Why is Christianity a religion? Why not...

Originally posted by AshleyD
Even if we assume a very conservative human population growth rate of 1% (the modern human growth rate is over 2%) and if we consider how animals breed faster and produce more offspring than humans, where are all the creatures?

There are many constraints on population growth, from disease to food supply to environmental changes. So you are assuming a constant growth, which is most certainly not the case.

I thought we already had your last word on this?

Then about ten years ago I read the studies of an author, this time a Christian, who referenced this study and got the idea to see what the population of man would be according to the Biblical date of the flood starting with eight people. The world's population matched this estimate within a few million.

Is this tax-fraud Kent?

Lets view this another way, according to this growth rate (1%) with a flood in 2350BCE (which is after the great pyramids were built, by the way) in 1446BCE Moses led about:

P = 8 x (1.01)^N

= 64,508

64,508 people on the infamous exodus (that's taking the whole human population of the world, of course). But the bible says 600,000 men, along with women and children.

The bible might give you spiritual guidance or whatever, but it just isn't a science text. You are actually harming your faith by taking such approaches to the bible, fine by me like...



[edit on 3-1-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
There are many constraints on population growth, from disease to food supply to environmental changes. So you are assuming a constant growth, which is most certainly not the case.

I already specified they took this into consideration. They even provided a more conservative birth rate.

Is this tax-fraud Kent?

I don't even know who that is but no, it was Henry [something] Morris.

Lets view this another way, according to this growth rate (1%) with a flood in 2350BCE (which is after the great pyramids were built, by the way)

Totally off topic but check out the pictures of the Sphinx and Pyramids. They
all shown signs of water erosion. Since they were built prior to Noah, could this have been evidence of the flood? I remain skeptical but I can't deny the possibility either.

64,508 people on the infamous exodus. But the bible says 600,000 men, along with women and children.

This article explores the issue with calculations. I don't think it uses a 1% growth rate (again, a very conservative number the study used above only to allow for more wiggle room) but the article at least shows it was possible.

[edit on 1/3/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
I already specified they took this into consideration. And instead of assigning 2.5 children to each family they only considered one child per family since the infant mortality rate was higher in ancient times.

heh, are you still thinking this is a line of argument that has any credibility?

The population of the UK fell by about 30-50% during the 13th century plagues. This was just one disease event in one country in history.

Estimates from Durand show minimal growth for 1000 years (0-1000CE), and only about 0.1% for the next 500 years.

I don't even know who that is but no, it was Henry [something] Morris.

Yup.

Totally off topic but check out the pictures of the Sphinx and Pyramids. They all shown signs of water erosion. Since they were built prior to Noah, could this have been evidence of the flood?

Rain?

This article explores the issue with calculations. I don't think it uses a 1% growth rate (again, a very conservative number the study used above only to allow for more wiggle room) but the article at least shows it was possible.

Why not just accept that the idea of 8 people knocking about in 2350BCE was wrong? There is so much wrong with the flood event and origins in the bible. This is your problem, you have to fit evidence to your preconceived ideology, rather than being led by evidence. You assume your conclusion, and it leads you to absurdity.

This is why you have to keep denying the evidence, you have to deny everything from biology, cosmology, geology, history, paleontology etc, and common sense to hold your position based on a bunch of stories. And you think discussing with people who accept evolution is like debating Peter Pan, heh.

Originally posted by melatonin
The population of the UK fell by about 30-50% during the 13th century plagues. This was just one disease event in one country in history.

And now the population is numerous and has increased greatly in a very short amount of time compared to the scheme of time evolution proposes. Like you said, this is one plague that wiped out a massive percentage of the populous and they still sprung back at exponential rates. So where is everyone else? We're talking a matter of centuries (depending on which plague breakout you want to refer to- remember there were two breakouts) versus the 200,000-1,00,000 years evolution provides.

So yes, it is a good topic of discussion because there simply isn't a logical answer.

Estimates from Durand show minimal growth for 1000 years (0-1000CE), and only about 0.1% for the next 500 years.

