Young Earth Hypothesis

[GodActsOnMe]

They could have.
No. But I suppose they are some.
This assumes your dating methods are accurate. Many scientists don't share that assumption. Nor do I. Especially when young tree fossils are found buried upright in different layers of rocks.

The majority of scientists believe the dating methods are accurate, which is why it is considered scientific fact. There isn't a scientific dictator who decides what is fact and what isn't. The majority agrees on it, and it becomes fact, theory, or law.

 

[HeWhoHasTheSon]

Ok Well I don't had much time to write this on my own But i give thanks to Creationtoday.com for this. Second This is my facts for a young earth. So for OEC and Evolutionist Show me your proof for a so Called "Old Earth Or Billions of Years Old"

Evidence for a Young Earth​

The Oldest Tree
A bristle cone pine is approximately 4,300 years old—dated via tree rings. The method may not be perfect, but it is the best we have for dating trees.
The Oldest Reef

The Great Barrier Reef is less than 4,200 years old—dated via measuring the growth rate for 20 years.

Even though both are less than 5,000 years old, they are the two oldest living organisms on earth. Their ages easily fit the creationist point of view, but leave loose ends for the evolutionist. Why aren’t there older trees or more ancient reefs? With the evolutionist time line, surely something is closer in age to their “millions of years.”

Evolution doesn’t fit the facts, does it?

Earth’s Slowing Rotation

Prevailing winds are caused by two phenomena. The sun’s heat causes north-south or south-north winds, depending on latitude. The rotation of the earth causes the winds to shift east or west—clockwise north of the equator and counterclockwise to the south. This Coriolis effect is proportional to the speed of the earth’s rotation: the greater the rotational speed, the greater the Coriolis effect. Due to these prevailing winds, the Sahara Desert is in the process of desertification, expanding approximately four miles per year. Calculations based upon the rate of the Sahara’s expansion show the desert to be 4,000 years old. This young age of the Sahara Desert fits quite well in the creationist time line, beginning its desertification process soon after the global Flood.
The current slowing rate of the earth’s rotation, and its relationship with the Coriolis effect, allows for a variety of climates around the world without creating a menacing environment. Following the evolutionist time line over a period of millions of years, the Sahara Desert should have already expanded to its maximum size. However, since the earth’s rotational speed is decreasing measurably, the Coriolis effect would have been far greater millions of years ago, exacerbating the evolutionists’ difficulty explaining the Sahara Desert’s young age.

Population
In 1810, about one billion people lived on earth. In less than 200 years, the population hit six billion. This fits the biblical chronology perfectly as the current population started about 4,400 years ago with Noah and his family after the Flood. An evolutionary time line would require not only a nearly non-existent growth rate but also three trillion deceased humans within the last million years.

Declining Magnetic Field
Studies over the past 140 years show a consistent decay rate in the earth’s magnetic field. At this rate, in as few as 25,000 years ago, the earth would have been unable to support life because of the heat from the electric current.

Fast-Eroding Niagara Falls
After Charles Lyell published his Principles of Geology in the 1830s, society began accepting the theory that the earth and mankind evolved from a previous lesser state. Lyell used Niagara Falls as one of his illustrations to promote uniformitarianism. He estimated that Niagara Falls was 10,000 years old. He did this to try to discredit the Bible. Skeptics like Lyell leave out one important factor in their calculations—a worldwide Flood, approximately 4,400 years ago.

Factoring a worldwide Flood into the equation, scientists arrive at a higher initial erosion rate for the 71⁄2 mile Niagara Gorge. Since an increase in the quantity of water is directly related to the rate of erosion, the great volume of water receding after the Flood could easily account for half of the erosion of Niagara Falls. Using the evolutionist time frame, Niagara Falls should have already eroded back into Lake Erie. The reason why Niagara Falls has not eroded farther over the “millions of years” of the earth’s existence continues to elude evolutionists. Science always seems to correspond with the creation time line while evolutionists struggle to make their assumptions and theories plausible.

Salt in the Oceans

The water in the oceans contains 3.6% dissolved minerals, giving the ocean its salinity. Salt, composed of the elements sodium and chlorine, is the primary mineral. For years, scientists have been measuring the amount of sodium in the oceans and have found that an estimated 457 million tons are deposited into the oceans annually, while only 122 million tons leave the ocean via numerous methods.

