PDA

View Full Version : World population



Roberto
08-22-2012, 02:56 AM
I was thinking that we are 7 billion people pluss now on earth, and that we was around 1 billion in 1804, but before that must be just guessing and calculation of free fantasy.
How can we grow so much now, when i think it was more important before when the earth was without property, and men just wandered here and there. You would probably want to create a big family for protection and help to care of each other, maybe you already would have been born into a big family, it looks like this in the bible history.

I wonder how much we would be if there wasnt 60 million people dead in the 2. world war.
In 50 year we have grown 5 billion more people, and on this website, http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm
they that the growth will slow down, why, from 2011 til 2083, that is 70 year pluss, we will only grow 3 billion more?

Im holding on to that Noahs story is true, and that world population comes from them, it would be a more correct graph of population growth.


Evolutionists are always telling us that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world’s population would be a staggering figure—a one followed by 100 zeros; that is

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/billions-of-people

duxrow
08-22-2012, 11:19 AM
:idea:
OK Roberto, but the dinosaurs had to be fed, and that may have cut down on the numbers. You think?:winking0071:

David M
08-23-2012, 12:27 AM
Hello Roberto

You raise an interesting point and this will lead to many questions. The same problem will arise for any species of animals and plants and we might ask the question why have we not been overrun by any one species. I expect all manner of explanations will be given to explain why population growth among species has not expanded following growth trends shown by human population.

The population growth curve follows roughly and exponential curve. This means that for a long period time the population levels remain low but eventually a time limit is reached whereby the population grows exceedingly fast and theoretically the population would have grown to infinity before the time limit was reached. We can come up with all forms of statistics such as you could fit all the people that have ever lived on the Isle of White which goes to show that the earth is quite clearly a very large place for the present amount of people but eventually based on exponential growth there will come a limit to when the earth could not fit the number of people on it and well before that point. the earth would not be able to sustain such a large population. It begs the question, what will happen to the human population if left unchecked?

I will stay on topic of human population, but in thinking about this subject, a similar consideration might be given to the population of trees during the history of the earth.

All the best,

David

CWH
08-23-2012, 03:58 AM
:idea:
OK Roberto, but the dinosaurs had to be fed, and that may have cut down on the numbers. You think?:winking0071:

It is beliefved by evolutionists that dinosaurs were extinct by the time humans appeared on earth a few millions years ago. Anyway, I dont believe in the nonsense of human evolution.

God Blessed. :pray:

Richard Amiel McGough
08-23-2012, 02:15 PM
I was thinking that we are 7 billion people pluss now on earth, and that we was around 1 billion in 1804, but before that must be just guessing and calculation of free fantasy.
How can we grow so much now, when i think it was more important before when the earth was without property, and men just wandered here and there. You would probably want to create a big family for protection and help to care of each other, maybe you already would have been born into a big family, it looks like this in the bible history.

I wonder how much we would be if there wasnt 60 million people dead in the 2. world war.
In 50 year we have grown 5 billion more people, and on this website, http://geography.about.com/od/obtainpopulationdata/a/worldpopulation.htm
they that the growth will slow down, why, from 2011 til 2083, that is 70 year pluss, we will only grow 3 billion more?

Im holding on to that Noahs story is true, and that world population comes from them, it would be a more correct graph of population growth.


http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/billions-of-people
Hey there Roberto,

The population growth would slow down if there are massive famines, diseases, natural disasters ... or if people started using birth control more (a much better solution, I would say!).

The reason the population remained small for so long was because people used to die much more frequently. Things like the industrial revolution, medical revolution, and availability of food are why the population is growing so fast now.

As for the story of Noah's flood - there are lot's of problems with thinking that really happened. First, there has been no massive extincting of animal life in the last 6000 years. So the story is simply false. Second, it makes no sense to think that the kangaroos hopped all the way from Australia to the Middle East, rode the ark, and then hopped back. And this is confirmed by the fossil record which shows that the animals all over the planet lived in their present locations for hundreds of thousands of years. And the idea that each species could have repopulated the planet from just one pair is very unlikely. And where did the 40,000 species of ants come from? And all the other species of insects? The story of the flood is pure myth. I can't see any way to avoid this conclusion.

So are you a Young Earth Creationist? Do you know anything about the science that indicates the universe is about 13.75 Billion years old, the earth about 4.5 billion, and life about 3.5 billion?

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
08-23-2012, 02:18 PM
It is beliefved by evolutionists that dinosaurs were extinct by the time humans appeared on earth a few millions years ago. Anyway, I dont believe in the nonsense of human evolution.

God Blessed. :pray:
You don't "believe" it because you don't understand a word of it. It's like saying that you don't "believe" in the equations of Einstein's General Relativity:

572

Roberto
08-23-2012, 03:20 PM
Hey there Roberto,

The population growth would slow down if there are massive famines, diseases, natural disasters ... or if people started using birth control more (a much better solution, I would say!).

The reason the population remained small for so long was because people used to die much more frequently. Things like the industrial revolution, medical revolution, and availability of food are why the population is growing so fast now.

As for the story of Noah's flood - there are lot's of problems with thinking that really happened. First, there has been no massive extincting of animal life in the last 6000 years. So the story is simply false. Second, it makes no sense to think that the kangaroos hopped all the way from Australia to the Middle East, rode the ark, and then hopped back. And this is confirmed by the fossil record which shows that the animals all over the planet lived in their present locations for hundreds of thousands of years. And the idea that each species could have repopulated the planet from just one pair is very unlikely. And where did the 40,000 species of ants come from? And all the other species of insects? The story of the flood is pure myth. I can't see any way to avoid this conclusion.

So are you a Young Earth Creationist? Do you know anything about the science that indicates the universe is about 13.75 Billion years old, the earth about 4.5 billion, and life about 3.5 billion?

All the best,

Richard

Die much more frequentley, yes, maybe they didnt live their whole life, but most of them would live till they are 30, and till they are 30 they can get maybe up till 15 children that can reproduce again, i would think they have the whole earth for themselves that there wouldnt be lack of food, and that reproducing would be helpful so they can be many to help eachother, this dosent add up if humans lived for even 50,000 years ago, why, do animals survive most of their lifetime, and humans shouldnt?
At the time humans supposedley was like animals, but they werent animals.
They had a big earth where they could reproduce and not get affected of others diseases.

And if you believe the bible, Noah and the people there would live very long to reproduce very many people, the animals would be around and reproduce like a big farm, and they would take many animals with them and spread around the earth.
It would be harder to understand a 6000 year without the flood when we can find sea fossils on mount everest now, but with a global flood its easy to carv out even grand canyon.
You say there is no massinstinction 4400 years ago as you lived at that time, but ther was definetly a mass instinction, it just needs to be million of years ago, as you can imagine millions of years ago better and the see the fish crawl from the ocean to be another animal, for so go to the sea again and be a seacreature again.

