The 6000 Year Earth

[NDfan]

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.

Chip an overall growth rate does account for it. Your example from 1400 to now only shows one snapshot in time. It does not account for where we started and where we are now. It only shows one 609 year period. It’s not reflective of the entire existence of humanity. If we started with 10 people on this earth 100 years ago and now have 1 million then the overall growth rate would be just a hair over 20%. We may have had periods where the rate was 50% and some where the rate was -25% but overall the rate would be around 20%. That point you simply cannot refute.

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.

It doesn’t matter if the rates changed significantly in isolated periods of time. All that serves is to lower or raise the overall number. Looking at isolated periods of growth is only useful if you are trying to understand what external effects were in play that affected that time period.

If the population is ticking along and has been growing at a rate of say .5% for 1000 years and then suddenly drops to .1% we would immediately question what happened. Perhaps something catastrophic like a plague occurred. But it’s only relevant to that isolated shot of time. If the .1% continued for several years then we would expect the overall rate to be corrected slightly downward. Do you have any statistical training at all? Not implying that in a disrespectful way but this is basic statistics brother.

 

[heiscominginthe]

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.

Let me ask you this. Since man began using different techniques to date material, has his technology gotten better, thus bringing him closer to being able to date a material accurately?

 

[heiscominginthe]

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.

According to whom? I llisted three links that have allot of material that disagree with you.

Evolution is dead, they just forgot to bury the corpse.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Strawman argument. You seem to have missed the point.

Not really. The arguments that continue to support abortion, apartheid, genocide and bigotry are pretty close to those that support evolution; a dehumanized human.

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

By itself, nothing. Peter denied Jesus 3 times in the face of all he knew as it regarded truth. The Jews made a golden calf after all they knew of truth. It wasn’t that long ago balck holes were rare in the universe, now they are at the center of every galaxy.

Geological evolution is tied to biological evolution in more ways than one. Anti-life proponents use the evolutionary theory to support their position that killing an unborn child at any moment before natural birth is no different than controlling the pet population; like megalomaniacs use it to describe the physically infirmed or a particular race are not fully human either and can thus be killed like we might a herd of buffalo.

 

[rossum]

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

We have human DNA sequenced and we have chimpanzee DNA sequenced. Some common genes have many more than four alleles in common across both species. Since two people can only carry a maximum of two alleles each therefore there must have been more that two people at all times since our split from the chimpanzees. What we cannot tell is how many individuals in that population had souls.

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?

The 30,000 years to equilibrium calculation makes a uniformitarian assumption that the rate of C14 production is constant. The rate has been measured and it is not constant, so the equilibrium calculation gives an incorrect result - GIGO. See How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments? for more details and references.

rossum

 

[ckempston]

Chip an overall growth rate does account for it. Your example from 1400 to now only shows one snapshot in time. It does not account for where we started and where we are now. It only shows one 609 year period. It’s not reflective of the entire existence of humanity. If we started with 10 people on this earth 100 years ago and now have 1 million then the overall growth rate would be just a hair over 20%. We may have had periods where the rate was 50% and some where the rate was -25% but overall the rate would be around 20%. That point you simply cannot refute.

You are funny. Are you purposely ignoring my point?

It doesn’t matter if the rates changed significantly in isolated periods of time. All that serves is to lower or raise the overall number. Looking at isolated periods of growth is only useful if you are trying to understand what external effects were in play that affected that time period.

yeah, exactly, and unless you can account for external factors during every period of human existence (we can’t), then you cannot make any meaningful inferences from the data. Therefore, your position is quite simply preposterous. If you want to believe in a young earth, find another reason, because this one doesn’t support yourr position.

If the population is ticking along and has been growing at a rate of say .5% for 1000 years and then suddenly drops to .1% we would immediately question what happened. Perhaps something catastrophic like a plague occurred. But it’s only relevant to that isolated shot of time. If the .1% continued for several years then we would expect the overall rate to be corrected slightly downward. Do you have any statistical training at all? Not implying that in a disrespectful way but this is basic statistics brother.

