Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Population Conclusion

Expand Messages
  • ed.horwood@btinternet.com
    Where in the calculation are the references to deaths from natural disasters and disease and wars. Ed ... current human ... the age of ... agree ... with the
    Message 1 of 30 , Aug 1, 2001
      Where in the calculation are the references to deaths from natural
      disasters and disease and wars.

      Ed



      --- In creationism@e..., "shb/ksb" <skjn@t...> wrote:
      >
      > Introduction
      >
      > I asked a question to this list on my first post regarding the
      current human
      > population on the earth now. Does this give us any indication of
      the age of
      > the earth?
      >
      > It was the consensus of this list that the topic itself was goofy or
      > inappropriate for YEC/OEE discussions. I don't think Darwin would
      agree
      > with you. It was in the early 19th century that he came in contact
      with the
      > work of Thomas Malthus on demographics. Thomas had theorized that
      > populations tend to increase geometrically or exponentially while
      food
      > supplies increase arithmetically. Seems like some of you on this
      list still
      > believe this. Old Charlie Darwin saw this reasoning and it got him
      to
      > thinking.
      >
      > So we're starting where Charles Darwin himself started those years
      ago.
      >
      > Data
      >
      > 1986 - 6 billion people, 1983 - 4.6 billion people, 1810 - 1
      billion people,
      > 0 AD - 300,000,000 people. Also, for comparison purposes we have
      abt.
      > 1600BC - 2,800,000, abt.1900BC - 1250. If there are any Bible
      believers out
      > there you might want to add abt. 2000BC - 8 people.
      >
      > A Model
      >
      > Charlie and Thomas had a model. Py=2(1+G/100)^y , Py = population
      after y
      > years, G = annual percentage.
      >
      > I think they were on that slow growth hypothesis. They may have
      been
      > considering animal populations. At any rate, this model does not
      shed any
      > light on the data.
      >
      > Dr. Morris presented the model I would like to use in 1984.
      >
      > Pn = 2 ( C^n-x+1) (C^x-1)/C-1
      >
      > Pn = population in the nth generation
      > 2C = number of boy and girls
      > x = the number of generations living concurrently
      >
      > Using 100 generations from Noah to present:
      > 6,000,000,000 = 2 C^100
      > C= 1.24
      >
      > Using 50 generations from Noah to Christ
      > 300,000,000 = 2 c^50
      > C = 1.46
      >
      > Let x = 4 before Christ (this number is probably low but 4
      generations is
      > easily plausible)
      > Let x = 1 after Christ (this is the lowest possible number of
      generations)
      >
      > Results
      >
      > 10 generations 191 people
      > 15 generations 1269 people
      > 50 generations 461,196,901 people
      > 92 generations 3,278,000,000 people
      > 96 generations 7.75 billion people
      >
      > 10 generations abt 1900 BC
      > 15 generations abt. 1600 BC
      > 50 generations 0AD
      > 92 generations 1810
      > 96 generations 1983, 1986
      >
      > Conclusions
      >
      > The model shows that it is plausible that in 4000 years we could
      see a
      > population similar to what we have now. Please note that it is a
      model to
      > illustrate a scenario that two people could easily generate the
      populations
      > we see today. The Biblical account of Noah appears to be possible
      based on
      > these results.
      >
      > The early populations appear to be low. Consider that 8 people
      were there
      > in generation 1, these calculations were based on two people.
      Generation 10
      > population might be shown as 191-764 and generation 15, 1269-5077.
      >
      > This is important for me, as a scientist, to know that God's word
      is true.
      >
      > Reference cited: The Biblical Basis for Modern Science by Henry M.
      Morris
      > 1984
    • shb/ksb
      ... to ... -It s not wrong. Please try to stay on point. ... -For future reference. Put your reference after your citing. It looks more professional. ...
      Message 2 of 30 , Aug 1, 2001
        >>So we're starting where Charles Darwin himself started those years ago.
        >
        >>Wrong. Darwin never used population figures to work out the age of
        >>the Earth - but then he already knew it was old.
        >
        >-In starting by looking at the population we are starting a place similar
        to
        >where he did.

        >It's not the starting place that matters, but where you go. And you
        >are going in a direction that leads to empty

        -It's not wrong. Please try to stay on point.

        >
        >>
        >>Data
        >>
        >>1986 - 6 billion people, 1983 - 4.6 billion people, 1810 - 1 billion
        >people,
        >>0 AD - 300,000,000 people. Also, for comparison purposes we have abt.
        >>1600BC - 2,800,000, abt.1900BC - 1250. If there are any Bible believers
        >out
        >>there you might want to add abt. 2000BC - 8 people.
        >
        >The 1900 BC figure is equally based on the Bible. A more realistic
        >estimate would be in the vicinity of the 27,000,000 million estimated
        >for 2000BC and for 1600 BC a population of 162,000,000
        >
        >-I have said these values are not hard value and are for illustration
        >purposes only. Are these your Real values you spoke of? What is your
        >source for them?

        >The website I referenced earlier :
        >http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html

        -For future reference. Put your reference after your citing. It looks more
        professional.

        >
        >>
        >>A Model
        >>
        >>Charlie and Thomas had a model. Py=2(1+G/100)^y , Py = population after y
        >>years, G = annual percentage.
        >>
        >>I think they were on that slow growth hypothesis. They may have been
        >>considering animal populations. At any rate, this model does not shed any
        >>light on the data.
        >
        >>Inaccurate in both cases.
        >
        >-I didn't say it was accurate.

        >Your description is inaccurate. Darwin in particular was interested
        >in the fact that species could NOT continually expand at that rate.

        -It would make your point seem stronger if you cited a reference for this.
        You think you are stating exactly what he was thinking, I only offered my
        opinion.

        >
        >>
        >>Dr. Morris presented the model I would like to use in 1984.
        >>
        >>Pn = 2 ( C^n-x+1) (C^x-1)/C-1
        >>
        >>Pn = population in the nth generation
        >>2C = number of boy and girls
        >>x = the number of generations living concurrently
        >>
        >>Using 100 generations from Noah to present:
        >>6,000,000,000 = 2 C^100
        >>C= 1.24
        >
        >>What, 2.48 boys and girls ?
        >
        >-Yes, that is correct.

        >How can you have 2.48 boys and girls ? Is one a siamese twin ? And
        >if there are only 2.48 boys and girls, what are the rest of the
        >population ?

        -If you thought about it, you might see that if one family had 2 and another
        family had 3, the average would be 2.5. It would take more families to get
        the 2.48. This may be too hard for you.

        >
        >>If someone else has the book can they please check this model to see
        >>what it really says - it looks daft to me and the mislabelling of C
        >>doesn't help.
        >
        >-C is labeled correctly.

        >No, it isn't

        -Yes it is.
        >
        >>Also I see that the reverse calculation simply uses 2C^n as total
        >>popylation at generation n which is more useful. Wonder why that
        > >wasn't explicitly stated. Anyway since it is assumed I'll use it.

        >Let me repeat, your calculation of C takes the total population at
        >the time of the nth generation as 2C^n - which is more convenient
        >than taking the population of generations individually. Therefore
        >that is the equation I used.

        -You are not at liberty to arbitrarily pick a formula and then challenge my
        conclusions. You must refute the formula I used.
        >
        >>
        >>Using 50 generations from Noah to Christ
        >>300,000,000 = 2 c^50
        >>C = 1.46
        >
        >>So what happens if you use a lower C value and more time ?
        >
        >-C is not an arbitrary number. To increase time, increase n.

        >That was a rhetorical question.

        -No, you didn't seem to know how to change values to get the results you
        want.
        >
        >>Let x = 4 before Christ (this number is probably low but 4 generations is
        >>easily plausible)
        >>Let x = 1 after Christ (this is the lowest possible number of generations)
        >>
        >>Results
        >>
        >>10 generations 191 people
        >
        >>Using the formula above it's 88
        >
        >-I recommend you use x=4 and C=1.46 for this generation. You used x=1 and
        >C=1.24.

        >Wrong. I used C-1.46 and the formula you used in reverse to derive C
        >- as I had already explained. That formula does not use x.

        -There is no value in doing this.

        >
        >>15 generations 1269 people
        >
        >>If you do the actual calculation it's 582
        >
        >-again it appears your x and C values are not what I used.

        >Wrong again since I used your C value and x is not used at all.

        -So I was right. Do you need help with this?

        >
        >>50 generations 461,196,901 people
        >
        >>Since the C value was calculated on the basis of the total population
        >>being 300,000,000 after 50 generations this is 50% over the odds (and
        >>the HIGHEST figure on the web site I referred to was 400,000,000)
        >
        >>Doing the calculation correctly gives 330,000,000 which is at least
        >w>ithin reason (allowing for the effects of rounding error).

        >Interestign that you do not comment on the fact that your
        >calculations produce the wrong value for this, Since the population
        >of 300,000,000 after 50 generations is an assumption of the model
        >this proves that your calculations are in error.

        -You used the wrong formula. There is no reason to assume you'd get the
        same values.
        >
        >>And at 75 generations (about 1000 AD) there should be more than
        >>4,000,000,000,000 people.... In fact the World population was
        >>pretty stable for most of that period.
        >
        >-I don't think the earth will support this many people. Is this another
        >Real value you have?

        >Of course not. It's a value from your model, which has nothing to do
        >with reality.

        -Wrong, this value is not from my model.
        >
        >>92 generations 3,278,000,000 people
        >
        >>That's about a million times smaller than the actual value....
        >
        >-No it isn't.

