Old Earth vs. Young Earth

[Monkey1976]

I f a person weighs 50 lbs and the scale capacity is 200lbs then the 50 lb reading would be accurate within the scale. Now if your base assumption is that very same person has to weigh 500lbs then you cannot believe the scale and you would call it ridiculous.

But if 5 scales say 200lbs, and one scale that is only reliable to 100lbs says 50lbs, then any reasonable researcher will mistrust the last scale - not base a new theory of gravity on its reading.

Have you been keeping up to date with the increasing number of soft tissue finds for dino’s and others?

Not until recently. While definitely exciting if true, the problem is that there’s no way to determine with any reasonable accuracy if these tissues are indeed dinosaurian.

It is now incumbent on the scientists who assume that the dino’s went extinct 70 millions years ago to show how soft tissue can last that long. My own opinion is it is a losing battle as there are several papers out that claim they cannot last anywhere near that long.

The 65Myrs date for their extinction isn’t arbitrary, or based on a single line of evidence. As far as the soft tissue discovery goes, it has yet to be shown to actually be dinosaurian - that 65Myr date gives a lot of time during which there is the possibility of foreign contamination from a more recent source. In science, extraordinary claims - such as claims of collagen from a T. rex - require extraordinary proof.

So yes, science is provisional and when these carbon date ages keep repeating then the prior science must be reconsidered.

Not when C14 dating is being misapplied in ways almost guaranteed to give inaccurate results. To return to the analogy of the scales above, one doesn’t use the last scale as evidence that the theory of gravity is wrong.

And you are correct. Faith and science cannot be opposed. The weakness is our limited human capacity to reason and our limited reasoning skills.

Yes, our ability to reason is limited when compared to God. But He made us the pinnacle of His creation - I think it’s a mistake to treat our reason too lightly.

If you see only left footprints on the beach for as far as you can see, what should you conclude?

That the footprints alone are insufficient evidence for monopeds.

Recently Mt St Helens rocks known to be 10 years old were dated at 360000 years by Pot Ar.

This is the same error of misapplication that your sources are using as evidence when looking at C14 dates, but in reverse. K40 has a half-life of about 1.2 billion years. Given the uncertainties of how much is deposited at the time of a rock’s formation, its application on anything less than 100Kyrs old is pointless. It’s like trying to measure the thickness of a hair using stellar parallax.

Dating methods aren’t one-size-fits-all. Each one covers a specific age range. When different methods have overlapping ranges, it’s common to use multiple methods to confirm a date. One example of this is when a C14 date is calibrated using tree-ring dating and/or cave deposits.

Don’t get me wrong - I truly do believe that God formed us out of the dust of the earth, and that we have two specific individual parents named Adam and Eve. As I see it, all evolution does is tell us how He seems to have formed us.

As an aside, it also neatly solves the problem of Cain’s wife: If Adam was an individual archaic H. sapiens chosen by God to receive “the breath of life” - a rational soul. God then formed Eve from his side. Cain’s wife is simply another female who was not ensouled by God. It also resolves the “two stories” problem - God created mankind as H. sapiens, a population of many, including males and females. We know they could gather, hunt, make tools, and control fire. From this population, God chose Adam to receive His greatest Gift to His creation until Our Lord’s death: An immortal, rational soul - the first true Homo sapiens sapiens. We know from archaeology that something happened 6-10Kya in the middle east, because we suddenly have the rise of agriculture, architecture, cities, and places of worship - none of which were in evidence for the previous ~100,000 years of H. sapiens’ existence as a species.

 

[buffalo]

But if 5 scales say 200lbs, and one scale that is only reliable to 100lbs says 50lbs, then any reasonable researcher will mistrust the last scale - not base a new theory of gravity on its reading. Not apples to apples

Not until recently. While definitely exciting if true, the problem is that there’s no way to determine with any reasonable accuracy if these tissues are indeed dinosaurian. They were taken from the bones - encrusted with rock on the outside

The 65Myrs date for their extinction isn’t arbitrary, or based on a single line of evidence. As far as the soft tissue discovery goes, it has yet to be shown to actually be dinosaurian - that 65Myr date gives a lot of time during which there is the possibility of foreign contamination from a more recent source. In science, extraordinary claims - such as claims of collagen from a T. rex - require extraordinary proof. 65MYA is based on rock strata - the processes used are very cognizant of contamination. The carbon dating is accurate when also compared with artifacts with know historical ages.

