Evolution and population (America, church, Baptists, Christianity)
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.
One of the main issues that you failed to reveal is that population growth is not always constant. Also, you are failing to take into account the massive amounts of death caused by famine, plague, war, and countless other impediments on the human race. I don't see how you could say that population growth is a constant in that view.
I'm not sure on the exact numbers, but if memory serves me correctly, Europe's population was actually at a negative growth rate during World War II. There's no telling what the bubonic plague did to populations, much less outbreaks of other diseases and famine. So, I would like to see some data on how your calculations took into account the exact amount of people who died before having kids.
Thanks too funny, GCSTroop! An evolutionist asking for an exact amount! LOL!
Yes, population growth cannot be proven to be constant. That's an excellent observation. It requires assumptions. Will you not acknowledge that radiometric dating also requires assumptions? When dating a radiometric sample, do not scientists assume that the original material was carbon 14 or rubidium? What if the original material was a mixture of say rubidium and strontium? If we cannot know for certain the make up of the original sample, the dates could be way off. Does carbon 14 change into carbon 12 at a constant rate? Does the population change at a constant rate? You seem to have a quick answer for the latter claim. What's your answer for the former? There are many variables (sun and moon rays and the presence of water, etc.) that we just can't know for certain, especially when dealing with dates before 1,000 B.C.! Potassium-argon dating has similar problems and assumptions have to be made.
Another assumption evolutionists make concerns their belief in uniformitarianism--that geologic processes have always been uniform. It would be much, much easier to support a belief in the constant changing of the population! In reality, the entire geologic column is totally theoretical, yet it is presented in textbooks as fact. Don't you just love those neat little organized fabricated charts?
Truth is, there is NO place on earth where this entire column is evidenced. NO place! And the fossil record is incomplete! There are numerous gaps and there is the SUDDEN appearance of different types of life forms. What we acually see in the srata argues more against evolution than for it.
How do you explain those places, GCSTroop, where "older" rocks are seen on "younger" rocks. In other places entire strata are missing from the "column." What is the evolutionist's explanation for the findings in Agate Springs, Nebraska of around 9,000 different types of animals indigenous to different areas of the world all found buried in the same place?
There is no more justification for the inclusion of the fabricated geologic column in our textbooks than Haekel's fictional embryo drawings. If evolution scientists want to be respected, then they need to be honest about those things that are not accurate and step up to the plate and admit it.
Saltine,
Your calculations are very misleading. Mankind has survived a number of ice ages and it's believed that at one point human beings were reduced to perhaps a few thousand individuals when conditions were extremely difficult. It's only in modern times that our population has skyrocketed into the billions. You can't just take an average age and break out a calculator to come up with your conclusion. Life doesn't work that way. In prehistoric times the total human population was never very large. It is true that our modern human population has descended from a very small population and all of us share a common ancestry. This in no way changes the fact of human evolution. If that's where you're trying to take your OP then you're not going to get very far.
Science is propaganda ? Wow, I think I've heard it all... Some people of this forum really, really scare me. I have led such a sheltered life where empirical evidence and scientific research and experiments are worth more than myths and superstition. At least science evolves constantly questions and adapts to new findings.
Some Deists just blindly seem to accept what is fed to them and regurgitate it without any sort of actual analysis. BRRRRRRRRR....
Why is it that creationists are always portrayed as those blinding accepting the teachings of others. Mooseketeer, if you have not personally done the "scientific" research and not seen firsthand the empirical "evidence," then YOU are operating on as much faith as you accuse creationists.
Here's a "myth" for you! Protoplasm is made up of about 72% oxygen, 13.5% carbon, 9.1% hydrogen, and 2.5% nitrogen, and about 3% of various other elements. I wish I could have been there billions and billions of years ago as these elements got together and decided what percentage of each should join together to create this cell! It must have been awesome! I wonder what the odds are that all of these elements could have by simple chance joined together simultaneously in just the right percentages? Hmmmm? Who's the one believing in myths, Mooseketeer?
And how about this "superstition?" Before a sperm and ovum unite, they undergo a reduction by one-half of their number of chromosomes. They reduce to 24 so that when union takes place, the necessary 48 is achieved!
This is the nucleus. But wait, the superstition gets even better. The nucleus multipies until their are 96 chromosomes! Why? They quickly separate to opposite ends of the cell before the cell cuts itself in two. Now each new cell has the necessary 48 chromosomes. This process continues until there are millions of cells! This would be the greatest fairy tale and superstitution ever foisted upon the world if it weren't in fact TRUE! Can you explain this myth?
Mooseketeer, you need to study your own marvelous body before you accuse creationists of superstition and myth. We are marvelously and wonderfully MADE by an intelligent being. Rationally, intellectually, and logically, there is NO other explanation for the process I described above.
Why is it that creationists are always portrayed as those blinding accepting the teachings of others. Mooseketeer, if you have not personally done the "scientific" research and not seen firsthand the empirical "evidence," then YOU are operating on as much faith as you accuse creationists.
Here's a "myth" for you! Protoplasm is made up of about 72% oxygen, 13.5% carbon, 9.1% hydrogen, and 2.5% nitrogen, and about 3% of various other elements. I wish I could have been there billions and billions of years ago as these elements got together and decided what percentage of each should join together to create this cell! It must have been awesome! I wonder what the odds are that all of these elements could have by simple chance joined together simultaneously in just the right percentages? Hmmmm? Who's the one believing in myths, Mooseketeer?
And how about this "superstition?" Before a sperm and ovum unite, they undergo a reduction by one-half of their number of chromosomes. They reduce to 24 so that when union takes place, the necessary 48 is achieved!
This is the nucleus. But wait, the superstition gets even better. The nucleus multipies until their are 96 chromosomes! Why? They quickly separate to opposite ends of the cell before the cell cuts itself in two. Now each new cell has the necessary 48 chromosomes. This process continues until there are millions of cells! This would be the greatest fairy tale and superstitution ever foisted upon the world if it weren't in fact TRUE! Can you explain this myth?
Mooseketeer, you need to study your own marvelous body before you accuse creationists of superstition and myth. We are marvelously and wonderfully MADE by an intelligent being. Rationally, intellectually, and logically, there is NO other explanation for the process I described above.
Preterist
Yet all the scientists doing the hard work on all these questions. Each scientist trying to one up the other with the truth through scientific research.
And the creationist scientific view..
God did it. Fantastic. Beautiful.
Grand Canyon? God did it.
Age of the Earth? God transcends time.. God did it... Doesn't matter.
Again.. believe what you want (not just you Preterist).. anyone. I could care less.. just keep creationism out of school.. (in my opinion).
"Unbiased" science? Empirical "evidence." LOL. Yeah, there's no such thing as evoutionist propaganda and the pope is a protestant!
Preterist
Yeah.
Lay off the Kool-Aid
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.