Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Modern Science demonstrates that anatomically modern humans appeared in Ethiopia 200,000 years ago and migrated to every continent by 60,000 to 30,000 years ago.
What difference would it make? We know that Adam and were real Historical people that lived in the Garden of Eden around 6,000 years ago. There are many - many things that they were first at. What difference would it make if a cave man or ape man lived 200,000 years ago. That would have no impact on the Historical Adam and Eve that lived in the Tigris - Euphrates river valley around 6,000 years ago.I don’t believe humans existed 200,000 years ago, therefore I don’t think Adam was 200,000 years ago.
Why I don’t believe? There is no good and reasonable evidence for it.
This even proves my point more. You came up with much more, not accounting for causes of death, average lifespans, etc., but we are talking about 60 generations or so. A lifespan was about 70 years during King David's rule which was about 3,000 years ago, will use that as an average. Keep in mine some families are having 20 kids, some 10 kids, some are having 2, some not and then some families, towns or entire kingdoms are being wiped out by plagues or wars, etc. It's not easy to get exact populations in early times, but main point is man has been on this planet for a very short time.
Population estimates for 1AD are anywhere from 170 - 400 million. We now more accurately for sure in 1800 there were about 1 billion.
So going 2300 BC, is how long it took to multiply 170-400 million - 33 some generations.
If you double your family in every generation for 5 generations then just sustain them for the next 5 and repeat that for 60 generations, you'll come up with 7+ billion in 4300 years give or take. It averages out to 3 kids per family and allows for various causes of death.
If the rate of decay is cumulative, then it is possible that the elements that we measure time with have also decayed, and that time flow today is not the same as timeflow 200,000 years ago. Therefore inconclusive.
The numbers are fairly accurate back to 1800 and with further research an estimate of 170 - 400 million in 1 AD. A couple can multiply and have 50 - 100 great grand- children or they could have 2. I just gave examples and 3 children per family times 60 generations will produce 7+ billion on 4300 years - You just don't like it, rational as it is, you would side with evolution, which is entirely made up.The point is, you're just sort of arbitrarily making up numbers to fit your pre-conceived idea. This is evident in how easily you gave up on the statements of your initial post.
The numbers are fairly accurate back to 1800 and with further research an estimate of 170 - 400 million in 1 AD. A couple can multiply and have 50 - 100 great grand- children or they could have 2. I just gave examples and 3 children per family times 60 generations will produce 7+ billion on 4300 years - You just don't like it, rational as it is, you would side with evolution, which is entirely made up.
3 kids per family times 60 generations.They could have 100 great grandchildren or they could have two.
Thank you for clarifying on your position, it all adds up now...
very true.....you cant measure accurately anything on this our planet earth with an instrument or chemicals derived from this same earth because they have to age together......just trust your creator and don't listen to this evolution crap from scientist....If the rate of decay is cumulative, then it is possible that the elements that we measure time with have also decayed, and that time flow today is not the same as timeflow 200,000 years ago. Therefore inconclusive.
Scientific theories have also been believed, and defended, only to be LATER modified or rejected; i.e., the Flat Earth theory that ruled for several generations prior to being disproved, not just altered or rejected.
Modern Science is not the best judge of Modern Science.
RESULTS will always outrank theories. Remember the "Flat Earth" fiasco? "The Earth is flat" was the "Scientific Theory" of its day. AND it was protected by the church because most of the Elite Teachers were either priests or members of a clergy, and the clergy were doing most of the teaching at that time.
Galileo (17th century) was one who denied the "FLAT EARTH" scientific fact, and was tried by inquisition, placed under house arrest for life, and his books were withdrawn from public access.
Galileo was not tried for teaching that the earth was not flat. The spherical earth had been accepted for a great many centuries before him. What he denied was the cosmology of Ptolemy which envisioned a spherical earth at the centre of the universe with everything else in orbit around it.
That is included in the figuring. My wife had 9 siblings. Within only two generations, 35 grandchildren. Population growth has slowed in the last 50 years especially with abortion and this fear of over population in countries like China, limiting 1 child per family. But before that it was common to have 6 - 8 kids per family. Jacob had 12 sons and I'm sure at least that many daughters. One couple would multiply into 80 great-grandchildren in 100 years. 40 x 40 x 40 x 40 = 2.5 million. Of course half of those people die due to numerous causes and if not the population today would be 10 times or more. It really doesn't take long to exponentially grow the population to the totals we see today, even with death knocking it down.
