Do you believe the Earth is 10000 years old

Zombrex

J C wrote:

The Gentiles are descended from everybody else, other than the lineal descendants of Abraham - who are the Jews:cool:

Ah yes, but why were there so many more Gentiles than Jews? Surely there should be only 2 or 3 times as many, not a hundred times as many, spread all over the world :cool: :rolleyes:

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Ah yes, but why were there so many more Gentiles than Jews? Surely there should be only 2 or 3 times as many, not a hundred times as many, spread all over the world :cool: :rolleyes:

Since there were thousands of other people alive in Abraham's day, how do you reach that conclusion?

DerKaiser

Wicknight wrote:

Well it is impossible to demonstrate that the atomic structure of the pen and ink used to write the birth cert weren't different to what you find in modern times and some how speed up to produce an inaccurate history (possibly by the Great Surveyors.

"1962 Creationist Scientists" (as they are known) have a working model of how the laws of physics could have significantly altered since then, so that things may look like they come from 1927, but in fact are all from 1962.

This is science after all ... you can't argue with that

Carbon dating? OOOOH!!! Controversial on this board!

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Since there were thousands of other people alive in Abraham's day, how do you reach that conclusion?

That is the point. There were hundreds of thousands of people alive in Abraham's day (400 years after Noah, though Noah was actually still alive) spread out across the world. Where did they all come from and why did this massive reproduction system just stop with Abraham's generation?

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

That is the point. There were hundreds of thousands of people alive in Abraham's day (400 years after Noah, though Noah was actually still alive) spread out across the world. Where did they all come from and why did this massive reproduction system just stop with Abraham's generation?

I would be wary about reconstructing too many dates based on genealogies, but let's work with your assumption of 400 years from Noah to Abraham.

I may not be a scientist, but I can work a calculator. Let's see. We know that Noah's three sons had a total of 16 sons. By the law of averages we should expect a similar amount of daughters. That would mean each family averaging somewhere around 10 kids per family (hardly unusual in a non-industrialised culture). If each couple produced children up to age 40 then that would give us the following scenario:

40 years after Noah we have a population of 32
That gives 16 couples who, after the next 40 years (80 years after Noah), produce a population of 160.
By the same process (a fivefold increase every 40 years) we see the following population growth:
120 years after Noah = population of 800
160 years = 4,000
200 years = 20,000
240 years = 100,000
280 years = 500,000
320 years = 2,500,000
360 years = 12,500,000
400 years = 62,500,000

Now, of course some people would have smaller families, some would remain single, and wars & famines would take their tolls also. However, it doesn't seem at all unreasonable that such the population could have increased into the thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, over the space of 400 years.

Also, since natural resources can only support a certain population, it seems reasonable that such rapid growth could not be sustained indefinitely and that a levelling off of growth should occur.

The whole subject of linear descendants & populations can throw up some pretty weird results. Genghis Khan lived just 800 years ago, but today 0.5% of the world's males appear to be descended from him. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0214_030214_genghis.html

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

I may not be a scientist, but I can work a calculator. Let's see. We know that Noah's three sons had a total of 16 sons. By the law of averages we should expect a similar amount of daughters. That would mean each family averaging somewhere around 10 kids per family (hardly unusual in a non-industrialised culture).

Hardly unusual. It would be unusual (very unusual) if all kids survived to reproduce.

Natural female biology significantly reduced the ability to conceive a child for approx 2 years after birth (this is triggered by breast feeding). This makes sense, before bottled milk it was a strain on the mother to produce more children straight after the first one. So we have females producing a child once every 3 years. If a woman enters puberty aged approx 15 and starts losing fertility aged 35, that is a period of 20 years. A child every 3 years is about 6 or 7 children in a life time. Why do you hear about these families that have 20 children? Two reasons. In modern times food processes allow women to produce children without breastfeeding, which means they can become pregnant straight after birth. But bottle milk didn't exist 4,000 years ago. 4,000 years ago people still had lots of kids, but these children often died. Even 150 years ago infant mortality in the developed world was very high, with more than half of all children dying before the age of 5. It was simply a fact of life, and parents compensated for this by having lots and lots of children.

