No, I'm simply pointing the obvious fact that the Earth and universe does not agree with a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account.
It is ancient literature and can be interpreted in different ways. Either way it answers both the creation of the universe and life here through an extrinsic living source. It remains the best explanation given the alternatives. The effect is evidence of the Cause.
I'm well familiar with the Anthropic principle and I consider it a weaksauce argument for a deity or supernatural creationism.
Even weaker is yours.
For seconders, while there are parts of the universe that appear to be able to support life (i.e. Earth), the vast majority of it does not. In fact, the universe seems pretty darned set up to wipe out life on this planet if it gets half the chance. The fact that we are here seems in spite of the way things are set up, not because of it.
If it supports all life here then it was unique in the universe in a multiple of ways then it was engineered for life in the first place. You are not following the evidence. In your case evidence is not your friend and neither is science investigative method.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
Google it. It is not exact.
So is a miss is as good as a mile, and yet you have no idea?
if the Earth is only ~6000 years old, why are there no dating methods that point to a 6000 year old Earth? Why instead does everything appear to point to a multi-billion year old Earth?
Old earth assumptions and calibration for starters. Cherry picked responses for another. At the end of the day the start of the universe is a mystery since we were not around to observe.
Heck, even the ICR acknowledges that there is at least hundreds of millions of years worth of radiation to account for in Earth's history (per their RATE project). But rather than admit the obvious reason,. they are now stuck trying to figure out how to shoehorn hundreds of millions of years of radiation into a mere 6000 or so.
They are stuck with a single explanation while yours is subject to a never ending amount of revisions.
Holy cow, are you really bringing up possibly the so-called "population argument"
Holy cow, Darwin used change in his present to extrapolate to change in the deep past.
to try to argue for a young Earth. I'm sorry, but I consider that to be one of the single dumbest arguments creationists have come up with.
I was not asking for your opinion.
At no point does extrapolating a population backwards give you the age of a planet,
Why not? Even Darwin extrapolated backward with change so why can't we use overall population of two groups from the last 400 years of population data? One set of rules for your home team and another for the visitors? Another stacked deck? The argument simply assumes humans have not been here for 200 K years based on the empirical data in population growth. That means a major chunk of your assumptions is lacking when it comes to the history of humans here. Seems you can't even understand the implications of the argument.
especially given that the carrying capacity for human populations has varied significantly throughout our history.
Nobody is saying the populations did not vary. It is saying there is an overall population growth, births over deaths. Big difference. Your model is 10 K seed population which assumes both sexes evolved step by step equally via blind chance. All the organs in the human anatomy for both sexes. All unguided and blind chance. Your model explains a chromosome difference between humans and chimps because of a fusion event that supposedly took place after humans separated. Why are there not two populations of humans with different sets of chromosomes when they all have the same set? Assuming early humans had the same set as apes? You are not following the evidence but manipulating the evidence into your fixed scenario. Also cherry picking.
Most notably, we've been able to significantly increase our populations due to advances in technology and especially food gathering. In a nutshell, population growth has not been constant throughout our history, and it's ridiculous to think otherwise.
Medicine has no factor in growth in the west where advanced medicine is practiced, and the overall growth is at minimal. Medicine also includes abortion which is a population inhibitor. Also, the largest percentage of population growth is in regressive cultures where disease is rampant in places like Africa. All that is contrary evidence against your assumptions which is ignored. Your mistake is not looking at the totality of the data, but once again, cherry picking.
I suspect the population argument started in reaction to claims that the Earth's population is too large to have been created by only 8 individuals about ~4500 years ago. I have no idea how it morphed into an argument in favor of a young Earth and Noah's flood. It boggles the mind.
The argument is current population trends far better support the Noah model of 3 breeding human couples 4500 years ago then it does your alternative, and they have two control groups. Jews and non-Jews. The overall population stats are nearly identical. Your alternative had a 10 K seed population 200 K years ago. There is no way to extrapolate current overall growth back to 200 K years. There would be enough dead bodies to stack to Mars and back. It is empirical evidence humans have not been around for 200 K years. Current growth stats better support people around for a far shorter period, and the beauty of the argument is it is easily understood by a general audience. Which is what you don't want.
Your right, science has nothing to do with my 'faith' (or lack thereof). But I don't think you'd understand why.
There is no science basis for your beliefs for a common ancestor since it has to be based on empirical evidence. If you assume theoretical creatures, then it is by faith. And here is the kicker. It is all blind and step by step since any goal driven assumptions is dismissed from the get go. If the Earth is unique and life friendly it is by chance; it cannot be engineered because that brings on intelligent causation as a real and best option. At the end of the day, you do not believe your own eyes. How gullible do you think everybody is?
Look here.
World Population by Year - Worldometers
The population doubles from 1850 (1.2 Bil) to 1950 (2.5 Bil) in spite of the Civil War, all the incurable disease, both the world wars of the 20th century. The holocaust and the great flu epidemic of the early 20th century.
