The 6000 Year Earth

[heiscominginthe]

You should know that carbon dating is not used to measure the age of the earth; carbon dating is only good to between 50,000 and 75,000 years ago. For older material other methods are employed, such as Argon-Argon or Uranium-Lead. For further details see Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective.

So as man becomes more advanced in science, strangely, he moves closer to the truth of God’s Word.

The point I am trying to make is materials that were once believed to be billions and billions of years old may in fact, because of better science, be only thousands of years old.

The fingerprints of God are everywhere, they have just been covered over by man’s.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I can give you a site that has overwhelming proof that debunks evolution. Yet, don’t think it is premitted here to put links on the forum is it? If it is permitted, I will.

It is permitted to insert links.

 

[NDfan]

Population growth has been far from straight line. A major catastrophe, such as the Toba eruption can have a severe effect on human population. Likewise the Black Death reduced the population of Europe by between a half and a third with an estimated total death toll of about 75 million worldwide, of which about 50 million were in Europe.

Whoever said it was a straight line But over time the trend is upwards PERIOD!!!

Two of the major increases in population growth have been due to the invention of agriculture, which allowed much greater population densities than the previous hunter-gatherer methods, and of modern medicine and sewerage which have greatly reduced the numbers of early deaths from disease.

I’m well aware of this. But it doesn’t prove anything.

While it would be possible to calculate a single figure for population growth from the Toba eruption, which left around 20,000 humans alive about 70,000 years ago, to now, any such calculation would be useless because enough is known to show that the population growth rate has been variable and not constant.

rossum

Ok so let’s just apply simple math here. If 20,000 humans lived on the earth 70,000 years ago and we have over 6 billion today that translates into a growth upwards not downwards. There may have been some years that the population declined but overall the trend is up. I get sick if this notion that you can’t just apply a straight growth rate or you have to account for this or that. At the end of the day there are more people on this earth today than there were in the past when humans started to populate the earth. That means we have an overall growth rate of something.

Look at the stock markets. The dow is higher today than it was from day one. It may not be as high as 2000 but it’s still higher. That translates into some growth rate. The effect of the declining years only serves to bring the overall rate downward.

 

[NDfan]

It’s obviously not .2%, because we would have ran out of room from just the time of Jesus.

Yes that’s true and I’m admitting that. But that’s also why I don’t believe man has been around for over 100 thousand years. I could very well be wrong.

You’re right that with a small period it doesn’t work. This doesn’t help your case in the least. In fact it demonstrates that there is no way .2% could be the real population growth number.

Chip I’m not trying to make a case. I’m just showing that the current population rates will not work when trying to assert that man has been here for say 100 thousand years. Or a million years. Whichever you choose. The notion of man being here for 6 thousand years has a stronger case under this scenario.

The black death alone may have reduced the world’s population by 20% in a single century. It doesn’t take much to realize that this only needs to happen a few times in human history to severely cut back on population numbers in a drastic way.

**In fact, that gives us a good starting point. **

Yes and I agree with this. But reducing the population by 20% a few times doesn’t wipe it out otherwise we wouldn’t be here today

But the fact remains that at some point in time man started to exist and existed in numbers. Today there are more people than the first day man from when man started to exist. The line when plotted on a graph may go up and down during certain intervals of time and in fact may go up dramatically and down dramatically when factoring in disasters, wars, famine, plagues etc. etc. But the overall trend of the line is going to be up. The up and down years will only affect the slope of the overall line. So the actual growth rate may in fact be thousands of a percent instead of say .2%. That’s all I’m honestly saying. I just personally don’t subscribe to this.

Estimates put world population at about 400 million during this time. Would you agree for the sake of argument? If we start at 1400 and work our way forward at .2% growth per year, would we come up with a realistic estimate of current world population? This should be easy. (Opens Excel…) Column A would start at 1400 and would increment A1+1, A2+1…through 2009. Column B would start at 400,000,000 and increment using the formula =(b1*.002)+b1— (i.e. .2% x 400 million + the previous cell). By 2009, we should (ACCORDING TO YOUR METHOD) have a world population of: 1,350,524,303. Yeah, my brother. (whoa, I totally wrote the wrong number out. That number is one billion three hundred and fifty million. Are you beginning to see the flaw in your position? The point is, we don’t have a population growth number that reliably predicts reality.

Chip I’ve done this exercise so may times with various differing numbers and can make it work. The .2% number was the lowest growth rate recorded in the world and was found in eastern Europe. The average growth rate when factoring in the .2% was still closer to .5% overall for the entire world.