Of course the Bible describes Noah living for close to 1,000 years (Noah was supposed to be a live when Abraham was born), so when you have such ridiculous life spans what is or is not natural kinda goes out the window. But even with that one still has significant problems.

Another problem is the issue of who produced the food to feed the 10x people produced each generation. Modern farming methods would stuggle with a population that increases by 10 times each generation (we struggle to feed a population that increases 3x each generation). If you have 10 farmers, and each farmer produces 10 children, that is 100 children for the 10 farmers to feed. Without modern farming machinery that would simply be impossible. The children would be consuming food faster than the parents could produce it.

This is before one has to deal with the problem of migration. People on the move don't farm. They hunt and gather. Yet these non-farming groups are supposed to have traveled to areas across the globe, in a relatively short period of time.

PDN wrote:

40 years after Noah we have a population of 32
That gives 16 couples who, after the next 40 years (80 years after Noah), produce a population of 160.

The problem with that is that these 160 people are supposed include the Egyptian and Chinese civilisations. Noah's flood is dated to approx 2,400 BCE (BC). In 2,300 we know the Chinese civilisation existed. Chinese writing has been dated to that period.

So where did that come from?

We also have the other issue. Chineses writing has been dated as far back as 6,000 BCE (around the period of the Creation). Fair enough you say, they were pre-Flood civilisations descended from Adam. Leaving aside the problem of getting people from Eden to China in just under 1,500 years (populations that raise children as they migrate tend to have very small families), we are also left with the problem of the writing matching.

If the people who formed the second Chinese civilisation arrived some 500 years after the pre-Flood civilisation had been totally wiped out, what are the odds that they started using the same old language. Surely it just makes far more sense that the pre-Flood and post-Flood civilisations are the same ones, and they weren't wiped out by a Flood and that is why the writing syncs up.

The only reason to not accept that Occam's Razor explanation would be a religious need to take the Bible literally.

To be honest I could go on and on with the problems with taking what is described in the Bible as a literal history of humanity. There are simply far too many problems with that idea for it to be taken in anyway seriously from a historical point of view.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

To be honest I could go on and on with the problems with taking what is described in the Bible as a literal history of humanity.

Which of course you are free to do so. I was simply pointing out that your argument about population numbers was an extremely poor argument.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

Which of course you are free to do so. I was simply pointing out that your argument about population numbers was an extremely poor argument.

Only if you assume that each couple, living 6,000 years ago with Bronze age technology managed to each produce and feed 10 children to old age, and get them across the world quickly enough to be there to produce the various artifacts we find from ancient civilisations.

Which as I have demonstrated wasn't possible.

But if one wants to ignore this one can claim anything is possible I suppose. The discussion does descend into nonsense rather quickly though, as JC's "plankton feeding lions who living on the top of the Alps" argument on the Creationists thread demonstrates.

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Which as I have demonstrated wasn't possible.

I know I've said this before, but you do so remind me of JC. Maybe it's the way you claim to have demonstrated something. Are you, by any chance, related?

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

I know I've said this before, but you do so remind me of JC. Maybe it's the way you claim to have demonstrated something. Are you, by any chance, related?

Feel free to jump in there with critically analysis of my post any time there PDN ... :rolleyes:

Son Goku

PDN wrote:

Which of course you are free to do so. I was simply pointing out that your argument about population numbers was an extremely poor argument.

Humans can't achieve anywhere close to the kind of expansion you used. Using Feigenbaum's map (the correct kind of maths, you can't use multiplication) and parameters appropriate for the time, you get nothing near those kind of numbers. Wicknight is correct.

zod

J_C is it true that

1. You don't believe that any form scientific dating is valid. If so which ones?

2. That in order for distant stars (millions of light years away) to be seen now that the travelling light between the stars was created during the creation event ..presumably so we could see it now.

