Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Inerrant Bible?
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 16 of 81 (6260)
03-07-2002 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Theo
03-07-2002 6:56 PM


Hey Theo, Noah's people were asexually reproducing organisms?
[This message has been edited by gene90, 03-07-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Theo, posted 03-07-2002 6:56 PM Theo has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 81 (6262)
03-07-2002 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Theo
03-07-2002 6:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Theo:
Talk about making something easy complex! Start with the original eight people from the arc and since creationists usually agree with the approximate age of the earth to be about 10,000 years old that would place the flood somewhere around 5000 B.C. Assume Noah and his wife didn't have any more kids and use the three sons and their wives as the progenerators and assume that they each had three children and that each generation had three children every twenty years (generous assumptions on my part, ancient civilizations had as many children as possible and probably at puberty not twenty). That yields the simple calculation of 3 to 25th power which is a possible population of 847,286,600,000 in five hundred years or approx 4500 B.C.
Golly Gee, even rounding down because of the possible variables do you think there was enough time for the population to be large enough to produce the manpower for the pyramids? Quantum D'oh

That requires each breeding pair to produce 3 offspring that each live to produce 3 offspring every 20 years....
If you, your wife, your 3 sons and their wives were abandoned in the middle of a vast mudflat how do you think you`d do?
What about when cousins start breeding in the first ante delluvian generation, can you say reinforced harmfull recessive resulting in a lethal in womb? How about the women who die before birthing at least 3 children? How about the children that don`t survive long enough to produce 3 offspring?
Talk about representing something complex in an overly simplistic fashion.....
Diracs delta function (identity - Theo)*D`oh on you!!!!!
(Ahh sorry about that 6/3 mixup it was late and I saw Genes asexual reproduction reply first, note however that I have accepted and aknowledged this correction, please do me the same service in a certain other thread....)
(Note however I still maintain that the problems above invalidate your model of post deluvian population growth....)
[This message has been edited by joz, 03-08-2002]
[This message has been edited by joz, 03-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Theo, posted 03-07-2002 6:56 PM Theo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Theo, posted 03-08-2002 4:44 AM joz has replied

  
Theo
Inactive Junior Member


Message 18 of 81 (6291)
03-08-2002 4:44 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by joz
03-07-2002 8:57 PM


If I reply will play nice? You got nasty in some other strings. Each breeding pair need only produce 3 off spring. 3 couples produce three children each (not six where did you get six?)= 9 for the first generation x 3 for the next generation = 27 x 3 and so on for 25 generations (waiting till age twenty to reproduce)= 500 years. My assumptions are generous and the math is simple. There is enough genetic variability in 3 different wives of difference races (I use the term race loosely, I don't believe in races) plus when on goes back in time fewer mutations creep in because of fewer generations of replication. Errors creep in with constant replication of cells. The further down the line we go the more replication hence more mutations. We are actually devolving as a species not evolving. A population of 800 billion is possible in 500 years so all the problems of mortality etc... are rendered insignificant when all I really need is a few million.
O.K. now be nice!
------------------
theo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by joz, posted 03-07-2002 8:57 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by gene90, posted 03-08-2002 7:46 AM Theo has not replied
 Message 20 by joz, posted 03-08-2002 9:11 AM Theo has not replied
 Message 80 by d_yankee, posted 06-25-2005 3:18 PM Theo has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 19 of 81 (6303)
03-08-2002 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Theo
03-08-2002 4:44 AM


Still reproducing asexually? Also still making the assumption that all offspring survive to produce three offspring themselves.
There are equations specifically for population growth. You'd be better off using them. If your simple version isn't even used by microbiologists for bacterial growth curves, I think that's a sign that other procedures should be sought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Theo, posted 03-08-2002 4:44 AM Theo has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 81 (6310)
03-08-2002 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Theo
03-08-2002 4:44 AM


Q/What do you think infant mortality rate would be?
Q/Is this increased dramatically by parents who are cousins?
Q/Would it not be more reasonable to assume that such a small population would go through an initial spell of slow population growth as they established themselves?
Q/Do you understand that if the rate of growth were slower at the start it affects the 500 year figure fairly drastically...
Q/You say that the wives were from diverse ethnic backgrounds, is there any evidence for this? If not why assume it?
Ultimately there are numerous reasons why it is unreasonable to postulate that such a small population could grow so quickly, or in the case of cousins breeding at all.....
Oh and 3number of generations isn`t the correct mathematical model to use anyway....
Humans being a sexually reproducing species your equation should look more like this:
Ngeneration = N1*(n/2)generation
Where Nx = population of generation x
n = number of offspring per breeding couple
and N1 = 6 (you exclude noah and wife as they are generation 0 and do not contribute any offspring to generation 2....)
[This message has been edited by joz, 03-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Theo, posted 03-08-2002 4:44 AM Theo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by joz, posted 03-08-2002 10:06 AM joz has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 81 (6313)
03-08-2002 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by joz
03-08-2002 9:11 AM


