Posted on 06/04/2009 8:50:17 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
101 evidences for a young age of the earth...and the universe
Can science prove the age of the earth?
There are many different categories of evidence that the cosmos and the earth are much younger than is generally asserted today...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
“Unless a population size grows at least somewhat steadily, it’s completely worthless to try to use population size as a way of measuring time.”
Are you saying the article tried to do that? Show me where.”
—Here is what the article said:
“Human population growth. Less than 0.5% p.a. growth from six people 4,500 years ago would produce today’s population. Where are all the people? if we have been here much longer?”
—Why ask “where are all the people?” unless you’re assuming that a population is usually growing? Why is it even an issue?
“”And while it is true that agricultural societies usually grow, sometimes rapidly, such things aren’t generally seen in non-agricultural societies.”
Did the article say that? Where was that said?”
—Unless it was assuming that the human population was usually growing during pre-agricultural times, there would, again, be no reason to ask “where are all the people”. And the “where are all the people” is a link to here:
http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people
which has a section which asks “What if people had been around for one million years?”. It also argues against the Australian Aborigines as having been around for 60k years (a nonagricultural people) based on the fact that they only numbered about 300k people.
Remember, you can’t spell “Creationist” without C-R-E-T-I-N
Isn't the 0.5% number just the answer to this question: What average growth rate would be needed to have a population grow from 8 (4 males and 4 females) individuals to the present world population in 4500 years?
Isn't this calculation just a response to critics who suggested that the world population could not increase by 6.5 billion people in 4500 years? Rather than a scientific fact, the growth rate seems to be offered more as a plausibility statement to suggest the author's hypothesis was at least reasonable. Accepting that the exponential growth argument is plausible doesn't mean that someone has to accept the rest of the creationist argument.
I sense that you are inferring a lot more about this calculation than was meant.
Old Earth propaganda have nothing to do with science.
Wrong , it has everything to do with science. There are generally accepted proven facts. Why must people insist that 7 days meant real 24 hours days in the Bible. 7 was used as a symbolic number. It’s the MESSAGE of the bible that is important not particular numbers. What is somewhere in the Bible it mentioned flat earth. Would you have to believe in a flat earth JUST because people in those days believed it was so ?People didn’t know science then ..that’s all there is ..
Well obviously you are Mr. Bible-Scholar and are above all of us. I'm just not sure we are reading the same bible.
"So when they had come together, they asked Him, "Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which The Father has fixed by His own authority. But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth." And when He had said this, as they were looking on, He was lifted up, and a cloud took Him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as He went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, Who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw Him go into heaven." Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem." (Acts 1:6-12 RSV)
"It is not for you to know times or seasons which The Father has fixed by His own authority.
Oh okay, now I see what you're talking about. He is obviously talking about Yom Kippur. /s
I believe in the infallibility of Scripture. So I would insist 7 days meant 7 days if I could be convinced that's what the author intended. But Jewish and Christian scholars for 2000 years have been wondering about that "day" and speculating there is more to that day than meets the eye--and this is before modern cosmology. So I see no reason to force a literal interpretation on it.
God created the world, and He told us how through both Scripture and science. Any contradiction between the two must be only apparent, due to our limited understanding.
Thanks Varmintman :o) Speaking of varmints, you wouldn’t happen to know the best way to get rid of moles would you? They’re tearing up my backyard!
This isn’t a news item yet you posted this creationist propaganda in News/Activism. Shouldn’t this be in Religion or Chat? And the material isn’t even factually correct, but just fanciful musings wihtout grounding in reality and is even self-contradicting.
OK, so the article didn't say that. That's what I thought.
"—Unless it was assuming that the human population was usually growing during pre-agricultural times, there would, again, be no reason to ask “where are all the people”."
OK, so the article didn't say that either. That's what I thought.
"It also argues against the Australian Aborigines as having been around for 60k years (a nonagricultural people) based on the fact that they only numbered about 300k people."
