How old do you suppose this planet really is?

[Humpy]

You should try the Vietnamese yogurt, it's just plain but pretty good, I can't really describe the taste.

I'll look for it and give it a try!

I've really only ever had Greek and the typically sugary yoplait stuff.

Back to pickles for a second. My wife put some English cucumber slices in my lunch today and I thought to myself "Hey, I bet this would be equally delicious as a pickle." I was surprised how easy it looks to make pickles. I was under the impression that it took a long time and you had to have some of those old jars we used to drink lemonade out of. I found several recipes using English cucumbers that would be ready after just a few hours or the next day.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

OR you are buying into a very stupid theory that for 190000 years the population couldn't possibly have increased by .02% because we didn't cultivate plants... even though most animal populations grow at such rates (likely at higher rates). Are you saying they lacked all skill at hunting and foraging too? ... actually 198000 years.

And are we to assume American Indian population grew at a very low rate because they didn't have agriculture (many tribes anyways)? So their numbers stayed pretty much zilch that with 2 people they couldnt produce 2.0002 people and in 2000 years have almost 3 people... in 5000 have a whole 5 people... whatever you want to believe.

... in 10000 have 15 people... man the population is booming

At first I thought you were the dumbest person here, but now I think you're the dumbest person on Earth. Not on Earth right now, the dumbest person on Earth ever.

The population of EVERY species on the planet EVER has been dictated by environmental factors. From bacteria to fungus to plants to insects to mammals, the population CANNOT exceed the supply of whatever resources are necessary to support life. If there is food to support 10 people you can't have a sustainable population of 100. If there is water for 1,000 birds the bird population can't grow to 5,000. How did all those animals that proceeded us and grew at a faster rate than us not grow at a rate that allowed them to inhabit every square inch of the planet before humans ever evolved (or in your case, remained remarkably apelike)? Were they good planners? Did they practice safe sex? Did they hate kids? No, fucktard, they could not outgrow the environment that supported them. No food, no population growth. You can view that pretty easily by observing wild populations (well, we could see it, you would lack the brainpower to notice or process the information). Larger species require more food and more water and that limits how many of them their habitat can support. The lion is the king of the jungle, so why are there more birds, rodents and reptiles in the jungle than lions? Because the lions can't outgrow their food supply. If they do, the excess population will starve until the numbers reach stasis.

 

[RandomWords]

At first I thought you were the dumbest person here, but now I think you're the dumbest person on Earth. Not on Earth right now, the dumbest person on Earth ever.

The population of EVERY species on the planet EVER has been dictated by environmental factors. From bacteria to fungus to plants to insects to mammals, the population CANNOT exceed the supply of whatever resources are necessary to support life. If there is food to support 10 people you can't have a sustainable population of 100. If there is water for 1,000 birds the bird population can't grow to 5,000. How did all those animals that proceeded us and grew at a faster rate than us not grow at a rate that allowed them to inhabit every square inch of the planet before humans every evolved (or in your case, remained remarkably apelike)? We they good planners? Did they practice safe sex? Did they hate kids? No, fucktard, they could not outgrow the environment that supported them. No food, no population growth. You can view that pretty easily by observing wild populations (well, we could see it, you would lack the brainpower to notice). Larger species require more food and more water and that limits how many of them their habitat can support. The lion is the king of the jungle, so why are there more birds, rodents and reptiles in the jungle than lions? Because the lions can't outgrow their food supply. If they do, the excess population will starve until the numbers reach stasis.

OR because the rate of births is entirely different from a bird/reptile to a lion perspective. Where 1 chick dying makes hardly a dint... one lion dying makes a large one... but that has no bearing to population growth at all does it. So even though we hunt and kill a large Shar of birds there are billions upon billions of them.

But that makes no difference to your logic. Neither does incubation times I'm sure.

 

[SSSnail]

I didn't say you condemned homosexuality I said you believe the Bible does... see who is misreading things.

And no... I didn't say it has factual details to be discussed... i said to discuss it in any way you first have to read it... there's a big difference that you don't seem to grasp.

OK, misread on my part. See? I'm capable of admitting wrong, you should too.

Anyways, the best analogy I can come up is this - I don't need to read Cinderella to know that she doesn't exist. If I didn't read it, and hear people are saying things about the pumpkin that turns into a carriage, or a mouse that drives the pumpkin, or fairy godmother, I would immediately dismiss it as a fairy tale. If I didn't read it, then you're right I can't discuss with you the details about the story, such as any details about the glass slipper and how it relates to the story. But, overall, I don't need to read it to tell you that it's fairy tale. Simple as that.

That goes with any other fairy tale books published by any other religions, and I don't have to read all of them to dismiss them.

 

[RandomWords]

OK, misread on my part. See? I'm capable of admitting wrong, you should too.

