As more atheist-centered books and movies make their way to mainstream culture, two best-selling Christian apologists are encouraging churches to better equip their congregation to respond to what they call a more outspoken and "confident" atheism.
"The arguments are not really new but the ferociousness" with which atheists are lobbing their attacks "are coming much stronger," Mark Mittelberg, primary author of Becoming a Contagious Christian, said in a teleconference on Tuesday.
The teleconference, hosted by Outreach Training, was for pastors who were interested in updating their churches' apologetics approaches amid an onslaught of pro-atheist books and movies in recent years. Books like Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion and Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great have made best-selling lists. Meanwhile, movies like The Da Vinci Code, The Jesus Family Tomb and The Golden Compass have claimed widespread media attention.
These books and movies are not just posing challenges to the basic tenets of the Christian faith, according to Mittelberg, but they are also empowering attacks against Christianity.
Lee Strobel, author of the best-selling The Case for Christ, agreed with Mittelberg that many Christians are raised to believe in doctrine but are not adequately taught on why their faith is true or how to support their faith with evidence.
"Churches need to help them reach out to their friends, colleagues and family members with the good news of Christ" using data that supports the good news as true, said Strobel, a former atheist.
The two apologists recommended that pastors become familiar with both books by atheist authors and those by Christian apologists.
Mittelberg said pastors can identify "key sharp lay leaders" within the local church to help them do further apologetics research or become the starting point for an apologetics ministry.
"There are people who love this," said Mittelberg. "If you can identify these people, you can build a ministry around them."
Another suggestion was for churches to organize a panel discussion on hot button topics in Christianity such the resurrection and divinity of Jesus. Churches would invite professors and experts from opposing sides to debate selected topics in Christianity or field questions from the audience.
"A lot of Christians assume they are hanging on to a shred of faith – that they are clinging by their fingernails. They don't know that the truth is on our side," noted Mittelberg.
For churches with more limited resources, Strobel recommended subscribing to a satellite feed that would stream live broadcasts of his seminars straight to the church. His next scheduled one-day live training seminar, "Investigating Faith," will be held on March 8 at Word Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Northville, Mich. Churches will be able to view the presentation in real time through Church Communication Network.
Strobel also asked pastors to consider setting up seeker small groups. While Strobel's small group curriculum won't be available until this Fall, he recommended Garry Poole's Seeker Small Groups as a resource.
"There are great answers to these challenges," said Mittelberg. "We just got to do our homework.”
All the science, research and discoveries of evolution and the processes that surround it may not be completed, YET. That is still not a good reason to resort to 4th century interpretations of Bronze Age superstitions to find answers.
Atheists are growing, worldwide, in numbers. The relevance of following ancient mythology as a life-guide no longer is applicable in a 21st century world.
As a Nation it is time to grow up and stop believing in Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Holy Ghost.
You mean we're going to actually have to do some thinking and reasoning in the Church now??? Not ugh...
I don't know about anyone else, but the only reason I go to church is for the upbeat music and the "sensitive" message. It really helps me get through another week of sin. Did I say "sin"? I meant naughtiness. (Wouldn't want to get too "theological"; people won't "get" me. Gotta keep it "real" ya know?)
But now, if I have to start "thinking" at church that will be just too exhausting. Can't somebody else do the thinking for me?
Other people's thinking has worked so well for the Church since the days of Spurgeon and Wesley; why change now?
Thinking will only complicate my 5 year "faith plan".
Couldn't we all just watch TBN (Temptresses, Buffoons (&) Nincompoops) and parrot what we see on there?
I haaaaate reading my Bible. It is soooooo "1st century". What a holy drag...
To agentorange20 re: stars
"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, and a kings to seek it out." Proverbs 25:2
What eternal significance does the details of stars have? If the Bible described in detail the reason for & process of how they were formed....many would still choose to not-believe. JMO, but when the Bible is silent on a matter I believe that God gives us the joy to find out ourselves.
agentorange
You will never find what you are looking for in life until you find Jesus.
The Bible is not a science book. However, the science mentioned in it is accurate. The Bible got it right long before mankind ever did.
Star,
"Statements Consistent With Astronomy"
No offense, but you need to learn to think a little more critically.
Star, the bibles mentioning of stars is nothing of importance, for all it tells us is something that is quite obviuos - that they indeed plentiful. Wow, big woop. we would know that regardless if the bible pointed it out, which means the bible pointing it out doesn't mean it's refering to hidden science secrets, rather it is refering to the obvoius....which is quite pathetic.
The bible doesn't describe the details on stars. It doesn't explain how they form, why they shine, what sort of processes do they undergo and what types of energy is emitted from them ,etc. The bible is absent in this regard, but was able to make the obvious distinction claim that indeed 'there are lots of them', which really is pointless. Saying there are lots of stars answers nothing, it returns nothing. It's like stating water is wet. It's not a science revelation,. If the bible had the processes of how stars worked, I'd be impressed as this would be geniune knowlede no one at that time could have possibly known and it would givem some cred to your bible, howerver it doesn't so it has no authority in the matter.
From Indonesia,
Jakarta- 5 October 1965, the day of the dead generals funeral procession, a military propaganda campaign began to sweep the country. Both Indonesian and internationals saw that it was an atheist communist coup, and that the murders were cowardly atrocities against Indonesian heroes. PKI denials of involvement had little effect. The atheist communist party and its alleged front groups were banned. Indonesian army, acting on orders by Suharto began a campaign of agitation and incitement to violence among Indonesian civilians aimed not only at atheist communists but the ethnic Chinese community and toward President Sukarno himself. Leading PKI members were immediately arrested, some summarily executed.
The anti atheist communist purge quickly spread from Jakarta to the rest of the country, the worst massacres of known, suspected, and simply alleged atheist communists, were in Java and Bali where PKI support was at its strongest. The situation varied across the country, in some areas the army organized civilian groups and local militias, in other areas communal vigilante action preceded the army. For many youths, killing atheist communists became a religious duty. Muslims in Java and Sumatra but also Christians and Catholic students in the Yogyakarta region and Hindus in Bali took part in the massacres. Though most suspects were identified by locals, the CIA supplied the Indonesian military with lists of suspected atheist communists.
Between 300,000 and one million atheist communist were killed in the mass killings following the arrest of PKI members in Sukarno cabinet on October 6, 1965. Ironically, a CIA study of the events in Indonesia assessed that in terms of the numbers killed, the anti PKI massacres in Indonesia rank as one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century. Many others were also imprisoned and for the next ten years people were still being imprisoned as suspects. It is thought that as many as 1.5 million was imprisoned at one stage or another.
Indonesian today are still on the look out for more atheist communist to kill.
Here are some of the science facts in the Bible,
Taken from www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
Part 1:
Statements Consistent With Astronomy
The Bible frequently refers to the great number of stars in the heavens. Here are two examples.
Genesis 22:17
That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies.
Jeremiah 33:22
“As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant and the Levites who minister to Me.”
The Bible also says that each star is unique.
1 Corinthians 15:41
There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory.
All stars look alike to the naked eye. Even when seen through a telescope, they seem to be just points of light. However, analysis of their light spectra reveals that each is unique and different from all others.
The Bible describes the suspension of the Earth in space.
Job 26:7
He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing.
Here are some of the science facts in the Bible,
Taken from www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
Part 2
Statements Consistent With Meteorology
The Bible describes the circulation of the atmosphere.
Ecclesiastes 1:6
The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
The Bible includes some principles of fluid dynamics.
Job 28:25
To make the weight for the wind, And he weigheth the waters by measure.
The fact that air has weight was proven scientifically only about 300 years ago. The relative weights of air and water are needed for the efficient functioning of the world’s hydrologic cycle, which in turn sustains life on the earth.
Here are some of the science facts in the Bible,
Taken from www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
Part 3
Statements of Biological Health
It is a proven fact that a person’s mental and spiritual health is strongly correlated with physical health. The Bible revealed this to us with these statements (and others) written by King Solomon about 950 BC.
Proverbs 12:4
An virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones.
Proverbs 14:30
A sound heart is life of the body: but envy the rottenness of the bones.
Proverbs 15:30
The light of the eyes rejoiceth the heart, and a good report maketh the bones fat.
Proverbs 16:24
Pleasant words are as an honeycomb, Sweet to the soul and health to the bones.
Proverbs 17:22
A merry heart doeth good, like medicine, But a broken spirit drieth the bones.
citsogna
Here are some of the science facts in the Bible,
Taken from www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
Part 4
Statements Consistent With Anthropology
We have cave paintings and other evidence that people inhabited caves. The Bible also describes cave men.
Job 30:5,6
5 They were driven forth among men, (they cried after them as after a thief;)
6 To dwell in the cliffs of the valley, in caves of the earth, and in the rocks.
Note that these were not ape-men, but descendants of those who scattered from Babel. They were driven from the community by those tribes who competed successfully for the more desirable regions of the earth.
Here are some of the science facts in the Bible:
Taken from www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml
Part 5
Statements Consistent With Hydrology
The bible includes reasonably complete descriptions of the hydrologic cycle.
Psalm 135:7
He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain;
He brings the wind out of His treasuries.
Jeremiah 10:13
When he uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings with rain, bringeth forth the wind out of His treasuries.
In these verses you can see several phases of the hydrologic cycle—the worldwide processes of evaporation, translation aloft by atmospheric circulation, condensation with electrical discharges, and precipitation.
Job 36:27-29
27 For he maketh small the drops of water: they pour down rain according to the vapour thereof:
28 Which the clouds drop and distil upon man abundantly.
29 Also can any understand the spreading of clouds, or the noise of his tabernacle?
This simple verse has remarkable scientific insight. The drops of water which eventually pour down as rain first become vapor and then condense to tiny liquid water droplets in the clouds. These finally coalesce into drops large enough to overcome the updrafts that suspend them in the air.
The Bible describes the recirculation of water.
Ecclesiastes 1:7
All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
The Bible refers to the surprising amount of water that can be held as condensation in clouds.
Job 26:8
He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them.
I just wonder what dark matter looks like, for it to cause what it does.
agentorange
Let's meet tomorrow sometime. Let me know when you think you can be here. If you for some reason can't meet tomorrow, then let me know when. I want to talk about cosmology, if that would be OK with you.
Prophet
agentorange knows what he is talking about in regard to dark matter and dark energy. Go to this NASA link and read about irt: http://hubblesite.org/
sorry orange. I thought that I had told you about what happened to my family. I've posted it on so many threads that I forget who's seen it.
My wife was chronic depressive/suicidal. She was on prozac which didn't help. God healed her instantaneously.
She was also told she'd never be able to have kids. We have two wonderful children.
My daughter was born with ASD (a hole between the chambers of her heart), doctors said the only option was open heart surgery. God healed her instead.
My son had ADHD, and doctors said he would be on meds his whole life, and would struggle to make it through school. He was held back in first grade because of it. God healed him, and has been off his meds for years now. He's in 8th grade and has been on the honor roll for almost the entire 2 years.
That's my evidence.
I did give you evidence. But you flatly rejected it. You have no interest in the truth.
The power of God is incorporated to explain why people are miraculously healed and delivered. There must be something there, its called indirect observation.
See how silly that sounds? Almost as silly as dark matter.
And yet, God still heals...whether you believe in Him. His existence doesn't rely on your belief (or lack thereof). He existed before you were born, and He will exist after you die.
"LOL, now who's believing in fairytales. Instantaneous healing is not a placebo. No matter how you try to explain it away, you can't hide the truth."
Why don't you support it with actualy evidence, then we will see.
"Dark matter is merely science's attempt to explain a phenomena that they can't explain."
No, they incorporate dark matter to explain why galaxies are spinning at their speed and haven't flung apart yet, thus something must be there and this is called indirect observation, the same type of indirect observation that is used to identify atoms in particle physics. go read a book on dark matter and quit displaying your flat earther views.
DARWINISM and ATHEISM: UNSCIENTIFIC & MYTHICAL
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
agentorange
I will be back tomorrow.
Dark matter is merely science's attempt to explain a phenomena that they can't explain.
Orange,
LOL, now who's believing in fairytales. Instantaneous healing is not a placebo. No matter how you try to explain it away, you can't hide the truth.
"Yep. And it's that faith and logic that healed my wife, daughter, and son...when science was at a loss."
It appears you've never heard of the placebo affect either than hmmm? okay...
"Kinda like dark matter,eh."
No, not really. We can indirectly observe dark matter just like we can indirectly observe atoms. We've never directly observed either, yet you'd feel quite foolish saying it takes faith to believe in atomic theory right? Same goes for dark matter.
orange,
"no ryme, no reason, no matter, just have faith in the super natural. nice logic." Yep. And it's that faith and logic that healed my wife, daughter, and son...when science was at a loss.
Kinda like dark matter,eh.
Prophet,
You rely on the supernatural b/c that's all you have to explain it away. no ryme, no reason, no matter, just have faith in the super natural. nice logic.
Orange takes the supernatural out of the equation. The flood was, afterall, a supernatural event. And people lived hundreds and hundreds of years back then. And people had more children back then too. And orange's opinion on the infant mortality rate of the time is just that. Opinion. It is not beyond God's ability to replenish the earth from 6 people in a thousand years.
agentorange
I need to go. I will talk some more with you tomorrow evening.
agentorange
Re: He just assumed all couples would all have 8 kids and they'd all surivve to reproduction age, but that too isn't conservative at all as most kids used to die in their first few years of life from diseases, malnutrition and so on.
God allowed rapid population growth in the beginning in order to quickly repopulate the earth.
Genesis 9:1
"And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth."
Genesis 9:7
And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein."
Re:Re:Famines occur which limit population growth and population limit, something he toally ignored.
Again I said earlier, "If the population continued to increase in the manner mentioned above, then we would have a much larger population today than we have. War, famine, natural disaters, diseases, etc contibutes to keeping the population growth down.
God changes things as they need to be changed.
Right, he only addressed the first 1000 years, while ignoring that sort of growth rate is un heard of even now. He just makes it up with not evidence at all to back it. Famines occur which limit population growth and population limit, something he toally ignored. He just assumed all couples would all have 8 kids and they'd all surivve to reproduction age, but that too isn't conservative at all as most kids used to die in their first few years of life from diseases, malnutrition and so on.
agentorange
Get real again.He was only addressing the first 1000 year period after the flood. All your objections are invalid.
star2,
You can't honestly take the bible seriously with respect to science, can you? It might say god created all these things, but that is mere hearsay.I mean think of how many times it's been utterly wrong with regards to science accuracy. That alone tells you who wrote it and how utterly ignorant sand nomands were so long ago.
agentorange
Get real.
star, remember how you used a very, very concervative annual growth rate of .5% going from the 6 to 6 billion over said years? Well, if you'd paid attention Prophet's figures are no where NEAR that figure.
star2,
Hello, earth to star, his figures only accounted for the 2 million jews and didn't account for the rest of the world which would have certainly been larger.
agentorange
Re:For arguements sake, let say you god poofed the first life forms of bacteria here 3.85 billion years ago just like the records show.
No record shows that the first life forms of bacteria were either poofed here by god or was brought here by a comet, an intelligent alien or any other method.
God Word, which is His record, says He created the heavens and the earth. He created everything in a short span of time. He created each life form (plant and animal) after its own kind and in its mature state. He created light, He created darkness. He created our moon and our sun. He created the stars, the galaxies, the dark matter and everything we observe in the universe. God is the creator of all things.
agentorange
Part 1
Re: Population Growth
Again you misunderstood the intent of my approach to proving that it is possible for 6 people (3 couples) repopulating the Earth in approximately 4344 yrs with an average annual growth rate that took into consideration famine, wars, natural diasters, etc.. The approach never intended to show what populations would be at different intervals of time. Average annual growth rate is just what its name implies; average. You know that average doesn't mean actual. Some time periods are going to be greater than the average and some will be less, and some will be close to the actual average number used. Again, the approach was used only to show that it was possible; nothing more and nothing less.
To try to prove me wrong using my approach is nothing but a smokescreen to cover the fact that you are wrong that 8 people cannot repopulate the earth nearly 4344 yrs ago.
agentorange
Part 2
Prophet showed how it was possbile to have a large population growth from the 3 couples God used to repopulate the earth after the flood. The numbers are reasonable and addresses your concern about the nearly 2 millions Jews that left Egypt in the exodus.
Here is his posting:
I know that the only way you will think my numbers are realistic is if they agree with you, but here you go:
Okay. 3 couples, 6 people, at 100 years of age, average lifespan 300 years, average birth rate 3male/3female, generation is 100 years. The original 3 couples give birth to 2nd generation at 15 years (since Noahs sons probably started procreating immediately after the flood)
15 years: 6 people (3 couples) with 18 offspring=24 population
100 years: 6 people 1st generation
18 2nd generation (9 couples) with 54 offspring=78 population
200 years 1st generation dies off
18 2nd generation
54 3rd generation (27 couples) with 162 offspring=234 population
300 years 2nd generation dies
54 3rd
162 4th generation (81 couples) with 486offspring=702 population
400 years 3rd generation dies
162 4th
486 5th generation (243 couples) with 1458 offspring=2106 pop
500 years 4th gen dies
486 5th
1458 6th gen (729 couples) with 4374 offspring=6318 pop
600 years 5th gen dies
1458 6th
4374 7th gen (2187 couples) with 13,122 offspring=18,954 pop
700 years 6th gen dies
4374 7th
13,122 8th gen (6561 couples) with 39,366 offspring=56,862 pop
800 years 7th gen dies
13,122 8th
39,366 9th gen (19,683 couple) with 118,098 offspring=170,586 pop
900 years 8th gen dies
39,366 9th
118,098 10th gen (59,059 couples) with 354,294 offspring=511758 pop
1000 years 9th gen dies
118,098 10th
354,294 11th gen (177,147 couples) with 1,062,882 offspring=1,535,274 pop
Lifespan, number of children per family are very consistent with the numbers given in the Bible...acutally probably a little too conservative.
If the population continued to increase in the manner mentioned above, then we would have a muvh larger population today than we have. War, famine, natural disaters, diseases, etc contibutes to keeping the population growth down.
You have no real argument to disprove the Bible. You are nothing more than empty talk.
star2,
For arguements sake, let say you god poofed the first life forms of bacteria here 3.85 billion years ago just like the records show. Now that we've settled that what evolved to what and how is what evolution attempts to understand and that's all we should be talking about in the first place.
What is mathimatically impossible about life forming under certain chemical bonds? Did you even bother to read what I replied to Chris with? Had you, you see molecules dont work according to pure randomness, but rather work according to the 4 known fundimental forces. This is something even Hoyle didn't account for.
agentorange
I am sorry; it is a waste of time to even consider the 'evolution of life' when it is mathematically impossible for life to have ever came into existence to begin with.
star2,
Well, instead of bouncing around, why don't you actually address Evolution (change over time) instead of going after Abiogensis (how life arose) which doesn't negate evolution occuring in the first place. You're the one that can't differentiate between the two, I don't need to mention as you looking foolish.
agentorange
You are foolish.
“How life began is important to evolution. If it cannot begin in the first place then it can never develop. You need to face that reality.”
Star, these are different realms of Science, and evolution deals with the process of living stuff, while abgiogenesis deals with the non living stuff becoming livings stuff. How does the methods by which life got here in any way negate evolution occurring? Easy, they don’t. Your god could have just as easily poofed life here and yet we’d still be here talking about evolution aka life changing over time. HOW life got started doesn’t negate what occurs after life exists….I don’t know how you can’t comprehend this.
Star, do the methods (planes, trains, automobile, boat, etc.) by which a musical band gets to a concert impact if they play their music later? No, they don’t, any of the means of transportation would suffice and none would negate their music playing once at the hall. And neither do the methods by which how life arose negate what happens latter once it exists.
agentorange
Re: abiogenesis and evolution
How life began is important to evolution. If it cannot begin in the first place then it can never develop. You need to face that reality.
“Macro evolution has never been observed in nature nor in the lab. What scientists have observed is micro evolution. Scientists have never seen in the lab one species transform or cross the species level barrier. “
Note to star, macro evolution is denoted as evolution AT OR ABOVE the species level barrier. If you want countless examples of this just Google ‘observed speciation’. Remember some weeks ago when I held your hand and pointed out those 30 + recorded instances of macroevolution?
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
“If a significant mutation occured that would cause, if it were even possible and it is not, a species to cross over the species level barrier, that mutation would kill the species specimen (new life form).”
