Evidence for an ancient earth

[BilliardsBall]

In 2010, Hyde suggests the population in 4000bc was 28 million, McEvedy and Jones suggest 7 million.

When were revolutionary times. I am British living in France so that makes about 1650 or 1688 or in France the 1790s. So the population reference bureau estimates that between 500 million and a billion, (hyde, mcevedy & jones pretty much agree)

So please provide your source for 8






The only place i see 8 is creation websites and they will not show their research so it is suspect to say the least.

 

[BilliardsBall]

A minute's work in MS Excel showed the following:

7,000,000,000
3,500,000,000 125
1,750,000,000 250
875,000,000 375
437,500,000 500
218,750,000 625
109,375,000 750
54,687,500 875
27,343,750 1000
13,671,875 1125
6,835,938 1250
3,417,969 1375
1,708,984 1500
854,492 1625
427,246 1750
213,623 1875
106,812 2000
53,406 2125
26,703 2250
13,351 2375
6,676 2500
3,338 2625
1,669 2750
834 2875
417 3000
209 3125
104 3250
52 3375
26 3500
13 3625
7 3750

 

[BilliardsBall]

I write babble because having read three of them cover to cover and parts of several more, knowing how hypocritical, cherry picking and even lying Christianity can be regarding its content, that's what i consider it contains . It started as an error, I'm dyslectic and babble is what my pad kept autocorrecting to, it's an error that made complete sense. No doubt as time passes you will see example's of the babble in the bible as i highlight them. Don't take it to heart.

Interesting, this forum is quite civilised, back on topix there were members of various sects threatening other sects with hell because they didn't believe their personal take on some aspect of the babble. Certainly in history sect rivalry has lead to many wars and deaths.

How about this? We simply don't discuss anymore until you show my Bible the respect you feel can lead to peace, not war and death?

 

[BilliardsBall]

So, the Milky Way is also 6000 years old?



Heavenly water? I never read anything neither on Nature nor in Scientific American. Do you know the authors?



Sure. But why do you then justify an young earth with gravity wells and relativity, when God can do anything? It seems like looking for trouble.

So, what you are telling me is that the Bible is confirmed by science, except when it is not. And when it is not, it is because God can do everything.

Is that correct?

Ciao

- viole

I'm talking about the phenomenon of time dilation over a distance.

If heavenly water is beyond a finite universe, than no, you wouldn't have read about it in a magazine--since we have never seen the edge--our telescopes penetrate up to a finite distance. Do you disagree?

You are misrepresenting my viewpoint. The Bible isn't confirmed (proved) by science. Science is evolving and finite in knowledge, there is more to learn, as we would both agree. What we are rather finding is that when skeptics say science disproves the Bible (look how old the universe has to be based on our extrapolating backward using uniformitarian assumptions!) that other science reveals intriguing possibilities (time dilation).

Again, look at things like the young faint Sun paradox. The Sun is smaller over a billion years ago and not sustaining the plant life on Earth that Evolution teaches was here . . .

 

[sayak83]

I appreciate your sharing dating methods on remains. Have you done the Excel math to extrapolate backwards? And have you considered how as a dominant species we should be much more prevalent after so much time on Earth--unless of course, there was a catastrophe, say, the Flood.

There is clear evidence that for hundreds of thousands of years there were few humans on the planet as agriculture was not invented. Food constraints kept our numbers quite low for 99% of human history. We did not start out as dominant, we grew into it through accrual of technology. Humans have been around for 200,000 years while humans invented agriculture around 12000 years ago. Even then agricultural productivity has increased slowly with time keeping a check on ancient populations. I have already shown you the laws of population growth and the evidence for it in a previous post refuting your ideas about extrapolation.
Evidence for an ancient earth

 

[sayak83]

Please explain how the Earth's absolute motion along stretching spacetime (not revolving around the Sun and etc.) is "observed and measured". We can observe objects preceding away from us in all directions--but that doesn't explain how we're in absolute motion.

If what you are saying is true, please tell us the Cartesian direction in which we're moving.

Modern science considers the idea of absolute motion as incoherent. There is no such thing and cannot be if Einstein's results are valid.

 

[Polymath257]

Modern science considers the idea of absolute motion as incoherent. There is no such thing and cannot be if Einstein's results are valid.

While this is true in Special relativity, it is false in General relativity. In the Big Bang model, each point has a preferred frame of reference where the local average expansion (integrated over all directions) is zero.

 

[ChristineM]

I don't deny that what we see now was formerly created. Your alternative is that the pre-time/space/matter/energy in the singularity was eternal in nature. How do you account for (what became) the universe being eternally preexistent?

Why are you dictating what i believe

I do not account for it, because i do not guess, it is unknown and those who claim god magic created the universe are guilty of lying.

There are however several scientific theories backed up with existing data and/or mathematical modelling. As far as i know, non claim eternal preexistence

 

[sayak83]

While this is true in Special relativity, it is false in General relativity. In the Big Bang model, each point has a preferred frame of reference where the local average expansion (integrated over all directions) is zero.

