Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Options
1…131132134136137…334

Comments

  • Options
    #3992
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    But that isn't a workable model because it is the women who produce children. The number of men is almost academic.

    If there is one man and one woman then the population growth-rate through them will be same as if there were ninety-nine men and one woman; ninety-eight of the men are redundant and not reproducing.

    No?
    Most people form couples ... so each man, on average, fathers appoximately the same number of children as the average woman produces!!!
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    And your population formula equates to P=2(2^n)-1 where 'P' is population a 'n' is number of generations. We have to double 2^n and subtract 1 to account for the fact that no-one dies.
    My series is the number in each generation ... and the total population at any one time will be greater than the number in any one generation!!!


  • Options
    #3993
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    J C wrote: »
    That too !!!:)

    Here's something else you can ignore:

    Why do we have hair under the arm-pits? You probably know that body-hair is effective at dispersing pheromones, right?

    But why under the arm-pits?

    I'll tell you. It's because our ancestors used to be 'swingers'. Not the type of 'swinger' you are suggesting but 'monkeys'. As we swung through the canopy we were spreading our scent.

    Is that not evidence worth considering when looking at the problem of Creation?


  • Options
    #3994
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    Which part of an average of a net 2 children per person ... i.e. 4 surviving children per couple ... do you not understand???

    I though that was crystal clear, the bit that was nonsense was where you said that this was every person having 2 children.

    You seem to now understand (because we freaking told you! :cool:) that this in fact means every person has 4 surviving children. Which is a ridiculously high sustained growth rate not found at any point in human history.

    So well done for not having a clue what you were talking about till the rest of us explained it to you. You are a shining example to other fake Christians :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #3995
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    And your population formula equates to P=2(2^n)-1 where 'P' is population a 'n' is number of generations. We have to double 2^n and subtract 1 to account for the fact that no-one dies.

    Come on Him! That is totally not fair!

    I think JC is confused enough already without you introducing Junior Cert maths into the equation.
    ;)


  • Options
    #3996
    equivariant
    Registered Users Posts: 966 ✭✭✭equivariant


    J C wrote: »
    You are confusing creation and reproduction.
    Nope. Read my post again and try to pay attention this time. If we have free will (as you claim we have) then we are creators.
    A photocopier can mindlessly reproduce a page of writing ... but the mind of an author is required to create the writing in the first place.
    The author owns the writing and can do as s/he pleases with their own writing ... while the photocopier ... and anybody using the photocopier have no legal right to the copyright ownership of the text.
    Equally, we can reproduce ourselves ... but it was God who created Mankind in the first place.
    Your analogy (as usual with your analogies) is totally inappropriate and confused. This is not a copyright issue. It is a matter of who is responsible for a creative act. If, (as you have asserted in the past) humans have free will then parents are the creators of their children. Nature (or in your opinion god) has merely provided them with the tools to carry out the act of procreation (the clue is even in the name - it is called procreation, not 'proreproduction'). The responsibility for the creation lies with the agent who makes the decision to create, not with the agent (be it god/nature) who provides the tools. That is clear in the case that we have free will. On the other hand if we don't have free will, then your whole worldview is pretty much screwed. So, no matter which way you look at it, your whole notion of god is basically b****x.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3997
    MonkeyBalls
    Registered Users Posts: 437 ✭✭MonkeyBalls


    J C wrote: »
    Most people for couples ... so each man, on average, fathers appoximately the same number of children as the average woman produces!!!

    My series is the number in each generation ... and the total population at any one time will be greater than the number in any one generation!!!

    I don't know a single thing about this thread or about who you are, but I can tell by your style that you're probably wrong about whatever you're saying


  • Options
    #3998
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    J C wrote: »
    Most people for couples ... so each man, on average, fathers appoximately the same number of children as the average woman produces!!!

    But we know it did not happen that way.

