Posted by Gary on March 15, 1999 at 21:35:33 {MW9hQZt3yw8IU}:
In Reply to: **Frequently Avoided Quandaries posted by Al; on March 15, 1999 at 19:06:16:
Actually, Al, according to my Y2K millennium watch, you're right, we've been here for 6,000 years and 10.5 hours as of right.......now!
Just kidding.
Actually there are varying opinions on this topic.
I don't know what scientific
information you have, but I like to think the Bible is true which would not allow for the expanded chronology for man.
But you know, I think I have reason to be skeptical, not that I understand all the dynamics of the theories. But when scientists tell us man has been here for, say 10,000 years. I expect to see something to show that. So why is it that the most ancient civilizations who have left us something, in writing or otherwise, all date back completely consistent with the Bible?
Or even in the case of evolution? Why weren't there some pockets of ape-men still surviving? After all, if we came from apes, and they are here as a species, why did they skip a link?
Think about it. 100,000 years of
man, hunting and gathering and then suddenly: "Hey, lets build a tower and become "civilized." It doesn't add up.
So simple things like that keep me skeptical. If there had been lots of evidence of say at least 20,000 years of
so-called "written" history, then I'd say, hmmmm, well, maybe the Bible is a bit narrow in its creation account. But the HARD EVIDENCE is just not there.
It's science and their machines and their INTERPRETATION of their machines. Then looking at what they think is something that could be something else. Science of all fields is updated all the time. What was in 5 years ago is out now.
So I remain a watchful skeptic. But I don't blame anyone for being influenced by what seems to be credible. How could you not be.
But I guess one day, we'll get the real answers.
Cheers,
Gary