The 6000 Year Earth

[Verisimilitude]

I’m afraid you did not. All I am claiming is that population growth rates cannot be made to support the young earth model.

It should not be dismissed though. Granted a pure statistical model of population growth may not be achieved once humans are on the Earth and reproducing. Science and theology must meet somewhere in the mix and become complimentary if the theology is to be true.

Science so far indicates the nearest non-human animals such as Neandethal can not procreate with humans. The ideology behind Mitochondrial Eve as I understand it is that there is a blending between species for a period of time to produce the new animal- in this case the modern human as described by evolutionists.

One cunundrum is the Biblical accounts and science: does Cain marrying a wife not produced by Adam and Eve, or does Cain procreate with a non-human species?

Another cunundrum is when Noah left the Ark and the Earth became repopulated. After a time these people were dispersed around the world as related by Genesis Chapter 11. Assume the population of Babel was 100,000 total for the sake of argument and once God dispersed them into smaller groups; would a single 100,000 group at 0.2% growth be different than 500 groups of 200 people at the same or varied growth rates?

The human genetic line would still reach back past the Flood to confirm we came from a single set of Parents, and the distribution of humans around the world as noted in Genesis 11seems to answer how human civilizations sprung up fairly recently at the same time with similar characteristics such as flood stories and pyramid structures.

Old Earth human evolution theories by its nature are problematic because it suggests there are less developed humans in our modern mix. These are the arguments made by racists and would seem to justify Nazi style arguments of ‘less than human’ people that can and should be eliminated by violence without consequence.

Geologic evidence is hard to refute and the Creation story of Genesis does not contradict it as I have a limited understanding of both, but human evolution because of the geology model does present contradictions. Geology relies on long periods of time and a mixing of elements to know the Earth as we do today, but if as shown in some posts here, time presents problems with human growth rates it also has problems with what we know of human migration.

Such things have brought me to where I am today in thougts about it all. An old Earth with moments of divine intervention in the timeline.

 

[matahari]

Hi, I don’t claim to understand all the issues or the scientific jargon, but I find it interesting that teachers are not allowed to challenge evolution , [the new sacred cow] ot give information to their pupils that would be seen as Creationist. Surely, the integrity of the Word of God must be upheld, at least by people who claim to be Catholic or Christian . If its ok to rearrange the meaning of the Book of Genesis - why not all the other Books of the Bible also if they happen to disagree with your personal philosophy ? For example in Exodus 20 Then God delivered all these Commandments…Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day V11 In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth , the sea and all that is in them, but on the 7th day He rested. That is why the Lord has blessed the Sabbath Day and made it holy. The choice comes down to worldly secular theories versus the Word of God. I know which one I believe . :

 

[ckempston]

It should not be dismissed though. Granted a pure statistical model of population growth may not be achieved once humans are on the Earth and reproducing. Science and theology must meet somewhere in the mix and become complimentary if the theology is to be true.

I’m in agreement.

Science so far indicates the nearest non-human animals such as Neandethal can not procreate with humans. The ideology behind Mitochondrial Eve as I understand it is that there is a blending between species for a period of time to produce the new animal- in this case the modern human as described by evolutionists.

I’d tend to agree, though we are far from concluding the study on human and neanderthal DNA, both separately, and as they relate to one another.

Another observation here is that “Eve” is much further back than any possible Noah family. If the Biblical narrative were literal (i.e. a flood wiped out all mankind about 4-6 thousand years ago) then that’s where we would find the genetic lines merging. The fact that it goes back so much farther means that the genetic evidence suggests that not all humans are descendents of Noah.

One cunundrum is the Biblical accounts and science: does Cain marrying a wife not produced by Adam and Eve, or does Cain procreate with a non-human species?

Well, that’s not the only question; there are many others. For instance, who was Cain afraid of? It seems the world was heavily populated, enough for Cain to build a city. It seems obvious that the Genesis account is either a) not literal at all or b) Adam and Eve were “specially” created parallel to human evolution.

