So...how were things "created"?

[Scotracer]

Since there's a certain sector of religious faith that believes everything was "created" rather than forming over billions of years due to natural processes, I feel the need to pose a question:

How were these things created?

Science is used to increase the sum of knowledge of mankind. Simply stating something was created doesn't really help, does it? So, please tell me and everyone else just how these things were created.

[Alan Clarke]

THE LAW OF SIN & DEATH

I am not quite sure what this image is supposed to convey. It certainly is not a diagram of what we know of human population.

You are exactly correct. The philosophy behind the sinusoidal graph was from evolutionists trying to explain away the fact that we have too few people on planet Earth if Homo sapiens started 400,000 - 250,000 years ago. [see ref. 1] Click here for a population growth rate calculator. So how do evolutionists account for too few people? Read about the continuum hypothesis for yourself:

Every species reproduces faster than is necessary to replenish its population. A limit is reached - food supply, territory, predation, competition. The population declines, and eventually grows again, in a roughly sinusoidal pattern. (source)

McCulloch, I cannot thank you enough for providing the CORRECT population graph which I will post again for everyone's convenience. Please locate 2400 B.C. (date of Biblical Flood) on your excellent graph, endorsed by you as "what we know", and tell me what the population is. Scream out that number 10 times to your neighbors and everyone you encounter, because most people are uneducated on this matter. Would not a logical conclusion be that the Biblical model fits the data much better than a model that says Homo sapiens started 400,000 - 250,000 years ago? On your excellent and informative graph, 400,000 years ago would extend 24 feet to the left (on my computer monitor) and end up in the street from where I sit. The reason Homo sapiens is called sapiens is because he is smart. If I was living back at that time with no technological build-up, I would think to myself:

My neighbors are far and few. I have practically infinite land. What can I do to increase my security? I need to be with more people who have like-minded goals of making life better. If I get old or hurt, I want someone who will care for me that I can trust. If I found a wife and started having children, that would be a good way for me to start building people around me that I can trust, who will work for a common cause, and who will provide companionship. The more kids I have, the more I can create specialization in picking berries, hunting for animals, catching fish, building shelters, or making clothes. Since I dont have to worry about paying taxes (pun intended) , how to fit six kids in the cars back seat, pay for private schooling, hire an attorney, or pay for an obstetrician, I think Ill START HAVING LOADS OF KIDS as soon as possible.

Evolutionists think that human population growth remained virtually flat on the charts x-axis for 400,000 years. Ive seen AD HOC after AD HOC after AD HOC arguments that try to explain this embarrassment by calling upon sinusoid growth charts, famines, disease, wars, asteroids, and lack of brains. One mechanism you will NEVER see is one that satisfies Occams razor, is all-inclusive, and is supported by multiple parallel strata containing billions upon billions of fossils with compressed vegetation in the form of coal and oil: THE FLOOD! This fear of water mentality had no effect on J. Harlan Bretz but people today are still afraid to go near water.

Refer to your chart and tell me how much WWII hindered the exponential growth rate. How big of a dip is depicted for the 1350 Bubonic plague? Evolution's last hope for remaining a viable theory is a weak excuse that humans could not populate because agriculture had not yet developed. Refer again to the CORRECT chart and tell me when you think "agriculture" took off. Now read the following 1700 B.C. excerpt from the Bible which describes agricultural technology at that time. Actually it describes agriculture management and OUTPUT which is even better. Keep in mind that the theory I am presenting to you is NOT AD HOC. My theory commited itself to paper 3700 years ago, so there is no way you can accuse me of changing it to suit my needs. The reason agriculture "took off" at around 1700 B.C. is because pre-existing agri-technology was set free when a world-wide famine ended WHICH coincided with a normal pre-existing population growth rate:

And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine.

And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh's house.

And when money failed in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, all the Egyptians came unto Joseph, and said, Give us bread: for why should we die in thy presence? for the money faileth.

And Joseph said, Give your cattle; and I will give you for your cattle, if money fail.

And they brought their cattle unto Joseph: and Joseph gave them bread in exchange for horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, and for the asses: and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year.

When that year was ended, they came unto him the second year, and said unto him, We will not hide it from my lord, how that our money is spent; my lord also hath our herds of cattle; there is not ought left in the sight of my lord, but our bodies, and our lands:

Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes, both we and our land? buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be servants unto Pharaoh: and give us seed, that we may live, and not die, that the land be not desolate.

And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, because the famine prevailed over them: so the land became Pharaoh's.

And as for the people, he removed them to cities from one end of the borders of Egypt even to the other end thereof.

