Population?

the other thing is that the coalescent approach using mtDNA shows a genetic bottleneck in humans 200,000 years ago, not 30,000

Originally posted by Orihalcon
i'm asking what creationism has done for you. 

Click to expand...

"Creationism" is the study of God's creation. We come to know our God better, though the study of His creation.

it's like you asking me what evolution has done for me and i answer that science has given us such great technology like computers and clean running water.

Click to expand...

Many people would argue that those who support evolutionary theory hijacked science to serve their own purpose. Some would say there is not as much compatability between science and evolution theory as we are lead to believe.

Of course if you do not have discernment, it is going to be difficult to seperate truth from error. It is easier to see the error in darwins opinions, because it is so full of holes from things that have proven not to be true over the years.

Originally posted by JohnR7
Many people would argue that those who support evolutionary theory hijacked science to serve their own purpose.

Click to expand...

I would say not many people would argue that considering there is no basis for it.

 Some would say there is not as much compatability between science and evolution theory as we are lead to believe. 

Click to expand...

Again, not very many. Only people who equate evolution with atheism and are (usually) fundamentalist Christians would say this because they fear the most literal interpretation of their Bible is wrong, and that only through a figurative interpretation can the Bible's creation story be reconciled with reality which consequently contradicts their fundamentalist stance.

How can you accurately evaluate the theory of evolution as "hijacked science" or as not having compatibility with science if you don't even want to learn about it?

Originally posted by JohnR7
[BMany people would argue that those who support evolutionary theory hijacked science to serve their own purpose. Some would say there is not as much compatability between science and evolution theory as we are lead to believe. [/B]

Click to expand...

And those individuals would be wrong.  John, you are going to have to come to terms with the fact that creationism was falsified by 1830, and that the people who did the falsifying were not only Christians but ministers.  There is also the fact that of the 26 plaintiffs who sued to prevent creationism from being taught in science class in public schools, 23 of them were ministers or rabbis.

There is also the fact that at least half the evolutionary biologists in history have been theists, the overwhelming majority of those Christian.

Now, with odds like that, how could evolution "hijack" science?

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."  James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.

Originally posted by JohnR7
"Creationism" is the study of God's creation. We come to know our God better, though the study of His creation.

Click to expand...

Science is the study of God's creation.  Creationism is a specific scientific theory based upon some people's literal interpretation of Genesis 1.  So what has that specific scientific theory done for you?

Stormy, there were long periods on our species' history when our population was relatively stable. Significant population increases have tended to follow technological advnacements of one kind or another. Agriculture and domestication are excellent examples where using novel techniques allowed us to live with higher population densities. Recently, our food producing technologies have been advancing at such a rate that the population increase has been continuous rather than jumping from plateau to plateau as it had in the past. While people in the poorest countries in the world may not be able to afford a combine or the most modern weed killers, they do have ready access to high-yield hybrids and the like which make them far more capable farmers than those of the late Neolithic period.

The arguments that certain creationists have made about simple exponential growth leading to a conclusion of very recent human creation has a number of serious flaws. The biggest is that societies existed in antiquity which managed to complete extremely large engineering projects (like say the Pyramids) with very simple tool sets. Archaeologists can easy show just from the trash they left behind that large numbers of people were engaged in these projects, far larger numbers than could be accounted for in the creationst's exponential growth argument.

As far as how widely-spread our species is, it has more to do with the fact that for most of our history we were pretty much a wandering people. When a group had filled a region, those on the outskirts of that region (usually the losers in some kind of conflict) found they had to find new places for themselves or die of starvation. Even when people existed pretty much everywhere in the world, we still kept to the pattern of wandering around in both our prehistory and historical times. The Bible, various barbarian invasions, the rise of Islam, the Crusades are all examples of this kind of behavior in our history.

Hey Stormy, that's an interesting question! In fact I just got the answer to that today, by reading a book called The Birth of the Planet Earth: And the Age of the Universe by Dennis Gordon Lindsay.
I have been taught at school that the earth is who-knows-how-many-millions-years old. You probably know the routine. Evolutionism, Big Bang and all that stuff that the Government requires us to know. I'm a Christian, so of course I don't believe in evolution or even what some are calling sanctified evolution (where they put God as having a minimal part in it). I believe that God created man and woman and everything else. Well, then we sinned and it all sort of went downhill till Christ came again.
Well, anyway to get to your question, I believe from what I've read, that the earth is only about 6,000 years old. There is a ton of reasons to believe this, I won't go into any detail. But one proof is the Genealogies listed in Luke 3: 23-38. It's kind of a boring read but it traces the geneology of Jesus all the way back to Adam, the first man created by God.
These generations allow a time period of about 4,000 years, and we know that Jesus was born about 2,000 years ago. So we can estimate that the earth from about Adam to know is about 6,000 years old.
Know to get to the main point. Sorry, I know this is taking long, but I'm really not trying to sound smart, I just want to give you the perspective of the Bible. Well we go back to Adam, and there are nine generations till Noah comes along. The Flood wipes everyone out but Noah and his three sons. So from here on we can start calculating aproximately the births in the generations from Noah till today. If we were to assume that a generation is about 43 years, and that each family has about 2.5 children, it would take 100 generations to get to a population of 4.6 billion. This is very close to the 5 billion plus that were at today. If you can get ahold of the book, it's awsome and explained very well.