        >It is if you apply your formula for total population.

        -That is a useless comparison of no value to this conclusion.

        >
        >>96 generations 7.75 billion people
        >>
        >>10 generations abt 1900 BC
        >>15 generations abt. 1600 BC
        >>50 generations 0AD
        >>92 generations 1810
        >>96 generations 1983, 1986
        >>
        >>Conclusions
        >>
        >>The model shows that it is plausible that in 4000 years we could see a
        >>population similar to what we have now. Please note that it is a model to
        >>illustrate a scenario that two people could easily generate the
        populations
        >>we see today. The Biblical account of Noah appears to be possible based
        on
        >>these results.
        >
        >>Which nobody has bothered to dispute. Of course the model is grossly
        >>unrealistic, there was no Flood and we already know that humans have
        >>been around far longer than you admit that the Earth has existed.
        >
        >>So basically al your effort has been trying to "prove" something that
        >>nobody disagreed with - and you failed even to make a reasonable
        >>attempt at that.
        >
        >-I'm pretty happy with it. It must be better than I think the way you are
        >squealing.

        >OK so you're happy with a completely worthless model you don't even
        >understand.

        -Good enough that you have nothing but lame comments. I hope people on this
        list can see through this lame comparing one formula to the other.
        Unfortunately, from what I have seen on this list, probably not.

        >
        >>
        >>The early populations appear to be low.
        >
        >>They are. Ridiculously low.
        >
        >-Not as low as you calculated. As you have said the population figures are
        >just estimates in the years BC.

        >They're still orders of magnitude larger than yours.

        -But yours have no value.
        >
        >> Consider that 8 people were there
        >>in generation 1, these calculations were based on two people. Generation
        >10
        >>population might be shown as 191-764 and generation 15, 1269-5077.
        >>
        >>This is important for me, as a scientist, to know that God's word is true.
        >
        >>If you were a real scientist you would know that you were only
        >playing with numbers.
        >
        >-Pretty lame objections.

        >Pretty obvious, accurate and serious ones. However your handling of
        >your model proves that you aren't a scientist.


        - I appeal to the list. Is there any value in continuing with this poster?

        Steve
      • shb/ksb
        ... -The illustration I presented is on point and accurate. It also illustrates how population can indicate age. Steve Howard
        Message 3 of 30 , Aug 1, 2001
          > > Introduction
          > >
          > > I asked a question to this list on my first post regarding the
          > > current human
          > > population on the earth now. Does this give us any indication of
          > > the age of
          > > the earth?
          >
          > >No. It wouldn't. What does one have to do with the other? If
          > anything, >it
          > >will give a lower limit for your dating purposes. Similarly, knowing >the
          > >date that this shirt I am wearing was manufactured would give
          > you a >lower
          > >limit to my age. That is why it is senseless to date something that >has
          > been
          > >shown to be older by the age of something much younger.
          >
          > I asked this question in ernest.
          >
          > Your shirt cannot reproduce. If you had worn the same shirt
          > since birth and
          > the shirt reproduced at a known rate. We could count the number of shirts
          > in exitance and calculate your age.

          >You missed the point. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what human
          >population growth figures have to do with the age of the Earth.

          -The illustration I presented is on point and accurate. It also
          illustrates how population can indicate age.

          Steve Howard
        • Todd S. Greene
          Hi, Steve Howard. Excuse me, but plugging arbitrary numbers into an equation isn t data. People who think there were only 8 people on earth in 2000 B.C. really
          Message 4 of 30 , Aug 1, 2001
            Hi, Steve Howard.

            Excuse me, but plugging arbitrary numbers into an equation isn't
            data.

            People who think there were only 8 people on earth in 2000 B.C. really
            don't have a firm grasp on reality. "Goofy" is a pretty polite way of
            describing such a belief. That was the word you presented, and I used
            it appropriately. ("Daft" was, I believe, Paul's word.) Of course,
            since there are dozens of professional historians and archaeologists
            who agree with you and who describe a population of 8 on or around
            2000 B.C., I am so glad that you were able to produce zero citations
            of this information.

            And it's so funny the way you keep claiming no data has been presented
            even while you quote the data that been presented, all in the same
            post!

            Thanks for the fun, and thanks for the demonstration! I'm glad your
            posts are in the public archive for future reference.

            Regards,
            Todd
          • Paul Andrew King
            ... Yes it is. The YEC population argument is goofy. Your version is even goofier because it is circular in what it is trying to prove and you couldn t even
            Message 5 of 30 , Aug 1, 2001
              > >>So we're starting where Charles Darwin himself started those years ago.
              >>
              >>>Wrong. Darwin never used population figures to work out the age of
              >>>the Earth - but then he already knew it was old.
              >>
              >>-In starting by looking at the population we are starting a place similar
              >to
              >>where he did.
              >
              >>It's not the starting place that matters, but where you go. And you
              >>are going in a direction that leads to empty
              >
              >-It's not wrong. Please try to stay on point.

              Yes it is. The YEC population argument is goofy. Your version is
              even goofier because it is circular in what it is trying to prove and
              you couldn't even get the math right.

              >
              >>
              >>>
              >>>Data
              >>>
              >>>1986 - 6 billion people, 1983 - 4.6 billion people, 1810 - 1 billion
              >>people,
              >>>0 AD - 300,000,000 people. Also, for comparison purposes we have abt.
              >>>1600BC - 2,800,000, abt.1900BC - 1250. If there are any Bible believers
              >>out
              >>>there you might want to add abt. 2000BC - 8 people.
              >>
              >>The 1900 BC figure is equally based on the Bible. A more realistic
              >>estimate would be in the vicinity of the 27,000,000 million estimated
              >>for 2000BC and for 1600 BC a population of 162,000,000
              >>
              >>-I have said these values are not hard value and are for illustration
              >>purposes only. Are these your Real values you spoke of? What is your
              >>source for them?
              >
              >>The website I referenced earlier :
              >>http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html
              >
              >-For future reference. Put your reference after your citing. It looks more
              >professional.

              For future reference I don't care about your opinions.

              >
              >>
              >>>
              >>>A Model
              >>>
              >>>Charlie and Thomas had a model. Py=2(1+G/100)^y , Py = population after y
              >>>years, G = annual percentage.
              >>>
              >>>I think they were on that slow growth hypothesis. They may have been
              >>>considering animal populations. At any rate, this model does not shed any
              >>>light on the data.
              >>
              >>>Inaccurate in both cases.
              >>
              >>-I didn't say it was accurate.
              >
              >>Your description is inaccurate. Darwin in particular was interested
              >>in the fact that species could NOT continually expand at that rate.
              >
              >-It would make your point seem stronger if you cited a reference for this.

              So would yours.

              >You think you are stating exactly what he was thinking, I only offered my
              >opinion.

              So, basically you don't know what you are talking about.

              >
              >>
              >>>
              >>>Dr. Morris presented the model I would like to use in 1984.
              >>>
              >>>Pn = 2 ( C^n-x+1) (C^x-1)/C-1
              >>>
              >>>Pn = population in the nth generation
              >>>2C = number of boy and girls
              >>>x = the number of generations living concurrently
              >>>
              >>>Using 100 generations from Noah to present:
              >>>6,000,000,000 = 2 C^100
              >>>C= 1.24
              >>
              >>>What, 2.48 boys and girls ?
              >>
              >>-Yes, that is correct.
              >
              >>How can you have 2.48 boys and girls ? Is one a siamese twin ? And
              >>if there are only 2.48 boys and girls, what are the rest of the
              >>population ?
              >
              >-If you thought about it, you might see that if one family had 2 and another
              >family had 3, the average would be 2.5. It would take more families to get
              >the 2.48. This may be too hard for you.

              No it's perfectly easy for me to understand the fact that the
              arithmetic mean number of boys and girls per family could be a
              rational number. But it isn't labelled as any sort of average, nor
              is it indicated that it is "per family". Therefore if the label is
              correct - as you insist - it must be the total number of boys and
              girls in that generation.

              >
              >>
              >>>If someone else has the book can they please check this model to see
              >>>what it really says - it looks daft to me and the mislabelling of C
              >>>doesn't help.
              >>
              >>-C is labeled correctly.
              >
              >>No, it isn't
              >
              >-Yes it is.

              Either it is the total number of boys and girls in that generation or
              it is mislabelled. Your choice.

              > >
              >>>Also I see that the reverse calculation simply uses 2C^n as total
              >>>popylation at generation n which is more useful. Wonder why that
              >> >wasn't explicitly stated. Anyway since it is assumed I'll use it.
              >
              >>Let me repeat, your calculation of C takes the total population at
              >>the time of the nth generation as 2C^n - which is more convenient
              > >than taking the population of generations individually. Therefore
              >>that is the equation I used.
              >
              >-You are not at liberty to arbitrarily pick a formula and then challenge my
              >conclusions.

              I didn't arbitrarily pick a formula. I picked one YOU used.

              > You must refute the formula I used.

              It WAS the formula you used to calculate C.

              > >
              >>>
              >>>Using 50 generations from Noah to Christ
              >>>300,000,000 = 2 c^50
              > >>C = 1.46
              >>
              >>>So what happens if you use a lower C value and more time ?
              >>
              >>-C is not an arbitrary number. To increase time, increase n.
              >
              >>That was a rhetorical question.
              >
              >-No, you didn't seem to know how to change values to get the results you
              >want.

              Wrong, I'm just pointing out that the formula can produce quite
              different results.