These statements addressed your issue, "Now there is no way that a mere 300,000 people had exhausted the plenty of this large country so as to account for a long period of very low population growth. If we allow for one-third of the land area as desert, it means that there was only one person for every 18 square kilometres (7 square miles) of habitable land area—hardly overpopulated, even for a subsistence existence."
LOL...no my friend, you don't believe the Scriptures and you certainly don't believe ALL of them. When you get two passages that don't seem to jive according to man's word, you jigger the Scriptures rather than question man's word.
"Again, I think your dismissal of the exegetical problems here is cavalier. If we are talking about a source of light other than the sun, then what was this source of light? And were its evening and morning periods longer or shorter than the 24 hours we are used to with the sun?"
I think your focus on supposed exegetical problems is the log in your own eye while focusing on the speck in mine. The Scriptures don't say what the light source was. Speculation is irrelevant unless naturalism is the goal. And speculating that evening and morning were longer or shorter is only necessary if conforming Scripture to man's word is your goal. Otherwise a straightforward reading is perfectly fine.
"And that's the problem. You seem to have equated, in your mind, your own personal reading with the "straightforward", plain, and obvious reading. I don't think you have any authority to make such a determination."
'My own personal reading' was the same as that used in Exodus 20 and by believers for hundreds of years until man saying that the earth was older than 6,000 years became popular. Then it somehow became 'my own personal reading' to those who accept man's word over God's Word. I don't think you have any authority to make such a determination.
Don’t spoil their part with facts.
Yes, you could say that. It’s still a known fact that plenty of people in the scientific community are signing on to it.
>>GGG is a parody poster...posts totally outrageous silly things, then responds to post in over-the-top cliches and non-sequiters...he’s a hoot when you understand his purpose here on FR...magritte
<<
If it wasn’t against the rules, that would be my sig. (lol)
The Bible goes out of its way to show that the days of creation were normal days. The proof is spread throught the Bible, and given by numerous writers. We finally have the Lord himself stating the same.
Only a denier of the truth of God’s word would even wish to make them anything else.
There is nothing that science has revealed that would indicate that the world is any older than the information in God’s word indicates. All dating ‘clocks’ are based in assumptions that have no provable basis. The assumptions are the creations of those that reject God’s word. You cannot call that science; its deception.
You misunderstand the point of the number. It's an argument against those who say it is impossible for 8 people after the flood to reach current population levels today. If the growth rate needed to get from 8 post-flood people to the current population level was higher than is plausible you would be calling the number 'proof' that it couldn't happen. But because it is absolutely plausible, suddenly it becomes 'meaningless'.
"You can start at anytime, with any number of people (well at least 2) and draw a straight line to today and claim that's the average growth rate. That's not science, that starting with an answer you want and making the data fit."
Yeah, you could do that and if the average growth rate required was too high you would be claiming that it was 'proof' that it couldn't happen. What's not science is saying that it is impossible for 8 people to reach current population levels since the Flood. It's clearly quite plausible.
"Global warming Proponents do the same exact thing when they pick a cold year(s) as the start of their data."
No they don't do 'the same exact thing'. No one is arguing that it is impossible to reach the current temperature from a previous temperature in a certain number of years. You make a faulty argument by equating two unrelated claims.
Had there been a "universal church" as such operating in the world, the Lord would not have had reason to write his letters the the seven churches.
All we have is his written word, and the Holy Spirit working in and through each of us; the Body of Christ. There is no "universal church;" that is the nicolaitan evil that the Lord cautioned against in the letters to the churches.
Nah, Letterman would undoubtedly NOT be a creationist, he’s a liberal. Like Hissy-Fit Matthews.
Most if not all libs are evo-cultists.
You also can't spell 'evolutionist' without V-I-O-L-E-T.
>>Your reading skills are hopelessly inadequate. Evolution, and Old Earth propaganda have nothing to do with science. <<
Translation: “My (e/s’) inability to understand and grasp evolution and a multi-billion-year old earth means I cannot understand science.”
Thanks, e/s for ringing in and cluing everyone in on how “special” you need to be. God doesn’t like tricksters, but that is between you and Him.
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.