Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: Meshack N. Bida on 20/01/2009 09:10:24
-
Meshack N. Bida asked the Naked Scientists:
Dear Chris
I regularly listen to your Friday 702 radio program, 'the naked scientist'. I do have a question to ask you and I am confident you can assist:
According to carbon-dating mankind has existed on earth for much longer than we can explain the biblical creation of man. Carbon dating seems to suggest that there was life many millions or even billion years ago. Biblically speaking, the first man, Adam, must have lived about 190 years or so before his death. How can we best explain this apparent disparity of the body of scientific evidence and the biblical dating. The Biblical calendar of man's existence in the Old Testament is not any more than 6000 years before the birth of Jesus Christ, but yet scientifically there was life many million of years before this. I come from a perspective that the first man created by God was Adam.
God bless
Dr N.M Bida
What do you think?
-
The first verse of Genesis, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth" fullstop. Then verse three "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light" fullstop. We don't know the period of time between verse 1 and 3 because it was not stated, only the period of time after that was roughly 6000 years [:)] Therefore that answers your question.
-
Why do they have to be reconciled? One is factual and evidence based; the other is fiction.
End of thread.
-
I don't think our guest will be back. Hardly any of them do... *sigh*
-
In his defence - that's actually an email that the Naked Scientists received - we get so many emails that we cannot possibly answer them all, and so open some of them to the forum. We hope that this keeps interesting questions coming in to the forum (some more for discussion, such as this one, than for solid facts), and it also means that when someone on the forum gives a good answer, we can give them full credit for it if we tackle that question during the show. This particular listener listens to our contributions to radio 702 in South Africa.
Any post starting with "Name of person asked the Naked Scientists:" is one of these emails.
-
Thank you BenV, but I don't think there is going to be any more discussion on this topic. But... I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first or the last time either [:)]
-
In his defence - that's actually an email that the Naked Scientists received - we get so many emails that we cannot possibly answer them all, and so open some of them to the forum. We hope that this keeps interesting questions coming in to the forum (some more for discussion, such as this one, than for solid facts), and it also means that when someone on the forum gives a good answer, we can give them full credit for it if we tackle that question during the show. This particular listener listens to our contributions to radio 702 in South Africa.
Any post starting with "Name of person asked the Naked Scientists:" is one of these emails.
Ben - Surely this type of question has already been exhaustively discussed, and generally without any agreement? And I'm not sure how relevant it is either. Also, I'm not necessarily after any sort of self-promotion [:-\], but I have answered questions put forwards in this manner which were then used in the program without "receiving full credit". Is the cheque in the post? [;)]
-
Oh, but I wish we had the money to send someone a check for their contributions to the forum - if we had that much cash we wouldn't need the Google ads! We try our best to mention who it was that gave us answers that we use - more so in Question of the Week that the other questions, and I'm sure we've mentioned you on air before...
As to which emails are put into the forum, I'm afraid that's not my decision.
-
Well, at least we can maintain the tradition of going off-topic within the first few posts! [:D]
-
Exactly! I was just about to mention that!
-
Ben - Surely this type of question has already been exhaustively discussed, and generally without any agreement?
It's perhaps tedious work trying to make people see the difference between fact and fiction but I feel it's work that must be done. Even if we can't get through to the proposer of the question or argument, other viewers who stumble across the thread may be enlightened.
In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion.
-Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP Keynote Address
-
There are Predynastic Egyptian Kings dated as far back as 5000 BC.
Proof that Man was on this planet long before the myth of Adam & Eve.
-
OK, so why don't we just have a separate section in the forum for what Dawkins states as the overlapping magesteria - the science vs religion "thing". At the same time, why not have an option where I can choose which previous posts I can see, so that if I choose to not be interested in that topic, i don't have to trawl through pages of it when I access the "most recent posts" section in the morning.
And now with this thread, we're inviting religious discussion, which I don't think is useful in this domain. Also, look at the ads! "Creation or Evolution? Is evolution just a theory? You can prove creation. Order free booklet." I mean, WHAT?!?! I chose to become a member of a SCIENTIFIC FORUM, not a bloody debate about religion.
Sorry, that was turning into a rant....
-
Why do they have to be reconciled? One is factual and evidence based; the other is fiction.
End of thread.
I think that says it all.
-
Why do they have to be reconciled? One is factual and evidence based; the other is fiction.
End of thread.
I think that says it all.
But somehow the these kind of topics never end...
-
Why do they have to be reconciled? One is factual and evidence based; the other is fiction.
End of thread.
I think that says it all.
But somehow the these kind of topics never end...
I've noticed
-
Why do they have to be reconciled? One is factual and evidence based; the other is fiction.
End of thread.
I think that says it all.
But somehow the these kind of topics never end...
I've noticed
Have you had a good day old chap?
-
Why do they have to be reconciled? One is factual and evidence based; the other is fiction.
End of thread.
I think that says it all.
But somehow the these kind of topics never end...
I've noticed
Have you had a good day old chap?
It's only 9:10am! Just about to leave for the hospital to have things done to me.
-
Why do they have to be reconciled? One is factual and evidence based; the other is fiction.
End of thread.
I think that says it all.
But somehow the these kind of topics never end...
I've noticed
Have you had a good day old chap?
It's only 9:10am! Just about to leave for the hospital to have things done to me.
Oh, of course, I hope it goes well! [:)][:)]
-
Why do they have to be reconciled? One is factual and evidence based; the other is fiction.
End of thread.
I think that says it all.
But somehow the these kind of topics never end...
I've noticed
Have you had a good day old chap?
It's only 9:10am! Just about to leave for the hospital to have things done to me.
Oh, of course, I hope it goes well! [:)][:)]
Me too!
-
Thank you