Creation vs. Evolution

Status
Not open for further replies.

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
Silent Hunter, I am not phased by your ad hominem attacks.
Really? Perhaps you could show the audience where I have done so.

I am well enough learned ...
I'm laughing at the superior intellect.

... without needing your one specific PDF.
One? How many more are necessary?

Your suggestion to limit data to only that which is reported by sites agreeing with your world view is funny, however.
Limit data? My world view? Wouldn't you rather investigate the problem using proven science over selecting a steady population growth rate that suits your chosen limits on the involved time frame?

May I offer a suggestion that would help your argument? Refrain from straw man argumentative flaws such as assigning a "constant growth rate" claim which I certainly cannot recall stating.
You should probably take care to proof read what you write; either that or clearly state why you disagree with the timeline laid out in the OP.

Show the courtesy of responding to the statements rather than creating weird arguments that seem easier to attack.
Can't show where I've done so? I thought not. :rolleyes:

Again, amusing how controversial it is with you when I state that men are not bunnies.
I agree, humans don't reproduce as rapidly as rabbits. What you haven't done is give a reasonable reason how humans are different.

Or was it the prey vs hunter comparison that shocked you?
I fail to see the correlation. Is there something special about rabbits that makes their growth rate hugely different than any other species? If predation is the reason the Earth isn't covered in rabbits, perhaps you can explain why the Earth isn't covered in, say, bobcats.

Can't say because you haven't exactly been responding to what I say.
It would help if you were able to see past your preconceived notion about population growth. Understanding the science afield of AIG would be of benefit to you.

You asked about humans. You seriously haven't noticed that they behave differently from other species?
Certainly (I think you are referring to social) behavior is a factor but only in a small (nearly insignificant) way. Why you don't recognize that more is involved than "behavior" is worrisome.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
I believe a sincere apology is in order here. Stripe is NOT a bobblehead. I've found him to be right most all of the time, so I don't know where you are coming from. You don't know him that well, evidently. So I don't know why you post so negatively
I am sincere, Stripe is a bobblehead, anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional, which explains your dissent. Don't you have another prediction to make that is sure to fail like all of the others?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
 

Rosenritter

New member
Really? Perhaps you could show the audience where I have done so.

I'm laughing at the superior intellect.

One? How many more are necessary?

Limit data? My world view? Wouldn't you rather investigate the problem using proven science over selecting a steady population growth rate that suits your chosen limits on the involved time frame?

You should probably take care to proof read what you write; either that or clearly state why you disagree with the timeline laid out in the OP.

Can't show where I've done so? I thought not. :rolleyes:

I agree, humans don't reproduce as rapidly as rabbits. What you haven't done is give a reasonable reason how humans are different.

I fail to see the correlation. Is there something special about rabbits that makes their growth rate hugely different than any other species? If predation is the reason the Earth isn't covered in rabbits, perhaps you can explain why the Earth isn't covered in, say, bobcats.

It would help if you were able to see past your preconceived notion about population growth. Understanding the science afield of AIG would be of benefit to you.

Certainly (I think you are referring to social) behavior is a factor but only in a small (nearly insignificant) way. Why you don't recognize that more is involved than "behavior" is worrisome.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

I have conversed with more than a few groups of die hard gung-ho humanist evolutionists. Enough to notice certain general characteristics that usually present themselves to mark the overall group with their own unique flavor and argument styles.

Included in that is a self delusional one sided approach that specialises in ad hominem attack. They make it personal and rather than weighing possibility the person is attacked themselves. Not saying it doesn't happen in other fields but its mostly typical in this one.

An easy example you ask? Why would my wife be nutty (or nuttier than I am) because she loves bunnies? I dare say that she's likely smarter than you... But one's preference for cute animals is not a valid reason to assess or degrade sanity.

Good thing I didn't mention any children or they would have been attacked too.
 
Last edited:

Tyrathca

New member
Dear Silent Hunter,

I believe a sincere apology is in order here. Stripe is NOT a bobblehead.
Michael I've been here far longer than you and Stripe is nothing but a bobblehead. He has far longer than I can remember now been nothing but a sycophant repeating the same catch phrases incessantly for years. I will literally fall off my chair the day he presents something new.