    130 years after Creation there were four people; two men, one woman and a new born baby. Let's suppose that Eve gets pregnant every three-years after that and let's suppose that children reach maturity at fifteen-years.

    So, when Seth (the baby) reaches maturity, Eve will have had five more children. At that point, 145 years after Creation, there will be nine people living; one adult female, three adult males and five children.

    Also, throughout this period, the annual growth rate of the population is declining steadily!!! And between them, the entire human population has the capacity to produce only one child.

    We need women... fast!!!
    J C wrote: »
    My series is the number in each generation ... and the total population at any one time will be greater than the number in any one generation!!!

    That's what I said, 2(2^n)-1. In fact, the formula for the size of the population at any given time would be: (2(2^n)-1)-D where 'D' is the number of deaths that have occured between Creation and the date at which you want to measure the population.

    So working through what we know, at 145 years there were two generations and one death had occured. Substituting in the above equation gives a prediction of a population of six people. But there were nine; that's an error of fifty percent!!!


  • Options
    #3999
    legspin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,018 ✭✭✭legspin


    Post 4000 in the JC proves his stupidity thread. Enough folks

    Please


  • Options
    #4000
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    2010_fireworks_gif.gif


  • Options
    #4001
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Come on Him! That is totally not fair!

    I think JC is confused enough already without you introducing Junior Cert maths into the equation.
    ;)

    He He! But I want to understand. I really do! :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4002
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    But we know it did not happen that way.

    130 years after Creation there were four people; two men, one woman and a new born baby. Let's suppose that Eve gets pregnant every three-years after that and let's suppose that children reach maturity at fifteen-years.

    So, when Seth (the baby) reaches maturity, Eve will have had five more children. At that point, 145 years after Creation, there will be nine people living; one adult female, three adult males and five children.

    Also, throughout this period, the annual growth rate of the population is declining steadily!!! And between them, the entire human population has the capacity to produce only one child.

    We need women... fast!!!!
    ... so let's look at what thw Word of God has to say:-
    Genesis 5:3-20 (New International Version, ©2011)

    3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

    6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father[a] of Enosh. 7 After he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived a total of 912 years, and then he died.

    9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. 10 After he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. 11 Altogether, Enosh lived a total of 905 years, and then he died.

    12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 13 After he became the father of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters. 14 Altogether, Kenan lived a total of 910 years, and then he died.

    15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared. 16 After he became the father of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and had other sons and daughters. 17 Altogether, Mahalalel lived a total of 895 years, and then he died.

    18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch. 19 After he became the father of Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 20 Altogether, Jared lived a total of 962 years, and then he died.

    This is the line of descent to Noah from Adam. Adam obviously had children much earlier than Seth ... Cain and Abel being obvious examples!!
    ... and Adam would have produced roughly 50% daughters amongst the hundreds of children that he would have fathered over a lifespan of 930 years!!!!

    ... so while you may need women fast ... there were no such dilemmas for the ante-diluvians!!!


  • Options
    #4003
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Here's something else you can ignore:

    Why do we have hair under the arm-pits? You probably know that body-hair is effective at dispersing pheromones, right?

    But why under the arm-pits?

    I'll tell you. It's because our ancestors used to be 'swingers'. Not the type of 'swinger' you are suggesting but 'monkeys'. As we swung through the canopy we were spreading our scent.

    Is that not evidence worth considering when looking at the problem of Creation?
    what has hairy armpits got to do with monkeys ... cattle and bears also have hairy 'oxters'!!!:eek:

    ... another just-so Evolutionist fantasy ... no doubt!!!:D


  • Options
    #4004
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Adam lived for 932 years and had 8 kids. This disproves any version of your proposed idea of population growth.

    He should have had much, much more for yours to align with the story from the bible.

    and at what point did the human life span drop from 900 years to 25?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #4005
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    J C wrote: »
    ... so let's look at what thw Word of God has to say:-
    Genesis 5:3-20 (New International Version, ©2011)

    3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived a total of 930 years, and then he died.