Another cunundrum is when Noah left the Ark and the Earth became repopulated. After a time these people were dispersed around the world as related by Genesis Chapter 11. Assume the population of Babel was 100,000 total for the sake of argument and once God dispersed them into smaller groups; would a single 100,000 group at 0.2% growth be different than 500 groups of 200 people at the same or varied growth rates?

Where did Native Americans come from? Clearly, not everyone in the world is descended from Noah. The only explanations are a) the flood was local or b) the flood is out of place (time-wise) in the Biblical narrative.

The human genetic line would still reach back past the Flood to confirm we came from a single set of Parents, and the distribution of humans around the world as noted in Genesis 11seems to answer how human civilizations sprung up fairly recently at the same time with similar characteristics such as flood stories and pyramid structures.

I’d suggest another explanation. Humans make their cities near water, naturally. Most rivers have floods at some point; hence, the common story. Pyramids are based off the movement of the stars and the cardinal directions, not some common “source civilization” such as that suggested in books like “Fingerprints of the Gods”.

Old Earth human evolution theories by its nature are problematic because it suggests there are less developed humans in our modern mix. These are the arguments made by racists and would seem to justify Nazi style arguments of ‘less than human’ people that can and should be eliminated by violence without consequence.

Poisoning the well. Just because Nazis use this argument doesn’t make it invalid. The fact that we are all genetically different (to a very small degree) proves that some kind of evolution is happening currently.

Geologic evidence is hard to refute and the Creation story of Genesis does not contradict it as I have a limited understanding of both, but human evolution because of the geology model does present contradictions. Geology relies on long periods of time and a mixing of elements to know the Earth as we do today, but if as shown in some posts here, time presents problems with human growth rates it also has problems with what we know of human migration.

I’d agree that there is not necessarily a contradiction, but, like many other times in Christian history, we need to be open to revising our understanding of the Biblical narrative. Christians believed for a long time that the earth was the center of the universe. We revised this mistaken belief and we’re still here. It’s not the end of Christendom if we say evolution is basically true insofar as we understand it.

Such things have brought me to where I am today in thougts about it all. An old Earth with moments of divine intervention in the timeline.

I agree with this.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Hi, I don’t claim to understand all the issues or the scientific jargon, but I find it interesting that teachers are not allowed to challenge evolution , [the new sacred cow] ot give information to their pupils that would be seen as Creationist. Surely, the integrity of the Word of God must be upheld, at least by people who claim to be Catholic or Christian . If its ok to rearrange the meaning of the Book of Genesis - why not all the other Books of the Bible also if they happen to disagree with your personal philosophy ? For example in Exodus 20 Then God delivered all these Commandments…Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day V11 In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth , the sea and all that is in them, but on the 7th day He rested. That is why the Lord has blessed the Sabbath Day and made it holy. The choice comes down to worldly secular theories versus the Word of God. I know which one I believe . :

I believe there is far more proof supporting creation and the Word of God then there is evolution. The important thing to remember here keeping science in mind is what is true today may not be true tomorrow. In other words, as science becomes more advanced, their advanements change constantly. For instance, dating material has become more advanced, and things that fifty years ago may have tested and thought to be billions and billions of years old, but today they may only test hundreds of thousands.

As for the days of the week, God gave us those as a way to calculate time along with telling us how long this earth will exist, each day representing 1000 years.

As for your post, it is a blessing to see another stand for the Word of God.

God bless you.

 

[ckempston]

I believe there is far more proof supporting creation and the Word of God then there is evolution. The important thing to remember here keeping science in mind is what is true today may not be true tomorrow. In other words, as science becomes more advanced, their advanements change constantly. For instance, dating material has become more advanced, and things that fifty years ago may have tested and thought to be billions and billions of years old, but today they may only test hundreds of thousands.

Can you provide an example of this? i.e. something that was once measured as “billions” of years old but then found to be “hundreds of thousands.” This anti-scientific mindset has never, in the history of Christianity, worked out well for those who held it.

As for the days of the week, God gave us those as a way to calculate time along with telling us how long this earth will exist, each day representing 1000 years.

As for your post, it is a blessing to see another stand for the Word of God.

God bless you.