Anyways, the best analogy I can come up is this - I don't need to read Cinderella to know that she doesn't exist. If I didn't read it, and hear people are saying things about the pumpkin that turns into a carriage, or a mouse that drives the pumpkin, or fairy godmother, I would immediately dismiss it as a fairy tale. If I didn't read it, then you're right I can't discuss with you the details about the story, such as any details about the glass slipper and how it relates to the story. But, overall, I don't need to read it to tell you that it's fairy tale. Simple as that.

That goes with any other fairy tale books published by any other religions, and I don't have to read all of them to dismiss them.

True. But neither can you say for certainty that the people saying the pumpkin turned into a carriage actually happened in the story so - in essence you are ascribing fairy tale aspects to a book you've never read based on what someone who could have or could have not read the book said. You know the punkin in Cinderella turned into a carriage because at some time you have read the book. Or at least watched a movie that was close to the book which doesn't exist where the bible is concerned because it would bore you to tears

But then... I have large trust issues with things people tell me so I'm more curious to find out myself.

 

[SSSnail]

True. But neither can you say for certainty that the people saying the pumpkin turned into a carriage actually happened in the story so - in essence you are ascribing fairy tale aspects to a book you've never read based on what someone who could have or could have not read the book said. You know the punkin in Cinderella turned into a carriage because at some time you have read the book. Or at least watched a movie that was close to the book which doesn't exist where the bible is concerned because it would bore you to tears

Sometimes, you'd just have to take common wisdom passed around for generations for what they are, and if you're really interested then investigate. But, most likely if everybody tells me the pumpkin did turn into a carriage in the book Cinderella, then I'm going with fairy tale. Now if I'm really interested, then I'd go read it. But I'm not, so I don't.

I actually picked up the Bibles that they placed in hotels in the nightstands and read a bit on my bored travelling nights, and just as I suspected, fairy tale. That's just in case someday, I'd run into people like you who insists that I must read the Bible to know.

 

[RandomWords]

Sometimes, you'd just have to take common wisdom passed around for generations for what they are, and if you're really interested then investigate. But, most likely if everybody tells me the pumpkin did turn into a carriage in the book Cinderella, then I'm going with fairy tale. Now if I'm really interested, then I'd go read it. But I'm not, so I don't.

I actually picked up the Bibles that they placed in hotels in the nightstands and read a bit on my bored travelling nights, and just as I suspected, fairy tale. That's just in case someday, I'd run into people like you who insists that I must read the Bible to know.

Kept in frame of reference to the time period and that all history favors the victors there's a lot to gain from the bible culturally. Is all of it 100% accurate - probably not - but does it give you insight to the type of world they lived in - absolutely. Does it give you some events in history- though embellished - and how they perceived them - also - absolutely.

It all depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for religion go ahead but there's an option to look for history and your own past (if you're not from a different culture) and you'll interpret it differently.

Edit: and keeping in mind hallucigens were common... came to mind thinking about the vikings and their use of mushrooms before battle.

 

[nakedfrog]

True. But neither can you say for certainty that the people saying the pumpkin turned into a carriage actually happened in the story so - in essence you are ascribing fairy tale aspects to a book you've never read based on what someone who could have or could have not read the book said. You know the punkin in Cinderella turned into a carriage because at some time you have read the book. Or at least watched a movie that was close to the book which doesn't exist where the bible is concerned because it would bore you to tears

But then... I have large trust issues with things people tell me so I'm more curious to find out myself.

You got problems, kid.

 

[RandomWords]

You got problems, kid.

Don't we all.

 

[RandomWords]

At first I thought you were the dumbest person here, but now I think you're the dumbest person on Earth. Not on Earth right now, the dumbest person on Earth ever.

The population of EVERY species on the planet EVER has been dictated by environmental factors. From bacteria to fungus to plants to insects to mammals, the population CANNOT exceed the supply of whatever resources are necessary to support life. If there is food to support 10 people you can't have a sustainable population of 100. If there is water for 1,000 birds the bird population can't grow to 5,000. How did all those animals that proceeded us and grew at a faster rate than us not grow at a rate that allowed them to inhabit every square inch of the planet before humans ever evolved (or in your case, remained remarkably apelike)? Were they good planners? Did they practice safe sex? Did they hate kids? No, fucktard, they could not outgrow the environment that supported them. No food, no population growth. You can view that pretty easily by observing wild populations (well, we could see it, you would lack the brainpower to notice or process the information). Larger species require more food and more water and that limits how many of them their habitat can support. The lion is the king of the jungle, so why are there more birds, rodents and reptiles in the jungle than lions? Because the lions can't outgrow their food supply. If they do, the excess population will starve until the numbers reach stasis.

