YOUNG EARTH?

by Terry 39 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Viviane

  It seems to me that the biblical flood event fits current population statistics far better than a non-flood history

  Of course, that's already what you want to believe. Confirmation bias.

  That is, let’s assume it takes 150 years for the population to double on average. This corresponds to an average annual percentage growth rate of 0.463% (for every 100,000 people, a net of 463 are added yearly).

  Why would he make that assumption? Did he normalize the data? Does he know what that means and why he should do it? Why doesn't he start with the biblical numbers?

  In 4,500 years there would be 30 doublings (4500/150 = 30), so those six people would grow to 6.4 billion. This is close to today’s world population of 7.1 billion.

  Ah, we see he makes that "assumption", which isn't an assumption at all, because it's the growth rate that fits the story he wants you to believe. He didn't follow the evidence or do any research, he simply did really really bad math to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion.

  Did he calculate in the Black Death? Crusades? Genetic diversity? Incest? Anything else?

  Thus the known facts of population growth fit the Biblical chronology very well.

  No, no they don't. His assumptions and and contortions have been jammed sideways into the spaces between the known facts.
• 

  FadeToBlack

  Thank you Viviane.
• 

  Earnest

  Terry : Sure, I understand what you are saying. But--did you read carefully what happens when you bump the figure?

  Yes, I did. That is why I asked how you account in your accumulative figures for events like the Black Death which wiped out about half of Europe in four years.

  If you bump the average number of children each couple have you do reach a population far higher than we have today. But that conclusion does not take into account that the world population was regularly decimated, usually by disease.

  The fact is that there are so many unknowns when using regression to determine when the world population started (for the second time) I doubt population statistics are a reliable measure.
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  It seems to me that the biblical flood event fits current population statistics far better than a non-flood history

  <<Of course, that's already what you want to believe. Confirmation bias.>>

  Not really. There is no bias in facts. 7 billion can only be understood as evidence relecting a young earth...this paralled with the facts of the earliest known civilizations and the earliest historical records.

  Here is a quote from Creation.com

  What if people had been around for one million years?

  Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 10 43 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. This number is so big that not even the Texans have a word for it! To try to put this number of people in context, say each individual is given ‘standing room only’ of about one square metre per person. However, the land surface area of the whole Earth is ‘only’ 1.5 x 10 14 square metres. If every one of those square metres were made into a world just like this one, all these worlds put together would still ‘only’ have a surface area able to fit 10 28 people in this way. This is only a tiny fraction of 10 43 (10 29 is 10 times as much as 10 28 , 10 30 is 100 times, and so on). Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.10 This stretches credulity to the limits.
• 

  Vidiot

  Creation.com - "...Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history."

  Well, yeah...

  ...prior to the modern age, the earth wasn't always an easy place to survive in; the planet's had extinction-level events countless times in its past.

  Goes a long way towards explaining the human obsessesion with apocalypticism, actually.

  x

  EDIT: Waaaaaait a sec....

  ...keeping "the numbers almost constant" isn't "the brink of extinction"; it's practically the opposite - equilibrium.

  Moron.
• 

  Viviane

  Not really. There is no bias in facts. 7 billion can only be understood as evidence relecting a young earth...this paralled with the facts of the earliest known civilizations and the earliest historical records.

  Seven billion whats? How is it evidence? Connect the dots from one thing to another. Be specific.

  Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 10 43 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it.

  Letting go the first quoted sentence being wrong, can you spot what the error is in the second sentence?
• 

  cofty

  groan.

  Why not study evolution instead of quoting internet sources. A schoolchild could tell you what is blatantly wrong with your quote Vanderhoven.

  It would be no less intellectually dishonest to espouse a flat earth than a young one. I really enjoy explaining science but this is too ridiculous.
• 

  Vanderhoven7

  Not really. There is no bias in facts. 7 billion can only be understood as evidence relecting a young earth...this paralled with the facts of the earliest known civilizations and the earliest historical records.

  Seven billion whats? How is it evidence? Connect the dots from one thing to another. Be specific.

  A mere 7 billion people living today fits the young earth model, recency of first civilizations fits the young earth model, recency of recorded history fits the young earth model.

  If you see these as evidence to the contrary. please explain.

  For scientific evidence of a young earth check out

  http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm
• 

  LisaRose

  http://cheezburger.com/8267261440

  A little comic relief, for you Neil Degrasse fans (Cosmos), an excellent way to learn about science BTW, as long as you can watch it with an open and inquiring mind.
• 

  designs

  Stone tools were recently discovered in South Africa 700,000 B.C.E.. Villages unearthed in Syria, Egypt, China, France 8000-10,000 B.C.E..

  Once you have proof of one human predating the Biblical Adam and Eve the Bible is toast.