The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

dan719

BrianCalgary wrote:

On a quick response, God is not held by the physical laws of our universe, see the raising of Lazarus from the dead, healings, etc.

I know that all my little aches and pains will be cured once I arrive in Heaven, so I tend not to be overly concerned with any of them

A good read on this topic is Joni-Erickson Tada who is a quadraplegic and has a great ministry.

Besides I am too busy asking God to help others, because when you get right down to it, we look to eternity more than anything.

My pains cured when I get there, so I don't care about them now. My care is praying for those in real need of God in their lives.

It is a matter of priorities.

Sorry I was wondering if you could offer scientific prove that 'god' raised Lazarus from the dead, as you insist we offer conclusive evidence that 'he,she,it' does not exist.

Excelsior

Sorry Dan, I was wondering if you could cite one case of a historical event that could be validated by "scientific proof"?

Scofflaw

Excelsior wrote:

Sorry Dan, I was wondering if you could cite one case of a historical event that could be validated by "scientific proof"?

Hmm. Wouldn't that rather depend on what you meant?

Eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable, so presumably we're looking for an event where all the evidence suggests that the commonly accepted event is what actually happened? How about the bombing of Hiroshima?

OK, that's slightly unfair. How about an event from the same general period - say the destruction of Masada? All the archaeological evidence points the same way as the written account, down to the detail of the fortress stores being unburnt (the defenders wished to demonstrate that they did not give up out of hunger).

How about earlier? The destruction of the Sacred Band of Thebes in 338BC? The Band were reputed to be 300 men, of whom six are said not to have died. Excavation in 1890 of their tomb under the Lion Monument (erected 300BC) produced 254 skeletons. You can do pretty much the same for the Battle of Marathon (490BC).

We have no equivalent level of evidence for occurrences in the Bible, which in and of themselves are extraordinary events.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Excelsior wrote:

Sorry Dan, I was wondering if you could cite one case of a historical event that could be validated by "scientific proof"?

Well as all of us who frequent these forums regularly know proofs don't exist in Science. However, I would be happy seeing a video evidence as good enough evidence to validate an event actually happening. Chinese whispers, ancient folklare and literature written when literacy rates where very low and the wheelbarrow was advanced technology, I would be highly skeptical off.

MooseJam

BrianCalgary wrote:

My pains cured when I get there, so I don't care about them now. My care is praying for those in real need of God in their lives.

It is a matter of priorities.

Surely missing your legs qualifies you as being "in real need of God in their lives", yet never has someone who lost a limb been given a new one, I am sure many of those unfortune enough to have lost one prayed to God for help, I am sure many friends of those hurt prayed to God to help, and never, not even once did God answer any of those prayers. It's not as if God couldn't do it

BrianCalgary wrote:

God is not held by the physical laws of our universe

He could do it in a flash ! yet he has never answered one of those prayers. I am sure many of those people who lost limbs were devout Christians, good people who deserved to have their prayers answered , so why oh why weren't they. Because there is no God to answer them. There is no God

J C

Wicknight
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.

The conditions supposedly on Earth 4 billion years ago, are a product of the imagination of Evolutionists.
…..so the "massive amounts of human effort" was ACTUALLY required to produce self-replicating molecules, full stop!!!!……

……and as life itself is vastly more complex than so-called ‘self replicating molecules’, this PROVES the necessity of a massive intelligent input into the original Creation of life!!!


Wicknight
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.

No amount of SELECTION can sort out the resultant effects of a ‘bull in the china shop’ …..and ditto with Mutations!!!!

No amount of ‘selection’ can produce a new functioning tea pot from a load of broken delph …..and ditto with Mutations!!!

Evolutionists hoping that NS and mutation will lead to ‘improved’ life-forms is like somebody rummaging in the ashes of an incinerator for the remains of yesterday’s newspaper and hoping to read it’s editorial!!!!!:eek:


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

The HEART of every man KNOWS that there is a God………some deny Him and others defy Him while Christians love Him………..and you are free to deny, to defy or to love Him !!!:cool:


Robin
"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!

Horns can appear within one generation - when a polled (hornless) breed of Cattle, for example, is crossed with a horned breed…..because the PRE-EXISTING genetic information for horns is possessed by the horned breed.:cool:

Equally, you would have to wait until Doomsday for horns of any size or description to develop within a pure-bred polled (hornless) breed of cattle…..because they don’t have the genetic information for horns!!!!!