Hey star, mutations do occur, and if they are too much of a change they generally kill the host species spot on as its under meiosis so the species wouldn’t even be born in the first place. However, mutations (deletions, translocations, inversions, duplications, and FUSIONS) have been observed in the lab and the species under these can be born and show no ill affects.
“Mutations (malfunctions) don't make a product new and better, it weakens it.”
Not really. The DNA copying and duplication process although impressive is hardly perfect, these inperfections are mutations. The vast majority of generational mutations are neutral; while around 1% are harmful and about .28% are beneficial, at least in our species. Why do you think only certain segments of our human population have lactose tolerance to consume milk, while most don't? Here’s a hint…’herding cattle in the past’. All that from a simple gene mutation, that we can identify in our genomes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance
Here’s another mutation in our species that wasn’t harmful at all.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm
Assuming you’re White, your skin too is the result of a gene mutation. Male pattern baldness, freckles, and so on are regular genetic mutations that weren’t harmful at all
“God created dark matter and he created light.
Isaiah 45:7
"I form light, and create darkness: I make peace and CREATE EVIL: I the Lord do all these things."
Way to twist the words out of context star, I wasn’t born yesterday. That verse is regarding dualism, such as principles of good and evil symbolized as ‘light vs dark’ and Isiah is indicated god created both good and bad things and not reflective matter (stars) and hidden matter (dark matter).
“However, it is impossible for life to even begin so it is futile to even think about how it would developed.”
Star, do you understand what a logical fallacy is? With regards to evolution, it makes no difference how it began or started, we know it began somehow b/c we are here talking about it! Like I’ve said 1000 times now, HOW life got started doesn’t negate what occurs later once life exists, and with Evolution we are talking about what occurs once life exists and not how it started. Now that you perhaps know the difference quit building logical false strawmen arguments so I don’t have to repeatedly burn them down.
“If it is impossible for the building blocks of life to come into existence in the first place then any life that could come from it would also be impossible.”
Ok, once again the communication barrier breaks down. Star, your statement above is about Abiogenesis, or’ how life arose’ and not on ‘how life changes over time’ aka evolution. Look star, regardless if your Abrahamic god poofed life into action, or if aliens engineered it left it here, or if it arose naturally via chemical bonding processes doesn’t negate what occurs afterwards once the life exists. Evolution only deals with life changing over time and not non life somehow resulting in life (Abiogenesis).
We’re talking about evolution and it deals with life that already exists, please try to comprehend the difference and why ‘how life got here’ is a non factor regarding if life changes over time’.
agentorange
Re: light and dark matter
God created dark matter and he created light.
Isaiah 45:7
"I form light, and create darkness: I make peace and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."
agentorange
Re:Seems to me you’re implying Isaiah indicates such things are part of our atmosphere. Did I misunderstand or misread this?
“Isaiah 45:12”
Yes, you did.
agentorange
Re: macro-evolution is defined as ‘speciation’ or evolution at or above the species level barrier. We’ve observed this many times and documented this countless times.
Macro evolution has never been observed in nature nor in the lab. What scientists have observed is micro evolution. Scientists have never seen in the lab one species transform or cross the species level barrier. They have only observed genetic driftings within a species as climate changes, radiation affects, diet, and other influences have affected the genes. If a significant mutation occured that would cause, if it were even possible and it is not, a species to cross over the species level barrier, that mutation would kill the species specimen (new life form).
Mutations (malfunctions) don't make a product new and better, it weakens it.
agentorange
Re: What evolution is.
I read about what is refered to as evoultion. Yes, I would agree with you in regard to your definition.
However, it is impossible for life to even begin so it is futile to even think about how it would developed.
Re:Give me an example of something that is evolutionarily impossible.
If it is impossible for the building blocks of life to come into existence in the first place then any life that could come from it would also be impossible.
If you want to apply evolutionary thought to how all the different life forms came into being then you are going to have to explain how the building blocks of life just "poofed" into existence. Remember, it is mathematically impossible for it to randomly come into existence. If you don't think that it is impossible then mathematically prove that it can. No cop-outs about you don't deal with that. Evolution depends on simple life coming into existence. If simple life can't happen then neither can evolution.
Prophet
agentorange is right here about dark matter. Google search it and you will see.
Prophet,
Do you know why 'Dark Matter' is even used for cosmology? I don’t mean to call you a ‘flat earther’ but that is awfully how you come across as it is apparent you don't follow science at all to distinguish why its relevance is. Instead, you think it's something they just made up, as if there is no evidence at all for it. Too bad for you, you're wrong - again.
We can't see it directly, but we can't see individual atoms directly either. And yet that same atomic theory in which we can’t directly observe atoms is what is used along with Physics to build nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs which demonstrates although we don't know 100% about them, our understanding about them is sufficient to create power. lol back at ya buddy!
However, with atoms and dark matter we can indirectly observe their nature and their forces and yet using them provides a greater understanding to the mechanics and true nature of our universe.
Dark Matter
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gCgTJ6ID6ZA
dark matter...lol. A scientific fable that they created to explain something they couldn't explain. And you call Christians dumb for believing in what can't be seen.
Star,
“So prove to me mathematically that evolution can happen. No cop-outs with the statements you made in the past that you don't deal with abiogensis.”
Evolution DOESN’T deal with origins of life, how hard is that to comprehend? I explained many of the facets involved in evolution regarding genetic drifting and natural selection, perhaps you should read a book on biology and genetics before declaring something as mathematically impossible. Give me an example of something that is evolutionarily impossible. Be careful Star, all the instances that ID proponents have brought on using Irreducible Complexity were shot down in Dover in 2005.
How about you first explain the evidence of human chromosome 2 fusion. Like I said, one thing at a time, lets be thorough and methodical.
Star,
“The can see micro evolution happen but they have never observed nor will they ever observe macro evolution. The laws of genetics will never allow it.”
Note to Star, macro-evolution is defined as ‘speciation’ or evolution at or above the species level barrier. We’ve observed this many times and documented this countless times. Star, not too long ago creationists used to say micro evolution wasn’t possible and after being proven wrong now say only macro evolution is impossible. Moving the goal posts like this isn’t a way to win an argument. WHAT laws of genetics are you talking about?
“Let us look at the odds of one protein molecule being created by chance. I have heard that a single protein molecule is made up of it 20 amino acids. If that is the case, then the odds that a single protein molecule can form from a random combination of the amino acids is 1 in n! “
Another note to star, Abiogenesis ISN’T what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about human chromosome 2 as it relates to Evolution, which is an entirely independent science all together. Do try to stay on a topic and address it accordingly as opposed to jumping all over the place and not addressing anything.
On a side note, chemicals do not act purely random, they work according to their chemical bonding that works according to fundamental laws. Rather than reposting this ALL over again, I will link you to the response I gave to Chris33 in which he too thinks chemicals work purely randomly.
www.christianpost.com/article/20080212/31166_Fla._School_Board_Set_to_Vote_on_New_Standards_for_Teaching_Evolution.htm
"As complex even the simplest form of life is, the odds that it can happen by chance is so astronomically small that the chance of that happening is zero."
Star this is abiogensis again, not evolution. understand the difference already. Like I've said a 100 times already, regardless of how life got here, once it's here it evolves. HOW life got here doesn't negate life evolving afterwards, what can't you comprehend there?
“I never said that stars, dark matter and galaxies were a part of our atmosphere.”
Ok, but here’s what you wrote earlier.
“Also, from Genesis 1, we know that the earth was the center of creation. The atmosphere that surrounded the Earth God said that He stretched it out like a curtain and created the hosts (planets, stars, galaxies, dark matter and all that is in the universe) in it. (Isaiah 40:22, 45:12, 45:18)”
Seems to me you’re implying Isaiah indicates such things are part of our atmosphere. Did I misunderstand or misread this?
“Isaiah 45:12”
That’s nice star, but this doesn’t cancel out all those scientific errors it contains either. Perhaps this is the result of being written by men, who knows.
“Prove to me mathematically that a population that starts out with only 3 pairs of couples nearly 4344 yrs ago could not repopulate the earth to the present 6.8 billion people.”
Didn’t I already show you the parts in your very own book (Exodus and Numbers) where it records 2 million Jews and this is only 1012 years post flood and it doesn’t account for the rest of the world’s population which would have certainly been much larger than 2 million.
All you did is used today’s population and the assumed starting population of 6 and devised an annual steady growth rate. It totally ignores that most of the population growth as occurred since 1840’s which resulted from the Industrial Revolution. Prior to that population growth rates were much, much slower as they were limited due to resource constraints, thus why all the famines occurred that Prophet also ignored.
agentorange
Evolutionists have no proof that one life form evolved into an entirely different life form. The can see micro evolution happen but they have never observed nor will they ever observe macro evolution. The laws of genetics will never allow it.
Mathematically it is impossible for life to emerge from a common gene pool or a bunch of chemicals or whatever explanation evolutionists come up with.
Let us look at the odds of one protein molecule being created by chance. I have heard that a single protein molecule is made up of it 20 amino acids. If that is the case, then the odds that a single protein molecule can form from a random combination of the amino acids is 1 in n!
1 in 20! is 1 in 2,432,902,008,176,640,000 or approximatelly 1 in 2.4 x 10^18. There is a 4.2 x 10^-17 % chance that the 20 amino acids will come together to form a single protein molecule. That is 0.000000000000000042 % chance that just one protein molecule can form by chance.That, for all practical purposes is zero. It is even worse than that because I only consider the 20 amino acids and not the other stuff that makes up a single protein molecule.
As complex even the simplest form of life is, the odds that it can happen by chance is so astronomically small that the chance of that happening is zero.
Evolution just cannot produce the diverse forms of life we see today. It is mathematically impossible.
No doubt you diagree. So prove to me mathematically that evolution can happen. No cop-outs with the statements you made in the past that you don't deal with abiogensis.
agentorange
Re“Assuming ideal conditions, you cannot deny the fact that population growth is exponential.”
Note to star, ideal conditions NEVER happen as a result of how the weather changes and how it impacts food production, access to clean water, etc. If ‘ideal’ conditoins were the norm, we wouldn’t have huge records of famines that last for many years and decades now would we?
But we do have such records, so obviously no ideal conditions ever existed.
You totally missed the point of my illustration, a result of your knee jerk reactions to anything that goes against what you want to believe, your faith in a theory that hold no water.
I don't want any of your subjectives opinions as to how fast or slow a population can grow. Prove to me mathematically that a population that starts out with only 3 pairs of couples nearly 4344 yrs ago could not repopulate the earth to the present 6.8 billion people.
agentorange
Re: I said - ”Also, from Genesis 1, we know that the earth was the center of creation.The atmosphere that surrounded the Earth God said that He stretched it out like a curtain and created the hosts (planets, stars, galaxies, dark matter and all that is in the universe) in it. (Isaiah 40:22, 45:12, 45:18)”
Re: your response - Note to star, the earth isn’t the center of the Universe! Nor are stars, dark matter and galaxies a part of our atmosphere!
I never said that stars, dark matter and galaxies were a part of our atmosphere. Your knee jerk reaction to any mention of God has caused you to make an incorrect conclusion to what I said. I said that as God stretched out the atmosphere or the firament above the earth He commanded (created, spoke into existence) all the host (stars, galaxies, dark matter, etc.) in it.
Isaiah 40:22
"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in."
Isaiah 45:12
"I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded."
“The chromosomes are similar but not identical in the Bonobos, Gorilla, Orangutan.”
The reason why each of these apes have unique genes in these 2 chromosomes, and any other chromosomes, is because since their divergence from their common ancestor they have undergone their own unique mutations and genetic diversity based on population sizes, reproduction rates, etc.
Regardless, genetically speaking Chimps are more similar to us Sapiens then they are to Gorillas. You might think Chimps and Bonobos are just animals, but their level of intelligence is quite remarkable.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zd_QZf8vWhc
“The chromosomes are similar but not identical in the Bonobos, Gorilla, Orangutan.”
Right I agree. Perhaps I worded it wrong, so I take responsibility.
The exact chromosomes in each of those species genomes (the apes) are the same pair that can be referenced against our human chromosome 2; these 2 chromosomes in all apes, and our 2nd chromosome have identical protein banding patterns(genetic homology) and are nearly identical in their composition.
agentorange
Re:Here watch Phd Ken Miller, who’s a Catholic
I am not impressed that he is a Catholic. He is nothing more than a deceived heretic.
agentorange
Re:these 2 identical chromosomes don’t only exist in the Chimps, but are in fact found in all Great Apes (Chimps, Bonobos, Gorilla, Orangutan,).
The chromosomes are similar but not identical in the Bonobos, Gorilla, Orangutan.
Star,
“You are very wrong on this one. Every source I have read said that they each have 24 chromosomes. Never once did they say that any of their chromosomes were fused together.”
Where am I wrong star? We homo sapiens have 23 pairs of chromosomes, while all those other apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes.
So the idea goes, *if evolution is true* (in other words a scientific prediction) we should find evidence of WHERE this other pair of chromosomes went or what happened to them. If we can't account for them somehow then evolution and common ancesrty is wrong. Shorlty after mapping he human and chimps genomes though we found where that other pair of chromosomes went.
And we can see what happened to it by analyzing our 2nd chromosome which is a nearly identical match to 2 of the pairs of chromosomes all those great apes have.
Here watch Phd Ken Miller, who’s a Catholic by the way, described the evidence here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
agentorange
Re:these 2 identical chromosomes don’t only exist in the Chimps, but are in fact found in all Great Apes (Chimps, Bonobos, Gorilla, Orangutan,).
You are very wrong on this one. Every source I have read said that they each have 24 chromosomes. Never once did they say that any of their chromosomes were fused together.
Star,
“Re: Human 2 Chromosome Fusion
It has nothing to do with the chimp. It has everything to do with God.”
No offense, but I see you praying and talking with god hasn’t paid off much for an answer on the human chromosome 2 fusion evidence.
Perhaps you should do what us sciency types do and actually research and read to find answers. Another side note star, these 2 identical chromosomes don’t only exist in the Chimps, but are in fact found in all Great Apes (Chimps, Bonobos, Gorilla, Orangutan,).
Star,
"Re: cosmology and astronomy
You do not know what you are talking about."
No disrepect, bu I think it is you,k with regards to science who hasn't a clue and don't know what you're talking about. In fact I showed that quite readily in how our atmosphere doesn't contain stars, galaxies, and all the other things you got from your holy book. Here, grab your books and go to school, here is why the earth and universe certainly aren't 6000 years young.
Why Young Earth Creationists Must Deny Gravity, Part I
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8bRvt0InhYk
Why Young Earth Creationists Must Deny Gravity, Part II
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sEW1oQBZu-I
Now, try to read, research and understand the evidence, principles and data in those and rebut those. good luck.
Prophet,
“I do know some about science. But, more importantly, maybe you should familiarize yourself with the One who created the laws of the universe and of science”
Well, I might be more inclined to accept your holy text at all or above all others if it showed it conformed to the scientific data and evidence we have, but it doesn’t. The bible says ‘the earth moveth not’, and yet it certainly moves, along with many, many other science blunders. Why would I or anyone take a 3000 year old books word on science matters over that of today’s? That is entirely illogical.
“Then maybe you'd realize that He is not bound by those laws. If God wanted people to reproduce like rabbits after the flood, so be it.“
Ya says the guy who also retorts that ‘god works in mysterious ways’ when his praying does nothing. Your own book says nothing of god poofing people post flood, get a clue. Try to quit deluding yourself and rationalizing mistakes in sake of a belief without evidence and I’d take you more seriously.
“If He wanted to even create more people after the flood, so be it.”
According to you he may have wanted to, but didn’t, so it doesn’t matter in retrospect now does it? You earlier tried to rationalize that famines never or rarel occurred and so you thought it was possible for such populations to grow so dramatically in the past. The facts I presented regarding those famines say otherwise and shows that food supplies were anything but plentiful and further shows how carrying capacity limits growth. Go ahead, rationalize and throw in some more miracles just to make it all work out. anything but admitting you were wrong and the earth/universe aren't 6000 years old.
agentorange
Re: cosmology and astronomy
You do not know what you are talking about.
Re: Human 2 Chromosome Fusion
It has nothing to do with the chimp. It has everything to do with God.
I will tell you why later.
orange,
You said "I used science to show WHY the population figures star gave don’t work and why you too were equally wrong by ignoring all those famines, carrying capacity."
And I used God to show why science is not the answer to everything.
I do know some about science. But, more importantly, maybe you should familiarize yourself with the One who created the laws of the universe and of science. Then maybe you'd realize that He is not bound by those laws. If God wanted people to reproduce like rabbits after the flood, so be it. If He wanted to even create more people after the flood, so be it.
Modern science told my wife that she would be chronic depressive and suicidal her whole life. That she'd be on meds her whole life. Well, my God designed the human body. And since He designed the human body, He can fix whatever may be wrong. So He did. What science said couldn't be done, God did. That is the truth I live and preach.
"If you don't believe in God....what are you doing here"
Easy, trying to explain the particulars in Science (evolution, geology, cosmology, etc.) so those that use their fruits yet discredit them can see how hypocritical they indeed are (yes star I am talking about you) and how science, particularly by the religious is viewed with a jaded eye and for no good reason.
I used science to show WHY the population figures star gave don’t work and why you too were equally wrong by ignoring all those famines, carrying capacity.
If you’re a speaker of truth, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with science so others like myself don’t have to give basic remedial courses on novel things the rest of the developed world already knows.
orange,
If you don't believe in God....what are you doing here?
Prophot,
“Yes, we know. You don't like God. “
What are you talking about? How can I hate, or not like something I don’t even think exists in the first place? Does it make sense saying you hate allah, appollo, Zeus or any other god just b/c you don’t find their existance crediable? No, it doesn’t
When you think critically of why you equally doubt the existence of all other gods except your own, you will see why I reject all those and yours.
Earlier you'd stated that the populations star estimated *could* be possible, however a quick glance at how many famines humanity has had and edured (which I referenced ) shows that in population growth it's always dependant upon resources and doen't grow exponentially. You made no comment on this and left it alone. You mentioned earlier you 'speak the truth', well pal it's time you look up the facts and quit deluding yourself.
Orange,
Yes, we know. You don't like God. But God still loves you. Regardless. And He will continue to send people to warn you, and try to steer you away from hell. But, in the end, it's still your decision. And you alone are responsible for the consequences of your own actions. You will have no one else to blame. Not even God.
”I do not accept what scientists say about the age of the Earth nor the age of the Universe.”
And why should you, it’s your belief that your book is infalliable and thus anything to the contrary in your warped view is wrong. SHOW me how those in cosmology and astronomy can get the calculations of the universe and solar system so utterly wrong and yet we send explorer satalited to numerous planets and moons on such calculations.
Show me how the speed of light is wrong and that the universe is only 6000 years young.
“ I believe the reason why is at least two-fold: 1) the Earth did not evolve over time but was instead created in its mature state, and 2) we do not know why C14 is so unstable.”
Note to the un-science lady, not ALL decay rates for particles are the same. DUH! This is why some are used for different age time lines, some used to measure the more younger material while others used to measure the much older. Don’t like radiometric dating? Fine, read up on dendrochronology and measuring of ice cores of sea layers and other technigqes that show the earth isn’t 6000 years young.
”We cannot determine the age of the Universe because when God stretched out the heaven/atmosphere that surrounded the Earth (Isaiah 40:22, 45:12) that distorted time.”
Nice, no evidence at all. All you can do is appeal to a 3000 YO book, nice logic star.
star,
“I don't know anything much about science but I do know my God. When my God says He created the heavens and the earth in a certain way then I accept that by faith.”
Theists who resort to this ‘god said it, I believe it, and that settles it’ nonsense have no sense of critical thinking ability. They can’t even for a second question the veracity of their own holy texts. Hey news flash folks, your god might have inspired the works, but ultimately falliable men penned it, so to assume it’s all 100% perfect is absrub and to ignore all other religons and how utterly corrupt they are as well.
And who do suppose wrote you bible star….yes, correct falliable men.
”God indicated that He created everything in its mature state.
We have evidence of that when He created Adam and Eve.”
Your book indicates god did this, many other religious books indiacte god did it differently, the only reason why you accept yours over all other is b/c it’s our religon! So what are you implying, that the earth and universe REALLY aren’t 6000 years young? Why else would you even bother to bring this up unless this is what you’re implying?