Not when C14 dating is being misapplied in ways almost guaranteed to give inaccurate results. To return to the analogy of the scales above, one doesn’t use the last scale as evidence that the theory of gravity is wrong. I know this is very hard to accept. Rock strata is even more difficult to reconcile now that geologists know catastrophism is proven.

Yes, our ability to reason is limited when compared to God. But He made us the pinnacle of His creation - I think it’s a mistake to treat our reason too lightly.

That the footprints alone are insufficient evidence for monopeds. Right, so we can reason a few more possibilities. The waves washed away the right footprints, or the person was hopping. But now further down the beach a guy is sitting in the sand and He tells us why we only see left one’s aka Revelation

This is the same error of misapplication that your sources are using as evidence when looking at C14 dates, but in reverse. K40 has a half-life of about 1.2 billion years. Given the uncertainties of how much is deposited at the time of a rock’s formation, its application on anything less than 100Kyrs old is pointless. It’s like trying to measure the thickness of a hair using stellar parallax. Either there is carbon left to measure in the bones or their is not. You don’t like the results of the readings because of a priori bias. Challenge - test more fossils now in the museums.

Dating methods aren’t one-size-fits-all. Each one covers a specific age range. When different methods have overlapping ranges, it’s common to use multiple methods to confirm a date. One example of this is when a C14 date is calibrated using tree-ring dating and/or cave deposits. Yup - but these can be compared to other historical sources. The others do not have this advantage. Assumptions are rampant.

Don’t get me wrong - I truly do believe that God formed us out of the dust of the earth, and that we have two specific individual parents named Adam and Eve. As I see it, all evolution does is tell us how He seems to have formed us.

As an aside, it also neatly solves the problem of Cain’s wife: If Adam was an individual archaic H. sapiens chosen by God to receive “the breath of life” - a rational soul. God then formed Eve from his side. Cain’s wife is simply another female who was not ensouled by God. It also resolves the “two stories” problem - God created mankind as H. sapiens, a population of many, including males and females. We know they could gather, hunt, make tools, and control fire. From this population, God chose Adam to receive His greatest Gift to His creation until Our Lord’s death: An immortal, rational soul - the first true Homo sapiens sapiens. We know from archaeology that something happened 6-10Kya in the middle east, because we suddenly have the rise of agriculture, architecture, cities, and places of worship - none of which were in evidence for the previous ~100,000 years of H. sapiens’ existence as a species.

Cain’s wife, according to Jubilees (non canonical) was his twin sister Avon. Polygenism is not allowed as per Humani Generis. Under your idea are there humans alive today without original sin? Continue on that trail about the rise of agriculture, etc…

 

[Monkey1976]

Not apples to apples

Completely apples to apples,as I’ll explain below.

They were taken from the bones - encrusted with rock on the outside

Again: Dinosaur fossils aren’t actually bone - they are minerals deposited in the shape of the original bone as it decayed. Is it possible that this provided an anaerobic environment which could preserve collagen? Maybe - I don’t know enough about collagen decay processes.

65MYA is based on rock strata - the processes used are very cognizant of contamination. The carbon dating is accurate when also compared with artifacts with know historical ages.

It is also based on K-Ar dating, continental drift processes, magnetic field direction and strength… And, once again: Of course carbon dating is accurate when compared to historical artifacts - that’s it’s “butter zone” where it’s the most accurate - less than 50Kya.

I know this is very hard to accept. Rock strata is even more difficult to reconcile now that geologists know catastrophism is proven.

And that’s why stratigraphy isn’t used for finely-grained, localized dates. However, when there is a particular strata with unique characteristics found to have the same age by various methods - namely, the iridium-enriched K-T boundary layer - then stratigraphy is a reasonable tool to employ.

Right, so we can reason a few more possibilities. The waves washed away the right footprints, or the person was hopping. But now further down the beach a guy is sitting in the sand and He tells us why we only see left one’s aka Revelation

But Scripture is not a scientific treatise or textbook - it’s the history of our salvation by God. Nowhere is there the statement that force equals mass times acceleration, or that all matter is made up of tiny bits that exist as both particles and waves, or that water is a 2-to-1 mixture of hydrogen and oxygen.