              > >
              >>>Let x = 4 before Christ (this number is probably low but 4 generations is
              >>>easily plausible)
              >>>Let x = 1 after Christ (this is the lowest possible number of generations)
              >>>
              >>>Results
              >>>
              >>>10 generations 191 people
              >>
              >>>Using the formula above it's 88
              >>
              >>-I recommend you use x=4 and C=1.46 for this generation. You used x=1 and
              >>C=1.24.
              >
              >>Wrong. I used C-1.46 and the formula you used in reverse to derive C
              >>- as I had already explained. That formula does not use x.
              >
              >-There is no value in doing this.

              Yes there is. If it doesn't work then your calculation of C is wrong
              since it uses the exact same formula.
              >
              >>
              >>>15 generations 1269 people
              >>
              >>>If you do the actual calculation it's 582
              >>
              >>-again it appears your x and C values are not what I used.
              >
              >>Wrong again since I used your C value and x is not used at all.
              >
              >-So I was right. Do you need help with this?

              No, but obviously you do because you keep insisting that your formula is wrong.

              >
              >>
              >>>50 generations 461,196,901 people
              >>
              >>>Since the C value was calculated on the basis of the total population
              >>>being 300,000,000 after 50 generations this is 50% over the odds (and
              >>>the HIGHEST figure on the web site I referred to was 400,000,000)
              >>
              >>>Doing the calculation correctly gives 330,000,000 which is at least
              >>w>ithin reason (allowing for the effects of rounding error).
              >
              >>Interestign that you do not comment on the fact that your
              >>calculations produce the wrong value for this, Since the population
              >>of 300,000,000 after 50 generations is an assumption of the model
              >>this proves that your calculations are in error.
              >
              >-You used the wrong formula.

              I used the formula that YOU used for calculating C. Every time you
              say it's wrong you admit that YOU made an error.

              > There is no reason to assume you'd get the
              >same values.

              Yet more proof that you don't understand modelling. If you DON'T get
              the fixed points you used to calibrate your model you must be doing
              the calculations wrong.

              > >
              >>>And at 75 generations (about 1000 AD) there should be more than
              >>>4,000,000,000,000 people.... In fact the World population was
              >>>pretty stable for most of that period.
              >>
              >>-I don't think the earth will support this many people. Is this another
              >>Real value you have?
              >
              >>Of course not. It's a value from your model, which has nothing to do
              >>with reality.
              >
              >-Wrong, this value is not from my model.

              Yet again you admit that your calculation of C was wrong.

              > >
              >>>92 generations 3,278,000,000 people
              >>
              >>>That's about a million times smaller than the actual value....
              >>
              >>-No it isn't.
              >
              > >It is if you apply your formula for total population.

              >-That is a useless comparison of no value to this conclusion

              You must feel really stupid using a formula that doesn't work to set
              up the values for your model.

              >
              >>
              >>>96 generations 7.75 billion people
              >>>
              >>>10 generations abt 1900 BC
              >>>15 generations abt. 1600 BC
              >>>50 generations 0AD
              >>>92 generations 1810
              >>>96 generations 1983, 1986
              >>>
              >>>Conclusions
              >>>
              >>>The model shows that it is plausible that in 4000 years we could see a
              >>>population similar to what we have now. Please note that it is a model to
              >>>illustrate a scenario that two people could easily generate the
              >populations
              >>>we see today. The Biblical account of Noah appears to be possible based
              >on
              >>>these results.
              >>
              >>>Which nobody has bothered to dispute. Of course the model is grossly
              > >>unrealistic, there was no Flood and we already know that humans have
              >>>been around far longer than you admit that the Earth has existed.
              >>
              >>>So basically al your effort has been trying to "prove" something that
              >>>nobody disagreed with - and you failed even to make a reasonable
              >>>attempt at that.
              >>
              >>-I'm pretty happy with it. It must be better than I think the way you are
              >>squealing.
              >
              >>OK so you're happy with a completely worthless model you don't even
              >>understand.
              >
              >-Good enough that you have nothing but lame comments.

              You mean like proving that you messed up the initial calculation of C
              and invalidated all your figures ?

              Even if you got your model right it would only show that a model that
              assumed that you could get to a population of 300,000,000 from a
              population of 8 in 50 generations was consistent with getting to a
              population of 300,000,000 from a population of 8 in 50 generations.

              > I hope people on this
              >list can see through this lame comparing one formula to the other.
              >Unfortunately, from what I have seen on this list, probably not.

              I'm sorry that we don't have anyone stupid enough to fall for your
              silly arguments.
              >
              > >
              >>>
              >>>The early populations appear to be low.
              >>
              >>>They are. Ridiculously low.
              >>
              >>-Not as low as you calculated. As you have said the population figures are
              >>just estimates in the years BC.
              >
              >>They're still orders of magnitude larger than yours.
              >
              >-But yours have no value.

              That's because you don't think that real data has any value.

              > >
              >>> Consider that 8 people were there
              >>>in generation 1, these calculations were based on two people. Generation
              >>10
              >>>population might be shown as 191-764 and generation 15, 1269-5077.
              > >>
              >>>This is important for me, as a scientist, to know that God's word is true.
              >>
              >>>If you were a real scientist you would know that you were only
              >>playing with numbers.
              >>
              >>-Pretty lame objections.
              >
              >>Pretty obvious, accurate and serious ones. However your handling of
              >>your model proves that you aren't a scientist.
              >
              >- I appeal to the list. Is there any value in continuing with this poster?

              There is no value in your continuing to post at all since everyone
              has seen through your lies and your idiocy has been exposed.

              --
              --
              "The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of
              immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals
              in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala
              Guide to Taoism_

              Paul K.
            • shb/ksb
              Natural disasters and disease and war are accounted for because the populations are generated from only two people. I believe there were 8 at the start. This
              Message 6 of 30 , Aug 2, 2001
                Natural disasters and disease and war are accounted for because the
                populations are generated from only two people. I believe there were 8 at
                the start. This would give a value 3 to 4 times larger.

                Steve Howard

                >Where in the calculation are the references to deaths from >natural
                >disasters and disease and wars.

                >Ed
              • shb/ksb
                ... If God created man in the first week and the earth was created in the first week, and if the current population can be generated from 8 people in a time
                Message 7 of 30 , Aug 2, 2001
                  > >You missed the point. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what human
                  > >population growth figures have to do with the age of the Earth.
                  >
                  > -The illustration I presented is on point and accurate. It also
                  > illustrates how population can indicate age.

                  >No, it is not. You have failed to answer how the two are >related? Just
                  >saying it is will not make your case. You must tell me >HOW population
                  >growths indicate the age of the Earth?

                  If God created man in the first week and the earth was created in the first
                  week, and if the current population can be generated from 8 people in a time
                  span roughly equivalent to the Biblical account of these 8 people, the date
                  of the flood account can be established roughly. Once that is established
                  the Bible further records the generations from Adam to Noah. By adding
                  these two values together you could get an indication that the earth is
                  thousands of years old or millions of years old.

                  Steve Howard
                • shb/ksb
                  ... There are two ifs . I put them in for the unbelievers on the list. Yom can be interpreted as three periods of time. It can be a 12-hour period, a
                  Message 8 of 30 , Aug 3, 2001
                    > > >You missed the point. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what human
                    > > >population growth figures have to do with the age of the Earth.
                    > >
                    > > -The illustration I presented is on point and accurate. It also
                    > > illustrates how population can indicate age.
                    >
                    > >No, it is not. You have failed to answer how the two are >related? Just
                    > >saying it is will not make your case. You must tell me >HOW population
                    > >growths indicate the age of the Earth?
                    >
                    > If God created man in the first week and the earth was created in
                    > the first
                    > week, and if the current population can be generated from 8
                    > people in a time
                    > span roughly equivalent to the Biblical account of these 8
                    > people, the date
                    > of the flood account can be established roughly. Once that is established
                    > the Bible further records the generations from Adam to Noah. By adding
                    > these two values together you could get an indication that the earth is
                    > thousands of years old or millions of years old.

                    >That is certainly a lot of "if's." Your claim is based on an >particular
                    >interpretation of scripture where Yom is being interpreted as a 24 hr >day.
                    >How does this constitute a proof in the first place if it is based on >a
                    >belief and not based on any physical evidence, as much as Morris >wishes it
                    >to be. Since the Earth is much older than man, you can't really expect >to
                    >gauge one's age from the other. Just as in my analogy, you can't >determine
                    >my age from the manufacture date of the clothes I'm wearing.

                    There are two "ifs". I put them in for the unbelievers on the list.

                    Yom can be interpreted as three periods of time. It can be a 12-hour
                    period, a 24-hour day, or a long period of time. There are two ways to
                    resolve its use in this context. The first way is by observation of
                    creation. The second way is by exegesis. Both of these options indicate
                    a 24-hour day.

                    Both YEC and OEE are based on belief. One view is neither superior to the
                    other nor more scientific.

                    Do you deny the Bible to say that the Earth is much older than man is?