And even at that puny growth rate of 0.1% and a puny length of 1,000 (a drop in the bucket for evolutionists), the population still increased exponentially over time building up a little bit at a time so where are the people?

Rain?

Again, I'm not wholly convinced this erosion shows the effects of Noah's flood but look at both the Sphinx and the pyramid. Both show signs of water erosion that once flooded the area and receded. I'm no geologist, of course, but it would seem that rain would not have caused these horizontal erosion lines. It looks like what would happen if you dig a hole, fill it with water, and watch the water recede. The same horizontal formation would occur.

This is your problem, you have to fit evidence to your preconceived ideology, rather than being led by evidence.

Ugh. I hate bringing this up because I find it embarrassing for some reason but I am a former atheist. I did investigate the evidence (not proof, but evidence). And it's pretty obvious what conclusion I came to. With prophecy (in the past and what we can see occurring in our own time), science (mainly physics, complexity, and the absurdity of evolution), logical deduction (if it wasn't A, B, or C, then what was it?), undesigned coincidences (all throughout the Bible), expositional theology (what I like to call those "Whoa!" moments when reading the Bible and putting two and two together), medical foreknowledge (such as sanitation, quarantine, and medical treatments no other civilization knew about in history and were only discovered in modern times by scientists), knowing Jesus was a historical figure (through secular and extrabiblical evidence), textual exegesis (more of those "Whoa!" moments), and the historical accuracy concerning things we can verify (through archeology), I did take the evidence into collective consideration.

There is a multi-page thread on ATS where I explain what all of these are and why I believe. No, I had to investigate. And not a single one of the above would have been enough to convince me. It was the collective evidence.

This is why you have to keep denying the evidence, you have to deny everything from biology, cosmology, geology, history, paleontology etc, and common sense to hold your position based on a bunch of stories. And you think discussing with people who accept evolution is like debating Peter Pan, heh.

This is probably true for most Christians who took it solely on faith. I don't fault them for it but it wasn't how my mind worked. I needed evidence. So no, although faith is a part of it, my faith is based on evidence.

Hope that helps. Not everyone who believes in a deity runs around saying "Praise Gawd!" Or, "Repent or go to HELL!" There are a few of us that approach the subject systematically.

[edit on 1/3/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
So where is everyone else? We're talking a matter of centuries (depending on which plague breakout you want to refer to- remember there were two breakouts) versus the 200,000-1,00,000 years evolution provides.

Heh, decomposed?

The problem here is that you are still expecting a continuous growth. It is almost certain that the only reason we have been growing so fast in population is due to technology, agriculture, science. And this would have applied early on in the last 2000 years as well. Unless you think a move to settled farming civilisations would not have helped raise population limits.

Moreover, in that 200,000 years, we have been through numerous climate changes (ice-ages). Populations can go up, they can go down. The only reason we have seen continuous growth for so long is due to advances in numerous areas. Even then, it has only took off since that later part of the 2nd millenium.

Apply the same thinking to rabbits. Why isn't the earth full of rabbits? There should be rabbits everywhere, under my bed and yours. They breed like...err...rabbits.

And even at that puny growth rate of 0.1% and a puny length of 1,000 (a drop in the bucket for evolutionists), the population still increased exponentially over time building up a little bit at a time so where are the people?

If growth stayed at that level we wouldn't have any worries about population growth in the near future. You don't need 0.1%, you need even more than 1% for periods before the common age.

I'm no geologist, of course, but it would seem that rain would not have caused these horizontal erosion lines. It looks like what would happen if you dig a hole, fill it with water, and watch the water recede. The same horizontal formation would occur.

OK, lets try a different angle. How did the geological strata form? The strata in which we find all those glorious fossils? We'll get back to pyramids soon.

Ugh. I hate bringing this up because I find it embarrassing for some reason but I am a former atheist.

And? Apart from showing your negative view of a perfectly fine philosphical position, I can't see the relevance.

This is probably true for most Christians who took it solely on faith. I don't fault them for it but it wasn't how my mind worked. I needed evidence. So no, although faith is a part of it, my faith is based on evidence.