…that wasn’t too difficult…….hopefully!!!


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

The Human population has been expanding at an average rate of about a half of one percent per year since historical records began ……about 4,000 years ago!!!!
……and BOTH Evolutionists and Creationists agree on this FACT!!

Son Goku
If you're a scientist JC you should understand that things commonly don't work the way we would imagine.

I agree that things usually DON'T work the way we IMAGINE them to work ….... they usually work the way we OBSERVE them to work.

The OBSERVED information density in living matter indicates that it was originally created…..and it DIDN’T spontaneously evolve…..as Evolutionists IMAGINE it to have occurred!!!!:D


Originally Posted by 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
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.
Robin
JC has assumed that everybody dies at the same age, produces kids at the same age and has the same number of children,

I have to seriously wonder if either Robin, or Son Goku understand the concept of an ‘AVERAGE’ rate of population growth……
......Could I remind you that an average rate of 0.5% population growth encompasses both negative and positive rates at different places and different times that are greater than, as well as less than, 0.5% ……….but OVERALL it comes out at an AVERAGE of 0.5%!!!!:D

Some individuals have 20 children and so they have a 2,000% reproduction rate, while others have had no children.
Equally, local wars and famines can reduce local populations…..but the AVERAGE rate of population increase over the past 4,500 years WAS a half of one percent per year …..which is equivalent to an AVERAGE fertility rate of ONLY 2.4 children per woman!!!!

Creation Scientists agree that the population increase WASN’T a smooth 0.5% per year…….it actually started at a much more rapid pace and slowed down subsequently….and it speeded up again with the advent of industrialisation in the eighteenth century.
The long-lived, healthy early generations of Mankind, had uninterrupted access to the whole World and availed of this opportunity during the Babel Dispersal.
With a fertility rate of only 9 children per woman…..and, starting with the eight survivors from the Ark, a world population of 20 million people would have been produced by the 10th generation (or about 350 years) after the Flood.:cool:


Wicknight
While one can certainly see how 14 million humans could have grown to 27 million in a thousand years, it is hard to see how 8 could have grown to 27 million in a thousand years.

An average fertility rate of ONLY 3.4 children per woman will cause 8 people to grow to 27 million in 1,000 years (i.e. 28.5 generations of 35 years each).


Moosejam
To the creation scientists, why doesn't it say Made By God across my back ?

…….because it says ‘Made By God’ across your HEART instead!!!!!:cool:


Daitifleming
To be honest I think Creationists are fighting a losing battle. Think about what we knew about life on earth and its origins 150 years ago... 1000 years ago! Now try imagine what we will know in another 150 years! Scientists will have the whole thing cracked open eventually, and that will be the end of Creationism.

One hundred and fifty years ago the cell was perceived as little more than a blob of ‘cytoplasm’ with a dark ‘speck’ of a nucleus inside it……..and scientists like Darwin, quite plausibly believed that life could have spontaneously originated via Evolution.
However, the genome is now known to contain massive levels of tightly specified complex information that could only have originated via a massive input of intelligence…….
.........so ‘roll on’ the next hundred years…….when the evidence will be so overwhelming for Creation ……that nearly every scientist will be a Creationist!!!


Daitifleming
PS: I think it is hugely hypocritical of Creationists to attack genetics and molecular biology in terms of evolution, yet they would be more than willing to take medication and recieve treatment for illness which were discovered by this science.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why any medicine works across a population of “spontaneously generated mutant mistakes” ….as Evolutionists would have us believe that we all are!!!!

Equally, your belief that resources like Medicine should be confined to Evolutionists is an outrageous idea ……. doubly so, when one considers that some Medical professionals are THEMSELVES Creationists!!!!!:(


Wicknight
Wenham basically is saying that Genesis is about proclaiming the glory of God, not a science book, and people shouldn't get bogged down in the details described in the book.

Thats fine, but it doesn't resolve whether or not these things actually happened.

Did Adam and Eve actually exist? Was there a Biblical Flood 5,000 years ago that wiped out all species of land animal? Did the world dialects originate during the destruction of the tower of Babel? etc

If not, are these things made up to proclaim the glory of God? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense, to make something up to glorify God's power.

Wenham's goal post shifting is a good example of compartmentalization that seems to be a common response when attempting to deal with this issue. The line "The Bible is not a science book", which completely misses the point of whether or not it is accurate, is often heard on this forum as well.

