Posted on 01/03/2014 10:54:01 AM PST by fwdude
HEADS UP! (Reserving comment until I sort out the false dichotomy above that proclaims that I don't exist...)
Food has always limited population, positing that some dependable, invariable rate of growth absent any outside force is stupid. In the twentieth century alone governments murdered 100 million of their own citizens. The bubonic plague plague killed a third of europe in the 14th century. Death rates are like climate; they change radically and there is no way to make these sorts of absurd retro-projections. The premise of this “analysis” is brainless. It makes bible believers look laughable. The poster should be ashamed of himself.
I don't see how this (flesh man on earth) has to do with the age of the earth as in the title. Two completely different things we are dealing with here.
So, who's a "bible" believer here?
A lot of folks just subsume this fact into the age of the earth.
Certain theologians contend, I think correctly, that a barren earth was created by God perhaps billions of "years" (another dependent term) ago. It is development of this "formless and void" earth into its usable current form that Genesis addresses.
I see you have no response to the points I made and need a diversion to an irrelevant issue.
The first two numbers are precisely Biblical. The time of Abraham is unknown, as i stated.
Are you saying the dinosaurs could also only exist within the humane time frame with the useable earth that you just discribed? We know they are much older than 6000 years ago.
I hang my faith on the historical evidence o Jesus’ resurrection, all assumptions flow from that. If he was not raised, my faith is futile and worthless!
In the bible that I read, it says Abraham was born in 1996 BC and died in 1821 BC. 174 year old.
In practice, three children per family is 3.0, not 2.1.
2.1 children could be nine couples with 2.0 children and one couple with 3.0 children.
Let us further suppose that each family from this population point in history had 2.4 children on average.
And let us even further suppose you pulled this number out of your butt.
This very modest number will take into account all the deaths through infant mortality, plagues and war.
Why not assume 7 children? And that 5 died in childhood? Or that the mother died giving birth to child number 1?
Surprisingly, the answer is just less than five thousand years. This figure fits nicely into known historical records.
We have five thousand years of historical records that show a birthrate of 2.4? Link?
Why not just believe the more plausible, mathematically sound scenario supplied by Scripture?
Scripture didn't supply this ridiculous guess, nice try.
Were you reading sripture, or the *notes?
I should elaborate. The time from Noah to Abraham is known, accoring to Genesis 11. What is unknown is the time of Abaraham to the Birth of The One.
Me.
Yes.
QUOTE: "We know they are much older than 6000 years ago.
Oh, really? How? Please list all of the "assumptions" in radiometric dating, especially radio isotopes at construction, parent nucleotide/daughter isotope bases, isotope decay rates, stratigraphic principles, etc. Or better yet, assumptions regarding the age of the earth, molten object cooling rates, etc. Once you realize the assumptions in radiometric dating...
Of course, that's assuming you actually realize the assumptions...
Careful. Looks like a childish game of "upper-case gotcha" is being played here..
One of the little publicized results of Dolly the cloned sheep experiment was that the cloned embryo inherited the biological clock of the donor DNA, which means any tissue or organs generated by the cloning process will not extend the life of the host since they are of the same age. Dolly died of old age, the age of her donor DNA host.
My suspicion is that as the study of the human genome advances, we will find that the number of generations of man is encoded in the DNA. That is, we will be able to tell how many generations have occurred since the first parents, you know the ones without belly buttons, Adam and Eve.
In the mean time we can play with the math, which currently seems to favor the notion that Jesus Christ, the New Adam, was born 5199 years after the creation of Adam and Eve, and not 200 million years after the first primate suddenly acquired the gift of reason.
One is the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the other is of St. Joseph.
:’) Thanks KoRn.
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.