U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-02-2008, 06:57 PM
 
Location: In The Deep Blue Sea
102 posts, read 318,690 times
Reputation: 52

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by City_boi View Post
What is/are your opinion(s) on evolution? The Catholic Church believes in it but they say that, somewhere along the line, God decided to give man a soul. That doesn't make sense to me? I'm not saying I don't believe in evolution (cause I do), I'm saying that evolution kind of contradicts God and Christianity a little, IMO.
I think you can only believe in one or the other, because God's existence contradicts the theory of evolution and vice-versa.

 
Old 10-02-2008, 07:01 PM
 
Location: In The Deep Blue Sea
102 posts, read 318,690 times
Reputation: 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by City_boi View Post
Do most of you here take the Bible literally?
I hope not! If you do, then you would think that God wants you to tear your eye out if it causes you to sin. I hope everyone knows this is a figure of speech.
 
Old 10-02-2008, 09:53 PM
 
1,932 posts, read 4,263,805 times
Reputation: 1233
RE: Population growth

Your question did intrigue me. I admit it caused me to pause and examine the issue further. You may disagree with the AiG article, but I see it as one possible answer. That's neither here nor there, because as I was digging into this issue, I came to a realization... there is no way to determine a definitive population rate for the past. So there's no clear-cut answer availabile to your question. I can give you what I believe could have occurred, but factually, there would be no way to back it up. The same goes for the current population models as well. It's simply their belief.

I went to various websites regarding past population estimates, world statistics, etc., etc. and what I discovered was that the population growth rate (percentage [%]) fluctuates throughout time based on various situations/circumstances. I also discovered that even those who study this topic cannot agree on past (ancient) population figures. Several sites had different figures for the same years listed. It boils down to speculations based upon modern circumstances.

So here's my thoughts on the subject .. we'll never know for certain how fast the population growth was during that period of history. So again it comes down to what you choose to believe, where you put your faith, what your starting worldview is, that will determine the answer you accept. It's not cut and dry.

This also highlights a problem with uniformitarianism .. the view that the present is the key to the past.

(Dictionary.com definition: Geology. of or pertaining to the thesis that processes that operated in the remote geological past are not different from those observed now)

As I have seen from the various websites I looked at, population rates change.. they are not static and never will be static. So certain assumptions are made based upon presuppositions about population growth to project figures for the unknown past. This is also what happens regarding rates of erosion, sedimentation and other geologic measurments. No one was in the past to see how rapidly things eroded or how quickly sediments were deposited, so assumptions are made based on today's rates and then figures are produced for past events. Again, this is based on assumption and presupposition. What if the rates were much higher in the past (due to Noah's flood in particular, but not excluseively) than they are today? One's starting point will dictate the outcome. Which leads me to ...

Ice cores / tree rings

My reply is simply this: How do the scientists know for certain that one layer of ice or one ring of a tree = one year? They don't. It's a uniformitarian assumption. No one today was around to measure the accumulations of the snow or know when a tree began to sprout to be certain of their age. An reliable age is undeterminable, unless assumptions are made. However, it is known that trees can grow more than one ring per year and it's more than probable that more than one ice layer can be created in a year. So "age" based upon these is not a slam dunk.
 
Old 10-02-2008, 11:04 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
789 posts, read 1,171,420 times
Reputation: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by mams1559 View Post
RE: Population growth

Your question did intrigue me. I admit it caused me to pause and examine the issue further. You may disagree with the AiG article, but I see it as one possible answer. That's neither here nor there, because as I was digging into this issue, I came to a realization... there is no way to determine a definitive population rate for the past. So there's no clear-cut answer availabile to your question. I can give you what I believe could have occurred, but factually, there would be no way to back it up. The same goes for the current population models as well. It's simply their belief.
The point I was trying to make is that AIG's model is not possible. They claim that the population doubled every 150 years. There were 875 years in between the flood and the Exodus. There is absolutely no possible way to go from 8 to 600,000+ people in 875 years with the population doubling every 150 years. I don't understand how you can see it as possible. I'm not talking flood to present day, I'm talking flood to Exodus.

Of course there is no way to figure out how many people were alive 2,000 years ago. The difference between the way creationists and scientists do it is simple. Creationists (such as AIG) pull numbers out of thin air. They have no reason to claim the population would double, uniformly, every 150 years. Even if it did (double uniformly) it still wouldn't work out because there would be approximately 1 billion more people alive now than there are. Scientists use the scientific method, prediction models, known rates, recent trends, etc to come to a conclusion that, while not 100% correct, should be pretty close.

