The earth is 13,000 years old and it is soon to be renewed when Christ comes

[FFH]

Yes.
Your counting the hits and ignoring the misses are quite obvious.

Yes and No, I'm talking notice of the actual astronomical, geological and botanical evidences, which point to a young earth and discarding the old earth theories that we are all too familiar with....

Just giving the relatively new young earth theories and evidences a chance...old earth theories have been on stage long enough, it's time to give some other theories and evidences a chance...

You have made it clear that you are only looking to ratify your current beliefs.

My belief of the earth being 13,000 years old goes back 20 years.... I haven't seen or read anything yet to disuade me from that view since then...

Show me tangible evidence, not theories, disproving my belief... I haven't seen anything yet

Now all you need is proof of what you claim.
If you have none then it is merely yet another of the millions of conspiracy theories.

See following articles:
Shroud of Turin
Rethinking the Shroud Objectively

Did anyone even see life being created?
The earth being created?
Eve eat from the apple?

We can see the evidences of what's happened, since then, and can look for good evidences beyond the creation time frame...

So far I haven't seen any good evidences to extend the creation time frame beyond 13,000 years...

 

[FFH]

Tasmanian Huon Pine (4,000 years old)

 

[gnostic]

My belief of the earth being 13,000 years old goes back 20 years.... I haven't seen or read anything yet to disuade me from that view since then...

Show me tangible evidence, not theories, disproving my belief... I haven't seen anything yet


So far I haven't seen any good evidences to extend the creation time frame beyond 13,000 years...

So not of the evidences or proof found on Homo sapiens fossils, which dated beyond 13,000 years ago, can't dissuade you that the Earth is far older. Then, I would have to say you're not as open as you said you are.

Ok, let see the most recent finds. In Indonesia, a bunch of scientists found fossils of the Homo floresiensis, nicknamed the "Hobbit Man".

The dating of the bones and tools are 18,000 years old is not in questioned.

What is questioned, is the claims by the discoverers of H. floresiensis that found a new species of Homo. This is claim is false, the bones discovered, the people suffered from abnormality, which is the cause of their dwarfness. These silly scientists rushed the papers, without making a thorough investigation.

Nevertheless, the dating of 18,000 years is correct. Not to mention that there are many other bones found of Homo sapiens found in Australia, Africa, Asia and Europe, and Homo erectus found in Africa and Asia that support the evidences are older than your Young Earth's guesswork by tens of thousand or hundreds of thousands of years.

Does that not this dating debunk your so-called Young Earth of 13000 years?

And how do you dispute fossils of primeval mammals during the Tertiary's epochs that millions or 10s of millions years ago, many which are not seen in today fauna, or the dinosaurs found in the Mesozoic era.

That you continue to ignore evidences of older earth prove that you have no interest in science or finding out the truth.

I agreed with Painted Wolf that we waste a lot of time trying to debate with creationists, such as yourself, FFH.

 

[FFH]

This is directed at your post, Gnostic, which claims humans existed at least 18,000 years ago...

If human existence extended, uninterrupted, beyond 2,000 BC (approximate time of flood, when eight souls were spared) or beyond 4,000 BC (time of the fall of Adam and Eve, when they started having children) or beyond 13,000 years (when the first day/1,000 years of creation began), then our current population would be astronomically higher than it is right now...

Population Growth
Today the earth's population doubles every 50 years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population.

See Population Statistics for more on this.

 

[des]

But the rate of expansion grows with the no. of the population and *many* other factors.13,000 years ago and even 4000 years ago the world was quite a different place with people living primarily in nomadic bands, with highly inconsistent agriculture. Most people were not stationed in one place like today (for the most part), developing highly efficient crops on relatively small amts. of land, while the rest are stationed in sprawling urban centers.

It is hard to see how with several land masses largely unexplored, high rates of disease, high rates of infant mortality, nomadic groups with sometimes limited agriculture, an increased death rate and less longetivity (oh yeah you believe people lived 900 years!), that one could even assume half or a fourth of the present population growth.