    6 When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father[a] of Enosh. 7 After he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters. 8 Altogether, Seth lived a total of 912 years, and then he died.

    9 When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan. 10 After he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters. 11 Altogether, Enosh lived a total of 905 years, and then he died.

    12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel. 13 After he became the father of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters. 14 Altogether, Kenan lived a total of 910 years, and then he died.

    15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared. 16 After he became the father of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and had other sons and daughters. 17 Altogether, Mahalalel lived a total of 895 years, and then he died.

    18 When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch. 19 After he became the father of Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 20 Altogether, Jared lived a total of 962 years, and then he died.

    This is the line of descent to Noah from Adam. Adam obviously had children much earlier than Seth ... Cain and Abel being obvious examples!!
    ... and Adam would have produced roughly 50% daughters amongst the hundreds of children that he would have fathered over lifespan of 930 years!!!!

    ... so while you may need women fast ... there were no such dilemmas for the ante-diluvians!!!

    And I thought you knew the Bible.

    Seth was described in the Bible as a replacement for Abel whom Cain slew.

    According to your series, at 120 years after creation there were sixy-two people living; according to the Bible there were three; two men and a woman.

    At 145 years after creation, the only reproductive female was Eve.

    Also, if Adam fathered hundreds of children then his sons couldn't; Adam would have to have been inseminating his daughters as well as Eve. But when did he have daughters to inseminate?

    In order for the Creation myth to have any basis in fact, it must be corroborated by the Bible. Your assessment of Creation simply fails to do that. The theory that you have put forward contradicts the Bible in too many ways to be creditable.

    Your theory also has the distasteful effect of characterising women as nothing more than 'baby factories'; that their lives consisted of hundreds of years of 'nappy-changing'; always washing, ironing, bathing; no career, no further education; Eve wouldn't have had time to know good and evil.


  • Options
    #4006
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    And I thought you knew the Bible.

    Seth was described in the Bible as a replacement for Abel whom Cain slew.

    According to your series, at 120 years after creation there were thirty-two people living; according to the Bible there were three; two men and a woman.

    At 145 years after creation, the only reproductive female was Eve.

    Also, if Adam fathered hundreds of children then his sons couldn't; Adam would have to have been inseminating his daughters as well as Eve. But when did he have daughters to inseminate?
    ... my series demonstrates how populations expand exponentially ... and can reach hundreds of millions within a few hundred years ... you can 'nit pick' all you like ... but that remains a fact!!!
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Your theory also has the distasteful effect of characterising women as nothing more than 'baby factories'; that their lives consisted of hundreds of years of 'nappy-changing'; always washing, ironing, bathing; no career, no further education; Eve wouldn't have had time to know good and evil.
    ... and where were the men when all of this was going on?
    ... out working in the fields, risking their lives in hunting dangerous animals ... and cutting down trees to build shelter for their families ... it is a fact that women give birth to children ... and man father them ... and different societies have different gender balances in rearing them ... and most men and women have worked ... and continue to work very hard to rear their families ... get over it ... and stop your pseudo-liberal politically correct hypocritical moralising judgementalism!!!:eek::(


  • Options
    #4007
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    MonkeyBalls wrote: »
    I don't know a single thing about this thread or about who you are, but I can tell by your style that you're probably wrong about whatever you're saying
    ... strong words from somebody calling themselves Monkey Balls!!!:eek::)


  • Options
    #4008
    StupidLikeAFox
    Registered Users Posts: 7,706 ✭✭✭StupidLikeAFox


    This thread will never die.

    Anyway, I think another poster said, if there is such thing as a God, hes a bit of an asshole.


  • Options
    #4009
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ColHol wrote: »
    This thread will never die.

