The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

J C wrote:

So-called ‘self-replicating molecules’ are a long way from a living cell !!!!

You are right, they are. About 1.2 billion years away from a living cell.

But then that isn't the point. The point is that, despite claims by Creationists such as your that it is impossible, these self replicating molecules can and will form naturally. And once they form they start to evolve.

You have not given a reason why they won't evolve into living cells. But then given that a while ago you were saying such self replicating cells were not possible I doubt your reason, if you even have one, will be that convincing.

J C wrote:

In any event, I fully accept that it may be possible to artificially replicate certain aspects of living systems……… with the appliance of massive levels of ingenuity and Human effort, …….but this only PROVES the necessity of a massive intelligent input in the original Creation of life!!!:eek:

The "massive amounts of human effort" involved setting up conditions that were similar to the way the Earth was 4 billion years ago.

So if you want to make an argument that the Earth was the way it was 4 billion years ago because, and only because, of some intelligence setting it up that way go ahead, but that doesn't change the fact that these self replicating molecules will form naturally in these conditions.

J C wrote:

I accept that Natural Selection exists and is capable of ‘directional selection’ to match environmental pressures.

JC it is quite clear that you actually don't understand what Natural Selection is, so it is rather impossible for you to accept or not accept it. :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

However, the process that produced the variety upon which NS works is the real issue……
…..i.e. was IT either Creation or Mutation????

No, actually it isn't. If you understood Natural Selection or Evolution you would realise that.

Random things always happen, be it a genetic mutation, a rain drop falling of a tree branch, my car hitting a nail in the road. Randomness is everywhere and is nothing special. And it certainly doesn't produce, by itself, structure (otherwise it wouldn't be random)

What turn this random nonsense, such as genetic mutation, into a structured design is the process of natural selection. Natural selection is the fundamental key to evolution, it is the element that produces order out of chaos.

For you to dismiss it as being the unimportant bit of evolution is to simply demonstrate, once again, that you really have no clue about what evolution is.

J C wrote:

Creation is a possible contender …….but mutation is totally implausible

You are right. Mutation by itself is totally implausible. That is the whole point.

It is the process of natural selection that produces structure and design out of this random nonsense. It acts upon the randomness producing order. Without natural selection it would be completely impossible for random mutation to create anything as complex as life.

Once again I must ask do you actually understand what natural selection is, and how it works.

Because despite hundreds of pages of this you still seem to believe that the theory of evolutions says that random events will some how just magically line up and produce order.

I can totally understand why you would reject evolution as being implausable if that is what you genuinely believe evolution says.

But in fact it says the exact opposite, that randomness cannot account for the structure and complexity of something like life, and therefore it is necessary for natural selection to operate on this randomness to actually produce structure.

So your objections are valid but the point you fail to see is that evolution isn't actually saying what you believe its. In fact it agrees with your initial objection. Randomness alone cannot produce structure and order on the level of modern life. Something else, some other process, must be working on this in parallel. And of course the process is natural selection, which is anything but random.

J C wrote:

…..because it is observed to always be destructive of genetic information

That is a lie. A lie that you unfortunately continue to repeat despite the fact that you have been presented (many times) with scientific evidence that demonstrates it is not the case.

J C wrote:

Mutagenesis is a random process, and therefore it is incapable of spontaneously producing the genetic sequence for a simple protein, even if all of the matter and time in the known universe was available to it!!!!

You are correct, it is. But the no one has ever claimed otherwise.

J C wrote:

……ONLY God can spontaneously change water into wine …….or clay into Man!!!!!:D

Evolution has never claimed that clay spontaneously changed into a homo sepia. Evolution has never claimed that life in general arose from clay.

Clay is a form of silicate mineral, similar to sand or glass. We are not made of silicon, we are made mostly of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen.

While it has been suggested that silicate based life many exist in the universe, since silicon can form chains in a similar way that carbon can, it is less stable than carbon. And life on Earth certainly isn't made out of it.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote:

[/B]

.....and this is proof of the use of a common design ......by a common Designer.......
.....and it is not proof of a common ancestor!!!!!:D

Actually it's not proof of either. But it's certainly more favourable towards the latter.

Wicknight, Robindch, your posts have been highly illuminating. Thank you both.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

It doesn’t matter how long you wait, something that is dead will remain dead.