Creationists have no difficulty with such questions because they accept a plain reading of scripture and the veracity of the entire Bible.
These are indeed very profound theological questions……and I have yet to see them satisfactorily addressed by people who believe in a metaphorical interpretation of Scripture.

As well as the above important questions raised by Wicknight, there is also the problem of deciding where the ‘allegorising’ stops……or was the virgin birth and the deity of Jesus Christ also allegories for something else…….and was the account of Jesus Christ’s life on Earth, including His death, resurrection and ascension also one great big METAPHOR???

Could I remind you that we have no residual physical evidence for Jesus Christ’s miracles on Earth…….but we do have physical evidence for Creation and The Flood in the form of living and fossilised organisms.

…..so we can objectively KNOW that God exists and created us……but we must believe by faith that God became a man to save us!!!!!


Hivemind
8 people does not provide a large enough genetic diversity to allow the breeding of that number of people. 8 people may have managed to have a dozen or so decendents but we would all have webbed feet and monobrows.

The genetic diversity of the earlier generations of mankind was considerably greater than present individual Humans enjoy…….and there was little / no genetic defects (because they had been created perfect by God).

They lived long healthy lives …….and as Scripture remind us…..they had MANY CHILDREN!!!!:D

Wicknight
Using genetics it is possible to build quite detailed maps of the history of the human population. And nothing has ever suggested that the current human population is descended from anything like 8 humans 4,000 years ago.

You are forgetting the ‘genetic bottleneck’ which Molecular Biologists have recently discovered……..
…….genetic dating of head lice shows that their population bottlenecked ……..
……and genetic dating of humans also indicates that our population bottlenecked ……
……so we have two sets of correlating data for a parasite and it’s Human host….showing population implosions in BOTH species at the same time…… about 4,000 years ago!!!!!:eek:


Wicknight
Perhaps the Creationists should borrow the Adidas slogan "Impossible is Nothing"

No, we will grant that particularly appropriate slogan to the EVOLUTIONISTS!!:D


Wicknight
Why does the universe look like it is 10+ billion years old?
The Universe looks like the Universe……with NO indication of what age it might be…. except in the imaginings of Evolutionists!!!!!

Why does the Earth look like it is 4+ billion years old?
The Earth looks like the Earth……with NO indication of what age it might be!!!!!

Why does the fossil record look like life has been on the Earth for billion of years?
The fossil record looks like it was largely laid down in ONE catastrophic worldwide event!!!

Why does it look like life on Earth, including humans, evolve from older species?
This is evidence of the use of a common design by a common designer …….and the fact that there are no continua between Created Kinds or between organ structures rules out the Evolutionary Hypothesis!!!

Why does it look like human civilization ran without hick up through the period of the Biblical Flood?
Anything before about 5,000 years ago is regarded as ‘pre-historic’……..and isn’t that an amazingly short time period, IF Humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years and their supposed immediate ancestors for millions of years!!!
The Evolutionist’s ‘Pre-Historic’ is actually the Creationist’s ‘Ante-Diluvian’!!!

Why do genetic maps of modern humans not look at all like humans all descended from two original humans?
…..but these genetic maps DO indicate that all Humans are descended from two original Humans……'Mitochondrial Eve' and 'Y-Chromosome Adam'!!!!


Rockbeer
There also remains the vexing question of why god never heals amputees.

There is not a single documented instance of an amputated limb spontaneously regenerating. Scripture declares that god will provide in response to prayer, e.g. Matthew 21:21 - "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer" - except the regeneration of a missing limb, apparently. So why does god single out amputees to never benefit from his miraculous healing powers? For all their faith, no christian has been able to satisfactorily answer the question of why in this respect god would appear to be eternally constrained by immutable biological laws.

Not only does God not heal amputees, but He allows EVERYONE to ultimately die…….and our subjugation to the physical laws of the Universe and their adverse effects on us is a direct and continuing punishment for the Fall of Mankind.

The Bible confirms that God rested from His Creation Activity on the Seventh Day…….and He continues to rest from Direct Creation.
In this regard, could I remind you that the restoration of an amputated limb would require a Direct Creation input from God…..….which would be in direct contravention of His decision to rest from Creation on the Seventh Day!!!!

BTW, the pricipal exception to God’s Rest from Direct Creation was the conception and miracles of Jesus Christ on Earth……..when Jesus used His powers of Direct Creation to PROVE that He was God.
Because Jesus Christ is no longer physically manifested on Earth, Christians have no reason to expect the spontaneous growth of a severed limb to occur.

