Questions to be answered

[Thermodynamics]

Hey,

I myself am an atheist, skeptic, and follower of science.
You might question why i'm on this forum, and rightly so, but if truth be told i'm here to find answers to some questions.

I'll ask more questions no doubt but here are a few to start it off.

1) Why do you believe in a theory with no scientific evidence, or no valid evidence at all for that matter?

2) How do you explain how we have almost 7 billion people in only 6/10 thousand years? the numbers DO NOT add up.

And thanks for any replies!

 

[juvenissun]

Hey,

I myself am an atheist, skeptic, and follower of science.
You might question why i'm on this forum, and rightly so, but if truth be told i'm here to find answers to some questions.

I'll ask more questions no doubt but here are a few to start it off.

1) Why do you believe in a theory with no scientific evidence, or no valid evidence at all for that matter?

2) How do you explain how we have almost 7 billion people in only 6/10 thousand years? the numbers DO NOT add up.

And thanks for any replies!

If you looked at this curve, human population increased from 200 million to 7 billion in just 1000 years. And you don't think it is possible to go from 2 to 200 million in 5000 years?

 

[WingsOfEagles07]

Hey,

I myself am an atheist, skeptic, and follower of science.
You might question why i'm on this forum, and rightly so, but if truth be told i'm here to find answers to some questions.

I'll ask more questions no doubt but here are a few to start it off.

1) Why do you believe in a theory with no scientific evidence, or no valid evidence at all for that matter?

2) How do you explain how we have almost 7 billion people in only 6/10 thousand years? the numbers DO NOT add up.

And thanks for any replies!

I like to note that probably your an atheist because of the indoctrination of so-called "science" of today's world.

1) Just because the evidence you have for your worldview presuppositions does not match ours does not mean that we have no scientific evidence nor valid evidence at all. This is a logical fallacy. 1. Creation has no scientific evidence, 2. nor valid evidence 3. therefore the creation worldview must be wrong. This is a fallacious statement. One of them being the fallacy of false analogy. I want to tell you something. What time are you living in now? The past, present or future? Well, obviously the answer is "present." The point, the evidence that evolutionists find is in the present, we all live in the same universe with the same people, same animals, same fossils, same evidence. The difference is how we "interpret" that evidence. You believe that since so-called scientists say we evolved it must be true and if Creation scientists say something that opposes the idea of evolution THEY MUST BE WRONG! We have the same evidence you do Thermo. You just interpret it differently than creationists do because of the presuppositions we have according to our worldview. Now I have a question for you Thermo.

Give me a logical explanation (without being inconsistent within your worldview) as to why evolutions assume the preconditions of intelligibility to be reliable and true?

2.) You got to be kidding me. lol. That is kinda easy. I mean Imagine it starting out at 2 people in which it did. You take Adam and Eve. Whenever Eve got pregnant how is possible to show that she did not have 1,2,3, or 4 babies at a time? I mean you have seen that Tv show of a mom who had Quadtruplets. How many people over the course of just 1000 years had 2 kids each? 3 kids? 4 Kids? Or how about the parents had one child then another then another then another then another then another? This can be for every 1couple per 10-20 people around the world. Not that hard.

 

[Darkness27]

1) Creationists think they have evidence on their side, as well as science. I'm not trying to be mean, just objective, but many creationists don't know and don't understand science. Some do, and usually the ones on forums know it much better than those who don't debate or lurk on forums.

2) I think this is quite a valid question. If you look at how many organisms an environment can sustain, it is not what we see today. The only reason why we can do this is because of technology. If we take England back to the stone age, I think it is around 80-90% of people will die from lack of food and water. I think this is a bigger problem than creationists realize, or are willing to admit.

One last thing Thermo, if you are planning on engaging creationists in debate, just be aware that it is not so much the evidence that drives them (although they will say that it does), but it is faith in a literal interpretation of the Bible, particularly Genesis. Unless they recant a literal interpretation, and or their faith, they will never accept that which they feel opposes their religion.

 

[alexross8]

Hey,

I myself am an atheist, skeptic, and follower of science.
You might question why i'm on this forum, and rightly so, but if truth be told i'm here to find answers to some questions.

I'll ask more questions no doubt but here are a few to start it off.

1) Why do you believe in a theory with no scientific evidence, or no valid evidence at all for that matter?

2) How do you explain how we have almost 7 billion people in only 6/10 thousand years? the numbers DO NOT add up.

And thanks for any replies!

Estimated World population in millions.
The number on left is the date. The number on left is population.


70,000 BC < 1 (72,000 years ago and had less than 1 million people)
10,000 BC 1
9000 BC 3
8000 BC 5
7000 BC 7
6000 BC 10
5000 BC 15
4000 BC 20
3000 BC 25
2000 BC 35
1000 BC 50
500 BC 100
1 200
1000 310
1750 791
1800 978
1850 1,262
1900 1,650
1950 2,519
1955 2,756
1960 2,982
1965 3,335
1970 3,692
1975 4,068
1980 4,435
1985 4,831
1990 5,263
1995 5,674
2000 6,070
2005 6,454 (2005 , 4 years ago. And had about 6.454 billion people.

That is the wikipedia estimate of the population during each few years.
What do we know about this chart?

1.The population stops at 1750 , which leaves the rest up for estimate.
2. The people who made this chart put 70,000 bc as a GOAL date.
In other words , 70,000 BC must be the age of human birth , because scientists tell us that humans evolved from a sort of ape at that time.

Well I have some good news for you.
Their estimate is completely wrong.
For one , they set a goal that they must fulfill , a fantasy goal.

What they should have done , was gone by what the rate goes by.

First it goes:
1950 - 1900 - 1850 - 1800 - 1750 - 1000 - 1 .
Am I missing something here?
Did anybody else notice that they skipped a whole millennium ?

The population rate is constant , going at a 3 - 1/3 rate .
And the year rate was constant going at a -50 years velocity.

But then the equation Subtracts 1,000 years , without a single change in population rate.

Something is definitely wrong with wikipedia's chart.

So I did the liberty of making my own.

I didn't set the fantasy goal as 70,000 bc like them guys did , or I didn't set it as 3,000 years ago.
I didn't set a goal. You aren't supposed to set a goal.

The idea is to find the date using a constant rate.


2100BC <1
1600BC 1
1100BC 3
600BC 5
100BC 7
400 10
900 15
1400 20
1450 25
1500 35
1550 50
1600 100
1650 200
1700 310
1750 791
1800 978
1850 1,262
1900 1,650
1950 2,519
1955 2,756
1960 2,982
1965 3,335
1970 3,692
1975 4,068
1980 4,435
1985 4,831
1990 5,263
1995 5,674
2000 6,070
2005 6,454 (2005 , 4 years ago. And had about 6.454 billion people.

My fix is better.

And as you can see , it matches with the rate.
I didn't put 3,000 BC or 70,000 BC as a goal , or I didn't fake the numbers.

I went a long the path like I was supposed to , and I came up with the date 2,100 BC , which is near the date that Noah landed the ark , at the supposed time that the population started.

You can even check the numbers.


It's completely 100% correct.

Less than 1,000,000 people 4,100 years ago .

The population boom happened around the year 1900 on the Creation calendar.
The flood happened around 1656 After creation.

It's amazing how close those 2 dates are , considering it's just an estimate.