You’re totally missing the point here and starting to look a little silly. Your criticisms only serve to weaken your own position. You are quite clearly demonstrating that you can’t make any meaningful conclusions based on the data because, quite simply, we don’t have the data. All we have is conjecture. I have demonstrated, pretty easily, with a relatively small period of time, that growth rates do not make accurate predictions. If all we have is conjecture, then population growth supports neither position.

 

[StAnastasia]

Evolution is dead, they just forgot to bury the corpse.

Tell that to the 100,000 biologists (including many Catholics) who work with evolution every day.

 

[ckempston]

Not really. The arguments that continue to support abortion, apartheid, genocide and bigotry are pretty close to those that support evolution; a dehumanized human.

And that, in and of itself, does not make it invalid. If you’d like to further familiarize yourself with making sound, valid arguments, then there are many resources on the web that will teach you how.

By itself, nothing. Peter denied Jesus 3 times in the face of all he knew as it regarded truth. The Jews made a golden calf after all they knew of truth. It wasn’t that long ago balck holes were rare in the universe, now they are at the center of every galaxy.

That’s pretty irrelevant. Even atheist scientists admit that science changes as we learn more about the universe. Changes in cosmology do not invalidate other areas of science.

Geological evolution is tied to biological evolution in more ways than one. Anti-life proponents use the evolutionary theory to support their position that killing an unborn child at any moment before natural birth is no different than controlling the pet population; like megalomaniacs use it to describe the physically infirmed or a particular race are not fully human either and can thus be killed like we might a herd of buffalo.

Do you have an example of an anti-life proponent arguing this? I mean, seriously, I’m no Obama fan, and I realize he is pro-choice, but do you seriously believe that he sits around rubbing his hands together in glee over the number of abortions in the world?

 

[StAnastasia]

Not really. The arguments that continue to support abortion, apartheid, genocide and bigotry are pretty close to those that support evolution; a dehumanized human.

Rubbish. I have many Catholic friends – some of them priests – who work with evolutionary biology. These are people who share our opposition to abortion.

 

[ckempston]

Rubbish. I have many Catholic friends – some of them priests – who work with evolutionary biology. These are people who share our opposition to abortion.

JPII on evolution. From: cin.org/jp2evolu.html

**In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576). **

I would encourage Versimilitude to read JPII’s thoughts on evolution. The very intelligence and processes within the human mind that give us the ability to explore creation and come up with theories like evolution is one of the very things that demonstrates that we are “made in the image of God.” As creatures with minds modeled after the creator, we are able to grasp His creation in a very special way.

 

[Verisimilitude]

And that, in and of itself, does not make it invalid. If you’d like to further familiarize yourself with making sound, valid arguments, then there are many resources on the web that will teach you how.

Is this your version of a valid argument where you refuse to acknowledge the postion of a number of people that have made civil law legalizing abortion?

That’s pretty irrelevant. Even atheist scientists admit that science changes as we learn more about the universe. Changes in cosmology do not invalidate other areas of science.

No, its very relevant. Our understanding of science may change but truth doesn’t. When RvW was argued 37 years ago the fetus was not alive, and not fully human. The truth never changed, just science understanding.

Do you have an example of an anti-life proponent arguing this? I mean, seriously, I’m no Obama fan, and I realize he is pro-choice, but do you seriously believe that he sits around rubbing his hands together in glee over the number of abortions in the world?

It’s ironic that genetic drift, the key part of evolution, causes poorly copied DNA to abort a fetus 80% of the time. It would seem any one who believes the soul is put in by God that God is the biggest abortion doctor of them all…
geocities.com/evolvedthinking/Abortion.htm

(October 2, 1997) Vice President Al Gore, warning that overpopulation fosters global warming, yesterday suggested expanding birth-control and abortion programs in developing countries to help reduce the environmental threat.
peopleforlife.org/gore.html

Murder is the taking of the life of another human being through the initiation of physical force. Abortion is not murder, because a fetus is not a human being…

Dogs are “life” but they do not have rights. What about ants? So are trees “life”, yet they do not have rights (contrary to the mouthing of man-hating environmentalists). Rights only apply to human beings, and not to human tissue.

