Creation of the Earth v.s. creation of man

Shalom:Hello everybody!
As I was studying, a revelation came to me, (Praise Gd). There seems to be a bit of confusion about the age of the earth. When speaking about the age of the earth, many people are stating that the earth is only 6,000 years old. They start with The Creation of Adam and Eve.
There are two very important facts here, to prove that the earth is older than 6,000 years.
1. The Genealogy, (Creation of man), is not the same thing as creation of the Earth. If man were the same age as the Earth, then there would be One Day of Creation instead of 6 Days, (for everything would have been created on the same day). The Heavens and the Earth were created first and man was the last of Gd's Creation.
Please see following chart for further explanation:Order of Creation Account- (Genesis 1:1-2:4)
*Day 1- Light (Light and Darkness)
*Day 2- Sky and Water
*Day 3- Seas and the Land
*Day 4- Sun, Moon, and Stars
*Day 5- Fish and birds
*Day 6- Animals, Man and Woman
*Day 7- Sacred Day of Rest (Shabbat, Sabbath)Given the acount of the Order of Creation, man was created last. This would mean that the Earth itself is actually older than man.Genesis 5 states the Geneaology from Adam to Noah. This account only gives the birthday of man, not the account of the Earth. Again, please remember that the Heavens and the Earth, (The Universe) was created all before man was created. The 6,000 year creation of the Earth account is inaccurate. To be more accurate, the (little under 6,000 year of the birth of man, (not the Earth) account is more accurate.
So, the birth of man is a little under 6,000 years, but the Earth is older.Gd bless in Messiah!

Hi, nice to meet you.A small comment on this: According to the myth yes the Earth is older, it is five days older. However, to say that humans have only been around for 6000 years is contrary to EVERY shred of evidence available to us.Brian.

Hi Brian
I finally logged in and read your post. Sorry it took so long. I was just wondering about your response and man being here much longer than 6,000 years. Can you state your resources?Catch you later,
Shalom (Peace)

Let me get this straight.First light was created, then the earth was created, and THEN the sun was created. The earth gets light from the sun. This story cannot be literally accurate.

yes. egyptian and sumerian records go back to nearly 5000 bc.and we have evidence that man existed for sometime without the ability to write.

---

אָרַח

Depending on your definition, I think the Australian Aboriginies might have the edge over the Sumerians for earliest writing:

quote:

---

The oldest cylcon/message stone found in a dateable archaeological context is about 20,000 years old... With the earliest rock-carvings and paintings, the cylcons represent the oldest form of communication and art; and they represent the oldest religion still observed.

---

From the Schoyen Collection

hey, i never knew that. interesting.

Not EVERY.Population Statistics?

---

I may not agree with what you say, But I will die defending your right to say it.
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Oh my, you've got to be kidding me. If population statistics worked that way, that would mean that bacteria could take over every single cubic inch of the earth in less than a week I suppose according to your logic, the earth is only about a week old!

You can't seriously suggest that that is evidence.It's just a case of Garbage in Garbage out.

World Population website seems to concur.

---

I may not agree with what you say, But I will die defending your right to say it.
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

Try item 4 here.You haven't really thought this through have you ?Fortunately for you somebody else not quite so gullible has. If you run the numbers using the values specified by Creation Evidences Museum they don't give the values you quote in your second box, or anything even in the same ballpark.I especially like the observation that the Egyptians must have built the Pyramids using less than 1000 people And the fact that your favoured hypothesis gives the number of people alive when Christ was born as 681,835 - care to explain the discrepancy with the 250 million your second quote says were alive then ? ROTFLMAOWhat is really really interesting is that the numbers quoted by your Creation Evidences Museum do indeed come up with six billion in the present day. That means whoever originally came up with this claim was capable of doing the math. Maybe they were too sloppy, too lazy or too stupid to do a sanity check to see whether the populations were sensible at various intermediate points in history. Then again, maybe they did a sanity check but decided to ignore it 'cos the claim is obviously good enough to sucker gullible people who don't check what's in front of them.Note that the formula for calculating the population is given in the rebuttal article I linked to (unlike in any of the Creationist sites where you can find this horseshit).If you want to dispute the formula or the results all you have to do is show your working ABE: *by* Creation Evidences Museum typoThis message has been edited by MangyTiger, 05-24-2005 04:15 PM

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

Except we don't have accurate statistics of bacteria. We do of human population.

---

I may not agree with what you say, But I will die defending your right to say it.
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

You'll note I also quoted actuall population statstics from No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.overpopulation.org/faq.htmlwhich is hardly a creationist website.

---

I may not agree with what you say, But I will die defending your right to say it.
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

It's not evidence that humans have been around only 6000 years. It's just selective use of data to make an invalid extrapolation.I suppose if we used a period where the population growth was negative you'd accept that as evidence we didn't exist ?