I don't know if this helps much, I hope it does. Please if you would like me to give you a direct quote from the book, just e-mail me, you might understand it better. I just didn't want to bore you with details and stuff. My e-mail is willowolf83@juno.com I guess you can access that through my info as well. I'm knew to the Forum, so I don't know much about it.
Anyway, I'm praying for you, Willowolf : )

I would be very interested in seeing some of these "tons of reasons", especially ones that aren't rooted in a question of interpretation of the Bible. If you have physical evidence for a young earth, please consider sharing it.

Hey seebs! That was a quick response.
Well, I don't know if you have heard this before, I know I just found out.
Evolutionists today are claiming that the earth is about 4 1/2 billion years old, among other more varied numbers. While as a Christian I believe the earth is probably only about 6,000 years old. One of the physical evidences of this is the lack of cosmic dust on the moon. For years the evolutionist believed that if the cosmic dust on the moon could be measured they would be able to determine the age of the universe. You see in reality about 20,000 tons of cosmic dust falls to earth each year, or about 50 tons a day. It's microscopic of course, but don't you think there be quite a bit of a cleanup job to do if the earth were 4.5 billion years old. Well, forget that, one might claim that the earth isn't a good place to estimate this since there is an intervening force, humanity. So let's go to the moon where we have only been able to reach since 1969. So the moon is a much better place to prove this. On the basis of the fall of cosmic dust on the earth, scientist have estimated that there would be about 50 to 180 feet of dust on the moon's surface. So when Eagle was to land on the surface of the moon for the first time, the scientist were fearful that the lander would sink.
As we all know the lander landed fine, and the pads on it only sank in 1 - 2 inches. In fact as all the americans saw, and to the dismay of the evolutionist scientists, Neil even had to hammer the flag into the surface.

Hey, thanks for answering so quick. I think this is an awsome way to witness to people about Christ. I just want to let you know that I wont try to convince you of anything, I just like sharing these awesome facts about our universe and planet that God has created.
God Bless, Willowolf

cosmic dust? i've never heard of that argument before, i'll have to look into it.

but a simple explanation for it comes as so: most of the 50 tonnes of 'dust' that falls to earth are, in fact, solid rock. most of it burns up in the atmosphere, but eventually falls onto the surface after it cools down. the moon, however, just takes the impact of the rocks. hence the numerous craters on the moon, and even though earth is bigger, with more gravity, there are much much fewer rocks.

The cosmic dust argument is based on some back-of-the-envelope calculations people made a long time ago. By the time of the moon landings, we'd revised our estimates based on new information. I believe AiG even lists this as an argument that's sufficiently debunked that it shouldn't be used.

The real problem with it is simple; we don't have enough information to make an estimate strong enough that it would justify throwing out an otherwise good theory. It's very hard to predict what we "should" find on the moon; you can guess, based on observations, but it's mostly just guessing until we go and look. There's a lot of pure assumption that went into early predictions here; that's all we're seeing.

Originally posted by Willowolf
Evolutionists today are claiming that the earth is about 4 1/2 billion years old, among other more varied numbers. While as a Christian I believe the earth is probably only about 6,000 years old.

Click to expand...

You are talking about two totally different things. Adam was created 6000 years ago, that is the genologys.

Originally posted by Willowolf
Hey seebs! That was a quick response.
Well, I don't know if you have heard this before, I know I just found out.
Evolutionists today are claiming that the earth is about 4 1/2 billion years old, among other more varied numbers. While as a Christian I believe the earth is probably only about 6,000 years old. One of the physical evidences of this is the lack of cosmic dust on the moon. For years the evolutionist believed that if the cosmic dust on the moon could be measured they would be able to determine the age of the universe. You see in reality about 20,000 tons of cosmic dust falls to earth each year, or about 50 tons a day. It's microscopic of course, but don't you think there be quite a bit of a cleanup job to do if the earth were 4.5 billion years old. Well, forget that, one might claim that the earth isn't a good place to estimate this since there is an intervening force, humanity. So let's go to the moon where we have only been able to reach since 1969. So the moon is a much better place to prove this. On the basis of the fall of cosmic dust on the earth, scientist have estimated that there would be about 50 to 180 feet of dust on the moon's surface. So when Eagle was to land on the surface of the moon for the first time, the scientist were fearful that the lander would sink.
As we all know the lander landed fine, and the pads on it only sank in 1 - 2 inches. In fact as all the americans saw, and to the dismay of the evolutionist scientists, Neil even had to hammer the flag into the surface.

