World Population

[sfs]

Its sometimes referred to as compound interest

Compound interest is something that banks give you. Continuously growing populations is something that doesn't happen in the real world, and no biologist expects it too. The problem isn't with evolution -- it's with your completely unrealistic model.

Evolution is accepted by scientists (of all religious persuasions) because it works. It explains and predicts a wide range of data. Until another model can do as well, scientists will go on using it.

 

[Job 33:6]

"If evolution were to be true and life has been thriving on this earth for millions and millions of years, then we should be finding fossils piled up to the moon"

Beyond 500 million years, most rocks are metamorphosed and have undergone subduction (hundreds of degrees in temperature at tens of kilopascals in pressure). So it isnt plausible to suggest that we should have fossils piled up to the moon dating back a billion years, as most rocks and bones cannot withstand such an environment while maintaining their original structure.

It should also be noted that no dinosaurs are found, superpositionally above mesozoic strata (which we consider to end at 65 million years ago). The upper layer being of iridium (which is found all over the planet in this one layer), which is common in asteroids.

Unless you count birds as being derived dinosaurs.

 

[NobleMouse]

Its sometimes referred to as compound interest, and its been demonstrated many times that the population we have today correlates with the Biblical Flood history. The problem with evolution theory is that the timescale for all this involves 4.5 billion years in which we only need to argue against a billion years of life to prove that the fossil record falls short to account for that many years of life. Evolutionists argue that dinos became extinct 65-million years ago and they claim to find fossils going that far back but do not have a sufficient amount of fossils to account for such a long time. Same goes with human fossils. If evolution were to be true and life has been thriving on this earth for millions and millions of years, then we should be finding fossils piled up to the moon!

I don't think evolutionists quite understand how long a million years actually is.

I would agree and would say it remains speculative to invent reasons why there wouldn't be more fossils. As you have pointed out before in other threads, the majority of fossils are found in sedimentary rock layers... and this would be characteristic of a flood, and is evidenced all over the world.

Regardless of whether one takes a Biblical or secular worldview, both would generally agree that earth's past was more violent (as it relates to events causing the extinction of life). Herein lies the problem with time. There are many documented events of local and even broader reaching regional floods, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc... today - all quite likely culprits that would result in the death and rapid burial of living creatures - making good candidates for fossilization. If one extrapolates these kinds of events to the past (for those here who are inclined towards uniformitarianistic reasoning) which easily occur more than once annually... at least somewhere in the world; occurring over many many millions of years then this should be producing exceedingly vast amounts of opportunities for fossilization (literally, millions), yet the volume of fossils that would be expected from all these events has not been found. Perhaps the response I'll get is that we just haven't found them and there's a big stockpile yet to be uncovered--how convenient... like the mysterious "Oort cloud" but of the paleontology world.

Also, while not directly related to the population topic. I believe the following video with Kirt Wise talks about many of the evidences from a paleontological perspective for a global flood, which provides a good model for explaining the populations seen today:

I can't remember if it's in this video or not, but Wise has indicated that the fossil record is representative of >80% of the life that exists today--not at all characteristic of the evolutionary view. If evolution and hundreds of millions of years are true, the fossil record should show high diversity with low disparity. But instead, there is high disparity with low diversity with the almost universal pattern in fossils being sudden appearance, stasis, then sudden disappearance... all which would be characteristic of a global and relatively sudden event - creating what generally appears like a sea-to-land transition: exactly like would be produced by a flood on the scale described in the Bible.

All of this, in addition to the population of people and other living creatures today, leans heavily in favor of the events and general time horizon represented within the Bible.

 

[sfs]

If one extrapolates these kinds of events to the past (for those here who are inclined towards uniformitarianistic reasoning) which easily occur more than once annually... at least somewhere in the world; occurring over many many millions of years then this should be producing exceedingly vast amounts of opportunities for fossilization (literally, millions), yet the volume of fossils that would be expected from all these events has not been found.

Could you show your calculations, please?

 

[Job 33:6]

" at least somewhere in the world; occurring over many many millions of years then this should be producing exceedingly vast amounts of opportunities for fossilization (literally, millions)"

In reality, there actually are an uncountable number of fossils that have been found. Probably in the trillions, with millions recorded in publication.

However, these trillions are 99% marine (snail shells, clams, squid shells etc.). Simply because it is in the ocean where deposition occurs (and relatively rapid burial).

In contrast, T rex specimen, while popular, has only been discovered few enough times to be counted on ones fingers and toes. Because realistically, its not actually common for local flood waters to just bury an animal instantly beyond the point in which they were be exposed to predation and bacterial decomposition.

It should be noted that there are pockets where terrestrial fossils are found though, such as in areas of prehistoric swamps. Temporally along the K-T Iridium boundary, or along subsurface prehistoric streambeds, such as those depicted below.