”Also, from Genesis 1, we know that the earth was the center of creation.The atmosphere that surrounded the Earth God said that He stretched it out like a curtain and created the hosts (planets, stars, galaxies, dark matter and all that is in the universe) in it. (Isaiah 40:22, 45:12, 45:18)”
Note to star, the earth isn’t the center of the Universe! Nor are stars, dark matter and galaxies a part of our atmosphere! I agree, you lack basic understanding in science! Our atmosphere ONLY exists around the earth, all those other things you listed exist millions to billions of lightyears away, but to ignorant sand nomads they couldn’t know the difference and so they concluded they were apart of the atmosphere. Again, the bible failing when it comes to science accauracy. what a suprise.
“Assuming ideal conditions, you cannot deny the fact that population growth is exponential.”
Note to star, ideal conditions NEVER happen as a result of how the weather changes and how it impacts food production, access to clean water, etc. If ‘ideal’ conditoins were the norm, we wouldn’t have huge records of famines that last for many years and decades now would we?
But we do have such records, so obviously no ideal conditions ever existed.
You’re totally in fantasy land, trying to rationalize any and everything to make it make sense. Only ‘faith’ could blind ones logic and critical thinking so severly for them to ignore the obvious.
Star,
.”When Jacob, his sons, wives, and children joined Joseph in Egypt the scripture tells us there were a total of 70 Hebrew souls. When the Hebrew Nation left Egypt some 430 years later those 70 people grew to nearly 2 millions people. This rapid growth gives us a glimpse of how rapidly God can enable people to reproduce”
Ok…but it’s not accounting for all those Egyptians that used them as slaves, nor is it including the rest of the worlds population, which if you recall is what we’re talking in the first place.
Why do I even bother talking with you Star? Here you are a math wiazrd and you think it’s even POSSBLE for 70 people to reproduce to 2 million in 436 years….. time to stop deluding yourself star and think critically for a change and deduce reality.
Do the calculations of how many kids each women would have to have to go from 70 to 2 million in 430 years…Last I checked it’s something like 56 kids per wife all throught out, totally impossible figure, but hey you have faith that it’s all authentic so why should the facts get in t he way now.
"Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."
You're right, only a fool would keep it only in their heart, true unbeliervers expresses it openly just as the faithfull express their beliefs openly.
Would whoever is flagging danny stop? I find his whining rather humorous, and it is the highlight of my day.
Someone's flagged my posts too, Danny. How come you're the only one complaining?
Ge 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Ge 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Ps 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Take a look at the militant atheist outside the US. Take a look at those unrepentant hardened murderers, who still kill people by the dozen each month through public and secret execution.
Killed were some 65 million (and counting) in China; 20 million in the Soviet Union; 2 million (and counting) in North Korea; 2 million in Cambodia; 1.7 million in Africa; 1.5 million in Afghanistan; 1 million in Vietnam; 1 million in communist Eastern Europe; and, 150,000 in Latin America.
Go to Victims of Communist memorial in Washington and see a fresh reminder of the death toll that militant atheists piled around themselves when they were given the chance.
Those you call militant atheism in the US nowadays is considered kindergarten stuff for militant atheist international. It is like comparing delinquents who refuse to go to Sunday school with seasoned cold blooded killers.
tanker,
One definitiion of militant(which is the one the author is using in this article) is simply "aggressively active in a cause". Please don't be so melodramatic. Under that definition, I could be called a militant Christian. I won't complain.
What is meant by "militant" atheism? Are you saying that all atheists are evil murderers? Are you really that ignorant, to spew out that stream of hate? To do such a thing is contradictory to the 10 commandments. I am an atheist, but I don't kill people. However, you have broken your god's law, for you can not only kill with actions, but with words as well.
Re:We cannot determine the age of the Earth because it was created in it mature form. What ages are determined are only apparent ages and not the actual age.
We cannot determine the age of the Universe because when God stretched out the heaven/atmosphere that surrounded the Earth (Isaiah 40:22, 45:12) that distorted time. The age that scientists come up with for the Universe is only an apparent age and not the actual age.
If you want to know what the age of the universe is and the earth with all its life forms are, you have to go to the Word of God.
agentorange20
I don't know anything much about science but I do know my God. When my God says He created the heavens and the earth in a certain way then I accept that by faith.
God indicated that He created everything in its mature state. We have evidence of that when He created Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were created as adults with the full capability to communicate, walk, reason, think creatively, and reproduce. They were not created as infants.
Also, from Genesis 1, we know that the earth was the center of creation. The atmosphere that surrounded the Earth God said that He stretched it out like a curtain and created the hosts (planets, stars, galaxies, dark matter and all that is in the universe) in it. (Isaiah 40:22, 45:12, 45:18)
I do not accept what scientists say about the age of the Earth nor the age of the Universe.
We cannot determine the age of the Earth because it was created in it mature form. What ages are determined are only apparent ages and not the actual age.
It is obvious that radiometric dataing methods used are unreliable. I gave you a number of sources in respected secular journals that showed the unreliability of various radiometric dataing methods. I believe the reason why is at least two-fold: 1) the Earth did not evolve over time but was instead created in its mature state, and 2) we do not know why C14 is so unstable.
We cannot determine the age of the Universe because when God stretched out the heaven/atmosphere that surrounded the Earth (Isaiah 40:22, 45:12) that distorted time. The age that scientists come up with for the Universe is only an apparent age and not the actual age.
Man, in his natural thinking, assumes that everything that exists began in its infant state. The methods for determining the age of the Universe, the creation of life and how it became as diverse as it is, and how old the Earth is all depends on that assumption.
The assumption is false and it leads to incorrect conclusions.
I know that you will not agree with me. I cannot convince you of what I believe nor can you ever convince me of what you believe. I'll just let my God judge what truth is.
correction:
Regarding dP/dt = r P
change r to r = 1/T where T is a unit of time
I flagged myself to make corrections.
agentorange20
Re: Population Growth Formula
Assuming ideal conditions, you cannot deny the fact that population growth is exponential. The differential equation that represent the population rate of change is dP/dt = r P. After integrating and determining what the integration constant is at time zero, we find that the population at time t can be expressed as P(t) = Po e^rt where r is the average annual population growth rate.
You said that you did not believe that 8 people (really six since Noah and his wife did not have children after the flood) could repopulate the earth to the number of people we see today in such a short time.
I decided to prove that it was possible. My assumption was that world population growth per year would not be so random as not to fit nearly perfectly into the the curve that represent it growth from year to year for 4344 years.
Assuming that population growth somewhat follows along with the average annual growth rate that I selected for the 4344 yrs duration, I was able to show that it was possible to have the 6.8 billion people we see today.
My approach never intended to show what the world's population would be at different intervals of time since the flood.
To Everybody
Re:Explanation for large world population about 1000 yrs after the flood
God has always played an active role in the affairs of man. After the flood God repopulated the Earth with Noah's three sons and their respecitive wives.
Scripture tells us that God opens and shuts the womb. Since God wanted to repopulate the Earth in a short amount of time He enabled them to be very fruitful. We see the evidence of that in the Hebrew Nation. When Jacob, his sons, wives, and children joined Joseph in Egypt the scripture tells us there were a total of 70 Hebrew souls. When the Hebrew Nation left Egypt some 430 years later those 70 people grew to nearly 2 millions people. This rapid growth gives us a glimpse of how rapidly God can enable people to reproduce.
Christians should not concern themselves with wath the population count was. Remember, David when He counted the people. Either you believe God or not iIf God has not proven Himself to you then don't believe; however, if God has and you are still pandering with belief in Him, you are treading a mirky road. Whether there were 50 or 500,000 does not disprove or prove anything. This is another worldy to cloud your thinking. With God all things are possible.
ifeelfine,
Could you please keep comments on the appropriate message board? It makes it less confusing. But to answer your question ...
Where does it say that incest and beastiality is a sin?
orange,
You once again missed the point I gather that my story on faith is wasted on the faithless. But the good thing is, that it doesn't affect my faith, of the affect faith has on me and my family.
You know its not the same thing at all and it is in the Bible (both bestiality and incest). But if you want to marry your sister, go ahead, it's a sin but I'll pray for you . . . do you have a brother? If you die, I hope your wife likes him - cause that's who she's supposed to marry.
Prophet,
“ I'm sorry, but I really did have to laugh at that. I suppose my point went right over your head...by a couple miles. “
Well if you fell like loaning a 1000 dollars to any old stranger and not signing a contract, then go ahead be stupid and when it goes to court you won’t be able to get your money back as you have nothing written and signed verifying the transfer. That's what contracts are for.
I know it's nice to be civil and give most everyone the benefit of the doubt and trust them totally (or have faith in them) but in the real world sooner or later you get ripped off and it's your own responsibility to protest your assets.
orange,
I rather doubt that the numbers that the government gives for what population was at that time is very reliable. Figuring that it's mostly conjecture and estimating by using a formula somewhat similar to what star used (which you say is errant).
You said "No, that’s what CONTRACTS are for pal. You have your friend sign a contract guaranteeing that he will pay X amount of dollars by X amount of time, or you seize some of his assets" I'm sorry, but I really did have to laugh at that. I suppose my point went right over your head...by a couple miles.
You also said "Oh really, like from what? Anything life threatening?" Possibly. My wife had a serious chemical imbalance making her chronic depressive and suicidal. She was on meds, which did nothing for her. She was healed instantaneously.
My daughter had a ASD, which is a hole between the chambers of her heart. Not life threatening per se, but did make her more suseptable to pneumonia, and heart problems (including heart attack). The doctors said the only recourse was open heart surgery to close it up. God healed her.
My son's wasn't so problematic, depending on your view. He had severe ADHD. Was held back in 1st grade. Was told he'd be on meds his whole life, and would always have trouble with school work. God healed him. He's been off his meds since the 6th grade (he's in 8th now) and been on the honor roll almost his entire junior high.
And that's not taking into account all I've seen happen to others with my own eyes.
Prophet,
"By the way...what was the population at the time of the exodus?'
According to the bible there were some 600K men so about 2 million Jews, BUT that's not accounting for the rest of the worlds population (which is what we’re talking about here), which obviously would have been much greater, that's a no brainer. According to govt sites though the world population would have been around a low estimate of 50 million at this time.
“If I dropped my numbers so ridicuously low, you would refute them.”
Here’s the problem, you used exaggerated figures just to show that in 1000 years 8 people could repopulate to cover 2 million jews, the problem is though the world obviously consisted of more than just the 2 million Jews so already the figures you used are wrong. And like I said, we have records of numerous coulters all going on prior to and before the flood. For instance, the Egyptian 5th and 6th dynasties were going on during this flood period and as far as records show were completely uninterrupted.
“If a guy I trust says that he's got $100,000 for me and that he'll give it to me in a year. That's faith to believe him.”
No, that’s what CONTRACTS are for pal. You have your friend sign a contract guaranteeing that he will pay X amount of dollars by X amount of time, or you seize some of his assets. Just like the repo man, if you don’t pay for your debt he comes and collects the assets anyway. Just like the govt. where they can seize you assets if you commit tax evasion like Ken Hovind.
“faith healed my wife, daughter, and son...when "evidence"
Oh really, like from what? Anything life threatening?
19 Because the knowledge of God may be seen in them, God having made it clear to them. 20 For from the first making of the world, those things of God which the eye is unable to see, that is, his eternal power and existence, are fully made clear, he having given the knowledge of them through the things which he has made, so that men have no reason for wrongdoing: 21 Because, having the knowledge of God, they did not give glory to God as God, and did not give praise, but their minds were full of foolish things, and their hearts, being without sense, were made dark. 22 Seeming to be wise, they were in fact foolish.....ROMANS 1:19-22
orange,
By the way...what was the population at the time of the exodus?
Which I knew would happen. If I dropped my numbers so ridicuously low, you would refute them. The problem is, it is possible that the population could just as easily be 10 million people during that time.
And you can say what you want about faith. You have none. It's easy to criticize something you don't have. But faith healed my wife, daughter, and son. That the evidence of faith. Evidence doesn't bring faith. Faith brings evidence.
If a guy I trust says that he's got $100,000 for me and that he'll give it to me in a year. That's faith to believe him. But if he shows up on my step with the cash, that's evidence. Any monkey (pardon the obvious evolution pun) can believe in something that is before him. It doesn't required any effort at all from lazy people. Faith takes more work. And, as I said, faith healed my wife, daughter, and son...when "evidence" said otherwise.
Prophet,
These are nice numbers, just a couple problems.
The 2 million population figure only covers the Jews, it doesn’t cover the Egyptians that enslaved them, all the initial inhabitants of Canaan (amalakites and so on), and basically the rest of the world. So covering a population of 2 million is the least of your worries.
Now I know you’ll say no one else existed elsewhere in the world at that time, but that is rubbish as Stonehenge was built around the time of the pyramids and numerous other world wide cultures that existed at this same time line of 1012 years post flood.. Here are some.
Egypt, Egyptian dynasties were built. Same thing with Stonehenge it’s nearly as old. We have records of many cultures that existed prior to and after the ‘flood’.
Greek - Minoan Civilization 2000 BC to 1400 BC
Dorian Period 1400-1100 BC
Chinese- Xia Dynasty 2000 BC to 1500 BC
Shang Dynasty 1500 BC to 1027 BC
Egypt- 1st thru 12th Dynasties 2920 BC to 1759 BC
13th thru 20 th Dynasty 1759 BC to 1069 BC
Japanese - Jomon Period 13,000 BC to 300 BC
In order to explain how ALL these cultures existed you’ll have to change the reproduction rates even higher, but as I eluded to earlier that doesn’t work with the bibles claims of 600,000 jewish men at this time of 1012 years post flood.
“But we forgot on important basis of Biblical truths: Faith.
orange has none. But yet he believes in the wind.
Faith is for suckes that have no evidence. It takes something like faith to think that 8 people could repopulate so fast in 1000 years to cover all the historical events record throughout the world. If it takes something like faith to be convinced of something were the evidence is so lacking or contradictory, then you’re self dillusding yourself. You’re lying to yourself to make it all better so you wont have to critically THINK about it. Your faith blinds you.
But we forgot on important basis of Biblical truths: Faith.
orange has none. But yet he believes in the wind.
Beware lest any man fool you....
Those figures are taking into consideration that most families consisted of 8 or more children, but not all survived or procreated or lived to be 800 years.
I know that the only way you will think my numbers are realistic is if they agree with you, but here you go:
Okay. 3 couples, 6 people, at 100 years of age, average lifespan 300 years, average birth rate 3male/3female, generation is 100 years. The original 3 couples give birth to 2nd generation at 15 years (since Noahs sons probably started procreating immediately after the flood)
15 years: 6 people (3 couples) with 18 offspring=24 population
100 years: 6 people 1st generation
18 2nd generation (9 couples) with 54 offspring=78 population
200 years 1st generation dies off
18 2nd generation
54 3rd generation (27 couples) with 162 offspring=234 population
300 years 2nd generation dies
54 3rd
162 4th generation (81 couples) with 486offspring=702 population
400 years 3rd generation dies
162 4th
486 5th generation (243 couples) with 1458 offspring=2106 pop
500 years 4th gen dies
486 5th
1458 6th gen (729 couples) with 4374 offspring=6318 pop
600 years 5th gen dies
1458 6th
4374 7th gen (2187 couples) with 13,122 offspring=18,954 pop
700 years 6th gen dies
4374 7th
13,122 8th gen (6561 couples) with 39,366 offspring=56,862 pop
800 years 7th gen dies
13,122 8th
39,366 9th gen (19,683 couple) with 118,098 offspring=170,586 pop
900 years 8th gen dies
39,366 9th
118,098 10th gen (59,059 couples) with 354,294 offspring=511758 pop
1000 years 9th gen dies
118,098 10th
354,294 11th gen (177,147 couples) with 1,062,882 offspring=1,535,274 pop
Lifespan, number of children per family are very consistent with the numbers given in the Bible...acutally probably a little too conservative.
This is all I have to say on the matter. As I said, unless the numbers agree with you, you do not agree with the numbers. So be it.
Prohpet,
ME:“"How else do you makes sense of these popluation numbers? "
”I just showed you”
No, you generated random numbers and never even accounted for deaths over that 1000 year period post flood.
Your own bible has the Jewish male populations at 600,000 and cites it in Exodus as they leave Egypt and later in Numbers. At this timeline in the bible it’s about 1012 years post flood and they have about 2 million Jews (600,000 males, plus wives, plus 1.5 kids). You can't just make up numbers to make them work out if they conflict with your own book and its account of only 600,000 jewish males 1000 years later.
So why does it list the jewish male population at 600,000 at around 1012 years post flood? These numbers don’t match up with either your or stars numbers and calculations.
(Flagged myself)
Prophet,
“ I said IMAGINE what it would be like if the percentage of famers/ranchers 2000 years ago remained the same today. “
It would be mostly pointless as 2% of the population produces more than enough food now for the entire nation. Much of food spoils remember. We could imagine many things, but imagining them doesn’t make them coherent and sensible. It’s not sensible to have more people than is required to farm. Ideally if it could be done all by machines that would be optimal, but 2% isn’t bad.
’The percentage of farmer/ranchers was higher 2000 years ago in order to support the growing population, thus protecting the species.”
It was higher only 50 years ago, before the industrial revolution the vast majority of people had to farm as means of supporting themselves.
“So, resource availability, although it did have some impact on population, was not as much of a bottleneck as you claim.”
Well if it didn’t impact populations that much, then why do we have all these records of year long+ famines? To me, when I read about decade long famines cutting a population in ½, it sounds to me that food supplies were anything but plentiful all the time or even the norm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines
Yes, I know the correlation with the industrial revolution and how it freed up people for other non farm related work. This didn’t occur till 180 or so years ago, and not until then did we see any signifigant annual population growth. (notice how in all population charts it’s a very slow gentle curve and then around 150 years ago it immediately spikes up). This spike could have occurred at any time in the past, but it didn’t and only occurred b/c of the industrial revolution which increased food supplies.
"How else do you makes sense of these popluation numbers? "
I just showed you.
You said"No, today the yields per acre are much greater, thus the productivity is much higher now, this is why only 2% of the USA are farmers and support the rest of us." Exactly, I never argued that. That is why the industrial revolution could happen. Less people were required to farm, thus allowing them to work and investigate other avenues.
You also said, in response to my post, "Fewer people ARE REQUIRED NOW TO FARM B/C THE PRODUCTIVTY LEVEL HAS SKYROCKETED compared with prior to the industrial revolution, this is why so few do it today."
I have not argued that either. But, if you were paying attention, I said IMAGINE what it would be like if the percentage of famers/ranchers 2000 years ago remained the same today.
The percentage of farmer/ranchers was higher 2000 years ago in order to support the growing population, thus protecting the species. So, resource availability, although it did have some impact on population, was not as much of a bottleneck as you claim. What it did bottleneck was progress. More people were required to farm/ranch, leaving fewer to investigate enhancements to our progress. You can see why, in the 20th century, that we progressed much more rapidly than we had in previous centuries. Exponential growth in technology. The more effncient we became with our farms/ranches, the fewer people needed to do such things. That left more people to investigate science and technology. The more we investigated science and technology, the more effecient we became. The more effecient meant less people required for farming/ranching. The fewer people needed for necessities, meant even more people to investigate other avenues. So, you see how that works.
Prophet,
you can't have it both ways by having your cake and eating it too.
if you're going to take the bibles written records of people (somehow?) living past the 900 age, then you must also equally take its words as it recalls population figures of around 600,000 men in two different books (Exodus and Numbers).
How else do you makes sense of these popluation numbers?
“Yes, today the ability to produce more crops and livestock has improved, but that's because fewer people are doing it.’
No, today the yields per acre are much greater, thus the productivity is much higher now, this is why only 2% of the USA are farmers and support the rest of us. If it required more people to farm to grow food, we’d certainly be doing it, but we don’t b/c farming productivity has dramatically increase since the industrial revolution.
“Just think if the percentage of farmers and ranchers was the same proportion today as it was 2000 years ago. wow.”
Fewer people ARE REQUIRED NOW TO FARM B/C THE PRODUCTIVTY LEVEL HAS SKYROCKETED compared with prior to the industrial revolution, this is why so few do it today. Prior to this is was required more people were farmers as they had no other choice as without food you die.
www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe40s/money_01.html
"An average life span of 50 is generous back then, most historians put it closer to 40, if that."