3. On the third day grass was created

"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind:"

however if life is ever found on another planet then, it's either not important or God has his good reasons for not letting us know.

4. Dinosaurs were not put on the ark, they were around however they were killed off by the flood.


J_C can you include the numbers in your answers so you don't miss any.
thanks

J C

PDN wrote:

I know I've said this before, but you do so remind me of JC. Maybe it's the way you claim to have demonstrated something. Are you, by any chance, related?

Schhss.....don't tell anybody......

......Wicknight is one of my distant cousins!!!!:D

J C

zod wrote:

J_C is it true that

1. You don't believe that any form scientific dating is valid. If so which ones?

2. That in order for distant stars (millions of light years away) to be seen now that the travelling light between the stars was created during the creation event ..presumably so we could see it now.

3. On the third day grass was created

"And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind:"

however if life is ever found on another planet then, it's either not important or God has his good reasons for not letting us know.

4. Dinosaurs were not put on the ark, they were around however they were killed off by the flood.


J_C can you include the numbers in your answers so you don't miss any.
thanks

1. Radiocarbon dating is valid, but I don't agree that the regression equations are linear, due to variations over both time and space in C14 levels.

2. Yes, largely so.

3. Yes.

4. Dinosaurs WERE on the Ark, and most have subsequently become extinct - others, like the Rhino and the Crocodile can be found in your local Zoo!!!:D

J C

Saruman
So what you are saying is this. Cain is fecked out into the land of Nod wandering and years later when adam and eve have had enough sons and daughters and have grown up they meet up with Cain, or at least one daughter does and so begins the continuation of the human race?

The Ante-Diluvian Human Race was descended from MANY sons and daughters of Adam and Eve!!!

The post-Diluvian Human Race is descended from Noah, his three sons and their wives.


Saruman
you either believe the Bible is the word of God, or that its a bunch of writings bound together written by men

…a very astute statement!!!

If you are a Christian you accept that the Bible is the Word of God and if you are not a Christian, I guess you won’t!!!


Saruman
I mean take the flood. there is not an arc big enough to put two every kind of animal that cant live in water aboard, and birds and insects are included in this too! The only way you can believe that is if some of the most common animals were put on board and all the other species we have "evolved" from them!

Insects were not included on the Ark and they probably survived on driftwood, floating carcasses, etc.
The animals on the ARK included livestock (amounting to about a dozen Kinds), Birds (of which there are about 2,400 Species today in about 165 families or Kinds) and other animals amounting to about 15,000 Kinds.

Gen 6:15 confirms the size of the Ark to be 300x50x30 Cubits – which was 137x23x13.7 metres or 43,160 cubic metres.
To put it into perspective, The Ark was equivalent to the volume of 522 standard railway stock wagons, each of which can hold 250 sheep i.e. over 130,000 ‘sheep spaces’ so to speak. The Ark was a truly massive vessel, unmatched in size by modern shipping until the building of The Great Eastern Liner by Isambard Kingdom Brunel in 1858.

Taking young semi-mature animals on board would greatly reduce the space and feed requirements as well as minimising any mortality risk.

Examples of every KIND were commanded by God to be taken on board. Creationists DO accept that speciation occurs (using EXISTING genetic diversity) and it is thought that as little as 16,000 KINDS would have been sufficient to generate the diversity of terrestrial and avian species seen in the World today.
For example a single pair of the Dog Kind could have given rise to Domestic Dogs, Wolves, Wolverines, Cape Hunting Dogs, Hyenas, Jackals, Foxes, etc.

The vast majority of Kinds would be small animals such as young lizards and mice that would literally fit into a match box. Other animals such as lambs, calves and baby elephants would require somewhat more space. However, if we assume 32,000 animals (including birds) on the Ark each with a generous average space requirement of 50x50x50 cm (0.125 cubic metres), then all 32,000 animals could be accommodated in about 10% of the space in the Ark – leaving plenty of room for feed, straw bedding and access.

