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 ...
Be serious
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB620.html
1) This claim assumes that the population growth rate was always constant, which is a false assumption. Wars and plagues would have caused populations to drop from time to time. In particular, population sizes before agriculture would have been severely limited and would have had an average population growth of zero for any number of years.
2) There is no particular reason to choose a population growth rate of 0.5 percent for the calculation. The population growth from 1000 to 1800 has been closer to 0.1227 percent per year (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1984). At that rate, the population would have grown to its present size from the eight Flood survivors in 16,660 years.
3) The population growth rate proposed by the claim would imply unreasonable populations early in history. We will be more generous in our calculations and start with eight people in 2350 B.C.E. (a traditional date for the Flood). Then, assuming a growth rate of 0.5 percent per year, the population after N years is given by
P(N) = 8 × (1.005)N
The Pyramids of Giza were constructed before 2490 B.C.E., even before the proposed Flood date. Even if we assume they were built 100 years after the flood, then the world population for their construction was 13 people. In 1446 B.C.E., when Moses was said to be leading 600,000 men (plus women and children) on the Exodus, this model of population growth gives 726 people in the world. In 481 B.C.E., Xerxes gathered an army of 2,641,000 (according to Herodotus) when the world population, according to the model, was 89,425. Even allowing for exaggerated numbers, the population model makes no sense.
Very false!
The Bible does give an exact number of years from Adam to Christ, through the geneologies, and we know the number of years from the birth of Christ (Sept 29, 2BC by our calendar) and the fact that God made it a point to tell us is proof enough that it is important.
I’m claiming that there was no reason for Augustine not to accept a straightforward reading of Genesis. He belonged to the neo-Platonist Alexandrian school, and tended to allegorize scripture because of his prior committment to Greek philosophy. But that doesn’t change the fact that Augustine believed in recent creation.
Jerks that call others jerks for pointing out their semantic mis-statements have no claim on any apology.
Nevertheless, thank you for correcting your previous error.
Well said. There is another Augustine quote where he takes scientists to task for being able to count the leaves on the trees yet never once lifting their thoughts to Him who made the tree.
Although, I should say that as many atheists and others are using this issue as a wedge to lead people away from God, we should do our homework to have good answers in response. And be careful, as Augustine says, not to be caught with our pants down by foolish interpretations that were later disproven.
Can’t we all just get along?
This is a CrEvo thread; we're not here to get along ;o)
Talk Origins? Be serious.
"The Pyramids of Giza were constructed before 2490 B.C.E., even before the proposed Flood date. Even if we assume they were built 100 years after the flood, then the world population for their construction was 13 people. In 1446 B.C.E., when Moses was said to be leading 600,000 men (plus women and children) on the Exodus, this model of population growth gives 726 people in the world. In 481 B.C.E., Xerxes gathered an army of 2,641,000 (according to Herodotus) when the world population, according to the model, was 89,425. Even allowing for exaggerated numbers, the population model makes no sense."
The claim is that an average .5% growth rate will get from 8 people 4,500 years ago to the present population. That is a very low growth rate and includes all of the wars, plagues, etc over that time. The claim is not that the population only grew .5% each year.
T.O. blatantly misrepresents the claim by making it a hard .5% each year and you couldn't figure that out?
No. Some people THINK there's an exact number of years, but there ain't. Like I said, the various translations--Septuagint, Peshitta, Masoretic text--give different numbers for those geneologies, and they may not even be exhaustive. When you open up your King James or whatever, the translator made a decision which ancient authority to follow. That decision may or may not be correct--but it sure ain't infallible.
And we do not know with certainty the date of Christ's birth either.
“How could you ‘like it’ and not understand that periodic population declines for ‘war, crime, plagues, etc’ are factored in the .5% growth factor?”
—Nothing is “factored in” to that number, it’s made up. The rate of growth has changed drastically from generation to generation. In many places today the population is even shrinking. It’s absolutely silly to estimate the age of any population from its size.
In nonagricultural societies, populations are just as likely to grow as to shrink or to remain steady.
The link that the page uses as a source says that the australian aborigines couldn’t have been there for 60k years because the population was only 300k, as if there’s any reason to believe that the population had been growing.
Here’s a chart showing human population growth - it’s hardly analagous to an hourglass, and one can pull out any “growth rate” they want from that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Population_curve.svg
Talk Origins claims will be in blue- Creation response follows the claims:
1. This claim assumes that the population growth rate was always constant, which is a false assumption. Wars and plagues would have caused populations to drop from time to time.
As worded this claim is a straw man, since it is a total misrepresentation of what Dr Morris actually said. The 0.5 percent was not an assumed value but a calculated value. It is the average population growth rate needed to get what was then the world’s population in 4000 years. He shows it to be a reasonable average since it is ¼ the modern average growth rate. Morris makes quite clear that this is only an average and that in reality the rate would some times be higher and some times it would be lower. The fact that this growth rate is ¼ the observed current value shows that factors like wars and plagues are dealt with. Morris is simply showing that the current world population is consistent with the Biblical account.
In particular, population sizes before agriculture would have been severely limited and would have had an average population growth of zero for any number of years.
This proves another part of what Dr Morris actually said, that being that the world population fits naturally with in a Young Earth creation Time frame but that add additional factors are to get it to fit with an Evolution time frame.
2. There is no particular reason to choose a population growth rate of 0.5 percent for the calculation. The population growth from 1000 to 1800 has been closer to 0.1227 percent per year. At that rate, the population would have grown to its present size from the eight Flood survivors in 16,660 years.
Dr Morris did not choose an average growth rate of 0.5 percent, but calculated it. Talk Origins above response is a joke on two accounts.
Morris’ growth rate of 0.5 percent is an average, not a constant .
Talk Origins is using a period of time that includes the devastation of Black Plague, which made the growth rate unnaturally low.
By the way if their growth rate lasted just 200,000 years the population would be 6.48 X10106, which is impossibly high. That why they need a near zero growth rate.
3. The population growth rate proposed by the claim would imply unreasonable populations early in history. We will be more generous in our calculations and start with eight people in 2350 B.C.E. (a traditional date for the Flood). Then, assuming a growth rate of 0.5 percent per year, the population after N years is given by
P(N) = 8 × (1.005)N
The Pyramids of Giza were constructed before 2490 B.C.E., even before the proposed Flood date. Even if we assume they were built 100 years after the flood, then the world population for their construction was 13 people. In 1446 B.C.E., when Moses was said to be leading 600,000 men (plus women and children) on the Exodus, this model of population growth gives 726 people in the world. In 481 B.C.E., Xerxes gathered an army of 2,641,000 (according to Herodotus) when the world population, according to the model, was 89,425. Even allowing for exaggerated numbers, the population model makes no sense
This one is an even bigger joke since Morris never said the growth rate was constant, but that it is an average. Immediately following the flood the population growth rates would be higher do to factors such as the longer lives that persisted for a time after the Flood and minimum competition for food and water.
By the way the date Talk Origins gives for the Pyramids of Giza assumes the Standard Egyptian Chronology, how ever there are reasons to conclude that the Standard Chronology is wrong. [LINK]
Don’t know the name of it, but the Rusty Pelican was there for over 20 years. Its a State beach I think, and it runs north from the parking area, as a narrow strip at the foot of an 80’ cliff with houses on the top.
Ever read Genesis where it says "evening and morning X day" for each of the 6 days prior?
Ever read Exodus 20:11 where it directly relates the seven day week and the Sabbath to the creation week?
"We can have this debate. But I'm sick and tired of exegetes puffing up their chests with their own very fallible interpretations instead of some humility, as is proper toward the Word of God."
We can have this debate. But I'm sick and tired of exegetes putting on a false humility as though agreeing with man's word is virtuous and giving God credit for being able to say what he really did is human pride. (Isa 5:20)
Everything is on the table except what the Word of God actually says. OMG, we can't allow that!
What growth rate would have been required to get from 8 people in 4000 BC to however many people would have to be around in 400 BC to have 3,000,000+ in Greece and enough people in Persia to provide 2.6 million for an army? And then what would the growth rate have to be from then to now in order to average .5% for all time? And why did it slow down so drastically?
How do you make an assumption that YOUR reading is "straightforward" and that his reading is not? You have no grounds to make such an assumption. He made that reading based on--yes--a "straightforward reading" of the translation he had in front of him--the Vetus Itala.
And yes, he did believe in recent creation. But he also believed in simultaneous creation. You say he was right about A but wrong about B. I say how do we know that he wasn't wrong about A and right about B?
I really suggest you read his "On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis." It's long and hard to find, but it's well worth it.
The Masoretic text is the only authoritative text. It is not a translation, while the others are.
If you had any understanding of how the masoretic has been carried foreward you wouldn’t make such silly statements.
If the geneologies were not exhaustive, there would be no point for them to exist. There are believers, and there are unbelievers.
And yes we do know with complete certainty the exact date of Christs birth. We know the exact day because we know that it had to be on the Feast of Tabernacles, and on a sabatical cycle, while agreeing with the other historic events cited in the word.
To those that want to know its not difficult; to those that don’t there is no point in discussion.
It's not 'made up'. It is an example of the low rate of population growth over time needed to reach present levels from 8 humans after the Flood.
"Here’s a chart showing human population growth - it’s hardly analagous to an hourglass, and one can pull out any “growth rate” they want from that:"
You just said it was silly to estimate the age of a population from it's size and then post a link to a chart that purports to do exactly that? What's up?
You misrepresent what the calculation is saying. The actual population at any point in time would be above or below the .5% average growth rate. It is a straight line from today back to 8 people after the Flood. The time above the line is faster growth, the time below the line is wars, plagues, etc.
Nice attempt at reiterating the T.O. misrepresentation though.
Yeah, and as the Church Fathers said, what kind of day were days 1-3 without the sun? What kind of evening? What kind of morning? This is not a problem with science....this is a problem *right in the text* that the very first Jewish and Christian commentators noticed straight off. A natural day is literally defined by the sun...these cannot then be a natural day.
And of course I've read Exodus 20:11. But because Scripture has one sense doesn't mean it doesn't have another as well. Are you going to tell me that 70 "weeks" in Daniel's prophecy only meant literally 7-day periods? We're dealing with multiple levels of meaning here.
But I'm sick and tired of exegetes putting on a false humility as though agreeing with man's word is virtuous and giving God credit for being able to say what he really did is human pride. (Isa 5:20)
What is human pride is for modern-day exegetes to come to Genesis 1...which every Rabbi and Church Father admitted was an extraordinarily difficult text...and pretend that they have it all figured out in terms of what God did and how.
ALL of the interpretations out there, GourmetDan, and that includes yours and mine and everyone else's, *are subject to error*. Believing otherwise is not only prideful but flagrantly heretical.
Ah this doctrine of perspecuity....what evil it hath wrought in the Church.
Oh really? The Masoretic text is the only authoritative text? Then I suppose the Masoretic reading of “like a lion my hands and feet” in Psalm 22 is correct, instead of the Septuagint “they have pierced my hands and feet”? And why do the New Testament books and epistles seem to be quoting from the Septuagint?
The Septuagint was translated by and for the Hebrews of the diaspora prior to Christianity, and it was *the* translation preferred by the early Church. The Masoretic text bears evidence of having been tampered with to refute Christianity. That doesn’t mean we can discount it entirely, but it is flagrant nonsense to say that it is the only usable translation.
And no we do not know Christ’s date of birth. If we, in this day and age, can calculate it with “complete certainty”, then tell me why in antiquity they were so unsure about the exact date—when the calendars were still in operation then and they were much closer to the events described? Do you think the early Christians were that dumb, that they couldn’t figure it out for themselves if it was as easy as you claim?
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.