Well, seeing you have such an 'evidence-based' approach to this, there is a thread that's calling out for you in origins & creationism. We are stuck at 'eviluzion sucks, therefore god' at the moment. No-one seems able to present evidence of creationism.

[edit on 3-1-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Heh, decomposed?

I was referring to a massive living population if we had been here as long as evolutionists believe.

The problem here is that you are still expecting a continuous growth.

Not necessarily. Even today some parts of the world (including a minority of technologically advanced countries) are experiencing a negative population loss. Yet, the sum of humanity still increases.

It is almost certain that the only reason we have been growing so fast in population is due to technology, agriculture, science.

To a point, yes. I agree. But we are also growing extremely fast now because we have an extreme amount of people. Six billion people can produce more people every year than two million. But even still technology and advanced medicine is fairly recent (like 100-150 years) the population was doing pretty well. In other words, the benefit of technology might, for example, even out the fact couples are waiting longer to have children (if at all) and the legalization of abortion in many countries (these statistics might be exaggerated buy I read about 50 million children are aborted annually). So we might have some added benefits but also some things that even it out. Yet, we are still growing. Even in some third world countries that can barely feel their citizens.

Apply the same thinking to rabbits. Why isn't the earth full of rabbits? There should be rabbits everywhere, under my bed and yours. They breed like...err...rabbits.

You would think rabbits would be everywhere if they have had millions of years to populate so where are they in that sense? Could it be due to the fact they are prey without any real defense system and not towards the top of the food chain like humans?

OK, lets try a different angle. How did the geological strata form? The strata in which we find all those glorious fossils? We'll get back to pyramids soon.

I see what you're saying but we could make this go both ways. You could say they were created over millions of years, I could say they were due to changing ecology and bodies of water that later evaporated. How on earth did fish fossils find their way to mountain peaks (this is actually true).

You could say the earth went through dramatic changes and new mountains were formed through massive plate shifts and I could say it was that as well as the flood of Noah when the water covered the planet. Because I'm unsure of the water damage on the Sphinx (remember, that area was part of the ancient Fertile crescent after all) is undoubtedly evidence of a world wide flood. We could say the Nile was flooded terribly so in ancient times. As to how it got all the way up to the top of the pyramid remains unsolved but to be honest, I don't want to believe anything without proof. Flood geologists swear it is evidence of a flood, along with fish on mountain tops, and and strata formations but if you want me to be honest, I remain skeptical.

And? Apart from showing your negative view of a perfectly fine philosphical position, I can't see the relevance.

Because its not a matter of being born a Christian. One has to make the conscious decision to accept a belief or lack of a belief once presented to them. Just giving you a bit of my history, is all. :-)

Well, seeing you have such an 'evidence-based' approach to this, there is a thread that's calling out for you in origins & creationism. We are stuck at 'eviluzion sucks, therefore god' at the moment. No-one seems able to present evidence of creationism.

The way I see it, and you wisely mentioned this before, is that none of us were there. We truly don't know. Even the author of Genesis didn't witness these events. They both take faith. We might be able to present evidence that verifies each view, but it both comes down to what we choose to believe.

[edit on 1/3/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD
I was referring to a massive living population if we had been here as long as evolutionists believe.

But I've already said that populations do not necessarily increase consistently. I don't need to account for a constantly increasing population, that's your strawman. I'm saying it would have been going up and down for thousands of years. Indeed, there is some evidence of bottlenecks in human populations.

You would think rabbits would be everywhere if they have had millions of years to populate so where are they in that sense? Could it be due to the fact they are prey without any real defense system and not towards the top of the food chain like humans?

Seem to do pretty well, anyway. What you have found is limits on population. Well done. Humans have likely been preyed on as well. Populations are constrained by many factors, indeed such limits have probably been the downfall of many a civilisation. It is only in the last few hundred that we have really overcome many of them, for now.

I see what you're saying but we could make this go both ways. You could say they were created over millions of years, I could say they were due to changing ecology and bodies of water that later evaporated. How on earth did fish fossils find their way to mountain peaks (this is actually true).

You never really answered my question. I'll answer yours, fish fossils would end up on top of mountains through their formation over time, fish have been around for hundreds of millions of years - what was once a sea bed can become a mountain top.

How did the geological strata form?

Just giving you a bit of my history, is all. :-)

Okie doke, no worries. In reciprocation, been an atheist since I was old enough to think for myself. Dunno what I was before, but it wasn't really a theist.

We might be able to present evidence that verifies each view, but it both comes down to what we choose to believe.

I suppose so, I do prefer knowledge to belief though.

Originally posted by melatonin
But I've already said that populations do not necessarily increase consistently... there is some evidence of bottlenecks in human populations.

And I acknowledged this as well and even pointed out in this advanced technological age some populations experience a negative growth rate while the human population sum still increases. Even if we assume human bottle necks for tens of thousands of years, I have a hard time understanding how there would not be more people alive at this time due the to length of time evolution proposes we have been around. (More on bottlenecks with a source a little further down).

A massive population decrease could possibly being explained by natural mega disasters but secular science believes major world wide catastrophes haven't occurred in tens of thousands and by some accounts hundreds of thousands of years. Plenty of time to have built up the population. Remember, modern man is believed to be 200,000 years old according to evolution. This was not the troglodyte that grunted but modern people just like you and me. In other words, they weren't morons. Not advanced, but not morons, either.

In just 2,000 years we went from approximately 200-400 million people on earth to over 6 billion. Or lets say just from 1 A.D. to 1,000 A.D. instead of giving them our benefits of our technology and medicine. There was still a very large growth.

Look at This chart. Even when the growth rate decreases (and in modern advanced times nonetheless), the sum still increases. So even with decreased rates and bottlenecks it still would not completely dismiss the question.

Look at Africa. Disease, famine, war, lack of medicine and technology, etc. And they are still increasing in population at a great rate (See: HERE. That article mentions the hell Africa is going through (in detail) but still says it has the highest growth rate in the world.

So if population can still grow in deserts, among disease, and unsanitary conditions and we know now mega natural disasters have happened in tens to hundreds of thousands of years as they suggest, Where is everybody?

As for your bottleneck suggestion, the last population bottleneck was believed to have happened about 60,000-70,000 years ago. See: HERE. Plenty of time to rebuild the population.

Seem to do pretty well, anyway. What you have found is limits on population. Well done. Humans have likely been preyed on as well.

Evolutionists propose most of the "mega predators" went extinct before modern man. So that leaves things like bears, lions, sharks, etc. as our natural predators. Even in the wild undeveloped civilizations, say the jungles of Africa, these attacks are still rare and the population flourishes. So, if we are the species that is declared the top of the food chain and the most intelligent. It's an anomaly. Secular scientists even have to theorize where everyone is with many theories clashing.

Why aren't there rabbits and insects by the trillions even today at the rate they populate? Because nature harmonizes itself. There isn't a massive disproportion of humans to rabbits and insects because we are all apart of the "circle of life" that waxes and wanes. But if this was continuous, then there would be trillions of people and tens of trillions of faster breeding species, including rabbits.

It gives us something to think about.

...fish fossils would end up on top of mountains through their formation over time, fish have been around for hundreds of millions of years - what was once a sea bed can become a mountain top.

That's exactly what I implied. Some say it is proof of a worldwide flood but it could also be due to a mountain being formed through tectonic plates crashing into each other during an earthquake. Although we have never witnessed such a thing, it is at least a possible explanation. Although I believe in a worldwide flood, I can't accept evidence just because it possibly verifies my beliefs.

This is a really silly question (and just something I've always wondered- not really meant as a debate) but why aren't fish (or other creatures) smarter than we are if they have been here longer than we have? It would seem to me they would be smarter if they had more time to evolve and improve. Silly question, I know. But it makes me wonder. Any idea? lol

How did the geological strata form?

You're asking the wrong person! :-) Geology is not my forte. Some say through flood, millions of years of settling sediment, volcanic eruptions, multiple meteor strikes, etc. Both schools of thoughts have theories that differ even within their own crowd. But what makes me wonder is how some species believed to have lived tens of millions of years apart were fossilized in the same layer. Here is a link that discusses the strata. That's one opinion. Do another search and you will get dozens of other answers! LOL!