The so called ‘immutable biological laws’ are NOT eternal ………and we will all be freed from their effects at the moment of our death.

Jesus Christ performed many miracles of Direct Creation to prove beyond all doubt that He was God…..
……but because we are not God we do not have the power that Jesus Christ enjoyed to suspend the Laws of the Universe nor should we ask in our prayers for God to do so either

Our prayer requests are therefore constrained by the reality of the physical Laws of the Universe…….but God will answer our prayers in accordance with His Sovereign Will that we should prosper, even in our current adversity.:cool:

dan719

It's okay I have seen the light. Just this moment I had a visit from a supernatural being. small and slightly hairy, and with pouting lips. He explained that the world was actually only 4156 years old. He also explained how the bible came into being. It was in fact a mistranslation by Moses' brother Joe who incorrectly wrote Genesis. The universe was in fact created in one day, my hairy God told me he likes to call this 1/7 Genesis or just G. In response to my disbelief(as a former atheist I had always believed in an old earth-how wrong I was), he explained that radioactive decay was not measurable as we have believed but instead he chooses it to be whatever he wants. That explains the wild discrepancies in dating that creationists(among whom I now count myself) have shown to be proof of 'small black hairy god's existance'. He explained that he had visited me to prove that small black hairy things exist in all of us, in our hearts where no one else can see.

He also explained that I should avoid excessive caplocks and italics, as I would then be associated with the means of propoganda as spouted by that heretic infidel JC.

I know this is all true and nothing anyone can say can disprove it. I have a small black hairy god and so do you(with pouting lips).:cool:

rockbeer

J C wrote:

Our prayer requests are therefore constrained by the reality of the physical Laws of the Universe

Then why does Jesus say "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer"?

Note that he doesn't say "whatever you ask for within the limits imposed by the physical laws of the universe". Just plain and simple "whatever you ask for". Funny, I'm sure I remember you advocating a "plain reading of scripture" and declaring the "veracity of the entire Bible" just a couple of paragraphs ago.

Presumably you meant a "plain reading except when it doesn't fit with what I need it to say".

By a plain reading of the Bible, god should at least occasionally heal amputees in answer to prayer. The only other conclusion is that Jesus was lying. You can't have it both ways, but nevertheless I expect you will

J C

dan719 wrote:

....... Just this moment I had a visit from a supernatural being. small and slightly hairy, and with pouting lips.......

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but God doesn't make 'house calls'......and I would be somewhat worried if some supernatural 'entity' that was "small and slightly hairy, and with pouting lips" ......started appearing to me!!

I would certainly ask it, under the authority of Jesus Christ, to identify itself!!!

Ciaran500

Satan isn't small, hairy or have pouting lips.

J C

rockbeer wrote:

Then why does Jesus say "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer"?

Note that he doesn't say "whatever you ask for within the limits imposed by the physical laws of the universe". Just plain and simple "whatever you ask for". Funny, I'm sure I remember you advocating a "plain reading of scripture" and declaring the "veracity of the entire Bible" just a couple of paragraphs ago.

Presumably you meant a "plain reading except when it doesn't fit with what I need it to say".

By a plain reading of the Bible, god should at least occasionally heal amputees in answer to prayer. The only other conclusion is that Jesus was lying. You can't have it both ways, but nevertheless I expect you will

Jesus wasn't lying........and because of our subjugation to the physical laws of the Universe and their adverse effects on us is a direct and continuing punishment for the Fall of Mankind........a plain reading (in this context) of Jesus Christ's words "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer" indicates that we cannot escape our fallen condition and it's physical effects through prayer.

Our prayer requests are therefore constrained by the reality of the physical Laws of the Universe…….but God will answer our prayers in accordance with His Sovereign Will that we should prosper, even in our current adversity.

We are subject to the physical laws of the Universe and we can only be saved from our sins by believing on Jesus Christ.

J C

Ciaran500 wrote:

Satan isn't small, hairy or have pouting lips.

Satan can manifest himself in many ways of his own choosing......including, apparently as a 'waiter from Hell'!!!!!:D

rockbeer

So let me just clarify, JC:

when Jesus said "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer" he actually meant "you cannot escape your fallen condition and it's physical effects through prayer".

And this is apparent from a plain reading of the Bible?

Yes or no will do.