Shem lived 600 years.
His son lived 904 years. (so he would be considered almost one of those who lived to that thousand year mark)
His son lived 433 years.
His son lived 464 years
His son lived 239 years.
and so on and so on.
And those are just a few. Granted there are some that didn't live as long, but for you to ASSUME you know the life expectancy is absurd. There is no records on the average lifespan of people during that time, it is merely speculation.
“You really know nothing about the Bible. And so, no amount of arguing is going to change that, because you do not want to know anything about the Bible’
Oh ya, then explain why both Exodus and numbers give population numbers for all jewish men that was around 600,000 only 1000 years post flood, why Stars calculations show it should be around 750 people.
it's not hard to understand how resources could sustain a population of 5 million. Since most of the people raised their own crops and livestock (since there wasn't much else in the realm of jobs, since automobile manufacturing hasn't been invented yet.). Yes, today the ability to produce more crops and livestock has improved, but that's because fewer people are doing it. So, it has to, in order to sustain the population. Just think if the percentage of farmers and ranchers was the same proportion today as it was 2000 years ago. wow.
Prophet,
“did factor in. 1/10th of 29 million is still 3 million. Is that a big enough allowance for you?”
No, that’s not how population numbers work. First you have to set an average lifespan (say 50 years) which is dependant upon the technology of the era, which back then was zilch. An average life span of 50 is generous back then, most historians put it closer to 40, if that.
The reason why you calculate this is so you can adjust for all those that DIE after they reproduce, as obviously no one lives forever!! (DUH). So every 50 years, all those born 50 years ago are dead and get removed from the overall population, factor something like this into your calculations and then you’ll be on the right track.
Spitting out raw birth numbers and not accounting for all those that die is not how you calculate poplations.
You really know nothing about the Bible. And so, no amount of arguing is going to change that, because you do not want to know anything about the Bible.
Noah? Really? You really don't know the Bible do you?
Shem lived 600 years.
His son lived 904 years. (so he would be considered almost one of those who lived to that thousand year mark)
His son lived 433 years.
His son lived 464 years
His son lived 239 years.
and so on and so one.
Prophet,
“And I do understand carrying capacities. I think if the world could support 6 billion people today, it could support 3 million, 6 million, or even 29 million back then. So that point is rather....pointless.”
The world can only support 6 billion right now b/c of the huge increase in crop yields per acre we have in comparison to years past.
Dude, you’re just making these numbers up. Look at Numbers when it lists the 12 tribes of Israel and lists all the men of warring age (assuming 18-20 and over) that is only some 600,000 then, which is right around the same figure for Exodus.
Your own holy book and its records show you’re wrong. The earth and universe aren’t 6000 years young, deal with it.
So, why is Exodus and Numbers both list the numbers of Jewish men around 600,000 around some 1000 years post flood, and yet you ignore this. Hilarious.
I did factor in. 1/10th of 29 million is still 3 million. Is that a big enough allowance for you? Or does it still destroy your theory? But did you factor in the number of people still living from previous generations? Factoring in both the death rate and such, and people left over from previous generations, I think that 3 million is a very conservative number. Geez, 5 million is still a conservative number.
'Also realize that people in the old testament lived HUNDREDS of years, not the 75 that we do now, so the left over from previous generations would be bigger. "
Hey moron, read the bible, noah was among the last to live 900 years and such, all the others following him liver much shorter lives. (DUH)
And I do understand carrying capacities. I think if the world could support 6 billion people today, it could support 3 million, 6 million, or even 29 million back then. So that point is rather....pointless.
Prophet,
Hey prophet, learn how to calculate net population, you have to FACTOR IN DEATHS PER GENERATION that affects the overall population! And not all couples are fertile either.
Also realize that people in the old testament lived HUNDREDS of years, not the 75 that we do now, so the left over from previous generations would be bigger.
I am just using the growth birth rate that is given in the Bible. Large families were the norm. Especially in the Old Testament. As I said, even take 1/5th that percentage, which would be 5,872,025. 1/10th of that 29 million is still almost 3 milliion. I don't think that is, in any way, unreasonable...taking into consideration early deaths, war, etc, etc.
Lets look at this then.
Noah had three sons and three daughter-in-laws equaling 6 people. We’ve determined that the number of sons that each of Noah’s sons had. And we will estimate the number of daughters being at approximately 75% of the number of sons, just to keep it reasonable. We will consider the average “child output” at eight (both sons and daughters) That is the average between the number that Japeth had and Ham had. And we will determine that a generation is 100 years.
Shem, Ham, and Japeth had approximately 28 children total. Leaving 14 couples. So, that means if they each averaged 8 children, by the first hundred years there would be 216 people. (for argument’s sake, each of Noah’s sons had their children within 15 years of the flood, and shortening up the first generation by those 15 years).
So, it goes like this (remember, these numbers only reflect the number of people born, but not the number still alive from previous generations):
+15 years: 27
100 years:112
200 years: (112 divided by 2) 56 couples=448 children
300 years: 224 couples=1792
400 years: 896 couples=7,186
500 years: 3,584 couples=28,672
600 years: 14,336 couples=114,688
700 years: 57,344 couples=458,752
800 years: 229,376 couples=1,835,008
900 years: 917,504 couples=7,340,032
100 years 3,670,016 couples=29,360,128 million people
Even if it was 1/5th that number, it is easy to see how the earth could repopulate. And the 29 million is merely the number of children born that 1000th year, not including those who were still alive frome previous generations.
Prophet,
Ok, so you don’t understand carrying capacity and you don’t understand that populations involve organisms dying too.
You have to factor in deaths for each generation, as people die which affects the population level. (DUH).
You're also using some crazy reproduction rates where each mother is having like 8 surviving kids (very rare) and this rate of reproduction is NO WHERE NEAR a .05% or .5% annual growth rate star used in her calculations.
I said using HER calculations, show how 8 people, growing at a .05% annual growth rate reproduce to have 2 million Jews in a 1000 years, not making up your own
Agent,
Haven't read all the posts, yet; however, I think the growth rate assumption may be incorrect. Consider the longevity of the flood (really happened, just look at the evidence) and take that into account. The child-bearing years were much longer just after the flood so the growth rate may have been much higher.
Prophet,
“So, 100 years after the flood, there were approximately 93 people on earth”
“100 years: 216”
Well, which is it, 93 people or 216 in a 100 years, that’s quite a difference.
Prophet, a quick summary or how net population is calculated. You have to factor in DEATHS too over these time periods. You were just listing pure births and setting that as a population, but keep in mind people die and so this affects the overall population. And keep in mind back then barely anyone lived beyond 50.
Net population growth = births – deaths. And not just pure birth numbers that you rattled off.
(I flagged myself)
Prophet,
“Where did you get the statistics that there were only 750 people on earth 1000 years after the flood?”
Go back a few pages and look at Stars figures she uses to estimate how 8 people reproduced to 6.8 billion in 4000 years. She used an annual growth rate of .05% (I think) and so at this very low rate of growth, populations double about every 136 years or so
And b/c of this when you start with 8 people it takes a long time (1000 years) to even make it to 750 people which conflict directly with you very own holy book.. So like I said, either her calculations are wrong, like I’ve said all along in how populations don’t grow exponentially, or the bible is wrong on this account, or they’re both wrong.
Show me where your bible says god went on a creation spree post flood.
orange,
Where did you get the statistics that there were only 750 people on earth 1000 years after the flood?
Prophet,
“orange,
And those numbers do not take into consideration that God possibly created new people after the flood. As I said before, Adam and Eve were the first two people He created, but they were not the only. So, He could have done it so after the flood as well.”
My calculations were done using Stars own figures. Star and I aren’t talking about adam and eve (DUH) we are talking about Noah and the other 7 that (somehow) survived after the big no-way flood. The population post flood starts at 8 just like the bible says and this is how Star calculated her numbers.
I showed that only a 1000 years post flood there were only 750 people and so this conflicts with the BIBLE in Exodus where it claims 600,000 male jews left Egypt. And the jews obviously weren’t the only people on earth at that period so obviously she’s wrong, the bible is wrong or both are in this account.
Oh, so another miracle to explain away confounding facts again huh? What a surprise!! god just sporatically crearing people now, you're hilarious. WHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT EVER SAY GOD CREATED MORE PEOPLE POST FLOOD? NEVER!!!
If you’re going to take the bible literally then you take it AS IS and you don’t make up claims and rationalize stuff to make sense of conflicting facts. The earth isn't 6000 years young, deal with it.
And you'll also note that Japeth (one of Noah's sons) had 7 sons. His son, Gomer, had 3 sons. And Japeth's other son, Javan, had 4 sons. Now, take note that these exclude the number of daughters each had. So the number of children each had could possibly be doubled.
Noah's other son, Ham, had 4 sons. Ham's son, Cush, had 5 sons. Again, that's not taking the number of daughter's each had. And that continued down the line of each son of Noah.
So, it seems to me that the population growth at that time was way above what it is today, which is somewhere about 2. So, it seems that the population could have grown faster then, than you expect it did.
orange,
And those numbers do not take into consideration that God possibly created new people after the flood. As I said before, Adam and Eve were the first two people He created, but they were not the only. So, He could have done it so after the flood as well.
merkin,
You said "star2: Ten comments in a row is a bit much, don't you think? Get over your population growth nonsense. Anybody can use statistics to tell lies. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book."
Anybody can use statistics to tell lies....except those who promote evolution, or any other agenda the YOU believe in. Right?
Star,
All you talked about was Christ this, Christ that and totally ignored the numbers. FOCUS now, focus on my post and the numbers I got using your own figures and how they conflict with the 2 million leaving Egypt in exodus.
I used your very own figures to arrive at the following populations from your no-way flood, till today. Obviously your figures are wrong b/c none of these populations comfirm with other records or even the bible.
Here's a regular site where one can find examples to calculate the annual population growth rate between the starting and ending period that is measured and it gives examples for calculating compounding increases over time periods.
www.uoregon.edu/~rgp/PPPM613/class8a.htm
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB620.html
There are other problems starting at only 6-8 people, as it’s impossible to explain how the pyramids of Egypt, Egyptian dynasties were built. Same thing with Stonehenge it’s nearly as old. We have records of many cultures that existed prior to and after the ‘flood’.
Greek - Minoan Civilization 2000 BC to 1400 BC
Dorian Period 1400-1100 BC
Chinese- Xia Dynasty 2000 BC to 1500 BC
Shang Dynasty 1500 BC to 1027 BC
Egypt- 1st thru 12th Dynasties 2920 BC to 1759 BC
13th thru 20 th Dynasty 1759 BC to 1069 BC
Japanese - Jomon Period 13,000 BC to 300 BC
www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/argresp/populate.html
**NOTICE** Using Stars own figures, this is what I got, notice the time period around 1000 years with 750 people, according to her own bible 600,000 jewish men left Egypt in Exodus. I've arranged it in this format (date = population)
Years Since flood = Predicted Population
Flood Ends
0 = 8
500 = 77
1000 = 750
1500 = 7,268
2000 = 70,398
2500 = 681,835
3000 = 6,603,855
3500 = 63,961,024
4000 = 619,488,619
4500 (today)= 6,000,000,000
star2: Ten comments in a row is a bit much, don't you think? Get over your population growth nonsense. Anybody can use statistics to tell lies. It's one of the oldest tricks in the book.
agentorange
When I flagged my entry below I flagged what I wanted to say. So, here it is again.
Since you do not accept the Biblical account of the history of man, then why don't you calculate what the world population would be today assuming evolution is true.
Your perdiction for what it would be if the Biblical account was true proved to be reasonably accurate. It was more accurate than what I determined. The current figure is approximately 6.8 billion. You came up with 6 billion and I came up with 14.8 billion.
agentorange
Re:There are other problems starting at only 6-8 people,
The Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, has redeemed me from sin and has changed my life.
I have served Him as a missionary for about 20 yrs of my life. I have found Him to be who He says He is. If He is true to His Word in all the areas I know Him to be in then I can have confidence that He is true to His Word in everything He says.
I do accept by faith His Word. If His Word says there was a flood 1656 yrs after the fall of Adam then I accept that.
Call me a fool if you want but it is not me who is the fool, it is the nay sayers.
Biblical Archaeologist, Ron Wyatt (now deceased), has found Noah's Ark as well as many other Biblical artifacts and geographical areas of interest mentioned in the Word of God. Truth is truth. You can deny it all you want but it will not change what truth is.
Ron Wyatt's Official Web Page: www.wyattmuseum.com
Re: as it’s impossible to explain how the pyramids of Egypt,
You don't think the Egyptians were ingenious people?
Good Night agentorange.
agentorange
good night
agentorange
agentorange
Re:4500 (today) = 6,000,000,000
The world population today is approxiamtely 6.8 billion people which is real close to the 6 billion you calculated.
So, it is possible to repopulate the earth with only 8, really 6, people from the time of the flood.
That was something you said was impossible.
agentorange and ifeelfine72
Part 1
Re:“You said that it was impossible to repopulated the earth with 8 people in 4000 years. I showed you that that was not true.”
By your own admission you said 6 people, not 8. But that's nitpicking.
I chose 6 because that is the number of people who were used to repopulate the earth. Here is what I said exactly:
Even though there were 8 people saved during the world wide flood only 6 were used in repopulating the Earth. The Biblical record does not mention that Noah and his wife had any children after the flood. Thus, we can conclude that the Earth was repopulated by Noah's three sons and their respective wives.
Agentorange and ifeelfine72
Part 2
Re:How many years was the Exodus after the flood according to the bible? 1012 years is what I got.
Genesis 46:26-27
26 "All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were threescore and six:
27 "And the sons of Joseph, which were born unto him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten."
threescore and ten = 70
Number of years the Hebrew Nation was in Egypt, according to Exodus 12:40-41 was 430 years.
Exodus 12:40-41
40 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.
41 And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the self same day it came to pass, that all the host of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt.
agentorange and ifeelfine72
part 3
You are correct that there were 600,000 Hebrew men that came out of Egypt. We have no way of knowing how many of those men were married and how many children each family had. All we can do is guess. You mentioned 2 million assuming each man was married and each family had 1.5 (average) children. Acutally, by your suggestion there would have been 2.1 million Hebrews that left Egypt with Moses.
Because of the rebellion of the Israelites in the wilderness, God required that the Hebrew Nation to live in the wilderness for 40 years before He would allow them to go into the promise land. According to scripture, all the men that came out of Egypt died in the wilderness because they did not obey God. I think a man is considered to be 20 years old and upward but right now I don't really know. Let's assume that is true. Then the 600,00 men that came out of Egypt died in the wilderness.
Joshua 5:6
"For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the people that were men of war, which came out of Egypt, were consumed, because they they not the voice of the Lord: unto whom the the Lord sware that he would not shew them the land, which the Lord swear unto their fathers that he would given them, a land flowing with milk and honey."
agentorange and ifeelfine72
Part 4
Now, the Israelites had children while they were in the wilderness. How many, we don't know. However, we do know how many men of war (20 yrs and upward) existed in the Hebrew Nation because the number of them are given in the Bible. Most likely, some of these men came out of Egypt as children and others were born in the wilderness before during the first half of 40 yrs in the wilderness.
The number of men of war per tribe before they went into the promise land were as follows (see Number 1: 20-43)
Rueben: 46,500
Simeon: 59,300
Gad: 45,650
Judah: 74,600
Issachar: 54,400
Zebulon: 57,400
Ephraim: 40,500
Manasseh: 32,200
Benjamin:35,400
Dan: 62,700
Asher: 41,500
Naphtali: 53,400
Total number of men of war: 603,550
If the 600,00 men that came out of Egypt were at least 20 yrs and older, then they had a net gain of approximately 3,550 men of war since all the original men of war (600,000) that came out of Egypt died in the wilderness. I really don't know but it doesn't look like the net gain of the Hebrew Nation overall was very much.
agentorange and ifeelfine72
part 5
The Hebrew Nation was not the only nation in the world at that time. You have the Egyptians, all the different tribes in the land of Cannan and all the other surrounding geographical areas. We do not know what kind of population they each had. But all the nations of the earth would make up that world's population at that time.
Remember, that when the Israelites went into the promise land they wiped out entire nations. For that period of time the total world population went down.
Growth rate for the world population is going to change over time. It may go up for a period of time, then go down, and then it may plateau. We don't know. The conditions that determine what the world's population is going to be at a given time may drastically vary and then it may not.You just don't know.
That is why we want to calculate the average annual growth rate for the entire interval of time. Sometimes the rate will be close to what it actually is if we had accurate statistics to compute it and sometimes it won't. When you deal with statistics you are not always going to get an acturate perdiction but you can get one that is close or at least in the ball park and then at times you won't. It is the name of the game. So, looking at particular time intervals within the total time period may not yield you the results you want.
The average annual growth rate for the world's population that I gave was a guess for what it might be for the time interval between 1656 to 6000. It was not intend to be used to calculate the growth rate for the Hebrew Nation alone.
Ifeelfine,
Here's a regular site where one can find examples to calculate the annual population growth rate between the starting and ending period that is measured and it gives examples for calculating compounding increases over time periods.
www.uoregon.edu/~rgp/PPPM613/class8a.htm
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB620.html
There are other problems starting at only 6-8 people, as it’s impossible to explain how the pyramids of Egypt, Egyptian dynasties were built. Same thing with Stonehenge it’s nearly as old. We have records of many cultures that existed prior to and after the ‘flood’.
Greek - Minoan Civilization 2000 BC to 1400 BC
Dorian Period 1400-1100 BC
Chinese- Xia Dynasty 2000 BC to 1500 BC
Shang Dynasty 1500 BC to 1027 BC
Egypt- 1st thru 12th Dynasties 2920 BC to 1759 BC
13th thru 20 th Dynasty 1759 BC to 1069 BC
Japanese - Jomon Period 13,000 BC to 300 BC
www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/argresp/populate.html
Using Stars own figures, this is what I got, notice the time period around 1000 years with 750 people, according to her own bible 600,000 jewish men left Eygpt in Exodus. I've arranged it in this formate (date = population)
Years Since flood = Predicted Population
Flood Ends
0 = 8
500 = 77
1000 = 750
1500 = 7,268
2000 = 70,398
2500 = 681,835
3000 = 6,603,855
3500 = 63,961,024
4000 = 619,488,619
4500 (today)= 6,000,000,000
(I flagged myself)
Ifeelfine,
"So, what should the number be according to Star's math? And what was it actually?"
Well, I’ll let her hang herself with this one. Here are the numbers though, it’s 1012 years from the flood till Exodus according to the bible and according to the bible some 2 million jews (600K men, their wives and 1.5 kids, and that’s conservative) make up the nation of Israel.
So, she’s saying in 1012 years, 6 people reproduced (at her assumed average rate of .05%) not only to cover the 2million+ Jews, but many, many other millions (perhaps 100’s of millions as censuse.gov indicates) globally, as her calculations are for the globe and not Israel.
So I’d like to see her figures for how 6 people reproduce into not just 2 million, but many, many millions in only 1012 years, a nice per genertation or per 100 years would suffice. This should be interesting. =)
AgentOrange said:
"Sorry, but 2 million Jews (it’s in your own bible Exo12:37, and it’s not counting the rest of the world which certainly would have been waaaay more people at this point in time) is more people than should have been around during the exodus according to your OWN calculations.
So either your calculations are wrong, or the biblical account of 2 million Jews is wrong, or both.
How many years was the Exodus after the flood according to the bible? 1012 years is what I got. What’s the world population at this time period according to YOUR figures Star? Is it enough to cover the 2 million jews and the rest of the world which would have been much much larger? I didn’t think so."
So, what should the number be according to Star's math? And what was it actually?
star,
“The record indicates otherwise. Here is what you wrote:
3. Five andesite lava flows from Mt. Ngauuhoe in New Zealand. They were Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dated from <0.27 to 3.5 million years. The only problem was that one was laid down 1949, three were laid down 1954 and one in 1975”
Fine, I loosely commented on the K-Ar dating, however it doesn’t negate that the K-Ar method can only be used to accurately date old material, and this is b/c of its slow decay rate.
Like I said, certain methods are used to measure only certain spans of time accurately. If it’s used to date anything recent it will indicate a much older age as it can’t be used to date more recent faster decaying material as it ( K-Ar) is used to measure only slowly decaying isotopes and fastly decaying isotopes.