You only say what you do because be is also Christian
I've found him to be right most all of the time, so I don't know where you are coming from. You don't know him that well, evidently.
Evidently you don't know him well. He literally has the same phrases on repeat so much I've wondered if he's a bot.
So I don't know why you post so negatively. People die too.
Yes they do, have you ever seen someone die? What point do you have with this?

Death is not something mystical. People die and then they are gone except what we remember of them and the impact they have on future generations.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
I have conversed with more than a few groups of die hard gung-ho humanist evolutionists. Enough to notice certain general characteristics that usually present themselves to mark the overall group with their own unique flavor and argument styles.
You've new here, right? Isn't it so much easier to spot and comment on the failings of others while at the same time ignoring the same behavior pattern in yourself? There are none so blind...

Included in that is a self delusional one sided approach that specialises in ad hominem attack. They make it personal and rather than weighing possibility the person is attacked themselves. Not saying it doesn't happen in other fields but its mostly typical in this one.
You probably don't recognize the hypocrisy you've exhibited by this statement. It must explain why you're attacking me rather than answering my questions :idunno:

An easy example you ask? Why would my wife be nutty (or nuttier than I am) because she loves bunnies?
How is my conclusion about your wife an attack on you? :idunno: That you've drawn a conclusion about rabbits based on your wife's fondness for them is illogical. That you've drawn a conclusion about rabbits based on what you have observed about your wife is incongruent.

I dare say that she's likely smarter than you...
Do you believe that because you think that your wife is smarter than me make your arguments somehow correct? Are you married to Lon (another poster) by any chance?

But one's preference for cute animals is not a valid reason to assess or degrade sanity.
How is one's preference for cute animals a valid method for establishing human population growth?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
Good thing I didn't mention any children or they would have been attacked too.
It's funny how creationists will say anything and make any accusation to avoid the actual conversation. Are you related to your wife's children? Do they know anything about human population growth rates? Should I expect answers from them (but preferably you) to my questions prior in the foreseeable future?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
 

Rosenritter

New member
You've new here, right? Isn't it so much easier to spot and comment on the failings of others while at the same time ignoring the same behavior pattern in yourself? There are none so blind...

You probably don't recognize the hypocrisy you've exhibited by this statement. It must explain why you're attacking me rather than answering my questions :idunno:

How is my conclusion about your wife an attack on you? :idunno: That you've drawn a conclusion about rabbits based on your wife's fondness for them is illogical. That you've drawn a conclusion about rabbits based on what you have observed about your wife is incongruent.

I dare say that she's likely smarter than you...
Do you believe that because you think that your wife is smarter than me make your arguments somehow correct? Are you married to Lon (another poster) by any chance?

How is one's preference for cute animals a valid method for establishing human population growth?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

If you had a wife, you might understand how her fondness for cute bunnies would bring your attention to such critters that you took for granted before.

If you responded to the post rather than reaching form the convenient straw man, my bunny support was for that Bunnies do not overpopulate because they are eaten by predators (I used dragons as an archtype) and that they do not hunt the predators themselves.

That should have been obvious and not needing qualification.

Why do I not focus on other questions at moment? Because I am familiar enough with forum style to recognize when it decays and needs fixing before it can proceed constructively. Also because I am amazed at why you don't know why Bobcats haven't taken over the world or multiplied as we observe in humans, not even sure how to address that at moment.

Am I new? Yes. Am I being hypocritical? Hardly, I am being polite to you and others. Even doing my best in my other forum when confronting the Infinite Torture for Infidels crowd (or representative.) Is my view entirely one sided? No, I would be quite capable of blending in with this crowd and stating your arguments and you would never notice the difference, should I choose such a maneuver. Might have trouble maintaining the required personal attack quota, but maybe I would be mistaken for a particularly polite intelligent evolutionist instead (I am willing to allow that such might exist.)

