re: Young-earth creationists mock flat-earthers...

quote:

---

Evolution people being the worst.

---

The truth hurts baw

quote:

---

circle doesn't mean a sphere you know.... Flat Earthers do believe The Earth is circular shaped but they don't think it's a sphere.

---

What does this mean?

quote:

---

Young-earth creationists

---

Sorry, but your evolution math just doesn't work

2017 - 7.5B population
2000 - 6B
1500 - 550M
1000 - 250M
1AD - 170M
1000BC - 50M
2000BC - 25M
5000BC - 5M
10,000BC - 15K


You simply cant get back 2M years ago with that level of population growth. Because 1 drought, 1 flood, 1 earthquake, 1 epidemic, 1 volcano, etc. would have wiped out the entire population, if the numbers stayed small, for that long of a period.

First you said

quote:

---

I have never read anything in The Bible that implies a round Earth or an Earth that revolves around a Sun.

---

To which I replied with references to the circle of the earth. Circles are round.

quote:

---

A circle doesn't mean a sphere you know.... Flat Earthers do believe The Earth is circular shaped but they don't think it's a sphere

---

Indeed, and I did point out that both camps can make claims regarding the circular earth. And a circle and sphere do have a geometrical relationship.

quote:

---

Either way, the Bible says many times the Earth stays still. Which doesn't hold up to what you learned in Science class.

---

Modern people also say they stop their car, even though it is hurtling through space at breakneck speeds upon this earth. From a relative perspective, the earth is still and immovable. It's also flat from a relative perspective, which is why we talk about things like plains being flat.

I guess what I'm saying is that trying to read bible passages as a science manual may not be what was intended or useful.

quote:

---

It DEFINITELY says that the Earth doesn't revolve around the Sun. Can you admit that?

---

I don't see it that way but it easy to see that you could, which I did say. I don't think it says either way. But I don't think it was attempting to describe the science of the earth.

quote:

---

It's your belief that population growth was held in suspended animation for 2.5M years.

---

I ought to stop reading here, as there are few things more annoying than having a conversation start with "It's your belief..." before having said anything. But I have a few minutes, so frick it...

quote:

---

Yet for 2M years the world population stayed under 15K. Yet mysteriously 10K or less years ago, there was this random explosion. To the 7B we have today

The math just doesn't work

---

Oh wait...you seem to be suggesting that population growth is supposed to be some crazy constant from the beginning of our species until now? Yeah...um, no one is saying that. Reality was that our species was relatively few for most of our time here on Earth for tons of reasons. Hell...up until the mid 19th Century the average human life span worldwide was something like 35. I wonder what would account for the huge bump in population growth beginning then...hmmmm, it IS a mystery. Put another way, it's kind of hard to have a population boom when your species dies in their 20's after only being sexually mature for about 10 years.

quote:

---

Odd how that 99% of all species have gone extinct, except for humans, who barely could reproduce for 2M years.

---

That's quite the non sequitor. The fact that 99% of all species that have ever lived beginning from the first life forms on earth (roughly 3.7 billion years ago) and homo sapiens have yet to do that (our time frame is still being pegged somewhere between 500,00 years or younger though that date keeps getting slid back further and further as new evidence come to light) have nothing to do with each other. Relatively speaking, we've lived a very short time frame compared to the age of the earth. There is still time for us to go the way of the dodo, if that's your point.

quote:

---

translation: we haven't been on Earth for that long, or our population would have exploded millennia ago)

---

It's at this point that I ought to go through the trouble of explaining how, genetically, you have no idea what the flying frick you're talking about. We actually have a fantastic example of what ALL life on Earth would look like if we all started from a small group thousands of years ago rather than billions. I give you...the cheetah. Cheetahs want through a bottle neck somewhere around 10,000 years ago dwindling down to only a few dozens or so animals. This has had devastating effects of the population in terms of their inability to fight off diseases because there is virtually no diversity within the group. Even more telling, is that ALL modern cheetahs can be donors for all OTHER cheetahs. You get that? That means they are virtually clones of each other because they ave simply not had enough time and been too isolated to diversify enough to even be bad matches for tissues for each other.

Lemme' ask you...is that the same for humans? Can any random guy walk in and be a donor for a skin graft, or heart transplant? You know why? Because our species has been a round for too long and become too diverse for that to happen. While that sucks for transplant recipients, it's essential for the health of the species as a whole.

quote:

---

There's also the math that doesn't add up with technological advances. All the materials have been readily available for millions of years. Yet we just sat and stared at the clouds for 2M years. bullshite!

---

Wow. So the fact that we had all the raw materials for the internet 200,000 years ago and yet they did not build it suggests to you that we must not have been around for 200,000 years? I'm literally sorry I bothered to type all that shite above...truly.

quote:

---

up until the mid 19th Century the average human life span worldwide was something like 35.

---

Stopped reading right there. You really are clueless. That's why you buy into the rest of the BS you just spouted

quote:

---

Human Lifespans Nearly Constant for 2,000 Years

---

Live Science

quote:

---

When Socrates died at the age of 70 around 399 B.C., he did not die of old age but instead by execution. It is ironic that ancient Greeks lived into their 70s and older, while more than 2,000 years later modern Americans aren't living much longer.

---

quote:

---

When Socrates died at the age of 70 around 399 B.C., he did not die of old age but instead by execution. It is ironic that ancient Greeks lived into their 70s and older, while more than 2,000 years later modern Americans aren't living much longer.

---

Your population numbers for recent times include a bunch of people that didn't die as infants but would have in prior times.

Do you not understand that a person who dies as an infant will not contribute much to future population growth?

the problem there is at the edge of a disc the planar gravity becomes so strong it pulls things at the edge back to the center not allowing a smooth fall over the edge.

a building built at the edge of the disc would lean as much as 80 degrees relative to those at the center.