The 40000 ants, many insects can survive this global flood thats described in the bible without being in the ark. And put all different dogs in one place, and those different dogs will become way more number of different dogs, thats how animals can be so rich in difference.
But take the animals that clearley is not related to eachother in looks, a bear and a horse, then that wouldnt be much animals, thats why i can think that bible story can stand, and about 13,7 billion lightyears out, God is clearley a force that is faster then light.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-23-2012, 04:28 PM
Die much more frequentley, yes, maybe they didnt live their whole life, but most of them would live till they are 30, and till they are 30 they can get maybe up till 15 children that can reproduce again, i would think they have the whole earth for themselves that there wouldnt be lack of food, and that reproducing would be helpful so they can be many to help eachother, this dosent add up if humans lived for even 50,000 years ago, why, do animals survive most of their lifetime, and humans shouldnt?
At the time humans supposedley was like animals, but they werent animals.
They had a big earth where they could reproduce and not get affected of others diseases.

It seems that you have forgotten the many factors that limit population growth. Throughout all history, till just a hundred years ago, there were many diseases that would kill massive numbers of people. Smallpox, the plague (Black Death), tuberculosis, malaria, etc., etc., etc. And there were infectious diseases that we now cure with antibiotics that were quite deadly. And both child and mother often died in childbirth. And famines were much worse because there was no mass food production and distribution like our modern times. The list goes on and on. There is no reason whatsoever to think that the current population indicates a young earth. Your argument fails.



And if you believe the bible, Noah and the people there would live very long to reproduce very many people, the animals would be around and reproduce like a big farm, and they would take many animals with them and spread around the earth.
It would be harder to understand a 6000 year without the flood when we can find sea fossils on mount everest now, but with a global flood its easy to carv out even grand canyon.
You say there is no massinstinction 4400 years ago as you lived at that time, but ther was definetly a mass instinction, it just needs to be million of years ago, as you can imagine millions of years ago better and the see the fish crawl from the ocean to be another animal, for so go to the sea again and be a seacreature again.

The sea fossils on the mountain tops are from plate tectonics which pushes the mountains up over a span of millions of years. That's why the fossils are millions of years old.

And a global flood is impossible because the ice-cores from the poles prove the snow layers go back hundreds of thousands of years. This proves two things. 1) The earth is at least 150,000 years old (though of course we know it is really about 4.5 billion years old) and 2) the poles were never covered by a flood. Therefore, both Young Earth Creationism and the story of Noah's Flood are false.

As for the Grand Canyon - why would you think it wasn't formed by natural slow erosion?

There were many mass extinctions. But none in recent history required by the flood story. There are many ways to prove this. The most obvious is this: Where did all the animals on the little islands found in all the oceans come from? Many are unique to the island on which they live. How did they get there after the flood? And why are they unique to their own island?

The real question is "If evolution is false, why did God make it look like everything evolved?"

The age of the fossils is not determined by "need." That's how religious people think. They begin with a conclusion (the Bible is true) and then look for facts to support their preconceived notions. This is the opposite of science which begins with the facts and seeks to find the best conclusion.

573



The 40000 ants, many insects can survive this global flood thats described in the bible without being in the ark. And put all different dogs in one place, and those different dogs will become way more number of different dogs, thats how animals can be so rich in difference.
But take the animals that clearley is not related to eachother in looks, a bear and a horse, then that wouldnt be much animals, thats why i can think that bible story can stand, and about 13,7 billion lightyears out, God is clearley a force that is faster then light.
So you think ants could survive the flood? Where did you get that idea? I thought it was a little more "catastrophic" than that. You need to be a little more scientific. Go outside and find a bunch of ants. Put them in a jar and fill the jar with water. Keep them in the jar for a couple days and report how many survived. I'm pretty sure the answer will be zero. Then consider that the flood lasted over a year. Your solution will not work.

Your solutions would never convince anyone who knows about the real history and workings of the physical world. Sorry.

Roberto
08-24-2012, 01:14 AM
It seems that you have forgotten the many factors that limit population growth. Throughout all history, till just a hundred years ago, there were many diseases that would kill massive numbers of people. Smallpox, the plague (Black Death), tuberculosis, malaria, etc., etc., etc. And there were infectious diseases that we now cure with antibiotics that were quite deadly. And both child and mother often died in childbirth. And famines were much worse because there was no mass food production and distribution like our modern times. The list goes on and on. There is no reason whatsoever to think that the current population indicates a young earth. Your argument fails.

Oh, so my argument fails mr.god? Stupid saying, thats all. It seems that you are thinking from now and 1000 years back of famines, you cant think more back than that? They were living over all earth, they had massive places to fill the earth, if diseases happened, they would simply leave those who were infected to not spread to the whole community, So that humans have lived for 50,000 years or more is an argument that fails, because population growth factors that just put in so much death that population grows only 1,0000000000000000001% for 100,000 years is plain stupid. This is an assumption from the theory that life is 4 billion years old, and we are accused for using the words of the bible to come up with our assumptions, you are just the same.
You say that God kills so many in the bible, well, your theory of evolution kills 300 billion in diseases and childbirths and so on

The evolutionist may object and say that the rate has drastically accelerated only in recent centuries. So, let us consider that the "normal" growth was such as to produce only the earth's population as it was at the time of Christ, about 200 million people. This is the oldest date for which anyone has even a reasonable guess as to the population.

The value of c necessary to give 200 million people in 25,000 generations can be calculated as 1.0007 and the corresponding number of people who had lived and died in that period would still be over 300 billion.
http://www.ldolphin.org/morris.html


The sea fossils on the mountain tops are from plate tectonics which pushes the mountains up over a span of millions of years. That's why the fossils are millions of years old.

And a global flood is impossible because the ice-cores from the poles prove the snow layers go back hundreds of thousands of years. This proves two things. 1) The earth is at least 150,000 years old (though of course we know it is really about 4.5 billion years old) and 2) the poles were never covered by a flood. Therefore, both Young Earth Creationism and the story of Noah's Flood are false.

As for the Grand Canyon - why would you think it wasn't formed by natural slow erosion?

There were many mass extinctions. But none in recent history required by the flood story. There are many ways to prove this. The most obvious is this: Where did all the animals on the little islands found in all the oceans come from? Many are unique to the island on which they live. How did they get there after the flood? And why are they unique to their own island?

The real question is "If evolution is false, why did God make it look like everything evolved?"

The age of the fossils is not determined by "need." That's how religious people think. They begin with a conclusion (the Bible is true) and then look for facts to support their preconceived notions. This is the opposite of science which begins with the facts and seeks to find the best conclusion.

You say there were many mass instiction like you lived at that time, you cant even think 2000 year back, you think that this femines and diseases that we had from now and 1000 years back, happened all the time before 1000 years ago.

I know about plate tectonics, its only just movement thats still shakes from the global flood, and we have a big scar tissue from when the fountains burst from underneath, the mid atlantic ocean rigde.

