Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Global Population Evidence For Noahic Flood?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 31 of 58 (602270)
01-27-2011 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
01-26-2011 11:49 PM


Re: Perhaps Both Are Bunny Blunders.
Buzsaw writes:
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.
Did you know that the population of the Roman Empire around 200 AD was about 60 million? That's just the Roman Empire, not the entire world.
The Morris model predicts a total world population in 200 AD of about 2 million.
How's his model doing so far?
My original point (the one you didn't respond to in Message 3) is that anyone can make up a population growth rate that fits their pet theory perfectly. The difference between creationists like you and Morris and actual scientists is that you guys think this constitutes some kind of meaningful argument. People in this thread are already clamoring for evidence for anything you say. The goal here is not, "Reasonable sounding arguments if you don't think about them too much." The goal here is, "evidence based discussion."
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 01-26-2011 11:49 PM Buzsaw has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 58 (602277)
01-27-2011 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
01-27-2011 12:11 AM


Re: Reasonable Response Request
Buzsaw writes:
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.
Fine. Then show us the math. That's ultimately what this is about isn't? We've seen Morris' math and apparently none of us, including you like it. So if your theory supports the Biblical record better than Morris' show us the how that might work.
My personal opinion is that you've set up an impossible task. Given a population of a couple handfuls of people 4000 years ago or 200,000 years ago, earth's population might be just about anything. Every time you introduce a new factor to consider without telling us how you fit it into the math, you simply drive that point home. Every time you dismiss a factor raised by a critic without doing the math, you compound your error.
Either pony up the math or let this thread die.
Or don't. It's not like you have a reputation to damage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 01-27-2011 12:11 AM Buzsaw has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 33 of 58 (602281)
01-27-2011 9:40 AM


Some Basics that may help us get back on topic.
First, if the Biblical Flood myths were true then the genetic bottleneck markers should be found in every living animal today. Those markers are not there and so the flood is refuted.
Second, if there was some different "pre-Flood" environment then that should also show up in Oetzi and all the additional evidence from Oetzi like pollens and materials and woods and 'shrooms that were found on and in Oetzi (as just one example) as well as in the actual samples of air found trapped in amber and ice cores from that period. It does not and so the magic "pre-Flood atmosphere" has been refuted.
Now that those two bits of nonsense are eliminated maybe Buz can address the topic.

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

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 34 of 58 (602303)
01-27-2011 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Buzsaw
01-26-2011 8:22 PM


Re: Perhaps Both Are Bunny Blunders.
Here's a factor that neither Morris or anyone that I'm aware of have considered.
According to the Biblical record, living things, including humans lived considerably longer before the flood when there was a totally different atmosphere and climate.
Noah lived close to 900 years, if I recall correctly. His sons lived four & five hundred plus. Their descendants lives gradually shorter lives all the way down to Moses who lived 120 years etc.
So what does your population projections look like with a generation time of 450 years right after the flood?
Now let's consider the evolutionist bunny blunder.
I wish you would consider it. You have failed to do so yet. Even with a very lenient generation time of 1 year and a doubling in population each year you still get too many bunnies in a very short amount of time. We could move to E. coli if you like. They have a generation time of 20 minutes. Using the creationist model the Earth could not be more than a few weeks old given the number of E. coli hanging around.
What you keep failing to understand is that populations do not grow unchecked. There is these things called disease, famine, and war. They tend to make people die faster than they can be replaced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Buzsaw, posted 01-26-2011 8:22 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 35 of 58 (602316)
01-27-2011 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Buzsaw
01-26-2011 11:49 PM


Re: Perhaps Both Are Bunny Blunders.
Hey, Buz, did you know that according to the Morris model the world population was 5236 people at the time of Solomon about 1300 years after the flood?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Buzsaw, posted 01-26-2011 11:49 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by cavediver, posted 01-27-2011 1:20 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 37 by Dirk, posted 01-27-2011 2:22 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 36 of 58 (602320)
01-27-2011 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Percy
01-27-2011 12:52 PM


Re: Perhaps Both Are Bunny Blunders.
Hey, Buz, did you know that according to the Morris model the world population was 5236 people at the time of Solomon
So how many was it when Moses led the 2 million out of Egypt?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 01-27-2011 12:52 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Dirk
Member (Idle past 4024 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 37 of 58 (602327)
01-27-2011 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Percy
01-27-2011 12:52 PM