 

[rossum]

Let’s say 10 years ago I invested 10 thousand dollars in a stock. Today the investment is worth 50,000 dollars. This translates into a 500% overall return on my investment or about 50% per year. But let’s say in years 2, 3, 4, and 5 my investment was worth only 5,000 dollars. My return then was a loss of 50% over those 4 years or over 10% per year on average. That doesn’t circumvent the fact that my return today is on average plus 50% per year given that I have 40 thousand more dollars than I did day one.

A good example, thank you. My point is that while a single constant growth rate is accurate at the two end pooints, $10,000 at the start and $50,000 now. It would not give accurate values for the intervening years. It is also worth pointing out that next year, when your investment is down to $40,000, the single average growth rate will be different. While it is possible to calculate such a number, it does not allow us to actually do anything useful and it is only valid for a limited time.

Likewise if the population of the earth started with 2 people at some point in time in the past and grew to over 6 billion today, then whatever the time frame is that covers mans existence will produce an average growth rate. That’s it plain and simple.

We know enough about our DNA, and that of chimps, to be certain that the population of humans, and pre-humans, going back to our common ancestors with the chimpanzees was never as low as two. There is too much variation in our genome, and too much shared variation between ourselves and chimpanzees for that to ever have been the case.

My curiosity was more with the starting point for mans’ existence. When did man first exist on this earth and how many were there?

The usual date for the origin of Homo sapiens is between about 150,000 and 200,000 years ago. The population would have been in the low thousands at least. Genus Homo originated much earlier, with Homo habilis appearing about 2.3 million years ago. Population size would probably have been similar. Science cannot tell when or if any of these had souls - souls do not fossilise and do not show up in DNA sequences.

I don’t believe in evolution as it’s represented today because it has too many holes in it and I don’t believe the earth is as old as we may think.

The geological evidence for the old age of the earth is overwhelming and has nothing to do with biological evolution.

rossum

 

[ckempston]

A good example, thank you. My point is that while a single constant growth rate is accurate at the two end pooints, $10,000 at the start and $50,000 now. It would not give accurate values for the intervening years. It is also worth pointing out that next year, when your investment is down to $40,000, the single average growth rate will be different. While it is possible to calculate such a number, it does not allow us to actually do anything useful and it is only valid for a limited time.

EXACTLY. This is what I pointed out with my example moving from 1400 with 400 million people to 6 billion people in 2009. The growth rate would be .45%. However, it does not make accurate predictions along the timeline.

We know enough about our DNA, and that of chimps, to be certain that the population of humans, and pre-humans, going back to our common ancestors with the chimpanzees was never as low as two. There is too much variation in our genome, and too much shared variation between ourselves and chimpanzees for that to ever have been the case.

The usual date for the origin of Homo sapiens is between about 150,000 and 200,000 years ago. The population would have been in the low thousands at least. Genus Homo originated much earlier, with Homo habilis appearing about 2.3 million years ago. Population size would probably have been similar. Science cannot tell when or if any of these had souls - souls do not fossilise and do not show up in DNA sequences.

The geological evidence for the old age of the earth is overwhelming and has nothing to do with biological evolution.

rossum

All good points.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Can you provide an example of this? i.e. something that was once measured as “billions” of years old but then found to be “hundreds of thousands.” This anti-scientific mindset has never, in the history of Christianity, worked out well for those who held it.

I posted links to sites where you can find alot more then I can offer here.

 

[ckempston]

I posted links to sites where you can find alot more then I can offer here.

I don’t argue with links. If you’d like to make one specific claim using one example that we can debate like grown-ups, then go ahead. If you can’t do this, then nobody’s going to take you seriously. It’s quite simple. Provide one example where scientists have found something to be billions of years old and subsequently changed their minds and made it hundreds of thousands of years old. This is a simple request, and not even that time-consuming, if this “evidence” in fact exists.

 

[StAnastasia]

Provide one example where scientists have found something to be billions of years old and subsequently changed their minds and made it hundreds of thousands of years old. This is a simple request, and not even that time-consuming, if this “evidence” in fact exists.