I believe there is a difference between preferred comoving coordinates and the idea of absolute motion.

 

[ChristineM]

Please explain how the Earth's absolute motion along stretching spacetime (not revolving around the Sun and etc.) is "observed and measured". We can observe objects preceding away from us in all directions--but that doesn't explain how we're in absolute motion.

If what you are saying is true, please tell us the Cartesian direction in which we're moving.

Universe Expanding Symmetrically, Real-Time Analysis Shows

Also

Our speed can be measured against the CMB. Relative to the CMB, the Milky Way, including earth, is moving long at 1.2 million mph

 

[ChristineM]

What at Perimeter Institute has to do with the logical necessity of disallowing imperfect people from being citizens of a utopia?

Do you disagree? Can people make their own utopia based on their perpetual inability to do the right thing always?

What? The perimeter institute is a research establishment devoted to foundational issues in theoretical physics focusing on cosmology, particle physics, condensed matter, various quantum areas of research and strong gravity. They don't speculate on superstition and nonsense

 

[ChristineM]

Indeed it does, but it would be standard in expressing odds against to use a positive coefficient. I have 1 in X chances against, not 1 in -X chances because then there would be negative chances or iterations.

I think the real problem, however, is the many people on this thread conversant with physics and misquoting the scriptures. The difference being that the scriptures can make us wise for salvation.

The minus indicates the magnitude after the decimal point, not a negative.

I can't say I've seen any knowledgeable person misquoting scripture, on the contrary, i find that religious people tend to be selective to the point of cherry picking. I have even argued with christians who actually deny some of the of writing's in the ot.

The problem is they do not want to admit what is actually written in the babble.

 

[ChristineM]

So no sources, no citations, shall we assume you made the number up?

 

[ChristineM]

How about this? We simply don't discuss anymore until you show my Bible the respect you feel can lead to peace, not war and death?

Respect is earned,
i do not show respect because you dictate.

 

[Polymath257]

I believe there is a difference between preferred comoving coordinates and the idea of absolute motion.

Certainly a different between comoving coordinates and the Newtonian idea of absolute motion. But, for example, we can say that we are moving with respect to the background radiation because it shows a dipole aspect. We can even say in which direction and how fast we are moving. That doesn't change the fact that light still has the same speed in any Lorentzian coordinate frame. But it does show that one frame is a preferred one in cosmology (again, at each point).

 

[sayak83]

Certainly a different between comoving coordinates and the Newtonian idea of absolute motion. But, for example, we can say that we are moving with respect to the background radiation because it shows a dipole aspect. We can even say in which direction and how fast we are moving. That doesn't change the fact that light still has the same speed in any Lorentzian coordinate frame. But it does show that one frame is a preferred one in cosmology (again, at each point).

Yes you are correct. I was just saying that's it's still relative, just the most common relative which is the Hubble flow.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

If there was less disparity between high and low places on Earth, there would be double the water required from today's oceans. Great subterranean geysers falling to Earth again or rain from above need not have fallen on Noah's ark to flood the world.

What? The earth's mountain ranges have not substantially changed in all of human history.

This is undisputed fact-- it's basic geology, even if you don't like it.

You cannot magically say the earth was "different" to fit your story's narrative. That isn't how it works.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Great subterranean geysers falling to Earth again or rain from above need not have fallen on Noah's ark to flood the world.

Where did the water go, for afters, then? Did god magically *poof* it all away?

Why not just magically *poof* all the bad people dead in the first place?

Why kill all the world's kittens along with the badly-created humans?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Do you disagree? The problem is when you automatically say, "There is no God so mechanistic processes done it". That's as assumptive as what you're accusing theists of believing. By the way, in cosmology and other sciences, I look for naturalistic explanations first (and second and third).

Please do not put words in my mouth, and I'll try to do you the same.

You have it 100% bass-ackwards.

As one physics professor once quipped, "I had no need for the god hypothesis".

It's not that I *begin* with "no god".

It *is* that there is no real need to insert (a) god in the first place-- this is a subtle, but very important distinction.

Why does it matter? Because I am open to the idea of there needing to be a god to "explain" Cosmology.

I have yet to see such a need, however, and you have certainly not made your case for one, either.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Are you being rhetorical or asking a question re: church finances. I cannot tell.

All churches require money-- the more, the better they are at being church.

This is basic economics.

What I find amusing? Is that if there actually was a Real God ™ behind any of it?

Would not this god-guidance eliminate any and all need for ... money? Could not god simply fabricate some rare metals to sell, say on a weekly basis?

Or could not god guide his followers to use the Stock Market, in such a way that the church *never* need ask it's (typically too poor to be doing such things) congregation for money every week? (oh lordy-- pastor needs a new Cadillac-- the gas tank's almost empty! )

Or even a single Lottery win?

Or are such mundane things too much for the god these people believe in?

As for me? I expect superior workmanship from a being with the title "god".....!

Weekly begging for finances seems .... so mundane.