Re: Perhaps Both Are Bunny Blunders.
Hey, Buz, did you know that according to the Morris model the world population was 5236 people at the time of Solomon about 1300 years after the flood?
Which is less than a 1000 people per (inhabited) continent. Which is kind of absurd. Especially since there are numerous textual documents from this period from all over the world showing that there were a lot more people on earth. Given that creationists put so much faith in the textual record (in their case, the bible), I wonder how they are going to ignore all that evidence.
And if you look at the number of houses, monuments etc. they constructed in that time period, these 1000 persons per continents must have been building 24/7. Where did they find the time to do some agriculture?
Edited by Dirk, : No reason given.
Edited by Dirk, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 01-27-2011 12:52 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 58 (602368)
01-27-2011 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Dr Adequate
01-27-2011 12:51 AM


Re: Flood Time line & Population Calculations
Dr Adequate writes:
Where did you get that I believed him?
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.
This from my OP:
Crazy Diamond said: "The real fact is that regardless of disease, natural disasters, wars and famine, human population has never stopped growing. .
Buz said: "That is assuming there was no Biblical Noaic flood."
Go figure.
Dr Adequate writes:
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.
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.
I drew the information from the Biblical record. I've, over time here, cited evidences supportive to the credibility of the Biblical record, whether you choose to believe it or not.
This thread pertaining to whether population evidence is more supportive to the Biblical model or the evolutionist model is about making that determination.
I hesitate to speculate on specific mathematical data as you people and Morris do. We don't have enough solid information to do that. My method is to assess the data and look at the current population which we know by the censuses etc. From there I determine that the thousand yr model is significantly more doable than the million year mode.
Imo, more evidence of a global flood has been cited in past threads than the evidence of the million year alleged human history. I believe the population is just one more nail in the evolutionist coffin.

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 28 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-27-2011 12:51 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 01-27-2011 8:36 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 43 by DrJones*, posted 01-27-2011 9:22 PM Buzsaw has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 58 (602369)
01-27-2011 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Admin
01-27-2011 6:49 AM


Re: Perhaps Both Are Bunny Blunders.
Admin writes:
Buzsaw writes:
Though I don't agree with all of Morris's points I do agree with and debate on the basis of some of them.
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.
It appears that I should edit my OP. Morris is turning out to be more problematic than helpful for where I'm going.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Admin, posted 01-27-2011 6:49 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Theodoric, posted 01-27-2011 8:13 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 41 by dwise1, posted 01-27-2011 8:35 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 40 of 58 (602370)
01-27-2011 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Buzsaw
01-27-2011 8:07 PM


Re: Perhaps Both Are Bunny Blunders.
It appears that I should edit my OP. Morris is turning out to be more problematic than helpful for where I'm going.
So this thread should be closed and you should submit a new OP with your actual argument. Right?
Be interesting to see if your actual OP will get promoted.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 01-27-2011 8:07 PM Buzsaw has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 41 of 58 (602372)
01-27-2011 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Buzsaw
01-27-2011 8:07 PM


Re: Perhaps Both Are Bunny Blunders.
Morris is turning out to be more problematic than helpful for where I'm going.
Like wearing a millstone? When the ICR (H. Morris' organization) used to be in Santee, Calif, I visited it once. As I recall, just down the street from them was a stone mason. I assumed that they got good rates from him for all their millstones -- original intent of the biblical reference most fully intended (Matt 18:6, Mark 9:42, Luke 17:2).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Buzsaw, posted 01-27-2011 8:07 PM Buzsaw has not replied

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


Message 42 of 58 (602373)
01-27-2011 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Buzsaw
01-27-2011 8:04 PM