Star,
“You say that they can only be used for older samples but not for young ones. Then why do you want to use Ka-Ar method to correct for the unreliable age that C14 determined for a young sample.”
No, I am stating that certain materials decay at different rates as they are made up of different radio isotopes, which is what is measured. If one tries to date something really recent (your lava flows) with a method (potassium argon) that is used to date ONLY much older material which decays at a much slower rate, obviously it’s going to show skewed data. This is why we have many different typed of dating methods so we can't date different decay rates and thus different time spans.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=loPHYsLHb5Q
“You said that it was impossible to repopulated the earth with 8 people in 4000 years. I showed you that that was not true.”
By your own admission you said 6 people, not 8. But that's nitpicking.
“My calculations were for the whole world not just one nation. Some nations may not have been as bless in their growth as the Jewish nation was.”
Sorry, but 2 million Jews (it’s in your own bible Exo12:37, and it’s not counting the rest of the world which certainly would have been waaaay more people at this point in time) is more people than should have been around during the exodus according to your OWN calculations.
So either your calculations are wrong, or the biblical account of 2 million Jews is wrong, or both.
How many years was the Exodus after the flood according to the bible? 1012 years is what I got. What’s the world population at this time period according to YOUR figures Star? Is it enough to cover the 2 million jews and the rest of the world which would have been much much larger? I didn’t think so.
agentorange
I need to go now. I have to go to Wal-Mart and Kroger and buy some stuff and then pick up dinner from Popeye Fried Chicken.
God bless you too Prophet.
agentorange
Re:star,
“Then you reject the Potaassium-Argon method of determining the five andivite lava flows that were known to the be relatively young only to the researcher and not the Cambridge Mass lab that determined their ages to be < 0.2 to 3.5 million years old.”
No I never rejected it, I never even commented specifically on it. Geologists use this method to date volcanic rocks that may be as much as 4 billion to 5 billion years old b/c it’s a SLOWLY decaying isotope and for this reason IT CAN’T BE USED TO DATE RECENT EVENTS/MATERIAL ACCURATELY. Like I said, not all isotopes decay as the same rates.
Re:No I never rejected it, I never even commented specifically on it.
The record indicates otherwise. Here is what you wrote:
3. Five andesite lava flows from Mt. Ngauuhoe in New Zealand. They were Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dated from <0.27 to 3.5 million years. The only problem was that one was laid down 1949, three were laid down 1954 and one in 1975”
Well, this one’s easy. Star, not all elements decay at the same rates, and thus not all dating methods can measure/ age the same material for this reason. For instance, Carbon dating is accurate up to 200-55,000 years, while other dating methods like Potasium Argon( Ka-Ar) are used to measure much older material as their decay rates are much, much slower and thus it can’t be used to date relevantly recent items. Notice on the link I provide that for this reason Potasium Argon is only used to date material older than 100,000 years."
Well, Star, I've got to get some dinner. I've really enjoyed reading all your stuff. If you want, check our my website www.isaiahscry.blogspot.com. And if you want to email, just leave me a post, and I'll get you my email. There's a couple other guys on here that I email too.
Anyway, God bless you. I hope to hear from you soon.
star,
“Then you reject the Potaassium-Argon method of determining the five andivite lava flows that were known to the be relatively young only to the researcher and not the Cambridge Mass lab that determined their ages to be < 0.2 to 3.5 million years old.”
No I never rejected it, I never even commented specifically on it. Geologists use this method to date volcanic rocks that may be as much as 4 billion to 5 billion years old b/c it’s a SLOWLY decaying isotope and for this reason IT CAN’T BE USED TO DATE RECENT EVENTS/MATERIAL ACCURATELY. Like I said, not all isotopes decay as the same rates.
On a side not, when you date lava flows invariably pieces of rocks come up with the lava, known as xenoliths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenolith
These rocks are obviously not molten, nor are they lava and thus are going to have a different date than their surrounding lava flows. If you date different stuff (lava and then a xenoliths that is dragged up with the lava flow) obviously they are going to have different dates.
And the number of wounded ranged from a little over 6,000 up to 25,000. So I'm supposed to trust the census prior to that? When I looked at the number of deaths in wars following the Revolutionary War, each site was almost identical to each other in statistics.
I have a feeling that census taking in pre 19th century was not very reliable.
I see your point, star.
I did a search on American deaths in the Revolutionary war. The numbers ranged from 4,000 to 8,000. That's a huge difference.
agentorange
Re:Didn’t you notice that both of those sites refer to periods prior to 1750?
The population numbers before 1750 were determined mathematically. There were no records for it any more than there are records for the future populations they predicted.
Re:Star, using your own population figures and I’ve ran the calculations myself, just one problem, the verses in Exodus mentioning the migration of 600,000 Jewish men (approximately 2 million Jews as one must account for their wives and at least 1.5 children) couldn’t have occurred as according to your own calculations there simply wasn’t enough people around back then.
My calculations were for the whole world not just one nation. Some nations may not have been as bless in their growth as the Jewish nation was. The r in the population growth formula P(t) = Po e^rt is the AVERAGE ANNUAL POPULATION GROWTH. Again, it was for the whole world not just for one nation. Also, I made a guess at what the value of r would be over 4344 yrs. I adjusted for the different factors that could influence the world population growth rate. I was much kinder to the evolution model of how man came on the scene. I cut their average annual population growth down to 0.05%. I used 0.498 for the Biblical account. The population that we should see now if evolution is true is way out of bounds to what it actually is. The world population is 10^9, which is what the biblical account gives, and yet the evolution account says it should be 10^41.
You said that it was impossible to repopulated the earth with 8 people in 4000 years. I showed you that that was not true.
When are you going to accept the fact your are WRONG?!
Evolution is a lie!
Evolution is just plain WRONG!
Prophet,
“Now, why would someone trade their crop if there was not enough for themselves to begin with?”
They trade so they can make up for the deficiency they have in other goods. I have a surplus of corn and have no milk, while you have a surplus of milk and no corn and we trade in a compromise of goods. However, in this trade there is no overall net increase of quantity of goods, it’s merely a trade. There is no ‘net gain’ in this trade, it’s simply a trade of goods and not an overall increase of goods and so it’s not an example of a true surplus which covers the entire population of a town. In your example certain people might have surpluses of a particular food type, but overall amongst the population when this food is distributed there is no surplus.
“So man has control over availability of resources.”
Oh yah, tell that to the farmer who’s on govt. subsidies b/c of his decreasing crops yields. We can manage the yields, but we don’t have absolute control of their output and this mostly due to the ebb flow of weather conditions. The amount of crop yield per annul fluctuates as a result, it’s hardly a guarantee that each year will be a favorable one. And since you think ample food was the norm or the case back then explain all those instances of famines. After all, famines shouldn’t be occurring at all if food was in abundance right?
Regardless, review the poplation figues done by our very own govt. for periods prior to 1750 and waaaaaay before and it's quite certain star's numbers aren't correct.
orange,
You said, "Prophet, the only reason she hides or ignored data from dates prior to 1750 is so she can work out that nifty assumed exponential growth."
Why you talking to me about that? That point is between you and her. Or are you trying to bring division between us?
But if you read the Bible, you'll be sure to see that Adam and Eve were the first people that God created, but they weren't the only.
agentorange
Re:It’s not so much that C-14 is inheritantly unreliable, but that collectively with numerous other dating methods it’s easier to accurately date a given span of time.
One of the other methods you use to correct for the unreliable perdictions of C14 is
Re::Types of radiometric dating... potassium-argon (K-Ar), ...
but then you say this about Potassium-Argon methods
Re: Potasium Argon( Ka-Ar) are used to measure much older material as their decay rates are much, much slower and thus it can’t be used to date relevantly recent items.
Then you reject the Potaassium-Argon method of determining the five andivite lava flows that were known to the be relatively young only to the researcher and not the Cambridge Mass lab that determined their ages to be < 0.2 to 3.5 million years old.
You say that they can only be used for older samples but not for young ones. Then why do you want to use Ka-Ar method to correct for the unreliable age that C14 determined for a young sample.
Can't you see your inconsistency?
Get your head out of the sand. Evolution is bankrupt and there is no proof that it is a valid theory to describe how things came into being.
Star,
“Data Sources:
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/human_pop.html en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population”
“Man has been keeping records of the world population since 1750.”
Didn’t you notice that both of those sites refer to periods prior to 1750? You say we’ve only had records since 1750, but that’s wrong, take a look.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates
www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html
It refers to numerous sources (census.gov, UN Medium, PRB, about.com, Kremer, Ponting) for approximated populations prior to 1750. Prophet, the only reason she hides or ignored data from dates prior to 1750 is so she can work out that nifty assumed exponential growth. Her tact here is the same as the C-14 citing she listed which conveniently ignore the reservoir affect. Basically lying.
Star, using your own population figures and I’ve ran the calculations myself, just one problem, the verses in Exodus mentioning the migration of 600,000 Jewish men (approximately 2 million Jews as one must account for their wives and at least 1.5 children) couldn’t have occurred as according to your own calculations there simply wasn’t enough people around back then.
Continued...
But lets throw another statistic in there. Lets say that during that 100 years the effeciency of farming and ranching improved. So now each farmer and herder could produce 1000 units instead of only 750. So, now you have a surplus of resources which could lead to a number of options:
A: Fewer people are required to farm/herd, so that leaves some to be able to pursue other skills. Banking, running a market, or even some sort of research and developement that would further increase farming/herding output. (which is apparent in the industrial revolution)
B: The percentages of people doing each skill remains the same, but now you are able to temporarily store the products, or take them to other towns or territories to trade for other goods/services. And, as technology improves, so does the ability to store food longer and safer.
C: Percentages remain the same, no storage or trading takes place, but because of the excess, the people feel more comfortable having more offspring, knowing they have better chance of survival.
Regardless, population growth is determined by available resources, which increases as the population increases, aside from a few hiccups in history (famines and such) that would have little affect on population over 100's of thousands of years. So, the more the population increases, so does the resources. The only hinderance is available space to live and grow crops and livestock.
orange,
Now, why would someone trade their crop if there was not enough for themselves to begin with?
Oh,yeah! Because they could grow more than they needed for themselves. That's right. Which goes right along with what I said before.
In territory "A" there are 1000 men, 1000 women, and 1000 children. Each required 100 units of crops a year, and 100 units of meat to survive. Thus 300,000 U's of both crop and meat were required. 40% of the men were farmers (400), and 40% were herders (400), and 20% were other trades (200).
So, each farmer and herder would have to produce at least 750 units of their particular item in order for the population to survive.
Fast forward 100 years. The population increases to 1100 men, 1100 women, and 1100 children. The percentages of who does what will generally remain the same in order to procure the survival of the species. So now you need 330,000 of each commodity. But since the percentage of who does what remains somewhat unchanged, the resources are automatically increased as the population grows. So man has control over availability of resources.
Prophet
The Population Growth Formula, P(t) = Po e^rt can be found in some Calculus books.
Star,
“You are inconsistent.”
No, I am not. I stated certain materials decay at different rates as they have different types of isotopes and only certain isotopes can be accurately measured using certain methods thus why we have differnt methods and everyone who knows radio isotopes knows they don’t all decay at the same rate.
“Why don't you give up and admit that radioactive dating methods are unreliable and cannot give you any trustworthy information about the age of the earth or anything found in the earth or on top of the earth”
Why don’t you give up, why don’t you prove they all wrong. Show me how NASA somehow gets its date for the Universe, earth, the solar system and cosmic objects wrong. good luck!
“I already gave you examples showing you that they are not.”
No, you gave me bogus dated records (1949) that didn’t include why they were wrong as they neglected to account for the reservoir effect.
“Give up buddy. Man cannot determine the age of anything with the known methods of the day. The age of the universe is found in the Word of God.”
Right, it’s faaarr nobler to take the words of some 3000 year old book (written by men mind you) who had no scientific understanding compared with today and take it above our own gained knowledge, that’s horrid logic.
You want people to think man is somehow incapable of knowing anything as it suites your flat earth (no offense) philosophy with the defacto assumption that your bible is accurate in any and all regard. The more we learn and discover the more scientifically wrong that book and all other religious books appear, and you can’t have that if one is to assume it’s ‘the one true infallible word of god’.
As soon as that premise is stripped away biblical literalism sounds as antiquated as the earth being the center of the universe. So, in sake of acknowledging any conflicting science, literalists find sanctuary in denying virtually all the realms of science, while at the same time readily taking advantage of such fruits of derived science and knowledge. If that is not being hypocritical, I don’t know what is.
I find it interesting how you have no problem doubting or rejecting all science that conflicts with a literal reading of your bible, but you find no qualms in using the fruits derived from such sciences. Try to rationalize and explain that to me, I'd love to hear it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPuKoEYCs2o
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Gzdv2dsPPKw
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uephBmkupvQ
Prophet
Re:star, Are you some sort of scientist, that you could find all those statistics? I mean, I know they're available on the net, but I wouldn't know where to begin looking. lol
I did a google search on 'world population growth'. The articles listed under Data Sources is where I got my data. Below is the data that I took from these articles.
Data Sources:
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/human_pop.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
According to my sources the current world population growth is 1.3%.
In 1963, it was 2.2%.
Man has been keeping records of the world population since 1750. Here is the data:
1750 : 791,000,000
1800: 978,000,000
1850: 1,262,000,000
1900: 1,650,000,000
1950: 2,521,000,000
1999: 5,978,000,000
2008: 6,800,000,000
All the rest of the information in my write up I computed myself from the above data.
Prophet,
“Since crop yields were as bad as you claim, then the bazaars and markets that existed thousands of years ago that sold produce and man-made items were just a fallacy?”
No, I’m not saying that at all. Trading of goods in a market did occur back then, however this is only in relation to what certain people grew. IE if I grew corn but didn’t have livestock but you did we would make a trade, like in a market for commodities so each of us get what we don’t have. In other words, we each have surplus of ‘X type’ of food and we trade OUR surplus for that which we don’t have.
In such instances you’re looking at a trade of goods and not a net gain overall or surplus overall to support a growing population, you’re just dealing with 2 people who have different quantities of commodities who alone have a surplus of 1 type of food (corn), but none of another (milk) and in such instances they trade foods.
Go talk to a farmer sometime and ask them how certain they are on how productive and what est. crop yields will be and it’s always a wide margin, and the principle reason for this is crop yields now, as in past, are highly dependant upon weather conditions. Obviously poor weather results in poor crop yields, and so not every year is a good one, generally it fluctuates quite a lot and in the past this hindered population growth.
“But to say that before that there was barely enough food to go around”
Well perhaps the Irish potato famine would be such an example how lacking the food supplies were prior to the industrial revolution. Only the very wealthy, nobles and royalties had ample food in the feudal systems. Only till relatively recently have food supplies been in abundance for all, and particularly only in developed nations. Here’s some info on past global famines that spanned many years if not decades. These famines have many reasons, but they were generally from the ebb and flow between supply and demand of food in relation to populations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_famines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine
“But man learned quickly (looooong before the IR) that instead of man being controlled by the natural availibility of resources, resources became controlled by man, learning how to increase
them as the populatin increased.”
Well, sure we understood HOW to grow, but the limited yields were limited due to the lacking technology prior to the IR. As soon as the IR kicked off the world population started to REALLY grow and no one contends this, and prior to that it grew very slowly and this is why using exponential growth as star used is wrong.
agentorange:
Re:C-14 is valid to 55,000 years
I already gave you examples showing you that they are not. Give up buddy. Man cannot determine the age of anything with the known methods of the day. The age of the universe is found in the Word of God.
agentorange
Re:Types of radiometric dating
argon-argon (Ar-Ar), fission track dating, helium (He-He), iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
lanthanum-barium (La-Ba), lead-lead (Pb-Pb), lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf), neon-neon (Ne-Ne)
optically stimulated luminescence dating, potassium-argon (K-Ar), radiocarbon dating, rhenium-osmium (Re-Os), rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr), samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd), uranium-lead (U-Pb), uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He), uranium-thorium (U-Th), uranium-uranium (U-U). There are other methods, and in some instances current dating methods can be used to extend their relatve dating ages. IE at the moment C-14 is valid to 55,000 years, but work is underway to stretch that to 75-80,000 years as instruments become more precise in measuring decay rates.
But you also said,
Re:Well, this one’s easy. Star, not all elements decay at the same rates, and thus not all dating methods can measure/ age the same material for this reason. For instance, Carbon dating is accurate up to 200-55,000 years, while other dating methods like Potasium Argon( Ka-Ar) are used to measure much older material as their decay rates are much, much slower and thus it can’t be used to date relevantly recent items. Notice on the link I provide that for this reason Potasium Argon is only used to date material older than 100,000 years."
You are inconsistent. Why don't you give up and admit that radioactive dating methods are unreliable and cannot give you any trustworthy information about the age of the earth or anything found in the earth or on top of the earth.
Star,
“So, what are these other 48 dating methods that are used to make up for the fact C14 dating is unreliable?”
It’s not so much that C-14 is inheritantly unreliable, but that collectively with numerous other dating methods it’s easier to accurately date a given span of time. Keep in mind these dating methods use a margin of error, generally around 5% +/-, so it's not an exact date, however such a margin of error is within scientific methods variance for accuracy. To be clear, I never said 4 dozen radio metric dating methods, but 4 dozen dating methods in general.
Types of radiometric dating
argon-argon (Ar-Ar), fission track dating, helium (He-He), iodine-xenon (I-Xe)
lanthanum-barium (La-Ba), lead-lead (Pb-Pb), lutetium-hafnium (Lu-Hf), neon-neon (Ne-Ne)
optically stimulated luminescence dating, potassium-argon (K-Ar), radiocarbon dating, rhenium-osmium (Re-Os), rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr), samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd), uranium-lead (U-Pb), uranium-lead-helium (U-Pb-He), uranium-thorium (U-Th), uranium-uranium (U-U). There are other methods, and in some instances current dating methods can be used to extend their relatve dating ages. IE at the moment C-14 is valid to 55,000 years, but work is underway to stretch that to 75-80,000 years as instruments become more precise in measuring decay rates.
There are other methods to date things outside of decaying matter, such as dendrochronology (tree rings), O2 and Carbon isotopes from mile long ice cores, oceananic layers, and many others used in dating objects in the Universe.
star,
Are you some sort of scientist, that you could find all those statistics? I mean, I know they're available on the net, but I wouldn't know where to begin looking. lol
star,
Thank you. And I apologize for refering to you as a male. I didn't know. But thanks for letting me know. And, just so's you know. I'm a male. But, you probably already figured that out. LOL
Prophet
Re:star,I hope you don't mind that I copied all of them to have for future reference. They were extremely eye-opening.
1) I am female.
2) I don't mind.
3) I had some typos, etc on the population growth posting on this board so I updated it. The updated version has been posted on "Fla School Board Set to Vote on New..."
agentorange
Re:You kind of gave up on the humam population one here and instead spammed it on another board, if you still wana go over it, let please cover it.
I have just as much right to place my postings on any board I want just like you have a right to post your Human Chromsome 2 Fusion and the 7 identical ERVs on any board you want. If we were both honest about why we do it, then we probably would discover that the reasons are quite similar, if not the same, at least for some of the reasons.
orange,
Since crop yields were as bad as you claim, then the bazaars and markets that existed thousands of years ago that sold produce and man-made items were just a fallacy? Sounds to me that they had enough (more than enough) "resources" to supply the growing population. Yes, I do agree that since the industrial revolution, the ability to grow crops effenciently got much better. But to say that before that there was barely enough food to go around (no, you didn't say that, but thats the implecation I get) to support the population. And true, population has exploded since the industrial revolution. But man learned quickly (looooong before the IR) that instead of man being controlled by the natural availibility of resources, resources became controlled by man, learning how to increase them as the populatin increased. Meaning that if man were still, today, reliant on naturally occuring food sources (as in we never learned the ability to farm or raise stock), the population of the earth would be a small fraction of what it is today.
So, again, in order for man to have been in existence for as long as evolutionists claim, and yet still have the population we have today, the growth rate would have to be at almost zero. Which, we know, it hasn't been.
agentorange
Re: the other 4 dozen dating methods we use outside of it.
So, what are these other 48 dating methods that are used to make up for the fact C14 dating is unreliable?
agentorange
9. Freshly-killed seals have been dated at 1,300 years.
Oh boy... Seals right star....hmmmm would those Seals be eating such shellfish (which have elevated levels of carbon in their bodies from the ‘Reservoir effect’) and thereby they too would have a higher level of carbon in their bodies as well? I even gave you the link for it thinking you'd read it....guess not.
Deal with the rest of the information provided in #9.
"Seals which have been dead for 30 years were dated (using the carbon-14 method) at 4,600 years. (W. Dort, "Mummified Seals of Southern Victoria Land," in Antarctic Journal of the U.S., June 1971, p. 210.)"
Re:I guess you want me to refute them all? Or will demonstrating a few suffucient?
Deal with them all.
Star,
"17. "The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY." (H.E. Anthony, "Natures Deep Freeze," Natural History, Sept. 1949, pg. 300)"
Star C-14 dating was only created around 1946, and 3 years later it wasn't as accurate as it is now. I can't believe you're citing something so dated. If you're going to cry about only C14 dating, then you're going to have to refute the other 4 dozen dating methods we use outside of it.
I would like to stay on one topic (human population growth or radio dating methods) and address them accordingly. You kind of gave up on the humam population one here and instead spammed it on another board, if you still wana go over it, let please cover it.
Star,
"9. Freshly-killed seals have been dated at 1,300 years"
Oh boy... Seals right star....hmmmm would those Seals be eating such shellfish (which have elevated levels of carbon in their bodies from the ‘Reservoir effect’) and thereby they too would have a higher level of carbon in their bodies as well? I even gave you the link for it thinking you'd read it....guess not.
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_4.html
Star, when we date thing we use a multitude of dating methods across given time spans to accurately measure its age. Even more important is that they are calibrated correctly while dating, if they aren’t calibrated to account for such things like the reservoir effect the age can be skewed.
I guess you want me to refute them all? Or will demonstrating a few suffucient?
agentorange:
Part 1
Re:Well, that’s the thing star, radiometric dating of live systems isn’t the best procedure b/c this type of reservoir effect can skew the age, however with proper calibration it can be accounted for. Generally only regular organic matter and not living systems are dated for this reason.
Then account for all these findings.
9. Freshly-killed seals have been dated at 1,300 years. Seals which have been dead for 30 years were dated (using the carbon-14 method) at 4,600 years. (W. Dort, "Mummified Seals of Southern Victoria Land," in Antarctic Journal of the U.S., June 1971, p. 210.)
10. Oxford Castle in England was built 725 years ago, and yet its mortar has been radiocarbon dated at 7,370 years old. (E.A. Von Fange, "Time Upside Down," quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly, November, 1974, p. 18.)
Part 2
13. Here is a quote which further demonstrates the accuracy problems of radiometric dating, and the carbon-14 method in particular:
"Hair from the Chekurovka mammoth that was found in the Lena River delta region of Russia has a radiocarbon age of 26,000 [years], while the radiocarbon age of peat only eighteen inches above the carcass is 5,610. At normal [present] growth rates, between 500-2,000 solar years would be required for the development of an eighteen inch peat layer.
"Muscle tissue from beneath the scalp of a mummified musk ox found in frozen muck at Fairbanks Creek, Alaska, has a radiocarbon age of 24,000, while the radiocarbon age of hair from a hind limb of the carcass is 17,200. A life span exceeding 7,000 years for a specimen of this species is doubtful.
"In a gravel deposit at the Union Pacific Mammoth Site near Rawlins, Wyoming, a mammoth skeleton was found together with artifacts that indicate the animal was killed by man. Radiocarbon dating of ivory from the center of the tusks establishes the kill date at approximately 11,300 radiocarbon years ago. Wood fragments from the gravel in which the remains were buried have a radiocarbon age of approximately 5,000 years. The bones would not have survived 6,000 solar years of exposure, nor could they be expected to remain in an articulate relationship during erosion and reburial by natural processes.
"A mastodon skeleton found at Ferguson Farm near Tupperville, Ontario, provided a radiocarbon age of 8,900 for the collagen fraction of bones and a radiocarbon age of 6,200 for high organic-content mud from within the skull cavities. It is unlikely that this skeleton could have survived exposure for 2,700 solar years before emplacement in peat." --Robert H. Brown, "Radiocarbon Age Measurements Re-examined," in Review and Herald, October 28, 1971, pp. 7-8.
16. "One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the 'wood immediately around the carcass' was 9-10,000." (T.L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. printing office, 1975) pg. 30)
17. "The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY." (H.E. Anthony, "Natures Deep Freeze," Natural History, Sept. 1949, pg. 300)
18. "The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 ±670 and 16,150 ±230 years respectively." (R.M. Thorson and R.D. Guthrie, "Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammoth Locality, Alaska," Quaternary Research, Vol. 37, No 2, March 1992, pg. 214-228)
19. "In the last two years an absolute date has been obtained for (the Ngandong beds, above the Trinil beds), and it has the very interesting value of 300,000 years plus or minus 300,000 years." (J.B. Birdsell, Human Evoluion, 1975, pg. 295)
star,
“Taken from http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/creation_truths/evo_radiodating2.html
15. "Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old." (Science, Vol. 224, 1984, pg. 58) This above article was published in the scientific journal "Science" and not some YEC journal”
I understand star, but if you’re going to use it, cited or not, it’s up to you to ensure it’s accurate.
The reason why this anomaly occurs, is from a principle known at ‘Reservoir effect’, simply meaning that the animals consuming food in a given area have a higher level of Carbon (particularly aged carbon) in their bodies and as a result give off higher C-14 dates. The instances below bear this out.
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html
www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_4.html
www.c14dating.com/corr.html
http://packrat.aml.arizona.edu/Info/index.html
www.york.ac.uk/depts/arch/Research/ArchSci/Bioarch/Ascoughetal2004.pdf
“If C14 dating is this inaccurate on a living system then how can you be so sure that the Ka-Ar testing method is accurate?’
Well, that’s the thing star, radiometric dating of live systems isn’t the best procedure b/c this type of reservoir effect can skew the age, however with proper calibration it can be accounted for. Generally only regular organic matter and not living systems are dated for this reason.
“How can you be so certain that the age of the earth is 4.54 billion years old?”
You need to consider WHENCE the bible was written star, you're talking about a period in which a wheel barrow would have been a huge step up in technology, so put it into perspective before assuming it has some defacto derived scientific accuracy.
Look at all the data, from all realms of science, astronomy, cosmology, geology and many others and it’s obvious it’s not 6000 years young, that much is certain. If you don’t like geology dating, refer to NASA for how they date our earth, the Solar System, other Galaxies and the Universe.
The speed of light is a constant (c) in a vacuum (like how space is a vacuum) and thus we can identify the ages of cosmic objects quite easily and accurately. Using this constant we can measure distances, speed, veolocity and time in the Universe. Even the closet galaxies next to us are many 100,000's of thousands of light years away.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8bRvt0InhYk
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRmJbP25m-Y
Like I said, if you’re a biblical literalist, it’s not just evolution you’d have to reject but virtually all realms of science. I am not here to make you reject your faith, rather for you to reconsider why so few share this YEC view at all and why they think it's even required in face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Prohet,
“so corn, tomatoes, green beans, wheat, oats, peas, etc, etc…did not exist until farming was implemented?”
No, pay attention here. Those crops certainly DID exist prior to the industrial age, that however isn’t what we’re talking about, we’re talking about IS ANNUAL YIELDS OF FOOD. I am talking about the per annual yields that are possible compared to prior to and after the industrial revolution, that is the argument here and this annul yield as resorces determines the carrying capacity of the population at this period in time. DUH.
As far as carrying capcity goes, the argument is QUANTITY per annual of food supply and not specifically a given food type (corn) and if it’s around at all. DUH. QUANITTY of food per annual = the amount of food (resources) that can support a given size of a population, prior to the industrial revolution annual yields were much lower per acre and as a result the population that could be supported was much lower ,thus term 'Carrying Capacity'. X = quantiy of reseources, which determines the carrying capacity in a given time period, if X goes up or down it dictates how many people can be supported, simple supply and demand.
Get it ? It doesn’t matter about the TYPE of crop, what matters is the VOLUME or the QUANTITY that is yielded per annual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Agricultural_Revolution
“As man progressed, he learned how to be more efficient and productive, thus growing enough crops for more than just his own family”
Right, but this HUGE increase in productivity DIDN’T occur till quite recently around the industrial revolution (which is *coincidently* =) right when the human population really started to grow) as new technology allowed for greater per annual yields per acre, aided in transportation of increasing yields, and re refrigeration reduced the amount of spoiled food per annual which in turn meant less is spoiling and would be used more efficiently.
Until then crops yields per annual were much, much lower as much of it spoiled, thus reducing the carrying capacity at a given point in time. Not only that, but not all land globally is arable (1/3 is desert and can’t be farmed, look at Africa) and so not all areas can equally grow food year round, if at all. As soon as the yields per acre increase, the higher quantity of food resulted in LARGER populations that could be supported.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_yield
I think a government and college sites would be more credible than her math, after all it's their job and they understand the dynamics variables and details involved with populations and know they don't grow in an exponetional fasion.
www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html
www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/human_pop.html
agentorange20
Re:
" Star
“3. Five andesite lava flows from Mt. Ngauuhoe in New Zealand. They were Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dated from <0.27 to 3.5 million years. The only problem was that one was laid down 1949, three were laid down 1954 and one in 1975”
Well, this one’s easy. Star, not all elements decay at the same rates, and thus not all dating methods can measure/ age the same material for this reason. For instance, Carbon dating is accurate up to 200-55,000 years, while other dating methods like Potasium Argon( Ka-Ar) are used to measure much older material as their decay rates are much, much slower and thus it can’t be used to date relevantly recent items. Notice on the link I provide that for this reason Potasium Argon is only used to date material older than 100,000 years."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_earth
Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years.
Taken from http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/creation_truths/evo_radiodating2.html
15. "Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old." (Science, Vol. 224, 1984, pg. 58)
Note: This above article was published in the scientific journal "Science" and not some YEC journal.
If C14 dating is this inaccurate on a living system then how can you be so sure that the Ka-Ar testing method is accurate?
How can you be so certain that the age of the earth is 4.54 billion years old?
star,
I don't think you've read all my posts. I am not a geologist. I was using that as an example of how ifeelfine was no more a Christian than I was a geologist. But I did reall ALL your posts on that topic and they were awesome! I hope you don't mind that I copied all of them to have for future reference. They were extremely eye-opening.
Prophet
Did you see my 7 part write up on Anomalies of Radiometric Dating? It is on page 7 right now. As a geologist, you should find it very interesting.
orange,
You said “Ummm, memo CROPS = FARMING, they’re one in the same. If you’re saying ‘naturally this 50,000 units of food’ just somehow magically exists, well then explain their origins.”
Ummmm, so corn, tomatoes, green beans, wheat, oats, peas, etc, etc…did not exist until farming was implemented? Uh, their origins are that they already existed. Otherwise we would not have the seeds to plant. Let me make so simple that even you should understand. Corn existed. Period. Or as us “creationists” would say, “Corn was created by God.” Either way, corn grew naturally, apart from any help from man. Duh. Man learned that corn was a food source. Duh. He realized that the corn that grew naturally was not enough to sustain a growing population. Duh. He discovered that if he were to take a seed of corn and plant it, it would grow into a cornstalk, producing another ear of corn to eat. Duh. He also discovered that the more seeds he planted, the more ears of corn were produced. Duh. He also discovered that that truth worked for every edible plant, whether fruit or vegetable. Duh.
So, knowing this man quickly learned the art of farming. Farming first started as a way to supply food for his own family. As man progressed, he learned how to be more efficient and productive, thus growing enough crops for more than just his own family. And, as population grew, so did man’s ability to be more productive in farming. And the same is true for livestock. Man learned how to hunt first, and then domesticate and breed animals solely for food.
Star’s statistics for population growth took into account for such events as drought and war. His numbers were not beyond common sense. Rather, they made lots of sense. In order for man to have been in existence as long as evolution claims, the growth rate would have to be almost zero to justify the current population.
Corrections on typos:
i meant " For 1700 years science could not make.."
i understand my previous comment is full of typos and mistakes. But i hope they will not dilute the substance of the message
Before the creation of Christianity, people were able to experiment and reason out things. Look at the Ancient Greeks; Archimedes and his Principles about hydraulics, Aristotles his laws about mechanics, Democritus and his theory about the existence of atoms, and many many more. Yet, religon took over and what we ended with were the Dark Ages. No one was allowed to challange the moronic principles of religon. When Jordiano Bruno claimed that the earth was round, the church burned him at the stake, when Gallelio Gallili published him book on Astronomy the church forced to recant. Worse of all, the church harbored the WORST sexist attitudes ever imaginable. Ranging from virtually enslaving women to burning them at the stake for a false claim, the church did everything in its power to keep women low. For 1700 years, science could make any advances due to the restraint placed upon it by religon. thankfully, its grip has now loosned and we have made enormous scientific advance in the past two centuries. Yet, advocates of religon who only desire to empower the upper class never give up. They wish they could turn back time to the middle ages where feudalism was the law of the land. They tell us hell will be waiting for us on the other end, while the real hell is here on earth. they try to fool us with delusional beliefs about a mythical place called heaven. have you ever looked at the bible? it is rampant with inconsistencies and contradictions. What is my message? simple. Let's get real. science has done a million times more for us in the past 100 years than relgion ever did since its very creation. we have to declare our independence from the mental impediments set upon us by religon.
What is it with the American church,that it feels that it doesn't want or need to experience difficulties?The shortest verse in the bible is Jesus wept,not" except America".Christians here need to realize that if they are truly a part of the body of Christ they must and will share the same burdons as christians all over the world do.Jesus said that the world would hate us just as it hated Him first.Thats it,end of discussion.If you equate movies that offend you with picking up your cross and following Jesus you need to spend some more time on your knees.
Over 250 million christians face true persecution on a daily basis.They are tortured and killed for not renouncing Christ,yet here in America we get in a tizzy over Ten Commandment displays,and offensive movies.The truth is if we were doing more for the Kingdom we would be facing more from the enemy.
tgender,
"I’m not ashamed as I demonstrated the quotes were REAL (from your own website no less)........ I notice that every time a Christian quotes somebody, it’s derogatively referred to as “quote mining”, "
The only part that matched from what you quoted was the quote mined part from that page @ talkorigins.org....you should be ashamed. If you don't want to be excused of qoute mining, CITE YOUR SOURCES. B/c you don't, and it's a short tid bit, it appears quotemined at the least.
'but when you atheists quote somebody it’s a proper appeal to authority."
No, when we quote something we CITE them and refer to them as evidence, we're not appealing to anything. You wanted evdience that mutatons are mostly neutral and I cited it as evidence just like in court to vouch for my claim.
Cite you sources and you'll be fine, don't and you're arguements will as hollow as notw06 and others. Please cite your source for your claim for the mutations.
Since we’re not really getting anywhere with each other, I’m checking out of the evolution threads for awhile. Before I go, I wanted to clear up something pretty important. I’ve occasionally seen incorrect descriptions of God from atheists. They often describe the biblical God as evil, petty, and vain. Please understand that you’ve formed a wrong view of God as the Bible describes him. He is the most wonderful and beautiful being in existence. He is the fountainhead of all truth and is eminently worthy of our devotion. You have misunderstandings about what the Bible teaches and I just wanted to sincerely let you know that.
This God that you alternately deny and mock loves each of you so much that he died for you. Who would you die for? Do you understand how amazing it is that the Creator died for his creatures to provide a way for them to be reconciled to him?
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).
Peace.
We'll see how confident and outspoken they are when they bow their knees before the King of kings and Lord of lords on jugdment day.
Tgender,
“Archaeopteryx was one of your famous missing links until it was finally concluded to be a bird, not a transition”.
Archaeopteryx was hardly a modern bird. Modern birds don’t have long non hollow tails like reptiles, they also don’t have teeth anymore, nor do they have a reptilian wishbone, claws and other features that are only found in a small group of theropod dinosuars (Dromeosaurids).
The reason why Archaeopteryx is no longer considered THE transitional is because of all the new fossils which demonstrate such transitional forms. Archaeopteryx is rather included IN this group of animals which show such intermediate forms.
(Groups, then species)
Dromaeosaurids, look up Velociraptor, Builtreraptor, Sinusonasus
Coelurosaurs, look up Sinosaurpteryx
Tyrannosaroids, look up Dilong and Eotyrannus
Ornithomimosaurs and Alvarezsaurs, look up Shuvuuia and Alvarezsaurids
Oviraptorsaurs, look up Caudipteryx and Citipati
Deinonychosaurs, Troodon, Microraptor, Deinonychus, Epidenosaurus
Avialians (birds) look up Confuciusornis, Longipteryx, Archeopteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornis, Enantiornis, patagopteryx, Hesperonis, Enantiornis, Ichthyornis
“Neanderthal Man and Cro-Magnon Man both have the features of modern man.’
Oh really? So you’re saying they are exactly the same then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020057
www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=368159
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6146908.stm
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Goodwin_00.html
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/ www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html www.becominghuman.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
www.archaeologyinfo.com/index.html www.asu.edu/clas/iho/index.html www.glendale.edu/skull/
http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/faq/encarta/encarta.htm www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/uou-toh021105.php
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex5
Why don’t you read up on those sites I gave and tell me that again.
Danny--
“tgender, your quote mining was dishonest. You owe everyone here an apology. There is no excuse for lying. You should be ashamed of yourself."
I’m not ashamed as I demonstrated the quotes were real (from your own website no less). I really don’t know what you’re talking about. I notice that every time a Christian quotes somebody, it’s derogatively referred to as “quote mining”, but when you atheists quote somebody it’s a proper appeal to authority. It’s hard to play a game when the rules are so different for each side. You want Christians to be pro-science—so do I—then we need to be able to quote scientists just like you do. Nobody’s an expert in everything. We all should be as honest as possible in quoting others, not taking their quotes out of context and not using them in a way that gives a different meaning than what the author intended.
tgender, your quote mining was dishonest. You owe everyone here an apology. There is no excuse for lying. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Tgender,
Well, if you’d noticed talkorigins.org cites their sources and their sources are highly reputably science organizations like NASA, Nature, National Geographic, Smithsonian Institute, Science Daily, etc. This in comparison to stars citing of a random ‘angelfire.com’ personal site are hardly comparable in the matter. But by all means refer to those links I gave a page or so go and you’ll notice how reputable they are.
“Regarding the Muller quote, if you read the first part, you will see he says “the vast majority of them [mutations are] detrimental to the organism”, which is the entire point of me citing the quote. Why didn't you address that?”
2. You just left a random quote and didn’t cite your sources, I did. Refer to the more recent analysis I gave you earlier. I did address it and it showed you were wrong.
Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans
Nachman and Crowell (2000) 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation. Deleterious mutations per generation 3, 1.72% (harmful). I've seen a figure of 98% of human mutations being neutral, so maybe 0.28% are beneficial.
www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/156/1/297
Thus the break down for mutations is as follows:
98% neutral/benign
1.72% harmful
0.28 % beneficial
.
3. Ok, read this - www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/muller.html
And see how the website you got it from quote minded it and added words to it that never existed. Show your source for this quote Tgender. I don’t know how you can’t see a quote mine, but it’s blatant.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1946/muller-lecture.html
www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/148/4/1667
“As you can see, YOU were the one mistaken. Furthermore, when I give you 10 reasons for why I believe something, you try to nitpick one and fail, and then ask me to reconsider. Why don’t you deal with ALL my reasons?”
You still haven’t cited your source for your quote mine, why should we even consider it to have weight at all? Cite it.
You never listed 10 reasons, more like 5 and those I covered and left information for you to research on why your conclusions were wrong. You wanted evidence that Irreducible complex systems could evolve, you never specified which instances, specify and I will address them in order.
Phophet,
“Lets look back 1000 years. Crop growing was in used then, and quite prosperous.”
Prosperous....are you kidding? do you realize how many peoplpe died back in those days simply from malnutrtion...prosperious....that's a knee slapper. Compared to today’s annual yields, crop growing 1000 years ago was a joke. Heck, even 150 years ago it was a joke compared with today. Today, some 2% of the USA population provides all the food domestically for us and we sell the rest abroad. Even 150 years ago it wasn’t like this as most the population had to reside on crops , which don’t produce great yields every year it fluctuates with the weather (ask a farmer why he’s on govt subsidies and he’ll tell you why) and so for the most part prior to 150 years ago there was not as much excess food supply. That, and the fact that most food spoils and only with devices like the refrigerator were we able to store food for longer periods of time.
“Now, NATURALLY (without the aid of farming) there is only 50,000 units of crops that is naturally produced (withouth the aid of farming).”
Ummm, memo CROPS = FARMING, they’re one in the same. If you’re saying ‘naturally this 50,000 units of food’ just somehow magically exists, well then explain their origins. If you’re going say, ‘well, that 50,000 units could be animals the people hunt’, ok but that is a population and thus a limiited per annul resource and when it’s numbers drops the predators (in this case man) follow accordingly. Basic supply demand. If they’re not farming directly, then they are foraging which is even worse off; which is why humanity went to agriculture in the first place 10,000 years ago.
“Now, of those 1000 people, 400 are farmers. They can produce 250 units of crops apiece. That's 100,000 units on top of the 50,000 that is naturally produced, meaning that all the humans survive with extra left over to propigate. Thus, circumventing nature. “
What is ‘naturally produced’ mean? Define this. It doesn’t’ matter how natural it is. It can be people gathering wild fruit, or hunting deer, the amount of resources of this ‘naturally produced’ source will dictate how many people can live in this region.
“So, the statistics that star presented about population growth are very accurate”
No they’re not, they’re a joke. They ASSSUME populations grow exponentially, which they certainly don’t. A population limit is always reached according to resources (thus carrying capacity) available.
agentorage, danny, et al--
Do you guys even read these posts or your own websites for that matter? You’ve got several mistakes in your facts and reasoning.
1. First of all, what makes talkorigins such an expert? I noticed that the website says “In early 1997, talk.origins became a moderated newsgroup” and “Visitors to the archive should be aware that essays and FAQs appearing in the archive have generally not undergone a rigorous peer review procedure by scientific experts.” Seems no different than any other website, especially the ones you guys are always criticizing.
2. Regarding the Muller quote, if you read the first part, you will see he says “the vast majority of them [mutations are] detrimental to the organism”, which is the entire point of me citing the quote. Why didn't you address that?
3. You objected to the last part (which merely restates the first part) as not being what Muller said and you pointed me to your talkorigins website. Well, you’re right, he didn’t say that as part of the same quote, but your website admits that he did say that exact quote. I’m now quoting from YOUR website: “In Washington last week, small, blue-eyed Dr. Muller, glowing with the stimulation of his newly won Nobel Prize, gave a pessimistic interview. ‘Most mutations are bad,’ said he. ‘In fact, good ones are so rare that we can consider them all as bad.’"
4. In the original quote which I cited, Muller went on to say (which I did not include in my citation), “Yet in all except very rare cases the change will be disadvantageous, involving an impairment of function.” I also got this from YOUR website.
5. Thanks for pointing out that I had included quotes from Muller from two different occasions, but as you can see, he did say all this and the point is that genetic mutations are almost always harmful.
6. Danny said, “A special irony with the use of Muller to mount a criticism of evolutionary theory is that Muller himself considered evolution to be a fact.” So what if Muller is an Evolutionist? I’ve heard plenty of atheists and Evolutionists admit believing in their theories despite the evidence. For them, it’s a matter of blind faith. You use genetic mutations as the mechanism for evolution, but even the experts say they’re harmful.
7. Agentorange said, “Now that you see how the conclusions you drew earlier were not exactly correct, do you have other reasonable objections behind evolution not working?” As you can see, YOU were the one mistaken. Furthermore, when I give you 10 reasons for why I believe something, you try to nitpick one and fail, and then ask me to reconsider. Why don’t you deal with ALL my reasons?
orange,
Lets look back 1000 years. Crop growing was in used then, and quite prosperous.
So, lets say that for agument sake that there were 1000 people in a certain area. They required 100 units of crops a year to survive. That would mean that there would have to be at least 100,000 units of crops. Now, NATURALLY (without the aid of farming) there is only 50,000 units of crops that is naturally produced (withouth the aid of farming). That means that at least half of the population is going to die. That's natural progression...nature stays in balance with nature. Now, of those 1000 people, 400 are farmers. They can produce 250 units of crops apiece. That's 100,000 units on top of the 50,000 that is naturally produced, meaning that all the humans survive with extra left over to propigate. Thus, circumventing nature.
it has been proven, for at least a few thousand years, that a man has had the ability to produce crops in abundance of what he and his family needed. Otherwise, there would have been no markets to sell the stuff. So, in essence, man merely increases the resources available.
So, the statistics that star presented about population growth are very accurate
agentorange
me too. good night
star2,
yea, that's what happend to me. it would say 'wrong access'. cool, thanks I'll try that. zzzzzz.... time for sleep me thinks.
agentorange
I don't believe anyone blocked your agentorange account. I think it is a different problem. If you try to submit something and it gets block then try resubmitting it using your same CP ID name.
A lot of times I would submit an entry and I would get a Wrong Access. I got real frustrated because I had to type it over again. Anyway, I started making a copy of what I wrote (Cntrl + C) before I submitted. If I got a WRONG ACCESS again, then all I had to do was do a paste (Cntrl + v) and resubmit. It usually would get thru.
slacker,
(the guy that didn't know matter is 90% empty space)
Talkorigins uses and refers to actual acredited Science sources like Nature, Nataional Geograpchic and such. Tgender didn't even bother to cite his work, and anyone in biology knows that part can be taken out of cotext which is exactly what he did. Since you doubt Talkorigins, go back a page or two and review and of the sites I listed.
Peace
to Danny
"However, I suggest in the future you should check your facts before you blindly cut and paste from some dishonest creationist website. Ignorance is no excuse for dishonesty."
Yet you get your information from an evolution website....
Tgender,
Now that you see how the conclussions you drew earlier were not exactly correct, do you have other reasonable objections behind evolution not working?
danny,
you should give him a 'rickroll' since he likes qoute mining. you know = )
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHpjcZNM8_k
tgender, Here's some more information for why you should check your facts before you cut and paste from a dishonest creationist website:
Muller on evolution
A special irony with the use of Muller to mount a criticism of evolutionary theory is that Muller himself considered evolution to be a fact.
When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation.
-- Hermann Muller
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/muller.html
Tgender,
"No, they ARE mostly harmful, but even your admission that they’re mostly benign doesn’t bode well for evolution, does it, which needs loads of helpful ones"
Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans
Nachman and Crowell (2000)
175 mutations per diploid genome per generation. Deleterious mutations per generation 3, 1.72%. I've seen a figure of 98% of human mutations being neutral, so maybe 0.28% are beneficial.
www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/156/1/297
Mostly harmfull huh? Okaaay.
"Yeah, those. And your silly one-line dismissals don’t help your cause."
Well, Dover was in 2005 and all the instances Behe used were shown to have evoltionary origins, look up the court case it's public domain. = )
Perhaps you should watch the re-inactment of where Behe has to admit he never read the 9 books. 61 articles and 2 papers on the evolutionary process and origins of the immune system.
Not sure which vid of the 12 its in, but it's there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qk3sRqsVrh4
Oh but the Flaggelum right? Well, there are some eukratyic cell whose flaggella lack one of more compenets, yet still function. The sperm of Eels, for exampls lack the central axis found in most eukaryotic flagella.
tgender: "Here’s a quote from H.J. Muller,..."
tgender, quote mining is dishonest. Thanks to google, you can't get away with this dishonesty.
Instead of telling you why you were extremely dishonest, I will just give you the website that explains it.
I will give you the benefit of a doubt and assume your lying was not intentional.
However, I suggest in the future you should check your facts before you blindly cut and paste from some dishonest creationist website. Ignorance is no excuse for dishonesty.
Muller and Mutations
"Good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad."
"The last sentence is sometimes emphasized in bold face type or capitals. However, that sentence simply does not appear anywhere in the cited reference. The correct context is as follows:"
tgender, see this website for a complete explanation of your (unintentional?) dishonesty:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/muller.html
Agentorange—
Here’s a quote from H.J. Muller, who won a Nobel Prize in 1946 for his work in genetics and mutations. He was considered a world leader in genetics research.
"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation…Good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad.“
“again, orange, you prove the point of why having people in existinence for 100s of thousands of years is ridiculous. There is just not the resources to support them.”
Resources replenish themselves yes? Like how crops can be grown annually yes? However, at any given time (say in a year) there is a LIMIT to how many resources we can obtain from the earth to support a population. Get it? A given crop has a max annual yield, it’s not infinite. This annual limit is the base for the amount of resources that dictate the carrying capacity of the population.
Before the industrial revolution that AMOUNT per annually if you will, was significantly lower and thus we couldn’t support a larger population at one period. Get it? With the advances in technology we were able to grow larger amounts of food per annual (more food = more resources for population) and thus the population grew quite dramatically, whereas before prior to this technology the population growth was very slow as the annual food yields were significantly less. How hard is that to understand?
agentorange--
“The vast majority of mutations are neither helpful or harmful but benign.”
No, they ARE mostly harmful, but even your admission that they’re mostly benign doesn’t bode well for evolution, does it, which needs loads of helpful ones.
“On top of this, biological organisms are irreducibly complex, so they can't evolve gradually.” “Oh, ya which ones? You mean the ones that Behe used in Dover that were all shown to have evolutionary mechanisms to explain them, like those?”
Yeah, those. And your silly one-line dismissals don’t help your cause.
”No, populations evolve, not individuals. A population of past ancestors evolves towards it's descendants today.”
I swear you don’t even read the posts before you answer them. I AGREE with you. I was making the point that it would ludicrous to think otherwise.
Prophet, You made some very good points that I agree with.
"We are not tied down to the natural laws of nature since we have the ability to overcome much of those laws in order to survive."
For modern humans natural selection is not as powerful as it used to be, because it no longer takes much intelligence to survive. If we get hungry, we buy food and eat it. No hunting or farming is necessary for most people.
In the past, after we split from our cousins the chimpanzee apes about 5 or 6 million years ago, only the smartest survived. Human apes who were slightly more intelligent were more likely to avoid becoming prey and were more skilled at hunting prey. Chimps and humans evolved in different environments. Because our environment required more intelligence to survive, natural selection selected human apes who had slightly larger brains. It's interesting that the chimp and human brains have the exact same structure but our brains evolved to become larger.
Today it's too easy to survive, so natural selection selects virtually everyone, no matter how smart or dumb they are.
Anyway, like you said, humans are trashing this planet and wiping out other species. This must stop. Scientists are working hard to save endangered species, and they are trying to warn governments and industries about how important it is to protect our environment.
agentorange—
“Tdgender, you want transitionals? here you go”
Yes, I’ve looked at the evidence. Your theory needs transitionals, so you interpret the data as transitional. Archaeopteryx was one of your famous missing links until it was finally concluded to be a bird, not a transition. The Kanapoi elbow fossil was dated by Evolutionists at 4.5 million years, even though computer analysis concluded that it was “strikingly close to modern humans.” The Laetoli footprints of Tanzania are dated by Evolutionists at 3.7 million years, even though they are identical to those made today by humans that always walk barefoot. Lucy was a 3 foot tall African ape. Neanderthal Man and Cro-Magnon Man both have the features of modern man. Java Man is a true member of the human family. Piltdown Man was revealed to be a deliberate fraud. Peking Man is totally inconclusive. Nebraska Man, which consisted of only one tooth, was proven to be the tooth of an extinct pig.
On top of all this, you don’t have nearly enough transitionals anyway.
"I'm trying to figure out if people didn't know about farming and such until 150 years ago. Is that what you're saying? "
NOOOOOO. They prior to the industiral revolution knew how to farm, yes indeed they did. But the yeilds they had from said crops were nothing like todays or 150 years ago b/c they lacked the technology and equipment required to yield such large crops. Ya know, like NO TRACTORS.
Without such technology they couldn't produce surpluse amounts of food and this as a resource dictated the carrying capacity of the population, how hard is that to comprehend?
“Furthermore, genetic mutation is not a good explanation because mutations are almost always harmful. “
No they’re not, the vast majority of mutations are neither helpful or harmful but benign.
“On top of this, biological organisms are irreducibly complex, so they can't evolve gradually.”
Oh, ya which ones? You mean the ones that Behe used in Dover that were all shown to have evolutionary mechanisms to explain them, like those? =)
“Lastly, atheist evolutionists cannot explain how life came from non-life”
Lastly, this ISN’T evolution, this is Abiogenesis. I swear I am in a time paradox here.
“Did only a man evolve and then God evolved a woman?”
No, populations evolve, not individuals. A population of past ancestors evolves towards it's descendants today.
I'm going to bed. It's late. And the more you argue your point the more you prove ours. So, please, keep arguing. it makes it more easier on me.
I'm trying to figure out if people didn't know about farming and such until 150 years ago. Is that what you're saying?
again, orange, you prove the point of why having people in existinence for 100s of thousands of years is ridiculous. There is just not the resources to support them.
agentorange
I am sorry about missing my deadline for giving you more comments from God on human chromosome 2 fusion and the 7 identical ERVS between the human and the chimp.
And people have been growing crops and hunting animals for centuries (millenia, if your a evolutionist) which means that when population should be declining naturally due to a natural food shortage, it is not because people are growing their own crops. Yes, there are droughts and things that temporarily set back a minute portion of population, but where that would dramatically diminish other animals, man has the capablility to overcome and continue to grow exponentially.
"That is why the idea that the exponential growth is right on. We are not tied down to the natural laws of nature since we have the ability to overcome much of those laws in order to survive."
humans are not magical ok prophet, we're like all other organisms which require resources (land, food, water) to live and without a suffucient supply it doesn't matter how many kids your poping out, they can't live unless they have said resources. thus the term carrying capacity.
No, it's not 'right on'. a poplation CAN'T grow exponentionally unless it has the resources to do so, which with us didn't even occur till 150 years ago.
"But, what differs us from the animal kingdom, is the abilitly to rationalize; to "progress". If we run out of natural resources naturally, we create our own."
Right, but we didn't really progress technologically to the point of producing mass quantities of food till the industrial revolution, which just so happens to coincide with the sudden rise in population that had been relatively slow for millenia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html
That is why the idea that the exponential growth is right on. We are not tied down to the natural laws of nature since we have the ability to overcome much of those laws in order to survive.
agentorange
Re:Some Christians do embrace science openly and fully regardless, others like Star and Prophet will accept anything in science so long as it doesn’t conflict with their literal reading of their bible.
This is what is true about you and close minded evolutionists. When information conflicts with your evolutionary views you shut it out even to the point of looking foolish.
Tdgender, you want transitionals? here you go
Whales
www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/ www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_1.html www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/02/pr0235.htm www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/e_s_3.html www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/ www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/cetacea/cetacean.html www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/11/01/html/ft_20011101.4.html www.tolweb.org/Cetacea/15977 Hominids www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Hominids
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/ www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html www.becominghuman.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution www.archaeologyinfo.com/index.html www.asu.edu/clas/iho/index.html www.glendale.edu/skull/ http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/faq/encarta/encarta.htm www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/uou-toh021105.php https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex5
You all keep proving my point.
The animal kingdom, by itself, keeps it in check with nature. Population is dictated by available resources. Population of deer go up, food supply goes down, deer begin to starve and the population goes down (not because they stop procreating, but because they starve off), then food becomes more plentiful, causing the population to rise again. And so, the wolf population follows that path as well.
But, what differs us from the animal kingdom, is the abilitly to rationalize; to "progress". If we run out of natural resources naturally, we create our own. We grow our own crops instead of relying on nature itself to dictate. We hunt animals into extinction (name me one other species on this earth who does that?). And we dont just hunt them for food...we hunt them for non-necessities. We rape nature with no regard for the consequences. We are not in tune with nature, otherwise the earth would not be in such bad shape. We manufacture things to make us live longer; to live beyond what nature intended us to. We steal things from nature to create things that will destroy it.
And that is human progress. And that is what differentiates us from animals.
“The Bible doesn’t say anything about a young universe either.”
Oh I do realize this, however try telling that to either Star or Prophet or any other YEC that refers to Ushers account of dating the age of the earth and universe. They use the genealogy from Adam to Jesus up to today to make a date, in fact Star admits to the age of universe and earth only a few pages ago in this manner. I have tried endlessly to explain the science that shows the age of the universe and earth, but still she doesn’t get it. This is why faith in such regards I don’t like it, as it retards progression.
Some Christians do embrace science openly and fully regardless, others like Star and Prophet will accept anything in science so long as it doesn’t conflict with their literal reading of their bible. You Chris are a more rational in this regard and don’t view you or your ilk as a threat to science or to the progress of humanity, the others (YEC) though I do.
ifeelfine72—
“So what evidence for evolution did you look at after you became a Christian and how did you find it wanting?”
From science, I’m troubled that there are not numerous transitions in the fossil record and that the evidence for the Cambrian Explosion seems to support a sudden appearance of life forms. Also, natural selection is only a mechanism for in-species adaptation, not macroevolution. Furthermore, genetic mutation is not a good explanation because mutations are almost always harmful. On top of this, biological organisms are irreducibly complex, so they can't evolve gradually. Lastly, atheist evolutionists cannot explain how life came from non-life, nor the staggering amount of information in DNA which must come from an intelligent mind (I acknowledge that theistic evolutionists don’t have these last two problems because they say God did it).
From the Bible, Genesis clearly depicts man as the pinnacle of God’s creation made in his image. If man evolved from a single cell in a warm little pond, I think it seriously diminishes this idea that we were specially made in His image. Furthermore, in Gen 2:18, God said, 'It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him". I don't see how this verse can be squared from a theistic evolutionary perspective. Did only a man evolve and then God evolved a woman? Of course, that couldn't have happened because man couldn't reproduce without a woman.
So, I concluded from both scientific and biblical evidence that evolution is false.
agentorange
Re:"The statements you made to me tonight about what I posted make you look foolish. "
what, are you kidding? You're the one citing some random 'angelfire.com website' that anyone can setup and author as opposed to an acutal science site like Nauture or NASA and you have the gaul to say I made myself look foolish? that's rich.
You are foolish. Many of thos quotes came from scientists who publish in publications like Science and other reputable publications that are not connected with Creation Science.
orange,
Exactly. If evolution were correct, we wouldn't even exist. We would have used up all our resources by now.
ifeelfine72
Why don't you share your testimony on how you became born again. I asked you before. Will you answer tonight?
I shared mine in the beginning; it is probably on page 2.
Prophet, I don't see what biological evolution has to do with the invention of weapons used to wipe out members of the same species. The idea of natural selection is animals who are able to survive long enough to reproduce, pass their genes on to the next generation. The survival of a species does not require the murder of members of the same species. In the ancient past and in the modern world, many species, including humans, have to cooperate with each other to survive.
For example, today to get thru the day, I depended on a baker, a deli person, a cashier, and a few farmers. Using weapons to kill members of my own species would not have increased my chances of survival.
Since you brought up the subject of weapons, what weapon could be more powerful than the belief in heaven which made 9/11 possible?
"agentorange doesnt take into account that before the industrial revolution, couples would have more offspring to aid in taking care of the land, as well as assuring their lineage. Families with 6-10 children was very common, whereas today it has dropped to 2 or 3. "
Prophet you're not a accounting for carrying capacity, which until the idustrial revolution limited how much food was produced and thus how many people could live at one time any way.
Apopulation can reproduce like bunnies if it wants to and pop out kids every year, but unless there are resources to support said offspring it doesn't matter as the offpsring will die. Every organism requires energy and matter to live.
Star,
"The statements you made to me tonight about what I posted make you look foolish. "
what, are you kidding? You're the one citing some random 'angelfire.com website' that anyone can setup and author as opposed to an acutal science site like Nauture or NASA and you have the gaul to say I made myself look foolish? that's rich.
Agentorange,
you said some pages back that we, particularly Bush, attributed evil to all Muslims. I think you took Bush's message out of context, and then I also think you misunderstand the case with Muslims. You see, you can easily support a pro-science view and be Christian, and the vast majority of Christians truly are scientifically inclined, despite how much Danny hopes that they aren't (keep saying it Danny, I heard once in a book somewhere that if you say something enough, then it makes it more true... sorry Danny, that was a little harsh, but I am tired of repeating the same line with you). As for Muslims being "evil" most Christians do not believe that, I do believe that the Quran is evil, and that it supports evil actions (evil in comparison at least to Judeo-Christian values). No not all Muslims follow their Qurans exactly, and most do not even read the Quran, many just want to live peaceful lives. Still we have others who follow the Quran and Shariah Law strictly and they call for the death of a teacher who innocently named a teddy bear Muhammad (and they do so in masses on the streets waving swords and guns) then we have others who call for the anhillation of an entire nation.