As you realized, I am new. Which also means you don't have a pattern for which to label me a hypocrite. I haven't even said anything that controversial. I think what offends you is my confidence.

So the sum of it is that if you wish to discuss like gentlemen, and if you are willing to assemble and compare objectively instead of blindly attacking perceived enemies of your team, not only will I fall out of my chair in surprise but also progress could be made.

For example, I gave a valid reason why I cannot read your recommended study on my device this week. Stop attacking on that, display manners. If someone is healing a broken arm you don't make fun of them because they aren't throwing a baseball yet, do you? I don't know, maybe you would if they were Christian.

Almost forgot, I do not know Lon. Assuming this is a friendly question, thanks for asking.
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
[/quote]If you had a wife,[/QUOTE]I am married and I'm quite certain she's smarter than you, your wife, and all of her (your wife's) children put together.

... you might understand how her fondness for cute bunnies would bring your attention to such critters that you took for granted before.
... which you have yet to correlate to the present conversation.

If you responded to the post rather than reaching form the convenient straw man, my bunny support was for that Bunnies do not overpopulate because they are eaten by predators (I used dragons as an archtype) and that they do not hunt the predators themselves.
Is predation the factor controlling the world's rabbit population? Really?

That should have been obvious and not needing qualification.
No, it's not obvious and needs more than a little qualification.

Why do I not focus on other questions at moment? Because I am familiar enough with forum style to recognize when it decays and needs fixing before it can proceed constructively. Also because I am amazed at why you don't know why Bobcats haven't taken over the world or multiplied as we observe in humans, not even sure how to address that at moment.
Well, you seem to think that predation is the factor limiting the world population of rabbits so I chose a top predator of rabbits (bobcats pretty much top that food chain) as an example of why your solution (predation) doesn't hold.

Am I new? Yes. Am I being hypocritical? Hardly, I am being polite to you and others. Even doing my best in my other forum when confronting the Infinite Torture for Infidels crowd (or representative.) Is my view entirely one sided? No, I would be quite capable of blending in with this crowd and stating your arguments and you would never notice the difference, should I choose such a maneuver. Might have trouble maintaining the required personal attack quota, but maybe I would be mistaken for a particularly polite intelligent evolutionist instead (I am willing to allow that such might exist.)
How this follows from HOW I said you were being hypocritical is beyond me (and you).

As you realized, I am new. Which also means you don't have a pattern for which to label me a hypocrite. I haven't even said anything that controversial. I think what offends you is my confidence.
Hypocritical statements do not require pattern recognition, they only need be inconsistent. Your "confidence" is an illusion of your own mind. You misinterpret confusion as confidence. That you called Stripe on his assertion on human population has been your only contribution thus far, the rest has been complaining of your treatment and evasion.

So the sum of it is that if you wish to discuss like gentlemen, and if you are willing to assemble and compare objectively instead of blindly attacking perceived enemies of your team, not only will I fall out of my chair in surprise but also progress could be made.
Yeah, I've been waiting for that "objectivity" from you for a while now...

For example, I gave a valid reason why I cannot read your recommended study on my device this week. Stop attacking on that, display manners.
For your convenience ...


Creationists, Population Growth, Bunnies, and the Great Pyramid

Author(s):*

David H. Milne

Volume:*

4

Number:*

4

Quarter:*

Fall

Page(s):*

1–5

Year:*

1984

In an effort to prove that the Earth is not very old, creationist Henry M. Morris has devised a calculation that is based upon the human population explosion. Using the equation Pn*= P(1+r)n, he shows that two individuals present on the Earth in 4300 BC (presumably Adam and Eve) could initiate sustained exponential population growth sufficient to produce the entire estimated global population of year 1800 AD.1*Values used by Morris in this equation are P = 2 (initial population of Earth), Pn*= one billion (estimated population of the Earth in 1800 AD), and r = 0.0033 (1/3 of 1% increase per year; estimated per capita global growth rate, 1650 to 1800 AD). He solves for n, obtaining as an answer the value n = 6100 years (prior to 1800 AD). By this calculation, he shows that it is mathematically possible for two individuals who lived about 6300 years ago to have given rise to the entire modem population of the Earth. Although he says nothing about the age of the Earth in this derivation, he cites this calculation in other works as evidence that the Earth itself is not very old.2, 3, 4*Other creationists offer their own version of this calculation, using similar logic and slightly different numbers.6*Even Morris himself tries different numbers in another work.5