                    The shirt analogy is not too helpful to me for reasons I have pointed out.
                    Can you say why you find it appropriate
                  • shb/ksb
                    ... -I have studied Creation in my education, experience and study. ... as ... more ... -The limits God s power. If God s Word says he created in 24 hours
                    Message 9 of 30 , Aug 5, 2001
                      > >
                      > > >No, it is not. You have failed to answer how the two are >related? Just
                      > > >saying it is will not make your case. You must tell me >HOW population
                      > > >growths indicate the age of the Earth?
                      > >
                      > > If God created man in the first week and the earth was created in
                      > > the first
                      > > week, and if the current population can be generated from 8
                      > > people in a time
                      > > span roughly equivalent to the Biblical account of these 8
                      > > people, the date
                      > > of the flood account can be established roughly. Once that is
                      > established
                      > > the Bible further records the generations from Adam to Noah. By adding
                      > > these two values together you could get an indication that the earth is
                      > > thousands of years old or millions of years old.
                      >
                      > >That is certainly a lot of "if's." Your claim is based on an >particular
                      > >interpretation of scripture where Yom is being interpreted as a
                      > 24 hr >day.
                      > >How does this constitute a proof in the first place if it is based on >a
                      > >belief and not based on any physical evidence, as much as Morris
                      > >wishes it
                      > >to be. Since the Earth is much older than man, you can't really
                      > expect >to
                      > >gauge one's age from the other. Just as in my analogy, you can't
                      > >determine
                      > >my age from the manufacture date of the clothes I'm wearing.
                      >
                      > There are two "ifs". I put them in for the unbelievers on the list.


                      > Yom can be interpreted as three periods of time. It can be a 12-hour
                      > period, a 24-hour day, or a long period of time. There are two ways to
                      > resolve its use in this context. The first way is by observation of
                      > creation. The second way is by exegesis. Both of these
                      > options indicate
                      > a 24-hour day.

                      >So you say, but I don't believe you, this is just arm->waving. Tell me how
                      >you have studied the Creation.

                      -I have studied Creation in my education, experience and study.

                      >If the correct interpretation is a 24-hr day, then the Bible >is presented
                      as
                      >unbelievable from the very first chapter, so why bother >considering any
                      more
                      >of it.

                      -The limits God's power. If God's Word says he created in 24 hours periods,
                      who are you to question it?
                      You will have other problems if you try to reconcile OEE with the Bible.
                      Romans 5:12 says that death entered the world as the result of Adam's sin.
                      OEE would have to occur over millions of years without death.

                      > In a similar fashion, if the correct interpretation of the >Bible is
                      >Geocentrism, and we know that Geocentrism is a false >belief, why should we
                      >give it any credence. Do you believe in Geocentrism?

                      -No.

                      > Both YEC and OEE are based on belief. One view is neither superior to the
                      > other nor more scientific.
                      >If your usage of "belief" is the same as faith, then that is a >false
                      >statement. Conclusions are arrived at by evidence. Beliefs >held without
                      >evidence is faith. Beliefs held in spite of the evidence is >"dogma."
                      >Following Morris' teachings suggests that you may be ill->equipped to make
                      a
                      >distinction.

                      -Both are faith assumptions. I don't follow Morris's teachings. I don't
                      know how you came to that conclusion.

                      > Do you deny the Bible to say that the Earth is much older than man is?

                      >I deny the YEC interpretation of the Bible that says the >Earth is 6000
                      years
                      >old.

                      > The shirt analogy is not too helpful to me for reasons I have pointed out.
                      > Can you say why you find it appropriate

                      >Simply because the origin date for the two are different, >so we wouldn't
                      >expect to be able to determine the age of one from the >other.

                      >You would have to produce physical evidence to indicate >that the Earth is
                      >only 6000 years old, and not from a genealogy. If you >have any physical
                      >evidence from your in-depth study of the creation, we >could certainly
                      >discuss it.

                      The oldest living Redwood tree is about 4000 years old. The oldest living
                      Bristlecone Pine is about 4000 years old.
                      The oldest living Yew is about 4000 years old.
                      The oldest corral reef is about 4000 years old.
                      The oldest book or manuscript is less than 6000 years old.
                    • shb/ksb
                      ... My undergraduate degree is in Biology. I did graduate work in biochemical taxonomy of secondary metabolites in 4 plant species, in 2 genera. I worked for
                      Message 10 of 30 , Aug 6, 2001
                        > From: "Stephen J. Krogh"
                        > Tell me how
                        > >you have studied the Creation.

                        > -I have studied Creation in my education, experience and study.

                        >That is pretty nebulous and doesn't answer the question. Again, "how" >have
                        >you studied the Creation. What education, what experience and study? I
                        >would
                        >not want to assume that your education and experience has come from
                        >reading
                        >AIG and ICR-type websites. What field studies have you done.

                        My undergraduate degree is in Biology. I did graduate work in biochemical
                        taxonomy of secondary metabolites in 4 plant species, in 2 genera. I worked
                        for 21 years as a laboratory supervisor in both chemistry laboratories and
                        microbiology. I have worked 5 years as an environmental manager. I have
                        planted a vegetable garden every year for 31 years. About the last three
                        years I have planted flower gardens to have cut flowers for my wife. The
                        flowers have yielded unexpectedly a job that I am honored to have. I
                        provide bouquets for sick people and I place a bouquet on the altar each
                        Sunday at Church. I have raised pigs, goats, rabbits and chickens, mostly
                        for home use. I have done efficacy studies on pigs, mice, rabbits and
                        guinea pigs. I have done cell culture on swine testicle cells for virology
                        efficacy testing. I helped raise and home school two children.

                        On May 2, 1965 I was at a Revival. The preacher was preaching from Rev.
                        3:20, Lo, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hear's my voice and lets
                        me in, I will sup with him and he with me.

                        As a young man this touched me deeply and continues to today. I went
                        forward to acknowledge that I had accepted him and let him in. I was
                        baptized that evening.

                        > >If the correct interpretation is a 24-hr day, then the Bible >is
                        > presented
                        > as
                        > >unbelievable from the very first chapter, so why bother >considering any
                        > more
                        > >of it.

                        > -The limits God's power. If God's Word says he created in 24
                        > hours periods,
                        > who are you to question it?

                        >Who is questioning God's Word? All I am questioning is your
                        >interpretation.

                        -By saying you don't know why to bother considering the Bible if it says
                        that creation was done in 24 hours. This sounds like you are saying you
                        know more than God does about the creation.

                        > You will have other problems if you try to reconcile OEE with the Bible.
                        > Romans 5:12 says that death entered the world as the result of Adam's sin.
                        > OEE would have to occur over millions of years without death.

                        >What kind of death? It had to be the kind of death that Adam suffered >the
                        >day the he ate of the fruit, yet he still lived to a ripe old age, >so...it
                        >must not have been a physical death. So your citation must be a >referring
                        to
                        >a spiritual death. On the other hand YECs have a hard time with the >fossil
                        >record which shows a long history of physical death before man was >even on
                        >the scene. So much so that there are various attempt to explain them >all
                        >away in some fashion, either with Flood Geology, God planting them in
                        >place,
                        >Satan planting them in place, Gap Theory.

                        -The spirit never dies. It is appointed once for men to die and then the
                        judgement. So it must be a physical death. It means that sin entered the
                        world as a result of Adams sin. The wages of sin is death. He would not
                        have died if he had not sinned according to the Bible, nor would there be
                        any death.

                        > > In a similar fashion, if the correct interpretation of the >Bible is
                        > >Geocentrism, and we know that Geocentrism is a false >belief,
                        > why should we
                        > >give it any credence. Do you believe in Geocentrism?
                        >
                        > -No.

                        >Why not, Geocentrism was thought to be the clear teaching of >scripture.
                        Many
                        >still believe it is what is demanded by scripture in spite of the >evidence
                        >to the contrary. In fact your standing as a Christian would be in >jeopardy
                        >according to these folks, since you would be denying God's Word. They
                        >would
                        >likewise try an appeal to authority and ask you, "who are you to >question
                        >it?"

                        -I think the earth is not the center of the solar system. I don't know
                        where the center of the universe is.

                        > > Both YEC and OEE are based on belief. One view is neither
                        > superior to the
                        > > other nor more scientific.
                        > >If your usage of "belief" is the same as faith, then that is a >false
                        > >statement. Conclusions are arrived at by evidence. Beliefs >held without
                        > >evidence is faith. Beliefs held in spite of the evidence is >"dogma."
                        > >Following Morris' teachings suggests that you may be
                        > ill->equipped to make
                        > a
                        > >distinction.
                        >
                        > -Both are faith assumptions. I don't follow Morris's teachings. I don't
                        > know how you came to that conclusion.

                        >Oh, I think they are very valid conclusions, according to what you >have
                        written. I can only deduce this from the many times you >referenced him as
                        an
                        >expert in support of your assertions.

                        I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. I only referenced Morris once.
                        Someone else has referenced him to try to ridicule him but he was
                        unsuccessful in doing so. I agree with you that what I have seen of his
                        books are very valid but I have not seen enough of his writings to judge
                        them.

                        > > Do you deny the Bible to say that the Earth is much older than man is?
                        >
                        > >I deny the YEC interpretation of the Bible that says the >Earth is 6000
                        > years
                        > >old.
                        >
                        > > The shirt analogy is not too helpful to me for reasons I have
                        > pointed out.
                        > > Can you say why you find it appropriate
                        >
                        > >Simply because the origin date for the two are different, >so we wouldn't
                        > >expect to be able to determine the age of one from the >other.
                        >
                        > >You would have to produce physical evidence to indicate >that
                        > the Earth is
                        > >only 6000 years old, and not from a genealogy. If you >have any physical
                        > >evidence from your in-depth study of the creation, we >could certainly
                        > >discuss it.
                        >
                        > The oldest living Redwood tree is about 4000 years old. The oldest living
                        > Bristlecone Pine is about 4000 years old.
                        > The oldest living Yew is about 4000 years old.
                        > The oldest corral reef is about 4000 years old.
                        > The oldest book or manuscript is less than 6000 years old.

