How old do you suppose this planet really is?

[RandomWords]

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

Let me guess... you're a biologist educated in life and cultural studies as well as fungus and bacteria hazards and their effect on the human population past what you learned in highschool amd well versed on the differences between humans and other mammals and their evolutionary changes... If so - you should go back and refresh what you've learned because in essence your opinion on how the environment works is not well informed.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

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

See, the difference is that if new evidence was discovered that proved, or at least hinted at the possibility of a different age science would adapt. The bible wannabelievers would still stick their fingers in their ears and scream "I'm not listening NANNER NANNER NANNER!!!!" at the top of their lungs.

You're making the ridiculous assumption that a "theory" in science is in any way, shape or form akin to a "theory" in religion when in reality they're not even close. In science a theory is backed by evidence, testing, re-testing, peer review, refinement and adaptation if any part of it fails in any way. In religion a theory is whatever bullshit some idiot pulls out of his ass because he desperately wants to believe it and if it's not backed by evidence and testing and if it fails in any way the idiot just believes it more strongly because in his tiny little mind faith makes it true. So yeah, there are "There's tons of theories on both sides", but those theories are not equal.

 

[RandomWords]

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.

Really. Because i found humor in science and religion both being wrong this somehow makes me a moron... okay... even though i havent once sided with religion and it seems quite clear your grudge against me is because you think i do.

 

[nakedfrog]

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

Yes, I'm afraid I'm going to have to concede to the master on that one.

 

[Imp]

2016 years old. There was nothing before the great Jésus.

 

[Ruptga]

Really. Because i found humor in science and religion both being wrong this somehow makes me a moron... okay... even though i havent once sided with religion and it seems quite clear your grudge against me is because you think i do.

Er, no. You're a moron because you think that's why I think you're a moron, and for plenty of other reasons too.

 

[RandomWords]

Edit: the quote reference was wrong... i meant for it to go with ruptga and just caught it.

Well... there's no other reason that makes sense really... something about a dog and proving it 100% - like what - you dont think i think people evolved or the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old? ... but sure - in this I'll grant you - i dont know why you think I'm a moron or that what I've brought up doesnt have merit... but go ahead and think you're being reasonable.

 

[HumblePie]

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.

You should try reading about how they come up with that 4.54 billion year estimate.

 

[PJFrylar]

Let me guess... you're a biologist educated in life and cultural studies as well as fungus and bacteria hazards and their effect on the human population past what you learned in highschool amd well versed on the differences between humans and other mammals and their evolutionary changes... If so - you should go back and refresh what you've learned because in essence your opinion on how the environment works is not well informed.

GagHalfrunt is correct in what he said, although reading just the last parts of the argument you're not really talking about the same thing.

random link: https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/ch371/lecture/popgrowth/carrying.htm

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.

What GagHalfrunt is talking about is carrying capacity. It is the size of a population that can be sustained over time, limited by outside pressures such as food supply. This isn't his "logic" he's making up, it's basic environmental science - also it happens to be common sense.

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.

This type of stuff is biotic potential, how fast you get up to that carrying capacity. The problem is resources are limited - hence a carrying capacity.

 

[Joepublic2]

Older than dirt. That's my final answer.

I like this answer because it's snarky yet still technically correct.

 

[RandomWords]

GagHalfrunt is correct in what he said, although reading just the last parts of the argument you're not really talking about the same thing.

random link: https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/ch371/lecture/popgrowth/carrying.htm




What GagHalfrunt is talking about is carrying capacity. It is the size of a population that can be sustained over time, limited by outside pressures such as food supply. This isn't his "logic" he's making up, it's basic environmental science - also it happens to be common sense.


This type of stuff is biotic potential, how fast you get up to that carrying capacity. The problem is resources are limited - hence a carrying capacity.

I understand his argument and agree the environment has limits. He's applying it to how human population didnt exceed 1 million in 180000 years and what I'm trying to get across is there was more than enough resources for humans to get past that point.

 

[Joepublic2]

Yes inundersra
I understand his argument and agree the environment has limits. He's applying it to how human population didnt exceed 1 million in 180000 years and what I'm trying to get across is there was more than enough resources for humans to get past that point.