Either there is carbon left to measure in the bones or their is not. You don’t like the results of the readings because of a priori bias. Challenge - test more fossils now in the museums.

While there will be carbon left in any organic material, the crucial question is how much Carbon-14 is left. C14 is an unstable isotope with a relatively short half-life of only 5730 years. It decays into perfectly stable form of nitrogen, leaving the also perfectly stable C12 and C13. Even with our most sensitive equipment, there is a point beyond which the amount of C14 detected falls below the level of error. In terms of years, that’s about 60Kya. It’s just pointless to use it on anything older, just as it’s pointless to try and weigh oneself on a scale that can only handle weights up to 10lbs. When every other method disagrees with a C14 date, then the C14 date is most likely wrong.

Yup - but these can be compared to other historical sources. The others do not have this advantage. Assumptions are rampant.

Actually, dendrochronology as a range of up to 11Kya in some areas - long predating the historical record. Cave deposits are used because the growth rate can be easily measured and then extrapolated backward. When historical evidence is available, of course it can be used to fine-tune the date of something. However, we don’t have exact historical dates or even records for the vast bulk of our planet’s - or our universe’s - history.

Cain’s wife, according to Jubilees (non canonical) was his twin sister Avon. Polygenism is not allowed as per Humani Generis. Under your idea are there humans alive today without original sin? Continue on that trail about the rise of agriculture, etc…

I’m not talking polygenism - I’m stating that God formed mankind as H. sapiens, and His gift of a soul to Adam raised him from a very clever primate to a rational being - H. sapiens sapiens, our first father. Given the advantage of reason, it’s not surprising that Adam’s decendants - rational beings - swept the world so rapidly and buried both archaic H. sapiens and H. neandertalensis. While we carry their genetic legacy with us in our flesh, our souls - the half that makes us human - come to us only from our first parents. Any unrelated homonid contemporary of the first generations - Adam, Seth, etc. - would not have been human, as they would not have had a soul. That’s another advantage - it takes away ammo from those who claim that God changed His teaching on incest because of Cain’s wife.

 

[edwest2]

Completely apples to apples,as I’ll explain below.
Again: Dinosaur fossils aren’t actually bone - they are minerals deposited in the shape of the original bone as it decayed. Is it possible that this provided an anaerobic environment which could preserve collagen? Maybe - I don’t know enough about collagen decay processes.
It is also based on K-Ar dating, continental drift processes, magnetic field direction and strength… And, once again: Of course carbon dating is accurate when compared to historical artifacts - that’s it’s “butter zone” where it’s the most accurate - less than 50Kya.
And that’s why stratigraphy isn’t used for finely-grained, localized dates. However, when there is a particular strata with unique characteristics found to have the same age by various methods - namely, the iridium-enriched K-T boundary layer - then stratigraphy is a reasonable tool to employ.
But Scripture is not a scientific treatise or textbook - it’s the history of our salvation by God. Nowhere is there the statement that force equals mass times acceleration, or that all matter is made up of tiny bits that exist as both particles and waves, or that water is a 2-to-1 mixture of hydrogen and oxygen.
While there will be carbon left in any organic material, the crucial question is how much Carbon-14 is left. C14 is an unstable isotope with a relatively short half-life of only 5730 years. It decays into perfectly stable form of nitrogen, leaving the also perfectly stable C12 and C13. Even with our most sensitive equipment, there is a point beyond which the amount of C14 detected falls below the level of error. In terms of years, that’s about 60Kya. It’s just pointless to use it on anything older, just as it’s pointless to try and weigh oneself on a scale that can only handle weights up to 10lbs. When every other method disagrees with a C14 date, then the C14 date is most likely wrong.
Actually, dendrochronology as a range of up to 11Kya in some areas - long predating the historical record. Cave deposits are used because the growth rate can be easily measured and then extrapolated backward. When historical evidence is available, of course it can be used to fine-tune the date of something. However, we don’t have exact historical dates or even records for the vast bulk of our planet’s - or our universe’s - history.
I’m not talking polygenism - I’m stating that God formed mankind as H. sapiens, and His gift of a soul to Adam raised him from a very clever primate to a rational being - H. sapiens sapiens, our first father. Given the advantage of reason, it’s not surprising that Adam’s decendants - rational beings - swept the world so rapidly and buried both archaic H. sapiens and H. neandertalensis. While we carry their genetic legacy with us in our flesh, our souls - the half that makes us human - come to us only from our first parents. Any unrelated homonid contemporary of the first generations - Adam, Seth, etc. - would not have been human, as they would not have had a soul. That’s another advantage - it takes away ammo from those who claim that God changed His teaching on incest because of Cain’s wife.