J C

rockbeer wrote:

So let me just clarify, JC:

when Jesus said "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer" he actually meant "you cannot escape your fallen condition and it's physical effects through prayer".

And this is apparent from a plain reading of the Bible?

Yes or no will do.

Yes, we cannot escape our fallen condition and it's physical effects through prayer...... and the graveyards of the World testify to this fact.....

......and equally, we cannot escape our sinful condition through prayer either!!!

....we can only do so by believing on Jesus Christ to save us!!:D

dan719

J C wrote:

He isn't just my God.......He is the Sovereign God of the Universe!!!

God's decision to rest from Creation isn't the only reason why He doesn't cure amputees.
In His Sovereign wisdom, not only does God not heal amputees, but He allows EVERYONE to ultimately die…….and our subjugation to the physical laws of the Universe and their adverse effects on us is a direct and continuing punishment for the Fall of Mankind.

No my god is! See how ridiculous this sounds. You claim we are bound by physical laws, then say we can escape them through god. All written in a pseudo-scientific manner to suggest you actually have anything meaningful to say other then 'I know I am right because of god'. You then congratulate yourself because your points agree with your bible, forgetting that is where you took your points from in the first place.

dan719

J C wrote:

This statement must logically be read in the context of God's existing sovereign decisions, like His decision to punish Mankind for the Fall by allowing Man to become subject to death.

Logic is defined as consistency of belief.
Christians believe that god loves all humans. They also believe that he punished mankind for the actions of two people. They believe that a guy called jeevus is the son of god, whom god sent to prove his love for the world. However they also believe that to end suffering would be 'just too much loving' while claiming god is infinite love. Then actually they decide that we cannot know god, he is beyond our comprehension. So logic, logically, or any other word/phrase implying rational thought should really not be used in relation to christianity.:D :cool:

J C

dan719 wrote:

Logic is defined as consistency of belief.
Christians believe that god loves all humans. They also believe that he punished mankind for the actions of two people. They believe that a guy called jeevus is the son of god, whom god sent to prove his love for the world. However they also believe that to end suffering would be 'just too much loving' while claiming god is infinite love. Then actually they decide that we cannot know god, he is beyond our comprehension. So logic, logically, or any other word/phrase implying rational thought should really not be used in relation to christianity.:D :cool:

God is also a God of perfect wisdom, justice and sovereignty....as well as love.
.......and it is the inter-action of all of these aspects of God's character that best describes His relationship with Mankind.

J C

dan719 wrote:

You then congratulate yourself because your points agree with your bible, forgetting that is where you took your points from in the first place.

Dan 719 has said "Logic is defined as consistency of belief".......so I guess my position IS logical!!!!:D

Dimithy

J C wrote:

You are forgetting the ‘genetic bottleneck’ which Molecular Biologists have recently discovered……..
…….genetic dating of head lice shows that their population bottlenecked ……..
……and genetic dating of humans also indicates that our population bottlenecked ……
……so we have two sets of correlating data for a parasite and it’s Human host….showing population implosions in BOTH species at the same time…… about 4,000 years ago!!!!!:eek:

I may be new, but i've read every post of the interesting thread. Quite amusing at times.
The information in the above post seems very familiar. In fact, im almost certain you got this information from a previous post in this thread.
Would you mind posting a source.
Also, how exactly do you choose which dating techniques you agree with?

dan719

J C wrote:

Dan 719 has said "Logic is defined as consistency of belief".......so I guess my position IS logical!!!!:D

No because your source is itself illogical. Unlucky.:D :cool:

2Scoops

J C, your new signature appears to be in violation of boards rules. I recommend changing it:)

Scofflaw

Dimithy wrote:

I may be new, but i've read every post of the interesting thread. Quite amusing at times.

Every post? Every post? Well, I suppose the weather's been pretty bad, but still...

Dimithy wrote:

The information in the above post seems very familiar. In fact, im almost certain you got this information from a previous post in this thread.
Would you mind posting a source.

He might be thinking of something like this or this - although that's a bottleneck to maybe 10,000 individuals c. 50-100,000 years ago. It also suggests at least two different populations of lice, either from H. erectus or some other archaic human source - found only in the New World, and showing no evidence of a population bottleneck.

Looks somewhat more like a rather nice piece of circumstantial evidence for human evolution than JC's preferred option, which hangs its entire story on the single word 'bottleneck' and ignores every other aspect.

