Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Global Population Evidence For Noahic Flood?
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 58 (602386)
01-27-2011 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by ZenMonkey
01-27-2011 9:52 PM


Re: Two on-topic questions.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by ZenMonkey, posted 01-27-2011 9:52 PM ZenMonkey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by ZenMonkey, posted 01-27-2011 11:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 47 of 58 (602388)
01-27-2011 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Buzsaw
01-27-2011 11:38 PM


Re: Flood Time line & Population Calculations
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Buzsaw, posted 01-27-2011 11:38 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 01-28-2011 12:12 AM DrJones* has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 58 (602389)
01-27-2011 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Coyote
01-27-2011 8:36 PM


Re: Which Hypothesis The More Doable?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 01-27-2011 8:36 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Coyote, posted 01-28-2011 12:15 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-28-2011 2:51 AM Buzsaw has not replied

ZenMonkey
Member (Idle past 4511 days)
Posts: 428
From: Portland, OR USA
Joined: 09-25-2009


Message 49 of 58 (602390)
01-27-2011 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Buzsaw
01-27-2011 11:42 PM


Re: Two on-topic questions.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 01-27-2011 11:42 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 58 (602391)
01-28-2011 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by DrJones*
01-27-2011 11:47 PM


Re: Where's The Evolutionist Defense?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by DrJones*, posted 01-27-2011 11:47 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by DrJones*, posted 01-28-2011 12:21 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 54 by bluescat48, posted 01-28-2011 12:57 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 01-28-2011 1:59 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 51 of 58 (602392)
01-28-2011 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Buzsaw
01-27-2011 11:54 PM


Re: Which Hypothesis The More Doable?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 01-27-2011 11:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 52 of 58 (602393)
01-28-2011 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Buzsaw
01-28-2011 12:12 AM


Re: Where's The Evolutionist Defense?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 01-28-2011 12:12 AM Buzsaw has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 53 of 58 (602395)
01-28-2011 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Buzsaw
01-27-2011 11:38 PM


Re: Flood Time line & Population Calculations
Buzsaw writes:
We have the data from the Biblical record....
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.

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Buzsaw, posted 01-27-2011 11:38 PM Buzsaw has not replied

bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 54 of 58 (602396)
01-28-2011 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Buzsaw
01-28-2011 12:12 AM


Re: Where's The Evolutionist Defense?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 01-28-2011 12:12 AM Buzsaw has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 55 of 58 (602400)
01-28-2011 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Buzsaw
01-28-2011 12:12 AM


Re: Where's The Evolutionist Defense?
quote:
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.
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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Buzsaw, posted 01-28-2011 12:12 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 58 (602401)
01-28-2011 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Buzsaw
01-27-2011 11:54 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 01-27-2011 11:54 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 57 of 58 (602409)
01-28-2011 6:42 AM


Closing This Down
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.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-28-2011 7:05 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 58 of 58 (602411)
01-28-2011 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Admin
01-28-2011 6:42 AM


Re: Closing This Down
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Admin, posted 01-28-2011 6:42 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024