Until you factor in war, disease, famine, drought, rapid local ecological change, lack of industrialization to actually utilize those resources etc. all that fun stuff.

 

[RandomWords]

Until you factor in war, disease, famine, drought, rapid local ecological change, lack of industrialization to actually utilize those resources etc. all that fun stuff.

But i did factor that in...

1 million outcome would make the average rate of growth lower than .01% ... its hard to find an online calculator that will compute a lower percentage... but I'm. Guessing it would be more accurate to say lower than .001% per year average growth over 180000 years to get to 1 million people... but maybe thats a logical.number.

I know someone mentioned many humanoid species and then them becoming extinct but if this was so... then they werent the first of our kind.. They were a totally different kind.. So - that can explain some of it but i wouldnt put it as "the first of our kind" was 200000 years ago maybe "the first humanoid"... which then brings up the question - when is the likely age where "the first of our kind" actually did appear.

 

[Humpy]

Yes inundersra


Yes i understand that he is correct but he is applying it to why human population didnt exceed over 1 million in 180000 years. His whole reasoning of why is based on that... of which i claim there was enough resources to sustain more tham that amount

I understand his argument and agree the environment has limits. He's applying it to how human population didnt exceed 1 million in 180000 years and what I'm trying to get across is there was more than enough resources for humans to get past that point.

Therefore the Earth is how old?

Cliffs on WTF your point is?



(I'm a big fan of your type of trolling, though I find it best used in the math threads where it's even more absurd to argue against established ideas.)

 

[shortylickens]

Baby jesus told me it just turned tree fiddy.

KT

Umm, did this "jesus" happen to be 50 feet tall and look like a dinosaur from the paleolithic era?

 

[Jaepheth]

If there's grass on the field, play ball.

 

[Joepublic2]

But i did factor that in...

1 million outcome would make the average rate of growth lower than .01% ... its hard to find an online calculator that will compute a lower percentage... but I'm. Guessing it would be more accurate to say lower than .001% per year average growth over 180000 years to get to 1 million people... but maybe thats a logical.number.

I think your problem is assuming there's steady population growth over time; that's a very recent phenomenon. If you read just a high level overview of world history you'll notice that there are massive human die offs in the past for various reasons that have only been overcome through improved technology over the last few hundred years. And that's just going back several thousand years; we really have no way of accurately knowing what happened before that beyond archaeological clues.

 

[RandomWords]

Therefore the Earth is how old?

Cliffs on WTF your point is?



(I'm a big fan of your type of trolling, though I find it best used in the math threads where it's even more absurd to argue against established ideas.)

Lol... i answered that on the first page or so... I'm not sure how humanity and their start progressed into a debate - it did.

 

[RandomWords]

I think your problem is assuming there's steady population growth over time; that's a very recent phenomenon. If you read just a high level overview of world history you'll notice that there are massive human die offs in the past for various reasons that have only been overcome through improved technology over the last few hundred years. And that's just going back several thousand years; we really have no way of accurately knowing what happened before that beyond archaeological clues.

Yes i know its a fallacy to assume a growth rate but overall the population would have grown at some averaged out rate... it is difficult to assume what that rate would be which is why i started with a .02% and not like 2% ... some years would have been 2% and some -2% or whatnot but i think somewhere you can average it out.

And even with those dieoffs over time and I'm talking 1000's of years we still managed to double our population... according to scientific data and assumptions.... the only accurate world population levels are from 1960 and on.

 

[MongGrel]

Lol... i answered that on the first page or so... I'm not sure how humanity and their start progressed into a debate - it did.

You've never "answered" anything.

You're rambling incoherently. And unlikely to stop I imagine.

The Native American population was estimated to be fairly high at one point, prior to Europeans introducing many diseases in the Western Hemisphere. It is documented many Europeans moving west were surprised at finding land that looked like it had been managed before they even entered areas, due to disease having wiped a lot of people out before they even entered some areas.

Advances in medicine and longer lifespans have contributed to a large degree also.

Not really sure what is has to do with the topic to begin with.