And now for some maths:
Taking the population at the A.D/B.C crossover to be 200,000,000 as you earlier stated and taking the current population to be of the order of 6,000,000,000....
If N5000B.C = 8 then n (yearly rate of population growth is about 1.00341 to get 200,000,000 in 0 A.D this conflicts sharply with the figure of 1.025 found by the each generation growing by 50% over a succesion of 20 year generations....
Though an argument could be attempted relating the 200,000,000 population as a maximum limit the fact that current world population is 30 times as large would imply this is not the case....
useing our figure of n = 1.00341 we obtain populations of:
N4500 B.C = 43
N4000 B.C = 241
Note that I have data and hypothesis that these rates are mathematicaly derived from you merely postulate a hypothetical growth rate....
We have data use it.....
[This message has been edited by joz, 03-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by joz, posted 03-08-2002 9:11 AM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Philip, posted 03-10-2002 9:43 PM joz has not replied
 Message 29 by TrueCreation, posted 04-14-2002 5:44 PM joz has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 22 of 81 (6497)
03-10-2002 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by joz
03-08-2002 10:06 AM


Belief in the Inerrancy of the Bible requires strong bias, that is, a stablished faith in the gospel of the Christ of God dying for persons' sins, being buried, raising up, and ascending up on high for persons' eternal justification. Once this strong bias, the Christian faith, is established within an individual, then and only then will the Bible manifest itself as inerrant.
Our repeated doting of numbers, empirical mechanisms of biblical events, minor translational glitches, etc. cannot violate the inerrancy of the Bible. The Bible also proves itself inerrant with multi-faceted non-empirical mechanisms involving: history, poetry, perspective-observations, prophecy, legalistic comparisons, etc.
Find me a person that really believes Jonah was in the belly of a whale 3 days and 3 nights. Such a believer would have to be extremely biased, i.e., an enlivened Christian, alone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by joz, posted 03-08-2002 10:06 AM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by nator, posted 03-11-2002 7:45 AM Philip has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 23 of 81 (6536)
03-11-2002 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Philip
03-10-2002 9:43 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
[b]Belief in the Inerrancy of the Bible requires strong bias, that is, a stablished faith in the gospel of the Christ of God dying for persons' sins, being buried, raising up, and ascending up on high for persons' eternal justification. Once this strong bias, the Christian faith, is established within an individual, then and only then will the Bible manifest itself as inerrant.[/QUOTE]
Why? I know lots of Christians who believe Jesus died for their sins, yet do not hold the Bible as inerrant, particularly in matters of natural phenomena.
quote:
Our repeated doting of numbers, empirical mechanisms of biblical events, minor translational glitches, etc. cannot violate the inerrancy of the Bible.
Why not? Rabits either chew their cud, or they don't. Either there was a worldwide flood which buried all the fossils at once, or their wasn't. Either the Earth is 6,000 years old and thousands of Geologists and Astrophysicists are utterly wrong, or it isn't and they aren't.
quote:
The Bible also proves itself inerrant with multi-faceted non-empirical mechanisms involving: history, poetry, perspective-observations, prophecy, legalistic comparisons, etc.
Um, how does a non-emperical test 'prove' anything? How does poetry support the inerrancy of the Bible? Is it the rhyming?
[QUOTE]Find me a person that really believes Jonah was in the belly of a whale 3 days and 3 nights. Such a believer would have to be extremely biased, i.e., an enlivened Christian, alone.[/b]
What is an "enlivened" Christian?
Also, I am not sure what your position is by your post. Are you saying that the Bible is inerrant, or not?
------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."
-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Philip, posted 03-10-2002 9:43 PM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Philip, posted 03-12-2002 2:55 AM nator has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 24 of 81 (6648)
03-12-2002 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by nator
03-11-2002 7:45 AM


To Shrafinator.
My faith/biases appear at present to diametrically oppose thousands of the faith/biases of mere existential scientists. Give me your own deductions, not those of grasshoppers. I feel your pain and theirs because I, too, am somewhat imprisoned in this space-time continuum and am made to feel the untowardness of sin (like Charles Huxley even preached).
Basically a Bible-flipping ‘fundy’ can really only be a fundy if he believes that Jesus Christ came from God to die to take away his sin, was buried, and rose again to justify/love him forever. This alone is your 'enlivened' Christian who believes the Bible is God's word (inerrant). Like the Christ Jesus who walked the earth, his faith/bias is grieved to reject any scripture. The Bible is a fine-tuned irreducible complexity (I myself do believe) to the Christian (‘little-Christ’). I thus try not too reject any part of it, at least as it relates to the whole book.
Using your flood-ark example. The sold-out fundy (which I try to be) has no problem with his bias/faith in seeing the flood occur as per Bishop Usshur's chronology. Why? Because the Noahic flood, like Jonah and the whale, is analogous to a person being baptized with God's son, i.e., dying with Christ, being safely buried amidst the great flooding tempest of God's wrath, then raising above the dead, surrealistically. The fundy then proceeds to seek scientific evidence, song, poetry, company of others, etc., for his faith/bias and surrealism. For example, today I read: Naoh was 500 years old when he started his mission, 600 years old when the huge and complex ‘barge/ark’ was complete. Almost 2 life-times were involved for this immense undertaking. Note the awe-inspiring possibilities and planning that can take place over such a long period of time.
I myself utilize every thread of logic and reason possible to ‘encourage’ and ‘feed’ this faith/bias in God as my Saviour, lest by doubting and doting I feel lost, damned, and doomed, dead, and un-enlivened, which I trust I am not. (Observe this fundy’s faith/bias?) I’ve read the flood debate. JP gives humorous validity to the science-mechanisms. The discourse is followed by dotings and janglings of merely ‘what-if’ scenarios like where did enough fresh water come from. This type of cantankerous doting is not very praiseworthy to support the evolutionist’s incredible faith/biases.
Thank you for your challenge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by nator, posted 03-11-2002 7:45 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by joz, posted 04-11-2002 9:37 AM Philip has not replied