                        >Again, what does any of this have to do with the age of the Earth? All >you
                        >are giving me is the alleged ages of the oldest living Redwood, the >oldest
                        >living Bristlecone Pine, the oldest living Yew, the oldest coral reef, >the
                        >oldest book or manuscript. What about the ages for the oldest dead >coral
                        >reef, oldest rock, or even the oldest meteorites? But these are all
                        >minimum
                        >ages for the Earth. Since the ages that have been revealed by the
                        >meteorites
                        >are considerably older than any of the examples you gave, considering >that
                        >they indicate the earth's age is meaningless. You would have to prove >that
                        >the age of the Earth is the same as the age for all these other items. >You
                        >haven't done that. You have presented an interpretation of scripture >that
                        >implies that, but that certainly is not proof.

                        -You will never have proof. All you can do is look at what Creation seems
                        to be saying and then form a belief. One belief is not superior to the
                        other scientifically but one fits the Bible and the other does not.

                        I used examples of living things in hopes that the dating methods used with
                        them is more reliable than fossil indexing or radiometric dating techniques.
                      • ed.horwood@btinternet.com
                        ... study? I ... from ... biochemical ... laboratories and ... studying the ... Earth. ... it says ... so you ... hours, and ... to be ... GE 1:1 In the
                        Message 11 of 30 , Aug 7, 2001
                          --- In creationism@e..., "Stephen J. Krogh" <panterragroup@m...>
                          wrote:
                          > From: shb/ksb [mailto:skjn@t...]
                          > > Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 8:17 PM
                          > > To: creationism@y...
                          > > Subject: [creat] RE: RE: RE: Population Conclusion
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > > From: "Stephen J. Krogh"
                          > > > Tell me how
                          > > > >you have studied the Creation.
                          > >
                          > > > -I have studied Creation in my education, experience and study.
                          > >
                          > > >That is pretty nebulous and doesn't answer the question. Again,
                          > > "how" >have
                          > > >you studied the Creation. What education, what experience and
                          study? I
                          > > >would
                          > > >not want to assume that your education and experience has come
                          from
                          > > >reading
                          > > >AIG and ICR-type websites. What field studies have you done.
                          > >
                          > > My undergraduate degree is in Biology. I did graduate work in
                          biochemical
                          > > taxonomy of secondary metabolites in 4 plant species, in 2
                          > > genera. I worked
                          > > for 21 years as a laboratory supervisor in both chemistry
                          laboratories and
                          > > microbiology. I have worked 5 years as an environmental manager.
                          > Gardening experience.
                          >
                          > So you haven't studied Geology. I now understand your lack of
                          studying the
                          > Creation. This is the area that you are addressing - the Age of the
                          Earth.
                          > Not the oldest living tree.
                          >
                          > > > >If the correct interpretation is a 24-hr day, then the Bible
                          >is
                          > > > presented
                          > > > as
                          > > > >unbelievable from the very first chapter, so why bother
                          > > >considering any
                          > > > more
                          > > > >of it.
                          > >
                          > > > -The limits God's power. If God's Word says he created in 24
                          > > > hours periods,
                          > > > who are you to question it?
                          > >
                          > > >Who is questioning God's Word? All I am questioning is your
                          > > >interpretation.
                          > >
                          > > -By saying you don't know why to bother considering the Bible if
                          it says
                          > > that creation was done in 24 hours.
                          > > This sounds like you are saying you
                          > > know more than God does about the creation.
                          >
                          > Hardly. I don't believe the Bible specified 24-hour creation days,
                          so you
                          > heard wrong. However, IF the Bible demanded that the days were 24
                          hours, and
                          > since that would be false, why bother continuing when it was shown
                          to be
                          > wrong from the very first chapter.

                          GE 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth".
                          No reference to days here?

                          >
                          > > > You will have other problems if you try to reconcile OEE with
                          the Bible.
                          > > > Romans 5:12 says that death entered the world as the result of
                          > > Adam's sin.
                          > > > OEE would have to occur over millions of years without death.
                          > >
                          > > >What kind of death? It had to be the kind of death that Adam
                          > > suffered >the
                          > > >day the he ate of the fruit, yet he still lived to a ripe old
                          > > age, >so...it
                          > > >must not have been a physical death. So your citation must be a
                          > > >referring
                          > > to
                          > > >a spiritual death. On the other hand YECs have a hard time with
                          > > the >fossil
                          > > >record which shows a long history of physical death before man
                          > > was >even on
                          > > >the scene. So much so that there are various attempt to explain
                          them >all
                          > > >away in some fashion, either with Flood Geology, God planting
                          them in
                          > > >place,
                          > > >Satan planting them in place, Gap Theory.
                          > >
                          > > -The spirit never dies. It is appointed once for men to die and
                          then the
                          > > judgement. So it must be a physical death. It means that sin
                          entered the
                          > > world as a result of Adams sin. The wages of sin is death. He
                          would not
                          > > have died if he had not sinned according to the Bible, nor would
                          there be
                          > > any death.
                          >
                          > But Adam died the day he ate of the fruit. If so Adam would have
                          died twice
                          > and then the judgment. Show me the verse that said Adam was
                          immortal.

                          Ro:6:23: For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
                          eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

                          Ge:3:3: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the
                          garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch
                          it, lest ye die.

                          A day to God (according to john) is a thousand years to us. Therefore
                          Adam had to die before 1000 years after eating the apple. He died at
                          the age of 970.

                          >
                          > > > > In a similar fashion, if the correct interpretation of the
                          >Bible is
                          > > > >Geocentrism, and we know that Geocentrism is a false >belief,
                          > > > why should we
                          > > > >give it any credence. Do you believe in Geocentrism?
                          > > >
                          > > > -No.
                          > >
                          > > >Why not, Geocentrism was thought to be the clear teaching of
                          >scripture.
                          > > Many
                          > > >still believe it is what is demanded by scripture in spite of
                          > > the >evidence
                          > > >to the contrary. In fact your standing as a Christian would be
                          > > in >jeopardy
                          > > >according to these folks, since you would be denying God's Word.
                          They
                          > > >would
                          > > >likewise try an appeal to authority and ask you, "who are you to
                          > > >question
                          > > >it?"
                          > >
                          > > -I think the earth is not the center of the solar system. I
                          don't know
                          > > where the center of the universe is.
                          >
                          > How do you know the Earth is not the Center of the solar system.
                          >
                          > > > > Both YEC and OEE are based on belief. One view is neither
                          > > > superior to the
                          > > > > other nor more scientific.
                          > > > >If your usage of "belief" is the same as faith, then that is a
                          >false
                          > > > >statement. Conclusions are arrived at by evidence. Beliefs
                          > > >held without
                          > > > >evidence is faith. Beliefs held in spite of the evidence is
                          >"dogma."
                          > > > >Following Morris' teachings suggests that you may be
                          > > > ill->equipped to make
                          > > > a
                          > > > >distinction.
                          > > >
                          > > > -Both are faith assumptions. I don't follow Morris's
                          > > teachings. I don't
                          > > > know how you came to that conclusion.
                          > >
                          > > >Oh, I think they are very valid conclusions, according to what
                          you >have
                          > > written. I can only deduce this from the many times you
                          >referenced him as
                          > > an
                          > > >expert in support of your assertions.
                          > >
                          > > I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. I only referenced Morris
                          once.
                          > > Someone else has referenced him to try to ridicule him but he was
                          > > unsuccessful in doing so. I agree with you that what I have seen
                          of his
                          > > books are very valid but I have not seen enough of his writings
                          to judge
                          > > them.
                          >
                          > Do you mean his books are NOT very valid, if so then we would be in
                          > agreement. This is not what you wrote.
                          >
                          > > > > Do you deny the Bible to say that the Earth is much older
                          than man is?
                          > > >
                          > > > >I deny the YEC interpretation of the Bible that says the
                          >Earth is 6000
                          > > > years
                          > > > >old.
                          > > >
                          > > > > The shirt analogy is not too helpful to me for reasons I have
                          > > > pointed out.
                          > > > > Can you say why you find it appropriate
                          > > >
                          > > > >Simply because the origin date for the two are different, >so
                          > > we wouldn't
                          > > > >expect to be able to determine the age of one from the >other.
                          > > >
                          > > > >You would have to produce physical evidence to indicate >that
                          > > > the Earth is
                          > > > >only 6000 years old, and not from a genealogy. If you >have
                          > > any physical
                          > > > >evidence from your in-depth study of the creation, we >could
                          certainly
                          > > > >discuss it.

                          Impossible. If a day to God (according to John) is a 1000 years to
                          man, then creation before Adam was a minimum of 5000 years alone. Up
                          to the end of the day of rest = 7000 years. Then we had another 970
                          years for adam to live. Since Christ there has been 2000 years. Thats
                          at least 10000 years so far according to scriptures.

