Is Global Population Evidence For Noahic Flood?

Once again Buz, you have been shown that is utter nonsense and any different preflood atmosphere while humans have existed is totally refuted.So we have two cases of you once again posting stuff that is simply false. From this thread.

quote:

---

There is one well known place where we can look to see if there is ANY reality to the assertion of some super-genome and that is with Oetzi the Iceman.

​

What do we know about Oetzi?

​

First he was both contemporary with Adam and likely a Grandson.

​

He lived about 5300 years ago and so Adam was still alive.

​

His mitochondrial DNA is from the haplogroup K.

​

He was born and his childhood was near the present town of Feldthurns in what today is Italy, but then moved about 50 km south.

​

He was around 40-50 years old when he died.

​

He had eaten twice recently, one Chamois, the other Red Deer meat along with fruit and grain, likely bread.

​

His shoes were composite, soles of bear skin, uppers deerhide. They were insulated with grasses.

​

There was blood from four other people on him.

​

Pollen showed that he ate his last meal in a mid altitude conifer forest and that it was spring time.

​

The biggest thing is that NOTHING was very different. There were NO signs of some Super-Genome in his makeup, the makeup of the other people, the critters or food, the materials used.

​

So, if there was some super-genome, why are there no signs of it in the people, animals, plants, spores and pollen contemporary with Adam?

---

Not only does Oetzi show that the humans that would have been contemporary with Adam were genetically similar to those after the time of the Flood Myth, it shows that the atmosphere and everything else was similar.Why do you keep repeating stuff that has been long refuted?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Hi Buz,I wish you would have let me know at the outset that you wouldn't be arguing for the Morris scenario you introduced in your opening post. It would have saved me the trouble of promotion. Can I close the thread now?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

And how fast is the rabbit population growing?Oh, right, it isn't.Because, like every other species including humans, the population size of rabbits is limited by factors other than the reproductive rate of rabbits. I wonder where you think logic enters into your posts.As for realism, it is known to be false, since, as has been pointed out, all the evidence shows that there were people living before the mythical Adam. And that the Flood didn't happen.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Buzz, you sure believe a lot of things that are demonstrably false.I have pointed out to you before that if the flood story was true you should be able to find evidence for it in your back yard. Everyone could!That evidence is simply not there.But you can check! Study a little archaeology and soils science and geology and maybe a few other fields and you can conduct your own experiment. And you can see for yourself the evidence is not there.Do you dare?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

When ever I cite evidence I get this same kind of reaction from the skeptics. This thread is whether the population factor is more supportive to the thousand year hypothesis than the million year one. Which and why is what we're here to debate.I see this as evidence. I don't agree with all of Morris's points but I do agree with him that the population factor is no way compatible with the million year population time frame.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Though I don't agree with all of Morris's points I do agree with and debate on the basis of some of them. He and I both consider the population evidence as supportive to the Biblical record, though I've pointed out some factors which perhaps he had neglected to consider.I'm sure he's aware of the length of lives before and after the flood. Some of the responders have critiqued his calculations. After some thought, the long lifespan came to mind as to why, perhaps, Morris's calculations may need some revising.By and large, Morris and I would make the same argument with you folks, that the population factor is significantly more supportive to the Genesis record than the evolutionist POV.I prefer to let the thread run for a while, but, of course that is your call. There's plenty more on my plate here in other threads for me to address with the limited time I have to participate in if you choose to close the thread.I haven't had the time to respond to some of the messages, being out of town some today and will be most of tomorrow. My understanding is that there's no rush as to how hot the threads get. I like to take my time and weigh in whenever I'm not doing other things in my busy life.

I would like to get less meanspirited substanceless messages frpm the skeptics and get some sensible responses to my points in Message 14, for example . What about this need for the sex drive being needful to population porpagation. Why is that not a reason that any populations capable of reproduction should increase faster than merely doubling in the timeframe of hundreds of thousands of years as evolutionsts are alleging? I see this as the evolutionist's way of cooking the books so as to accomodate their beliefs.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

You are correct... However...This topic is not for consideration of archaeology, soils science, geology, etc.This topic is for consideration of IF the flood had happened at Buz's time, and IF there had been a per the Bible human population bottleneck at that time, would the current world human population make sense?Yes, those are BIG IFs, but in this topic's context those IFs are the starting point of the debate.An "Assuming this were true (even if it isn't), then would it be reasonable to find X as a result" sort of thing.If the current population could be found to fit in Buz's model, then it would be some sort of (and I'm not saying good) evidence supporting the flood population bottleneck.Adminnemooseus

What is there to respond to Buz? You reference myth to try to claim that there was an increased rate of population growth but you offer no evidence to support it. What evidence do have for this? I see your complete inabilty to offer any evidence to support your assertions as your way of promoting lies in furtherance of your beliefs.