But for arguments sake... let's just say you're right - I'm too stupid to see how it takes 180000 years to create 1 million people even though the food supply for humans was adequate and our willingness to move locations confirmed unlike cats who claimed territory and stayed there hell or high water... it's just too hard to fathom it would take that long.

 

[FeuerFrei]

You know the bible book of Genesis chapter one says that creation took place over 6 days and on the 7th God rested. The earth was created and then given form over several days and by the time the 6th day rolled around we had people, animals and foliage. I know that the furthest known galaxy is 13.7 billion lights years away hence it took at least that long for its light to reach us here.

So my question is simple. How old do you suppose this planet really is? If God created it did he work in some aging in the process as he was giving it form? Could the aging be enough to stabilize the land masses in order for people to safely inhabit the planet?

Slightly older than Adam would be if he were yet alive. Pretty cool to think 900-some years after Adam's creation anyone on earth could look him up and get the story of life in Eden, if not the creation sequence, depending on how much God revealed to him.
As far as starlight goes - Bible says God "spreads out" the heavens and we have detected that the universe is indeed expanding. So naturally the stars used to be closer. Maybe their light didn't travel 13.7 billion light years. Or maybe there's some mechanism involving the warpage of the fabric of space-time that allows light to propagate far faster than we would calculate.
The earth is composed of strata so obviously it coalesced around some gravitational core. I think it was laid, layer by layer, until fit for human life. I doubt it was artificially aged. I realize it's possible for things to "appear older than they are" thanks to bad science from close-minded scientists desperate not to believe in God, who have no love of the truth.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm not sure of the shelf life of homemade yougurt, maybe Cerpin Taxt can chime in with that info. But for sure, two gallons of yogurt is a lot.

I had some homebrew beer the other day that was tasty but I was a little disappointed in the lack of bubbles. Keeping it from going flat is probably one of the challenges.

My process sterilizes the milk before I inoculate it with the yogurt cultures. Those in turn create an acidic environment where it is very difficult for outside organisms to take hold.

As I consume the yogurt I'm constantly removing the top layer so the newly exposed yogurt is basically still as fresh as the day it finished incubating. I can make a 2 gallon tub last 4 to 6 weeks easily.

I do try to gift some away, too. It's basically just plain yogurt but I do add some honey to it to round off the acidic tang a bit.

 

[nakedfrog]

But for arguments sake... let's just say you're right - I'm too stupid to see how it takes 180000 years to create 1 million people even though the food supply for humans was adequate and our willingness to move locations confirmed unlike cats who claimed territory and stayed there hell or high water... it's just too hard to fathom it would take that long.

You'll get no argument here.

Slightly older than Adam would be if he were yet alive. Pretty cool to think 900-some years after Adam's creation anyone on earth could look him up and get the story of life in Eden, if not the creation sequence, depending on how much God revealed to him.
As far as starlight goes - Bible says God "spreads out" the heavens and we have detected that the universe is indeed expanding. So naturally the stars used to be closer. Maybe their light didn't travel 13.7 billion light years. Or maybe there's some mechanism involving the warpage of the fabric of space-time that allows light to propagate far faster than we would calculate.
The earth is composed of strata so obviously it coalesced around some gravitational core. I think it was laid, layer by layer, until fit for human life. I doubt it was artificially aged. I realize it's possible for things to "appear older than they are" thanks to bad science from close-minded scientists desperate not to believe in God, who have no love of the truth.

Aw, that's cute. They're close-minded since they're only doing science because they're "desperate" to not believe the exact same thing you do.

 

[Thebobo]

4.5 Billion years old

 

[RandomWords]

You'll get no argument here.

Good now go somewhere where people who can only think linearly go because your argument that the earth would have stabalized human population on its own and kept the population below a million for 180000 years is bullshit since humans eat everything from worms to grasshoppers to scorpions (things many larger animals dont) to birds to squirrels to rats to larger animals and plants and had a larger capacity to reason than most other animals... so the population being controlled because of lack of resources falls flat especially since, not only did we have plenty of eating options, according to studies early humans were nomadic going to where food was - and on our own current knowledge can survive on very little food for weeks to months ...Indians would be a good study of how population would progress and survive since this side of the world didnt get argriculture or fancy dancy things till not that long ago... its a more current representation of human population stabilization and average rate of growth given basically the same conditions.

 

[nakedfrog]

Good now go somewhere where people who can only think linearly go because your argument that the earth would have stabalized human population on its own and kept the population below a million for 180000 years is bullshit since humans eat everything from worms to grasshoppers to scorpions (things many larger animals dont) to birds to squirrels to rats to larger animals and plants and had a larger capacity to reason than most other animals... so the population being controlled because of lack of resources falls flat especially since, not only did we have plenty of eating options, according to studies early humans were nomadic going to where food was - and on our own current knowledge can survive on very little food for weeks to months ...Indians would be a good study of how population would progress and survive since this side of the world didnt get argriculture or fancy dancy things till not that long ago... its a more current representation of human population stabilization and average rate of growth given basically the same conditions.