There is no such evidence, which is why no scientists take this seriously, and why this sort of claim is confined harmlessly to obscure Internet fora.

 

[NDfan]

You’re missing the point. Your theory doesn’t prove anything. It can’t POSSIBLY, because we can’t come up with a consistent rate of growth.

No, it does not. The data can be made to support any conclusion, therefore, it supports NO conclusion.

I didn’t say that it did.

I agree the trendline is steadily upwards. History supports this.

I did it too, and found that the growth rate from 1400 would have been about .45%. Interesting excercise, but it proves absolutely nothing. So, it can’t possibly support the young-earth position. No matter when you say that Noah existed, there is not a single population growth rate that can be applied from any theorized timeframe up until now, and arrive at a reasonable number. That’s the point that someone else pointed out: growth rates change with practically every generation. THEREFORE, making an argument from a steady population growth rate is nonsensical.

With the population growth rate of .45% from 1400, I found that I arrived at around 6 billion people in 2009. The problem is, this growth rate was wrong along most of the timeline! In 1950, this growth rate predicted the population to be about twice as large as it actually was! It is safe to say that any theory based on population growth rates is meaningless.

Hah, funny, I arrived at the same thing before I even realized you did this.

No, they don’t work perfectly as I pointed out. Look at your scale. The numbers are off significantly in many places on the time-scale. That’s because growth rates are not consistent. There have been times that the earth’s population actually went backwards, as I pointed out with the black death.

I’m afraid you did not. All I am claiming is that population growth rates cannot be made to support the young earth model.

Chip let me summarize this to make it real simple for us. At some point in time man started to exist on this earth. There was some starting number so let’s just say it was adam and eve for the sake of this discussion. So we start with 2 and we end up with about 6.3 billion today. Whatever time frame that covers you end up with some growth rate. You can’t refute this by simply saying that in some years the growth went backwards. An overall growth rate accounts for this.

I’ll use the same example I used for Rossum. If you invest 10 thousand dollars today and over 10 years it becomes 50,000 dollars you have made 500% overall or on average 50% per year. Suppose in years 2, 3, 4, and 5 your portfolio was 5,000 dollars. In that snapshot of time you lost 50% but still overall you made 500% or on average 50% per year. If you look at the history of the stock market it returns an average growth rate of about 7-8% per year. Now we both know there were some years the market had negative returns but overall the value today is higher than day 1 when the market started. It’s the same thing for the population of the earth. We have more people today then when the earth first started. That produces an overall growth rate of something. The years where the population declined only serves to lower the overall rate.

The reason I support a younger earth, or let’s say a shorter time for man being on earth is I don’t believe the growth rates have changed overall that dramatically to lead us to believe man has been around for say a million years just for example. For that to be true would imply the population only grew at fractions of a percent for a long long time and then suddenly shot up. Or that the rate has been fairly constant but man experienced so many disasters or conditions that wiped out large portions of the population that it took this long for it to recuperate. There’s a major blunder somewhere or something that we’re not understanding. I personally believe it’s because we’re trying to assert this older time frame for man’s existence that now we have to tweak our models and come up with theories to explain it that don’t make sense. And again this is just my personal opinion

PEACE brother.

 

[StAnastasia]

For that to be true would imply the population only grew at fractions of a percent for a long long time and then suddenly shot up.

Indeed, human population growth was fairly stable (with periodic fluctuations) until the discovery of fossil energy in the form of oil in 1859, combined with medicine which lowered the infant mortality rate, allowed the population of Homo sapiens to skyrocket. It will eventually stabilize again, like the populations of all animals.

 

[greggy53]

Can you provide an example of this? i.e. something that was once measured as “billions” of years old but then found to be “hundreds of thousands.” This anti-scientific mindset has never, in the history of Christianity, worked out well for those who held it.