There is no reason to connect Adam, and a soul, which “raised him from a clever primate…” Science cannot study the soul, so there can be no scientific reference to it. Thinking like this fictional.

Ed

 

[CatholicGeek1]

"The Time Question

Much less has been defined as to when the universe, life, and man appeared. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age—that it has not existed from all eternity—but it has not infallibly defined whether the world was created only a few thousand years ago or whether it was created several billion years ago."

Source: Catholic Answers tract

Peace,
Ed

I don’t see how that disagrees with what I said.

 

[buffalo]

Completely apples to apples,as I’ll explain below.
Again: Dinosaur fossils aren’t actually bone - they are minerals deposited in the shape of the original bone as it decayed. Is it possible that this provided an anaerobic environment which could preserve collagen? Maybe - I don’t know enough about collagen decay processes. Yes, but when cutting them open soft tissue is found.
It is also based on K-Ar dating, continental drift processes, magnetic field direction and strength… And, once again: Of course carbon dating is accurate when compared to historical artifacts - that’s it’s “butter zone” where it’s the most accurate - less than 50Kya. So when the ages come in at 28 YA we should pay attention. The data has to be reconciled with prior assumptions.
And that’s why stratigraphy isn’t used for finely-grained, localized dates. However, when there is a particular strata with unique characteristics found to have the same age by various methods - namely, the iridium-enriched K-T boundary layer - then stratigraphy is a reasonable tool to employ. Except now these fossils are found in different layers. Kinda casts doubt on the layers being an accurate record of time.
But Scripture is not a scientific treatise or textbook - it’s the history of our salvation by God. Nowhere is there the statement that force equals mass times acceleration, or that all matter is made up of tiny bits that exist as both particles and waves, or that water is a 2-to-1 mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. Not needed, but there are places where faith and reason intersect. In these areas both must be true.
While there will be carbon left in any organic material, the crucial question is how much Carbon-14 is left. C14 is an unstable isotope with a relatively short half-life of only 5730 years. It decays into perfectly stable form of nitrogen, leaving the also perfectly stable C12 and C13. Even with our most sensitive equipment, there is a point beyond which the amount of C14 detected falls below the level of error. In terms of years, that’s about 60Kya. It’s just pointless to use it on anything older, just as it’s pointless to try and weigh oneself on a scale that can only handle weights up to 10lbs. When every other method disagrees with a C14 date, then the C14 date is most likely wrong. If this happens over and over again, you are going to argue they should be thrown out? And you will not examine the base assumptions? Is that how modern science works?
Actually, dendrochronology as a range of up to 11Kya in some areas - long predating the historical record. Cave deposits are used because the growth rate can be easily measured and then extrapolated backward. When historical evidence is available, of course it can be used to fine-tune the date of something. However, we don’t have exact historical dates or even records for the vast bulk of our planet’s - or our universe’s - history.
I’m not talking polygenism - I’m stating that God formed mankind as H. sapiens, and His gift of a soul to Adam raised him from a very clever primate to a rational being - H. sapiens sapiens, our first father. Given the advantage of reason, it’s not surprising that Adam’s decendants - rational beings - swept the world so rapidly and buried both archaic H. sapiens and H. neandertalensis. While we carry their genetic legacy with us in our flesh, our souls - the half that makes us human - come to us only from our first parents. Any unrelated homonid contemporary of the first generations - Adam, Seth, etc. - would not have been human, as they would not have had a soul. That’s another advantage - it takes away ammo from those who claim that God changed His teaching on incest because of Cain’s wife.

Where are all the people without original sin?

There is no real problem with early incest as that is the way God wanted it. After a while as the ravages of sin made their way into genetics God had to advise incest had to stop. It is not against natural for incest in the sibling line, but it is in the parent to child.

 

[Monkey1976]

Yes, but when cutting them open soft tissue is found.