Only the land of the priests bought he not; for the priests had a portion assigned them of Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them: wherefore they sold not their lands.

Then Joseph said unto the people, Behold, I have bought you this day and your land for Pharaoh: lo, here is seed for you, and ye shall sow the land.

And it shall come to pass in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for them of your households, and for food for your little ones.

And they said, Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh's servants.

And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part; except the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh's.

And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the country of Goshen; and they had possessions therein, and grew, and multiplied exceedingly.

And Jacob lived in the land of Egypt seventeen years: so the whole age of Jacob was an hundred forty and seven years.

As you can see, the Bible also committs itself in a huge number of ways by making TESTABLE statements such that FALSIFICATION would be an easy matter for an archeologist or historian. Let the chips fall where they may.

Reference
[1] Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago. " Wikipedia

[Grumpy]

Alan Clarke

Bible Babble...

The population increases and decreases due to factors like availibility of food, virulence of disease, war, hardships of life and many other factors. If you applied the same formula to rabbits we'd be up to our keesters in rabbits. Your ultra simplistic attempt at calculation from erronious assumptions is useless as an argument. Plagues by themselves have halved the populations worldwide many times. Our current large population is arguably a result of our success at fighting such diseases, success made possible by our understanding of evolution, by the way.

Grumpy

[Ankhhape]

OP: is what Mr. Clark posting closer to what you are asking about?

[Alan Clarke]

ELVIS - THE KING OF ROCK
EVOLUTION " THE KING OF AD HOC

Ad hoc is a temporary fix without regard to a wider number of future needs. Theories that must sustain themselves through ad hoc mechanisms are short-lived. For example:

I theorize that wind is created by flapping tree leaves.

A good theory has the ability to explain whatever is thrown at it. Lets put the above theory to the test. When flapping tree leaves are noticed, wind is detected somwhere. The theory passes its first test and remains viable. But in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean, the wind is blowing without the presence of trees. The theorys viability is now drawn into question because there seems to be a contradiction. Without a person to create an explanation for this phenomenon, the theory will die. Having to go outside of the original hypothesis is a negative mark but not necessarily fatal. The theorist suggests that the wind was produced by trees on a near-by island and patches the theory with a specification for the maximum distance one can be from a tree to detect significant wind. The value of a theory is similar to that of an automobile. If you never need a repairman the theory is great. Each time a repairman is required to patch a leaking hose or tire, the value of that theory diminishes. These patches are called ad hoc mechanisms. They help in the present but their future benefit is not guaranteed. A sure indication that a theory is ready for the junkyard is when one finds himself continually driving the mechanics car instead of his own. To test the flapping tree leaf theory further, several trees are positioned inside a greenhouse so that wind from non-tree sources will be eliminated. The results are conclusive: the air inside the greenhouse is dead calm. The theorist suggests that the leaves couldn't flap because their artificial environment made them ill. The theory is in a state of crisis because its proponents are now forced to believe that testing its claims is not even possible since a greenhouse will never be able to duplicate the Earths ecosphere. If people are to continue using it, they will have to accept it on good faith rather than scientific principle. The theory at this point is not completely useless because it can be used to explain certain simple phenomena such as, "Why does wind make noise?" Applying the theory, one can answer, Leaves give the wind its characteristic sound as they rub against one another.

Look at Grumpys last response where he listed numerous and complex reasons why his theory cannot be sufficiently tested. There are too many variables!

The population increases and decreases due to factors like availibility of food, virulence of disease, war, hardships of life and many other factors.

In other words, the great number of variables and their distant past prevent reliable testing, so we must accept Grumpys argument on good faith rather than scientific principle.

Grumpy, your theory failed to predict and now you are trying to patch it by listing possible mechanisms with ZERO references for how those mechanisms actually contour the data on McCulloch's population graph. Without any evidence, you have nothing but assumptions. McCulloch provided a widely-accepted population chart available on Wikipedia here with accompanying references for how that data was derived. I have empirical evidence that supports my theory whereas in your last post, you shared nothing but your belief system. McCulloch's population evidence is not creationist-based whereas your opinions are of the highest possible subjective nature.

Before my last post, I read Wikipedias Black Death that described the population reduction caused by the Bubonic plague. Whether the plague caused this or that is of little value to your argument, if the end result is empirical data that shows near-zero people at 2400 B.C. (Flood date) and a typical and expected population growth curve beginning at that point. On McCullochs graph, the X-axis would have to be extended 24 feet to keep its proportion if you want to catch the beginning of Homo sapiens 400,000 years ago. You then must explain for what reason the growth curve remained virtually flat for 400,000 years. Or do you subscribe to the sinusoid theory?