  
no2creation
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 81 (8436)
04-11-2002 2:08 AM


How come there are so many different cultures, ethnicities, colors, of man/woman on earth? When did God introduce these people? Which ones came first? What ethnicity would Adam and Eve most resemble? How did they all originate from just two people in such a short time (4-6K years)? Please don't respond that it's all irrelevant, because its not! In order for the bible to be a historical document, showing origins of mankind, then I would think this information is very important.
Were Adam and Eve more intelligent than we are today? If so, how come they ate from the Tree of Knowledge after being specifically instructed not to? If you argue that they didn't know it was the tree of knowledge, then why would this be considered a sin if they didn't know?

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by TrueCreation, posted 04-14-2002 5:38 PM no2creation has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 81 (8443)
04-11-2002 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Philip
03-12-2002 2:55 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Philip:
1)The discourse is followed by dotings and janglings of merely ‘what-if’ scenarios like where did enough fresh water come from.
2)This type of cantankerous doting is not very praiseworthy to support the evolutionist’s incredible faith/biases.

1)Its not a "what if" its a valid question, if there isn`t enough water to have a global flood covering each and every last bit of land it stands to reason there wasn`t one....
Who said anything about it being fresh water? Salt water is fine providing there is enough of it....
2)And where the hell did you learn English? The Don King school of erudition?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Philip, posted 03-12-2002 2:55 AM Philip has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by TrueCreation, posted 04-14-2002 5:42 PM joz has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 81 (8517)
04-14-2002 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by no2creation
04-11-2002 2:08 AM


"How come there are so many different cultures, ethnicities, colors, of man/woman on earth?"
--Simple population genetics process of speciation and pronunciation of characteristical traits. If this is unacceptable, you may want to give punctuated equillibria another pass.
"When did God introduce these people?"
--Technically, God did not introduce these people, isolated populations by migration to various countries.
"Which ones came first?"
--Who knows.
"What ethnicity would Adam and Eve most resemble?"
--Who knows.
"How did they all originate from just two people in such a short time (4-6K years)?"
--Reproduction?
"Please don't respond that it's all irrelevant, because its not! In order for the bible to be a historical document, showing origins of mankind, then I would think this information is very important."
--Yes your questions are relevent, though they should also be a bit realistic (ie, pertaining to your questions of color and the like), unless ofcourse you would like to show me the color of an extinct reptilian skin such as a dinosaur.
"Were Adam and Eve more intelligent than we are today?"
--Who knows in all fact, unless you have a brain sample. Though my best guess is that he was very intelligent.
"If so, how come they ate from the Tree of Knowledge after being specifically instructed not to?"
--Temptation, an act of deceit, not knowledge, and with how old they may have been, they didn't have very much wisdom pertaining.
"If you argue that they didn't know it was the tree of knowledge, then why would this be considered a sin if they didn't know?"
--If this were true, then yes, it would not have been a sin.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by no2creation, posted 04-11-2002 2:08 AM no2creation has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 81 (8518)
04-14-2002 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by joz
04-11-2002 9:37 AM


"1)Its not a "what if" its a valid question, if there isn`t enough water to have a global flood covering each and every last bit of land it stands to reason there wasn`t one...."
--Perfectly valid questions Joz, though there should also be a willingness to cooperate with the rest of such an event. I have had vastly too much of the 'there isn't enough water to flood the world today', in which they are correct, though willingly ignorant and much too arrogant to cooperate with anything that may contredict a mainstream geologic teaching. Gladly, this is extreamly rare in this credible forum. Over the weekend I had been in the Yahoo chatroom 'Athiest vs. Christians Debate'. I am quite sorry but if you truelly would like to find what the majority of public and how ignorant and even illinformed on the topics this is the place to go.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by joz, posted 04-11-2002 9:37 AM joz has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 81 (8519)
04-14-2002 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by joz
03-08-2002 10:06 AM


How many kids per generation of each couple (of 30 years) can I have?
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by joz, posted 03-08-2002 10:06 AM joz has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 81 (8520)
04-14-2002 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by gene90
02-25-2002 8:11 PM


"Hieroglyphs probably, and C14, last I heard no mummies have ever been found in the Great Pyramids. Pillaging and all that."
--What part of hieroglyphs will they date, stone, paintings?
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by gene90, posted 02-25-2002 8:11 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by gene90, posted 04-17-2002 1:18 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024