Given the above, under capitalism abortion is an inalienable right. Any one who advocates the outlawing of abortion – like Steve Forbes – is an enemy of individual rights, and thus of capitalism.
capitalism.org/faq/abortion.htm

Maybe you can use your superior skills in bringing a valid argument to people such as those noted above.

 

[ckempston]

Is this your version of a valid argument where you refuse to acknowledge the postion of a number of people that have made civil law legalizing abortion?

Sigh. Look up a fallacy named “poisoning the well” and educate yourself. I’m not refusing to acknowledge anything. You are using fallacious arguments.

No, its very relevant. Our understanding of science may change but truth doesn’t. When RvW was argued 37 years ago the fetus was not alive, and not fully human. The truth never changed, just science understanding.

You also seem to be completely ignorant of Roe vs. Wade, because, quite frankly, the status of the fetus had nothing to do with the SCOTUS decision.

It’s ironic that genetic drift, the key part of evolution, causes poorly copied DNA to abort a fetus 80% of the time. It would seem any one who believes the soul is put in by God that God is the biggest abortion doctor of them all…
geocities.com/evolvedthinking/Abortion.htm

Huh? What in the world are you talking about. Regardless of the method, millions of babies have died “naturally” without any effort to abort them whether during gestation or during or after childbirth. God would still be in control of this, no? My wife had a miscarriage; did God kill the baby? Your statement makes no sense, and honestly, you sound like an atheist.

(October 2, 1997) Vice President Al Gore, warning that overpopulation fosters global warming, yesterday suggested expanding birth-control and abortion programs in developing countries to help reduce the environmental threat.
peopleforlife.org/gore.html

That’s nice. Once again you’re making a fallacious argument. Al Gore’s position does not prove or disprove any theory.

Murder is the taking of the life of another human being through the initiation of physical force. Abortion is not murder, because a fetus is not a human being…

I’m not sure who you’re even talking to any more. Because nobody is talking about abortion. You’re raising up a strawman because you’re trying to draw attention away from your other fallacious arguments. Ironic.

Dogs are “life” but they do not have rights. What about ants? So are trees “life”, yet they do not have rights (contrary to the mouthing of man-hating environmentalists). Rights only apply to human beings, and not to human tissue.

Given the above, under capitalism abortion is an inalienable right. Any one who advocates the outlawing of abortion – like Steve Forbes – is an enemy of individual rights, and thus of capitalism.
capitalism.org/faq/abortion.htm

Maybe you can use your superior skills in bringing a valid argument to people such as those noted above.

Maybe you can stop changing the subject and admit that your are incapable of developing a logical argument.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Rubbish. I have many Catholic friends – some of them priests – who work with evolutionary biology. These are people who share our opposition to abortion.

Such people will hopefully be motivated not to allow the science to redefine the faith resting on incomplete data. There are 5 Catholics on SCOTUS, a Catholic Speaker of the House, and a Catholic VP; being Catholic in name alone doesn’t always mean much.

JPII on evolution. From: cin.org/jp2evolu.html

**In his Encyclical Humani generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576). **

I would encourage Versimilitude to read JPII’s thoughts on evolution. The very intelligence and processes within the human mind that give us the ability to explore creation and come up with theories like evolution is one of the very things that demonstrates that we are “made in the image of God.” As creatures with minds modeled after the creator, we are able to grasp His creation in a very special way.

Maybe you should read it again and grasp the nuance of his words. From your own reference regarding the indisputable points:

1. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principal trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all this, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribed to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.
2. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.
3. Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these same theories well, both because diseases are not properly treated unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in these false theories a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths.
4. If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the Church. However, although We know that Catholic teachers generally avoid these errors, it is apparent, however, that some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.
   papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM

 

[ckempston]

Such people will hopefully be motivated not to allow the science to redefine the faith resting on incomplete data. There are 5 Catholics on SCOTUS, a Catholic Speaker of the House, and a Catholic VP; being Catholic in name alone doesn’t always mean much.

Maybe you should read it again and grasp the nuance of his words. From your own reference regarding the indisputable points:

1. If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principal trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all this, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribed to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.
2. Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.
3. Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these same theories well, both because diseases are not properly treated unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in these false theories a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths.
4. If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the Church. However, although We know that Catholic teachers generally avoid these errors, it is apparent, however, that some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.
   papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM

Were you trying to make a point here? Because you failed utterly.