[edit on 1/5/2008 by AshleyD]

all religions are a myth.

they are all designed to cage you in a prison made of lies,fear and
false promise.

how can you ever find your straight path to god when all these religions
are swearing up and down that they are the only path.

there is only one path...a straight path....NO interferences....just you
and the power.....as one..

How dare any man or false god to claim that their path is the only path you are supposed to take.......

It is your path.not theirs...keep it..and keep it straight .
the power of love has an energy path that is so straight that time and space must curve around it.
nothing can stop this energy if it is properly directed.

Originally posted by AshleyD
This is a really silly question (and just something I've always wondered- not really meant as a debate) but why aren't fish (or other creatures) smarter than we are if they have been here longer than we have? It would seem to me they would be smarter if they had more time to evolve and improve. Silly question, I know. But it makes me wonder. Any idea? lol

Mainly because evolution doesn't really progress towards a target like intelligence, it just targets populations that are adapted to their environments. Most the time species are able to just get by. Thus, fish are specialised at what they do, and mammals at what they do.

Here is a link that discusses the strata. That's one opinion. Do another search and you will get dozens of other answers! LOL!

Well, I hope you might have seen where I was going with this. If you want to say that the geological strata were layed down during the flood, but also that the pyramids were eroded by same flood, you have a conflict.

The pyramids sit on the same strata. So unless the flood picked the pyramids up, laid down the stata, then laid the pyramids down again, there is problem with such an interpretation.

Don't know if you see that...

[edit on 6-1-2008 by melatonin]

Where are all the people?
There are six billion of us.
Open your eyes.

Where are all the people you think should be around?
All those other people have been raptured, you were left behind.


Seriously they died. They died very young.

Here's what they died of:
birth
giving birth
burning alive
murder
small pox
chicken pox
flu
common cold
tuberculosis
cancer
mumps
measles
rubella
venereal diseases
staph infections
strep infections
tooth infections
gangrene
malaria
infanticide
exposure
black lung from working in coal mines (the children!)
war
starvation
beheadings
and lets not forget torture hanging quartering and burning by the church.

Is that not a clear enough picture for you?

Not only did they die but disease like chicken pox can prevent an adult from reproducing.

Here's a collection of bodies you can go find to see those people you think are missing.

25 million from the asiatic flu of 1889-1890
30 to 40 million people died from Spanish Flu in 1918-1919.
This was following the Armenian genocide of 1.5 millon.
Running along with WWI and another 6 to 11 million people killed
Then WWII just thirty years later, followed by another 8 to 11 million killed.
Another thirty years and you get Pol Pot and 2 million more murders.
Follow another thirty and you get 800,000 in Rwanda...which follows along the millions who died of starvation across Africa during their many crisis.

This list of mega-deaths goes on.

Every war, famine, pestilence and pandemic takes men, women, and children out of the breeding pool.

And you said something about Europe population bounceback...thats because they imported Muslims by the millions. Read a newspaper once in a while.
Europe itself has a dismal population growth from births.

America just reached its critical population growth point, where births equal out the deaths by allowing 11 million mexicans to cross the border and pump out four kids each.

Russia is having huge teen sex gatherings to promote population growth because they are so far behind in the baby making business, with 3 Billion chinese sitting next door.


Oh and the striations on the Sphinx and Pyramid are caused by wind.
You know that stuff between your ears.

The world, its full of all this information, you seem to miss it entirely.

Maybe a demon blinded you, or a troll, or smurf dust, whatever your delusion of the week is.



[edit on 6-1-2008 by Legalizer]

reply to post by Legalizer

Here's what they died of...

And many of those things are still around and account for the the majority of deaths in the underdeveloped continent of Africa yet their growth rate is higher than our own. Wars, disease, epidemics, famine, etc., have been around since humankind first began recording history but it hasn't stopped our growth.

Not only did they die but disease like chicken pox can prevent an adult from reproducing.

Occasionally but it is most certainly not the norm. You ask any person and most of them will admit to have having the chicken pox. Yet we still grow.