The difference between your belief and theirs, as I stated above, is that one uses different sources of verifiable evidence to come to a conclusion while the other has the conclusion and molds the models to fit.
 
Old 10-02-2008, 11:27 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,043 posts, read 30,755,704 times
Reputation: 12223
Mams said "Ice cores / tree rings

'My reply is simply this: How do the scientists know for certain that one layer of ice or one ring of a tree = one year? They don't. It's a uniformitarian assumption. No one today was around to measure the accumulations of the snow or know when a tree began to sprout to be certain of their age. An reliable age is undeterminable, unless assumptions are made. However, it is known that trees can grow more than one ring per year and it's more than probable that more than one ice layer can be created in a year. So "age" based upon these is not a slam dunk.'


You are just making this up aren't you mams....
Actually you are dead wrong...Tree rings, as well as ice core rings are both perfectly accurate. Explain to me how trees can have more than one growth ring per year since they only grow in the summer..... Where I live there is a lot of logging, and lumber companies have been cutting trees that were planted between 80 and 100 years ago....The date they were planted was recorded, and the rings match exactly....As for ice cores, even if the ring count wasn't perfect there is a rather large difference between 800.000 years and what ever date creationists think everything began, so it's a moot point.
 
Old 10-02-2008, 11:40 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
789 posts, read 1,171,420 times
Reputation: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by mams1559 View Post
RE: Population growth

Ice cores / tree rings

My reply is simply this: How do the scientists know for certain that one layer of ice or one ring of a tree = one year? They don't. It's a uniformitarian assumption. No one today was around to measure the accumulations of the snow or know when a tree began to sprout to be certain of their age. An reliable age is undeterminable, unless assumptions are made. However, it is known that trees can grow more than one ring per year and it's more than probable that more than one ice layer can be created in a year. So "age" based upon these is not a slam dunk.
The thing about dating is that scientists can use many different methods to date the same thing. For instance, scientists can use dendrochronology and radiocarbon dating to date a tree (fig. 1). When they get the results they see how similar they are. If you throw in another independent dating method that matches the first you know you have a pretty close estimate. If it doesn't match something is wrong and you start over.

Here's an example:
We find a huge tree surrounded by old, weathered stones and want to know how old it is. We first check the rings and come up with the age of 4,113 years old. Then we use radiometric dating and get an age of 4,142 years old. Next we find a clay tablet in some nearby ruins that display a picture of a small tree surrounded by stones. We use thermoluminescence dating on the tablet to get an age of 4,175 years old. With these 3 separate dating methods we can come to the conclusion that the tree is anywhere from 4,100-4,200 years old.

My point is that scientists don't just guess. They use separate dating methods and base their conclusions on the results.

fig. 1
 
Old 10-03-2008, 01:31 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,043 posts, read 30,755,704 times
Reputation: 12223
I posted the various methods science uses to date ice cores a few pages back..I think there are 4 methods used....Can you imagine counting manually the annual rings in an ice core 3Km. long and 800,000 years old? Talk about tedious.

Here is a biblical site on ice core dating and other science topics. A bit more honest than most.

Ice core dating. Creation Science.
 
Old 10-03-2008, 01:35 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,043 posts, read 30,755,704 times
Reputation: 12223
I took a peek at your link francofu, and I'll do you one better. Below is a series of photos I took at a nearby museum.









 
Old 10-03-2008, 07:54 AM
 
1,932 posts, read 4,263,805 times
Reputation: 1233
The replies are classic. Now who is holding on to their beliefs so tight they can't even say "it's possible". Evolutionists are just as dogmatic about their doctrine as non-evolutionists.

I've said all I have to on this topic. Blessings ...
 
Old 10-03-2008, 08:42 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,043 posts, read 30,755,704 times
Reputation: 12223
Quote:
Originally Posted by mams1559 View Post
The replies are classic. Now who is holding on to their beliefs so tight they can't even say "it's possible". Evolutionists are just as dogmatic about their doctrine as non-evolutionists.

I've said all I have to on this topic. Blessings ...
Not beliefs mams, facts. There is a big difference. I have no doctrine as you put it...Evolution is based on scientific facts....Creation is based on myth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:18 AM.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top