|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Global Population Evidence For Noahic Flood? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
ZenMonkey writes: Hi Buz, long time. Let's try this to get back on track. Hi Zen. Welcome to the thread. What you're asking for has been answered on page one. I suggest you read up to familiarize yourself on what has been debated. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
We have the data from the Biblical record,
Myth
Even though we don't have specific numbers, we can be sure that in 4500 years (from the flood) there would be a minuscule time frame of a few thousand years for the population to grow compared to the evolutionist million year model which should produce an extremely greater population than what we have today.
What average rate of growth over 4500 years would produce the current population from a starting point of 8 people? what evidence do you have to support this number?
Likely the waning stage would level off relatively with a lengthy time of ups and downs before the rapid increase which was to come
Likely you enjoy fucking pigs.
ludicrous assumption that it would take hundreds of thousands of years for a sex driven population to double,
It's not an assumption Buz it's a conclusion backed up by evidence, y'know that thing you refuse to supply? Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given. It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Again, Coyote, this thread is to debate the population factor. The evidence cited has been debated. Whether or one believes it's been falsified is not for us to determine here.
The population factor is to be debated on the assumption that the flood happened 4500 yrs ago as per the Biblical record, for the creationist and on the assumption that a million years ago was when the first man began to populate the earth. Which one is the more likely and doable and why? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4511 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes: What you're asking for has been answered on page one. I suggest you read up to familiarize yourself on what has been debated. I have been reading the thread. Dr Jones just asked the very question that I was setting up. How do you get from 8 people 4500 years ago to 6.9 billion today? I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die. -John Lydon What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.-Steven Dutch I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. - John Stuart Mill
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Dr Jones writes: What average rate of growth over 4500 years would produce the current population from a starting point of 8 people? what evidence do you have to support this number? You tell me. I'm not the mathematician. I'm saying what ever it is, 4500 years would produce an extremely more accurate population observable today than 1,000,000 years would. Imo, that's a no brainer. What's your argument for the million time frame. How do you respond to the sex drive point which I made to debunk the hundreds of thousands of years for a sex driven small population to double and double again and again? Let's see it. Give it your best shot. Perhaps your evolutionist friends can help you out. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Again, Coyote, this thread is to debate the population factor. The evidence cited has been debated. Whether or one believes it's been falsified is not for us to determine here. Not correct. I have presented evidence, as have others, that falsifies the flood. That renders the whole population question starting with eight people 4,350 years ago moot. But that's OK, as I've also presented information that deals with the population question--which you conveniently ignored, as you ignore so much evidence that contradicts your particular beliefs. Care to address that information? How did a population of Native Americans get to the New World and well established within 100 years after the flood given that the entire world was devoid of wildlife and vegetation and the land was poisoned by salt? What model of population increase supports that expansion, and what model of migration can you come up with to account for moving half way around the world and setting up housekeeping in that short time? And what did they eat along the way? (All of this is ignoring the evidence we have going back many thousands of years earlier, and which shows no disruption by a massive flood.)
The population factor is to be debated on the assumption that the flood happened 4500 yrs ago as per the Biblical record, for the creationist and on the assumption that a million years ago was when the first man began to populate the earth. Nonsense. There was no flood ca. 4,350 years ago and everyone but a few fundamentalists know that.
Which one is the more likely and doable and why? Any scenario based on the myth of a global flood ca. 4,350 years ago has no more validity than a literary criticism of, for example, Moby Dick or Hamlet. If you start with fiction that's all you are doing is literary criticism. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
I'm not the mathematician.
For Fuck's Sake Buz this is at its heart a MATH problem!
I'm saying what ever it is, 4500 years would produce an extremely more accurate population observable today than 1,000,000 years would. Imo, that's a no brainer.
Why? What would the average rate of population growth over 4500 years need to be to get us the current population from a starting population of 8? Show your work.
How do you respond to the sex drive point which I made...
You claimed that people would fuck like rabbits and that the population would grow quickly, you offered no support for this assertion nor did you make any effort to show how the population would grow unchecked by war, famine, disease, disaster or other limiting factors. Read your OP, you made a claim, it is up to you to support it, or run away. Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given. It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
You can't use data from the Biblical record to conclude that the Biblical record is a more accurate chronology than the scientific one. That's circular reasoning. The scientific chronology, on the other hand, is based on multiple overlapping lines of real evidence. We have the data from the Biblical record.... "I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
How do you respond to the sex drive point which I made to debunk the hundreds of thousands of years for a sex driven small population to double and double again and again? Let's see it. Give it your best shot. Perhaps your evolutionist friends can help you out. A number of points have been stated, Famine; War; Natural disasters ie: Tsunamis & earthquakes; Plagues; Lack of sanitation and other natural or man-made problems. Essential the same problems we have today only with less capability of helping those affected ie: no science & technology. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: And what is that opinion based on ? All we've seen is the "bunny blunder". If your opinion relies on ignoring virtually all the relevant data then it's a "no brainer" only in that you'd have to have no brain to believe it.(I'd add that even if you include the "archaic" forms of homo sapiens you don't have 1,000,000 years to worry about, more like half that - which makes a huge difference if you're trying to apply an exponential growth model) Of course, archaeology thoroughly refutes you. 4500 years ago is the middle of the Egyptian Old Kingdom, which requires far more than a mere 8 people. And Egyptian archaeology stretches well back before then with your Flood nowhere in sight. And that's just Egypt. So it comes down to which is more reliable - the evidence, or a hopelessly unrealistic population growth model which would be laughed at by any serious researcher. I guess it really is a "no-brainer".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The population factor is to be debated on the assumption that the flood happened 4500 yrs ago as per the Biblical record, for the creationist and on the assumption that a million years ago was when the first man began to populate the earth. Which one is the more likely and doable and why? Reality is more likely 'cos of being, y'know, real. If you want to argue against all the known facts then you should try to actually argue against them. 'Cos if you're reduced to asking rhetorically which is more likely, creationist trash or reality, then the answer is --- reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Apologies to everyone who's participating. Since Buz wants to discuss something other than what he described in the OP, he's going to have to submit another proposal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Surely he's still being wrong in at least the same field of discourse.
When I compare this to the wild digressions from topic that have been permitted, I think that you could at least let him digress a little from his OP so long as he's still trying to be wrong about the size of the human population.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024