That isn't true. Every molecule in your body started off some where else in a state that you would call "dead". But since then they have been incorporated into your body and into a replicating system.

I predict that your response will be Actually what I meant is that something that is dead will remain dead unless it is used by something that is already living

That is only half correct.

In any replicating system, such as life, there must be a point where the replicating started. In the case of life on Earth this start is 4 billion years ago when the first molecules started replicating. These molecules took in inert (dead) molecules and converted them into the replication system, just as what happens today in your body.

Ah you say, but how did they start replicating in the first place. Well experiments have shown that non-replicating molecules will start forming replicating units when exposed to certain types of energy in certain conditions.

J C wrote:

Equally, something of a given complexity will remain at that degree of complexity (or degenerate to a lower level of complexity) UNLESS an input of intelligently directed or programmed effort is expended upon it!!

I don't know where you got that from, but it isn't true.

Even if you don't accept the self replicating molecules describe above have anything to do with the origin of life, they still demonstrate that your assertion above that molecules cannot form more complex structures that there initial state, no matter what energy is acted upon them, is completely false.

J C wrote:

It is the difference between washing and manufacturing your car.

If you want to use an analogy with a car, micro-evolution is the difference between a 1998 Ford Fiesta and a 2001 Ford Fiesta, where as macro-evolution is the difference between a Ford Model-T from 1910 and a 2001 Ford Fiesta.

Macro-evolution is the result of a huge number of micro-evolutionary changes. Macro-evolution is not a process in of itself, it is a grouping of micro-evolution changes, in the same way that the car did not jump from the Ford Model-T to the Fiesta in one single go.

Which is why biologists don't see macro-evolution as a separate process, but rather as an end result of the process of micro-evolution, or simply evolution (since macro and micro evolution are not commonly used terms in biology, favored more by Creationists who don't understand what they are actually talking about)

J C wrote:

The process of washing your car is SIMPLE and cosmetic……..and could be done by a very heavy shower of rain……..whereas the manufacture of a car requires a massive input of intelligent design

But you are making the mistake in assuming that macro-evolution is an actual process in of itself, that a single process causes a species to change into another species.

This is an incorrect understanding of what evolutionary theory says.

Again I can totally understand your objections if you genuinely believe that this is what evolutions says, that a macro-evolution process causes one species to quickly jump to a new species, in the way that a human will build a new car out of metal and plastic.

But that isn't what evolution says at all, so you are objecting to something that the theory doesn't claim in the first place.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

It doesn’t matter how long you wait, something that is dead will remain dead.

That isn't true. Every molecule in your body started off some where else in a state that you would call "dead". But since then they have been incorporated into your body and into a replicating system.

I predict that your response will be Actually what I meant is that something that is dead will remain dead unless it is used by something that is already living

That is only half correct.

In any replicating system, such as life, there must be a point where the replicating started. In the case of life on Earth this start is 4 billion years ago when the first molecules started replicating. These molecules took in inert (dead) molecules and converted them into the replication system, just as what happens today in your body.

Ah you say, but how did they start replicating in the first place. Well experiments have shown that non-replicating molecules will start forming replicating units when exposed to certain types of energy in certain conditions.

J C wrote:

Equally, something of a given complexity will remain at that degree of complexity (or degenerate to a lower level of complexity) UNLESS an input of intelligently directed or programmed effort is expended upon it!!

I don't know where you got that from, but it isn't true.

Even if you don't accept the self replicating molecules describe above have anything to do with the origin of life, they still demonstrate that your assertion above that molecules cannot form more complex structures that there initial state, no matter what energy is acted upon them, is completely false.

J C wrote:

It is the difference between washing and manufacturing your car.

If you want to use an analogy with a car, micro-evolution is the difference between a 1998 Ford Fiesta and a 2001 Ford Fiesta, where as macro-evolution is the difference between a Ford Model-T from 1910 and a 2001 Ford Fiesta.

Macro-evolution is the result of a huge number of micro-evolutionary changes. Macro-evolution is not a process in of itself, it is a grouping of micro-evolution changes, in the same way that the car did not jump from the Ford Model-T to the Fiesta in one single go.