In addition, we should bear in mind that the animals themselves didn’t have any fear of Man before the Flood (see Gen 9:2) and they therefore would have been very placid and easy to manage on the Ark, unlike what “wild” animals would be like nowadays. They may also have gone into a type of hibernation during the flood, which would have saved on feed as well as making management even easier.


Saruman
And if they evolved, then why can't we have evolved.

They SPECIATED - and we have never observed the type of evolution that would generate a Man form an Ape!!!!

….. AND BTW, I have no problem accepting ‘downhill’ Evolution from the perfect, genetically diverse creatures that were originally Created. It is like accepting that a circular stone can run downhill off the top of a mountain.

However, the production of the enormous volumes of complex specified information observed in living Creatures ‘from scratch’ via some ‘uphill’ Evolutionary process is logically impossible. It is like expecting stone to run UP a mountain!!!


Saruman
Hell i believe the catholic church even believes in evolution these days and that God sparked the process etc.

The Roman Catholic Church is officially a Creationist Church……and the present Pope seems to be moving the Church’s Theology back in the direction of this 'official position' while simultaneously trying to put as much ‘blue water’ as possible between 'Roman Catholic Creationism' and 'American Creationism'!!!:)


Originally Posted by J C
The Gentiles are descended from everybody else, other than the lineal descendants of Abraham - who are the Jews

Wicknight
Ah yes, but why were there so many more Gentiles than Jews? Surely there should be only 2 or 3 times as many, not a hundred times as many, spread all over the world

The split between the Gentiles and the Jews didn’t occur until the time of Abraham who was a member of the NINETH generation after Noah!!!!


Wicknight
There were hundreds of thousands of people alive in Abraham's day (400 years after Noah, though Noah was actually still alive) spread out across the world. Where did they all come from and why did this massive reproduction system just stop with Abraham's generation?

PDN has, used conservative figures, to show how over 60 MILLION people could be produced within nine generations from Noah!!!:eek:

Please remember that disease wasn’t as prevalent then as it is now ……which is attested to by the longevity of the people during the first eight Post-Flood generations. Equally, with the whole world available to them, resource limitations would not be an issue for the immediate Post-Flood generations of Mankind!!!

When we study the scale of prehistoric monuments from this era, like Newgrange and the Pyramids of Mexico and Egypt, the ability of these population to produce sufficient surplus food to sustain the builders of these monuments shows that surplus food production and availability wasn't a problem.

……so rapid population growth into the MILLIONS was GUARANTEED under these conditions!!!!:D :cool:

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Please remember that disease wasn’t as prevalent then as it is now

Why would I "remember that"? Not only have you never demonstrated that that is the case, that doesn't even make any sense. Medicine was almost non-existent back then. We have evidence that infant mortality was very high. There is no reason to believe that disease wasn't as prevalent as today, and a lot of evidence that it was far more prevalent.

J C wrote:

……which is attested to by the longevity of the people during the first eight Post-Flood generations.

Disease doesn't make someone age. Lack of disease won't make someone live for 500 years.

J C wrote:

Equally, with the whole world available to them, resource limitations would not be an issue for the immediate Post-Flood generations of Mankind!!!

Humans have always had the "whole world" available to them. The problem has never been the world being there, it has been humans ability to process this into food and other usable resources. There simply would not have been enough food to feed the increase in people.

J C wrote:

When we study the scale of prehistoric monuments from this era, like Newgrange and the Pyramids of Mexico and Egypt, the ability of these population to produce sufficient surplus food to sustain the builders of these monuments shows that surplus food production and availability wasn't a problem.

What does that mean?

Neither the ancient Irish, nor the ancient Egyptians experienced population increases like you are talking about. How the monuments fit into what you are saying I've no idea.

J C wrote:

……so rapid population growth into the MILLIONS was GUARANTEED under these conditions!!!!:D :cool:

JC if you want to make up conditions, say that there was no disease, that everyone lived to 500 years, that people all were capable of producing and feeding 10 children, you have to demonstrate that. Simply guessing that that is what was needed for the Bible to be true is nonsense. All historical evidence, all of it, suggests that that wasn't the case.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

[/B]
1. Radiocarbon dating is valid, but I don't agree that the regression equations are linear, due to variations over both time and space in C14 levels.

