If The Age of The Earth is Billions of Years ...

[camanintx]

Yes ,I meant to place a decimal there ,4.3
I guess what I am saying is, that there has been more advancement in the last 100 yrs than all time put together, population as well has increased dramatically and if we have been here for ,say a million years, should we not have been where we are inechnology alot sooner and should we not be overpopulated by now and have exhausted our resources.
It just does'nt add up to the old earth theory.
I am only interested in hearing some of the reasons evolutionists seem to throw out to justify this.

Yes, science has certainly participated in what we have achieved to our present state, but if all this technology just happened in the last 100 yrs and man has been existing for say, 1 million years,what has man been up to before that.
What caused man to excel as we have.
It just leaves some gaps and very important unanswered questions.

You are starting from when the Earth was created and applying your calculations to Humans only. Isn't that like comparing apples and oranges? If you are asking how many Humans there should be, shouldn't you start when Humans first appeared about 3 to 4 Million years ago?

 

[Nanda]

I understand the disease and the lack of knowledge in medicine was factor that effected the life span of people

Not to mention that in the very early days, we had natural predators. Oh, and high infant mortatlity rates, and a much higher percentage of females dying in childbirth due to the narrow birth-canal that comes with walking upright, and a much shorter natural lifespan.

 

[Willamena]

I guess what I am saying is, that there has been more advancement in the last 100 yrs than all time put together, population as well has increased dramatically and if we have been here for ,say a million years, should we not have been where we are inechnology alot sooner and should we not be overpopulated by now and have exhausted our resources.

There is no valid reason to extrapolate the current rate of technological growth into the past. That's just a weird thought.

Yes, science has certainly participated in what we have achieved to our present state, but if all this technology just happened in the last 100 yrs and man has been existing for say, 1 million years,what has man been up to before that.
What caused man to excel as we have.

Circumstances.

 

[Willamena]

You are starting from when the Earth was created and applying your calculations to Humans only. Isn't that like comparing apples and oranges? If you are asking how many Humans there should be, shouldn't you start when Humans first appeared about 3 to 4 Million years ago?

Can we abbreviate that to about 150,000 years?

 

[camanintx]

Can we abbreviate that to about 150,000 years?

It all depends on how you want to define "human" I guess.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

This has turned into a mathematical discussion.

 

[camanintx]

This has turned into a mathematical discussion.

You mean it wasn't a mathematical discussion to begin with? I thought the OP was asking for help understanding the concept of exponential growth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no valid reason to extrapolate the current rate of technological growth into the past. That's just a weird thought.

And even if you do, it still doesn't make a case for a young Earth over an old Earth. Consider what happens if we do extrapolate the current population growth rate into the past:

According to the Wikipedia article on population growth, the current world population growth rate is 1.14% per year, down from its peak of 2.19%, and the current world population is 6.6 billion.

If you assume a constant growth rate at our current 1.14% rate from an initial pair of humans to us, it would take 1,933 years to reach the current world population - this would put the date of the birth of Adam and Eve's first child in AD 74. This is nonsense, even if we've suspended disbelief long enough to consider a 6000-year-old Earth.

So... what can we conclude? Whatever our beliefs on the age of the Earth, we can conclude that the population growth rate isn't constant, and at times has been much lower than it is now. Once we accept this and throw away roli's initial assumptions, there's no reason to exclude the possibility of an old Earth.

 

[Autodidact]

roli: Do you know why geologists believe that the earth is approximately 4.56 billion years old?

 

[Don Penguinoini]

You mean it wasn't a mathematical discussion to begin with? I thought the OP was asking for help understanding the concept of exponential growth.

No it wasn't.
Read the OP again... Either i am right, or i am an idiot.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And even if you do, it still doesn't make a case for a young Earth over an old Earth. Consider what happens if we do extrapolate the current population growth rate into the past:

According to the Wikipedia article on population growth, the current world population growth rate is 1.14% per year, down from its peak of 2.19%, and the current world population is 6.6 billion.

If you assume a constant growth rate at our current 1.14% rate from an initial pair of humans to us, it would take 1,933 years to reach the current world population - this would put the date of the birth of Adam and Eve's first child in AD 74. This is nonsense, even if we've suspended disbelief long enough to consider a 6000-year-old Earth.

So... what can we conclude? Whatever our beliefs on the age of the Earth, we can conclude that the population growth rate isn't constant, and at times has been much lower than it is now. Once we accept this and throw away roli's initial assumptions, there's no reason to exclude the possibility of an old Earth.

I agree.

This sounds similar to what mestimia said back in post 39. Some one here has also pointed out that population has not grown at a constant rate. One year we have have more deaths that ht e other. The next year we may have more children being born. Technological advancements play a big role in this.

 

[roli]

You are starting from when the Earth was created and applying your calculations to Humans only. Isn't that like comparing apples and oranges? If you are asking how many Humans there should be, shouldn't you start when Humans first appeared about 3 to 4 Million years ago?

Tell me the story of when they first appeared, i am very intersted to hear.

 

[roli]

Heya roli,
Firstly, the earth is roughly 4.54 billion years old, not 43 billion years old.

Secondly, humans have not been living on the planet since it formed. This is theory is supported by creationists, not evolutionists. Evolutionists claim that homo sapiens began to exist about 250,000 years ago. This means humans have existed for 0.005% of Earth's existence or, alternatively, for 0.995% of those 4.54 billion years, humans were not around.

Hopefully, these two facts should be sufficient to show you why your model for human population growth is inaccurate.

And you know this how..............?

 

[yossarian22]

And you know this how..............?

Radiometric dating.

 

[roli]

The mind-numbing ignorance that permits this question strikes me as pathetically sad.

The same sadness I feel for those who so ignorantly proclaim with such conviction and certainity,where we come from ,how many we were, how long we existed and what we looked like, it's just simply amazes me that intelligent people follow the hypothesis

 

[McBell]

The same sadness I feel for those who so ignorantly proclaim with such conviction and certainity,where we come from ,how many we were, how long we existed and what we looked like, it's just simply amazes me that intelligent people follow the hypothesis

um.
Is that not exactly what you are doing when preaching creation?
Only thing is that creation doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis.

Would this fact not show your position as even weaker than those who agree with the evidence?

For you, who would rather remain willfully ignorant in order to protect your beliefs, probably not.

 

[Willamena]

It all depends on how you want to define "human" I guess.

Ah yes. "Walking on two feet" defines what is human.

 

[McBell]

Ah yes. "Walking on two feet" defines what is human.

Unless of course you are chicken.









Or a duck.












Or an ostrich.














or a raptor...

 

[kmkemp]

Is there not a great irony when an evolutionist uses carbon dating and other similar assumptions (for example, to estimate the age of the universe) and yet claim that retroactively using human population growth doesn't work?

 

[gnomon]

Mass extinction.

Yes it's not as good as plastics because its two words but I have one word...no, two words to tell you,

Mass extinction.

Well, that and the evolutionary process of natural selection...