Which is why biologists don't see macro-evolution as a separate process, but rather as an end result of the process of micro-evolution, or simply evolution (since macro and micro evolution are not commonly used terms in biology, favored more by Creationists who don't understand what they are actually talking about)

J C wrote:

The process of washing your car is SIMPLE and cosmetic……..and could be done by a very heavy shower of rain……..whereas the manufacture of a car requires a massive input of intelligent design

But you are making the mistake in assuming that macro-evolution is an actual process in of itself, that a single process causes a species to change into another species.

This is an incorrect understanding of what evolutionary theory says.

Again I can totally understand your objections if you genuinely believe that this is what evolutions says, that a macro-evolution process causes one species to quickly jump to a new species, in the way that a human will build a new car out of metal and plastic.

But that isn't what evolution says at all, so you are objecting to something that the theory doesn't claim in the first place.

MooseJam

J C wrote:

……goes to prove that there are no REAL Atheists……just people who prefer to ignore God, sometimes until it is too late to be saved!!!:D

And how exactly do you ignore someone who never shows themself or speaks, I certainly won't be praying to any fairies should I find myself dying

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote:

'Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. ' -Gautama Buddha

.......I don't believe that......it is just another subtle variation on the idea that you can be your own God.......and it doesn't agree with reason or common sense!!!!!!:eek:
.........for example, Evolutionists think that it is reasonable and common sensical that pondslime 'lifted itself up by it's own bootstraps' to become Man....using billions of MISTAKES to propel it along the way!!!!!!:eek:

....could I also suggest that 'common sense' is often very un-common .....and 'reason' can be a quite 'plastic' in the minds of some people!!!.:D

BTW ..... you CAN believe in the absolute veracity of the Word of God in the Bible....and on Jesus Christ to save you......and that is in full agreement with both reason and 'common sense'!!!

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote:

[/B]

.......I don't believe that......for example, Evolutionists think that it is reasonable and common sense that pondslime 'lifted itself up by it's own bootstraps' to become Man....using billions of MISTAKES to propel it along the way!!!!!!:eek:

No they don't.

J C

Originally Posted by J C
Evolutionists think that it is reasonable and common sensical that pondslime 'lifted itself up by it's own bootstraps' to become Man....using billions of MISTAKES to propel it along the way!!!!!

The Mad Hatter wrote:

No they don't.

If Evolutionists don't believe in spontaneous Evolution, then WHY do they continue to promote it ??? :eek:

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Evolutionists think that it is reasonable and common sensical that pondslime 'lifted itself up by it's own bootstraps' to become Man....using billions of MISTAKES to propel it along the way!!!!!

If Evolutionists don't believe in spontaneous Evolution, then WHY do they continue to promote it ??? :eek:

They don't do that either.

robindch

JC wrote:

If Evolutionists don't believe in spontaneous Evolution, then WHY do they continue to promote it ???

As the mad hatter says, we don't. You can even check this in a post I made no longer ago than yesterday:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53661768&postcount=6357

Clue: look for where it says "The rate of genetic variation (which is known) doesn't allow large physical things like horns or whatever to appear overnight. Instead, these things evolve over long periods of time."

There, that wasn't difficult was it? You've learned something!

5uspect

J C wrote:

So, as a ‘blind force of nature’, NS is just as likely to be taking two steps backwards as it is to be taking one step forward……and it therefore shows NO POTENTIAL to produce the enormous levels of tightly specified complex information observed in living organisms!!!!

Shows no potential? You have evidence then? Becuase all I see is personal incredulity. The evidence backs it up J C as someone who claims to be a scientist you must realise this?

J C wrote:

The case would ONLY be closed if you ASSUME, for some reason best known to yourself, that South America and Africa were once right up against each other and the rate of movement of 5.7 cm observed today has remained constant.

Neither assumptions can be scientifically validated……. And so the case is very much OPEN!!!

No J C you're wrong yet again. There is much more evidence for continental drift (as has been explained to you ad nauseum).
This is a map of ocean floor magnetism

Funny how the strength of the magnetic fields in the rocks on the sea bed changes with distance from plate interfaces. You would think its got something to do with the formation of new rock as the Atlantic spreads.
Tho I'm sure you have a much better explanation (and evidence to support it?)

J C wrote:

Why do Evolutionists believe that they themselves are the sum total of BILLIONS of ‘mistakes’…..:eek:

……yet none of them would buy a second hand car that had EVEN ONE serious ‘mistake’ in its construction…….