Like I said, it may be that a sealed anaerobic environment allowed for the preservation of these tissues, but I’m not an expert on the decay processes of collagen. On the soft-tissue issue, I’m taking a “wait and see” position.

So when the ages come in at 28 YA we should pay attention. The data has to be reconciled with prior assumptions.

No, because the tool isn’t being used properly. It doesn’t surprise me at all that trying to use C14 dating gives results inconsistent with all other dating methods, especially when all other dating methods give an age that is over 1000 times older than the age limit of accurate C14 dating. Once again: C14 isn’t the right tool for the job. It’s trying to weigh an elephant using a supermarket fruit scale, and then claiming that the elephant weighs only 5lbs regardless of what all other methods say. The very nature of C14 makes it useless for anything over 60Kyrs old, just as K-Ar is useless for anything less than 100Kyrs old. There are a wide range of radiometric dating methods available, and even more non-radiometric ones. Used together and applied properly, we can figure out the age of almost anything on earth.

Except now these fossils are found in different layers. Kinda casts doubt on the layers being an accurate record of time.

Fossils alone aren’t used to date layers, and layers alone aren’t used to date fossils. If something is below the K-T boundary, then we know that it’s most likely older than the K-T impact event. Likewise if something is above the boundary. From there, we can select which dating methods would be most appropriate to use. If those methods give wildly varying results, then we try others to see if they are appropriate. Stratigraphy is good for giving a general range in which to investigate, but it isn’t the be-all-end-all of dating methods.

If this happens over and over again, you are going to argue they should be thrown out? And you will not examine the base assumptions? Is that how modern science works?

It doesn’t matter how many times a 10lb scale tells me that an elephant weighs 5 lbs - it’s not the right tool for the job.

Where are all the people without original sin?

There never were any. Adam was the first to have a soul, therefore he is the first person. The existence of archaic H. sap. or H. neand. with whom his descendants could interbreed doesn’t mean that they were humans without original sin - they were the “dust of the earth” out of which Adam was formed, and the children of Adam’s descendants and these populations would be fully human people who inherited both the rational soul and the stain of original sin from Adam and Eve. An interesting aside - “Adam” can be translated as “man of the red earth”. The oldest population of fully modern humans is quite near an area of the Kalahari desert which is remarkable for its red soil.

There is no real problem with early incest as that is the way God wanted it. After a while as the ravages of sin made their way into genetics God had to advise incest had to stop. It is not against natural for incest in the sibling line, but it is in the parent to child.

I don’t doubt that your explanation is possible, but it would seem to leave the door open for arguments stating that God changed His Mind on an issue of morals.

I agree with every statement in your signature - I just think the two of us disagree on the details of how God did what He did. I am enjoying this debate, though - it’s forcing me to learn a lot more about both radiometric and non-radiometric dating methods.

 

[buffalo]

Like I said, it may be that a sealed anaerobic environment allowed for the preservation of these tissues, but I’m not an expert on the decay processes of collagen. On the soft-tissue issue, I’m taking a “wait and see” position. So am I.
No, because the tool isn’t being used properly. It doesn’t surprise me at all that trying to use C14 dating gives results inconsistent with all other dating methods, especially when all other dating methods give an age that is over 1000 times older than the age limit of accurate C14 dating. Once again: C14 isn’t the right tool for the job. It’s trying to weigh an elephant using a supermarket fruit scale, and then claiming that the elephant weighs only 5lbs regardless of what all other methods say. The very nature of C14 makes it useless for anything over 60Kyrs old, just as K-Ar is useless for anything less than 100Kyrs old. There are a wide range of radiometric dating methods available, and even more non-radiometric ones. Used together and applied properly, we can figure out the age of almost anything on earth. What are the three base assumptions that underly the old age datings?
Fossils alone aren’t used to date layers, and layers alone aren’t used to date fossils. If something is below the K-T boundary, then we know that it’s most likely older than the K-T impact event. Likewise if something is above the boundary. From there, we can select which dating methods would be most appropriate to use. If those methods give wildly varying results, then we try others to see if they are appropriate. Stratigraphy is good for giving a general range in which to investigate, but it isn’t the be-all-end-all of dating methods. What is the basic assumption of the K-T boundary and what empricial evidence is there? I agree
It doesn’t matter how many times a 10lb scale tells me that an elephant weighs 5 lbs - it’s not the right tool for the job.
There never were any. Adam was the first to have a soul, therefore he is the first person. The existence of archaic H. sap. or H. neand. with whom his descendants could interbreed doesn’t mean that they were humans without original sin - they were the “dust of the earth” out of which Adam was formed, and the children of Adam’s descendants and these populations would be fully human people who inherited both the rational soul and the stain of original sin from Adam and Eve. An interesting aside - “Adam” can be translated as “man of the red earth”. The oldest population of fully modern humans is quite near an area of the Kalahari desert which is remarkable for its red soil.
I don’t doubt that your explanation is possible, but it would seem to leave the door open for arguments stating that God changed His Mind on an issue of morals. Changed His mind? His plan was free-will and man wanted to go his own way. God came to meet man to straighten him out, so to speak.