The second half of this particular creationist argument is that if humankind had been reproducing at even a minuscule rate (say, r = 0.0001) for a million years or more, the entire solar system would now be crammed with human bodies.5, 6*Therefore, say the creationists, population growth statistics support the view that human beings (and by implication the Earth itself) appeared only a few thousand years ago, while contradicting any possibility that people (and the Earth) have existed for much longer. This creationist argument depends upon the assumption that human numbers must necessarily have been increasing throughout all of a necessarily brief human history, while the evolutionary view assumes that populations of humans and their earlier ancestors have had a zero growth rate (i.e., r = 0) over most of their history.

- page 2 -

To understand why the creationists are wrong, consider this example. Suppose that a creationist were studying snowshoe hares, somewhere in Canada in the early 1930's. At that time, the bunnies were multiplying at a per capita rate of about r = 0.57 (57% per year). If that was all that our biologist knew about the rabbits' history and biology, the Morris calculation would enable him to determine that the first two snowshoe hares of all time appeared on Earth in late 1885, during the Cleveland Administration.8*Not only that, but the Morris calculation applied to minks, muskrats, foxes, and lynxes (which were also multiplying at that time) would also place the date of the creation of the Earth and life in the late 1800's. If one accepts that the Cleveland Administration was not the perpetrator of it all, then where are the errors? Here, two major mistakes are involved. First, the creationist in this instance did not use all of the known facts in arriving at his conclusion. Second, he assumed that the entire rabbit history was similar to that of those last few years that he was able to observe. In fact, the hares (and their predators) are known to cycle in abundance. In 1933 their numbers were increasing, but only as the latest in a series of roller coaster ups and downs that can be traced clear back into the 1700's. Over the long haul, r = 0 for the bunnies, a fact that would not be evident to an observer who watched them only during the early 30's.

The Morris calculation using human population statistics contains both elements of the "bunny blunder." Facts are ignored, and the assumption is made that all of human history prior to 1650 was characterized by growth like that seen from 1650 to 1800.

Unlike the bunny situation, we have no real knowledge of the true global human population size in medieval and earlier times. Almost all estimates are based on measures of carrying capacities of agricultural land and hunter/gatherer ranges, estimates of labor forces needed to construct various public works, and other indirect measures of population sizes.9These estimates, many of which give world populations of about 1/4 billion at the time of Christ, are among the facts ignored by Morris.1*Others include the fact that humans must be a glaring exception to the usual situation in nature, if humans have experienced a high positive value of r throughout Earth history while all other species have had growth rates of approximately zero. Plagues and famines, also ignored by creationists, have decimated human populations with dreadful regularity over the ages. Where they have exerted their effects, population growth could not possibly have been rapid or even positive. When bubonic plague entered Europe during the mid-1300's, for example, nearly a quarter of the entire population died within one year, and European population actually declined for a century or two thereafter.10*Such episodes have been so common throughout human history that they can be considered to be the rule, rather than exceptional occurrences.11

- page 3 -

Finally, even the limited numerical data, which are not favorable to the creationists' argument, are ignored. In St. Botolph, a parish of London from which unusually complete burial and christening records have survived to the present day, the death rate slightly overshadowed the birth rate between 1558 and 1625 AD, and drastically overshadowed it during the plague years 1563, 1593, 1603 and 1625.12Thus, r was always slightly negative during this period, and was drastically negative during the epidemic years.

Thus, although the "facts" in the human case are not as firm as in that of the snowshoe hares, nevertheless all of them point toward the same conclusion. That is, human population growth was probably negative, zero or near zero over much of times past. Only by ignoring these contrary indications and by assuming that the growth rate of the pre-Industrial Revolution years was somehow typical of all of human history can creationists arrive at the conclusion that two human individuals living in 4300 BC could in actual reality have produced the entire world population of today.