---

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

Where did you get that I believed him? He didn't factor in the flood reducing the population to eight. That's why I cited the flood as the point to begin the calculating time frame. And I said as much in addressing Morris's calculations, that the earlier increases may have waned as lifespans waned and to increase again in time. The averages, however should come out far more supportive to the Biblical thousands of years time frame than the evolutionist million year time frame.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Here goes: No evidence No evidence Possible but again, no evidence As in where? Conjecture So? Evidence please. Until the food runs out. No evidence vs partial evidence, I'd go with partial evidence.Edited by bluescat48, : qs goof

---

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

To neither.Consider that a pair of wild rabbits will at the very least, produce one litter of four baby bunnies per year. This means that at a conservative estimate the rabbit population will double every year.This means that if the Earth was as much as one hundred years old, then starting from a single pair of rabbits we would now have 1267650600228229401496703205376 rabbits, which would mass many thousand times more than the Earth itself.As this is clearly not the case, we can deduce that the Earth is considerably less than a century old; from which it follows that the Bible is a lie, as indeed are the so-called "memories" of so-called "nonagenarians".In fact, taking one billion as a generous upper bound on the present number of rabbits, we find that the Earth is no more than about thirty years old, or, to put it another way, six years younger than it says I am on my lying birth certificate.Of course, we knew anyway that I can't really be thirty-six --- human fingernails grow at about an inch per year, and there's no way my fingernails are a yard long.

You made it the starting point of your OP; if you were trying to say that it was nonsense, you should have made that clearer. Well, that depends whether you draw your "averages" from hard archaeological and genetic data or whether you pull them out of thin air to fit a predetermined conclusion.As you are a creationist, I presume that you will do the latter.

quote:

---

According to the Biblical record, living things, including humans lived considerably longer before the flood when there was a totally different atmosphere and climate.

---

This is already false. The Bible does not say that non-human species lived longer, nor does it say that there was a different atmosphere and climate before the Flood.There's a factual answer for you and nothing mean-spirited about it.And in fact if we took these mythical figures as representative of fact we would see that the population should be growing more slowly on a per-year rather than per-generation basis.Seth's first son is born when he is 105 years old. (Genesis 5:6) It takes 500 years for Noah to produce 3 sons (5:32) and so on. If you want a faster population increase per-year you will have to invent other factors because the same Bible that tells you that people lived longer also tells you that they were much slower to have children.(And none of it matters if you use the Bible as your source, because however large you assume the pre-Flood population to be, it is reduced to 8 by the Flood)

quote:

---

Now let's consider the evolutionist bunny blunder.
It should be assumed that any creature capable of reproduction has a sexual drive toward reproduction. This drive is a necessary component of reproduction. Otherwise, t'aint agona happen.

​

Therefore the 1,000,000ers are blundering their way into the low calculations. Realistically, if there's reproduction, there's gotta be the sex drive. You can't just blindly alleged that it took hundreds of thousands of years for the early to relatively early populations to double. In fact, likely they more or less functioned more like a rabbitry than an ordered family as it has been historically so long as records have been kept.

---

Of course there is no blunder here. Rabbit populations in the wild are generally fairly stable (going up and down around a mean value). i.e. there are factors limiting growth that are more important than sex drive. Thus simply alleging that the existence of a sex drive mandates high population growth is clearly wrong. This objection, therefore, is hopelessly unrealistic.Factual and not at all mean-spirited. Unlike the assertion that the actual models and population estimates are based on "blindly blundering" which is neither.

quote:

---

Bottom line: In spite of the discrepancies and unknowns to each hypothesis, the Biblical model is by far the more logical and likely the more realistic model.

---

The so-called "Biblical model", as we can see, is based on unrealistic and simplistic calculations which are simply fiddled with to produce the "Biblical" results. It is not at all "logical" or "realistic". The objection to scientific models is itself completely unrealistic and therefore cannot be considered a valid objection.

I can only promote on the basis of what is in an opening post, and I trust topic proposers to discuss the position they outline there. Please discuss the position you outlined in your opening post. Morris claims that a population bottleneck caused by the flood 4300 years ago that was followed by a .5%/year growth rate better explains the current world population than anything else. That's the position you're here to defend.If you want to amend the topic then let me know and I'll return this to Proposed New Topics for editing.Edited by Admin, : Correct forum link.