Human Population

[dad]

You can't seriously believe both of those statements, unless you simply define "healthy skepticism" to be skepticism toward anything non-Christian.

That certainly would be a good definition addendum. But there is no reasons to doubt what the apostles saw, and died to confirm, and lived to confirm. There is no reason to doubt that hundreds of prophesies were fulfilled, it is a matter of fact. There is every reason to doubt that a black hole will swallow the universe, or the moon coalesced from magic smash up dust, or that the whole universe once fit in your pocket.

 

[HAPMinistries]

YouTube - World Population Debunks Macro Evolution

 

[dad]

YouTube - World Population Debunks Macro Evolution

Interesting.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

No idea. You tell me? You have a wire crossed somewhere.

You have no idea when it changed. Gotcha.

Irrelevant. The state change would have likely been after the flood. That was before Newton. Even the Mayans...etc.

But you do for some reason think it was some time after the flood. But I thought you had no idea....

O come on. Get serious.

Perhaps you are now getting an idea of how ridiculous your claims sound to me. Perspective.

Try to focus. Get some sort of a grip here. Heaven and the new heaven state is not here turning things yellow. Neither is Eden. Do you really think the issue here is color??

So what exactly does your "switching of state" actually mean? Does it mean that the laws of gravity, thermodynamics, motion, and electromagnetism were different? Because that's what you seem to be implying.

Suddenly in the last few things you've posted you've alluded to some sort of different "spiritual" state which would quite a different thing from a switching of a "physical" state.

And for the record, I don't think you understood my analogy if what you took from that was that I was focusing on colour as the issue. The analogy was meant to state how evidence seems to mean absolutely nothing to you and instead you blindly dither about and see things the way you want to see them, regardless of what's right in front of you.

 

[dad]

You have no idea when it changed. Gotcha.

Yes I do. In the days of Peleg. It will change again in the last days.

But you do for some reason think it was some time after the flood. But I thought you had no idea....

Who said that I have no idea about the timing of the bible changes?

So what exactly does your "switching of state" actually mean? Does it mean that the laws of gravity, thermodynamics, motion, and electromagnetism were different? Because that's what you seem to be implying.

Who says they existed at all? Any proof?

Suddenly in the last few things you've posted you've alluded to some sort of different "spiritual" state which would quite a different thing from a switching of a "physical" state.

Who says that the created state was "physical" only? Far as I can tell, that would be our temporal state.

And for the record, I don't think you understood my analogy if what you took from that was that I was focusing on colour as the issue. The analogy was meant to state how evidence seems to mean absolutely nothing to you and instead you blindly dither about and see things the way you want to see them, regardless of what's right in front of you.

Blathering nonsense. Evidence means a lot to me, too bad you have none.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

But there is no reasons to doubt what the apostles saw, and died to confirm, and lived to confirm.

Muhammad also claimed to have spoken to God. He lived to claim that and wrote down what he heard. Why is there reason to doubt him?

Also, any lawyer or police officer will tell you that eye-witnesses are generally the least reliable source of evidence in a court room.

The Problem With Eyewitness Testimony

There is no reason to doubt that hundreds of prophesies were fulfilled, it is a matter of fact.

Did you know Jews don't think the Messiah will be God? They use the same prophecies as us and they interpret the same scripture to mean something totally different. Interesting how reliable that is....

Do Jews believe, or have Jews ever believed, the Messiah will/would be born to a virgin? | Answerbag (see post by Angel if you scroll down a little)

There is every reason to doubt that a black hole will swallow the universe,

True! There is reason to doubt that, because it is incredibly, incredibly improbable. In fact, it is almost as improbable as a flood covering the entire Earth!!!

or the moon coalesced from magic smash up dust

True! There is reason to doubt that because its just a theory. However, I feel that since you used the term "magic smash up dust", you probably don't have a full grasp of the science and mathematical models that leads to such a theory.

Theories of Formation for the Moon

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11339864

or that the whole universe once fit in your pocket.

True! There is reason to doubt this which is probably why it is a hotly contested theory in theoretical physics which is still being investigated. To be honest, the Big Bang is currently the working theory in physics mainly because the math makes sense but not necessarily because there is strong evidence for it. And, despite the evidence that has been found to support it, I find myself thinking, "I don't know if this is the complete picture" (see my thread on scientific revolution for my ideas about the complete picture).