In addition to committing the "bunny blunder" in their calculation, creationists make other errors in their use of population statistics as an indicator of the age of the Earth. For example, there is no scientific evidence that world population once consisted of only two people (or even a very few). And even if it could be shown that there were only two (or a few) people present on the Earth a few thousand years ago, this is not the same as showing that these were the first people of all time. They could have been the survivors of a previous cycle (or a thousand previous cycles) of population boom followed by epidemic bust. And even if they*werethe first people of all time, this still says nothing about the age of the Earth. The Earth could not be younger than those individuals, but how much older it is, whether it be a few days or 4 billion years, must be demonstrated from other evidence.

As if these fatal flaws were not enough, Morris's calculation has ridiculous implications. For example, if we assume for the moment that human numbers really did grow exponentially at a per capita rate of r = 0.0033, starting with two people in 4300 BC, then we can calculate the world population of year 2500 BC. By Morris's calculation, that number is 750 individuals. If Egypt, with about 1% of the Earth's land surface area, also had 1% of its population, then about eight people must have lived in Egypt at that time. However, the Great Pyramid of the Egyptian king Cheops was built in about 2500 BC.13If the creationists are right, then the Pyramid was built by eight people. In fact, suppose that the entire population of the Earth lived in Egypt at that time. Half of the 750 souls were women (who I don't think worked on the Pyramid); half of the males were children (ditto) and a few exalted characters (Cheops himself and his assorted advisors) undoubtedly convinced the others that nobility should not have to haul heavy limestone blocks. That leaves about 150 able-bodied men to quarry 2,300,000 blocks (ranging from 2.5 to 50 tons in weight), haul them to the construction site and raise the 480-foot Pyramid. Does anyone who has seen this colossal monument believe that 150 men could have built it? Yet that is what Morris, through the magic of his calculation, must boldly assert.

- page 4 -

World history prior to 2500 BC, in the Morris scenario, becomes even more remarkable. Six pyramids, some comparable in size to the Great Pyramid, were built at nearby sites within the previous 200-year period (as were numerous accessory causeways, temples, etc.).14*The parents and grandparents of the 750 people at the Great Pyramid site must have built them, at the rate of one every 33 years. Their numbers (which, recall, constituted the entire human population of the Earth) were fewer then—only about 300-400 souls—and they were distracted by the need to perform a fast migratory quick-step over to Mesopotamia to build (and abandon) a number of fortified towns that appeared at about that time. The action was even more frenzied in earlier centuries. World population in 3600 BC, as calculated by the Morris equation, was 20 people. A century earlier, in 3700 BC, it was 14 people. And a century earlier than that, it was 10 people. So, in the Morris scenario, a world population of one or two dozen people must have rushed back and forth between Crete, Mesopotamia, the Indus River valley, and other sites of ancient civilization, energetically building and abandoning enough cities, irrigation works, monuments and other artifacts to leave us with the mistaken impression that millions of people populated the ancient world.

To summarize, then, the creationist calculation of the age of the Earth, based upon population statistics, has the following flaws:

It ignores many indications that human per capita growth rates were zero or negative throughout much of human history;It assumes that growth rates characteristic of the later pre- and early-industrial world were characteristic of human populations throughout all of preceding history;It assumes, without evidence, that the entire world population once consisted of two (or a few) individuals;It assumes that the Earth is only as old as (or slightly older than) its human occupants;It predicts unrealistically small human population sizes for ancient historical times.

In conclusion, it seems appropriate to recall Morris's statement, "The burden of proof is altogether on evolutionists if they wish to promote some other population model."1*It would seem, however, that it is the creationists who need to explain why their model, based as it is upon erroneous or unsupportable assumptions and producing laughable perspectives on ancient history, should be accepted in preference to an evolutionary view that fits the facts.

- page 5 -

References

1. Morris, H. M. 1974.*The Troubled Waters of Evolution. Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego. p. 153ff.