I think your assumptions are not valid.

--des

Population Growth
Today the earth's population doubles every 50 years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population.

See Population Statistics for more on this.

 

[FFH]

In other words, it has taken about 4,000 years to reach a human population of 6 billion and every 50 years that statistic doubles....

So if we were to add just 2,000 years onto our current pupulation, 6 billion years, and double the population 40 times(2,000 years divided by every 50 years the earth doubles, equals 40 times the earth's population would have doubled in another 2,000 years, just assuming the flood had not happened)..

The number will not even fit on my calculator of course....

If we went back another 12,000 years, from that, to 18,000 years from now, the numbers would be staggering and obsurd...

If we were to go back a million years there would scarcely be enough room on this earth for all the people...

Crunch the numbers, even with the worst case scenarios, and you will see how the numbers add up so quickly that it would be obsurd to think humans existed beyond the fall of Adam and Eve. If there had not been a flood, our current population would be mind boggling....Just factor in another 2,000 years from the time of the fall until the flood...every 50 years the population would have been doubling from 6 billion starting around the time of Christ, instead of now, where we are currently at...

This population growth statistic, even if cut in half, promptly discredits the 18,000 year old skeleton (homo floresiensis "Hobbit Man") claim...

 

[FFH]

Let's crunch the numbers...

Current population growth is 2% a year and in the past it could have been as low as .5% a year, so let's go with that worst case scenario...

We need to start with 2 people and double the population every 200 years, which seems like an extremely low rate of growth to me and well beyond a worst case scenario...

2,000 divided by 200 equals 10.

2 to the 10th power eauals 1024

Add another 2,000 years and you will come up with the figure 2 to the 20th power.

1,048,576

Over 1 million people in 4,000 years of human existence...

Add another 2,000 years and you will come up with the figure...

1,073,741,824..

Over 1 billion people on the earth, and with just 6,000 years behind us..

If we add another 2,000 years the numbers increase to a staggering amount..

1,099,511,627,776

Over 1 trillion people should exist on the earth today if humans had started populating the earth 8,000 years ago...

....and that's based on a .5% annual human population growth rate...

2,000 years = 1024
4,000 years = over 1 million
6,000 years = over 1 billion
8,000 years = over 1 trillion

 

[FFH]

It is hard to see how with several land masses largely unexplored, high rates of disease, high rates of infant mortality, nomadic groups with sometimes limited agriculture, an increased death rate and less longetivity (oh yeah you believe people lived 900 years!), that one could even assume half or a fourth of the present population growth.

I think your assumptions are not valid.

I've outlined a pupulation growth 1/4 the current rate of growth...

Would you like me to go lower than that ???

Let's try a .25% growth rate...or 1/8th of the current growth rate of 2%...

So every 400 years the earth's pupulation should double...

If we post the numbers every 4,000 years, the numbers would be the same as posted before...

4,000 years = 1024
8,000 years = over 1 million
12,000 years = over 1 billion
16,000 years = over 1 trillion

So according to the "Hobbit Man" skeletal date, of 18,000 years, we should have at least a trillion people living on the earth today...

 

[FFH]

Another amazing time piece we have is the Dead Sea...

The Dead Sea
The Dead Sea in Israel receives fresh water from the Sea of Galilee via the Jordan River. The Dead Sea has a very high salt content and it continues to become saltier, because it has no outlet, other than evaporation.

Scientists have measured the amount of salt added each year by the Jordan River; and they have also calculated the amount of salt in the Dead Sea. From these numbers, scientists can calculate how long this process has been going on.

Assuming a constant rate of salt/water flow, and a zero salt level, at the beginning, the age of the Dead Sea has been estimated to be 12,000 years old.

Yaacov K. Benter arrived at this figure of 12,000 years.
See Scientific American Oct. 1983, p. 103

 

[gnostic]

I think you have ignored Des's case that the time were different between 4000 years ago and 18000 years ago.