Which is to be expected if uniformitarian views were correct. We should expect to see far more marine fossils given their depositional environment. If terrestrial fossils are found, it is no surprise that many would be in places of exceptionally rapid burial, such as in prehistoric peat bogs and swamps.

It also should not be of surprise to us, that dinosaur fossils do not appear after the K-T mesozoic to cenozoic boundary, as the K-T boundary consisting of iridium and being superpositionally aligned with the yucatan crater impact, suggests extinction by a massive asteroid.

Chicxulub crater - Wikipedia

If strata were all deposited by a global flood, then dinosaurs ought to be found in the cenozoic and in the paleozoic. But of the thousands of dinosaur fossils found, they are not ever found in the cenozoic or paleozoic (or even pre-cambrian), aside from maybe 1 or 2 pseudoscience hoax website examples with peoples hand prints inside the dinosaur footprints lol.

Does any young earther have an explanation for why there are no dinosaurs in the cenozoic or paleozoic? no of course not. At best, we are given a response of "well they couldnt run as fast as the cenozoic giant sloth, so they died in the flood before giant sloths did". And the famous "oh those scientists are just hiding fossils in their basements so they dont get fired from their jobs". Haha.

Then of course there is the hilarious discussion about seeded plants outrunning non-vascular plants.


There really is no question that uniformitarian views have greater explanatory power over young earth views, with respect to the fossil succession (by a long shot).

 

[The Barbarian]

I can't remember if it's in this video or not, but Wise has indicated that the fossil record is representative of >80% of the life that exists today

If in our era, 20% of living things are new, that's a pretty large sum, which would mean evolution was pretty busy. However, the fact is that very, very few species alive today are found in the fossil record. People often point to coelocanths, but the truth is, the two species seen today are not found in the fossil record.

If evolution and hundreds of millions of years are true, the fossil record should show high diversity with low disparity.

See above. If very few modern species are found in the fossil record, that requires evolutionary change.

But instead, there is high disparity with low diversity with the almost universal pattern in fossils being sudden appearance, stasis, then sudden disappearance...

If creationism were true, there wouldn't be any such cases, but there are quite a number where we do see gradual evolution over a long time. Would you like to learn about those?

 

[NobleMouse]

Could you show your calculations, please?

I did not calculate it (no fancy model from me I'm afraid), I just Googled it. Any site will do, but here's a few:
Natural Disasters
U.S. had more floods in 2016 than any year on record
Floods in the U.S. - number of fatalities 1995-2017 | Timeline

All I assumed was, on average, one somewhere in the world per year for the supposed hundreds of millions/billions of years that have passed. One... just somewhere on the entire globe... is conservative. In fact if there was, on average, only 1 flood every 4,540 years, that's still 1,000,000 floods given the conventional age assigned to the earth.

 

[sfs]

I did not calculate it (no fancy model from me I'm afraid), I just Googled it. Any site will do, but here's a few:
Natural Disasters
U.S. had more floods in 2016 than any year on record
Floods in the U.S. - number of fatalities 1995-2017 | Timeline

All I assumed was, on average, one somewhere in the world per year for the supposed hundreds of millions/billions of years that have passed. One... just somewhere on the entire globe... is conservative. In fact if there was, on average, only 1 flood every 4,540 years, that's still 1,000,000 floods given the conventional age assigned to the earth.

I mean, show your calculation for the number of fossils that we should see, taking into account the volume of sedimentary rock in the world, the distribution of ages of that rock, the rate of fossil formation (which obviously depends on what fraction of burials are ultimately preserved), and the fraction of rock that has been exposed. My guess is that you haven't any idea about any of these numbers.

Look, there are researchers who spend their entire lives studying fossil formation and preservation, as well as those who study the fossil record itself, and a vast literature on both. Do you really think that they wouldn't have noticed if their entire fields of study were so obviously impossible that some guy on the web could spot the problem without knowing anything about the subject? I guess you do.

 

[Job 33:6]

I just wanted to add one more thing in. While we may have trillions of discovered fossils, 99% of which being aquatic shellfish, and millions of terrestrial fossils; we cant dig up fossils in 99% of earths strata, as it is underground. For example, we might find fossils in the orange layer in the cross section below (Dggfm), but the orange layer might only be exposed at the surface over a relatively short distance. And so while we have millions of terrestrial fossils, we really have only extracted them from a fraction of a single percent of the overall total amount of fossil bearing strata.

Often paleontologists (or geologists like myself) are hired to work on oil and natural gas rigs to use index fossils in determining the locality of subsurface resources. In these scenarios, fossils can be brought to the surface during drilling operations. Otherwise, 99% of the remaining fossils are left underground.