2. —— 1978.*The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth. Bethany Fellowship, Inc. Minneapolis. P. 92.

3. —— 1977.*The Scientific Case for Creation. Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego. P. 55.

4. —— undated. "The Young Earth." Institute for Creation Research.Impact Series*No. 17.

5. —— 1974.*Scientific Creationism(Public School Edition). Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego. Pp. 167-169.

6. Kofahl, Robert E. and Kelly L. Segraves, 1975.*The Creation Explanation. Harold Shaw Publishers, Inc. Wheaton, Ill.

7. Data from Fig. 4-19 in Kormondy, E. 1976.*Concepts of Ecology. Prentice-Hall. P. 238. See also Butler, L. 1953. "The Nature of Cycles in Populations of Canadian Mammals."Canadian Journal of Zoology. 31:242-262.

8. Assume 12 x 108*acres of suitable hare habitat in Canada and twice that in the USSR for a total of 36 x 108acres (half of both countries). Assume 1 hare/acre for Pn= 36 x 108*hares. Solve the Morris equation for n, using P = 2 and r=0.57. Answer: n= 47.2 years (prior to 1933). Thus, late 1885 is the snowshoe hare creation date. Suppose the hares (and all other rabbit species)*evolved*from the first two created individuals of the "rabbit kind." Assume 10 times as many rabbits, world wide, as there are hares. Again solve the Morris equation, using Pn=36 x 109. The answer: n = 52.3 years, and the rabbit creation date is mid-1880.

9. Coale, Ansley J. 1974. "The History of the Human Population."Scientific American*Vol. 231, No. 3 (March): pp. 40-51.

10. Langer, William L. 1964. "The Black Death."*Scientific AmericanVol. 210, No. 2 (February): pp. 114-121.

11. Zinsser, H. 1967. "Rats, Lice and History."*Bantam Science & Math Edition.

12. Forbes, Thomas R. 1970. "Life and Death in Shakespeare's London."American Scientist*Vol. 58, No. 2: pp. 164-170.

13. I have used 2500 BC in accordance with reference 15. The older reference 14 dates the Pyramid at about 2600 BC. This margin of uncertainty is too small to affect the argument; the older date is even worse for the creationist model.

14. Fahkry, Ahmed. 1961.*The Pyramids. University of Chicago Press.

15. Langer, William L. 1968.*An Encyclopedia of World History. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. P. 37.

About the Author(s):*

Dr. Milne is a professor of evolutionary biology at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, has debated creationists on two occasions, and has authored articles countering creationist arguments.*
Copyright © 1984 by David H. Milne

This version might differ slightly from the print publication.



If someone is healing a broken arm you don't make fun of them because they aren't throwing a baseball yet, do you? I don't know, maybe you would if they were Christian.
Being a "christian" has nothing to do with who is being "polite". Perhaps after you've been here longer you'll understand why.

[QuoteAlmost forgot, I do not know Lon. Assuming this is a friendly question, thanks for asking.[/QUOTE]Lon is TOL's resident know-it-all who thinks he has the highest IQ on the planet. He puts Sheldon Cooper to shame. It was an insult. 😑

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
 

Jose Fly

New member
See, I know oysters live in water and that they don't have legs. With me so far?

So I think that mountain used to be under water. And the reason the oysters died with their shells open shows that they died super fast from a catastrophe... Like the fountains of the deep breaking open.

And after that the ocean floor raised and the flood water receded.

So you have flat sea floor becoming entire mountain ranges in less than one year? Are you familiar with physics and basic math? If so, you'll understand how moving that much mass in that short of time requires enormous amounts of energy, most of which will be given off as heat.

Simply put, your "theory" would boil the oceans away.
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
Simply put, your "theory" would boil the oceans away.
:chuckle:

He's yet another creationist who doesn't understand the difference between a "scientific theory" and a "creationist theory". One is backed by a mountain (pun intended) of evidence to support it, the other is just a convoluted way of saying, "Whenever you encounter a flaw in the hypothesis just ignore it and say, "Christiangoddidit"".