18000 years ago, some part was still living in the time of last stage of the Ice Age. Indonesia didn't go through the Ice Age, but the world was globally cooler. In Mesopotamia, the arrival of bronze, 5000 years ago, made it easier for agriculture to feed larger population. The Sumerian civilisations were the first city builders, and it was the capacity to feed larger populations that allowed for population growth.

The time wasn't ripe for the "staggering population growth" 18000 years ago. Even 13000 years ago population is not as large 4500 years ago. The Ice Age in the north was only beginning to recede 12000 years ago, but people were still living by hunting and gathering at that time. Agriculture or farming didn't exist 8000-9000 years ago, the Neolithic period, in Mesopotamia, and evidence of farming and settlement didn't in Greece until 7000 years ago. Pottery didn't make it appearance until this time, but still no metal in either Europe or Middle East.

While Neolithic period, people can support a larger group through farming, such settlements were still small in comparison to the Sumerian cities during the Bronze Age.

You have to consider the type of technology available at the time, for supporting larger population.

So your argument is still faulty, FFH, particularly in regarding to speculation of the population expansion/growth.

 

[gnostic]

Another amazing time piece we have is the Dead Sea...

The Dead Sea
The Dead Sea in Israel receives fresh water from the Sea of Galilee via the Jordan River. The Dead Sea has a very high salt content and it continues to become saltier, because it has no outlet, other than evaporation.

Scientists have measured the amount of salt added each year by the Jordan River; and they have also calculated the amount of salt in the Dead Sea. From these numbers, scientists can calculate how long this process has been going on.

Assuming a constant rate of salt/water flow, and a zero salt level, at the beginning, the age of the Dead Sea has been estimated to be 12,000 years old.

I thought that the Dead Sea only became salty because of the Sodom and Gomorrah incident, during Abraham's time, thus only 3700 years ago, not 13000 years?

Not that I'd believe in any of Sodom's destruction or Lot's wife turning into pillar of salt?

 

[FFH]

You have to consider the type of technology available at the time, for supporting larger population.

We don't need technology in order for human pupulations to reach into the millions or even billions...

Would you be willing to just lay down and die just because you didn't have a machine to do all your grunt work ??? No you would plant and reap a harvest of food for your survival... Each individual would support his or her own family...

To say we need technology for human populations to increase beyond a certain level is to say we as humans are just unwilling to work to provide for ourselves... If you are starving you will do whatever it takes to obtain food...

Not many are willing to die just because they don't want to sweat...

I thought that the Dead Sea only became salty because of the Sodom and Gomorrah incident, during Abraham's time, thus only 3700 years ago, not 13000 years?

Not that I'd believe in any of Sodom's destruction or Lot's wife turning into pillar of salt?

Sorry, no, never heard that...

 

[McBell]

Yes and No, I'm talking notice of the actual astronomical, geological and botanical evidences, which point to a young earth and discarding the old earth theories that we are all too familiar with....

That is what I said.
Counting the hits (your young earth 'evidence') and ignoring the misses (anything and everything that shows the earth to be much older)
This is not science.
This is merely a ratification of your beliefs.

Just giving the relatively new young earth theories and evidences a chance...old earth theories have been on stage long enough, it's time to give some other theories and evidences a chance...

And how can you give them an honest chance when you are not being honest with the evidence?

My belief of the earth being 13,000 years old goes back 20 years.... I haven't seen or read anything yet to disuade me from that view since then...

Irrelevant.
And it is if you are honestly seeking the truth.

Show me tangible evidence, not theories, disproving my belief... I haven't seen anything yet

Nor will you.
You have made it clear that you will believe in the young earth theory regardless of what is presented.

See following articles:
Shroud of Turin
Rethinking the Shroud Objectively

Interesting.
Especially the $30 charge to see the article they are referring to.

We can see the evidences of what's happened, since then, and can look for good evidences beyond the creation time frame...

A time frame that in itself is in dispute...

So far I haven't seen any good evidences to extend the creation time frame beyond 13,000 years...

Nor will you.
Why?
Because you refuse to see any.