This ice core dating i think is a failed theory of dating, they have page up and page down when you read about it in creationist sites, you would think that somewhere they would not have answers.
They even found a 2.world war plane so deep in the ice core, that it looks like it chrased there many thousand years ago. And even now scientist are stumbled over the fast melting of the poles, it is because they dont know the right equilibrium. Its not that evolution looks 4 billion years old, that is just mens thinking. Evolution happens, but it happened faster 4400 years ago untill species that couldnt mate with eachother gathered in places far from species that could. A early species of animals that looks like eachother, for example the donkey and the horse, when those species lived close toghether for example after the flood, And humans took them with them on their journey the fill the earth again, and the animals adapted from there on, for example that animal in Australia that only feeds from the eucalyptus tree. Evene a human being can be so addicted to something like smoke, that when they smoke that everyday, and one day decides to quit, they die.



So you think ants could survive the flood? Where did you get that idea? I thought it was a little more "catastrophic" than that. You need to be a little more scientific. Go outside and find a bunch of ants. Put them in a jar and fill the jar with water. Keep them in the jar for a couple days and report how many survived. I'm pretty sure the answer will be zero. Then consider that the flood lasted over a year. Your solution will not work.

Your solutions would never convince anyone who knows about the real history and workings of the physical world. Sorry.

Why can insects survive a local flood, in the middle of the flood?
So many ants and insects colony that could have been, they could have been rescued by something silly as a big rock landing over their colony, protecting them from being drown, some insect can go so low underground that a flood wont reach them. You must think that God exists so that he could had have his hands over animals and insects he wanted to survive and evolve. He even shut the door to the ark, its so good symbolic bulilding of the ark to be their saviour, like Jesus, but you never heard such preaching. I suggest you buy some Joseph Prince teachings.
Since creationist have for my logical thinking, many answers against evolution of 4 billion years, putting God in the equation, something people believing in 4 billion years dosent do to come up with their answers.
It works for me to still believe the bible and the most important as God told Peter on the mount of transfiguration when Peter wanted to make Jesus equal to the law and the prophets, God said Hear Him, and you know what Him means.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-24-2012, 01:21 PM
Oh, so my argument fails mr.god? Stupid saying, thats all. It seems that you are thinking from now and 1000 years back of famines, you cant think more back than that? They were living over all earth, they had massive places to fill the earth, if diseases happened, they would simply leave those who were infected to not spread to the whole community, So that humans have lived for 50,000 years or more is an argument that fails, because population growth factors that just put in so much death that population grows only 1,0000000000000000001% for 100,000 years is plain stupid. This is an assumption from the theory that life is 4 billion years old, and we are accused for using the words of the bible to come up with our assumptions, you are just the same.

Hey there Roberto,

It's pretty silly for you to imply that I think I am "god" merely because I said that your argument failed. Such an assertion is blatantly irrational because you said the same thing about my argument. Does this mean that you think you are "god." Let's drop the silly talk, shall we?

And where did you get the idea I was thinking only about the last 1000 years? The reasons for slow population growth in history is easy to understand. It was always a big struggle to survive before the huge advances made in the last century. The fact that you don't understand this makes your arguments look "plain stupid" (to use your words).

And people were not "living over all the earth." Humans migrated to the Americas only about 20,000 years ago.

And the fact that there were natural limitations on human populations is not an "assumption from the theory that life is 4 billion years old." It is based on logic and facts. This is the difference between scientists and creationists. Scientists base their conclusions on evidence whereas creationists base their conclusions on highly questionable interpretations of an ancient religious text which devout believers can't even agree upon! And there's no way for your to know if your interpretations are correct because all you have to work with are words, words, and more words. This is why there have been fundamental disagreements amongst Christians that have lasted for 2000 years with no resolution. For you to suggest there is any kind of equivalence between science and religious dogma is absurd in the extreme.



You say that God kills so many in the bible, well, your theory of evolution kills 300 billion in diseases and childbirths and so on

A scientific theory is not an agent that goes about "doing" things. Your comparison is absurd.



http://www.ldolphin.org/morris.html

You've got to quit reading creationist literature. It will ruin your mind. The argument on that page is easy to refute. If it were true, there should be quadrillions of rabbits on the planet after only 4000 years since they reproduce much more quickly than humans. Why aren't there quadrillions of rabbits? Because there are natural forces that balance the rabbit population (predation, disease, famine). Pretty simple stuff. The fact that they missed such an elementary point demonstrates (yet again) how religious dogmas destroy rationality.

And worse, the OVERWHELMING BODY OF EVIDENCE contradicts the idea of a young earth. Most creationists won't admit this, but the fundamentalist Young Earth Creationist Paul Nelson, a professor of Science and Religion at Biola University, did admit the truth when he wrote this (http://everything.explained.at/Paul_Nelson_%28creationist%29/) in J.P. Moreland’s “Three Views on Creation and Evolution”:
“Natural science at the moment seems to overwhelmingly point to an old cosmos. Though creationist scientists have suggested some evidence for a recent cosmos, none are widely accepted as true. It is safe to say that most recent creationists are motivated by religious concerns.”

So why would you choose to believe things that are obviously false? Doesn't this contradict the idea that Christ is the truth? If you can't get your facts straight about simple things that can be strongly supported by evidence like the age of the earth, how could you have any confidence in the Biblical dogmas (like faith) that cannot be proven by anything?



You say there were many mass instiction like you lived at that time, you cant even think 2000 year back, you think that this femines and diseases that we had from now and 1000 years back, happened all the time before 1000 years ago.

Again, where did you get the idea I wasn't thinking further back than a 1000 years? I never said anything like that.

But you are correct that I think famines and diseases go back as far as the history of humanity. And why do I think that? It's what logic and facts tell me.



I know about plate tectonics, its only just movement thats still shakes from the global flood, and we have a big scar tissue from when the fountains burst from underneath, the mid atlantic ocean rigde.

This ice core dating i think is a failed theory of dating, they have page up and page down when you read about it in creationist sites, you would think that somewhere they would not have answers.
They even found a 2.world war plane so deep in the ice core, that it looks like it chrased there many thousand years ago. And even now scientist are stumbled over the fast melting of the poles, it is because they dont know the right equilibrium. Its not that evolution looks 4 billion years old, that is just mens thinking. Evolution happens, but it happened faster 4400 years ago untill species that couldnt mate with eachother gathered in places far from species that could. A early species of animals that looks like eachother, for example the donkey and the horse, when those species lived close toghether for example after the flood, And humans took them with them on their journey the fill the earth again, and the animals adapted from there on, for example that animal in Australia that only feeds from the eucalyptus tree. Evene a human being can be so addicted to something like smoke, that when they smoke that everyday, and one day decides to quit, they die.

If the things you said were true, they could be proven with evidence and scientists would agree.

And where did you get the idea that people who quit smoking die? I've never heard that. Please provide a link supporting that idea.

Your assertion that the age of the earth is not really 4 billion years contradicts a massive amount of evidence. Merely saying "it ain't so" doesn't work. Do you actually know any REAL SCIENCE supporting that idea or do you just read the creationist propaganda?