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
 

Rosenritter

New member
I am married and I'm quite certain she's smarter than you, your wife, and all your children put together...

Thanks for proving my point. Seems you aren't capable of sensible behavior even when asked... But maybe its as you say and opposites really DO attract.

Let me help you out on something. Your paper betrays itself in the first page while supposedly defining its problem. No (BIBLICAL) creationist attempts to show world population starting from 4800 BC seeing that the biblical account resets the human population to 8 about 4400 years ago. So either your proponent isn't familiar with his subject or he picked a defective target to argue against. Can you elucidate which it is? Was his opponent calculating from Adam without a flood or from Noah post flood?

I lost the rest in spam... Probably you had some more words in there too but it got buried. Take care not to get booted for spamming the board. I know of someone that was temporarily banned for posting too many scripture proofs at once. Regardless could you NOT spam my phone display as a personal favor? Distill information and present relevant points but do not spam.
 
Last edited:

Rosenritter

New member
So you have flat sea floor becoming entire mountain ranges in less than one year? Are you familiar with physics and basic math? If so, you'll understand how moving that much mass in that short of time requires enormous amounts of energy, most of which will be given off as heat.

Simply put, your "theory" would boil the oceans away.
Yes, you have the ocean floor becoming mountain quickly. Familiar with basic physics, took most of my math classes at Colorado School of Mines, which means it also came with some required geology.

i imagine you have your mind stuck in the tectonic crawl theory of mountain formation, which would explain your confusion. I will give you a different analogy. Take something heavy and place it on a nicely made bed. The weight presses the comforter and pushes some parts lower and other parts higher. It didn't have to crawl from beneath the bed. Now translate that analogy to tectonic plates.

Take a lot of water weight that would have been below and now put it above. That weight translates into a lot of potential energy. Plates buckle and fold and mountains form quickly. The heat transfer doesn't matter because any water that boils away eventually falls again as rain. Earth is a closed system in that regard.

I have a suggestion. Instead of laughing and mocking because you don't see an answer, ask your opponent what his solution is. Sort of like I have when I hinted that I would like to know how you think those mollusks died quickly and wind up on top of mountains. I give you an opportunity to answer without needing preemptive personal attacks.
 
Last edited:

Jose Fly

New member
Yes, you have the ocean floor becoming mountain quickly. Familiar with basic physics, took most of my math classes at Colorado School of Mines, which means it also came with some required geology.

Was it this silly flood geology nonsense?

i imagine you have your mind stuck in the tectonic crawl theory of mountain formation, which would explain your confusion.

Yeah, me and basically the rest of the developed world.

Take a lot of water weight that would have been below and now put it above. That weight translates into a lot of potential energy. Plates buckle and fold and mountains form quickly. The heat transfer doesn't matter because any water that boils away eventually falls again as rain. Earth is a closed system in that regard.

Oh my goodness. Are you serious? Turn the entire planet into a giant steamer, and then drop the entire content of the oceans back down as rain...what's the big deal? I guess "gopher wood" has asbestos-like properties as well? :rotfl:

I have a suggestion. Instead of laughing and mocking because you don't see an answer, ask your opponent what his solution is.

Nope, sorry. This whole young-earth creationism and flood-geology thing is total nonsense. It's barely...and I mean just barely...above flat-earth geocentrism on the absurdity scale.

Let me ask you...why do you think creationist flood geology was abandoned by the scientific community (by European Christian geologists no less) 200-some years ago and hasn't been taken at all seriously by anyone since? Is it some sort of massive conspiracy? Is it just a matter of time before it comes roaring back and all universities, scientific organizations, and private industries will start employing it?

I give you an opportunity to answer without needing preemptive personal attacks.

I'll give you a tip. I didn't say anything about you. If you are so wedded to this flood stuff that you take ridiculing it as ridiculing you, then you might want to rethink the wisdom of going into internet forums and advocating it.
 

6days

New member
Since I have loosely followed this thread for some time, and I don’t recall any purported global flood evidence that stood up under scrutiny, then I am forced to think you are bluffing. If you disagree, then show me specifically where that evidence was presented in this thread.
Have we never discussed things such as marine fossils on all mountain ranges in the world? I believe we have discussed that and many other evidences of the global flood.
 