Grumpy, while Im at it, could you direct me to where you may have answered on your earlier failed rebuttal of my claim that the Earths moon helps reduce Earth's wobble? Just in case I missed it.

[Alan Clarke]

WHERE DID IT ALL COME FROM?
If our Universe is an isolated system, does not the 1st law of thermodynamics guarantee that the spontaneous generation of energy is impossible? Does not the 2nd law guarantee that matter cannot be eternal? If matter were eternal, then no usable energy should exist today. If you plead for a temporary suspension of physical laws to allow for matter to appear spontaneously, then your argument is no longer naturalistic, but supernatural. If that is the case, then you shouldnt criticize the idea that a supernatural God created the Universe. There are only three possible explanations for the existence of matter in the Universe:

1) it was spontaneously generated
2) it is eternal
3) it was created

I envision man at odds with his Creator. He balks furiously at the slightest sign that his independence could be compromised. The psychological battle is likened to a wrestling match. Even though man is pinned, his nature is to never admit defeat. Hell invent a snappy rhetorical comeback even if his logic is untenable:

While the concept of a universe being created from nothing sounds improbable, it is perfectly consistent with the laws of conservation of energy because its total energy value is zero. (source)

The obvious fallacy here is something from nothing using a naturalistic explanation. Since no one can demonstrate something from nothing, the idea is accepted by faith in the supernatural. Various techniques have been used throughout history in order to convince people that getting something from nothing is actually possible. Alan Guth proposed a cosmologic expansion theory using this principle. I remember when a pyramid marketer tried to convince me that I could earn a lot of money, but he could never show me a product catalog or tell me where his warehouse was located. Perhaps he could have been more convincing if he said he was selling dark matter.

AS A SCIENCE TOOL, CAN THE BIBLE PREDICT?
Decide for yourself:

The ultimate conclusion was that, on the contrary to popular belief, it was possible for the universe to suddenly appear from nothing.

According to the above statement, the conclusion was contrary to popular belief which means that science was wrong in its prediction. What did the Bible predict?

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Is it not logical to conclude that the Bibles 2000 year-old prediction was correct and the prediction of modern science was not?

I say this with reservation because many scientists [ 1 , 2 ] never departed from the creation model to this present day.

Job 38:24 "By what way is the light parted, which scattereth the east wind upon the earth?"

Who would have guessed that wind currents are related to sunlight?

Anyone who ever saw the wind start to kick up on a crisp Spring morning.

Why do you think this is a simple deduction considering that wind may be absent during a sunny noon day and high winds may occur on bitter-cold nights? Also of interest is the beginning of verse 24, "By what way is the light parted...", which alludes to light diffraction.

The effects of diffraction of light were first carefully observed and characterized by Francesco Maria Grimaldi (1618-1663), who also coined the term diffraction, from the Latin diffringere, 'to break into pieces', referring to light breaking up into different directions.

The Book of Job was written about 2100 years before Grimaldi which is amazing considering that the word "parted" is in line with the modern understanding of light phenomena.

[McCulloch]

Grumpy, your theory failed to predict and now you are trying to patch it by listing possible mechanisms with ZERO references for how those mechanisms actually contour the data on McCulloch's population graph. Without any evidence, you have nothing but assumptions. McCulloch provided a widely-accepted population chart available on Wikipedia here with accompanying references for how that data was derived. I have empirical evidence that supports my theory whereas in your last post, you shared nothing but your belief system. McCulloch's population evidence is not creationist-based whereas your opinions are of the highest possible subjective nature.

Before my last post, I read Wikipedias Black Death that described the population reduction caused by the Bubonic plague. Whether the plague caused this or that is of little value to your argument, if the end result is empirical data that shows near-zero people at 2400 B.C. (Flood date) and a typical and expected population growth curve beginning at that point. On McCullochs graph, the X-axis would have to be extended 24 feet to keep its proportion if you want to catch the beginning of Homo sapiens 400,000 years ago. You then must explain for what reason the growth curve remained virtually flat for 400,000 years. Or do you subscribe to the sinusoid theory?

To address these questions you are looking at the wrong chart. The scale is set to look at total population not population growth. For that a Log scale is more appropriate.


As you can see, there is a reasonably constant growth rate up to about 5000 BC.