Dimithy wrote:

Also, how exactly do you choose which dating techniques you agree with?

He agrees with those that agree with him.

welcoming you to the madhouse,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

dan719 wrote:

Logic is defined as consistency of belief.

No it's not. Please read up on logic before you use it in an argument.

rockbeer

J C wrote:

Rockbeer wrote:

Originally Posted by rockbeer
So let me just clarify, JC:

when Jesus said "If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer" he actually meant "you cannot escape your fallen condition and it's physical effects through prayer".

And this is apparent from a plain reading of the Bible?

Yes

Perhaps you can confirm the same rationale applies when Jesus said "Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it" (John 14:12)

In other words when he said "anything" he didn't actually mean "anything", and that this is apparent from a "plain reading" of the text.

How about mark 11:24: "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."

Once again yes or no will suffice.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

An average fertility rate of ONLY 3.4 children per woman will cause 8 people to grow to 27 million in 1,000 years (i.e. 28.5 generations of 35 years each).

Actually it won't.

You seem to be forgetting (on purpose?) that a human child replaces 2 human parents, not one.

For the population to stay at the same level each couple has to produce at least 2 children to replace the father and the mother who will die off.

Leaving aside the fact that 3.4 children is a ridiculous high number of children for everyone to be producing (no wars? no famine? no disease?), and that populations never grow in a linear fashion, it still leaves you 14 million short of the 27 million you need to produce in a 1,000 years to match known human population levels for the time.

But no doubt you will just make up another ridiculous number until you get the correct answer ... after all that is what Creationists do, manipulate the evidence until they get the result they want.

In fact let me give you a hand. To go from 8 to 27 million in a thousand years each couple would need to produce 7 children that live to reproductive age. 7 that themselves go on to produce 7 children. And that is everyone, everyone must have 7 children.

That is utterly ridiculous.

You also have the slight problem that even if this linear increase was followed, 500 years after the Flood there are only 30,000 (13,000 if you follow your 3.4 children nonsense) humans on the planet. Why is that a problem you ask? Well because 500 years after the Flood we know that both the Chinese and Egyptian's had Empires. It is kinda hard for the Chinese to form a new empire after world wide destruction (with its own culture and writing) when the entire human population is the size of a small town living in the Middle East.

J C wrote:

You are forgetting the ‘genetic bottleneck’ which Molecular Biologists have recently discovered……..
…….genetic dating of head lice shows that their population bottlenecked ……..
……and genetic dating of humans also indicates that our population bottlenecked ……
……so we have two sets of correlating data for a parasite and it’s Human host….showing population implosions in BOTH species at the same time…… about 4,000 years ago!!!!!:eek:

LOL :rolleyes:

JC if you had actually bothered to read the head lice paper it demonstrates, rather conclusively, that homo sepians migrated out of Africa twice, once 150,000 years ago and again 50,000 years ago. In case you can't work that out it is BEFORE 6,000 BCE when humans, according to you, were supposed to magically appear in a garden down the road from Babylon.

http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2004news/headlice.htm

The head lice study also demonstrates that a Biblical Flood never happened, since it would have killed off the American version of the head lice completely

Well done JC, with you doing another brilliant foot in the mouth blunder for Creationism the rest us hardly need bother disputing your nonsense :rolleyes:

Ekancone

To JC

You know nothing about evolution, absolutely nothing. Anything that you think you know is completely flawed, all of your analogies are totally false. You really have no idea, none.

Ciaran500

Pssst its spelt know, not no

Giblet

Wicknight wrote:

You also have the slight problem that even if this linear increase was followed, 500 years after the Flood there are only 30,000 (13,000 if you follow your 3.4 children nonsense) humans on the planet. Why is that a problem you ask? Well because 500 years after the Flood we know that both the Chinese and Egyptian's had Empires. It is kinda hard for the Chinese to form a new empire after world wide destruction (with its own culture and writing) when the entire human population is the size of a small town living in the Middle East.

But don't you see..... with so few people living it is actually easier to form an empire!!! :eek: :eek:
......it would have looked intimidating even to have a few thousand population!!! :eek:

Giblet

I.. I don't know what came over me.

Asiaprod

daithifleming wrote:

To JC

You no nothing about evolution, absolutely nothing. Anything that you think you know is completely flawed, all of your analogies are totally false. You really have no idea, none.

Really!
One more outburst from you, you win a 2 week vacation.
Read the charter.