Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cannot quite grasp your question; syntactical error there, but I think you're asking "Can you tell us how you conclude the Bible says it took place 150,000 years from the date..."
I don't conclude that. The Bible doesn't say it took 150,000 years; it says 6,000 years. The premise of my OP was that we cannot believe the Bible's assertion that man has only been on earth for 6,000 years when all the scientific evidence says it was much longer. That's on one side of the table.
On the other side, it's irrelevant whether science says man was here for 50,000 or 100,000 or 150,000 years; we'll never pinpoint it. Nor can we know where he popped up--Africa, or Mesopotamia or China; nor can we know if man preceded woman or woman preceded man.
What I think the article demonstrates is that man appeared suddenly; he didn't evolve over a billion years as a clump of atoms unaided by some higher power. I think just the fact scientists can trace the y chromosome back to what they call "man 0" (in the sense of patient zero in an epidemic) demonstrates a "God" involved in man's appearance. If man had evolved over a billion years from a clump of molecules, then scientists would not have been able to do this.
Almost every man alive can trace his origins to one man who lived about 135,000 years ago, new research suggests. And that ancient man likely shared the planet with the mother of all women.
The findings, detailed Thursday, Aug. 1, in the journal Science, come from the most complete analysis of the male sex chromosome, or the Y chromosome, to date. The results overturn earlier research, which suggested that men's most recent common ancestor lived just 50,000 to 60,000 years ago.
Despite their overlap in time, ancient "Adam" and ancient "Eve" probably didn't even live near each other, let alone mate. [The 10 Biggest Mysteries of the First Humans]
"Those two people didn't know each other," said Melissa Wilson Sayres, a geneticist at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the study.
Tracing history
Researchers believe that modern humans left Africa between 60,000 and 200,000 years ago, and that the mother of all women likely emerged from East Africa. But beyond that, the details get fuzzy.
The Y chromosome is passed down identically from father to son, so mutations, or point changes, in the male sex chromosome can trace the male line back to the father of all humans. By contrast, DNA from the mitochondria, the energy powerhouse of the cell, is carried inside the egg, so only women pass it on to their children. The DNA hidden inside mitochondria, therefore, can reveal the maternal lineage to an ancient Eve.
But over time, the male chromosome gets bloated with duplicated, jumbled-up stretches of DNA, said study co-author Carlos Bustamante, a geneticist at Stanford University in California. As a result, piecing together fragments of DNA from gene sequencing was like trying to assemble a puzzle without the image on the box top, making thorough analysis difficult.
Y chromosome
Bustamante and his colleagues assembled a much bigger piece of the puzzle by sequencing the entire genome of the Y chromosome for 69 men from seven global populations, from African San Bushmen to the Yakut of Siberia.
By assuming a mutation rate anchored to archaeological events (such as the migration of people across the Bering Strait), the team concluded that all males in their global sample shared a single male ancestor in Africa roughly 125,000 to 156,000 years ago.
In addition, mitochondrial DNA from the men, as well as similar samples from 24 women, revealed that all women on the planet trace back to a mitochondrial Eve, who lived in Africa between 99,000 and 148,000 years ago almost the same time period during which the Y-chromosome Adam lived.
More ancient Adam
But the results, though fascinating, are just part of the story, said Michael Hammer, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Arizona who was not involved in the study.
A separate study in the same issue of the journal Science found that men shared a common ancestor between 180,000 and 200,000 years ago.
And in a study detailed in March in the American Journal of Human Genetics, Hammer's group showed that several men in Africa have unique, divergent Y chromosomes that trace back to an even more ancient man who lived between 237,000 and 581,000 years ago. [Unraveling the Human Genome: 6 Molecular Milestones]
"It doesn't even fit on the family tree that the Bustamante lab has constructed. It's older," Hammer told LiveScience.
Gene studies always rely on a sample of DNA and, therefore, provide an incomplete picture of human history. For instance, Hammer's group sampled a different group of men than Bustamante's lab did, leading to different estimates of how old common ancestors really are.
You're doing it again, even though it's been mentioned to you several times...working from the top down.
Nature didn't "design" anything. There was no 'end product' to be achieved. In fact, things are still evolving so even our bodies, as we know them now, aren't a completed end product.
Interesting, then we must be in "pause" mode for the last couple millennia...
This is only one of the studies that come up with the same date, plus or minus a few hundred years.
These dates have been accepted for a long time, and spoke of even as early as the 20s in the "Scopes" trial, ( Monkey trial, with Clarence Darrow.)
Now in todays world, when faced with facts, of millions of years, a few are trying to extract a different date, but the writings themselves cannot be changed, so people attempt to change the meanings of the writings.
They wrote this,
But they meant this.
[SIZE=4]ESTIMATES OF THE BIBLICAL
[SIZE=6]DATE OF CREATION[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE][SIZE=3] Bishop James Ussher was able to use the ages of famous pre-flood personages in the Bible to estimate the number of years between creation and the flood. In 1650 CE, he published his book "Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti" ("Annals of the Old Testament, deduced from the first origins of the world.") He calculated that God had created the Earth in 4004 BCE. A decade earlier, Dr. John Lightfoot, (1602 - 1675), an Anglican clergyman, rabbinical scholar, and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge had already arrived at an estimate of 4004-OCT-23 BCE, at 9 AM. (We assume that this was either Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) or Jerusalem time).
Unfortunately, Ussher gets most of the credit; Lightfoot's contribution is rarely cited.
This would make the time interval between the creation of the world and a common estimate of the birth of Christ at precisely 4000 years. Some people believe that Ussher fudged the data to make it come out this neatly. This date found general acceptance among many Christians; "...his dates were inserted in the margins of the authorized version of the English Bible and were soon practically regarded as equally inspired with the sacred text itself..."
Most contemporary historians establish a base date of Saul's accession to the throne of Israel to have happened 1020 BCE. However, Bishop James Ussher, a 17th century Irish archbishop from Armagh, Ireland, estimated this date as 1095 BCE in his work: Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti
Work backwards through the Book of Judges. Ussher computed 330 years for the duration of the rule of Judges. He based this on the intervals specified in the Hebrew Scriptures. Modern theologians believe that the "Judges" did not rule over all of Israel in a regular sequence. Instead, each Judge controlled separate tribe(s), so that their interval of rule overlapped. A modern estimate for the duration of time covered by the Book of Judges is perhaps 180 years.
The bible cannot say 6000 years, because that number will change every year.
You have to go backwords and calculate it, which has been done by scholars far more educated in the subject than you or I.
The Jews have actual dates for events.
You do realize that the accounts in the Tanakh are not in tight chronological order?...IOW, there exists time spans between them...Taking the age of Adam on down is unreliable...I know how the scholars did this and people accepted it, but if you take a hard look at it, it is not what we have been taught...And how exactly do you calculate it?...These accounts were passed on orally for a long time before someone wrote them down...Do you really think that the Alephbet was given to Adam right in the beginning?...Similar to the Celts of Ireland, there was a person chosen to be the chronicler of his people, his job was to memorize genealogies and histories of his people and then teach another chosen to carry on the trade, eventually these chronicles were set to writing...Similar to a medieval Page, his job was to recite the history and genealogy of the Knight that he served...the Knight's Pedigree, if you will... The Tanakh wasn't coalesced into scrolls until much later, it was the jobs of the Kohanim and levites to pass on the oral traditions...So, how do we know that each account in the Tanakh wasn't from a different era and we are just assuming that because the books are one after the other that there is a tight chronological order that informs us of the age of mankind?...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