                          > > >
                          > > > The oldest living Redwood tree is about 4000 years old. The
                          > > oldest living
                          > > > Bristlecone Pine is about 4000 years old.
                          > > > The oldest living Yew is about 4000 years old.
                          > > > The oldest corral reef is about 4000 years old.
                          > > > The oldest book or manuscript is less than 6000 years old.
                          > >
                          > > >Again, what does any of this have to do with the age of the
                          > > Earth? All >you
                          > > >are giving me is the alleged ages of the oldest living Redwood,
                          > > the >oldest
                          > > >living Bristlecone Pine, the oldest living Yew, the oldest coral
                          > > reef, >the
                          > > >oldest book or manuscript. What about the ages for the oldest
                          dead >coral
                          > > >reef, oldest rock, or even the oldest meteorites? But these are
                          all
                          > > >minimum
                          > > >ages for the Earth. Since the ages that have been revealed by the
                          > > >meteorites
                          > > >are considerably older than any of the examples you gave,
                          > > considering >that
                          > > >they indicate the earth's age is meaningless. You would have to
                          > > prove >that
                          > > >the age of the Earth is the same as the age for all these other
                          > > items. >You
                          > > >haven't done that. You have presented an interpretation of
                          > > scripture >that
                          > > >implies that, but that certainly is not proof.
                          > >
                          > > -You will never have proof. All you can do is look at what
                          Creation seems
                          > > to be saying and then form a belief. One belief is not superior
                          to the
                          > > other scientifically but one fits the Bible and the other does
                          not.
                          >
                          > It certainly doesn't fit the YEC take on the Bible.
                          >
                          > > I used examples of living things in hopes that the dating
                          > > methods used with
                          > > them is more reliable than fossil indexing or radiometric dating
                          > > techniques.
                          >
                          > Hope all you want. But you don't date fossils by living trees. But
                          your bio
                          > reveals why you would not grasp this.
                        • Todd S. Greene
                          Hi, everyone. I ve been looking around a bit for that historical, archaeological information that shows that there were only 8 people on the earth in 2000 BC
                          Message 12 of 30 , Aug 7, 2001
                            Hi, everyone.

                            I've been looking around a bit for that historical, archaeological
                            information that shows that there were only 8 people on the earth in
                            2000 BC or thereabout, and I haven't found anything yet.

                            I thought I'd pass along some of the "meta-"links I've got, and ask
                            others to help in the search. I'll pass along some additional links
                            at a later time.

                            Web links from Archaeology magazine online
                            http://www.archaeology.org/9703/etc/multimedia.html
                            http://www.archaeology.org/0009/etc/multimedia.html

                            Regards,
                            Todd
                          • Tedd Hadley
                            shb/ksb writes ... ... Given your background, you must be aware of the creosote bush _Larrea tridentata_ in the Mojave Desert, estimated to be over
                            Message 13 of 30 , Aug 8, 2001
                              "shb/ksb" writes
                              in message <000701c11ede$b2f72980$c9a47c3f@...>:
                              >
                              >
                              > My undergraduate degree is in Biology. I did graduate work in
                              > biochemical taxonomy of secondary metabolites in 4 plant species,
                              > in 2 genera.
                              <snip>

                              > > The oldest living Redwood tree is about 4000 years old. The
                              > > oldest living Bristlecone Pine is about 4000 years old. The
                              > > oldest living Yew is about 4000 years old. The oldest corral
                              > > reef is about 4000 years old. The oldest book or manuscript
                              > > is less than 6000 years old.

                              Given your background, you must be aware of the creosote bush
                              _Larrea tridentata_ in the Mojave Desert, estimated to be
                              over 12,000 years old.
                              http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0601.htm

                              Oldest sculpture dates back to about 30,000 years according to
                              this reference:
                              http://www.comp-archaeology.org/Oldest_Cave_Art-Sculpture.htm

                              Oldest cave paintings to about 30,000 years ago.
                              http://www.hominids.com/donsmaps/chauvetcave.html
                            • shb/ksb
                              Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 00:35:55 -0500 From: Stephen J. Krogh Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: Population Conclusion From: shb/ksb
                              Message 14 of 30 , Aug 8, 2001
                                Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 00:35:55 -0500
                                From: "Stephen J. Krogh" <panterragroup@...>
                                Subject: RE: RE: RE: RE: Population Conclusion

                                From: shb/ksb [mailto:skjn@...]
                                > Sent: Monday, August 06, 2001 8:17 PM
                                > To: creationism@yahoogroups.com
                                > Subject: [creat] RE: RE: RE: Population Conclusion
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > > From: "Stephen J. Krogh"
                                > > Tell me how
                                > > >you have studied the Creation.
                                >
                                > > -I have studied Creation in my education, experience and study.
                                >
                                > >That is pretty nebulous and doesn't answer the question. Again,
                                > "how" >have
                                > >you studied the Creation. What education, what experience and study? I
                                > >would
                                > >not want to assume that your education and experience has come from
                                > >reading
                                > >AIG and ICR-type websites. What field studies have you done.
                                >
                                > My undergraduate degree is in Biology. I did graduate work in biochemical
                                > taxonomy of secondary metabolites in 4 plant species, in 2
                                > genera. I worked
                                > for 21 years as a laboratory supervisor in both chemistry laboratories and
                                > microbiology. I have worked 5 years as an environmental manager.
                                Gardening experience.

                                >So you haven't studied Geology. I now understand your lack of studying >the
                                >Creation. This is the area that you are addressing - the Age of the >Earth.
                                >Not the oldest living tree.

                                -Biology is the study of life. Much of the Genesis account involved the
                                creation of life. If we have organisms that seems to be able to live for
                                very long times and they are mostly 4000 years old, then we have an
                                indication a young earth. In other words we should be seeing older
                                specimens if there was no flood and enormous time periods.


                                > > >If the correct interpretation is a 24-hr day, then the Bible >is
                                > > presented
                                > > as
                                > > >unbelievable from the very first chapter, so why bother
                                > >considering any
                                > > more
                                > > >of it.
                                >
                                > > -The limits God's power. If God's Word says he created in 24
                                > > hours periods,
                                > > who are you to question it?
                                >
                                > >Who is questioning God's Word? All I am questioning is your
                                > >interpretation.
                                >
                                > -By saying you don't know why to bother considering the Bible if it says
                                > that creation was done in 24 hours.
                                > This sounds like you are saying you
                                > know more than God does about the creation.

                                >Hardly. I don't believe the Bible specified 24-hour creation days, so >you
                                >heard wrong. However, IF the Bible demanded that the days were 24 >hours,
                                and
                                >since that would be false, why bother continuing when it was shown to >be
                                >wrong from the very first chapter.

                                -What do you think the word day means in Genesis Ch.1?

                                > > You will have other problems if you try to reconcile OEE with the Bible.
                                > > Romans 5:12 says that death entered the world as the result of
                                > Adam's sin.
                                > > OEE would have to occur over millions of years without death.
                                >
                                > >What kind of death? It had to be the kind of death that Adam
                                > suffered >the
                                > >day the he ate of the fruit, yet he still lived to a ripe old
                                > age, >so...it
                                > >must not have been a physical death. So your citation must be a
                                > >referring
                                > to
                                > >a spiritual death. On the other hand YECs have a hard time with
                                > the >fossil
                                > >record which shows a long history of physical death before man
                                > was >even on
                                > >the scene. So much so that there are various attempt to explain them >all
                                > >away in some fashion, either with Flood Geology, God planting them in
                                > >place,
                                > >Satan planting them in place, Gap Theory.
                                >
                                > -The spirit never dies. It is appointed once for men to die and then the
                                > judgement. So it must be a physical death. It means that sin entered the
                                > world as a result of Adams sin. The wages of sin is death. He would not
                                > have died if he had not sinned according to the Bible, nor would there be
                                > any death.

                                >But Adam died the day he ate of the fruit. If so Adam would have died
                                >twice
                                >and then the judgment. Show me the verse that said Adam was immortal.

                                -You are referring to Gen 2:17 I think. In this verse God is telling Adam
                                that on the day that he eats he will become finite.

                                > > > In a similar fashion, if the correct interpretation of the >Bible is
                                > > >Geocentrism, and we know that Geocentrism is a false >belief,
                                > > why should we
                                > > >give it any credence. Do you believe in Geocentrism?
                                > >
                                > > -No.
                                >
                                > >Why not, Geocentrism was thought to be the clear teaching of >scripture.
                                > Many
                                > >still believe it is what is demanded by scripture in spite of
                                > the >evidence
                                > >to the contrary. In fact your standing as a Christian would be
                                > in >jeopardy
                                > >according to these folks, since you would be denying God's Word. They
                                > >would
                                > >likewise try an appeal to authority and ask you, "who are you to
                                > >question
                                > >it?"
                                >
                                > -I think the earth is not the center of the solar system. I don't know
                                > where the center of the universe is.

                                >How do you know the Earth is not the Center of the solar system.

                                -Common knowledge. Where do think the center of the universe is?

                                > > > Both YEC and OEE are based on belief. One view is neither
                                > > superior to the
                                > > > other nor more scientific.
                                > > >If your usage of "belief" is the same as faith, then that is a >false
                                > > >statement. Conclusions are arrived at by evidence. Beliefs
                                > >held without
                                > > >evidence is faith. Beliefs held in spite of the evidence is >"dogma."
                                > > >Following Morris' teachings suggests that you may be
                                > > ill->equipped to make
                                > > a
                                > > >distinction.
                                > >
                                > > -Both are faith assumptions. I don't follow Morris's
                                > teachings. I don't
                                > > know how you came to that conclusion.
                                >
                                > >Oh, I think they are very valid conclusions, according to what you >have
                                > written. I can only deduce this from the many times you >referenced him as
                                > an
                                > >expert in support of your assertions.
                                >
                                > I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. I only referenced Morris once.
                                > Someone else has referenced him to try to ridicule him but he was
                                > unsuccessful in doing so. I agree with you that what I have seen of his
                                > books are very valid but I have not seen enough of his writings to judge
                                > them.