Healthy skepticism means looking at something with an unbiased eye and determining, based on evidence, what conclusions can be drawn. Healthy skepticism does not mean looking at something with a biased eye and determining, based on minimal to no evidence, what conclusions are undeniably true.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Yes I do. In the days of Peleg. It will change again in the last days.

My mistake, I thought you were referring to something else in your last post. So you do know when the states of the world changed. How do you know?

Who said that I have no idea about the timing of the bible changes?

Remind me again why these changes are biblically-based?

Who says they existed at all? Any proof?

If I give you proof using examples from Sumeria, Babylonia and Ancient Greece, will you say that they all happened after the state switched?

What evidence could I give that you could not turn around and say either:

"That uses a method I believe is false"
or
"That evidence was gathered after the states of the universe switched"?

Who says that the created state was "physical" only? Far as I can tell, that would be our temporal state.

What?

Blathering nonsense. Evidence means a lot to me, too bad you have none.

My evidence means nothing to you and your evidence means nothing to me. Enjoy your fairy tale myths that you uphold to be true based on your unwavering conviction and your personal, undeniable evidence.

 

[dad]

Muhammad also claimed to have spoken to God. He lived to claim that and wrote down what he heard. Why is there reason to doubt him?

I give up....why? Did he say something important to the creation debate?

Also, any lawyer or police officer will tell you that eye-witnesses are generally the least reliable source of evidence in a court room.

Not if they agree to get shot if they lie. The problem in the system is not the eye witnesses, but the court.

Did you know Jews don't think the Messiah will be God?

No. Who do they think He will be, the sand man?

They use the same prophecies as us and they interpret the same scripture to mean something totally different. Interesting how reliable that is....

Charles Manson might also see something strange in scripture. However, The life and death and resurrection and return of Christ is still written about. Sane men know.

True! There is reason to doubt that, because it is incredibly, incredibly improbable. In fact, it is almost as improbable as a flood covering the entire Earth!!!

If you were the judge of what was probable, you might be able to smack your little hammer. You are not. Get a grip.

True! There is reason to doubt that because its just a theory. However, I feel that since you used the term "magic smash up dust", you probably don't have a full grasp of the science and mathematical models that leads to such a theory.

Well, perhaps you could produce a point? The same state extrapolation models are not classified stuff. Consider them wiki leaked.

True! There is reason to doubt this which is probably why it is a hotly contested theory in theoretical physics which is still being investigated.

Thank you for admitting that. It must be painful.

To be honest, the Big Bang is currently the working theory in physics mainly because the math makes sense but not necessarily because there is strong evidence for it. And, despite the evidence that has been found to support it, I find myself thinking, "I don't know if this is the complete picture" (see my thread on scientific revolution for my ideas about the complete picture).

A little commercial for your thread How cute.

Healthy skepticism means looking at something with an unbiased eye and determining, based on evidence, what conclusions can be drawn.

Fine. Then look at the state of the past at creation with an unbiased eye. You will see that a same state past conclusion cannot be drawn.

Healthy skepticism does not mean looking at something with a biased eye and determining, based on minimal to no evidence, what conclusions are undeniably true.

That is why a same state past is now flicked away like an unwanted nose mass.

 

[dad]

My mistake, I thought you were referring to something else in your last post. So you do know when the states of the world changed. How do you know?

I have an educated guess. The bible provides the clues.

Remind me again why these changes are biblically-based?

Because the flood and Adam and long lives, and fast plant growth, and etc can't happen in this state. So they either are lies or happened in another state, the way I figure.

If I give you proof using examples from Sumeria, Babylonia and Ancient Greece, will you say that they all happened after the state switched?

Unless you can date it with solid evidence, of course.

What evidence could I give that you could not turn around and say either:

"That uses a method I believe is false"
or
"That evidence was gathered after the states of the universe switched"?

Well, it would likely have to do with some sort of real evidence that there was a same state past. Since you have none, why agonize over what it might look like if it existed???

Now, do you not have a cross on your profile?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes I do. In the days of Peleg. It will change again in the last days.

You believe that, you just don't know it.

Who said that I have no idea about the timing of the bible changes?

Well, just about everybody -- including yourself, if you dared to be honest.

Who says they existed at all? Any proof?

Who, Peleg? yeah, any proof he existed at all?

Who says that the created state was "physical" only? Far as I can tell, that would be our temporal state.

Far as you can tell isn't much to be proud of -- there actually not much you really know, is there?