Hey, thanks for answering so quick. I think this is an awsome way to witness to people about Christ. I just want to let you know that I wont try to convince you of anything, I just like sharing these awesome facts about our universe and planet that God has created.
God Bless, Willowolf

Click to expand...

I'm still amazed when I see people using these arguments that have been so thoroughly debunked.

an in depth explination: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html

from AIG: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1372.asp

For years, a common and apparently valid argument for a recent creation was to use uniformitarian assumptions to argue that the amount of dust on the moon was less than 10,000 years’ worth.

In an important paper, geologist Dr Andrew Snelling from Australia’s Creation Science Foundation [now Answers in Genesis], and former Institute for Creation Research graduate student Dave Rush, have examined in minute detail all the evidence relating to this argument.1 They have shown that:

The amount of dust coming annually on to the earth/moon is much smaller than the amount estimated by (noncreationists) Pettersson, on which the argument is usually based.

Uniformitarian assumptions cannot therefore justifiably be turned against evolutionists to argue for a young age.

Most NASA scientists, in fact, were convinced before the Apollo landings that there was not much dust likely to be found there.

Interestingly, Snelling and Rush’s research found that anti-creationist critics, in their haste to demolish the argument, had used figures which err greatly in the opposite direction.

For example, theistic evolutionists from Calvin College, after scathingly critiquing creationists for alleged erroneous handling of data, do precisely that and arrive at a figure for moon-dust influx only about one-twentieth of that which should have been correctly concluded from the literature they consulted. 2

The moon-dust argument was easy to understand and explain. Nevertheless, as we have indicated before, creationists as well as evolutionists need to be prepared to re-examine arguments as new and better data emerges.

References
Snelling, Dr A. and Rush, D., Moon Dust and the Age of the Solar System, Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, 7(1):2–42, 1993.

H. J. van Till, D.A. Young, and C. Menninga, Footprints on the dusty moon, In: Science Held Hostage, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove Illinois ch. 4, pp.67–82.

Click to expand...

Originally posted by lucaspa
And those individuals would be wrong. 

Click to expand...

The proper statement here is: "I think they are wrong" or "In my opinion they are wrong" or "I believe they are wrong".

To come right out and say "those individuals would be wrong"
denotes pride and a elevated opinion of one's self.

Proverbs 16:18
    Pride goes before destruction,
    And a haughty spirit before a fall.

Again and again, science forms opinions based on the information they have. Then as new information becomes available, a lot of those opinions fall by the wayside.


 

Then as new information becomes available, a lot of those opinions fall by the wayside.

Click to expand...

Most of the time when new information comes out it helps the theory or "opinions".

Evolutionists today are claiming that the earth is about 4 1/2 billion years old, among other more varied numbers. While as a Christian I believe the earth is probably only about 6,000 years old.

Click to expand...

Heh that's funny because there are christians here that believe in evolution, and that the world is billions of years.

Originally posted by JohnR7
The proper statement here is: "I think they are wrong" or "In my opinion they are wrong" or "I believe they are wrong".

To come right out and say "those individuals would be wrong"
denotes pride and a elevated opinion of one's self.

... Again and again, science forms opinions based on the information they have. Then as new information becomes available, a lot of those opinions fall by the wayside. 
 

Click to expand...

But not those ideas that have been falsified.  Is the earth ever going to be flat? Nope.  Never, ever.  Are species going to be specially created?  Nope. Never, ever.  No matter what new data comes to light, the idea of special creation is false and anyone who holds to it is wrong.

It is not pride or elevated opinion, John, but data and deductive logic.  True statements cannot have false consequences.  Just not possible.

Originally posted by Willowolf
One of the physical evidences of this is the lack of cosmic dust on the moon. For years the evolutionist believed that if the cosmic dust on the moon could be measured they would be able to determine the age of the universe. You see in reality about 20,000 tons of cosmic dust falls to earth each year, or about 50 tons a day. It's microscopic of course, but don't you think there be quite a bit of a cleanup job to do if the earth were 4.5 billion years old. Well, forget that, one might claim that the earth isn't a good place to estimate this since there is an intervening force, humanity. So let's go to the moon where we have only been able to reach since 1969. So the moon is a much better place to prove this. On the basis of the fall of cosmic dust on the earth, scientist have estimated that there would be about 50 to 180 feet of dust on the moon's surface. So when Eagle was to land on the surface of the moon for the first time, the scientist were fearful that the lander would sink.
As we all know the lander landed fine, and the pads on it only sank in 1 - 2 inches. In fact as all the americans saw, and to the dismay of the evolutionist scientists, Neil even had to hammer the flag into the surface.

