Lets try this again

[lithium.]

fieldsofwind it isn't our fault if you don't want to believe anything we post that comes from science, But don't ever say I don't know what i am talking about like to did in the other forum, Everything i talk about i have studied.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
You'll have to show me population statistics to back that up, because having looked a population growth charts, I don't see what you claim. 

Umm, I think maybe you need to do your homework. Just do a search using the key words history of population growth. Here is one link.

http://desip.igc.org/populationmaps.html

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Um, the Jurassic Period began about 210 million years ago. The Permain period began closer to 300 million years ago. The Miocene Period began over 20 million years ago. Furthermore, all those "periods" are just arbitrary human classification (and there are a lot more of them than that, and they don't fit into your neat little numbering scheme). 

I just pulled those dates off of a web site. I suppose if I went to 10 web sites we could come up with 10 different sets of dates. We are dealing with time periods or what the Bible calls "days". It appears that using the 2 X formula, then the Bible "just happens" to line up with what the scientists are saying.

For example I say the Jurassic period falls between 128 & 256 million years. You say the Jurassic period began about 210 million years. The Miocene Period falls between 16 million years and 32 million years. You say it was at 20 million years. So even your dates are falling into my time periods.

As I said, I do not have all the wrinkles worked out of this. But keep asking question, because you are ironing a lot of them out for me.

 

[lithium.]

thats funny since 1 AD people didn't even know about america or anything on this part of the world.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Umm, I think maybe you need to do your homework. Just do a search using the key words history of population growth. Here is one link.

http://desip.igc.org/populationmaps.html

I'm well aware that population growth is exponential. You, however, claimed that it doubled in half the time. Even your own link doesn't support that claim (at least, not without some heavy fudging of the numbers).

I just pulled those dates off of a web site. I suppose if I went to 10 web sites we could come up with 10 different sets of dates. We are dealing with time periods or what the Bible calls "days". It appears that using the 2 X formula, then the Bible "just happens" to line up with what the scientists are saying.

While I can't speak for the whole Bible, you've got some serious problems if you want to line up a literal interpretation of Genesis with events on this planet.

For example I say the Jurassic period falls between 128 & 256 million years. You say the Jurassic period began about 210 million years. The Miocene Period falls between 16 million years and 32 million years. You say it was at 20 million years. So even your dates are falling into my time periods.

Well, I suggest you do YOUR homework on these dates. You don't get to fudge the numbers (at least not as much as you're doing), just because it's convenient for you.

Here's a couple geologic timeline graphs from talk.origins:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/timescale.html

(In looking at the timelines I think I know what you were trying to do, but you misidentified the periods you were using.)

As I said, I do not have all the wrinkles worked out of this. But keep asking question, because you are ironing a lot of them out for me.

Okay. According to your little timescale, Earth appeared 4 billion years ago (day 3 of Genesis). However, it clearly says in Genesis that God also created grass, fruit trees, and other plant life on that day, too. Yet, historical evidence tells us that the first plants originated about 300-350 million years ago. That's quite a little discrepancy.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
I'm well aware that population growth is exponential. 

Then what is the exponent? I just do not see any middle ground here. Either it doubles at a consistant rate, every 1000 years for example. Or it doubles in roughly half the time. But your more than welcome to suggest your exponent.

While I can't speak for the whole Bible, you've got some serious problems if you want to line up a literal interpretation of Genesis with events on this planet.

I have no problem, Genesis is accurate. The problem is coming up with accurate data to compare Genesis to.

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Here's a couple geologic timeline graphs from talk.origins: 

Yes, those links work fine. You can clearly see on the Geological Timeline that the first era lasted two days, then you have five more era or five more days after that. Every time you divide by 2, you end up in a new day or a new era.

Your Geological Timeline shows 6 days and so does the Bible. They are in agreement. Thanks, JohnR7

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by npetreley
I like the graphs in this one! Thanks.

npetreley, if I were you, I would be skeptical of an essay that starts out with a deliberate out of context quote from Darwin.

What they have at the start of the essay:

The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, (must) be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.

What Darwin actually wrote, in context:

I endeavoured, also, to show that intermediate varieties, from existing in lesser numbers than the forms which they connect, will generally be beaten out and exterminated during the course of further modification and improvement. the main cause, however, of innumerable intermediate links not now occurring everywhere throughout nature, depends on the very process of natural selection, through which new varieties continually take the places of and supplant their parent-forms. But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. the explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

sorta makes a different point when you read it in context and without the editing.