I agree with every statement in your signature - I just think the two of us disagree on the details of how God did what He did. I am enjoying this debate, though - it’s forcing me to learn a lot more about both radiometric and non-radiometric dating methods.

I am always learning too.

 

[bsroufek]

IF, now I say IF, the Earth and Universe are young, say according to Adam’s age and those of his descendents deriving to around 6000 years, what does that say about radiometric dating?

A fossil or bone says its 100,000 or 60,000 or even 10,000 years old but it is in fact only 6000 years old, based on this assumption. What does it say about half-lives?

WHENEVER the Earth was created, the half-lives of radio-isotopes (am I right on the term?) would have had to START at some point. Where would they have started?

 

[buffalo]

IF, now I say IF, the Earth and Universe are young, say according to Adam’s age and those of his descendents deriving to around 6000 years, what does that say about radiometric dating?

A fossil or bone says its 100,000 or 60,000 or even 10,000 years old but it is in fact only 6000 years old, based on this assumption. What does it say about half-lives?

WHENEVER the Earth was created, the half-lives of radio-isotopes (am I right on the term?) would have had to START at some point. Where would they have started?

We now know two things: The molecular clock needs recalibrating and the radioactive decay rates have varied over time. The assumption was they were constant. And some are now thinking light speed is not constant either.

 

[Monkey1976]

What are the three base assumptions that underly the old age datings?

If I were to state my basic assumptions regarding them, it would be these:

1. Radioactive materials decay at a constant and measurable rate
2. Measurements are most accurate when gathered from a range of methods
3. Individual measurements which lie drastically outside the values provided by multiple other methods are anomalies to be discarded

What is the basic assumption of the K-T boundary and what empricial evidence is there?

Based on direct dating of the material itself, dating material above and below it in multiple locations across the earth, and the mineral content of the K-T layer itself, that there was a massive impact on earth between 65 and 66 million years ago. The impact site is believed to be Chicxulub crater on the Yucatan peninsula. In fact, in this paper, the authors show not only how the age of the impact was measured at ~66Myrs by their analysis, but that the age of the impactor itself was ~550Myrs.

Changed His mind? His plan was free-will and man wanted to go his own way. God came to meet man to straighten him out, so to speak.

I’m not saying that He did, but I can understand how people might think He did.

 

[bsroufek]

What about the human population/birth rate argument for the age of the Earth. Humans have a relatively constant birth rate, minus the death rate from disease, war and other concerns, so if the Earth were at least 60-65 million years old (when the dinosaurs died), there would be
many trillions of people on the Earth today.

If you look at the U.S. Population, for example, there is a U.S. Census chart that shows the U.S. population grew from 76 million to 270 million in 100 years. That’s almost four fold increase in 100 years! If we were to extrapolate that back to even a few thousand years, even allowing for much slower growth due to disease and environment in early ages, the Earth would be not more than several thousand years old at maximum.

This human population argument is much more reliable than radio-isotope dating, in my opinion. It’s just obvious that the Young Earth argument holds more water than the Old Earth argument, based on population statistics.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

What about the human population/birth rate argument for the age of the Earth. Humans have a relatively constant birth rate, minus the death rate from disease, war and other concerns, so if the Earth were at least 60-65 million years old (when the dinosaurs died), there would be
many trillions of people on the Earth today.