Why can insects survive a local flood, in the middle of the flood?

I thought you were talking about a global flood.



So many ants and insects colony that could have been, they could have been rescued by something silly as a big rock landing over their colony, protecting them from being drown, some insect can go so low underground that a flood wont reach them. You must think that God exists so that he could had have his hands over animals and insects he wanted to survive and evolve.

The BIBLE says:
Genesis 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

The words "every living substance" and "creeping things" includes the ants. This is what blows my mind. Your entire anti-science world view is based on your private interpretation of the Bible and when I prove it contradicts reality you ignore what the Bible says and make up ridiculous ideas that directly contradict what the Bible actually says. This is what all creationists do and this is one of the many reasons why creationists claims are so obviously false.



He even shut the door to the ark, its so good symbolic bulilding of the ark to be their saviour, like Jesus, but you never heard such preaching. I suggest you buy some Joseph Prince teachings.

I have heard such preaching for years. Why would you so freely make such false assertions about me? You don't know what I've heard or not heard.



Since creationist have for my logical thinking, many answers against evolution of 4 billion years, putting God in the equation, something people believing in 4 billion years dosent do to come up with their answers.

Your "logical thinking" is far from logical. The creationist arguments have all been refuted long ago. They are, for the most part, simply ridiculous. You can easily confirm this by checking the internet.



It works for me to still believe the bible and the most important as God told Peter on the mount of transfiguration when Peter wanted to make Jesus equal to the law and the prophets, God said Hear Him, and you know what Him means.
It's fine if you want to believe the Bible. The only problem is if it causes you to believe things about reality that are obviously false.

As for Peter - he was not trying to make Jesus equal to the law and the prophets. On the contrary, Moses (representing the Law) and Elijah (representing the Prophets) appeared to bear witness of Christ, just like Paul said:
Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God (Christ) without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

And this is confirmed in John:
John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

And again by Christ himself:
Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.


All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
08-24-2012, 01:27 PM
Here is a page that refutes the YEC arguments of Henry Morris:

http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/population_count.htm


Old Earth / Evolution View

For this YEC (http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/index.htm#YEC) claim to be valid, the world population would have to have increased at a steady rate. History tells us that this simply isn't true. The YEC (http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/index.htm#YEC) equation does not take into account population limiting factors, such as the ability to provide food, and population reducing events such as disease and catastrophe. Plagues have wiped out huge populations, sometimes as much as 40% in some areas, in a matter of years.

The YEC (http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/index.htm#YEC) equation simply ignores historical evidence that the population growth has been quite small until recent times. In the fourteenth century the population may have even decreased due to Black Death. Clearly it has not been a steady increase as stated by this YEC claim.

Variation: Some claim that an 'average' (as opposed to 'steady') rate of population growth shows that the Earth is only about 4,000 years old.

We can calculate what the average rage of population growth is using the following formula:


Pn = S * (1 + r)n
S = starting population (Noah and his family = 8)
n = years (2005 = 4,353 years starting from flood in 2,348 BC)
r = growth rate per year
Pn = population after n years


To get a world population of 6.5 billion in 2005, then the average rate of growth (r) must equal 0.004725.
What this means is: in order to get 6.5 billion people in 2005, starting with 8 in the year of the flood, the population must increase by 0.004725 (or approximately 0.5%) people every year.

Since this is an average increase, then it also specifies what the world population would be for other dates. And it gives us some interesting numbers. These numbers are extremely ridiculous, showing how absurd this method of proving a Young Earth is. For example:


[*=1]Great Flood (2348 BC) = 8 people - Noah and his family (according to the Bible).
[*=1]Tower of Babel (2242 BC) = 14 people
[*=1]Moses leads the Exodus from Egypt (1491 BC) = 455 people in the world.
[*=1]Israelites enter Canaan (1000 BC) = 4,600 people.
[*=1]The destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon (586 BC) = 32,380 people
[*=1]Time of Jesus (30 AD) = 590,681 people.
[*=1]Year 2005 = 6.5 billion (the correct current world population).


Even the Bible (Exodus 12:37) disagrees with this method, since it says Moses led 600,000 men out of Egypt.

As you can see, this population method produces absurd numbers, showing just how absurd it really is!.

One could, and should, criticize the above numbers by stating that the population growth was much higher early on, therefore these early populations would have had higher numbers. But that's exactly the point. Population growth rates have varied dramatically for various time periods. Therefore, any attempt to predict when a population started based on the assumption of a steady or average rate of growth, as this YEC claim does, is meaningless.

These facts clearly show the fundamental flaws of this particular Young Earth "proof."

Roberto
08-24-2012, 03:46 PM
Hey there Roberto,

It's pretty silly for you to imply that I think I am "god" merely because I said that your argument failed. Such an assertion is blatantly irrational because you said the same thing about my argument. Does this mean that you think you are "god." Let's drop the silly talk, shall we?

And where did you get the idea I was thinking only about the last 1000 years? The reasons for slow population growth in history is easy to understand. It was always a big struggle to survive before the huge advances made in the last century. The fact that you don't understand this makes your arguments look "plain stupid" (to use your words).

And people were not "living over all the earth." Humans migrated to the Americas only about 20,000 years ago.

And the fact that there were natural limitations on human populations is not an "assumption from the theory that life is 4 billion years old." It is based on logic and facts. This is the difference between scientists and creationists. Scientists base their conclusions on evidence whereas creationists base their conclusions on highly questionable interpretations of an ancient religious text which devout believers can't even agree upon! And there's no way for your to know if your interpretations are correct because all you have to work with are words, words, and more words. This is why there have been fundamental disagreements amongst Christians that have lasted for 2000 years with no resolution. For you to suggest there is any kind of equivalence between science and religious dogma is absurd in the extreme.

Im not implying, your writings back is not humble, so i just give you the same treatment, but your saying that i started, stupid dawkins tactic, ridicoulus. popasterous.

We have different kinds of logic thinking, but i just put out my answers and now accuse me for being ridicoulus to believe it, why cant you just answer back your answers about it, its a humble act, but when you are saying im ridicoulus all the time, even your Hey there Roberto looks like a fake friendley gesture.
I will now quit being so, saying that you only think 1000 years back and that you never heard such preaching.

My logical thinking is in the way thatpeople a long time ago did not get so affected of famines, and they did not have problems with gathering food for them selves, they know how to grow the land, and they know how to hunt and farm animals. If they just being a group of 200-1000 people in one area, it would be easy to grow to 4000 in one generation even with some dying of disease. And should you believe the bible they could get very old right after the flood also, and they could get children at the age of over 100. I just believe so okey, the fact that the bible has been written that they died younger and younger after the flood, must be that there was some kind of atmosphere on the earth so men would live longer, but after the flood something happened and they died younger and younger, Moses got 120 and after him, no one lived longer than that in the bible. People were filling the earth again mostly around the middle east area and africa, but i think many traveled their lifetime all the time moving from place to place searching out better land bringing out farm animals and such with them? How many years would it take for you to walk from eastcoast to westcoast of america? Maybe not even a year. So they would have no enemy untill their family got so big that they would argue of leadership, but then they will seperate into groups again and go each to their own place.
After some time, some will find some very good places to stay and small kingdoms arise, and then they will grow more and seperate small kingdoms, and then wars against eachother will start, and the larger the group the less control they had for femines and providing for everybody. Thats why population didnt grow much in the middle ages, wars and femines was out of control, being prisoned in small Europe around the meditorenian sea. But before that time there were small groups all over the world.
Thats my logical thinking putting God in the equation that created men 6000 years ago, that is impossible for scienctist, God is not in their textbooks.