                                >Do you mean his books are NOT very valid, if so then we would be in
                                >agreement. This is not what you wrote.

                                -Are you saying you miswrote your original statement above? Also, you said
                                that I had reference Dr. Morris a number of times. Would you like to
                                retract that?

                                > > > Do you deny the Bible to say that the Earth is much older than man is?
                                > >
                                > > >I deny the YEC interpretation of the Bible that says the >Earth is 6000
                                > > years
                                > > >old.
                                > >
                                > > > The shirt analogy is not too helpful to me for reasons I have
                                > > pointed out.
                                > > > Can you say why you find it appropriate
                                > >
                                > > >Simply because the origin date for the two are different, >so
                                > we wouldn't
                                > > >expect to be able to determine the age of one from the >other.
                                > >
                                > > >You would have to produce physical evidence to indicate >that
                                > > the Earth is
                                > > >only 6000 years old, and not from a genealogy. If you >have
                                > any physical
                                > > >evidence from your in-depth study of the creation, we >could certainly
                                > > >discuss it.
                                > >
                                > > The oldest living Redwood tree is about 4000 years old. The
                                > oldest living
                                > > Bristlecone Pine is about 4000 years old.
                                > > The oldest living Yew is about 4000 years old.
                                > > The oldest corral reef is about 4000 years old.
                                > > The oldest book or manuscript is less than 6000 years old.
                                >
                                > >Again, what does any of this have to do with the age of the
                                > Earth? All >you
                                > >are giving me is the alleged ages of the oldest living Redwood,
                                > the >oldest
                                > >living Bristlecone Pine, the oldest living Yew, the oldest coral
                                > reef, >the
                                > >oldest book or manuscript. What about the ages for the oldest dead >coral
                                > >reef, oldest rock, or even the oldest meteorites? But these are all
                                > >minimum
                                > >ages for the Earth. Since the ages that have been revealed by the
                                > >meteorites
                                > >are considerably older than any of the examples you gave,
                                > considering >that
                                > >they indicate the earth's age is meaningless. You would have to
                                > prove >that
                                > >the age of the Earth is the same as the age for all these other
                                > items. >You
                                > >haven't done that. You have presented an interpretation of
                                > scripture >that
                                > >implies that, but that certainly is not proof.
                                >
                                > -You will never have proof. All you can do is look at what Creation seems
                                > to be saying and then form a belief. One belief is not superior to the
                                > other scientifically but one fits the Bible and the other does not.

                                >It certainly doesn't fit the YEC take on the Bible.

                                -That is your bias. Everyone has a bias.

                                > I used examples of living things in hopes that the dating
                                > methods used with
                                > them is more reliable than fossil indexing or radiometric dating
                                > techniques.

                                >Hope all you want. But you don't date fossils by living trees. But >your
                                bio
                                >reveals why you would not grasp this.

                                -I didn't say that.
                              • Todd S. Greene
                                Hi, Stephen and Steve. This is also a particularly goofy YEC argument. It s the equivalent of saying, None of your alleged great-great grandparents are alive,
                                Message 15 of 30 , Aug 9, 2001
                                  Hi, Stephen and Steve.

                                  This is also a particularly goofy YEC argument. It's the equivalent of
                                  saying, "None of your alleged great-great grandparents are alive,
                                  therefore you don't really have any ancestry."

                                  Quite absurd.

                                  Steve Howard, I'm still waiting for your references to the professional
                                  historical and archaeological literature that substantiates your
                                  false claim that there were only 8 people on the earth around 2000
                                  B.C. or so. Are you going to provide the references, or not?

                                  Regards,
                                  Todd


                                  ###### Stephen J. Krogh, 8/8/01 8:01 PM ######

                                  > -----Original Message-----
                                  >
                                  >> So you haven't studied Geology. I now understand your lack of
                                  >> studying the Creation. This is the area that you are addressing
                                  >> - the Age of the Earth. Not the oldest living tree.
                                  >
                                  > -Biology is the study of life. Much of the Genesis account involved the
                                  > creation of life. If we have organisms that seems to be able to live for
                                  > very long times and they are mostly 4000 years old, then we have an
                                  > indication a young earth. In other words we should be seeing older
                                  > specimens if there was no flood and enormous time periods.

                                  No we do not have any indication of the sort. The Age of the Earth does not
                                  rely on the age of any living specimen. Why should we. Besides, Ted found a
                                  reference the Larrea tridentata_ in the Mojave Desert, estimated to be
                                  over 12,000 years old. What about the plants and animals that are no longer
                                  living?
                                • shb/ksb
                                  From: Tedd Hadley shb/ksb writes ... ... - This doesn t necessarily follow, as you may know. ... *
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Aug 10, 2001
                                    From: Tedd Hadley <hadley@...>
                                    "shb/ksb" writes
                                    in message <000701c11ede$b2f72980$c9a47c3f@...>:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > My undergraduate degree is in Biology. I did graduate work in
                                    > biochemical taxonomy of secondary metabolites in 4 plant species,
                                    > in 2 genera.
                                    <snip>

                                    > > The oldest living Redwood tree is about 4000 years old. The
                                    > > oldest living Bristlecone Pine is about 4000 years old. The
                                    > > oldest living Yew is about 4000 years old. The oldest corral
                                    > > reef is about 4000 years old. The oldest book or manuscript
                                    > > is less than 6000 years old.

                                    > Given your background, you must be aware of

                                    - This doesn't necessarily follow, as you may know.

                                    >the creosote bush
                                    > _Larrea tridentata_ in the Mojave Desert, estimated to be
                                    > over 12,000 years old.
                                    > http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0601.htm
                                    >
                                    > Oldest sculpture dates back to about 30,000 years according to
                                    > this reference:
                                    > http://www.comp-archaeology.org/Oldest_Cave_Art-Sculpture.htm

                                    >Oldest cave paintings to about 30,000 years ago.
                                    * http://www.hominids.com/donsmaps/chauvetcave.html

                                    - I was aware of the creosote bush age when I posted the other values. I
                                    didn't want to introduce values that were questionable due to dating
                                    techniques. Can you tell me how the ages were determined on the values you
                                    introduced? Also, what is the +/- for the ages. If you know anything about
                                    C-14 you know that there are always wide ranges of values.

                                    Steve Howard
                                  • shb/ksb
                                    From: Stephen J. Krogh ... -I have entered objections to the data introduced. ... -What scripture? I d suggest you talk to
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Aug 10, 2001
                                      From: "Stephen J. Krogh" <panterragroup@...>

                                      > -----Original Message-----
                                      >
                                      > >So you haven't studied Geology. I now understand your lack of
                                      > studying >the
                                      > >Creation. This is the area that you are addressing - the Age of
                                      > the >Earth.
                                      > >Not the oldest living tree.
                                      >
                                      > -Biology is the study of life. Much of the Genesis account involved the
                                      > creation of life. If we have organisms that seems to be able to live for
                                      > very long times and they are mostly 4000 years old, then we have an
                                      > indication a young earth. In other words we should be seeing older
                                      > specimens if there was no flood and enormous time periods.

                                      >No we do not have any indication of the sort. The Age of the Earth does not
                                      >rely on the age of any living specimen. Why should we. Besides, Ted found a
                                      >reference the Larrea tridentata_ in the Mojave Desert, estimated to be
                                      >over 12,000 years old. What about the plants and animals that are no longer
                                      >living?

                                      -I have entered objections to the data introduced.

                                      > >Hardly. I don't believe the Bible specified 24-hour creation
                                      > days, so >you
                                      > >heard wrong. However, IF the Bible demanded that the days were 24 >hours,
                                      > and
                                      > >since that would be false, why bother continuing when it was shown to >be
                                      > >wrong from the very first chapter.
                                      >
                                      > -What do you think the word day means in Genesis Ch.1?

                                      >As you posted, Yom has three meanings, These all are literal meaning. >I
                                      >would suspect long periods of time if the scripture must be taken as a
                                      >chronolog. otherwise it would be wrong.

                                      > > > You will have other problems if you try to reconcile OEE with
                                      > the Bible.
                                      > > > Romans 5:12 says that death entered the world as the result of
                                      > > Adam's sin.
                                      > > > OEE would have to occur over millions of years without death.
                                      > >
                                      > > >What kind of death? It had to be the kind of death that Adam
                                      > > suffered >the
                                      > > >day the he ate of the fruit, yet he still lived to a ripe old
                                      > > age, >so...it
                                      > > >must not have been a physical death. So your citation must be a
                                      > > >referring
                                      > > to
                                      > > >a spiritual death. On the other hand YECs have a hard time with
                                      > > the >fossil
                                      > > >record which shows a long history of physical death before man
                                      > > was >even on
                                      > > >the scene. So much so that there are various attempt to
                                      > explain them >all
                                      > > >away in some fashion, either with Flood Geology, God planting them in
                                      > > >place,
                                      > > >Satan planting them in place, Gap Theory.
                                      > >
                                      > > -The spirit never dies. It is appointed once for men to die
                                      > and then the
                                      > > judgement. So it must be a physical death. It means that sin
                                      > entered the
                                      > > world as a result of Adams sin. The wages of sin is death. He
                                      > would not
                                      > > have died if he had not sinned according to the Bible, nor
                                      > would there be
                                      > > any death.
                                      >
                                      > >But Adam died the day he ate of the fruit. If so Adam would have died
                                      > >twice
                                      > >and then the judgment. Show me the verse that said Adam was immortal.
                                      >
                                      > -You are referring to Gen 2:17 I think. In this verse God is telling Adam
                                      > that on the day that he eats he will become finite.