Given the current amount of salt in the oceans, the data strongly favors a recent creation and global Flood. If applied to the evolutionist’s time frame of millions of years, the oceans would be saturated by salt. Even using liberal estimates of salinity levels,the maximum possible age is 62 million years.

 

[The Engineer]

Ok Well I don't had much time to write this on my own But i give thanks to Creationtoday.com for this. Second This is my facts for a young earth. So for OEC and Evolutionist Show me your proof for a so Called "Old Earth Or Billions of Years Old"

Radiocarbon dating. Meteorite craters. Sedimentary layers. Stars that are millions of light years away from us. Can't bother to elaborate, as I have explained a lot of these effects in detail already.

Evidence for a Young Earth​

The Oldest Tree
A bristle cone pine is approximately 4,300 years old—dated via tree rings. The method may not be perfect, but it is the best we have for dating trees.

By comparing the tree rings of living trees with those of dead trees, we can date back 11000 years.

The Oldest Reef

The Great Barrier Reef is less than 4,200 years old—dated via measuring the growth rate for 20 years.

In its current form, yes. Dead corrals have been dated 500000 years:
CRC Reef Research Centre

Even though both are less than 5,000 years old, they are the two oldest living organisms on earth. Their ages easily fit the creationist point of view, but leave loose ends for the evolutionist. Why aren’t there older trees or more ancient reefs? With the evolutionist time line, surely something is closer in age to their “millions of years.”

So because the oldest living being is 5000 years old, earth must be 5000 years old, too! Great reasoning!

Evolution doesn’t fit the facts, does it?

It does fit the facts.

Earth’s Slowing Rotation

Prevailing winds are caused by two phenomena. The sun’s heat causes north-south or south-north winds, depending on latitude. The rotation of the earth causes the winds to shift east or west—clockwise north of the equator and counterclockwise to the south. This Coriolis effect is proportional to the speed of the earth’s rotation: the greater the rotational speed, the greater the Coriolis effect. Due to these prevailing winds, the Sahara Desert is in the process of desertification, expanding approximately four miles per year. Calculations based upon the rate of the Sahara’s expansion show the desert to be 4,000 years old. This young age of the Sahara Desert fits quite well in the creationist time line, beginning its desertification process soon after the global Flood.

So? What do you expect? That the Sahara is billions of years old?
The age is false. The first period of desertification in the Sahara's desertification occurred between 6700 and 5500 years ago, the second period occurred 4000 to 3600 years ago.

By the way, the desertification was not just caused by the winds, but also by changes in the earths orbit, among other things:
Sahara's Abrupt Desertification Started By Changes In Earth's Orbit, Accelerated By Atmospheric And Vegetation Feedbacks

The current slowing rate of the earth’s rotation, and its relationship with the Coriolis effect, allows for a variety of climates around the world without creating a menacing environment. Following the evolutionist time line over a period of millions of years, the Sahara Desert should have already expanded to its maximum size.

According to some scientists, the Sahara wouldn't have expanded to its maximum size by now, because its desertification wasn't initiated until around 6700 years ago.

And by some scientists, I mean the very scientists who you base your claims on.

Fail? I think so.

However, since the earth’s rotational speed is decreasing measurably, the Coriolis effect would have been far greater millions of years ago, exacerbating the evolutionists’ difficulty explaining the Sahara Desert’s young age.

A day on earth takes longer every year, yes - less than a second longer.
370 million years ago, an earth day took 22 hours, not 24 hours. At that time, the African continent didn't even exist.

By the way, concerning coral reefs and change of day time:
Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki

Work by John W. Wells of Cornell University, New York has shown that certain pieces of extremely old coral show evidence of a growth rate which reflects a time when a year had 400 days of 22 hours each.[28] Because the rate of change of the rotation of the earth is relatively predictable—about 0.005 seconds per year—one can calculate the last time a year had 400 days, which was about 370 million years ago (which is also about the same as radiometric dating of the coral).[29]

Population
In 1810, about one billion people lived on earth. In less than 200 years, the population hit six billion. This fits the biblical chronology perfectly as the current population started about 4,400 years ago with Noah and his family after the Flood. An evolutionary time line would require not only a nearly non-existent growth rate but also three trillion deceased humans within the last million years.

World Population Growth History Chart
The growth rate of the human population on earth wasn't always as high as it is now. Between 0 AD and 1000 AD, it merely doubled. The last time it doubled was around 40 years ago.