You do realise that there are hundreds of different radio-active dating methods that work on different principles, that can all be used to independently verify each other.

Well, I mean, of course you realise this because you have been told so many times, you just refuse to accept it because it is devastating to your argument.

J C wrote:

4. Dinosaurs WERE on the Ark, and most have subsequently become extinct - others, like the Rhino and the Crocodile can be found in your local Zoo!!!:D

Based on the measurements of the Ark given in the Bible you would not get one of each dinosaur species discovered in the fossil record on the ark, let alone all the dinosaurs and every other animal species.

A Rhinoceros is a mammal. It is not a dinosaur, nor is it related to dinosaurs. :rolleyes:

jonny72

Wicknight wrote:

Based on the measurements of the Ark given in the Bible you would not get one of each dinosaur species discovered in the fossil record on the ark, let alone all the dinosaurs and every other animal species.

A Rhinoceros is a mammal. It is not a dinosaur, nor is it related to dinosaurs. :rolleyes:

Ah ah, allow me, to answer this..

You must remember, that in order to fit all the species onto the Ark, including all the dinosaurs, he had to only take the young of each species (this has all been calculated carefully by creation scientists to fit perfectly inside the Ark, with plenty of space left over for animal fodder, crew quarters, remember he needed alot of crew, to feed and take care of 20,000+ species of animal + dinosaurs takes alot of man hours)

Now straight away you may ask, "but how did he collect a species from say Northern Canada, without the species he had collected from Central Africa growing old and dying?"

Its very simple, he built a giant farm, some say remains of which have been located in Israel near where Noah was from. An enormous Jurassic Park if you will. He needed this farm because to reach India from Israel by sea takes an incredibly long time. In the time it took, many species he had already collected either grew too big or died of old age, so he needed to keep them breeding.

He traveled the whole world, scouring it, getting all the species from North America, South America, Galapogas Islands, Europe, Russia (including Siberia), Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, the Arctic, the Antarctic, the whole of Africa, Madagascar, etc, not missing a single one and bringing them back to this gigantic farm, and incredibly (unlike today) these species weren't afraid of man, and they all bred perfectly in captivity.

So imagine a zoo if you will, yet a zoo only holds a tiny tiny fraction of all the species, so imagine a gigantic zoo of absolutely epic proportions, housing many of each of the species in the world, hundreds, maybe thousands (depending on how many are found) species of dinosaur, plus all the mammals who have since become extinct, such as..

The sabretooth cat, woolly mammoth, woolly rhinoceros (oops thats a dinosaur sorry) sloths, bears, camels, elk, beavers, rats, cats, mastodons, those giant flightless birds discovered in Australia, whatever they're called, them too..

After many many years Noah had collected all the species from all over the Earth (he was the first man to single handedly discover all 5 continents and circumnavigate the globe, however all this knowledge was lost, also lost was his incredible ship building skills which allowed him to build such a massive ship that could withstand the rigors of the sea, but being maneuverable enough to navigate gracefully through icebergs, etc. All his carefully cataloged knowledge of all dinosaurs and soon to be extinct mammals was also sadly lost.

Having all the species available on earth, he was able to calculate the size of his final ship, the biggest one, the Ark. As I said before, he took into account how many crew he would need, their quarters, their needs, enough food for them, the minimum possible size to hold a pair of each young of all the species and enough food for all of them (such as eucalyptus leaves for the Koala, etc), he also managed to create a system by which the animals, mammals and dinosaurs from warmer climes were housed far below deck in heated compartments to keep them alive, this knowledge was sadly also lost.

All dinosaurs and many mammals became extinct quite quickly after the flood, probably due to the changed environment, remember 6000 years is a relatively short time, only 100 lifetimes of 60 years each, so it happened extremely rapidly..