The evidence are not only there but many have been presented in this very thread.
Your not seeing them is merely because you choose not to.
Again, this is not science, it is merely you ratifying your beliefs.

 

[McBell]

We don't need technology in order for human pupulations to reach into the millions or even billions...

Would you be willing to just lay down and die just because you didn't have a machine to do all your grunt work ??? No you would plant and reap a harvest of food for your survival... Each individual would support his or her own family...

To say we need technology for human populations to increase beyond a certain level is to say we as humans are just unwilling to work to provide for ourselves... If you are starving you will do whatever it takes to obtain food...

Not many are willing to die just because they don't want to sweat...

Strawman

 

[FFH]

Radiometric dating has been proven inaccurate..

I'm not ignoring the truth, but rather exposing the lies...

Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth

 

[FFH]

Eve's Mitochondrial DNA

Mitochondrial DNA is different from nucleus DNA in that it has "only 37 genes, compared to the estimated 100,000... in the cell's nucleus..." It is also different in that it is only passed on from the mother, or at least, so it was once thought; however that is now very much in question, as is brought out in the Links below. ​

In 1989 scientists said that they had compared the Mitochondrial DNA of various different races of people and concluded that they all came from a single woman (they called her Eve) who lived from 100,000-200,000 years ago. This story was widely reported in the press. A few years later scientists actually measured the rate of Mitochondrial mutations and discovered that they changed about 20 times faster than was earlier reported. This means that Eve did not live 100,000-200,000 years ago but rather only 5,000-10,000. This greatly revised date is very close to the Biblical account of (the literal) Adam and Eve. ​

Unfortunately for those who want the whole truth, this didn't make the headlines. See also: The Demise of Mitochondrial Eve

Source​

 

[McBell]

I'm not ignoring the truth, but rather exposing the lies...

You are ignoring it.
Anyone who reads this thread from start to here can easily see how you ignore and/or dismiss that which you dislike.

 

[FFH]

You are ignoring it.
Anyone who reads this thread from start to here can easily see how you ignore and/or dismiss that which you dislike.

I expose that which is false.

As you will see I don't ignore false and misleading claims but expose them for what they are, evolutionary/athiestic claims/theories discounting young earth creation evidences/facts designed by God, which prove the earth to be no more than 13,000 years old...

I could never cover all the misleading scientific facts circulating out there, especially in the short time I have been dealing with this thread

Not done yet...and probably never will be done with this thread...

 

[McBell]

I expose that which is false.

As you will see I don't ignore false and misleading claims but expose them for what they are, evolutionary/athiestic claims/theories discounting young earth creation evidences/facts designed by God, which prove the earth to be no more than 13,000 years old...

I could never cover all the misleading scientific facts circulating out there, especially in the short time I have been dealing with this thread

Not done yet...and probably never will be done with this thread...

Opinions differ.
I am not an atheist or agnostic, but I still see what you are doing in this thread for what it is.

Your calling it something different does not change what it is.
In fact, I have failed to see where you have presented your opinion at all.
All I have found is you doing a first rate copy/paste job.

 

[FFH]

Opinions differ.
I am not an atheist or agnostic, but I still see what you are doing in this thread for what it is.

I realize that..

Your calling it something different does not change what it is.
In fact, I have failed to see where you have presented your opinion at all.
All I have found is you doing a first rate copy/paste job.

Okay, you pick one thing proving the earth to be older than 13,000 years and test me to see if I have no personal opinion on the matter....

If too many things are thrown at me at once it seems to bog me down and I tend to lose focus and nothing really gets the attention it deserves...

I will almost always back up what I say with scripture, facts and evidences, from different sources as I see the need...

My opinion would not really count for much, by itself, and plenty of people have made me aware of that...that's a big reason why I try to keep my mouth shut and let professional scientific articles speak for themselves...

I will interject comments here and there, if I feel something is not being covered in any debate or article...

I see nothing wrong with copy and paste debates, with some personal thoughts interjected here and there....