I agree 100% with the JPII that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. I also agree that some people misuse the theory of evolution to bring apparent conflicts up between religion and science, but that does not make the theory itself untrue.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Sigh. Look up a fallacy named “poisoning the well” and educate yourself. I’m not refusing to acknowledge anything. You are using fallacious arguments.

You are the one who has poisoned the well and do worse than refusing to acknowledge the current situation- you accept it.

You also seem to be completely ignorant of Roe vs. Wade, because, quite frankly, the status of the fetus had nothing to do with the SCOTUS decision.

The status of the fetus was ignored and not taken into account, thus it can be killed with impunity as the unconstitution law has been doing for decades.

Huh? What in the world are you talking about. Regardless of the method, millions of babies have died “naturally” without any effort to abort them whether during gestation or during or after childbirth. God would still be in control of this, no? My wife had a miscarriage; did God kill the baby? Your statement makes no sense, and honestly, you sound like an atheist.

What part of that did you fail to grasp as it was in response to your own question of who uses such arguments to support abortion?

That’s nice. Once again you’re making a fallacious argument. Al Gore’s position does not prove or disprove any theory.

I didn’t suggest Al Gores position proved anything, just that he uses similar arguments to control population like the we do with cats and dogs which tends to dehumanize the human beings.

I’m not sure who you’re even talking to any more. Because nobody is talking about abortion. You’re raising up a strawman because you’re trying to draw attention away from your other fallacious arguments. Ironic.

Wow. I give you examples you asked for and you get so lost. You asked:

Do you have an example of an anti-life proponent arguing this?

I gave you three: what is your problem?

Maybe you can stop changing the subject and admit that your are incapable of developing a logical argument.

Maybe you can admit your inability to follow a thread.

I made the simple observation that the evolutionary theory as it regards human beings, which is opposed to the Young Earth Creatrionist theory of the OP (which I also oppose) is being used by anti-life type positions; giving examples such as abortion, genocide, racism, apartheid and bigotry as a result of thinking humans evoloved from lower species. This thought of evolution from lower species makes many think we are no different than animals and thus they begin to treat humans like animals.

If human evolution is proved true then the theology must explain it in a way that does not contradict Doctrine or Dogma, and the current explainations of human evolution currently contradict both. This is why JPII said what he said.

 

[ckempston]

Were you trying to make a point here? Because you failed utterly.

I agree 100% with the JPII that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. I also agree that some people misuse the theory of evolution to bring apparent conflicts up between religion and science, but that does not make the theory itself untrue.

You know, I’m becoming frustrated and uncharitable, and for that I apologize; regardless of what you might conclude from this, I’m afraid I need to end this conversation. It’s not going anywhere.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Were you trying to make a point here?

Just your inability to reason.

 

[StAnastasia]

Such people will hopefully be motivated not to allow the science to redefine the faith resting on incomplete data.]

Of course science doesn’t redefine the faith. My Catholic priest friends, who are biologists, celebrate Mass in the morning and then go off to their laboratories or field work or classes on evolutionary biology.

StAnastasia

 

[StAnastasia]

I would encourage Versimilitude to read JPII’s thoughts on evolution. The very intelligence and processes within the human mind that give us the ability to explore creation and come up with theories like evolution is one of the very things that demonstrates that we are “made in the image of God.” As creatures with minds modeled after the creator, we are able to grasp His creation in a very special way.

Of course – and Pope Benedict has called evolution “all but certain.” Biology is among the uses to which I’m sure God is pleased we direct our intelligence.

 

[ckempston]

Of course – and Pope Benedict has called evolution “all but certain.” Biology is among the uses to which I’m sure God is pleased we direct our intelligence.

I haven’t followed Pope Benedict’s comments on evolution, but I’m not surprised he would say that. Science is neutral when it comes to the existence of God. By its very definition it cannot confirm or deny the supernatural. The fact that some abuse the neutrality of science to push their own agendas shouldn’t be cause for us to reject it and become anti-scientific.