How old's the human race?

by Freedom rocks 49 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  Venus -

  What Shepherdess said is correct. What you said is not.

  1 - People did have many children centuries ago but then many children died in childhood.

  2 - Kings did have many wives in some societies. Do you really think that this example you give demonstrates the norm amongst the population as a whole? If so how did the man support all these wives and children?

  3 - Your post is a good example of the 'non sequitur' argumentation mistakes often used by creationists. Your conclusion does not follow from the evidence you provide. I am going to assume that you simply do not know why what you have written does not support your assertion...
  
• 

  Half banana

  Venus and Freedom, let's remember not to quote the Bible as a reference book. Solomon is a fictional character as are the twelve tribes of Israel and their twelve patriarchs. (Twelve sounds more convincing in a story) This was told to aggrandise the mixed race of nomadic immigrants and exiles who came to live in a desert land so poor that no one else wanted it.
• 

  venus

  Hi WhatshallIcallmyself

  First of all, I did not make any conclusion which you feared I did which means you see things that do not exist. I just said—India’s population more than doubled in 50 years in spite of Governmental and non-governmental hard work and incentives against all possible increase. Even if we assume an exaggerated 500 (instead of 50) years for the world population to be doubled ..., it would still serve as a better indication as to the age of mankind.

  From saying this much, there is nothing for any reader to get emotionally excited as to the point of using the word ignorance against the writer. Diverting the subject into another too vast subject of ignorance is the sign of blind adherence to one particular belief—exactly what you accuse of creationists doing. Getting nervous when there is no need for it underscores your need to have belief in God which would serve like earthing for your electricity connection at home. Belief in God gives groundedness to face the unpleasant with balance. Otherwise a slight unexpected/unpleasant happening would cause great convulsions in you, as happened to Richard Dawkins, the chief priest of New Atheist Movement. When an invitation “to speak at the Northeast Conference on Science and Skepticism” was cancelled because of his some controversial statement about feminism, he took it too personally the distress of which was too much that his brain suffered a stroke within 13 days.

  (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/richard-dawkins-vdeo-twitter-necss-event-feminism-a6841161.html)

  (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/12/richard-dawkins-has-stroke-on-eve-of-australia-and-new-zealand-tour) If he were a believer in God, he would have thought--people heap honor and dishonor even to God (both of which He considers to be inconsequential)--hence slight (real or perceived) is nothing to me; and I am focused on more important things. Thus he could have let it pass.
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  Venus -

  The conclusion that you made, that is wrong, was this:

  "Hi shepherdless,

  What you say [There has been a massive population explosion in the last couple of centuries due to modern health and sanitation, modern medicine, the Haber process, etc. Before that, population levels were relatively stable, even over millenia] is not correct.

  It is just the other way around..." - Venus

  You conclusion is the world's population was not stable and that we are not now seeing a massive increase in the world's population due to modern medicine, agriculture, engineering etc. You are wrong.

  "...It is just the other way around..." - Venus

  I will repeat that part of your post so there can be no more confusion on you part as to why I am saying you are wrong. My conclusion was soundly based on your own words. If you wrote incorrectly then you should reiterate your position so we can move forwards.

  The rest of you latest post is just nonsense and blatant projection. Let's look at one nonsensical blathering of yours; referring to Richard Dawkins retweeting a satirical song you said:

  "...he took it too personally the distress of which was too much that his brain suffered a stroke within 13 days..." - Venus

  You offered up a newspaper article to back up this stupidness. Did you read the article you presented? I don't think you did because had you done so you would have seen Richard's response to his being dropped from a Conference due to this retweeting:

  “De-platformed for tweeting an irrelevant joke song? Ah well, ‘Always look on the bright side of life.’ Incidentally, would Monty Python have been de-platformed for that? No, don’t be silly, Life of Brian was only satirising Christianity.” - Richard Dawkins

  Richard Dawkins was 74 at the time of this 'mini stroke'. Yet again you take one fact and then form a conclusion that has no basis in reality.

  You are quite the one Venus...
  
• 

  venus

  Hi WhatshallIcallmyself,

  When an exaggerated view is expressed, someone else would present some facts that would make the exaggerated view to be viewed in low profile. But if you isolate one or two words from those facts, then subject gets diverted.

  Even the intent of my last comment was that belief in God gives you balance using one example. Suddenly, some elements of that example are projected as the main subject. Such an approach would not bring any benefit to anyone.

  I enjoy seeing things in their essence, not in their details. Hence all ism and religions are acceptable to me—Christianity says a virgin gave birth to a child; Hinduism says a virgin gave birth to 6 children; materialism says all life forms came from matter (which is also like a virgin).
• 

  jp1692

  I only quickly scanned this thread so forgive me if anyone else has already posted it: this is a really interesting and relatively recent addition to the science of our ancestry:

  • World’s oldest Homo sapiens fossils found in Morocco - June 7, 2017 - (Science Magazine)

  
  

  
  
• 

  My Name is of No Consequence

  The bible teaches us that the human race is approximately 6,000 years old.

  Oh wait…
• 

  hooberus

  cofty wrote:

  "Hooby has copy-pasted from a creationist website that reports on other creationists who have butchered a bit of excellent genetic research that shows the human population has exploded only in the past few millennia. Exactly the point we had to explain to Venus earlier.

  It's painful to witness this sort of ignorance and wilful deception."

  The main point of the article and book was clearly genome deteoriation by harmful mutation, not merely recent population increases.

  Instead of dealing with that point, you simply try to generate a bogus accusation of "deception". I have found such behavior to be typical of many activist evolutionists. They present themselves as being "evidence based" and "open minded" and then turn around and just try to generate accusations against anything or anyone supporting creation or critical of evolution.
• 

  smiddy3

  The bible teaches us that the human race is approximately 6,000 years old.

  I`m not sure that is really true , I think the interpretations some Christian religions give to Bible verses would like their members to believe that ,but that is not what the Bible actually says,

  or is / does it ?
  
  
• 

  cofty

  Hooby - You linked a pseudoscientific article written by a creationist charlatan who either didn't understand the paper he/she did violence to or did understand it and did violence to it deliberately.

  Then we have to add another level of deceit when creationists like yourself quote the article written by the charlatan even though you don't understand the article and haven't read the original paper to see for yourself how your creationist charlatan is doing violence to it.

  The article is about how rare mutations contribute to the risk for disease. It also explains the 'excess of rare variation across the exome' by examining the population explosion that occurred around 5000 years ago.

  Nowhere in the article - not even on one occasion - do the authors mention your bogus term 'genetic entropy'.

  Please read the article before you try to tell us what it is about.