Re: Flood Time line & Population Calculations
Imo, more evidence of a global flood has been cited in past threads than the evidence of the million year alleged human history. I believe the population is just one more nail in the evolutionist coffin.
I have provided you conclusive evidence that there was no global flood ca. 4,350 years ago. (mtDNA, remember?)
So have several other posters.
You have ignored all of our evidence in favor of your belief.
Your belief in this matter is clearly wrong.
This thread deals with the population issue re: the flood. It provides still more evidence that your belief is wrong.
Here is some additional evidence: The biblical scholars place the global flood at very close to 4,350 years ago. I have five calibrated radiocarbon dates from the area I work within 100 years after that date. There is no way Noah's kin could have propagated and migrated to the US in that time. Nor would they have been able to survive in the flood ravaged land, as with the soil contaminated with salt nothing would be growing yet!
And this example used radiocarbon dates from after the "flood" so you can't claim that the atmosphere was different or some other such nonsense.
Face it--there was no flood ca. 4,350 years ago as claimed.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Buzsaw, posted 01-27-2011 8:04 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Buzsaw, posted 01-27-2011 11:54 PM Coyote has replied

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


Message 43 of 58 (602374)
01-27-2011 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Buzsaw
01-27-2011 8:04 PM


Re: Flood Time line & Population Calculations
I hesitate to speculate on specific mathematical data as you people and Morris do. We don't have enough solid information to do that.
So you won't do the work necessary to support your conclusion
My method is to assess the data and look at the current population which we know by the censuses etc
what data? you just said that you refuse to speculate on the data.
From there I determine that the thousand yr model is significantly more doable than the million year mode.
So after admitting you don't have solid information that that you refuse to speculate on the data you manage to come to a fimr conclusion, way to be intellectually honest Buz that was sarcasm.
To other members: we don't need to disprove the flood to show how ludicrous Buz's position is, his complete and utter lack of support for his arguement does most of the work for us.

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 38 by Buzsaw, posted 01-27-2011 8:04 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Buzsaw, posted 01-27-2011 11:38 PM DrJones* has replied

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


Message 44 of 58 (602377)
01-27-2011 9:52 PM


Two on-topic questions.
Hi Buz, long time.
Let's try this to get back on track. Here's what I hope are two straightforward questions that go to the heart of your claim.
1. When did the Noahic Flood happen? (If you don't have a year, what's the date range?)
2. Did any human being besides the eight people on the ark survive the Flood?
Seems like an reasonable starting point to me.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 01-27-2011 11:42 PM ZenMonkey has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 58 (602385)
01-27-2011 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by DrJones*
01-27-2011 9:22 PM


Re: Flood Time line & Population Calculations
DrJones* writes:
I hesitate to speculate on specific mathematical data as you people and Morris do. We don't have enough solid information to do that.
So you won't do the work necessary to support your conclusion
My method is to assess the data and look at the current population which we know by the censuses etc
what data? you just said that you refuse to speculate on the data.
We have the data from the Biblical record, and attested to by the evidence which has been cited in archived threads supportive to that record.
According to the Biblical record we have the genealogy from Adam, the first man to Noah to Jesus being roughly 2500 years. Noted and reputable historian Josephus attests to this as does Ussher.
We have the length of lives of the genealogical line of descendents showing a gradual diminishing of the length of lives from the time of the flood to Moses. As I have stated, though we don't have actual numbers, we know from the record that many had multiple wives bearing children, the men living around 500 years on down. That would result in a rapidly multiplying population. This would be offset somewhat by wars and famines etc on down the line more so on down the line from Noah, due to the increase in the established nations, etc. Thus the increase would wane low at some point, after which it would increase to where.
Likely the waning stage would level off relatively with a lengthy time of ups and downs before the rapid increase which was to come.
I've deduced this from the Biblical record and the later time in history when censuses and records began to be kept.
Though neither camp has an accurate record of the respective starting points, the creationist Biblical model (which has the most recorded data) would be by far the most doable.
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.
Dr Jones writes:
To other members: we don't need to disprove the flood to show how ludicrous Buz's position is, his complete and utter lack of support for his arguement does most of the work for us.
To other members: We don't need to prove the flood to show how ludicrous the evolutionist position is. Their utter lack of evidence for their million yr argument and the ludicrous assumption that it would take hundreds of thousands of years for a sex driven population to double, leaves the floodist model the most logical and doable.

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 43 by DrJones*, posted 01-27-2011 9:22 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by DrJones*, posted 01-27-2011 11:47 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 53 by ringo, posted 01-28-2011 12:29 AM Buzsaw has 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