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

[Don Penguinoini]

Ohhh, i see. Thanks for clearing that up Fluffy.

 

[Random]

Homo habilis began to exist from 2.4 million years ago at the very earliest.

What we are (homo sapiens) only began to exist 250,000 years ago.

However, even if we were to take the 2.4 million years figure (which would provide even more obvious distortions in the growth model being proposed) this is still clearly much much less than 4.3 billion years.

If find your figure of 4.3 billion modest @ best. Most consensus in the scientific community places the estimate much higher, in the 13 billion range.

 

[Fluffy]

If find your figure of 4.3 billion modest @ best. Most consensus in the scientific community places the estimate much higher, in the 13 billion range.

Sorry the figure I meant to quote is actually 4.54 billion although that is still obviously not equal to your figure.

Are you sure you are not confusing the figure given for the age of the earth and that given to the age of the milky way? I can't find any evidence for the 13 billion figure nor any sort of consensus upon it.

 

[eudaimonia]

If find your figure of 4.3 billion modest @ best. Most consensus in the scientific community places the estimate much higher, in the 13 billion range.

Aren't you talking about the estimated age of the Universe?

I've never heard of the age of the Earth being estimated at over 5 billion.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Melissa G]

Just a thought ,if the world's population has increased 3 times in just the last 100 yrs and that there has been more growth in the past 100 yrs than all time together.
Than Logic makes me ask this simple question, that if the world is 43 billion years old,with the population growth just in the past 100 yrs increased as it has,
.....what should the population be if this world is 43 billion yrs old ?????

Would the earth even be inhabitable , foood ,and water wise.
I mean if there is such a scarcity of food around the world now and more so in the last 500 yrs and the world is billions of yrs old , by rights should we not be extinct,how do evolutionists defend this issue.

I understand the disease and the lack of knowledge in medicine was factor that effected the life span of people 100, 200 ,200 yrs ago, by all intents and purposes should'nt we have found cures about a million years ago.

Ummm, humans haven't been around all that long. Homo Sapiens only began to organise themselves from hunter gatherers to farmers about 5000bce, since then the population has graudually expanded on an increasing scale . The vast amount of damage to the planets eco-systems occuring since the industrial revolution.

Not that species haven't been made extince by hunter gatherers, Mammoths and many other large mammals were wiped out by humans.

Melissa

 

[roli]

It is clear from this that you understand neither science nor mathematics.
I suggest you stick to questions of faith.

I'm not a scientist or mathmatician, just a simple guy asking a simple question ,so don't put an intellectual spin on it that insults my intelligence.

I'm sure you have an answer and not a specualtion than.

Of course there always is an evolutionary theoretical explanation and a scientists relatively accurate calculation based on the information we presently have, but are'nt they still only assumptions.

 

[Random]

Eudaimonia and Fluffy,

Yes, I apologize: I meant the age of the Universe as opposed to Earth. Former being tallied @ 13 Billion and latter around 4.5 Billion. Sorry.

My mistake.

peace and blessings,

Random/Conor

 

[fantome profane]

Telekinesis.

>Sniff< I miss it.

I can bend spoons with a lot of concentration and some light rubbing between my forefinger and thumb, but that's about it.

Do not try and bend the spoon.

That's impossible.

Instead... only try to realize the truth.



There is no spoon.



Then you'll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Just a thought ,if the world's population has increased 3 times in just the last 100 yrs and that there has been more growth in the past 100 yrs than all time together.
Than Logic makes me ask this simple question, that if the world is 43 billion years old,with the population growth just in the past 100 yrs increased as it has,
.....what should the population be if this world is 43 billion yrs old ?????

:sarcastic

Would the earth even be inhabitable , foood ,and water wise.

I think it has already been said....You mean to say 4.3 billion......

But somebody has to die at some point. See if you can find a death census for the year 2006. We may have had thousands of people dies last year. And that's with the advancements in technology.

Man has come up with ways to feed themselves and clean their water much much more effectively then the way he used to. There's that invention called the refrigerator/freezer and Walter Filtration Plants...Now a days you can filter your own water beyond what they do at the plant to remove chemicals and impurities. Food growth, food storage, sanatation and water filtration has helped a lot.

I mean if there is such a scarcity of food around the world now and more so in the last 500 yrs

How do you figure that? There was a time when that was true but people have been going into these countries to show others how to cultivate crops, clean their water and take care of themselve more than in times past. It's not perfect but people are helping each other. Plenty of places in the US (businesses, churches, and schools) are doing food and clothing drives for the less fortunate etc. The US sends tons of grain and food overseas. Is it perfect? Heck no...we got a long way to go but we're fuuther along than we were "500" years ago.

and the world is billions of yrs old , by rights should we not be extinct,how do evolutionists defend this issue.

Man, (TO ME), is like a virus....we have the ability to adapt. In tough situations a goal for us is preservation and survival. Can you, being a creationist answer the same question? All I can say is that we want to live and we will find ways to do that.

I understand the disease and the lack of knowledge in medicine was factor that effected the life span of people 100, 200 ,200 yrs ago, by all intents and purposes should'nt we have found cures about a million years ago.

Why? No one heard of aids until the 20th century and with our advances in technology we still haven't found a "cure".... But on the other hand we have found cures and treatments to other diseases. Some of these cures and treatments have helped us to prolong our lifespan. Look at the mortality rate today compared to just a a mere 1000 or 2000 years ago. You'd be doing well to live to 20 or 30 now look at us today......living 3 or 4 times that.....