You have got a point though, and that is that even if the Quran is evil, and even if some (or even many) of the believers in Islam are what any decent person would think of as acting under evil influences, still not all are evil, and it would be wrong for someone to say they all are. The Bible itself can be read to be compatable with a type of theistic evolution (again not saying it is true) and it certainly does not have to be read as young earth creationists assume (not saying it shouldn't be).
"Ugly ugly man....."
Very Christ like. I rest that point.
agentorange—
“The bible says nothing about a 13.7 billion year old universe, nor that it's expanding and many other such things that YEC can't and won't accept. Are you a YEC? If not, then it's not a big deal.”
The Bible doesn’t say anything about a young universe either. I’ve already posted this at least twice before, but here’s another brief version of it. Genesis 1:1-2 recounts God’s creation of the whole universe. At some unspecified time later, God makes the already created earth habitable for life (beginning with the first day in Gen 1:3), thus the Bible DOES NOT SPECIFY the age of the universe. I’m persuaded by the scientific evidence that the universe is old (14.5 billion year old universe and 4.5 billion year old earth). I’m mostly persuaded that when God started his secondary creation of adding life to earth, that he did it in six literal days (although I am still willing to consider some non-literal interpretations of the six days).
again, orange, you've proved my point.
"Human progress" takes something entirely benign, and use it for evil and destruction. Proven over and over throughout the ages.
'That's human progress for ya."
That is the nature of being able to develop technology, they can be used for great causes or harm. The pendulum swings both ways in this regard.
orange,
Exactly. If evolution were correct, we wouldn't even exist. We would have used up all our resources by now.
Prophet,
"If evolution were correct, we should be living shoulder to shoulder by now"
No, population limits depend upon carrying capacity and not sheer reproducting rates. This is why it doesn't matter if people are having 2-3 kids or 6-10, this is meaningless as it all comes down to how many people at one time the resources can support, thus carring capacity is paraoumount in determining the overall poplation for any given time.
Just to sort of get back on topic, I would like to share this information about "militant atheist" Richard Dawkins:
Hypothesis: if you can take an idea which most people thought was the most hated concept in America this side of al-Qaeda’s mission statement and turn that idea into a book which stays on the New York Times bestseller list for almost a year, publishers will let you write your own ticket at least once.
Evidence: Richard Dawkins is being paid $3.5 million for his next book, Only A Theory? (to be published in 2009), which will lay out evidence for evolution.
http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=536
Danny, you can call it what you want. Human progress brings as much destruction as it does benefits.
Let's take a look at it from evolution's point of view.
Bill: Hey Frank. You remember when neanderthals would fight. They used sticks and maybe rocks. A couple "people" got hurt...maybe even died. No problem.
Frank: Yeah, but then they "progressed" to learn that they can make spears and knives. And then when they fought, more people were hurt or killed.
Bill: And don't forget when they "progressed" to creating catapults, onagers, arrows, swords, and other things. The battles really started getting messy.
Frank: Yeah, especially when they "progressed" to creating gunpowder. Suddenly they had guns, rifles, cannons, and even bombs. They could kill more people faster.
Bill: But what really gets me is when they took that huge leap of "progress" in discovering nuclear power. Sure it does have wonderful benifits of almost unlimited power, but guess what "progressive humans" did with it? Yep, decided to use it to kill thousands at a time instead.
That's human progress for ya.
danny
The kind of statements you make make you look stupid and foolish.
agentorange
The statements you made to me tonight about what I posted make you look foolish.
Prophet, it takes a lot of work and a lot of thinking to understand evolution. That's what I meant by thinking. I noticed people who accept every word of an ancient book as fact that can't be questioned, have made a decision to not think.
Prophet: "Human progress brought us WWI..."
I wouldn't call wars human progress. Wars just slow down progress. (Religions also slow down human progress.) Do you think human progress is a bad thing? How about medical research that depends on knowledge of evolution? Is medical research that saves lives good or bad? My point is creationists who attack science education are not contributing anything to human progress. They are just getting in the way.
star2: "People are not animals."
Then are we plants?
A true Christian became a true Christian by choice, which does require thinking, yes.
danny
Re:However, for me it's difficult to understand why a person would remain a Christian if he understands people are just animals and nothing more.
People are not animals. People are created in the image of God.
Genesis 1:27
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
danny,
You used the term "human progress". Human progress brought us WWI, and WWII, civil war, Vietnam war, Korean war, Gulf war, WMD, nuclear war fear, drug abuse, abortion, drunk driving, 50% divorce rate, should I go on?
Then true Christians are not allowed to think?
danny,
Then let me clafify. People who are Christians who have not studied the scriptures, or who have and have decided to twist the scriptures (which would negate them from being a true Christian) are among the ones who promote the idea of man evolving from an amoeba.
Those Christians who choose to study the scriptures and refuse to taint them, will know that God formed Adam from the very dust (not from an amoeba) and personally breathed life into him.
agentorange
I flagged my self because I need to correct some error in Part 1.
God loves you.
Prophet
Did you see my 7 part write up on Anomalies of Radiometric Dating? It is on page 3 right now. As a geologist, you should find it very interesting.
agentorange doesnt take into account that before the industrial revolution, couples would have more offspring to aid in taking care of the land, as well as assuring their lineage. Families with 6-10 children was very common, whereas today it has dropped to 2 or 3.
That goes right along with the "Penny doubled per day" scenario. Take a penny, double it the next day, double that amount the next day, double that amount the next, etc, etc. Exponential growth.
Star,
Wow. That is amazing! I never thought about population growth over the hundreds of thousands of years, but it is so true. If evolution were correct, we should be living shoulder to shoulder by now.
Prophet, if I understood you correctly, any Christian who accepts evolution, including the idea that humans developed from other animals, is not really a Christian.
That's fine with me, but I think a few million Christians would disagree with you.
Personally I sort of agree with you. Certainly there are many Christians who accept evolution. I can't deny their existence. However, for me it's difficult to understand why a person would remain a Christian if he understands people are just animals and nothing more. Anyway, I respect Christians who accept biological evolution. They don't have their head in the sand. They are not afraid of science. They don't let an ancient book prevent them from using their brains. They are on the side of human progress, instead of getting in the way.
Prophet: "And I have not made a decision on the age of the earth."
Your fellow geologists have noticed all the evidence shows the earth to be between 4 and 5 billion years old. Do you know something they don't know? Would you like to discuss your contributions to geology? With all due respect, I have to question the competence of a geologist who has "not made a decision on the age of the earth" and rejects biological evolution. Even grammar school students understand and accept the basic facts of evolution and the very old age of our planet.
star2,
I can’t believe you’re actually using one of the worst arguments (human population) for Young Earth Star.
Do you know that ‘carrying capacity’ refers to for biological organisms?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity
Roughly it states that the population limit (not the growth, but the limit, as in the ultimate ceiling) of an organism is dictated by resources, namely food, water, land, etc. Regardless of how many people can reproduce at a given time doesn’t mean all of them will have kids that go on themselves to reproduce ,as obviously even if said parents have kids the kids require resources to live.
This carrying capacity effectively limits how large a population of an organism can be as obviously they require resources to live and for their offspring to live. Only till recently (last 150 years) since the industrial revolution have we seen the population dramatically grow, and this was b/c new technology for agriculture and medicines decreased infant mortality. With new technology the carrying capacity was raised as new resources became available and thus larger populations could be supported. Prior to that the growth rates low and have been very slow.
World population
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
World census . Yup, a government site.
www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html
Again, referring to the genes, if we actually only had 6-8 people only 4000 years ago it would show up in our genes and be obvious, but it doesn’t exist. We have other instances of genetic bottle necks but they occurred much further back in time.
Population growth.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=iVK_lJyDIaU
Why are people flagging stuff now?
agentorange
Part 1
Data Sources: http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/human_pop.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Re:No where. cosomology, astronomy, geology kill any notion of a 6000 year old universe/earth and biology and genetics kills the idea of 8 people repopulating the earth only 4000 years ago. with that type of genetic bottle neck it would be painfully obvious and many YEC's wished it would be in the genes as it would support their ideas, too bad it's not.
The formula for calculating Population at time t for a delta length of time is:
P(t) = Po e^rt
where
P(t) = Population at time t (# of people)
Po = Initial population (# of people)
r = average rate of population growth per year
t = delta time (years)
According to my sources the current world population growth is 1.3%.
In 1963, it was 2.2%.
Obviously, the world population growth is not constant. It can vary greatly for a number of reasons.
Man has been keeping records of the world population since 1750. Here is the data:
1750 : 791,000
1800: 978,000
1850: 1,262,000
1900: 1,650,000
1950: 2,521,000
1999: 5,978,000
2008: 6,800,000
Now, the average rate of increase per year is:
solving for r, in P(t) = Po r^rt
r = ln[P(t)/Po]/t
I computed the average rate of growth, r, in terms of percentages for each of the following time periods:
1750 - 1800: 0.42%
1800 - 1850: 0.51%
1850 - 1900: 0.54%
1900 - 1950: 0.8%
1950 - 1999: 1.76%
1999 - 2008: 1.43% (quite close to the current 1.3%)
We can see that it is not constant and of course, unpredictable. So, I calculated the average rate of growth from 1750 to 2008 and found it to be 0.83%.
1750 - 2008: 0.83%
agentorange
Part 2
Now, you said ".... cosomology, astronomy, geology kill any notion of a 6000 year old universe/earth and biology and genetics kills the idea of 8 people repopulating the earth only 4000 years ago..."
Let's see if that is true.
Recall,
P(t) = Po e^rt
From the Biblical record, I have determined that the amount of time that transpired from the fall of Adam to the time of the flood was 1656 years.
Even though there were 8 people saved during the world wide flood only 6 were used in repopulating the Earth. The Biblical record does not mention that Noah and his wife had any children after the flood. Thus, we can conclude that the Earth was repopulated by Noah's three sons and their respective wives.
We really don't know exactly how much time has transpired since the fall of Adam. However, we believe that it has been approximately 6000 years.
Most likely the growth rate probably has changed since the flood until present time. So, to account for wars, disease, etc let us assume that the the average rate is 60% of the 0.83% rate from 1750 to 2008.
From this information
P(t) - Population at 6000 yrs or 2008 AD
Po = 6
r = 60% of 0.83% = 0.6 x 0.0083 = .00498
delta t = 6000 - 1656 = 4344 yrs
let us now calculate what the world population would be in year 6000 from the time of the flood.
P(t) = Po e^rt
P(6000) = 6 e^(0.00498)(4344) = 6 e^21.63 = (6)(2476222375) = 14,857,334,250
We see that the population grew from 6 people to approximately 14.8 billion people.
Now, this number is almost twice as much than what we have today, 6.8 billion. My guess as to what the average rate of growth was a little too high.
So, mathematically, after the flood, it is possible to replenish the Earth with only 6 people after the world wide flood.
agentorange
Part 3
Let's see what the Earth's population would be today if Evolution was correct.
There is differences of opinion as to when the first humans appeared. I have heard millions of years, 200,000 years, 190,000, 180,000, and 160,000 years.
Let's just pick the 190,000 years.
Let us assume that through macro evolution only 2 humans appeared, one male and one female.
Because these two humans didn't have the technological advances that Noah's three sons had and they had to develop their language skills, technology skills, etc. from scratch, let us say that their average population growth from the time of their appearance until now was 0.05% instead of the 0.498% that was used for Noah's sons.
The value of the variables are as follows:
P(t) = Population after 190,000 yrs.
Po = 2
r = 0.05% = 0.0005
t = 190,000
Substituting these values into the equation, we have
P(2008 AD) = 2 e^(0.0005)(190000) = 2 e^95 = 2 (1.81 x 10^41) = 3.63 x 10^41.
According to evolution, the total world population today should be 3.63 x 10^41. But the world population is only approximately 6.8 x 10^9.
Conclusion: The Biblical account of the history of man is true. Evolution's account is false.
Is it any less decieving that ifeelfine calls himself a Christian, when he's not? No, because it suits your purpose. Ifeelfine is not a Christian.
And ,no, its not a hallmark of religion. It's the truth. Much the same way that a doctor who continually misrepresented himself and misdiagnosed patients would not be a doctor, would he?
And I have not made a decision on the age of the earth. I've heard four differing views of creation, and am still searching out each. I do tend to view the earth being created in six literal days as more inline with scripture, but the verdict is out. I have more pressing issues to worry about than that.
Prophet, saying you're a geologist when you're actually not would be quite unethical....in fact, don't you guys have a Commandment about not lying, decieving and such?
"If you haven't gotten my point yet, it's this. Just because ifeelfine calls himself a "christian"...he's not."
Another hallmark of religion....champion your own stance as being supreame and virtuous while at the same time calling other devotees, somehow not full believers. Prophet, I must now assume you're a YEC, but typically only they resort to such rash logic. But since you're a geologist, how do you make sense of all the data that shows the earth isn't 6000 years young?
See, you can't say to me that 'I'm not a real christian' and attempt to give me a guilt trip, but you can to others and that is you ONLY response to such questons. No, don't reply to the question or attempt to make sense of it, it's better to defame your opponent in a dialog.
I could have fooled you all (as ifeelfine has) by quoting some great geologists, making you think that I know what I'm talking about. I could even (as ifeelfine does) twist much of that info to impress you AND at the same time promote a lie.
Hahahah....a geologist. I like the way that you view a geologist. "Horrible. A geologist who rejects evolution."
And yet you claim ifeelfine to be a Christian just because he says he is. To which I reply " Horrible. A Christian who rejects Intelligent Design."
If you haven't gotten my point yet, it's this. Just because ifeelfine calls himself a "christian"...he's not.
"I'm a geologist and so my opinion matters in this situation. "
Oh, so you're a geologist, I don’t see how they involved psychoanalyzing anyone, but ok. Since you’re a geologist, what’s your take on all the dating methods we have to date the Earth and universe which so, without a doubt it’s not 6000 years young. I am of course assuming you’re a YEC, but only b/c this board seems to be fond for them.
Horrible. A geologist who rejects evolution. How old is the earth, prophet?
"If you kill someone in a premeditative way you will be executed (or at least spend life in prison). Is that fear mongering?"
No, it's just how our laws work according to what we saction, not all countries have such laws mind you, so it's hardly a universal thing.
"Or is that a warning? It's only fear mongering if you are the guilty party. Pretty much the same way with what tgender and I say. "
We know for certain that jails exist, and that it's quite easily known that indeed if you kill someone (at least premeditated) that you till will be equally killed as you have commited unjust murder. However, the notions of hell and heaven (carrot and the stick) aren't known at all, nor are they equally an evident truth like jails, judges, executioners, and death penalties.
Beyond death is a big question mark, but religions offer such fantanstic things for which they can extend moral justice beyong the grave. This is associatied with heaven and hell and how in the end their professed god, which is equally unknown in terms of evidence, is the ultimate deliverance of due course. In such a case where the evidence is lacking, as it is with heaven, hell and your god and countless others, that IS fear mongering as it usurps actual evidence with supposed facts which are backed by nothing.
Religions and their use of this dualtiy of good and evil, heaven and hell even in with no evidence for them is the equal to the horrid acts of Bush compelling the american people that Iraq had WMD's, when in end there were none. The level of fear amogst the populace that existed post 9-11 was easily mallable in convincing them that 'evil doers' had WMD's.
I get the feeling that ifeelfine is so open minded that his brain fell out. But I could be wrong. I'm a geologist and so my opinion matters in this situation.
The exceptions are Christians like ifeelfine72. Apparently it is possible for a Christian to think, to accept science, and to get thru the day without threatening people.
Please continue with the threats. Every time a Christian on this blog says "agree with me or else be tortured by my invisible friend" a young intelligent person reads it and figures out Christianity is only for childish immoral people. Christians are their own worst enemy. No atheist could ever do as much damage to Christianity as a Christian can. Every time Christians attack science, or threaten somebody because they have the ability to think, they scare away bright young people. Who is left? Only the dumbest, the most gullible, and the most immoral young people remain Christians.
"An example is the Big Bang, which says that all matter, time, and energy came into existence together at some point in the past. That’s also what the Bible teaches."
The bible says nothing about a 13.7 billion year old universe, nor that it's expanding and many other such things that YEC can't and won't accept. Are you a YEC? If not, then it's not a big deal.
tgender - so what evidence for evolution did you look at after you became a Christian and how did you find it wanting?
agentorange--
“You're like some christians on this board whom are OK with Science so long as it doesn't conflict with their sacred religious beliefs.”
Actually, I think that science (done correctly—and it can be done wrong) is in harmony with the Bible. An example is the Big Bang, which says that all matter, time, and energy came into existence together at some point in the past. That’s also what the Bible teaches.
”I gave you those 2 instances of evidence last night (ERV's and HC2 fusion) and I'd really like your take on them.”
You must not be getting enough sleep ;-) I’ve already answered you on that and you’ve replied back! (I think it was in a different thread though).
If you kill someone in a premeditative way you will be executed (or at least spend life in prison). Is that fear mongering? Or is that a warning? It's only fear mongering if you are the guilty party. Pretty much the same way with what tgender and I say.
tgender: "Your rejection of God is an insult to the Almighty Creator for which you will be dreadfully sorry some day."
Did I insult your invisible friend? Is your invisible friend going to get even with me?
"Respect my invisible friend or else my invisible friend is going to torture you."
Childish and disgusting. I want nothing to do with your repulsive religion.
"Your rejection of God is an insult to the Almighty Creator for which you will be dreadfully sorry some day."
Ahh yes, fear mongering....the halmark of religion. You know what you wont find T, you wont find anyone in Science ever say 'believe this or burn in hell' , and for good reason. Such a claim would set off a red flag that the person making the claim has little evidence if any and is resorting to scare tactics, intimidation, and fear mongering to compell people to think a certain way. This is one of the reasons why I reject religions as they attempt to use this 'carrot and the stick' of heave and hell to compell people to believe in otherwise unfoudned propositions. Only a weak minded person gives in to fear.
Yes, science is infallible and perfect? Inerrant? And you call ME crazy for believing in God.
Tgender,
You're like some christians on this board whom are OK with Science so long as it doesn't conflict with their sacred religious beliefs. Anything, and I mean anything that doesn't conform to what Sciene reveals is either deemed wrong, the work of the devil and tons of other nonsense and all done in sake of actually acknowledging reality when it stares them in the face.
I gave you those 2 instances of evidence last night (ERV's and HC2 fusion) and I'd really like your take on them. Logically speaking, why would a god plant evidence FOR evolution, unless it was really the case.
danny,
You said "It's the scientists who are trying to clean up this planet, while anti-science Christians are trying to pollute it." Could you please point to the statistics that support your claim?
Don't be so self-righteous. Everyone (including many scientists) are responsible for the demise of our fine planet.
GreatNW, what's your solution? Pray to your sky daddy to make everything better?
It's the scientists who are trying to clean up this planet, while anti-science Christians are trying to pollute it.
tgender: "I happen to think that God wants us to investigate His creation and discover the wonders of it."
How do you expect to do that with your head buried in the sand? See ifeelfine72's comments. He's a Christian and he's not afraid of biology like you are.
Science is merely the discovery of God's creation and how He designed it to work. Ooooooh wow! You've discovered how a quasar works! Big deal. Make a quasar and THEN I'll be impressed.
Danny—
“ifeelfine72, If only there were more Christians like you. If all religious people were pro-science like yourself, I wouldn't have any problem with religions.”
I think you’d still have problems with religion. By the way, I’m pro-science. I happen to think that God wants us to investigate His creation and discover the wonders of it. You act as if no scientist ever made a mistake. Give me a break.
tgender,
hahahah,,,,amen. But, you know and I know, that they don't care about what they can't see. But yet, they believe in the wind. Interesting....
merkin—
“Are you saying that at one point, as an adult, you hadn't made up your mind about evolution—that it was only after a fair and balanced look at the evidence that you decided it "was not so compelling?"
As an adult I blindly ACCEPTED evolution without looking into it. Once I became a Christian I studied lots of things more closely. I was neutral about evolution at first, but then when I studied it (a lot), I concluded that the evidence as a whole was not that convincing.
Danny--
"tgender, your rejection of evolution is an insult to the hard work and integr