……..I can only hope that Evolutionists don’t apply their belief in the ‘benefits’ of making as many errors as possible to any other aspects of their lives……….and I suspect that they DON’T!!!

Stop straw maning J C. If you had a child and it's hair was a different colour to yours and your partners would you bring it back to the hospital for a better one?

J C wrote:

5uspect
This would allow different species to arise, through accumulated gradual mutations.

…….just like your car will ‘improve from accumulated bangs and scratches….I suppose!!!:)

That J C is Lamarckism. An organism cannot pass on its accumulated damage over it's lifetime. Only its genes.

J C wrote:

…….can you not 'get your head around' the fact that it is physically and logically impossible to ‘improve’ something using random processes, like Mutation………EVEN IF you have a ‘Quality Control’ mechanism, like Natural Selection coming along behind to try and eliminate the damage!!!!!

The problem isn’t with NS, it is with the inability of Mutagenesis to do anything other than degrade genetic information…….

You continually show that you do not understand information theory. Many examples have been presented and you continually misunderstand them.
Once again there is plenty of evidence to support this, maybe you could use your position as a scientist to log into Science Direct or where ever it is you get your papers (you do subscribe to Scientific Journals don't you) and do some research.

Perhaps you could post some of those papers up here for use to read, I mean its not like you don't have access right?

Ekancone

Originally Posted by J C
…….can you not 'get your head around' the fact that it is physically and logically impossible to‘improve’ something using random processes, like Mutation………EVEN IF you have a ‘Quality Control’ mechanism, like Natural Selection coming along behind to try and eliminate the damage!!!!!

The problem isn’t with NS, it is with the inability of Mutagenesis to do anything other than degrade genetic information…….

You are exactly right, which is why natural selection choose which changes succeed, and which fail.

dan719

JC-Your claims on population are ridiculous. A population explosion has occured in the last two hundred years or so due to increased production capacity. Before this population was constant or very slowly increasing. It was affected by war, famine etc(as explained by Malthus). Your model is little more then a joke; incest is okay because God made people perfect(You know I could prove llots of things if I could assume things didn't exist-I proved the Riemann Hypothesis yesterday as follows...The RH is true signed god), everyone lived to have children, no wars decimated population levels, no famine, wow sounds utopian doesn't it. And completely ridiculous.

PDN

dan719 wrote:

JC-Your claims on population are ridiculous. A population explosion has occured in the last two hundred years or so due to increased production capacity. Before this population was constant or very slowly increasing. It was affected by war, famine etc(as explained by Malthus). Your model is little more then a joke; incest is okay because God made people perfect(You know I could prove llots of things if I could assume things didn't exist-I proved the Riemann Hypothesis yesterday as follows...The RH is true signed god), everyone lived to have children, no wars decimated population levels, no famine, wow sounds utopian doesn't it. And completely ridiculous.

I am not a young earth creationist, and I have no problem with believing that the human race may be much older than JC thinks. Also, as I have stressed before, I am no scientist.

However, it seems to me that models of population growth are inevitably based on present day conditions where exponential growth is limited by a scarcity of resources. JC is arguing that the human race could grow from a population of 30 (the number of Grandchildren Noah had) to hundreds of millions in the space of 2000 or 3000 years. It appears reasonable that rapid growth could occur given that a small population would be surrounded by unlimited resources.

African tribal oral traditions (think of the scene in Roots where Alex Haley listens to the records of his ancestors) consistently record that it was extremely common, prior to modern food production methods, for families to have four or more children live to adulthood. Therefore it would not seem impossible for a small population surrounded by an entire planet of resources to double every 100 years. In 2750 years that would produce a population of 6 billion.

I find your reference to Malthus interesting. I have always understood Malthus as proposing that populations initially grow very rapidly through exponential growth, but that this slows up as they become very large. You appear to be arguing the opposite. I assume we are talking about the same Malthus - the guy who insisted that the human race would run out of resources in the mid-nineteenth century causing a catastrophic decrease in population?

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

It appears reasonable that rapid growth could occur given that a small population would be surrounded by unlimited resources.

Well there are two problems with that

Firstly, there wasn't unlimited resources. This isn't to day with all our modern farming and machinery, and there certainly want back then.

Secondly there is absolutely no reason to believe that disease didn't exist back then. In fact we know it did. Modern medicine didn't, disease did. Mortality rates, particularly child mortality, would have been much higher.