You've got to quit reading creationist literature. It will ruin your mind. The argument on that page is easy to refute. If it were true, there should be quadrillions of rabbits on the planet after only 4000 years since they reproduce much more quickly than humans. Why aren't there quadrillions of rabbits? Because there are natural forces that balance the rabbit population (predation, disease, famine). Pretty simple stuff. The fact that they missed such an elementary point demonstrates (yet again) how religious dogmas destroy rationality.

And worse, the OVERWHELMING BODY OF EVIDENCE contradicts the idea of a young earth. Most creationists won't admit this, but the fundamentalist Young Earth Creationist Paul Nelson, a professor of Science and Religion at Biola University, did admit the truth when he wrote this in J.P. Moreland’s “Three Views on Creation and Evolution”:
“Natural science at the moment seems to overwhelmingly point to an old cosmos. Though creationist scientists have suggested some evidence for a recent cosmos, none are widely accepted as true. It is safe to say that most recent creationists are motivated by religious concerns.”
So why would you choose to believe things that are obviously false? Doesn't this contradict the idea that Christ is the truth? If you can't get your facts straight about simple things that can be strongly supported by evidence like the age of the earth, how could you have any confidence in the Biblical dogmas (like faith) that cannot be proven by anything?

How can you command me of doing so, i for the matter of fact believes in the stories of the bible, Jesus and all that, and that creationist are showing me that evolution theory of 4 billion years without God is for the ungodly to be excused for having a god that they fear, because Satan has tricked into being guilty infront of God if the case was that God excist, so many dark secrets that men have, it so good the symbol of Adam understanding he is naked.
So creationist tells me that scientists is a big spread of many groups, they spring out from a textbook that says a creator dosent excist. it is just random chance, that to me as a believer makes me think that its stupid to believe that. So creationist reads every theory of evolutionist and say they do not have a stronghold for that theory as i read, and they come up with their own theory with the same findings. I find the answers logical okey?
As for the rabbit theory, they are so down on the food chain for predators, it's like created for food for predators and humans as well. That' why they don't grow so fast.
When they first came to Australia, it got to be a big problem just 50 years ago, and now a huge problem. They did'nt have the predators to hunt them there, God knows best his own ecosystem. I could move to Australia and help out, i bet rabbit tastes good.
Get my facts staright, as if someone is the owner of facts when it comes to something big as a discussion like this. I think we can only explain why we believe so. AND WE DONT HAVE TO USE CAPS LOCK TO SAY THAT YOU HAVE MORE EVIDENce



If the things you said were true, they could be proven with evidence and scientists would agree.

And where did you get the idea that people who quit smoking die? I've never heard that. Please provide a link supporting that idea.

Your assertion that the age of the earth is not really 4 billion years contradicts a massive amount of evidence. Merely saying "it ain't so" doesn't work. Do you actually know any REAL SCIENCE supporting that idea or do you just read the creationist propaganda?

AGAIN WITH THE CAPS LOCK OF REAL SCIENCE, STUPID, RIDICOULOUS.
Scientist wont agree because they dont have God in their textbook.

I hear many such stories now about people i talk to, know people who smoke all their life, and suddenley stops at an old age, dies those nearest days after they quit smoking, a better example is how many people living in India bathes in the river Ghandi or whats it called, and its so polluted, but if a tourist comes and bathes, he will easily get sick, while locals dont. Some locals gets sick, but not all. They can easily live there till they are 80 and take a bath in that river every day.




The BIBLE says:
Genesis 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
The words "every living substance" and "creeping things" includes the ants. This is what blows my mind. Your entire anti-science world view is based on your private interpretation of the Bible and when I prove it contradicts reality you ignore what the Bible says and make up ridiculous ideas that directly contradict what the Bible actually says. This is what all creationists do and this is one of the many reasons why creationists claims are so obviously false.

You you are killing with letters here, it is writings by men, and they would think that a global flood would kill everything, of course a global flood will kill most, but God could have easily protected his little insects with how he created them, to survive a flood for example, so when the waters withdraw, insects would crawl out again.
YOUR ARGUMENT FAILS?



As for Peter - he was not trying to make Jesus equal to the law and the prophets. On the contrary, Moses (representing the Law) and Elijah (representing the Prophets) appeared to bear witness of Christ, just like Paul said:
Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God (Christ) without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Peter tried to make Jesus equal to Moses and Elijah by wanting to build three huts for them. And God stopped Peter and said what Peter should believe, but again and again peter failed by saying that he should not be crucified and that he says he loves Jesus, but rejecting him when he was taken prisoner.
Peter who said he loved Jesus got outrunned by John who said Jesus loved him when they both ran to the tomb, it's a picture of understanding how God loves you more than you can love Him, and that gives you force. Not potsmoking or drugs.


Great Flood (2348 BC) = 8 people - Noah and his family (according to the Bible).
Tower of Babel (2242 BC) = 14 people
Moses leads the Exodus from Egypt (1491 BC) = 455 people in the world.
Israelites enter Canaan (1000 BC) = 4,600 people.
The destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon (586 BC) = 32,380 people
Time of Jesus (30 AD) = 590,681 people.
Year 2005 = 6.5 billion (the correct current world population).

This does not fit my equilibrium since i believe they grew fast in population in the beginning adding the age of men at that time. Now we grow fast again because we can put femines under control, and wars is not killing so much people, we have gone from 1 billion to 7 billion today in 200 years. Im from Norway, you are from america, with our technology of communicating, i know what happens where you live and you can know of things where i live, now that is a prophecy being fullfilled.

yes, yes i know you are a preterist, but i believe that Jesus speaking about the end times has many surfaces, just to confuse people like you, saying there is nothing more in the bible for us living after 70 AD. Of course there is, people who dont want to believe, just dont see that. I think many preterist thinking is right, but you are taking it so literally, that it kills, the letter kills, you know the rest.

Richard Amiel McGough
08-24-2012, 04:55 PM
Im not implying, your writings back is not humble, so i just give you the same treatment, but your saying that i started, stupid dawkins tactic, ridicoulus. popasterous.

I didn't say you "started" anything. And I was not using "dawkins tactic." And your comments certainly are not "humble." That's three strikes ... in one sentence! Preposterous indeed.