6days

New member
Kremer suggests the world's human population was about 7 million 4000 years ago. Perhaps you can read it and analyze it "properly" for us. Or, if you really have the intellectual curiosity, track him down and find out where he went wrong.
Other evolutionists have different conclusions. Who would claim that all humans came from a common ancestor 5000 years ago? The claim comes from Steve Jones, a geneticist at the University of London. Jones is ANYTHING BUT a creationist. He is a ardent (and arrogant) evolutionist. His claim can be read in the BBC link.

From the article:
"To get to the universal ancestors (when everyone was the forefather of everybody alive today, or of nobody) we need go back only 5,000 years. Had you entered any village on Earth, the first person you met would, if he or she had heirs, trace their descent straight to you and your partner."

The creationist view on this is that humans did all come from a common ancestor about 6000 years ago. Inbreeding (brother /sister) at that time was not morally wrong. It was only later under levitical law that God forbade the practice. (And since that time incest is now considered repugnant). The BBC link discusses gentic problems that arise from inbreeding. The creationist viewpoint is that there would have been no genetic, or birth defects in the beginning. Defects and abnormalities were something that afflicted the human race only later as the years passed.. The more years that pass, the more prone we are to mutations and defects. The human race is continually becoming more susceptible to genetic disorders. There are now several thousand genetic disorders and the number is growing.

As often happens (as in this story) evolutionists come up with scenarios that are strikingly similar, and in some ways support the Biblical record.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/steve-jones/3685402/View-from-the-lab-Incest.html

Jonahdog..... No need to report back for extra credit, but you can amend your beliefs.
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
Thanks for proving my point. Seems you aren't capable of sensible behavior even when asked... But maybe its as you say and opposites really DO attract.
?? Instead of your constant belly-aching (something of a habit creationists have, yours being with other posters as well), wouldn't it be more expedient to actually engage the discussion? I'm quite certain you aren't the squarest brick in the wall, you're just going to have to accept the fact that you've more than a little intellectually challenged when it comes to discussing the ridiculousness of creationism. You're no better equipped to answer questions than Stripe.

Let me help you out on something. Your paper betrays itself in the first page while supposedly defining its problem. No (BIBLICAL) creationist attempts to show world population starting from 4800 BC seeing that the biblical account resets the human population to 8 about 4400 years ago. So either your proponent isn't familiar with his subject or he picked a defective target to argue against. Can you elucidate which it is? Was his opponent calculating from Adam without a flood or from Noah post flood?
Really? This is the extent of your dissent? 400 years and 6 people. Please explain why that is significant to the calculation. I can hardly wait...

I lost the rest in spam. Probably you had some more words in there too but it got buried. Take care not to get booted for spamming the board. I know of someone that was temporarily banned for posting too many scripture proofs at once. Regardless could you NOT spam my phone display as a personal favor? Distill information and present relevant points but do not spam.
Spam? Gratitude doesn't seem to be a concept with which you seem to be on friendly terms. You complained that you were unable to access the article I linked and now you're complaining that I made it available! You're some piece of work!

As a personal favor would you quit dodging and return to my prior post and answer the relavent questions I asked (they occur BEFORE the article you requested but decided to dismiss as spam)?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
 

6days

New member
Really? This is the extent of your dissent? 400 years and 6 people. Please explain why that is significant to the calculation. I can hardly wait...
No, that was not the extent of the argument. He was just showing that the author of that article was arguing against something he was not familiar with. Rosenritter was correct in saying that today's population fits the Biblical account of 8 people about 4400 years ago
 

Silent Hunter

Well-known member
No, that was not the extent of the argument. He was just showing that the author of that article was arguing against something he was not familiar with. Rosenritter was correct in saying that today's population fits the Biblical account of 8 people about 4400 years ago
Hilarious! How much more could you possibly be out of touch with reality? Why is the Earth not covered in rabbits? I'll give you a hint, it has very little to do with predation.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top