If you look at the U.S. Population, for example, there is a U.S. Census chart that show the U.S. population grew from 76 million to 270 million in 100 years. That’s almost four fold increase in 100 years! If we were to extrapolate that back to even a few thousand years, even allowing for much slower growth due to disease and environment in early ages, the Earth would be not more than a few thousand years old at maximum.

This human population argument is much more reliable than radio-isotope dating, in my opinion. It’s just obvious that the Young Earth argument holds more water than the Old Earth argument, based on population statistics.

The problem with this argument is that it is based on the assumption that population growth rates are constant over time. I have never seen a study that shows that to be the case. Please correct me if there is one, but I have never seen it.

 

[bsroufek]

The problem with this argument is that it is based on the assumption that population growth rates are constant over time. I have never seen a study that shows that to be the case. Please correct me if there is one, but I have never seen it.

Even if the population growth is not constant, but even somewhat close, and even accounting for war, disease and the environment, there would be an increase in the population that couldn’t be sustained over 60-65 million years.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Even if the population growth is not constant, but even somewhat close, and even accounting for war, disease and the environment, there would be an increase in the population that couldn’t be sustained over 60-65 million years.

That would be true, if you could substantiate the claim that the growth is even close to constant. From my reading of history, I do not think it would be anywhere even close to constant, in fact I am willing to bet that it is faster today than in the past by orders of magnitude.

 

[bsroufek]

Even if the population growth is not constant, but even somewhat close, and even accounting for war, disease and the environment, there would be an increase in the population that couldn’t be sustained over 60-65 million years.

In the chart I link to above, the percentage change varies from about .8 to 2.0 over most years, except for World War I, where it was negative. So, for the most part, an average of 1% change from year to year can be used for the U.S. population. That’s probably close to world population growth, except during wars.

So, from this observation, the creation of man on Earth couldn’t have happened millions of years ago.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

In the chart I link to above, the percentage change varies from about .8 to 2.0 over most years, except for World War I, where it was negative. So, for the most part, an average of 1% change from year to year can be used for the U.S. population. That’s probably close to world population growth, except during wars.

So, from this observation, the creation of man on Earth couldn’t have happened millions of years ago.

Your chart only goes back 100 years. I am saying that looking back over thousands of years, there is likely a difference in population growth that runs on orders of magnitude. This chart shows nothing beyond the 100 years that it covers.

 

[ngill09]

What about the human population/birth rate argument for the age of the Earth. Humans have a relatively constant birth rate, minus the death rate from disease, war and other concerns, so if the Earth were at least 60-65 million years old (when the dinosaurs died), there would be
many trillions of people on the Earth today.

If you look at the U.S. Population, for example, there is a U.S. Census chart that shows the U.S. population grew from 76 million to 270 million in 100 years. That’s almost four fold increase in 100 years! If we were to extrapolate that back to even a few thousand years, even allowing for much slower growth due to disease and environment in early ages, the Earth would be not more than several thousand years old at maximum.

This human population argument is much more reliable than radio-isotope dating, in my opinion. It’s just obvious that the Young Earth argument holds more water than the Old Earth argument, based on population statistics.

A) Assuming a constant exponential growth rate for humans is a terrible assumption. Human population growth, as well as population growth of anything else, is limited by available resources. Over the past couple hundred years, advances in technology have greatly reduced infant and child mortality, leading to much higher population growth rates. For most of human history, the population has been basically the same. It’s only recently that we’ve seen great population growth.

B) No one (sane) is saying that humans existed 50 million years ago.

 

[bsroufek]

A) Assuming a constant exponential growth rate for humans is a terrible assumption. Human population growth, as well as population growth of anything else, is limited by available resources. Over the past couple hundred years, advances in technology have greatly reduced infant and child mortality, leading to much higher population growth rates. For most of human history, the population has been basically the same. It’s only recently that we’ve seen great population growth.

B) No one (sane) is saying that humans existed 50 million years ago.

A) Would you care to substantiate your claim that human population has been basically the same “for most of human history”? Source?

B) If humans didn’t exist 50 million years ago, then neither did the Earth, if you even basically believe the Creation story. Perhaps you believe in an Old Earth and Young Man, i.e. evolution?

 

[Paddy_Walker]

World’s Largest Dinosaur Graveyard Linked to Mass Death

livescience.com/8340-world-largest-dinosaur-graveyard-linked-mass-death.html