- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 11/27/18 at 6:57 pm to Jjdoc
quote:So, the idea that some individuals might interpret this ancient book differently is somehow "fact" that they "lack the ability to understand" because that understanding is different from your own? I'm not sure is I'm more dumbfounded by your arrogance or ignorance.
the fact that some people lack the ability to understand what they are reading on the Bible
Posted on 11/27/18 at 6:58 pm to SquatchDawg
Angel-human halfbreeds
Zombies
Talking Snakes
A boat with a mating pair of every animal on it
Rockmonsters
Aliens
Young Earth Creationists
this thread fricking delivers
Zombies
Talking Snakes
A boat with a mating pair of every animal on it
Rockmonsters
Aliens
Young Earth Creationists
this thread fricking delivers
Posted on 11/27/18 at 7:04 pm to rickyh
But it is regression that requires constant growth through the depletions of human population such as the Black Death or 90% of Native American dying. and that it doesn't hurt global population and that global war didn't lead to negative population rates. This is old and defeated argument and is completely blind to the idea that populations didn't always have access to resources that would allow what we see today.
Further the modeling used is a modified Malthusian growth prediction which is no good over 50 years maximum.
It's not that I don't like it, but rather that it doesn't make sense. If you applied the same logic at the comparative growth rate of bacteria over the same time, you would have more bacteria than there exists atoms on earth. And that's if you started at 1 bacteria in total.
Further the modeling used is a modified Malthusian growth prediction which is no good over 50 years maximum.
It's not that I don't like it, but rather that it doesn't make sense. If you applied the same logic at the comparative growth rate of bacteria over the same time, you would have more bacteria than there exists atoms on earth. And that's if you started at 1 bacteria in total.
This post was edited on 11/27/18 at 7:09 pm
Posted on 11/27/18 at 7:10 pm to bmy
quote:
bmy
SO EDGY
MUCH COOL GUY
Posted on 11/27/18 at 7:28 pm to Jjdoc
All life on earth comes from one single celled organism that emerged billions of years ago. So the fact humans originated from a few people 200,000 years ago is not surprising at all. In fact, it would be a revelation if this weren't true.
But the human species is more complex than that as was proved a number of years ago by scientists who showed that most Euros and Asians have Neanderthal DNA (while Africans don't). Likewise, they've since proved that Australasians have Denosivan DNA while no one else does. (Denisovans were the more easterly cousins to Neanderthals).
But the human species is more complex than that as was proved a number of years ago by scientists who showed that most Euros and Asians have Neanderthal DNA (while Africans don't). Likewise, they've since proved that Australasians have Denosivan DNA while no one else does. (Denisovans were the more easterly cousins to Neanderthals).
Posted on 11/27/18 at 7:38 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
Our communal mom and dad got together after a “catastrophic event” almost wiped out the human race, the Daily Mail reported of the study.
Sounds like some goofy make-believe shite this board would eat up.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 7:51 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
All Humanity Comes From One Couple
frick. So we’re all Alabama fans after all.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 7:55 pm to Tactical1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. That sentence ends in a period. In the beginning means what it says, in the beginning. It doesn't seek to explain what 'in the beginning' constitutes.
We reside on a rather ancient globe, evidence abounds, and evidence abounds that the Bible doesn't necessarily cover every second, every event of every day - has never claimed to. Why not? Well, maybe, just maybe, Scripture concerns itself with God and mankind as we know it, some 6000 or so years. Seems to me we can easily believe in an old earth and recent creation at the same time...not everything is all or nothing.
We reside on a rather ancient globe, evidence abounds, and evidence abounds that the Bible doesn't necessarily cover every second, every event of every day - has never claimed to. Why not? Well, maybe, just maybe, Scripture concerns itself with God and mankind as we know it, some 6000 or so years. Seems to me we can easily believe in an old earth and recent creation at the same time...not everything is all or nothing.
This post was edited on 11/27/18 at 8:01 pm
Posted on 11/27/18 at 7:58 pm to BamaAtl
Lol like I said, I’m consistent. Can’t say the same for you, ole girl.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 8:05 pm to blackrose890
The worlds population growth averages doubling close to every 50 years. In the year 2000 we hit 6 billion, !950- 3 billion, 1900 1.5 billion. Counting backwards this it takes less than 3500 years to reach 2. This accounts for the diseases and wars slowing the growth. Today many nations are actually losing growth because of contraception and abortion. Third world countries where they have much less food and more illnesses are experiencing population growth at much higher rates. It is totally impossible for mankind to have inhabited the Earth for the years that they claim. Totally impossible.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 8:06 pm to AUstar
200,00 years is an impossible number. Google human population growth and believe your eyes.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 8:23 pm to rickyh
I already laid out why those models are not workable, and already applied it's formula using the same standards for another organism with a higher growth rate starting from 1/8 the population. It's almost like you didn't listen or care.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 8:26 pm to rickyh
Not to mention that means less than a few thousand people built the tower of Babel, the Mojen-Daro, the Pyramids, and the Ur Ziggaraut in the early aftermath.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 8:29 pm to rickyh
Like i said previously , 6-7,000 years .
Posted on 11/27/18 at 8:45 pm to rickyh
quote:
The worlds population growth averages doubling close to every 50 years. In the year 2000 we hit 6 billion, !950- 3 billion, 1900 1.5 billion. Counting backwards this it takes less than 3500 years to reach 2. This accounts for the diseases and wars slowing the growth. Today many nations are actually losing growth because of contraception and abortion. Third world countries where they have much less food and more illnesses are experiencing population growth at much higher rates. It is totally impossible for mankind to have inhabited the Earth for the years that they claim. Totally impossible.
This.
Another fact. If humans were around for that long they would have drank all the freshwater and we'd all die from thirst!
Checkmate atheists!
Posted on 11/27/18 at 8:45 pm to Esquire
quote:
Why is that?
Because supernatural beings are by definition unscientific. They're nonfalsifiable.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 8:49 pm to Azkiger
quote:
This.
Another fact. If humans were around for that long they would have drank all the freshwater and we'd all die from thirst!
Checkmate atheists!
One: not an atheist. Two: how is a civilization with a median age of 7 or 8 going to build the Tower of Babel when all the women are constantly pregnant and men average the age of 11 to 13 all while maintaining practically modern (first world) infant and mother mortality rates?
Edit: actually no, the average age wouldn't even be that high.
This post was edited on 11/27/18 at 8:58 pm
Posted on 11/27/18 at 9:49 pm to Yak
quote:
Well, that's convenient
Actually.... it's just scripture.
Posted on 11/27/18 at 9:51 pm to blackrose890
We are not some other organism. You cannot compare our species to any other. Why would you even try to do that?
Page 13 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News