    Anyway, I think another poster said, if there is such thing as a God, hes a bit of an asshole.
    One day you will have an opportunity to meet God ... and I wouldn't believe everything 'another poster' says ... if I were you!!!:):D


  • Options
    #4010
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    J C wrote: »
    One day you will have an opportunity to meet God ... and I wouldn't believe everything 'another poster' says ... if I were you!!!:):D

    I won't believe you so. Good advice :)


  • Options
    #4011
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    J C wrote: »
    ... my series demonstrates how populations expand exponentially ... and can reach hundreds of millions within a few hundred years ... you can 'nit pick' utilise scientific scrutiny all you like ... but that remains a fact red-herring!!!

    FYP.

    Your series is an exponential series and has no relationship with population growth.
    J C wrote: »
    ... and where were the men when all of this was going on?
    ... out working in the fields, risking their lives in hunting dangerous animals ... and cutting down trees to build shelter for their families ... it is a fact that women give birth to children ... and man father them ... and different societies have different gender balances in rearing them ... and most men and women have worked ... and continue to work very hard to rear their families ... get over it ... and stop your pseudo-liberal politically correct hypocritical moralising judgementalism!!!:eek::(

    Yes, and how hard you have to work is related to the size of the family you have to support. Another constraint on population increase; the lack of females. When did they arrive? :cool:

    What dangerous animals? Meat-eaters? Were people killed by animals?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4012
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    FYP.

    Your series is an exponential series and has no relationship with population growth.
    ... the population growth was even faster!!!

    himnextdoor wrote: »
    Yes, and how hard you have to work is related to the size of the family you have to support. Another constraint on population increase; the lack of females. When did they arrive? :cool:
    ... they were born 1:1 with males ... and there were thousands of women within a few hundred years!!!
    himnextdoor wrote: »
    What dangerous animals? Meat-eaters? Were people killed by animals?
    Yes, some of the animals were dangerous and were meat eaters !!!


  • Options
    #4013
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    J C wrote: »
    ... they were born 1:1 with males ... and there were thousands of women within a few hundred years!!!

    Not according to the Bible.
    J C wrote: »
    Yes, the animals were dangerous and were meat eaters after the Flood!!!

    But we are talking pre-flood.

    Even after the flood, you still have the problem that according to Bible figures, there were only 150 years between Egypt (and the rest of the world practically) being population-less to becoming the entire Egyptian empire with all its nationals, its armies and its hegemonies.

    Nah!


  • Options
    #4014
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    He He! But I want to understand. I really do! :)
    This may help ...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95qwoNX5C7Q


  • Options
    #4015
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    J C wrote: »
    This may help ...

    Skipped to a random position and heard this classic line:
    Kent wrote:
    Apes are still having babies aren't they? Why don't they produce another human?

    :pac:


  • Options
    #4016
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    liamw wrote: »
    Skipped to a random position and heard this classic line:
    :pac:
    ... yes it's a gem!!!:)


  • Options
    #4017
    himnextdoor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    J C wrote: »
    This may help ...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95qwoNX5C7Q

    I like his start-up; people will believe a big lie more readily than they will believe a little one.

    What went wrong?


  • Options
    #4018
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    himnextdoor wrote: »
    I like his start-up; people will believe a big lie more readily than they will believe a little one.
    Very true!!!;)

    himnextdoor wrote: »
    What went wrong?
    It was 'The Fall' ... many people seem to genuinely believe the big myth that they are glorified 'pondkind' ... with nothing added but billions of years ... and billions of mistakes!!!:)


  • Options
    #4019
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,416 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    J C wrote: »
    billions of mistakes!!!
    How else do you think we ended up with religion?


  • Options
    #4020
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Galvasean wrote: »
    I won't believe you so. Good advice :)
    That is entirely up to you ... I have done my duty in informing you that you need to be Saved ... and how you can do it.

    The rest is up to you ... and Jesus Christ.:)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #4021
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    billions of mistakes!!!


    robindch
    How else do you think we ended up with religion?
    The various religions of Materialism ... yes!!!!:)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement