I can see several avenues by which you could talk to your friend about Jesus Christ—advantageous for you, he has actually made the situation easier for you because his statement contains several factual inaccuracies.
“Civilization has only existed ten thousand years among millions of years of man being on this planet,”
This statement is factually incorrect. The current form of man, *Homo sapiens * first emerged approximately 250,000 years ago (this is the earliest best estimate) in Africa. Homo sapiens first appeared in Oceania approximately 40,000 years ago and in the Americas approximately 10,000 years ago.
So if you want to know what my religion is, it’s the same religion as the native American, same religion as the Aborigine, as the Maori in New-Zealand, as the Kahunas in Hawaii.
Perhaps your friend might come up with other, more ancient peoples after whom to model his religion, but these three peoples he has chosen all arose significantly after the 250,000 years ago benchmark.
Per the native Americans, Homo sapiens first appeared in the Americas (not including Hawaii) approximately 10,000 years ago–the same date range your friend gives to the rise of that civilization which he rejects. So the native Americans can hardly be said to significantly pre-date civilization by millions of years. [/LIST]
Per the Aborigines (assuming he means those of Australia), Homo sapiens first appeared approximately 40,000 years ago. Again, this is hardly millions of years. [/LIST]
Per the Kahuna of Hawaii, the earliest hypothesized date for human settlement in Hawaii is AD 300–500, but more likely near AD 800. Considering that Constantine had declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire in 311, one could hardly argue that Christianity was unknown or unestablished in the world at the time of the establishment of the Kahuna religion. Although Kahuna may share the pagan aspects of pre-Christian religions, Christianity itself predates it. Wouldn’t this make it more authentic than Kahuna? [/LIST]
Next, your friend rejects religions born of “civilization” in favor of the “natural” ones. From the examples he gives, my best guess is that he believes that the religions of nomadic hunter-gatherer peoples are more authentic or true than those of the agricultural, sedentary peoples; because hunting-gathering predates agriculture, hunting-gathering is superior or more “natural.”
However, many native American tribes were sedentary and practiced agriculture (for example, the Pueblo, Hopi, and Cherokee), although others were more nomadic. Nevertheless, it would be difficult to argue that all native Americans did not have civilizations. Yet I doubt there are many religious differences between sedentary and nomadic native Americans–both practiced some sort of paganism (animal worship, totems, spirits, etc). Furthermore, paganism flourished during the pre-Christian (but post-civilized) era, so he could hardly argue that paganism is the sole domain of the pre-civilized societies (that is, paganism has existed and flourished whether there was civilization or not).
Finally, one could argue for Christianity by looking at the longevity (or lack thereof) of the pagan religions. The aborigines, for example, may have practiced a form of paganism 40,000 years ago, but as of the 1996 Australian census, 72% listed some form of Christianity as their religion. Ergo, once the European settlers arrived with the knowledge of Christianity, they began converting until a majority practiced the religion. So if the original religion of the Aborigines is the one to be trusted as more “natural,” surely your friend would find it a poor argument for the superiority of paganism that most of the original practicers of the aboriginal religion have converted to Christianity? Perhaps they know something more than he does?
I hope this is of help in talking to your friend. Good luck and god bless.