                                      >I don't think so, but go right ahead.

                                      > > > > In a similar fashion, if the correct interpretation of the >Bible is
                                      > > > >Geocentrism, and we know that Geocentrism is a false >belief,
                                      > > > why should we
                                      > > > >give it any credence. Do you believe in Geocentrism?
                                      > > >
                                      > > > -No.
                                      > >
                                      > > >Why not, Geocentrism was thought to be the clear teaching of
                                      > >scripture.
                                      > > Many
                                      > > >still believe it is what is demanded by scripture in spite of
                                      > > the >evidence
                                      > > >to the contrary. In fact your standing as a Christian would be
                                      > > in >jeopardy
                                      > > >according to these folks, since you would be denying God's Word. They
                                      > > >would
                                      > > >likewise try an appeal to authority and ask you, "who are you to
                                      > > >question
                                      > > >it?"
                                      > >
                                      > > -I think the earth is not the center of the solar system. I don't know
                                      > > where the center of the universe is.
                                      >
                                      > >How do you know the Earth is not the Center of the solar system.
                                      >
                                      > -Common knowledge. Where do think the center of the universe is?

                                      >Really, how did you come by that knowledge? Common knowledge of >fallible
                                      >man? That goes against scripture.

                                      -What scripture? I'd suggest you talk to Todd about the solar system. This
                                      is a bit off topic for this list.

                                      >you may be
                                      > > > ill->equipped to make
                                      > > > a
                                      > > > >distinction.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > -Both are faith assumptions. I don't follow Morris's
                                      > > teachings. I don't
                                      > > > know how you came to that conclusion.
                                      > >
                                      > > >Oh, I think they are very valid conclusions, according to what
                                      > you >have
                                      > > written. I can only deduce this from the many times you
                                      > >referenced him as
                                      > > an
                                      > > >expert in support of your assertions.
                                      > >
                                      > > I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. I only referenced Morris once.
                                      > > Someone else has referenced him to try to ridicule him but he was
                                      > > unsuccessful in doing so. I agree with you that what I have seen of his
                                      > > books are very valid but I have not seen enough of his writings to judge
                                      > > them.
                                      >
                                      > >Do you mean his books are NOT very valid, if so then we would be in
                                      > >agreement. This is not what you wrote.
                                      >
                                      > -Are you saying you miswrote your original statement above?
                                      > Also, you said
                                      > that I had reference Dr. Morris a number of times. Would you like to
                                      > retract that?

                                      >You wrote that you agreed with me that Morris' books were valid, when I
                                      >would say they were invalid.

                                      -This is childish. I haven't read much of Dr. Morris's writings. What I
                                      have read looks okay. I see no major flaws. It might be better for you to
                                      discuss this with someone who has read his books.

                                      Do you deny the Bible to say that the Earth is much older
                                      > than man is?
                                      > > >
                                      > > > >I deny the YEC interpretation of the Bible that says the
                                      > >Earth is 6000
                                      > > > years
                                      > > > >old.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > > The shirt analogy is not too helpful to me for reasons I have
                                      > > > pointed out.
                                      > > > > Can you say why you find it appropriate
                                      > > >
                                      > > > >Simply because the origin date for the two are different, >so
                                      > > we wouldn't
                                      > > > >expect to be able to determine the age of one from the >other.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > >You would have to produce physical evidence to indicate >that
                                      > > > the Earth is
                                      > > > >only 6000 years old, and not from a genealogy. If you >have
                                      > > any physical
                                      > > > >evidence from your in-depth study of the creation, we >could
                                      > certainly
                                      > > > >discuss it.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > The oldest living Redwood tree is about 4000 years old. The
                                      > > oldest living
                                      > > > Bristlecone Pine is about 4000 years old.
                                      > > > The oldest living Yew is about 4000 years old.
                                      > > > The oldest corral reef is about 4000 years old.
                                      > > > The oldest book or manuscript is less than 6000 years old.
                                      > >
                                      > > >Again, what does any of this have to do with the age of the
                                      > > Earth? All >you
                                      > > >are giving me is the alleged ages of the oldest living Redwood,
                                      > > the >oldest
                                      > > >living Bristlecone Pine, the oldest living Yew, the oldest coral
                                      > > reef, >the
                                      > > >oldest book or manuscript. What about the ages for the oldest
                                      > dead >coral
                                      > > >reef, oldest rock, or even the oldest meteorites? But these are all
                                      > > >minimum
                                      > > >ages for the Earth. Since the ages that have been revealed by the
                                      > > >meteorites
                                      > > >are considerably older than any of the examples you gave,
                                      > > considering >that
                                      > > >they indicate the earth's age is meaningless. You would have to
                                      > > prove >that
                                      > > >the age of the Earth is the same as the age for all these other
                                      > > items. >You
                                      > > >haven't done that. You have presented an interpretation of
                                      > > scripture >that
                                      > > >implies that, but that certainly is not proof.
                                      > >
                                      > > -You will never have proof. All you can do is look at what
                                      > Creation seems
                                      > > to be saying and then form a belief. One belief is not superior to the
                                      > > other scientifically but one fits the Bible and the other does not.
                                      >
                                      > >It certainly doesn't fit the YEC take on the Bible.
                                      >
                                      > -That is your bias. Everyone has a bias.

                                      >One "belief" is superior scientifically than the other, because it is
                                      >based
                                      >on the evidence, otherwise, it is not science at all, but >pseudoscience.

                                      -You have not shown this to be the case.

                                      >YECism is not science at all, since it is based on an interpretation of
                                      >scripture. So it doesn't qualify as science.

                                      -You haven't shown this either.

                                      > > I used examples of living things in hopes that the dating
                                      > > methods used with
                                      > > them is more reliable than fossil indexing or radiometric dating
                                      > > techniques.
                                      >
                                      > >Hope all you want. But you don't date fossils by living trees. But >your
                                      > bio
                                      > >reveals why you would not grasp this.
                                      >
                                      > -I didn't say that.

                                      >I see, you just ignore other dating techniques, if a result is older >than
                                      >what you believe to be the age of the earth. You are only dating one
                                      >aspect
                                      >of the Earth and ignoring the rest.

                                      -My your assumptions are grand. Here is the order of accuracy as I see it
                                      in order from least accurate to most accurate, fossil indexing, radiometric
                                      dating, living tree rings, original observation.

                                      >That goes back to my shirt analogy, i.e.
                                      >reading the manufacturing date of my shirt and from that alone, >assuming
                                      >that is my age.

                                      -This illustrates what you think.

                                      >You haven't presented any physical evidence showing that the
                                      >earth is young. Population figures don't address it, nor do your >alleged
                                      >oldest living plants.

                                      -I'm not done yet.
                                    • Todd S. Greene
                                      Hi, Steve Howard. This is childish. (Your term.) Your subjective, unsubstantiated personal musings don t count as a legitimate objection. We all know that you
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Aug 11, 2001
                                        Hi, Steve Howard.

                                        This is childish. (Your term.) Your subjective, unsubstantiated personal
                                        musings don't count as a legitimate objection. We all know that you are
                                        aware of this fact.

                                        We're still waiting for your references to the professional historical
                                        and archaeological literature that substantiate your false claim that
                                        there were only 8 people on the earth around 2000 B.C. or so.

                                        Regards,
                                        Todd S. Greene
                                        http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/


                                        ###### Steve Howard, 8/10/01 9:09 PM ######

                                        From: "Stephen J. Krogh" <panterragroup@...>

                                        > -----Original Message-----
                                        >
                                        > >So you haven't studied Geology. I now understand your lack of
                                        > studying >the
                                        > >Creation. This is the area that you are addressing - the Age of
                                        > the >Earth.
                                        > >Not the oldest living tree.
                                        >
                                        > -Biology is the study of life. Much of the Genesis account involved the
                                        > creation of life. If we have organisms that seems to be able to live for
                                        > very long times and they are mostly 4000 years old, then we have an
                                        > indication a young earth. In other words we should be seeing older
                                        > specimens if there was no flood and enormous time periods.

                                        >No we do not have any indication of the sort. The Age of the Earth does not
                                        >rely on the age of any living specimen. Why should we. Besides, Ted found a
                                        >reference the Larrea tridentata_ in the Mojave Desert, estimated to be
                                        >over 12,000 years old. What about the plants and animals that are no longer
                                        >living?

                                        -I have entered objections to the data introduced.
                                      • Tedd Hadley
                                        shb/ksb writes ... Oh, that s right; you re skeptical of dating techniques. Okay: did you know that overlapping tree rings go back to 7000 years? J. R.
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Aug 13, 2001
                                          "shb/ksb" writes
                                          in message <000701c12201$d344d5e0$cea47c3f@...>:
                                          >
                                          > I was aware of the creosote bush age when I posted the other
                                          > values. I didn't want to introduce values that were questionable
                                          > due to dating techniques. Can you tell me how the ages were
                                          > determined on the values you introduced?

                                          Oh, that's right; you're skeptical of dating techniques.
                                          Okay: did you know that overlapping tree rings go back
                                          to 7000 years?

                                          J. R. Pilcher, M. G. L. Baillie, B. Schmidt, and B. Becker, "A
                                          7,272-year Tree-ring Chronology for Western Europe," Nature, Nov
                                          8, 1984, pp. 150-152.
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.