Declining Magnetic Field
Studies over the past 140 years show a consistent decay rate in the earth’s magnetic field. At this rate, in as few as 25,000 years ago, the earth would have been unable to support life because of the heat from the electric current.

Specific Arguments - Magnetic Field

11. Dr. Hovind is almost certainly talking about Barnes's magnetic field argument (1973) or some echo of it. Henry Morris, himself, once praised it as one of the best arguments for a young earth.
In 1971 Barnes took about 25 measurements of the earth's magnetic field strength (originally assembled by Keith McDonald and Robert Gunst (1967)) and fitted them to an exponential decay curve. He drew upon Sir Horace Lamb's 1883 paper as theoretical justification for this. Following the curve backwards in time, Barnes showed that 20,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been impossibly high. Thus, he concluded that the earth is much younger than 20,000 years.
There are several fatal errors in Thomas G. Barnes's work:
1. Barnes employs an obsolete model of the earth's interior. Today, no one doing serious work on the earth's magnetic field envisions its source as a free electrical current in a spherical conductor (the earth's core) undergoing simple decay. Elsasser's dynamo theory is the only theory today which has survived.

According to Barnes, "In 1883 Sir Horace Lamb proved theoretically that the earth's magnetic field could be due to an original event (creation) from which it has been decaying ever since" [1973, p.viii]. This is not a correct description of Lamb's 1883 paper, which dealt only with electric currents and did not mention geomagnetism at all...​

Fast-Eroding Niagara Falls
After Charles Lyell published his Principles of Geology in the 1830s, society began accepting the theory that the earth and mankind evolved from a previous lesser state. Lyell used Niagara Falls as one of his illustrations to promote uniformitarianism. He estimated that Niagara Falls was 10,000 years old. He did this to try to discredit the Bible. Skeptics like Lyell leave out one important factor in their calculations—a worldwide Flood, approximately 4,400 years ago.

If the Niagara falls were 4400 years old, how would this disprove an older earth?

Factoring a worldwide Flood into the equation, scientists arrive at a higher initial erosion rate for the 71⁄2 mile Niagara Gorge. Since an increase in the quantity of water is directly related to the rate of erosion, the great volume of water receding after the Flood could easily account for half of the erosion of Niagara Falls. Using the evolutionist time frame, Niagara Falls should have already eroded back into Lake Erie. The reason why Niagara Falls has not eroded farther over the “millions of years” of the earth’s existence continues to elude evolutionists. Science always seems to correspond with the creation time line while evolutionists struggle to make their assumptions and theories plausible.

The Niagara Falls didn't erode several million years ago because they are not that old:

Facts about Niagara Falls

The Niagara is a fairly young river, only 12,000 years old!, a microsecond in geological time. The Niagara Escarpment, which was created by erosion is much older. The glaciers pressed down on the land during the last ice age and laid down layers of sediment, then the slow process of erosion of ice and water ate at the surface of the escarpment

While we're at it:

If a giant flood happened, why didn't it knock over this rock formation?

Salt in the Oceans

The water in the oceans contains 3.6% dissolved minerals, giving the ocean its salinity. Salt, composed of the elements sodium and chlorine, is the primary mineral. For years, scientists have been measuring the amount of sodium in the oceans and have found that an estimated 457 million tons are deposited into the oceans annually, while only 122 million tons leave the ocean via numerous methods.

Given the current amount of salt in the oceans, the data strongly favors a recent creation and global Flood. If applied to the evolutionist’s time frame of millions of years, the oceans would be saturated by salt.

Specific Arguments - Salt
Ocean Chemical Processes - river, sea, oceans, important, salt, types, system, source, effect, marine, salinity, oxygen, human
The amount of salt in the ocean is stagnating, according to these two sources.
Considering both are a lot more credible than yours (your source doesn't even name the scientists, and it isn't half as elaborate as my second source), I think I'll accept mine.

Even using liberal estimates of salinity levels,the maximum possible age is 62 million years.

Funny thing is, this would disprove a young earth. An old earth, too, but also a young earth.

I think you're not interested in proving a young earth. You're more interested in showing how an old earth makes no sense.

And you fail at it.

 

[RickG]

Yeah, it’s the site’s fault that your dating methods do not always correlate.

Dating methods do correlate very well. Your site is full of misrepresentations.