Click to expand...

This is an old YEC argument that has been refuted in detail numerous times.  You can find a discussion on it at www.talkorigins.org.  Briefly, the accumulation of meteoric dust was described in a Scientific American article in 1959.  The author, Hans Pettersson, made his measurements from a high mountain in Hawaii.  Unfortunately, he also counted some volcanic ash.  In the time since, we have several satellites circling the earth.  NASA has made many measurements from many satellites using different types of instruments.  They all point to an accumulation of 10~-16 to 10~-17 grams of dust per square centimeter per second.  Now to calculate how much dust we would expect on a 5 billion year old moon.  5 billion years == 10~17 seconds.  maximum dust accumulation over 5 billion years = 10~-16 grams/square cm-sec x 10~17 sec = 10 grams/square cm.  How much dust is on the moon?.  The density of dust varies but let's err on the conservative side and take a density of 1gm/cm cubed (the density of water and higher than the density of dust).  We would expect the layer of 10 grams/squar cm to make a layer 10 cm high.  The surface of the moon is covered by a debris blanket (regolith) that varies from 5 to 10 meters thick.  The regolith is formed by meterorites that pulverize the lunar surface and meteoric dust.  The amount of the regolith that is meteroric dust can be determined from its elemental composition.  The amount of dust is about 1.5%.  1.5% of 10 meters is 15 cm.  That corresponds to the 10 cm we calculated.

The other arguments for a young earth are also flawed.  Seesaw, what counts is not the evidence for, but the evidence against.  As Popper noted, if all you want is evidence for a particular theory, you can always find it.  What counts is evidence that falsifies a theory.  Evidence in support only counts if it was a genuine attempt to falsify the theory.   That's where creation "scientists" fall into error.  They aren't looking to falsify their theory, but to "prove" it.  Therefore they ignore all the data that falsifies creationism.

Originally posted by JohnR7
The proper statement here is: "I think they are wrong" or "In my opinion they are wrong" or "I believe they are wrong".

To come right out and say "those individuals would be wrong"
denotes pride and a elevated opinion of one's self.

...Again and again, science forms opinions based on the information they have. Then as new information becomes available, a lot of those opinions fall by the wayside. 

Click to expand...

And yet you didn't address the facts that I used to show the people to be wrong about evolutionists "hijacking" science or evolution to be incompatible with science.

Remember, true statements must have true consequences.  If they don't, they can't be true statements.  For evolutionists to have "hijacked" science as the poster postulated (for philosophical reasons), the scientists involved would have had to have had a different philosophy from Christianity. But the scientists who refuted creationism and those that accepted evolution were Christian ministers  in most cases and theists in all but a few cases.  Examples of theists include Asa Gray, Alfred Wallace, Joseph Hooker, Charles Darwin, etc.  Lyell was a deist.  Huxley was an agnostic that couldn't stand atheists, deeming their philosophy without basis.  The only atheist among the early evolutionists was Ernst Haeckel, and his subsequent work shows that he tried to hijack evolution for his beliefs, even going so far as to falsify data.

Recently the Presbyterian Church USA came out with a strong statement accepting evolution and opposing the teaching of any form of creationism in science classrooms.  If evolution and religion are so incompatible, that statement, and all the other denominational statements, simply can't exist.

Now, Biblical literalism and evolution are incompatible. But Biblical literalism is neither religion nor Christianity.

Hey, lucaspa, good reply. I'll have to look into this, sounds pretty convincing. I apreciate a good answer based on facts. Keep it up.
But here is another fact that disproves the millions and millions of years old that the evolutionists claim earth is. The Sun is shrinking, proven fact. This is based on observations made all the way back in 1750 in the British Royal Observatory. From the observations, the sun is in fact shrinking at a rate of about one-tenth of a percent (1/10 of 1%) per century. Our sun shrink about five feet an hour. Of course, when you understand that the sun is roughly 835,000 to 840,000 feet in diameter, five feet is hardly anything at all.
Now, If we believe that the earth is about 6,000 years old, then the sun in that period of time, has shrunk only 6%.
But, if the sun is say 100,000 years old, then it would be the double of it present diameter. And if we count back to 20 million years ago the Sun would be touching the earth (in other words no planet). Just imagine if we were to count back to 4.5 or 5 billion years ago.

Well, keep up the good work, and the good answers.
God Bless, Willowolf : )