Thirdly even if resources were limited work force certainly want. The types of population increase you are talking about would require 10 men to produce food for a 100 children. Even if the resources existed to do this, the labour to farm and produce this food didn't.

PDN wrote:

African tribal oral traditions (think of the scene in Roots where Alex Haley listens to the records of his ancestors) consistently record that it was extremely common, prior to modern food production methods, for families to have four or more children live to adulthood.

Where you are getting that from?

Population rates are quite well established by historians, but then Creationists reject the commonly accepted account of history.

jonny72

PDN wrote:

However, it seems to me that models of population growth are inevitably based on present day conditions where exponential growth is limited by a scarcity of resources. JC is arguing that the human race could grow from a population of 30 (the number of Grandchildren Noah had) to hundreds of millions in the space of 2000 or 3000 years. It appears reasonable that rapid growth could occur given that a small population would be surrounded by unlimited resources.

Are you sure you aren't a qualified creation scientist?.. sure sounds like it to me..

Son Goku

J C wrote:

You’re the guy who is incorrect…….and needlessly complicating a simple calculation.

All living creatures, including Humans, have an enormous POTENTIAL.....

No, wrong.
Look I understand why people think population would work a certain way or be based on doubling, but it just isn't the case. If you're a scientist JC you should understand that things commonly don't work the way we would imagine. Population doesn't work the way your suggesting and it can't grow that fast. It is simply a matter of fact. A population with a high growth rate is chaotic and it's population jumps up and down. (This is due to the growth rate modifying itself). Anybody who suggests otherwise is wrong.

PDN

So, let me get this straight. A number of posters here are stating that is absolutely physically impossible for a population to increase at an average rate of slightly under 1% per year over a sustained period of time. Is that correct?

Son Goku

PDN wrote:

So, let me get this straight. A number of posters here are stating that is absolutely physically impossible for a population to increase at an average rate of slightly under 1% per year over a sustained period of time. Is that correct?

No. It is impossible for a population to grow at a certain rate from a certain initial pool and state anything about its overall patterns, as it will be chaotic.

PDN

Son Goku wrote:

No. It is impossible for a population to grow at a certain rate from a certain initial pool and state anything about its overall patterns, as it will be chaotic.

Yes, I understand it will be chaotic, but that is not answering my question. Is it absolutely physically impossible for a population to increase over a sustained period of time at an average rate of slightly under 1% per year?

Son Goku

PDN wrote:

Yes, I understand it will be chaotic, but that is not answering my question. Is it absolutely physically impossible for a population to increase over a sustained period of time at an average rate of slightly under 1% per year?

It does answer your question, but you might not be familiar with what chaotic actually means.

First of all, over what period of time will the average be calculated? By stating that there is an statistically meaningful average you're already making certain restrictions on the population's dynamics. Secondly how long is the sustained period of time? It is of vital importance, particularly how long it is compared to generation time length.

I understand that this might seem odd, but it is just how population works. You'll have to explicitly tell me the answers to my questions as the answer is numerically subtle.

PDN

Son Goku wrote:

It does answer your question, but you might not be familiar with what chaotic actually means.

Are you taking the Michael? I understand very well the standard dictionary definition of chaotic as being disorganised, confused, and unpredictable. Unless, of course, you are using the word in some technical sense?

I am not asking anyone to predict population growth in the future, but, as a layman, I cannot see why it is so difficult to speak of average population growth.

If you put 30 people on a large uninhabited island, and 100 years later there are 60 of their descendants living there then you have an average rate of increase of slightly under 1% a year. Obviously rates of growth will vary, and sometimes population may decline through war or disease, but if you measure populations between any two given points in time you get an average increase or decrease. All I'm asking, given an area the size of planet earth, is whether an annual increase of slightly under 1% is absolutely physically impossible over a long period of time (like 2500 years). The mocking that is directed toward JC would appear to suggest that such a growth rate is absolutely impossible.

I simply want to know if this derision is based on scientific evidence.

jonny72 wrote:

Are you sure you aren't a qualified creation scientist?.. sure sounds like it to me..

Which way do you guys want it? If we admit that we don't know much about a subject then we are accused of being proud of our ignorance. If we raise points that, from a layman's view, seem perfectly reasonable then we get sneered at. Would you rather the rest of us theists just ignored this thread altogether and let you and JC trade blows and smilies by yourselves?