25 million from the asiatic flu of 1889-1890
30 to 40 million people died from Spanish Flu in 1918-1919.
This was following the Armenian genocide of 1.5 millon.
Running along with WWI and another 6 to 11 million people killed
Then WWII just thirty years later, followed by another 8 to 11 million killed.
Another thirty years and you get Pol Pot and 2 million more murders.
Follow another thirty and you get 800,000 in Rwanda...which follows along the millions who died of starvation across Africa during their many crisis.

And yet the total population of the world still grew amid all these horrible deaths (look up the statistics). The population still quadrupled during the bloodiest century in recorded history.

And you said something about Europe population bounceback...thats because they imported Muslims by the millions.

The massive influx of millions of Muslims into Western Europe was pretty recent. We're talking about the plague centuries ago. The small amount of original Muslim settlers beginning almost right after Islam was created as well as the later influx and domination of Muslims in some areas would have made them all susceptible to the plague (and this happened). Then they were expelled from much of Western Europe in the 17th century before their modern immigration once again.

(See: Black Death Dates and Early Islam Immigration into Europe). Those poor guys had bad timing. Right after they became well settled and grew in size the plague struck. Again, the total sum still grew amid all of this turmoil and your history is off as the original Muslims did not "replenish" Europe just yet but fell victim to the plague as well.

Read a newspaper once in a while.

Read a history book once in a while.

You know that stuff between your ears.... Maybe a demon blinded you, or a troll, or smurf dust, whatever your delusion of the week is.

You do realize resorting to personal attacks is a sign of weak intelligence and a weak argument, correct? Melatonin and I have been enjoying a very civil discussion even though we both saw things differently until you walked in. Or maybe you just get hostile when others don't see things your way and choose to question the status quo. The world will never know.

For the record, I'm not a YEC. I don't quite think the universe is billions of years old or 6,000 years old (A 17th century calculation that isn't even necessarily taught in the Bible). So this conflict raises questions for me as well which is why I want to get to the bottom of it. Earlier I asked Melatonin to ignore the Christian study matching up the numbers from 6,000 ago and to focus on the secular study. And now everyone knows why. Because I think we've been here longer than that, too.

[edit on 1/6/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by Fromabove
Well, first of all I suspect that you're actually an atheist trying to raise doubts in weak minds, because if you were a Christian there would be no doubt about it. God does exist, and His word is all you really need so if you can't trust it you don't trust God, and if you can't trust either what does that make you.

Wow... what a blantant misunderstanding of what being a Christian is.

You mean to say that if you have doubts you aren't a Christian? That all Christians believe the same way?

You need to realize the *huge* difference between converting to Christianity consciously and being raised as a Christian. If you are raised as a Christian you never get a chance to "accept" it. You are told "this is how it is" and you believe, because it's your parents telling you this. KRS-One said it best "If your slave master wasn't a Christian, YOU wouldn't be a Christian"

So yes, you can literally be "A Christian" and doubt God exists. Because no matter how much one doesn't want to believe in God, if you are raised a Christian, those archetypes are imprinted on your psyche. You can't remove them no matter how hard you want to, try, or convince yourself otherwise.

Originally posted by Quazga
You mean to say that if you have doubts you aren't a Christian?

You weren't talking to be but I'd like to contribute. This is actually a very good point. I don't believe anyone who claims they never doubt their beliefs. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. and even atheists. When someone says they are absolutely positive and that they never doubt their belief I think to myself, "Liar!"

The Bible specifically says to choose what we will believe and who we will serve. It's a very honest admission to tell God that even when we have our doubts, we will choose to believe in Him because of the other ways He has revealed Himself.

I can't believe that even the most ardent theist or atheist never has their doubts. It's human to have questions. If we never question, then this is a sign of stubbornness, ignorance, and closed mindedness. It all comes down to a personal choice and I chose Him.

reply to post by Maya432


Well, good luck with that. Seriously, you can not find any myths that can take away your fears? I would think that a true myth would be designed to remove some of your fears. I would think that it would be neccesary to have your fears removed, in order to imlement your acting on your beliefs. I am sure there is something to what you are saying, but I think it is just our own human nature that prevents it.