Why should someone believe this stuff when the author has made such an attempt to deceive them?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Then what is the exponent? I just do not see any middle ground here. Either it doubles at a consistant rate, every 1000 years for example. Or it doubles in roughly half the time. But your more than welcome to suggest your exponent.

What, do I look like an expert on population growth statistics?

All I know (at least from some cursory investigation on the subject) is that population growth tends to fluctuate (increasing in the last 200 years, with predictions to slow down in the next 50 or so).

I have no problem, Genesis is accurate. The problem is coming up with accurate data to compare Genesis to.

Like I said, if you line up a literal interpretation of Genesis with historical evidence on when certain forms of life appeared on the planet, they don't line up. Your only choices are to either ignore (or try to discredit) the current evidence, or switch to a non-literal view of Genesis.

Yes, those links work fine. You can clearly see on the Geological Timeline that the first era lasted two days, then you have five more era or five more days after that. Every time you divide by 2, you end up in a new day or a new era.

Your Geological Timeline shows 6 days and so does the Bible. They are in agreement. Thanks, JohnR7

Since you neatly ignored my previous point about the appearance of plant life in Genesis and the appearance of plant life on the Earth, I'm afraid I still remain completely unconvinced.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Since you neatly ignored my previous point about the appearance of plant life in Genesis and the appearance of plant life on the Earth, I'm afraid I still remain completely unconvinced.

Sense there are 10 people reading these posts for every poster, I will start all over gain, from the beginning, using YOUR web site. According to the link YOU provided everything begins at 4.6 billion. That is the beginning of day one. So I take my simple sixth grader formula and divide by two. The end of day one is 2.3 billion years ago. We divide again by 2 and we have 1.15 billion, this is the end of day two. We keep on going 575 million is the end of day three. 287.5 million is the end of day four. 143,750,000 is the end of day five, 71,845,000 is the end of day six.

Now, day one 5 to 2.3 billion years. What does the Bible say? First the earth is formed, then water and then light. What does your web site say? Same thing, only it is more detailed. No surprise there, Daniel told us the understanding is going to increase.

Day two 2.3 to 1.15 billion years. Pretty much things continue as they started on day one.

Day three 1.14 to .575 billion. The Bible says grass, trees and seeds are formed. The web site says multicellular organisms which is plants and trees.

Day four 575 to 278 million. The web site talks about simple life forms, fish and animals. The Bible talks about the conditions being formed that would support life like this, but it does not actually talk about the simple life forms. Is this a conflict? No, we just are given more information now, then we had before.

Day five 278 to 132 million. Both talk about complex life forms being developed.

Day six 132 to 71 million years. Both talk about complex life forms emerging.

On day seven from about 71 to 42 million years, there is a conflict. This is where it really become noticeable that your date on your web site is a very good guess, but not fully accurate. We know that day seven begins on 64 million years ago, when a metorite hit the earth and a lot of life came to a end at that point. According to the Bible, nothing was created from 64 to 32 million years. How could it?

If you gage everything by this one date that would mean the earth began to come into being at 4.091 BC, not 4.6 as your site suggests. Also if you keep going we know from the Bible that 6 days have passed sense 32 million years. That would take us to exactly 1 million years at the end of day 6, which is just exactly where we want to be. Because one is as 1000 and 1000 is as one. So 1000 X 1000 or one million is equal to one day. From our persective where we are at in time.

Your data on your web page is pretty accurate and it helps us to understand our Bible better, but as you admit, it is "fudged" a bit here and there. But we would not expect perfection as we would out of Moses, because Moses was annointed with the Holy Spirit of God, and is therefore going to be more relyable than mere scientific observation.

Still, the scientific methoid in this case is accurate enough to show that the Bible is true. Your web site would not really be of any use to me, because the Bible says this has to be so simple a child can understand it. There are to many fancy terms for a 6 grade science class. But I wanted to use your data to prove to you that the Bible is true. You may not accept that truth, but you are going to be responsable before God for that. My hands are clean, because I showed you the truth using your data. Now it is your choice what you want to do with that. Thanks so very much, JohnR7
<DIR>&nbsp;</DIR>

 

[Underdog]

The word is "since", not "sense".

 

[sulphur]

Looking through these postings may I suggest a book in which most sensible questions and propositions are discussed "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" by professor of geology at harvard university-stephan jay gould.It was published earlier this year. Any body disagreeing with it should go to harvard and stand up and deliver apaper for the whole scietific world to attack.