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Telekinesis.

>Sniff< I miss it.

I can bend spoons with a lot of concentration and some light rubbing between my forefinger and thumb, but that's about it.

Ah, the glory days...will we ever see men fly again?

What's you superpower, Patty?

My super power is sleeping.....

I get nose bleeds when I try to bend spoons with my mind.:sad4:

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Do not try and bend the spoon.

That's impossible.

Instead... only try to realize the truth.



There is no spoon.



Then you'll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.

Hey...Hey......buddy......!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unfortunately, no one can be told what The Matrix is. They have to see it for themselves.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Do not try and bend the spoon.

That's impossible.

Instead... only try to realize the truth.



There is no spoon.



Then you'll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.

:sarcastic

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Hey...Hey......buddy......!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unfortunately, no one can be told what The Matrix is. They have to see it for themselves.

Shh shh, woosa. Calm yourself...

 

[fantome profane]

:sarcastic

Don't look at me like that.

 

[gnomon]

I'm not a scientist or mathmatician, just a simple guy asking a simple question ,so don't put an intellectual spin on it that insults my intelligence.

I'm sure you have an answer and not a specualtion than.

Of course there always is an evolutionary theoretical explanation and a scientists relatively accurate calculation based on the information we presently have, but are'nt they still only assumptions.

There's more than assumptions.

Check out the links I provided. They provide some good information on the scientific understanding of the development of life on Earth.

 

[roli]

:sarcastic



I think it has already been said....You mean to say 4.3 billion......

But somebody has to die at some point. See if you can find a death census for the year 2006. We may have had thousands of people dies last year. And that's with the advancements in technology.

Man has come up with ways to feed themselves and clean their water much much more effectively then the way he used to. There's that invention called the refrigerator/freezer and Walter Filtration Plants...Now a days you can filter your own water beyond what they do at the plant to remove chemicals and impurities. Food growth, food storage, sanatation and water filtration has helped a lot.



How do you figure that? There was a time when that was true but people have been going into these countries to show others how to cultivate crops, clean their water and take care of themselve more than in times past. It's not perfect but people are helping each other. Plenty of places in the US (businesses, churches, and schools) are doing food and clothing drives for the less fortunate etc. The US sends tons of grain and food overseas. Is it perfect? Heck no...we got a long way to go but we're fuuther along than we were "500" years ago.



Man, (TO ME), is like a virus....we have the ability to adapt. In tough situations a goal for us is preservation and survival. Can you, being a creationist answer the same question? All I can say is that we want to live and we will find ways to do that.



Why? No one heard of aids until the 20th century and with our advances in technology we still haven't found a "cure".... But on the other hand we have found cures and treatments to other diseases. Some of these cures and treatments have helped us to prolong our lifespan. Look at the mortality rate today compared to just a a mere 1000 or 2000 years ago. You'd be doing well to live to 20 or 30 now look at us today......living 3 or 4 times that.....

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.

 

[McBell]

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.

Based on what?

If the world were truly only 6 or 10 thousand years old, we could not be as far along in technology as we are.
Nor would there be any wheres near this many people on the planet.
​

See, your argument works both ways.

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.

To justify what?
If you are taking the premise that the Earth is only 6/10 thousand years old and basing everything from that, then yes, it would not make sense.

Just like if you were to take the premise that the earth is billions of years old, the idea of young earth would seem ridiculous because the technology should not be as far along as it is, nor should there be this many people on the earth.

So science has to begin without the premise of the age and work with the evidence available.
The evidence available points heavily to an old Earth.

What evidence points to a young earth?
I mean what SCIENTIFIC evidence.

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.

I disagree.
There is strong evidence to support the idea that man did not gradually advance in technology.
Mans advancement seems to have happened in a stair step pattern.

 

[yportne]

Human population reached 1 bil. in 1830 .It doubled to 2 bil. by 1930. now its over 6 bil.Its growth is exponential. The earth is about 4.5 bil. years old . Humans didnt evolve till only about a million years ago. In that mllion years there were many ups and downs mostly ups in population growth. One example of a major population decline was the eruption of a supervolcano named Toba about 75,000 years ago.Human biengs nearly went extinct after this event. Scientists estimate the population dropped off drastically to about 6000 individuals. All humans are descended from these survivors.Technology was developed and lost many times.The library at alexandria with all its books of much of the technology of that time was willfully destroyed by religious leaders. Chinese leaders did the same not just books but also the scientists of their time. The technology curve is also exponential baring some catastrophy things will move ever faster (population and tech).

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Based on what?

If the world were truly only 6 or 10 thousand years old, we could not be as far along in technology as we are.​

Nor would there be any wheres near this many people on the planet.​

See, your argument works both ways.




To justify what?
If you are taking the premise that the Earth is only 6/10 thousand years old and basing everything from that, then yes, it would not make sense.

Just like if you were to take the premise that the earth is billions of years old, the idea of young earth would seem ridiculous because the technology should not be as far along as it is, nor should there be this many people on the earth.

So science has to begin without the premise of the age and work with the evidence available.
The evidence available points heavily to an old Earth.

What evidence points to a young earth?
I mean what SCIENTIFIC evidence.


I disagree.
There is strong evidence to support the idea that man did not gradually advance in technology.
Mans advancement seems to have happened in a stair step pattern.

Yea.....what you said.....

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Don't look at me like that.

How very dare you!