Blathering nonsense. Evidence means a lot to me, too bad you have none.

If evidence means anything to you, present some -- any at all would be helpful.

We won't wait -- blather on.

 

[USincognito]

YouTube - World Population Debunks Macro Evolution

*snerk* Carl Baugh Heh...

World population cannot be done with simple exponential math because it doesn't take into account plagues, famines, wars, societal collapse and the other scurges that have effected human population in the past and for that matter continue to do so today.

Baugh is so clueless he, like other YECs who use this argument, don't realize that the math problem is even worse for them. Doing the same exponential math from Noah's family, you wind up with a world population in the 10s of thousands when the Greeks were holding the Olympics (and the Chinese fielding armies the size of the ostensible world population).

 

[rockaction]

Not really. It has also given us nukes, womd, etc. But all that it has led to is right here, and nothing to do with the future, or the far past or creation.

I was just pointing out the wide and varied successes of methodological naturalism. It appears to be the single verifiable epistemological model that brings about knowledge in this world.

Millions died in fire bombings and wars, and atomic blasts too, lots of fire involved. But if a Muslim dies for something that he claims was real, like some miracle, or whatever, who am I to question it?

Being willing to die to verify a record seals it in credibility, whether they taught you that in school or not. Paul saw Jesus as did Peter, and all the disciples. They didn't die for something vague or religious notions.

So would you be willing to convert to Islam? They clearly must be the true religion because their followers are willing to die for it. And they follow through! Muslims are more sure of what they believe than Christians (because they routinely die for it and are much stricter), so they must the ones with the correct religion, right?

Islam is right about some things. No one could be all wrong. Science comes darn close, though!

Cute.

 

[Belk]

You have every opportunity here to make a solid case. The bible claims a flood and Adam and Eve, and a new heavens and earth in the future. Science uses only the present to base all models of these things on. The results are in direct opposition to the truth of God. Their fantasy lands have no relation to the truth whatsoever.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Not if they agree to get shot if they lie. The problem in the system is not the eye witnesses, but the court.

I recently had an incident where me and a friend were at the same event together and, a few weeks later when we were trying to recall the events, we couldn't agree on what had actually happened. We were both there, we saw the same stuff, but, within a few weeks, our memories had diverged enough for us to get confused about what actually happened. I'm sure this has happened to you at times too.

No. Who do they think He will be, the sand man?

They think he will be like Moses. (You clearly didn't click on the link).

Charles Manson might also see something strange in scripture. However, The life and death and resurrection and return of Christ is still written about. Sane men know.

So you acknowledge that people can have different interpretations of the Bible and some of these interpretations could be "strange". Ever wonder if your interpretation is one of th INsane ones as opposed to the sane ones?

If you were the judge of what was probable, you might be able to smack your little hammer. You are not. Get a grip.

Ok....

Well, perhaps you could produce a point? The same state extrapolation models are not classified stuff. Consider them wiki leaked.

So any evidence for the moon formation will never be considered evidence for you. That's the logical flaw here: you demand evidence for something that happened in the past while pre-supposing that any evidence from the past will be invalid. Greeeeaaat.

Thank you for admitting that. It must be painful.

Nope! Not painful at all actually. Just part of healthy skepticism and methodological science.

Fine. Then look at the state of the past at creation with an unbiased eye. You will see that a same state past conclusion cannot be drawn.

I can look at the same state past conclusion with an unbiased eye but if I do that, then every piece of evidence ever gathered about the past is thrown out the window and I'm left with....nothing. So why would I base a conclusion on nothing?

I have an educated guess. The bible provides the clues.

Care to provide some scriptural quotes?

Because the flood and Adam and long lives, and fast plant growth, and etc can't happen in this state. So they either are lies or happened in another state, the way I figure.

Couldn't God just make them happen regardless of the physical state of the universe? And why is the Biblical account literal again?

Unless you can date it with solid evidence, of course.

Do you have a methodology of dating something without the use of radiometric dating? How do you date things? If its the Bible then I hope you realize that the first manuscripts discovered of Genesis were dated using radiometric dating to determine that they were written during the exilic age in Babylonia.

Well, it would likely have to do with some sort of real evidence that there was a same state past. Since you have none, why agonize over what it might look like if it existed???

No evidence I give will satisfy you. You also have no evidence that states were different other than the Bible. This is the whole "seeing an apple as a banana" thing. You are disregarding ALL other evidence and clinging to ONE source. (A source that is hotly contested and debated not even a source that is widely accepted).