Just wanting to throw my 2 cents into this…I have always wondered, if the hot model of the Big Bang is correct, and the universe went from the size of a basketball to several billion light years across in a nano second, what happened to time while this was going on? If time and space are woven together like a fabric then space during the Big Bang would have to have expanded at many many many times the speed of light. While space was expanding this fast what happend to time??? Might I suggest that our universe has the apparent age of billions of years while it could actually be much younger? Suppose you were a space traveler going from universe to universe measuring the different universes with your yard stick the light year. Suppose you came across a uiniverse you hadn’t seen before, and you measured it and determined that it was 7 billion light years across, therefore it had to be7 billion years old, when in fact it could have just hatched just like our universe did???

In other words, because the Andromeda galaxy is 2 million lights years away, does that necessarily mean that it took million light years to get that way?

Just some questions that have been on my mind concerning the apparent age of the earth and time.

 

[ckempston]

There is no such evidence, which is why no scientists take this seriously, and why this sort of claim is confined harmlessly to obscure Internet fora.

Hence, my reason for asking for it.

 

[ckempston]

Chip let me summarize this to make it real simple for us. At some point in time man started to exist on this earth. There was some starting number so let’s just say it was adam and eve for the sake of this discussion. So we start with 2 and we end up with about 6.3 billion today. Whatever time frame that covers you end up with some growth rate. You can’t refute this by simply saying that in some years the growth went backwards. An overall growth rate accounts for this.

No, an overall growth rate does not account for this. That is the point. An “overall growth rate” does not make accurate predictions that mirror reality, which I demonstrated with my 1400 - 2009 example. I have refuted the notion that ANY growth rate can be logically applied to human history. They have varied so greatly that any effor to prove anything becomes nonsensical. You cannot make it simple because it is not simple.

I’ll use the same example I used for Rossum. If you invest 10 thousand dollars today and over 10 years it becomes 50,000 dollars you have made 500% overall or on average 50% per year. Suppose in years 2, 3, 4, and 5 your portfolio was 5,000 dollars. In that snapshot of time you lost 50% but still overall you made 500% or on average 50% per year. If you look at the history of the stock market it returns an average growth rate of about 7-8% per year. Now we both know there were some years the market had negative returns but overall the value today is higher than day 1 when the market started. It’s the same thing for the population of the earth. We have more people today then when the earth first started. That produces an overall growth rate of something. The years where the population declined only serves to lower the overall rate.

The reason I support a younger earth, or let’s say a shorter time for man being on earth is I don’t believe the growth rates have changed overall that dramatically to lead us to believe man has been around for say a million years just for example. For that to be true would imply the population only grew at fractions of a percent for a long long time and then suddenly shot up. Or that the rate has been fairly constant but man experienced so many disasters or conditions that wiped out large portions of the population that it took this long for it to recuperate. There’s a major blunder somewhere or something that we’re not understanding. I personally believe it’s because we’re trying to assert this older time frame for man’s existence that now we have to tweak our models and come up with theories to explain it that don’t make sense. And again this is just my personal opinion

PEACE brother.

You are quite simply wrong. I demonstrated that growth rates DID change dramatically just between 1400 and 2009. Even if you go back on the timeline by 50 years, the predictions are off by several orders of magnitude. The point is you cannot make any prediction using this method. Period.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Poisoning the well. Just because Nazis use this argument doesn’t make it invalid.

A whole generation of German citizens thought it valid 65 years ago in the same way today’s pro-abortion activists argue the ‘animalness’ of humans by way of evolution that gives the endangered mouse as much if not more rights of protection by law than a gestating human has been given.

When I see comments like:

The geological evidence for the old age of the earth is overwhelming and has nothing to do with biological evolution.

rossum

and

StAnastasia- Indeed, human population growth was fairly stable (with periodic fluctuations) until the discovery of fossil energy in the form of oil in 1859, combined with medicine which lowered the infant mortality rate, allowed the population of Homo sapiens to skyrocket. It will eventually stabilize again, like the populations of all animals.

I don’t see either statement as being accurate with regard to Scripture or evolution (if StAnastasia menas to suggest we evolved from lower species). Earths geology should have a huge impact on biology formation as it regards the habitats any creature lives in. When the Earth had less oxygen, was hotter and more acidic it had different life forms than that can survive today if the fossil record is to be believed.