Uh, the only argument I've been making in this thread is that you're a dipshit.

 

[RandomWords]

At first I thought you were the dumbest person here, but now I think you're the dumbest person on Earth. Not on Earth right now, the dumbest person on Earth ever.

The population of EVERY species on the planet EVER has been dictated by environmental factors. From bacteria to fungus to plants to insects to mammals, the population CANNOT exceed the supply of whatever resources are necessary to support life. If there is food to support 10 people you can't have a sustainable population of 100. If there is water for 1,000 birds the bird population can't grow to 5,000. How did all those animals that proceeded us and grew at a faster rate than us not grow at a rate that allowed them to inhabit every square inch of the planet before humans ever evolved (or in your case, remained remarkably apelike)? Were they good planners? Did they practice safe sex? Did they hate kids? No, fucktard, they could not outgrow the environment that supported them. No food, no population growth. You can view that pretty easily by observing wild populations (well, we could see it, you would lack the brainpower to notice or process the information). Larger species require more food and more water and that limits how many of them their habitat can support. The lion is the king of the jungle, so why are there more birds, rodents and reptiles in the jungle than lions? Because the lions can't outgrow their food supply. If they do, the excess population will starve until the numbers reach stasis.

Uh, the only argument I've been making in this thread is that you're a dipshit.

Bless your heart - of course it was.
Edit: You all seem the same after awhile... for clarification.

 

[nakedfrog]

Just in case you're not aware, the poster named "GagHalfrunt" and myself are not the same individual.

 

[OverVolt]

Its a pretty interesting question because the decay of isotopes that help gauge the age of the earth only help you so much. The material that made the earth was at one point part of a star that went supernova. Tons of them were back then. Like elemental furnaces.

So the actual rocks that make up the planet? Yea I guess you can date them. Its kind of irrelevant. The isotopes could have been decaying long before they even formed into the planet. Quite the error margin. Nobody knows how long or under what conditions it really formed.

Yea a science text will tell you 4.543 billion years based on that but.... meh. How do you explain the 50 million year lag time between the formation of Mars and Earth then if the solar system was in similar conditions? They should have been made of the same "stuff" floating around our general area after a few supernovas.

 

[RandomWords]

Just in case you're not aware, the poster named "GagHalfrunt" and myself are not the same individual.

Pretty much are. In essence - claiming stupidity without having more than a linear thought process and not considering that 200000 was an estimate - and an old one - very capable of being changed as we include more than speculation into the mix. Which... why you think we couldnt have evolved over 100000 years or even 50000 is beyond me... otherwise... why you are claiming I'm a dipshit for arguing this point is beyond me.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Would be kind of funny if it turns out both Bible scholars and scientists are wrong, and it's some completely oddball number like a few million or something. There's tons of theories on both sides, but we'll never really be able to prove either side with 100% certainty. At least we can all agree that the Earth is round. Well, most of us. lol

 

[RandomWords]

Would be kind of funny if it turns out both Bible scholars and scientists are wrong, and it's some completely oddball number like a few million or something. There's tons of theories on both sides, but we'll never really be able to prove either side with 100% certainty. At least we can all agree that the Earth is round. Well, most of us. lol

Exactly! Lol.

 

[Ruptga]

Its a pretty interesting question because the decay of isotopes that help gauge the age of the earth only help you so much. The material that made the earth was at one point part of a star that went supernova. Tons of them were back then. Like elemental furnaces.

So the actual rocks that make up the planet? Yea I guess you can date them. Its kind of irrelevant. The isotopes could have been decaying long before they even formed into the planet. Quite the error margin. Nobody knows how long or under what conditions it really formed.

Yea a science text will tell you 4.543 billion years based on that but.... meh. How do you explain the 50 million year lag time between the formation of Mars and Earth then if the solar system was in similar conditions? They should have been made of the same "stuff" floating around our general area after a few supernovas.

Ok, but you not understanding how variables in radiometric dating or planet formation can be accounted for is not proof that they can't be accounted for. It's just too easy to Google stuff for that to fly.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Uh, the only argument I've been making in this thread is that you're a dipshit.

Yes, but you're not making that argument nearly as persuasively as the dipshit himself is.

 

[Ruptga]

Exactly! Lol.

Oooh 100% certainty. Are you 100% certain that you're not actually a dog having a dream about being a human? I think that could explain a few things about your thought processes actually. I'm gonna need you to prove to me with 100% certainty that you are not actually a dreaming dog, kthx.

See, I can teach the controversy too! Moron.