This^ also being an example of a practical value in recognizing and understanding the reality of the fossil succession (I used to find fossils all the time in my drilling days). It helps us find resources that fuel our country.

To conclude, if someone makes up an argument of "well we should have discovered countless more fossils if the earth is billions of years old", their argument hinges on the assumptions that what we have found is all that is underground. Which of course is just silly.

Or such an argument may just hinge on the idea that perhaps all rocks should be fossil bearing, which of course is equally as silly when you have rocks that consist of cooled magma and rocks that have been digested and metamorphosed at hundreds of degrees in temperature (obviously neither of these options ought to be fossil bearing).

If we consider that we have discovered millions of terrestrial fossils, but have only examined perhaps a fraction of a single percent of strata, then if we extrapolate the amount of terrestrial fossils that are likely deeper underground, we end up with a number of terrestrial fossils that would probably end up with an incredibly mind boggling number. But until the next highway is installed, we wont be able to pick those fossils out from the earth.

Which is why everyone scrambles with rock hammers, every time the department of transportation mentions a new highway expansion project.

 

[RC Tent]

Do you really think that they wouldn't have noticed if their entire fields of study were so obviously impossible that some guy on the web could spot the problem without knowing anything about the subject? I guess you do.

I think it is entirely possible for an entire field of experts to be wrong, their thinking is limited to current evidence (which can and does change) and consensus based paradigms ( established by fallible minds).

 

[sfs]

I think it is entirely possible for an entire field of experts to be wrong, their thinking is limited to current evidence (which can and does change) and consensus based paradigms ( established by fallible minds).

Sure, it's possible for an entire field of experts to be wrong, but there are precious few instances where that has happened, especially in a well-established field of scientific study. Which instances do you have in mind? On the other hand, self-appointed skeptics who don't know squat about a field are wrong all the time.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think it is entirely possible for an entire field of experts to be wrong, their thinking is limited to current evidence (which can and does change) and consensus based paradigms ( established by fallible minds).

Evidence doesn't really change. It simply gets expanded upon.

Old earth geology was originally proposed, scientifically, in the 1700s. Since then and for the past 300 years, we have done nothing but discover more and more evidence affirming its accuracy.

Its not like someone a few weeks ago just came up with a new idea that overturned young earth beliefs. We've known young earth views to be incorrect for generations. Evidence has not overturned our ideas since evidence was initially discovered. Hence why the scientific body stands behind uniformitarianism, in the face of criticism from laymen who just happen to always be evangelicals (as if such a young earth conclusion could not be arrived at by those not bias by interpretations of scripture).

 

[RC Tent]

Evidence doesn't really change. It simply gets expanded upon.

Sorry, I don't mean that the evidence that has already been found changes. I mean that new evidence does change the conclusions. You do not have 99% of the fossils actually out of the rocks, there is more to discover.

Its not like someone a few weeks ago just came up with a new idea that overturned young earth beliefs. We've known young earth views to be incorrect for generations. Evidence has not overturned our ideas since evidence was initially discovered.

New scientific discoveries that change the conclusions overthrow all previous conclusions however long they have stood. I agree that the best you have at any point in time is the best you have, and that it is not scientific to draw conclusions that defy the evidence, but no hard science (that is in my eyes real science) has so much evidence that a revolutionary discovery cannot be found. Major leaps forward in science are quite rare, they come between long gaps.

 

[RC Tent]

Sure, it's possible for an entire field of experts to be wrong, but there are precious few instances where that has happened, especially in a well-established field of scientific study. Which instances do you have in mind? On the other hand, self-appointed skeptics who don't know squat about a field are wrong all the time.

Yes, those precious few instances do exist. My point is about what is possible, not what is widely believed to be probable.

Are these "self appointed sceptics" of whom you speak people who argue their point based on their interpretation of the Bible? It is just that if that is their basis then they are admitting to a theological, rather than exclusively science based, sense of reality aren't they?

 

[Job 33:6]

Sorry, I don't mean that the evidence that has already been found changes. I mean that new evidence does change the conclusions. You do not have 99% of the fossils actually out of the rocks, there is more to discover.

New scientific discoveries that change the conclusions overthrow all previous conclusions however long they have stood. I agree that the best you have at any point in time is the best you have, and that it is not scientific to draw conclusions that defy the evidence, but no hard science (that is in my eyes real science) has so much evidence that a revolutionary discovery cannot be found. Major leaps forward in science are quite rare, they come between long gaps.

I think that we are at a point where, we are beyond a question of something being overthrown such as, the earth being old. It has been over 300 years, and it just is what it is.

What would there be that could be overturned?