We have different kinds of logic thinking, but i just put out my answers and now accuse me for being ridicoulus to believe it, why cant you just answer back your answers about it, its a humble act, but when you are saying im ridicoulus all the time, even your Hey there Roberto looks like a fake friendley gesture.
I will now quit being so, saying that you only think 1000 years back and that you never heard such preaching.

I only used the word "ridiculous" once in my last post and it was in an appropriate context. And I was responding to your post where you rudely referred to me as "mr. god" and then called me "stupid." I find it quite ironic that you blame me for the tone of this conversation and say I am using "dawkins tactics" when in fact you are doing the things you accuse me of! It's like you've never read anything taught by Paul or Jesus:

KJV Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

Matthew 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

You need to grow a thicker skin if you want to promote creationism and call people names when they refute your arguments. What goes around come around. You would do well to focus on the arguments.



My logical thinking is in the way thatpeople a long time ago did not get so affected of famines, and they did not have problems with gathering food for them selves, they know how to grow the land, and they know how to hunt and farm animals. If they just being a group of 200-1000 people in one area, it would be easy to grow to 4000 in one generation even with some dying of disease. And should you believe the bible they could get very old right after the flood also, and they could get children at the age of over 100. I just believe so okey, the fact that the bible has been written that they died younger and younger after the flood, must be that there was some kind of atmosphere on the earth so men would live longer, but after the flood something happened and they died younger and younger, Moses got 120 and after him, no one lived longer than that in the bible. People were filling the earth again mostly around the middle east area and africa, but i think many traveled their lifetime all the time moving from place to place searching out better land bringing out farm animals and such with them? How many years would it take for you to walk from eastcoast to westcoast of america? Maybe not even a year. So they would have no enemy untill their family got so big that they would argue of leadership, but then they will seperate into groups again and go each to their own place.
After some time, some will find some very good places to stay and small kingdoms arise, and then they will grow more and seperate small kingdoms, and then wars against eachother will start, and the larger the group the less control they had for femines and providing for everybody. Thats why population didnt grow much in the middle ages, wars and femines was out of control, being prisoned in small Europe around the meditorenian sea. But before that time there were small groups all over the world.
Thats my logical thinking putting God in the equation that created men 6000 years ago, that is impossible for scienctist, God is not in their textbooks.

Your argument is based on pure speculation. Are there any facts supporting your ideas about human history? If so, please cite a few published scientists who agree with your scenario. There are believing scientists, so you can't reject all scientists as if they were atheists. And even so, that would be a logical fallacy. You need to base your arguments on demonstrable logic and facts.



How can you command me of doing so, i for the matter of fact believes in the stories of the bible, Jesus and all that, and that creationist are showing me that evolution theory of 4 billion years without God is for the ungodly to be excused for having a god that they fear, because Satan has tricked into being guilty infront of God if the case was that God excist, so many dark secrets that men have, it so good the symbol of Adam understanding he is naked.
So creationist tells me that scientists is a big spread of many groups, they spring out from a textbook that says a creator dosent excist. it is just random chance, that to me as a believer makes me think that its stupid to believe that. So creationist reads every theory of evolutionist and say they do not have a stronghold for that theory as i read, and they come up with their own theory with the same findings. I find the answers logical okey?

The creationists might seem logical to you because they claim to believe the Bible, but many of them (if not most) are corrupt and deceptive and deliberately spreading lies. They are deceiving gullible people like you who don't know the science. That's why I speak so strongly against them. Anyone who spreads lies in the name of truth is an enemy of truth. And from a Christian perspective they are children of the devil. Think about that. Think about what it says about their supposed faith in Christ who is supposed to be the truth.



As for the rabbit theory, they are so down on the food chain for predators, it's like created for food for predators and humans as well. That' why they don't grow so fast.
When they first came to Australia, it got to be a big problem just 50 years ago, and now a huge problem. They did'nt have the predators to hunt them there, God knows best his own ecosystem. I could move to Australia and help out, i bet rabbit tastes good.

And how many predators would be required to eat a quadrillion rabbits? Do that math ... your argument doesn't work.



Get my facts staright, as if someone is the owner of facts when it comes to something big as a discussion like this. I think we can only explain why we believe so. AND WE DONT HAVE TO USE CAPS LOCK TO SAY THAT YOU HAVE MORE EVIDENce

OK - I think I see the problem. You appear to think that there is some sort of equivalence between science and religious dogmas. That is totally wrong. When people had only the Bible, they believed all sorts of false things about the world. The Bible is filled with scientific errors. For example, that's why the Catholic church condemned Galileo for promoting the Copernican helio-centric system (which happens to be the truth).



AGAIN WITH THE CAPS LOCK OF REAL SCIENCE, STUPID, RIDICOULOUS.

"Real science" is "stupid" and "ridiculous"? :doh:



Scientist wont agree because they dont have God in their textbook.

That's absurd. There are many scientists who are also Christian. You have been readin too much creationist propaganda.



I hear many such stories now about people i talk to, know people who smoke all their life, and suddenley stops at an old age, dies those nearest days after they quit smoking, a better example is how many people living in India bathes in the river Ghandi or whats it called, and its so polluted, but if a tourist comes and bathes, he will easily get sick, while locals dont. Some locals gets sick, but not all. They can easily live there till they are 80 and take a bath in that river every day.

I've never heard of people dying from quitting smoking. Where did you hear those stories?

As for the Ganges river - the natives don't get sick because they have developed resistance to the microbes by living there all their lives. The tourists get sick because they don't have the antibodies.



You you are killing with letters here, it is writings by men, and they would think that a global flood would kill everything, of course a global flood will kill most, but God could have easily protected his little insects with how he created them, to survive a flood for example, so when the waters withdraw, insects would crawl out again.
YOUR ARGUMENT FAILS?

So you are willing to contradict the Bible to support that Bible? The Bible says all living substance, including the creeping things, died. You say the Bible is wrong? How does that help prove the Bible is true? :dizzy:

If the words of the Bible can be turned any way you want, why would you think any of it is true? Someone else who "believes the Bible" can twist the words to mean something altogether different. How is anyone supposed to know who is right and who is wrong? It looks like total confusion and vanity to me.



This does not fit my equilibrium since i believe they grew fast in population in the beginning adding the age of men at that time. Now we grow fast again because we can put femines under control, and wars is not killing so much people, we have gone from 1 billion to 7 billion today in 200 years. Im from Norway, you are from america, with our technology of communicating, i know what happens where you live and you can know of things where i live, now that is a prophecy being fullfilled.

It looks like you are just making up whatever you want to fit your own ideas. You offer no evidence for anything and your ideas directly contradict a vast body of scientific evidence. Do you know anything about the science? Do you know about the many different lines of evidence that support the age of the earth and the universe? Radiometric dating? Starlight that is billions of years old? Do you know any of that?



yes, yes i know you are a preterist, but i believe that Jesus speaking about the end times has many surfaces, just to confuse people like you, saying there is nothing more in the bible for us living after 70 AD. Of course there is, people who dont want to believe, just dont see that. I think many preterist thinking is right, but you are taking it so literally, that it kills, the letter kills, you know the rest.
Well, if God designed the Bible to deceive people into thinking that the words mean what they say, what hope is there for anyone? How do you know that God hasn't deceived you into believing in a young earth? Do the words of the Bible have any meaning at all?