So back to your example if we say that at the time after the black death there were 400,000,000 people in the world then from 1400 to 2009 covering approximately 609 years we grew to over 6 billion people. The rate certainly cannot be the .2% that was recorded in eastern europe because that would get us to 1,347,828,646 people. But if we use the world growth rate that is closer to .5% then we end up with 8,298,995,695 people. A little high but not too far off. Actually it ends up being about .45% which would give us 6,132,310,980 people. I think just slightly under what the real population is today. So the population growth rates do work over time you just have to know what your starting number is and we know what the number is today. Coming from a statistical research background I can assure you I am correct

So scientists have been able to produce overall population growth rates for the world and in fact using the black death example their rates work perfectly.

Argument over.

I didn’t know we were arguing. I certainly wasn’t But I think I just refuted your claim.

 

[NDfan]

You should know that carbon dating is not used to measure the age of the earth; carbon dating is only good to between 50,000 and 75,000 years ago. For older material other methods are employed, such as Argon-Argon or Uranium-Lead. For further details see Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective.

rossum

Yes and this is where the big fallacy occurs. Carbon dating for items that were known to be 1000 years old were shown to be like 70,000 years old when carbon dating methods were used. It’s just not accurate because it relies on constants which is impossible.

 

[NDfan]

Does any type of solar radiation have an effect on carbon? It seems to me that you would need to prove that it would effect things in such a way as to make things appear older than they are. All you have done so far is given us a what-if scenario with no scientific support. I’m just sayin - the evidence could very well support your position, but as it stands, you haven’t proven it, so it could go either way.

Chip solar radiation definitely affects carbon. Solar radiation causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out.

There’s a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes which is called equilibrium. A newly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. The earth has still not reached this point though. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This proves the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! It also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.

 

[ricko]

I’ll go with the USGS age of 4.5 billion.

pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

 

[ricko]

Here is another site with several scientists listed and the current method of dating, radiometric dating.

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Age_of_the_Earth

 

[Verisimilitude]

I’ll go with the USGS age of 4.5 billion.

pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

Where in the timeline and how did humans come to be is ultimate debate. Did we evolve from the creatures that formed as the Earth took shape or created new at some point in Earths history; or the universe made to Be as we know it about 6000 years ago?

Mitochondrial Eve and the Biblical Eve seem to contradict each other.

 

[BareKnuckler]

Um, OP, where is your source for all of this? You basically deny the fact that fossils are millions of years old, and then say your own idea, but you didn’t provide any info for the denial of fossil aging and for your idea. You said the bible says that has to be wrong, but you didn’t provide any bible sources, or I might have missed that?

You should start your own denomination, that way you can say all this, and maybe get some people to believe what you do. Good luck.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think this hits right to the heart of the argument. I personally don’t care how old the earth is. It may be millions or only thousands of years old. But it seems that those who push for an older earth do so because they want to refute the existence of GOD and push evolution, the big bang theory etc. etc.

I think it’s 2 different arguments but somehow they get mixed.

I think that is absurd. You are confusing atheists with believers. We are here as believers and most all of us are clearly certain that the earth is billions of years old as the scientific evidence suggests. We are certainly not refuting the existence of God, the two are not in the least inconsistent. But I would agree that we generally also tend to believe strongly in evolution and the big bang theory, named ironically by a Roman Catholic astrophysicist.

 

[rossum]

But over time the trend is upwards PERIOD!!!

Over what time? From one year before before the Toba eruption to one year after the Toba eruption the trend was downwards PERIOD! The trend depends on the time interval it is taken over.

Ok so let’s just apply simple math here. If 20,000 humans lived on the earth 70,000 years ago and we have over 6 billion today that translates into a growth upwards not downwards. There may have been some years that the population declined but overall the trend is up. I get sick if this notion that you can’t just apply a straight growth rate or you have to account for this or that.

The problem with a straight growth rate is that it is only accurate at the two end points, all the intermediate points are probably wrong. An increasing growth rate, while still approximate, is a closer match to the actual population curve.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Yes and this is where the big fallacy occurs. Carbon dating for items that were known to be 1000 years old were shown to be like 70,000 years old when carbon dating methods were used.

I will need a reference for that. What items were dated? Who did the work and when was it done? I am aware of some early tests on marine animals that were used to confirm the old carbon problem in the 1950s and 1960s. I am not aware of any similar results since then.

It’s just not accurate because it relies on constants which is impossible.

It is accurate if the constants are known and measured. The Lake Suigetsu deposits have been used to calibrate carbon dating for the last 50,000 years.

rossum

 

[heiscominginthe]

It is permitted to insert links.

Thank you. I will post some links.

godsaidmansaid.com/home.asp

drdino.com/

scienceagainstevolution.org/

 

[heiscominginthe]

You should start your own denomination, that way you can say all this, and maybe get some people to believe what you do. Good luck.