 

[FelixDeCat]

over 9000

 

[RandomWords]

You've never "answered" anything.

You're rambling incoherently. And unlikely to stop I imagine.

The Native American population was estimated to be fairly high at one point, prior to Europeans introducing many diseases in the Western Hemisphere. It is documented many Europeans moving west were surprised at finding land that looked like it had been managed before they even entered areas, due to disease having wiped a lot of people out before they even entered some areas.

Advances in medicine and longer lifespans have contributed to a large degree also.

I would say you can't really pinpoint the age of the earth... even scientists +/- a few... what millions? Of years... but I guess when you're in billions what is a few million huh.

The Bible version... who is to say... but time has no meaning to God (as said in the bible) so I'm guessing days is just used as a way to organize the events.. but that's my opinion.

However - from researching both sides of the topic I've learned it doesn't really matter how old the earth is or if the events in the bible happened or not...

As for the bible - if read in order of date each story is written and considering the time and culture it was written in it really isn't a violent book and is quite tame and reads similar to a history text book.. also.. 100% different from how churches portray it which is usually out of context and irrelevant to the subject matter they are preaching about.

Granted the many messages before mine made it a longer answer than intended

 

[PJFrylar]

I understand his argument and agree the environment has limits. He's applying it to how human population didnt exceed 1 million in 180000 years and what I'm trying to get across is there was more than enough resources for humans to get past that point.

The stagnation of the population would indicate otherwise, that humans had hit their carrying capacity. Improving tools and eventually agriculture/livestock let humans access resources more efficiently and the population began to grow. An example: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17495-stone-age-innovation-explains-ancient-population-boom/.

I think you might be underestimating how tough it would have been for humans back in the stone age. Imagine trying to take down something like a deer with a sharpened rock. That deer is going to run circles around you. A more finely crafted arrowhead is going to give you a better chance.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

I understand his argument and agree the environment has limits. He's applying it to how human population didnt exceed 1 million in 180000 years and what I'm trying to get across is there was more than enough resources for humans to get past that point.

No, what you're trying to get across is how catastrophically stupid you are. Resources and the knowledge/ability to tap those resources are completely different things. We had the raw materials and resources to become an industrialized society from day one. Oil and solar energy, nuclear power, airplanes, heavy machinery etc are not magic, they're using materials that were here before us. What prevented mankind from going from fire to steam engine in a single day? Knowledge. The resources were there, but we couldn't use them.

In your cluelessness you're thinking that agriculture would work differently. There was land available. But early man didn't know what to do with it, they lacked the knowledge to farm. They had to take what the land gave them. It took hundreds of thousands of years to go from picking berries to growing wheat. In the early days 99.9% of time and effort was dedicated to survival. They couldn't go to the library to figure out how to grow food for next season because they were doing everything possible to get enough food to get through tomorrow. Give a chimp a plow and a seed drill, farmland and a well, will he be able to plant crops and increase the chimp population? Hell no, the resources don't mean jack without the knowledge on how to do it and that takes time.

You truly are the biggest dumbass on Earth because pretty much everybody on the planet except you understands how societies grow. Going from hunter/gatherer to grower is what triggers population expansion. Until you get to the point where you have the knowledge to master agriculture the land simply does not produce enough to sustain large populations. A trillion acres of potential farmland produces nothing edible if it's covered with forests and native grasses. It takes a lot of learning to get to the point where you can take a wild prairie and make a farm out of it.

And it's kind of an insult to the people who acquired that knowledge and learned how to utilize those resources to choose to remain as stupid as you are. They were capable of learning, why aren't you?

 

[RandomWords]

The stagnation of the population would indicate otherwise, that humans had hit their carrying capacity. Improving tools and eventually agriculture/livestock let humans access resources more efficiently and the population began to grow. An example: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17495-stone-age-innovation-explains-ancient-population-boom/.

I think you might be underestimating how tough it would have been for humans back in the stone age. Imagine trying to take down something like a deer with a sharpened rock. That deer is going to run circles around you. A more finely crafted arrowhead is going to give you a better chance.

Maybe