Take the Olivet Discourse for example. Christ began his sermon by predicting the destruction of the Temple and he said it would happen during the lifetime of the generation to whom he spoke. And history confirms that it happened just the way he said. So if you are right and all those words are deliberate deceptions to "confuse" people like me, how could anyone know what parts of the Bible are true and which were designed to deceive?

Roberto
08-25-2012, 11:20 AM
Your argument is based on pure speculation. Are there any facts supporting your ideas about human history? If so, please cite a few published scientists who agree with your scenario. There are believing scientists, so you can't reject all scientists as if they were atheists. And even so, that would be a logical fallacy. You need to base your arguments on demonstrable logic and facts.

My pure speculations is for me way better than scientist's "demonstrabled" facts of 4 billion years. Thank God for believing scientist, they are blessed. But they have been taught with ungodly textbook and have no choice then to use the formulas that has come with the tought that the earth must have been billions of years old because life didnt come from a creating God, if God exists, he just made a little soup of life to become life we see it today by random chance. Thats how low you must put God. As if people making computer games, only has a little electron and wait billion of years and it will become Gran Turismo 5 on PS3. No, they design the game, so did God with creation, and as Gran Turismo started with 1, then the sequal, and then 3, 4 and 5, so do God make his design evolve to the right ecosystem. You call guillable, i call you guillable. God will show the truth, and he gave us a basic instruction before leaving earth.


Anyone who spreads lies in the name of truth is an enemy of truth At least we can agree on this, even if you blame me and i blame you.


And how many predators would be required to eat a quadrillion rabbits? Do that math ... your argument doesn't work.

But you know predators likes to take the weak, and who is that? You:P They are the small animals that has not breeded yet, so when the rabbits are so small and weak that they are not in the reproducing age yet, thats what the predators prey after. So human growth can not be likened like that, we are on the top of the food chain, animals is afraid of us, and those animals that can kill us, we protect us from them by becoming a bigger group.


For example, that's why the Catholic church condemned Galileo for promoting the Copernican helio-centric system (which happens to be the truth).

You dont have a better example than the satanic gruop of middle age catholic priests than was only interested in power and money they got from stupid kings at that time that found out that you can spread a little sour in the bread, to sour the whole bread for their own profit. Galileo and copernicus did believe the God of the bible, they saw the creation by studying space. But just because stars is lightyears away, dosent mean that God can be a force faster than light.



"Real science" is "stupid" and "ridiculous"?

Haha, why not. 1 Cor. chapter 1


As for the Ganges river - the natives don't get sick because they have developed resistance to the microbes by living there all their lives. The tourists get sick because they don't have the antibodies.

Then you know what evolving i can think can happen, but from a dinosaur to a bird, oh excuse, a common ancestor.
Another thing now is the recistent bacterias where antibiotics dosent help anymore. Too many afraid people made them by using to much antibiotics and teaching bacterias to evolve and spread them. Jesus said "don't be afraid", that is what we are suppose to believe in all sickness and famine and things that is coming against us. As for you Samuel, chosen by God to show us the bible wheel, with your good education(Samuel being a head taller then everybody else), you gave up on God as we see now. Coming up with a new theory that we are in gods mind, ya, maybe Satans mind.
Now 2000 year after Jesus fullfilling, and at a break of dawn, at the darkest hour before dawn, you are trying to come up with something totally new, that almost has'nt come up in anys mind, should be a more right direction than the bible. Do you have many followers?

Jesus showed himself for a small group of people, and in 3 years he showed so much that pastors today still are baffled of the dephts of every thing that can be seen in believing that Jesus is Christ, Son of the living God. On this rock of belief, we are suppose to build our church. And flesh and blood can not reveal this, it is not our thoughts that thinks this, it is given us by God.
You trust to much in the flesh, thats why this truth gets more and more hidden, the more you want to take this thought away.
You had so much revelation when you were creating the bible wheel site, now i dont see nothing. Other people on this forum still comes up with something now and then, and you say, huh, i didnt know that, thats nice.


Do you know anything about the science? Do you know about the many different lines of evidence that support the age of the earth and the universe? Radiometric dating? Starlight that is billions of years old? Do you know any of that?

Do you know anything about the earth is truthfully some 4 billion years old and that we are created in a soup becoming through random chance? What is your good arguments? Platetectonic, some kind of radiometric dating, some fossils that can not be refuted by creationist? I know science through Kent Hovind seminars.

Jesus claims to be the truth, in His Spirit i believe He is, way better than anyone, God did make a good story there, you are just trying to kill our belief with letters, just as the pharisees.
Jesus is yes, and Amen, grace is replaced by law, the meaning of names of Peter Jacob and John, they got afraid hearing God saying, this is my beloved Son. Hear Him. After that they saw only Jesus telling them, dont be afraid. They were not afraid of Jesus shining, they were afraid of Gods voice from heaven, that's normal, thats why God dont show Himself to everybody, Jesus came to tell us to not be afraid.
When moses came down from the mountain(Sinai), he was glowing, and people ran AWAY from him.
Now Jesus is coming down from a high mountain(Sion) He also shines, and people meeting him ran TO Him. In this writings, you find the disiples ask Jesus to heal, and Jesus rebukes because in the crowd there, there is some sour people, the pharisees wanting to hinder healing with unbelief.
This is what you are doing when you tell people to stop praying, it dosent work-propaganda.
But God is coming showing that this can't hinder a man with right belief.
I hope you can study some REAL TEACHINGS, give Joseph Prince a try. And be there when we are conquering the last enemy, death.
And yes, Jesus mentioned Noah, so i think He also knows that Noahs story is truth.
So you dont like my logical thinking of world population?

I dont know all english words, so again, i have to excuse my bad english.

CWH
08-25-2012, 08:13 PM
The population growth would slow down if there are massive famines, diseases, natural disasters ... or if people started using birth control more (a much better solution, I would say!).
This clearly shows that God have a hand in population control. Without such natural disasters and diseases, the world's population will be out of control within a few centuries.


The reason the population remained small for so long was because people used to die much more frequently. Things like the industrial revolution, medical revolution, and availability of food are why the population is growing so fast now.
Agree but that creates another problem.....over population within the next few decades, what are we gonna to do then? The earth resources is simply unsustainable to support such hugh population.


As for the story of Noah's flood - there are lot's of problems with thinking that really happened. First, there has been no massive extincting of animal life in the last 6000 years.
This shows that the animals in the ark survived through the global flood.


So the story is simply false. Second, it makes no sense to think that the kangaroos hopped all the way from Australia to the Middle East, rode the ark, and then hopped back.
We have to take into account the stories of the Australian aborigines who also mention about a global flood. There are also ancient Chinese story of a Global flood, same with the Babylonians, the American Indians etc. Many ancient folklores mention about a global flood. Could they also have built boats and carry some of those endemic animals as well?