I shall let JC explain why a Rhino is a dinosaur..

but heres a little hint ok.. Rhinoceros.. RhinoSAURUS.. think you can put two and two together there huh..

Sangre

Wicknight wrote:

Feel free to jump in there with critically analysis of my post any time there PDN ... :rolleyes:

I love to hear some as well. Its a cop out comparing him to JC without explaining the flaws in his reasoning (as people constantly do to JC).

Specifically I'd like to know how these could have possibly been fed with that kind of population growth. We couldn't even sustain that today.

toiletduck

jonny72 wrote:

crew quarters, remember he needed alot of crew

Doesn't the Bible say that it was just Noah and seven of his family?

Bisar

J C wrote:

Examples of every KIND were commanded by God to be taken on board. Creationists DO accept that speciation occurs (using EXISTING genetic diversity) and it is thought that as little as 16,000 KINDS would have been sufficient to generate the diversity of terrestrial and avian species seen in the World today.
For example a single pair of the Dog Kind could have given rise to Domestic Dogs, Wolves, Wolverines, Cape Hunting Dogs, Hyenas, Jackals, Foxes, etc.

The vast majority of Kinds would be small animals such as young lizards and mice that would literally fit into a match box. Other animals such as lambs, calves and baby elephants would require somewhat more space. However, if we assume 32,000 animals (including birds) on the Ark each with a generous average space requirement of 50x50x50 cm (0.125 cubic metres), then all 32,000 animals could be accommodated in about 10% of the space in the Ark – leaving plenty of room for feed, straw bedding and access.

In addition, we should bear in mind that the animals themselves didn’t have any fear of Man before the Flood (see Gen 9:2) and they therefore would have been very placid and easy to manage on the Ark, unlike what “wild” animals would be like nowadays. They may also have gone into a type of hibernation during the flood, which would have saved on feed as well as making management even easier.

32,000 - I assume that's a pair of each kind i.e. 16,000 x 2. Am I right in thinking that there's a passage in Genesis somewhere saying that only the unclean animals were taken on in pairs, that the clean animals were taken in sevens? Do you need to up your estimate a little on that basis?

Galvasean

J C wrote:

[/B]
4. Dinosaurs WERE on the Ark, and most have subsequently become extinct - others, like the Rhino and the Crocodile can be found in your local Zoo!!!:D

You call yourself a scientist? It doesn't take a scientist to realize that a rhino is not a dinosaur. Rhinos are nowhere near closely related to the dinosaurs. In fact they aren't even closely related to reptiles.
I can maybe understand why you might consider a crocodile a dinosaur. After all they are both archosaurs (the group that includes crocodiles, thecodonts, dinosaurs and birds) and have a lot in common. The main thing which separates dinosaurs from crocodiles is that dinosaurs had an upright stance where crocodiles have a semi upright stance.
I hope that clears things up.

Another thing I want to clear up is about the ark. If you were to get two of even the young (or in the case of many animals their eggs) of every species alive today there is no chance they could all fit on the ark, let alone be stored in any manner that would allow them to survive.
Today there are about 3,000 species of mammal and almost 9,500 species of birds. Factor in reptiles, amphibians and especially insects (whose species number is believed to be in the millions!) and the sheer number of species is just so vast that the ark could never hold them all unless it was a lot bigger than any current estimates.
Also, if what is being said here was true and Noah also put all the now extinct animals onto the ark too that number of species would increase exponentially. We have discovered over a thousand species of dinosaur (thats a lot of eggs) and thousands of other extinct species of land animal. That's not including all the extinct insects which there are so many of. If we factor in all the species of extinct creatures we have not yet discovered, Noah's ark would have to have contained billions of individual creatures. Even if he had them all at their most manageable/smallest form he would have needed a truly gigantic ark just to put them all in, let alone care for the individual needs of billions of different creatures!

Owen

JC, that's the biggest load of opinion I've seen in a while. It's certainly not fact. I've never seen so much psuedo science in one post, you can't make things up, and present them as concrete evidence.