Now... who was it that showed up “on the backs of crystals”?
Posted on 01/03/2014 10:54:01 AM PST by fwdude
Genesis 1:28 “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it…”
How long have people been living on the Earth? The evolutionist says two million years. The Bible-believing Christian says about six thousand. Who is right?
Statistically, a couple must have 2.1 children to keep a population at the same level. In practice, this means a minimum of three children per family. Let us suppose for a moment that the biblical account of the Genesis Flood in which just eight people survived is true. Let us further suppose that each family from this population point in history had 2.4 children on average. This very modest number will take into account all the deaths through infant mortality, plagues and war. How long would it take to reach today’s world population? Surprisingly, the answer is just less than five thousand years. This figure fits nicely into known historical records.
Now suppose we take the evolutionary view that mankind has been on this planet for two million years and we begin with two people – or eight, it will make little difference – and they also had the statistical 2.4 children per family. We will finish up with a number so impossibly large that the universe itself would not hold them! Aware of this problem, the textbooks explain it away by speaking of “population stability throughout this time.” This is nothing short of an appeal to a miracle! Frankly, the biblical account is far more believable.
Prayer: Jesus, it was through You that all things, including us, were made. When we withdrew our love from God and cut ourselves off from Him through sin, You came to our rescue. How can I ever thank You enough? Amen.
Notes: Cleone H. Weigand. “Morality Remains the Best Way to Stem Population Growth.” Milwaukee Journal, April 14, 1985.
“Bible-believing Christian says about six thousand.”
That’s false.
Bishop Usher (sp?) said that, not the Bible.
No actually their “very modest number” doesn’t take into account anything. It’s just picking a number out of their “sun don’t shine” and making up the rest. If they’re taking things into account then first their number has to be able to deal with recorded history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates
Then once they get a curve there that works they can back track further.
“Bishop Usher (sp?) said that, not the Bible.”
Thank you for pointing this out. It generally does not appear on these creationist threads.
Your long on rhetoric, short on math.
I’d rather see you debunk this with pure reason based on math than the vitriolic unnecessary rhetoric you present.
They mostly died from European diseases. Influenza and small pox being key players.
Per Jared Diamond’s book “Guns Germs, and Steel”.
The 12 million was for all of north and south America, not just the US.
A key question is why the Spanish king sent conquistadores to the new world, and why the Aztecs didn’t send conquistadores to Spain?
Why? Because the orientation of the Americas is north-south, and the orientation of the Eurasia is east west. Because of that, Eurasian plants and animals which were useful could spread east to west and be nearly uniformly useful all along the path. By contrast, plants and animals in the Americas that were useful had to cross climate zones where they were less useful, spreading more slowly.
Because of that Eurasian farm animals were more preferentially evolved, and the diseases evolved in those farm animals evolved along with them, also affecting the evolution of humans. When the Europeans arrived they got there with a lethal combination of disease, animals from which the disease moved to humans, and human keepers immune to the disease.
That faster development of farm animals lead to faster development of other technologies, such as guns and steel, but those were essentially defensive. The germs were the technology that could infect one native village after another, far in advance of the Spanish and later English colonists.
Is that right. Well, do tell us what Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva taught you last time they came down from Olympus.
If you're going to even pretend to believe the Bible, then that is about the age of humanity. We have two genealogies of Jesus, one going back to Adam, and we know roughly that 2,000 years have elapsed since His earthly appearance. It doesn't take a mathematician to crunch the numbers.
I posted facts that the 2.4 universal constant posited in the article was false.
What is rhetoric? The use of a combination of facts, reason, ethics and feelings in an attempt to convince. It isn’t a bad thing.
I posted facts. I posted reasons. I posted on ethics (it is bad to knowingly lie!). I am sorry that your feelings are hurt when I suggest that creationist liars are liars.
Your post shows you know very little about Roman Paganism. If you like, I would be glad to evangelize you.
That’s false.
Bishop Usher (sp?) said that, not the Bible.
Actually, the Bible DOES claim exactly 1656 years from Creation to the flood (Genesis 5), and 427 years from the beginning of the flood to the Covenant with Abraham (Genesis 11).
There is some debate on the timing of Abraham, but looking at contemporary history (Egypt, Sodom & Gomorrah, etc.) many place him between 2000-1800 BC. Of course, this assumes the Genesis records skips no generations, which appears unlikely based on the narrative. Nevertheless, it is there for you to study youself.
It's fairly easy to get to a 6,000 year old Earth, for "Bible Believing Christians", of which I am one.
Of the two genealogies, where they differ, which is correct?
Do I have to believe the incorrect one also?
It's not the math it's the model it's based on, and the one in this article is based on ignorance.
You’re really making the point that even without food the universe would still be filled with human beings? Are you keeping up with your meds?
LOL
Don't bother.
Yeah, they just showed up one day, 2 million years ago in their Space Winnebago.............
It’s extra Biblical what you are saying.
It actually kind of makes you a Bible adder to-er, which ain’t good.
I know you mean well.
Now... who was it that showed up “on the backs of crystals”?
We’re already overrun with rats. Look at congress.
Rats and rabbits aren’t at the top of the food chain. We are.
We poison rats and mice to keep their numbers down. And yard is full of rabbits. Though there’s are some really well fed foxes in the area too.
Now... who was it that showed up “on the backs of crystals”?
And are you really making the point that the earth has been without food for numerous periods of time?
I think that this piece is making the point that even allowing to evolutionists the most generous assumptions, the results are still highly improbable. The piece is also not attempting to posit assumptions, as you seem to be implying, but saying that the position of creation DOES fit the mathematical model WITHOUT making unfounded assumptions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.