Son Goku

PDN wrote:

Are you taking the Michael? I understand very well the standard dictionary definition of chaotic as being disorganised, confused, and unpredictable. Unless, of course, you are using the word in some technical sense?

No, I'm not messing and yes I mean chaotic in technical way.

seem perfectly reasonable then we get sneered at.

You're not getting sneered at, it's the way a scientific debate works. Very different from a usual one and a bit harsh at first, but accept that you've said you're not to familiar with science.

Basically growth rate isn't a hugely useful way to track populations, unless it is on time scales comparable to generation length, such as 100 years.

if you measure populations between any two given points in time you get an average increase or decrease

Alright, let's say the population between the two times was like this:

Time increases from left to right and population is vertical. The average in such a case carries no information as there is too much deviation. For a population to have a meaningful average, then it means it has a smooth evolution, no jumping about the place. However most populations under 30,000 don't evolve smoothly.

Bisar

Son Goku wrote:

Alright, let's say the population between the two times was like this:

Time increases from left to right and population is vertical. The average in such a case carries no information as there is too much deviation. For a population to have a meaningful average, then it means it has a smooth evolution, no jumping about the place. However most populations under 30,000 don't evolve smoothly.

Can you explain how to read that graph? I'm used to generating plots or interpreting those generated by other people but I can't figure out that one at all. For example, for time X how does one read off population Y?

Son Goku

Bisar wrote:

Can you explain how to read that graph? I'm used to generating plots or interpreting those generated by other people but I can't figure out that one at all. For example, for time X how does one read off population Y?

Height above the x-axis, which is at the bottom of the picture. However it's for purely illustrative purposes there is no vlaues attached.

Bisar

Are the blue dots/line the population then? Because that would make it look like there a multiple different values for population for any given year (assuming I run a vertical line through the graph and read off every intersection between it and the blue line

Son Goku

Bisar wrote:

Are the blue dots/line the population then? Because that would make it look like there a multiple different values for population for any given year (assuming I run a vertical line through the graph and read off every intersection between it and the blue line

They're slightly displaced and it's supposed to show how discontinuous population functions are. I'm not proposing it should actually be read, I just pulled it off google images as a way of saying "look how it jumps up and down destroying the concept of an average". It's from a study of the logistic map.

Bisar

Fair enough, it actually occured to me immediately posting that maybe that was the point you were making.

jonny72

PDN wrote:

Which way do you guys want it? If we admit that we don't know much about a subject then we are accused of being proud of our ignorance. If we raise points that, from a layman's view, seem perfectly reasonable then we get sneered at. Would you rather the rest of us theists just ignored this thread altogether and let you and JC trade blows and smilies by yourselves?

No it just seems to me that those who tend towards creationism in here are very often the same people who if they don't understand something they don't believe it at all (I'm not having a go at you personally here)... yet on the other hand they constantly display their aptitude to believe the completely unbelievable and plain ridiculous.

Theres a fine line between someone not understand something and someone refusing to understand something. It just becomes disturbing when it starts to manifest itself into zealous religious types, I mean take a look at the hardcore religious conservatives in America, they've made their 'own' wikipedia (called conservapedia) and are soon gonna make their 'own' youtube, because they actually think Fact and Truth have a liberal bias, therefore they substitute their own. To religious people this isn't of too much concern, but try to see it from our point of view, if scientologists were the major religion in the world and they started replacing youtube/wikipedia/etc and started trying to push their beliefs in the classrooms then I think you would share the same concern.

robindch

PDN wrote:

I simply want to know if this derision is based on scientific evidence.

It's based upon the inherent mathematical properties of population growth -- JC has assumed that everybody dies at the same age, produces kids at the same age and has the same number of children, that there were infinite supplies of food and transportation, that there was no pestilence, wars or smiting taking place etc. None of which conditions hold, even according to the bible.

The resulting population growth graph is completely counter-intuitive, but it is real. The graph on the wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_map

...shows how the population from generation to generation can vary wildly for various relative rates of reproduction and death. In addition, the relative rate changes over time because of variations in the availability of food, wars, famines, tsunami, volcanoes, contraception, improvements in health care etc, etc. This introduces further randomness to an already chaotic system.

Simplistic exponential (Malthusian) population growth simply doesn't happen outside of a Petri dish.