 

[sulphur]

CRAZY FINGERS
You have not read his book "Rocks of Ages" where professor gould states definately yhat he is an AGNOSTIC.
PETE HARCOFF
AT this stage it would have to be the ultimate book on evolution i.e."The STRU..................." Buy it and sit back and read .It is magnificent

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Well, JohnR7, as I said, you either have to take a non-literal interpretation of Genesis, or a "fudged" version of historical evidence. Since you seem to be doing a bit of both, I don't really have too much of a problem with your timeline (not to say that I entirely agree with it).

sulphur, I'll definitely try to pick up that book. I thought about buying it when I saw it in stores, but the $60 price tag scared me away.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Well, JohnR7, as I said, you either have to take a non-literal interpretation of Genesis, or a "fudged" version of historical evidence.

At least there seems to be a referance point at 64 million years, that you can work in both directions from. I do not know how comfortable christians would be with the idea that a "doomsday asteroid" 100 miles across and now 1 mile deep in the ground hit the earth 64 million years ago. According to Nova the geological records show a dark layer that also bears witness to some kind of massive global firestorm. So that two thirds Earth's species were killed off and 90% of the Earth's biomass burned up. Just at that point in the creation story we are told the creator decided to take a day of rest.

Here we are very close to the end of day six of another week and the prophets tell us:

Zech. 13:8-9a&nbsp;And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. [9] And I will bring the third part through the fire,&nbsp;

http://www.nhne.com/articles/saasteroids.html

&nbsp;Rev. 8:7-9
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The first angel sounded: And hail and fire followed, mingled with blood, and they were thrown to the earth. And a third of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; [8] Then the second angel sounded: And something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood. [9] And a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.



&nbsp;

 

[Morat]

Pete: He's not going to be able to answer them. I chose them carefully. To begin with, no two Creationist agree which strata were flood strata. Since none of them look (other than locally, for local floods) like flood strata, this isn't surprising.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Which is the whole basis of the YEC flood argument. Broad generalizations work, but it falls apart when the details are examined. So the details aren't addressed.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Take "hydrological sorting". Well, it certainly does sound plausible that a flood would sort things and lay them down in a certain order. After all, we all know some things float and others sink, and all at different rates. So, if you make the broad claim (the layers and the fossils are sorted by water) it sounds plausible.

&nbsp;&nbsp; But glancing at the details it falls apart. You can find fossilized raindrops, insect burrows, salt flats, dung and hosts of other delicate features in any layer, somewhere in the world.

&nbsp;&nbsp; It may have been flooding in Egypt 30 million years ago, but 2000 miles away you had a drying inland sea, or a desert or a rainforest...

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; And you can easily see it in the fossil record. *shrug*. YEC geologists stick to broad strokes. And when they don't, you find them hyperfocused on a certain area, because to put it in context with that layer in the surrounding region blows their case.

&nbsp;&nbsp; "Look, these rocks show flooding!" Well, yeah, but 200 miles away in the same layer we find fossilized paw prints. How did that happen?

&nbsp;

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by extra
The word is "since", not "sense".

&nbsp;

EOM

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Morat
Pete: He's not going to be able to answer them.

Heh, I figured as much. Even tried hunting for some answers myself (particular on the shark teeth one), but found zilch.

If you don't mind, I think I'll keep those questions handy for the next time someone claims to know all about flood geology

 

[sulphur]

To mbbs I love to challenge "grammerians" but I can't because I am alousy one handed typist.But I will ask the point whether the word anautochonthanous is an a noun or adjective?

 

[Morat]

Heh, I figured as much. Even tried hunting for some answers myself (particular on the shark teeth one), but found zilch.

If you don't mind, I think I'll keep those questions handy for the next time someone claims to know all about flood geology

&nbsp; A friend of mine (and something of an amateur paleontologist) told me that shark's teeth are one of the most common things found in the fossil record. They're everywhere after a certain point. There's not getting away from them.

&nbsp;&nbsp; But you don't find them before a certain era. And you don't find shark fossils before that era, either. (Well, proto-sharks. Same sorts of constantly replaced teeth).

&nbsp;

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Even tried hunting for some answers myself (particular on the shark teeth one), but found zilch.

Shark teeth? You mean the question of why shark teeth appear in the fossil record abruptly? That one's easy. There were sharks long before that, but the teeth only start to appear in the fossil record shortly after the sharks ate all the dentists.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by npetreley
Shark teeth? You mean the question of why shark teeth appear in the fossil record abruptly? That one's easy. There were sharks long before that, but the teeth only start to appear in the fossil record shortly after the sharks ate all the dentists.

Ow.