the Bible, is the source of your confusion and your lack of understanding of how science works.

I have destroyed whatever NONSENSE evolution propaganda you wanted to pull. Yet I believe in the words of the prophets, my ancient Bantu ancestors. Knowledge shouldn't make you proud, but humble.

donnie:
Nope it is not. Reason they said it had certain features that resembled that of modern man. https://www.google.com/amp/s/api.nationalgeographic.com/distribution/public/amp/history/article/morocco-early-human-fossils-anthropology-science

Lol, do you even understand the National Geographic article you posted?

A001:

Who cares about your ignorant opinion?

If I want to learn anything about the origin of man, I know who to consult: experts in archeology and paleontology.

Donnie is a biblical paleontologist
Expert researcher in the field and has several peer reviewed scientific papers

donnie:


I'm not a Christian, talkless of fundamentalist. And I'm not foolish and gullible. FOCUS.

You have thousands of peer reviewed paper in science

Workch:
The Bible is wrong about 6,000 creation myth. You can say that we shouldn't take the passage literally but thats what the Bible implies, that earth and everything in it cannot be older than 6000years. That's wrong

Can you point to the place the Bible mentioned that the earth is 6000 years old. Or is it another gist again? Point to the source of this information from the BIBLE.

A001:

You're very confused.

Let's leave evolution out of the matter, since you're clearly Ignorant about some key concepts in biological science.

The origin of Homo sapiens is Africa, and according to the available body of archeological evidence, modern humans originated 300,000 years ago.

And yet you said Adam is the first modern man (a homo sapiens) that lived 6000 years ago, according to the Bible contrary to concrete scientific evidence about the period.

How do you reconcile these contradictory statements?

How did you come about the age of the earth from the Bible by merely using Adam' living 6000years ago.