I don’t believe there are denominations in heaven and nor should be on earth.

I posted some links to websites that debunk evolution.

The fingerprints of God are everywhere, they have just been covered over by man’s.

 

[BareKnuckler]

I don’t believe there are denominations in heaven and nor should be on earth.

I posted some links to websites that debunk evolution.

The fingerprints of God are everywhere, they have just been covered over by man’s.

I do not care what you believe. I suggested something to him.

 

[ckempston]

Chip solar radiation definitely affects carbon. Solar radiation causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out.

There’s a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes which is called equilibrium. A newly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. The earth has still not reached this point though. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This proves the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! It also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.

You left out a hugely important factor. Namely that the half-life of Carbon-14 is about 5700 years. The amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere does not prove what you are suggesting it does.

 

[ckempston]

Yes that’s true and I’m admitting that. But that’s also why I don’t believe man has been around for over 100 thousand years. I could very well be wrong.

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.

Chip I’m not trying to make a case. I’m just showing that the current population rates will not work when trying to assert that man has been here for say 100 thousand years. Or a million years. Whichever you choose. The notion of man being here for 6 thousand years has a stronger case under this scenario.

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

Yes and I agree with this. But reducing the population by 20% a few times doesn’t wipe it out otherwise we wouldn’t be here today

I didn’t say that it did.

But the fact remains that at some point in time man started to exist and existed in numbers. Today there are more people than the first day man from when man started to exist. The line when plotted on a graph may go up and down during certain intervals of time and in fact may go up dramatically and down dramatically when factoring in disasters, wars, famine, plagues etc. etc. But the overall trend of the line is going to be up. The up and down years will only affect the slope of the overall line. So the actual growth rate may in fact be thousands of a percent instead of say .2%. That’s all I’m honestly saying. I just personally don’t subscribe to this.

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

Chip I’ve done this exercise so may times with various differing numbers and can make it work. The .2% number was the lowest growth rate recorded in the world and was found in eastern Europe. The average growth rate when factoring in the .2% was still closer to .5% overall for the entire world.

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.

So back to your example if we say that at the time after the black death there were 400,000,000 people in the world then from 1400 to 2009 covering approximately 609 years we grew to over 6 billion people. The rate certainly cannot be the .2% that was recorded in eastern europe because that would get us to 1,347,828,646 people. But if we use the world growth rate that is closer to .5% then we end up with 8,298,995,695 people. A little high but not too far off. Actually it ends up being about .45% which would give us 6,132,310,980 people. I think just slightly under what the real population is today. So the population growth rates do work over time you just have to know what your starting number is and we know what the number is today. Coming from a statistical research background I can assure you I am correct

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

So scientists have been able to produce overall population growth rates for the world and in fact using the black death example their rates work perfectly.

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 didn’t know we were arguing. I certainly wasn’t But I think I just refuted your claim.

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

 

[NDfan]

I think that is absurd. You are confusing atheists with believers. We are here as believers and most all of us are clearly certain that the earth is billions of years old as the scientific evidence suggests. We are certainly not refuting the existence of God, the two are not in the least inconsistent. But I would agree that we generally also tend to believe strongly in evolution and the big bang theory, named ironically by a Roman Catholic astrophysicist.

It most certainly is not absurd and I never accused anyone here of questioning the existence of GOD. I have no problem with the earth being a billion years old. I personally don’t believe it is because there is plenty of evidence to suggest it’s much younger than originally thought. How young? Who knows.

My point is that many scientists will push specifically for an older earth for the sole purpose of refuting GOD and to prove their theory of evolution. A young earth completely disrupts this line of thinking. But this has nothing to do with questioning your belief in GOD or throwing atheism into the mix. It’s a simple observation. I understand completely that there are those that are die hard creationists that hold to the earth being 4.5 billion years old.

 

[NDfan]

Over what time? From one year before before the Toba eruption to one year after the Toba eruption the trend was downwards PERIOD! The trend depends on the time interval it is taken over.

Since the day man first populated the earth. From day one when man started to exist to now the population has grown. That produces a growth rate. It just doesn’t get any simpler than that. You can’t isolate a small time period using the Toba eruption to disprove an overall growth rate.

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.

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.

The problem with a straight growth rate is that it is only accurate at the two end points, all the intermediate points are probably wrong. An increasing growth rate, while still approximate, is a closer match to the actual population curve.

rossum

Yes and I don’t disagree with you Rossum. Man did not live as long in the past as he/she does now. The discovery of penicillin alone has had a dramatic affect on life span. My curiosity was more with the starting point for mans’ existence. When did man first exist on this earth and how many were there? 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.

PEACE