[McCulloch]

WHERE DID IT ALL COME FROM?
If our Universe is an isolated system, does not the 1st law of thermodynamics guarantee that the spontaneous generation of energy is impossible? Does not the 2nd law guarantee that matter cannot be eternal? If matter were eternal, then no usable energy should exist today. If you plead for a temporary suspension of physical laws to allow for matter to appear spontaneously, then your argument is no longer naturalistic, but supernatural. If that is the case, then you shouldnt criticize the idea that a supernatural God created the Universe. There are only three possible explanations for the existence of matter in the Universe:

1. it was spontaneously generated
2. it is eternal
3. it was created

I'll take number 2. Eternal however does not mean for an infinite length of time. Matter is eternal means that at no time was there any less matter & energy in the universe than there is now. Time (or spacetime if you like) is finite.

[Alan Clarke]

To address these questions you are looking at the wrong chart. The scale is set to look at total population not population growth. For that a Log scale is more appropriate. As you can see, there is a reasonably constant growth rate up to about 5000 BC.

You are getting ahead of yourself by not answering the original question. Well deal with controversies concerning growth rate later. The first chart that YOU supplied was one of TOTAL POPULATION. Did you make a mistake by sharing the wrong information? If you did, then that mistake can be forgiven, but now that the cat is out of the bag, why dont we discuss the implications of what has been revealed. Here it is again:



Earlier, I provided this link to the empirical data from where this chart was derived. Not to be getting ahead of myself, but you would be wise to prepare similar supporting empirical evidences for your growth chart at the top. I noticed that you provided no such information or links to where this could be found. Fancy-looking lines of what may have happened, or extrapolations with no data points are not what we are currently discussing. Lets just stick to counting heads. How many heads have been counted, when were those heads counted, and what is the veracity of the head counters? From the empirically-supported chart that YOU originally provided, let me repeat:

Please locate 2400 B.C. (date of Biblical Flood) on your excellent graph, endorsed by you as "what we know", and tell me what the population is.

If there is no acknowledgment or agreement on scientific data, then perhaps the principles that govern the gathering of that data should be discussed.

The population increases and decreases due to factors like availibility [sic] of food, virulence of disease, war, hardships of life and many other factors.

I really hate to take a downward spiral into the manifold distractions that Grumpy alludes to above, which interject so many variables that virtually nothing can be known with reasonable certainty, so for the love of science, why dont we zero in on the best and simplest evidences concerning TOTAL POPULATION? The reason for our concerted effort is obvious: If there are 100 million people on the Earth near the time 2200 B.C. then my model is somewhat in trouble. Perhaps I have miscalculated the Flood date. But if there are only 8 people on the Earth in 2400 B.C. then your model is in trouble. Precision is obviously out of the question, but accuracy may give us some insight into which model is best.

Is this pursuit applicable on a thread entitled, So...how were things "created"? If my population model is better supported, then many other aspects of what the Bible has been saying for centuries about origins and how matter was formed will supplant the idea that people were formed though natural processes alone; from eternal or spontaneously-generated atoms; from basic elements contained in gas clouds; from lightening bolts that aligned molecules to produce amino acids; from wave mixing actions to produce proteins; from mixing of proteins to produce living cells; from rudimentary bacterias struggling for survival, being weeded out by natural selection, but being lifted higher by cosmic radiation; from this randomly-created servo feedback mechanism, bacteria becomes man after 2 billion years of change over time. To our rational minds he seems to be the ultimate creation with independence from any higher authority. He is dependent upon the Sun, but the Sun imposes no moral restrictions to his rationale. All of the components from which he was derived contain lesser intelligence so he alone is the highest authority known to himself. The multitude of processes that preceded him seem unimaginable. Who could have conceived it? No one conceived it. It just happened over time. Given enough time, anything can happen.

Back to reality: Please locate 2400 B.C. (date of Biblical Flood) on your excellent graph, endorsed by you as "what we know", and tell me what the population is.

[Cathar1950]

I was watching the NGC Human genome project and we have been here for many thousands of years. There is no evidence that the world was down to 8 people in the last 60000 years. No world wide flood as described in the Bible.

[Elvis Trout]

This thread has just fallen into the biggest elephant trap I ever saw!

Why assume things need to be created? That is where so many of us go wrong in looking for a 'creator', there is nothing to suggest we were ever created. In fact the fundamental laws of physics state the no matter or energy can be created or destroyed. We as conscious beings on this planet have never seen anything created or destroyed, only changed. When a baby is born, life isn't created, but food that the mother has been eating takes on the form of a baby. When A bomb goes off all the atoms and particles and energy is preserved, they just move about quite a bit.

Creation and destruction are human constructs to describe CHNAGE in the world around us, there is absolutely NO creation or destruction in nature, only change.

So errr, in answer to the original question, they weren't created.... yup.