[quoteI don’t have any confidence in this explanation at all, since many fossilized trees are found buried upright in many layers of sedimentary rock.Do young earth proponents look good at any time from your perspective? [/quote]

What does that have to do with my comment which was about a specific archeological location where the archeologist asked a geologist to date a layer of volcanic ash instead of the archeological site. Therefore, the actual archeological site was some 40 to 50 thousand years old while the volcanic ash, though in the same vicinity was not part of the site and dated several million years. Young earth proponents have taken that incident as evidence against radiometeic dating. The archeologist made a critical boo boo assuming the ash layer was part of the original site. Indeed the geologist knew it wasn't and provided correct dates.

You seem to have a problem with every creationist’s website simply because it’s a creationist’s website, as if there can be no truth on a creationist’s website.

That is because there are several irrefutable facts that is common with all creationist sites I have encountered.

• Most creationists making claims contrary to mainstream science have absolutely no scientific background.
• Of the few who are actually legitimate scientists, none have any expertise or publications the the fields of science the criticize. In other words, they are unqualified in the areas they criticize.
• All of those sites contain material that are deliberate misrepresentations. The Engineer, Orogeny, others, and I have been pointed out. Why would anyone want to associate with information that has been shown to be misrepresented. Wrong is wrong.
• Lastly, there are a number of Christian sites that have no problem with an old earth.

You guys are very good at covering up your flaws and mistakes, so it’s good to have other websites to report those flaws so we can examine them for ourselves and form our own conclusions, especially when it is obvious your peer review process is often biased.

The peer review process is no perfect, but can you name any process that produces better academic excellence and expertise that the peer review process. Of course not there is none. Furthermore, once a paper is published it is open to criticize to the greater scientific community, and there are plenty of hungry scientists out there looking for any opportunity to jump on flawed research. Where peer review has a problem is in the fringe journals that publish research outside their expertise. Seldom is there ever a published paper that is found to be flawed within a journals area(s) of expertise.

The trouble with creationist websites is that they are not pointing out flaws, they are deliberately misrepresenting so called flaws.

What’s absurd is the fact that many fossilized trees are found buried upright in many layers of sedimentary rock and you still want us to believe that the lower layers around those trees are millions of years older than the upper layers around those same trees.

In situ fossils occur under specific conditions which are generally rapid deposition caused by ash flows, floods or subsiding land, especially in swamps. What you have mentioned is just another overt misrepresentation. The formation of in situ or upright fossils is well understood. Suggesting that geologists think all sedimentation is a long process is a false premise.

By the way, I came across this website explaining your dating methods. It doesn’t appear to be a creationist’s website. It apparently was created by students majoring in biology, chemistry, and geology from Carleton College as part of their Methods of Teaching Science course instructed by Professor Debby Walser-Kuntz.

I looked at the site and found only one quibble I might have with it. They commented that radiocarbon dating is only for biological artifacts 50,000 years old and younger. From the most part that is true, but radiocarbon can date artifacts more than 60,000 years in some cases. They also suggest it is used on fossils of 50,000 years and younger. Technically that is incorrect. Fossils are organic material that has been completely replaced by minerals, therefore, no C14 present. Trivial, but nevertheless, a quivle.

They were some things mentioned that I found interesting:

*Carbon dating is used to determine the age of biological artifacts up to 50,000 years old. This technique is widely used on recent artifacts, but teachers should note that this technique will not work on older fossils…

There are a few categories of artifacts that cannot be dated using carbon-14. First, carbon-14 cannot be used to date biological artifacts of organisms that did not get their carbon dioxide from the air. This rules out carbon dating for most aquatic organisms, because they often obtain at least some of their carbon from dissolved carbonate rock. The age of the carbon in the rock is different from that of the carbon in the air and makes carbon dating data for those organisms inaccurate under the assumptions normally used for carbon dating. This restriction extends to animals that consume seafood in their diets, as well...

That is quite true. What you need to take from that is that fact that no one familiar with radiocarbon dating says it works on all organic material. That doesn't make radiocarbon invalid, it only states that scientists know the limitations of it.

Carbon dating cannot be used on most fossils

, not only because they are almost always too old, but also because they rarely contain the original carbon of the organism. Also, many fossils are contaminated with carbon from the environment during collection or preservation procedures…

Fossils are not dated directly with any radiometric method. They are dated by constituents in which they are found that lend themselves to dating methnods, both radiometric and non radiometric. Again, all dating methods have their limitations.