One of the major pillars of uniformitarian logic and understanding, is that old layers rest below younger layers, except for in cases in which rock is overturned. How could such a simple concept be overturned? It is as simple as the idea that the floor beneath my feet came before me. Surely I did not arrive on the floor before the floor existed, else I would have nothing to stand upon.

There is cross cutting relations, in which magmatic dykes cross cut rocks and are considered to be younger than the rocks which they cross cut.

How could it be, that magma could cross cut rock which did not pre-exist?

I do appreciate the idea of advancing science and discovery. But some things are grounded in such simple philosophic truths, such is old earth geology. And until these fundamental concepts are overturned, science will not change its stance on the age of the earth. This is why the stance has remained after so many generations.

This is why huttons angular unconformity is popular. But the logic doesnt stop at his unconformity. The philosophy behind his unconformity views, holds true for far more complex structures that imply far greater deep time than hutton could ever have imagined.

 

[sfs]

Yes, those precious few instances do exist. My point is about what is possible, not what is widely believed to be probable.

You didn't answer my question, and you haven't established that they do exist. Which instances do you have in mind? I actually can't think of any scientific theory that has been well-supported by evidence over a long period, and then turned out to be wholly wrong.

Are these "self appointed sceptics" of whom you speak people who argue their point based on their interpretation of the Bible?

Very often they appeal both to their interpretation of the Bible and their own, almost uniformly poor, grasp of the scientific evidence.

It is just that if that is their basis then they are admitting to a theological, rather than exclusively science based, sense of reality aren't they?

Nah, they're perfectly willing to make poorly grounded scientific arguments as well.

 

[NobleMouse]

I mean, show your calculation for the number of fossils that we should see, taking into account the volume of sedimentary rock in the world, the distribution of ages of that rock, the rate of fossil formation (which obviously depends on what fraction of burials are ultimately preserved), and the fraction of rock that has been exposed. My guess is that you haven't any idea about any of these numbers.

Look, there are researchers who spend their entire lives studying fossil formation and preservation, as well as those who study the fossil record itself, and a vast literature on both. Do you really think that they wouldn't have noticed if their entire fields of study were so obviously impossible that some guy on the web could spot the problem without knowing anything about the subject? I guess you do.

Ah okay, I understand your question. The statement that there should be vastly more is not mine, I am relaying what was conveyed in the video I linked from Kurt Wise, you'll have to take your issue up with him. My guess, is that while your guess is that I haven't any idea about any of these numbers, that you guess is Kurt wise does not either?

I'm glad you've cited that there are researchers who spend their entire lives (which is a wave in the ocean, a vapor in the wind) studying fossil formation and preservation (as Kurt Wise would be among this list). I believe what the Bible say because I believe the Bible is from God and is true. I am simply playing by your rules that since the God who made everything and gave the account of creation and the flood in His word aren't good enough for you, then maybe you'd believe those who do so on the basis of their interpretation of the evidence.

It would seem then, you don't believe on that basis either. So here we are having (and probably ending) a conversation where I ask what Bible passage could I show you to help you believe when you do not accept this source as the ultimate authority, and what interpretation of evidence could I show you where there is no interpretation you accept, except that which you have already decided is true? You and I are in the same boat, neither of us can see the past, so each of us has to construct the past on some basis and the only difference in our view is where (and in whom) we place our trust for reconstructing the past. Now if you tell me, "Oh, but I do accept the Bible as the ultimate source of authority", then I'll ask you to provide the passages supporting billions of years of death/decay/disease before sin, how the birds of the air on day 5 evolved from the beasts on the field on day 6, and the local flood.

 

[Job 33:6]

I dont think Kurt wise actually has any published research supporting his young earth views. So i dont think he could be rightfully perceived as a credible scientist (at least with respect to his young earth ideas).

Now I will patiently wait for the response involving a scientific conspiracy against young earthers (lightly laughs while simultaneously is serious).

 

[RC Tent]

I dont think Kurt wise actually has any published research supporting his young earth views. So i dont think he could be rightfully perceived as a credible scientist (at least with respect to his young earth ideas).

Now I will patiently wait for the response involving a scientific conspiracy against young earthers (lightly laughs while simultaneously is serious).

I don't think it is a conspiracy against anyone, but can you name anyone who "with respect to their young earth ideas" is regarded as a "credible scientist"? Scientific consensus is opposed to it, not a conspiracy, just a vast majority of opinion.

 

[sfs]

The statement that there should be vastly more is not mine, I am relaying what was conveyed in the video I linked from Kurt Wise, you'll have to take your issue up with him. My guess, is that while your guess is that I haven't any idea about any of these numbers, that you guess is Kurt wise does not either?

I'm quite skeptical that he does. He's never published the kind of calculation I'm talking about has he? (And no, he hasn't spent his life in this field -- he was educated in it, but hasn't been an active researcher since then.)