Oh, so it must have been starvation, population control (like the liberals want today), and climate change that would account for a couple hundred thousand years of not multiplying. Hogwash!No, you are using personal examples to extrapolate human population growth patterns through linear math.
Early humans lived in hunter gather societies. Their populations were limited by what food was available by nature within their territorial range. When you had too many people, they starved to death or died trying to claim new terrority to collect food.
People then learned how to farm. Their populations were limited by climate. They went to war, starved to death, and/or died of disease trying to find new land to farm.
Only in recent centuries have we made advances in science that prevent disease and produce greater yield. We have, fortunately, also found ways of controlling birth rates. Animal populations are controlled by what is available to them. They don't reproduce exponentially.
No, there's just science. "Operational science" is an idea made up by creationists to avoid dealing with science they don't like. All science involves testing hypotheses with empirical data. Sometimes that's done via experiment, sometimes not. Either way, it's still science.Let's be clear.
There is Operational Science and Historical Science.
Oh, so it must have been starvation, population control (like the liberals want today), and climate change that would account for a couple hundred thousand years of not multiplying. Hogwash!
3 kids per family for 60 generations accounts for all the tragedies, famines, diseases, hardships, hurricanes,,tornados, asteroids, catastrophic events, wars.
Families were large, this accounts for half or more of the population dying by all these causes.
When you distort the Genesis account to fit evolutionary theories, then the rest of the Bible is at risk of suffering the same misintepretations.
New model (no luck needed, thanks to God):No, there's just science. "Operational science" is an idea made up by creationists to avoid dealing with science they don't like. All science involves testing hypotheses with empirical data. Sometimes that's done via experiment, sometimes not. Either way, it's still science.
Evolution is very much science because it explains and predicts empirical data. If you want to overthrow it, you have to come up with a model that explains the data at least as well. Good luck with that.
When you have a model that predicts genetic data, let me know. Those fallible scientists can predict what they'll see when they look at new genomes. You, with your infallible Bible, can't. Why is that? Have you ever considered the possibility that your idea of how the Bible acts as God's word could be mistaken?New model (no luck needed, thanks to God):
The way the Bible is written, being affirmed by OT and NT authors and affirmed by Jesus himself does not make a good argument in the favor of evolution and an Adam from 200,000 years ago. No, God made it pretty clear how and when He created all things. His word is true and can be trusted - believing is seeing, not the other way around. All his life up until Jesus called him Simon Peter was a fisherman, spending his days in a boat out at sea. The laws of nature told him a boat was needed if he was to remain out on the water all day and be successful in that trade. Yet when he was with the other disciples and a storm came up, he saw Jesus and called out to him, "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water." Jesus said, "Come." Now before Simon Peter became afraid and started losing his faith, what was he doing? He was standing on the water with Jesus wasn't he? Which word was holding Peter up on the surface of the water, was it the word of God or the word of nature? Which word was true, the word of God or the word of nature. The word of God was, is, and will forever stand when all else falls away. Don't go looking for naturalistic answers to that which was clearly created supernaturally. When Jesus speaks it happens, and all things were made through Him (John 1:1-3). How long did each of the miracles performed by Jesus take to become manifest? At the moment they were spoken, right? Certainly not billions of years - doesn't seem to be consistent with the nature of God's supernatural spoken word.When you have a model that predicts genetic data, let me know. Those fallible scientists can predict what they'll see when they look at new genomes. You, with your infallible Bible, can't. Why is that? Have you ever considered the possibility that your idea of how the Bible acts as God's word could be mistaken?
Mostly people starved because we could not produce enough food to feed them. Then when we could produce the food we had a distribution problem. By the time we got the food to them it was rotted. Now we can produce the food and process it so that it lasts longer. The problem in the cities is they have to many people. A few missiles would straighten that out but then we would end up with a zombie apocalypse with a world full of walking dead. At least if we look at Hollywood's version of the future.Oh, so it must have been starvation, population control (like the liberals want today), and climate change that would account for a couple hundred thousand years of not multiplying. Hogwash!
3 kids per family for 60 generations accounts for all the tragedies, famines, diseases, hardships, hurricanes,,tornados, asteroids, catastrophic events, wars.
Families were large, this accounts for half or more of the population dying by all these causes.
When you distort the Genesis account to fit evolutionary theories, then the rest of the Bible is at risk of suffering the same misinterpretations.
No.Was Adam 200,000 years ago?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?