When humans began farming; it must have seen a population explosion like StAnastasia suggets happened when the Industrial revolution began much like when there were famines and droughts, ice ages and other things that would limit food production.

 

[ckempston]

A whole generation of German citizens thought it valid 65 years ago in the same way today’s pro-abortion activists argue the ‘animalness’ of humans by way of evolution that gives the endangered mouse as much if not more rights of protection by law than a gestating human has been given.

When I see comments like:

and

I don’t see either statement as being accurate with regard to Scripture or evolution (if StAnastasia menas to suggest we evolved from lower species). Earths geology should have a huge impact on biology formation as it regards the habitats any creature lives in. When the Earth had less oxygen, was hotter and more acidic it had different life forms than that can survive today if the fossil record is to be believed.

When humans began farming; it must have seen a population explosion like StAnastasia suggets happened when the Industrial revolution began much like when there were famines and droughts, ice ages and other things that would limit food production.

Strawman argument. You seem to have missed the point.

 

[rossum]

A whole generation of German citizens thought it valid 65 years ago

They did indeed. Have a look at this picture for an illustration:

ushmm.org/lcmedia/photo/lc/image/08/08024.jpg

Now what does that picture tell us about the truth or not of what those two people on the left of the picture believed at the time? Yes, that is Joseph Goebels at the right.

rossum

 

[ckempston]

Just wanting to throw my 2 cents into this…I have always wondered, if the hot model of the Big Bang is correct, and the universe went from the size of a basketball to several billion light years across in a nano second, what happened to time while this was going on? If time and space are woven together like a fabric then space during the Big Bang would have to have expanded at many many many times the speed of light. While space was expanding this fast what happend to time??? Might I suggest that our universe has the apparent age of billions of years while it could actually be much younger? Suppose you were a space traveler going from universe to universe measuring the different universes with your yard stick the light year. Suppose you came across a uiniverse you hadn’t seen before, and you measured it and determined that it was 7 billion light years across, therefore it had to be7 billion years old, when in fact it could have just hatched just like our universe did???

In other words, because the Andromeda galaxy is 2 million lights years away, does that necessarily mean that it took million light years to get that way?

Just some questions that have been on my mind concerning the apparent age of the earth and time.

That’s an insightful observation/question, but I believe cosmologists have accounted for this. Thanks for bringing it up, though. I found an interesting exchange regarding this very topic:

newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00990.htm

 

[NDfan]

A good example, thank you. My point is that while a single constant growth rate is accurate at the two end pooints, $10,000 at the start and $50,000 now. It would not give accurate values for the intervening years. It is also worth pointing out that next year, when your investment is down to $40,000, the single average growth rate will be different. While it is possible to calculate such a number, it does not allow us to actually do anything useful and it is only valid for a limited time.

Yes it is only valid for a limited time. But when you spread the numbers out over a large portion of time the impact becomes less and less because a larger movement is required to change the number. So right now ckempson and I showed the growth rate from 1400 to now as being about .45%. From 400 million to over 6 billion. For the overall growth rate to change from .45% in either direction would require the population to either boom significantly over the next several hundred years or decline significantly.

We know enough about our DNA, and that of chimps, to be certain that the population of humans, and pre-humans, going back to our common ancestors with the chimpanzees was never as low as two. There is too much variation in our genome, and too much shared variation between ourselves and chimpanzees for that to ever have been the case.

Going as low as 2 people? If so that’s absolutely false.

The usual date for the origin of Homo sapiens is between about 150,000 and 200,000 years ago. The population would have been in the low thousands at least. Genus Homo originated much earlier, with Homo habilis appearing about 2.3 million years ago. Population size would probably have been similar. Science cannot tell when or if any of these had souls - souls do not fossilise and do not show up in DNA sequences.

The geological evidence for the old age of the earth is overwhelming and has nothing to do with biological evolution.

rossum

Evidence for a younger earth is also overwhelming. Let’s take the amount of C14 in the atmosphere. Right now there is more C14 in the atmosphere than before meaning that the amount of decay has not caught up to the amount contributed which is the point of equilibrium. Scientists believe this would take about 30,000 years if the earth was brand new. How do you explain this?