When scientists first began to compare carbon dating data to data from tree rings, they found carbon dating provided "too-young" estimates of artifact age. Scientists now realize that production of carbon-14 has not been constant over the last 10,000 years, but has changed as the radiation from the sun has changed. Carbon dates reported in the 1950s and 1960s should be questioned, because those studies were conducted before carbon dating was calibrated by comparison with other dating methods.

Quite correct, radiocarbon dating requires a calibration scale which is derived from non radiometric methods. BTW, when you see a radiocarbon date published "x" years old, that date has a baseline of 1950, not the date of the publication.

Nuclear tests, nuclear reactors and the use of nuclear weapons have also changed the composition of radioisotopes in the air

over the last few decades. This human nuclear activity will make precise dating of fossils from our lifetime very difficult due to contamination of the normal radioisotope composition of the earth with addition artificially produced radioactive atoms.

*

Thus the reason for the 1950 baseline.

Based on this explanation, I think my skepticism about your dating methods is justified.

That is exactly what I am talking about with creationists sites. They will take what is well know by scientists concerning limitations and represent them as evidence against the method. Nothing that site said discredits radiocarbon dating. It spells out what radiocarbon dating can do and cannot do. Your skepticism is unfounded.

Do you as a layman really think you know more than the experts? Do you really think other people who are laymen as well know more than the experts? Do you really think people with scientific backgrounds who are not experts in radiocarbon dating know more than the experts?

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

Sorry - small clean up was done.

ETA, additional cleaning done 8/12/12 removing a few more posts before this point.

 

[Jamin4422]

What makes you think we "know" that God exists?

I am still waiting for you to tell me how you know that you exist.

 

[Gracchus]

I am still waiting for you to tell me how you know that you exist.

My take on that is: I think, therefore, I am. I realize that you do not have that resource.

 

[Jamin4422]

Niagara Falls should have already eroded back into Lake Erie.

If Niagara Falls had eroded back to Lake Erie then Lake Erie would have drained out. It is a very shallow Lake. I think about that all the time. I have a friend that built a 36 foot tunnel there to divert water. They say it is no problem to control the water level in the lakes and they could drain Lake Erie if they wanted to.

There is lots and lots and lots of salt under the lakes. No one ever has to worry about running out of salt to put on the roads in the winter.

 

[Jamin4422]

My take on that is: I think, therefore, I am. I realize that you do not have that resource.

Yes, we have different resources. Because our resources tell us that things are not the way you think they are.

 

[Orogeny]

I’m not the one who did the experiment in the video. I’m simply reffering to it.

Congrats. You're still arguing with someone who's spent more time analyzing sediments this week than you have in your entire life.

Those few seconds are minor and doesn’t change the fact that the beds are being laid down together in a lateral direction from upstream to downstream.

And I've pointed out twice already that geologists recognize this. I also explained how we control for lateral migration in our studies.

You're more than welcome to beat this strawman into the dirt, but you're wasting your time.

This observation pokes a big hole in your claims about fossils found in the geological column, since fossils in the upper beds can be the same age and even older than fossils in the lower beds.

It doesn't, because as I've already explained, we are referring to a VERTICAL SECTION when we use the law of superposition.

I’m sure many who are reading this thread will be happy to hear that, because that certainly was my impression.

Oh joy, another video. More over, a video made for an 'earth science' class! You know where they teach 'earth science' classes? High school! So feel free to stick with your high school-level understanding of geology. I've tried to explain things with a bit more detail, but clearly you're either unwilling or incapable of understanding anything more intricate than that.

In other words, you are trying to create order from chaos. Got it.

Yes, observing that laterally equivalent units stack vertically and that a bed overlying another is necessarily older. Really pulling needles from a haystack there, aren't we.

 

[Guy1]

Yes, observing that laterally equivalent units stack vertically and that a bed overlying another is necessarily older. Really pulling needles from a haystack there, aren't we.

Just ignore him like I did after a short while. He's not here to listen to anyone. He just wants to feel like he's doing something productive.

 

[The Engineer]

I am still waiting for you to tell me how you know that you exist.

I can observe myself, for starters.

 

[RickG]

That still ignores the correlation between the fossil and the ration of isotopes in the surrounding igneous rock. It applies above and below the K/T boundary.

