Just that, when did man first walk the earth according to scientist?

That would depend on your definition of "man". This link should be helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Evolution

Thanks Nap.

The link was helpful.

I guess I am thinking modern man.

I hope I don't sound like an ass, but I like to point out black and white thinking wherever I see it because it is very typical of religious thinking, and exacerbates the differences and causes arguments between theists and atheists. It isn't the religion that pisses atheists off so much as the lack of careful. reasoned out thinking that appreciates events and facts for what they truly are, instead of an idealised version. Take, for instance, your question, "When did man first walk the earth?" Such a question fails to appreciate several underlying factors:

1. Science does not make factual claims. It makes measured observations, taking great pains to avoid judgements. At least, that is the ideal.

2. That there is such a thing as a point in time where monkey became man. All science can do is make vague dividing lines that don't mean anything to mark a point in time where species diverge, because all they really have to go on is digging through dirt to find bones and shit.

While yours is a fairly innocuous question, likely to offend all of nobody, religious types have the tendancy to attack other questions with the same sort of Mickey Mouse approach, designed to get certain results without appreciating all of the necessary factors. Please keep that in mind as you quest for knowledge. I really don't mean to jump on your ass for asking such a question, but explaining such things are far easier when tempers aren't heated, and lessons learned are more likely to stick, making for better discussion all around. Also, I just want to get more use out of what would ordinarily be a dead thread.

I do believe they call Lucy the 1st, sorry I can't remember her age{off the top of my head}.

Just looked it up, Donald Johanson found Lucy in 1974. She is believed to have lived some 3.2million years ago, she was named after the song by the Beatles "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds"

Originally posted by Napsterbater
I hope I don't sound like an ass, but I like to point out black and white thinking wherever I see it because it is very typical of religious thinking, and exacerbates the differences and causes arguments between theists and atheists. It isn't the religion that pisses atheists off so much as the lack of careful. reasoned out thinking that appreciates events and facts for what they truly are, instead of an idealised version. Take, for instance, your question, "When did man first walk the earth?" Such a question fails to appreciate several underlying factors:

1. Science does not make factual claims. It makes measured observations, taking great pains to avoid judgements. At least, that is the ideal.

2. That there is such a thing as a point in time where monkey became man. All science can do is make vague dividing lines that don't mean anything to mark a point in time where species diverge, because all they really have to go on is digging through dirt to find bones and shit.

While yours is a fairly innocuous question, likely to offend all of nobody, religious types have the tendancy to attack other questions with the same sort of Mickey Mouse approach, designed to get certain results without appreciating all of the necessary factors. Please keep that in mind as you quest for knowledge. I really don't mean to jump on your ass for asking such a question, but explaining such things are far easier when tempers aren't heated, and lessons learned are more likely to stick, making for better discussion all around. Also, I just want to get more use out of what would ordinarily be a dead thread.

I hope I didnt offend anyone. I do apologize if I did. I guess I should have been more thoughtful when asking my question.

I suppose for the interest of getting a use out of the thread and helping those who may be offended to understand, I can explain why I ask.

I am doing the creationist thing and comparing or trying to compare time lines in the bible with what is known by man today.
I believe the Holy Bible doesn't have all the scriptures on the subject.
So I am searching for scriptures in the Hebrew and Jewish canon's.

My hope is that this will lead to a historian or philosopher who may have had a direct link with Jesus.

Originally posted by mad dog
Just looked it up, Donald Johanson found Lucy in 1974. She is believed to have lived some 3.2million years ago, she was named after the song by the Beatles "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds"

Thanks mad dog.

The link Nap gave me was enough I think. It is a very helpful site.

Originally posted by Inviolable
Thanks mad dog.

The link Nap gave me was enough I think. It is a very helpful site.

Sorry, my bad, I over looked that post, usually when Nap writes something it turns into a small book :)

Originally posted by Inviolable
I hope I didnt offend anyone. I do apologize if I did. I guess I should have been more thoughtful when asking my question.

I fail to see how this question could be taken as an insult.


I am doing the creationist thing and comparing or trying to compare time lines in the bible with what is known by man today.
I believe the Holy Bible doesn't have all the scriptures on the subject.
So I am searching for scriptures in the Hebrew and Jewish canon's.

What about other beliefs or religions that talked of the 1st human? There is no such thing as having to much info :)

My hope is that this will lead to a historian or philosopher who may have had a direct link with Jesus.

Good luck!!! I don't mean this in a sarcastic way, but I do believe you'll have your work cut out for you.

Sorry, my bad, I over looked that post, usually when Nap writes something it turns into a small book

Maybe I should just write my friggen book, all two thousand pages of it, just to get it out of my system. I could then lock it in a deep dark cavern so that nobody would ever find it until, hopefully, a few centuries after I die. Then some post-apocalyptic society can find it and turn it into their holy book. Hey, waitaminit... *Picks up a copy of the Bible* Hoooleeeyyy Shhhiiiiittt...

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Maybe I should just write my friggen book, all two thousand pages of it, just to get it out of my system. I could then lock it in a deep dark cavern so that nobody would ever find it until, hopefully, a few centuries after I die. Then some post-apocalyptic society can find it and turn it into their holy book. Hey, waitaminit... *Picks up a copy of the Bible* Hoooleeeyyy Shhhiiiiittt...

:eek: :hitout: :bike: :mad: bad man very very bad man :p

Inviolable,

Welcome to the boards. I have a link for you to follow that explores the creationism/evolution controversy, it's from the scientist's point of view. You MIGHT find it helpful. The only problem is that you are going to have to be prepared to do some VERY heavy reading. One of the board's administrators out and out stated that when it comes to evolutionary theory, "this IS rocket science, actually it's far more complex than that." But if you are into evolution research, there is no better site, period.

I myself especially enjoyed the essay on the problems Noah would've had in building the Arc and trying to maintain every species of animal.

Happy reading.

Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/)

Thanks Darth.

New Ethiopian fossils are from 6-million-year-old hominid living just after split from chimpanzees

By Robert Sanders, Media Relations | 04 March 2004


Side view of the upper and lower dentition of a contemporary female common chimpanzee (left) and a comparative view of the fossil teeth from the newly named hominid species Ardipithecus kadabba. In a normal chewing stroke, the chimp's third premolar would rub against the back and inside of the upper canine, sharpening the edge on the upper canine and smoothly polishing the outer surface of the lower third premolar. Modern humans do not sharpen their upper canines and hence do not have these contact surfaces. A. kadabba shows an intermediate state with a slight contact between the upper canine and the lower premolar teeth, indicating that this hominid is related to chimpanzees but has started to evolve toward modern humans. (Tim White/UC Berkeley, courtesy Science Magazine)

BERKELEY – Paleoanthropologists from the University of California, Berkeley, and the Cleveland Museum of Natural History have found more fossils of a nearly 6-million-year-old human ancestor first reported three years ago, cementing its importance as the earliest hominid to appear after the human line diverged from the line leading to modern chimpanzees.

When first reported in the journal Nature in 2001, the hominid was named Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba, a subspecies of a younger hominid, Ardipithecus ramidus, also from the Middle Awash region of Ethiopia. The new fossils - six teeth - provide enough evidence to designate the hominid a distinct species, Ardipithecus kadabba, rather than a subspecies of Ardipithecus ramidus.





That would depend on your definition of "man". This link should be helpful:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Evolution