And this is confirmed by the fossil record which shows that the animals all over the planet lived in their present locations for hundreds of thousands of years. And the idea that each species could have repopulated the planet from just one pair is very unlikely.
Why not? A few deers were introduced into New Zealand two centuries ago and now they were found in the wild in New Zealand, same with rabbits, cats, camels, horses, trouts introduced into Australia.


And where did the 40,000 species of ants come from? And all the other species of insects? The story of the flood is pure myth. I can't see any way to avoid this conclusion.
You seems to have forgotten about the flotsam that will be seen floating on the sea. A good example is the hugh flotsam from the tsunami of Japan that travel thousands of kilometers to the West Coast of North America within a year. Even empty fishing boats and tankers reached the West Coast of America within a year of the tsunami! They carry along with them vegetations, bugs, insects, bacteria, and radioactive materials and perhaps small animals such as lizards, rats, ants, spiders, frogs from Japan as well. Couldn't small animals such as ants and frogs have travelled with these flotsam as well besides the ark and the boats?


So are you a Young Earth Creationist? Do you know anything about the science that indicates the universe is about 13.75 Billion years old, the earth about 4.5 billion, and life about 3.5 billion?
The earth is 4.5 billion years is just nonsense. We have debated on that before and I won't go into the details. The carbon dating or whatever dating that scientists used is flawed. The earth is just several thousand years old.

http://asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

The reason why ice core could not prove global flood is because the polar ice continued to grow as the world flooded during the global flood of Noah's time. They also aid in the rising of the waters. The polar ice is the main contributors in maintaining the world's temperature, weather and the wind and ocean currents system. Obviously, wind, weather, ocean currents and temperature were still maintained during the Great Flood. If it rained continuously during the Great Flood, there is no reason why it did not snow continuously at the polar caps.


God Bless us all.:pray:

CWH
08-26-2012, 02:20 AM
It seems that you have forgotten the many factors that limit population growth. Throughout all history, till just a hundred years ago, there were many diseases that would kill massive numbers of people. Smallpox, the plague (Black Death), tuberculosis, malaria, etc., etc., etc. And there were infectious diseases that we now cure with antibiotics that were quite deadly. And both child and mother often died in childbirth. And famines were much worse because there was no mass food production and distribution like our modern times. The list goes on and on. There is no reason whatsoever to think that the current population indicates a young earth. Your argument fails.
It simply shows that God have a hand in population control so that it will not go out of control. Imagine if antibiotics and vaccines were discovered 1,000 years ago, the population will be so much by now that the earth resources will not be able to sustain it. It wil results in massive death from starvation and even infightings.


The sea fossils on the mountain tops are from plate tectonics which pushes the mountains up over a span of millions of years. That's why the fossils are millions of years old.
Rather the waters cover the mountain tops which resulted in the formation of fossils. The fossils are discovered in almost all mountain tops which should not be the case if it was due to plate tectonics. And how do you explain fishes, frogs and marine creatures that live in lake Titicaca, 12,000 feet above sea level and in almost every mountain streams? There are flaws in the dating of the fossils which gives the wrong datings. There is also the possibility that the mountains were uplifted and the valleys sank as described in Psalms 104.


And a global flood is impossible because the ice-cores from the poles prove the snow layers go back hundreds of thousands of years. This proves two things. 1) The earth is at least 150,000 years old (though of course we know it is really about 4.5 billion years old) and 2) the poles were never covered by a flood. Therefore, both Young Earth Creationism and the story of Noah's Flood are false.
If it could rained continuously during the Great Flood, so can the poles snowed continuously. The ice at the poles are essential in maintaining the temperature, climate, winds and ocean currents of the world. The ice at the poles were not underwater but continued to grow according to the level of the sea water. And when the sea water resided, the ice melted too. Obviously, the poles were never covered by water but by ice. Therefore, there are no accumulation of marine creatures under the ice and the ice remain young only 150,000 years old as according to your statement. This also explain your contradictory statement of a 150,000 years old ice core compare to a 4.5 billion years old earth.


As for the Grand Canyon - why would you think it wasn't formed by natural slow erosion?
Why couldn't the Grand Canyon formed by fast action also? such as caused by the fast residing great flood waters?


There were many mass extinctions. But none in recent history required by the flood story. There are many ways to prove this. The most obvious is this: Where did all the animals on the little islands found in all the oceans come from? Many are unique to the island on which they live. How did they get there after the flood? And why are they unique to their own island?
They came from the flotsam from the great flood. The tsunami of Japan provided hugh flotsam that reached the West Coast of North America in about a year including fishing vessels and tanker. There are local stories of survivors of a great flood in the local folk tales which seems to suggest that Noah's ark may not be the only boat around during the great flood.


The real question is "If evolution is false, why did God make it look like everything evolved?"
The real answer is human used associations to provide possible answer to their theories. Just because there were animals that looks like humans, they thought they must have descended from a common ancestor. Why do humans describe the evolution of aircrafts from biplanes when we know that there was no evolution but creation of the man-made aircraft? It is the same workings of human's mental association that because biplanes looks similar to modern aircraft so they must have descended from a common ancestor which is the first plane built by the Wilbur brothers.

http://static.theurbn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Airplane-evolution-340x400.jpg

Does the evolution of submarine looks like the evolution tree? Submarine don't evolve!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-OPk2TbrLMro/UCbd-D7P-RI/AAAAAAAAATU/_VeWxGr1EuU/s1600/SHIP_SSK_HDW_Sub_Evolution_lg.jpg



The age of the fossils is not determined by "need." That's how religious people think. They begin with a conclusion (the Bible is true) and then look for facts to support their preconceived notions. This is the opposite of science which begins with the facts and seeks to find the best conclusion.
The problem with science is that they may be wrong or misled such as the theory of Phlogiston and the Piltdown Man. Science in which there are many critics are prime suspects that something is wrong with the theories. Some simple examples, why are there hardly any critics against the Pythagorus theorem or the theory of combustion or the periodic table of elements etc.? but there are numerous critics against the theory of evolution, the formation of the universe etc.


So you think ants could survive the flood? Where did you get that idea? I thought it was a little more "catastrophic" than that. You need to be a little more scientific. Go outside and find a bunch of ants. Put them in a jar and fill the jar with water. Keep them in the jar for a couple days and report how many survived. I'm pretty sure the answer will be zero. Then consider that the flood lasted over a year. Your solution will not work.
Insects such as spiders, frogs, ants and even rats have been known to travel across oceans on flotsam and rafts...simple fact. Birds and insects are also known to carry bugs, insects, bacteria and seeds across vast distances and oceans.

http://www.biology-blog.com/blogs/permalinks/6-2007/caribbean-frogs-started-from-south-america.html


Your solutions would never convince anyone who knows about the real history and workings of the physical world. Sorry.
Neither is yours, Sorry.

God Bless His Creation.:pray: