"GodEvolved" <nospam at spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns924CF201DEFF6nospamcom at 198.164.200.20...
> "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com> wrote in
> news:rRJY8.63879$P%6.4315616 at news2.west.cox.net:
>> >
> > "Angilion" <angilion at ypical.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:3d333c95.21227708 at news.freeserve.net...> >> On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:18:30 GMT, "John Knight" <johnknight at usa.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"OhSojourner" <ohsojourner at aol.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:ce660175.0207141147.10aa9d8 at posting.google.com...> >> >> John Knight wrote:
> >>
> >> [..]
> >>
> >> >> >But to the rest of the normal people in the country, namely the
> >> >> >91% who reject this "theory" of evolution,
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you have a cite for this claim? (A non-subjective one)
> >> >
> >> >Well, it's a bit difficult to come up with a "non-subjective" cite
> >> >for public opinion, as public opinion is precisely that--subjective.
> >> >
> >> >The Gallup Poll, where it has its serious credibility problems,
> >> >shows
> > that
> >> >only 9% of Americans accept the "theory of evolution" as its been
> >> >historically defined:
> >> >http://christianparty.net/gallupcreation.htm> >>
> >> Well, the sample size is large enough (1000) *if* it was a random
> >> selection from across the whole of the USA, and it does show that
> >> only 9% of the people questioned believe that God had *no part*
> >> in the development of humanity.
> >>
> >> It is evidence that most people in the USA do not believe in the
> >> theory of evolution. It is not evidence that the theory of evolution
> >> is wrong, nor is it evidence that the theory of creationism is right.
> >> There cannot be any evidence of the latter, by definition, as it
> >> is a matter of faith.
> >>
> >> As an aside, why do you believe that all known forms of dating
> >> material are wildly incorrect? If humanity is only 3000 or 6000
> >> years old (both figures are given on the above website), all the
> >> dating of all human remains or human-created items older
> >> than 3000?6000? years must be wrong. Or are you arguing that
> >> there were people on Earth before humans?
> >>
> >
> > The main problem with these long timeframes are the known population
> > growth rates of humans, which are mostly linked to
> > http://christianparty.net/population.htm> >
> > To summarize, at the rate the US population grew (not counting
> > immigration), with abortion and the pill, it would take only 1,200
> > years to grow from 2 people to 6 billion. Even at the slow rate the
> > UK has grown lately, it would take only 1,800 years.
> >
> > Now without the pill and abortions, it would take only 900 years, and
> > at the rate African populations grow, only 600 years.
>> Do you account for Acts of God which may result in draconian reduction in
> population, locally *and* globally? Such things as earthquakes, heat
> waves, cold snaps, mountains explodin, tornadoes, desease, accidents, wild
> predators who enjoy muching on your children, pissing off your
neighbouring
> king, molten rock which flows out of a perfectly good mountain for no
> particular reason, rainfalls which last for weeks followed by really
> impressive flooding?
>> <Snip>
>>
Yes, of course. These population growth rates during the last 50 years that
are so well documented included all of the above, plus some. It included the
low birth rates of countries like the US resulting from rampant abortion and
birth control pill usage, which is a relatively new condition. It included
the rampant AIDS and cancer epidemics which may be as bad as or even worse
than some other historic epidemics. It included the tens of millions of
Africans who murdered each other in coups, wars, and sheer acts of genocide,
which may be nothing new, but which were made more efficient with modern
weapons. It included the Korean and Vietnam and Gulf "wars" which used some
of the finest military technology to kill people in ways that were
inconceivable up until just a century ago.
There's a widespread misperception that the Great Flood described in the
Holy Bible was a worldwide flood, but this is a translation error. The
original Hebrew confirms that it was a local flood. It did drown almost all
the people in that area, but those who survived were documented. And the
problem, as you can see, is that these known population growth rates mean
that it could not have been that long ago, particularly since there were
already millions of other people around the world who were out of the flood
area.
John Knight