Now, do you not have a cross on your profile?

Just because I have a cross on my profile does not in any way mean I agree with you.

 

[ug333]

So any evidence for the moon formation will never be considered evidence for you. That's the logical flaw here: you demand evidence for something that happened in the past while pre-supposing that any evidence from the past will be invalid. Greeeeaaat.

Now that is what I call hitting the nail on the head. The defense of a literal genesis has evolved over time, and I think that dad may have landed on the perfect argument. It disallows ANY evidence of ANY kind except his "interpretation" of genesis.

Of course, disregarding all evidence except that which is in your own mind is pretty useless if you are seeking truth, and some might say it is delusional.

 

[dad]

You believe that, you just don't know it.



Well, just about everybody -- including yourself, if you dared to be honest.



Who, Peleg? yeah, any proof he existed at all?



Far as you can tell isn't much to be proud of -- there actually not much you really know, is there?



If evidence means anything to you, present some -- any at all would be helpful.

We won't wait -- blather on.

You almost seem to think that science ought to be able to have some proof for things out of it's depth. You need to understand that science doesn't cover many things, nor can it.

 

[dad]

*snerk* Carl Baugh Heh...

World population cannot be done with simple exponential math because it doesn't take into account plagues, famines, wars, societal collapse and the other scurges that have effected human population in the past and for that matter continue to do so today.

I would tend to agree. Certainly using present birth rates and etc has inherent flaws. However, when the numbers are looked at for the time you claim humans existed on earth, you have a problem, that unrecorded wars, and imagined plagues won't wave away.

Baugh is so clueless he, like other YECs who use this argument, don't realize that the math problem is even worse for them. Doing the same exponential math from Noah's family, you wind up with a world population in the 10s of thousands when the Greeks were holding the Olympics (and the Chinese fielding armies the size of the ostensible world population).

Using God's planned Parenthood, there is no problem at all. It isn't some runaway snowball, out of control, that was not able to be tweaked, coaxed, guided, and otherwise aided and abetted. The numbers look sweeter for 4500 years than they do for a million. Obviously.

 

[dad]

I was just pointing out the wide and varied successes of methodological naturalism. It appears to be the single verifiable epistemological model that brings about knowledge in this world.

It appears to you that way. It appears like a beast to me. Raging, loveless, destroying, inhuman...godless, dangerous, etc. Knowledge comes in 2 flavors. Good and evil. Sure there is good, but science deals in this present state, and the physical only. Kind of like a one eyed Jack.

So would you be willing to convert to Islam? They clearly must be the true religion because their followers are willing to die for it. And they follow through! Muslims are more sure of what they believe than Christians (because they routinely die for it and are much stricter), so they must the ones with the correct religion, right?

No. I have my own beliefs, thanks. Despite some truth existing in other beliefs, there was only One Living God that revealed Himself to man through His people of old. One Savior that died for us, and rose again. Just because someone might believe in getting possessed, and throwing himself on a fire or in front of a truck, doesn't mean I want to exchange my beliefs with him. Yet there may be real spirits involved in the other fellow's system. Point is, I will not believe science if it says that we are all imagining stuff, just because they can't see squat.

 

[rockaction]

It appears to you that way. It appears like a beast to me. Raging, loveless, destroying, inhuman...godless, dangerous, etc. Knowledge comes in 2 flavors. Good and evil. Sure there is good, but science deals in this present state, and the physical only. Kind of like a one eyed Jack.

Science just tells us what is there. What you do with that depends on your own system of morality.

No. I have my own beliefs, thanks. Despite some truth existing in other beliefs, there was only One Living God that revealed Himself to man through His people of old. One Savior that died for us, and rose again. Just because someone might believe in getting possessed, and throwing himself on a fire or in front of a truck, doesn't mean I want to exchange my beliefs with him. Yet there may be real spirits involved in the other fellow's system. Point is, I will not believe science if it says that we are all imagining stuff, just because they can't see squat.

Well then, by your admissions here, it would be dumb of you to think that the whole "but the apostles died for their beliefs!" nonsense is a decent argument for Christianity.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You almost seem to think that science ought to be able to have some proof for things out of it's depth. You need to understand that science doesn't cover many things, nor can it.

I don't care about science which is why I didn't mention it at all -- I just want you to understand how incredibly out of your depth you are.

Physician, heal thyself.