Since you mentioned the K/T boundary I want to take the opportunity to mention that since it was a global event, that layer of iridium rich ash is found all around the earth where exposed and in borehole samples in exactly the same position in the geologic column. If Noah's flood were global we would expect to find a similar layer of flood sediments and debris in the same position and date of the geologic column. No such sedimentary layer exists.

 

[USincognito]

Ok Well I don't had much time to write this on my own But i give thanks to Creationtoday.com for this. Second This is my facts for a young earth. So for OEC and Evolutionist Show me your proof for a so Called "Old Earth Or Billions of Years Old"

This is actually a list of PRATTs

>> The Oldest Tree

The oldest tree only tells us the age of the oldest tree. It tells us nothing about the age of the earth or the universe.

>> The Oldest Reef

Ditto. And for the record, there are older extant and fossilized reefs. The oldest going back nearly 500,000,000 years.
Geology and Mineral Resources


>> Earth’s Slowing Rotation

Actually, the rate of slowdown in the earths rotation is evidence of deep time and provides an explanation for the recession rate of the moon. As far as the Sahara goes, it started to grow after the last Ice Age, but there's evidence of the region having desertification as long ago as 7,000,000 years.
The Age of the Sahara Desert

>> Population

I really wish people would sit down and do the math on claims like this. I mean forget the fact that growth hasn't been linear and geometric and simply do the math proposed. You wind up with numbers like 2,000,000 people world wide at a time when Rome was known to have a population of 1,000,000 alone and 45,000 during the time of the building of the pyramids.

>> Declining Magnetic Field

Well understood. In fact it was studies of the magnetic striping at the center of the Altantic that proved plate tectonics.

>> Fast-Eroding Niagara Falls

Ummm, ever hear of the Ice Age? You know, the one that ended about 13,000 years ago? You think that a mile of ice on top of the Niagara escarpment until that time might have something more to do with the falls being dated to about 11,000 years than a flood 4,400 yeas ago?

>> Salt in the Oceans

Ocean salinity is not a one way process. Oceans and seas dry up leaving behind salt deposits. And there's other transfers.

Plus, and I bet no one on that Creationist page told you this, the source of these also shows aluminum concentrations providing an age of the earth no more than ~120 years.

That's called cherry picking data.

 

[Loudmouth]

They could have.

But where did you show that they were buried rapidly?

No. But I suppose they are some.

You suppose? Either a global flood is falsifiable or it isn't. Either describe a geologic formation that could not be produced by a recent global flood or admit that you are clinging to dogma.

This assumes your dating methods are accurate.

False. It only assumes that our ability to measure isotopes in rocks is accurate. Read what I said. I said that there is a correlation between the ratio of isotopes in the rocks and the fossils that are found in that rock. A global flood can not produce this relationship. However, standard geology can, and it does.

Many scientists don't share that assumption. Nor do I.

Yes, scientists like you who are committed to a dogma that will not allow them to accept the evidence.

Especially when young tree fossils are found buried upright in different layers of rocks.

I can show you modern trees that are buried upright in different layers of rocks. Go to Mt. St. Helens some time. Plenty of examples. You can also go to the Phillipines to find polystrate telephone poles produced by the recent eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. None of this required a global flood.

 

[Jamin4422]

I can observe myself, for starters.

In what way can you observe yourself?

 

[GodActsOnMe]

In what way can you observe yourself?

I don't know, Jamin? How do you observe yourself?

 

[Jamin4422]

You wind up with numbers like 2,000,000 people world wide at a time when Rome was known to have a population of 1,000,000 alone and 45,000 during the time of the building of the pyramids.

The first city had something like 1000 people. It took a lot less people to build the pyramids then what people think. For example a crew of 9 is the most that could work on one stone at one time. Also they were very skilled and very well paid craftsman. Not slaves at all.

 

[Elendur]

The first city had something like 1000 people. It took a lot less people to build the pyramids then what people think. For example a crew of 9 is the most that could work on one stone at one time. Also they were very skilled and very well paid craftsman. Not slaves at all.

Source?

 

[GodActsOnMe]

The first city had something like 1000 people. It took a lot less people to build the pyramids then what people think. For example a crew of 9 is the most that could work on one stone at one time. Also they were very skilled and very well paid craftsman. Not slaves at all.

One of the earliest discovered cities, Çatalhöyük, dates back to about 7500 BC. The pyramids date back to 3200 BC. That is a massive time difference. Even if the population you are saying was true, it is irrelevant.