The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Ekancone

Ciaran500 wrote:

Pssst its spelt know, not no

Sorted mate

rockbeer

Asiaprod doesn't need my support so regard this as a supplementary contribution.

I think it's to try and avoid the inevitable bitter and unruly scrap that this would degenerate into if everyone just started taking a pop at each other rather than trying to concentrate on the points being made. However strange they seem.

It's nothing to do with being christian (I think I'm right in saying Asiaprod is a Buddhist?). You would receive the same support if somebody took a metaphorical swing at you.



Edited on request

Ekancone

rockbeer wrote:

Asiaprod doesn't need my support so regard this as a supplementary contribution.

I think it's to try and avoid the inevitable bitter and unruly scrap that this would degenerate into if everyone just started taking a pop at each other rather than trying to concentrate on the points being made. However strange they seem.

It's nothing to do with being christian (I think I'm right in saying Asiaprod is a Buddhist?). You would receive the same support if somebody took a metaphorical swing at you.

Please note that i edited that comment out before you posted this. If you would do the same that would be great.

Asiaprod

rockbeer wrote:

Asiaprod doesn't need my support so regard this as a supplementary contribution.

But he does appreciate, and value it.:)

daithifleming, this issue is dead. Welcome to the Creation Thread.
Your moderator, Asia.

Ekancone

Asiaprod wrote:

But he does appreciate, and value it.:)

daithifleming, this issue is dead. Welcome to the Creation Thread.
Your moderator, Asia.

and what a thread!

arigatou

Dimithy

Scofflaw wrote:

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



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.



He agrees with those that agree with him.

welcoming you to the madhouse,
Scofflaw

Yes, every post. Helps pass the time in work. Plus, ive learned a hell of a lot from this thread, with the help of your good self and others on the side of rationality.
I believe JC picked up that little piece of info from previous post in this thread pointing out the link between humnity and headlice. Given his record its not surprising he tries to bend the truth a bit and use it to further his own view.

Son Goku

J C wrote:

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.

No it couldn't have, for several mathematical and practical reasons.

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%!!!!

You can always calculate the average, that doesn't mean the average is always a meaningful quantity.

dan719

Tim Robbins wrote:

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

Oh thankyou for letting me show off for the next three hundred lines or so.

According to the textbook 'Logic' (cannot remember the author) logic is defined as 'consistency of approach, belief, or reasoning'. In mathematics logic is defined as obviously(or not so obviously although it is supposed to be explicit) correct deductions made from certain starting assumptions, this is logical in so far as the assumptions are constant (consistency of belief). It also explains why mathematics contains differnet geometries, each of which are internally consistent (riemann, euclid and perspective etc). This is due to different initial assumptions, e.g parrallel postulate.

In relation to J.C and my claim of his illogical stance;

He claims God is omnipotent and ultimately love.
He says God loves us and does not wish to cause harm.
He also accepts the veracity of scripture(although it is repeatedly contradictory in itself)
But such a god would not allow suffering, and theoligists continue to find any meaningful way to explain this, apart from we will be rewarded for suffering, while claiming god is still ultimately love.

Oh and Tim Robbins, I have read plenty on logic,go take a running jump at yourself. :cool:

J C

2Scoops wrote:

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

On mature reflection I take your point.......old G K C could be quite 'caustic' in his comments...and he certainly 'took no prisoners'with his arguments!!!!:D

J C

Dimithy
Would you mind posting a source.

Here are some Evolutionist sources for the population bottleneck…….because they are Evolutionists, a little interpretation is required…….
……divide any date figures by about 20 and for "Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam" ….just read “Adam and Eve”…….and you will be alright……

Equally, for the words “Toba Eruption” just read “Noah’s Flood” and instead of 15,000 people…..the bottleneck only consisted of only 8 people......apart from these few minor interpretation errors the whole thesis basically 'hangs together'!!!

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

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1420897


…..and the following links provide some interesting Creation Science on the subject
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/events.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v9/i2/y_chromosome.asp


…..and another Creation Science BREAKTHROUGH…..
…..it turns out that so-called ‘junk DNA’ is the DNA remnant of the genetic information for the genetic diversity in the original Created Kinds…….as well as the artefact of their speciation mechanism!!!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i2/junk_dna.asp


Originally Posted by J C
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).

Wicknight
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.

I DID take account of the fact that 2 parents were required in my calculation …..and that was why I expressed the fertility rate as 3.4 children PER WOMAN.

Get a spreadsheet and starting with 8 people, divide them by 2 to get the number of women and multiply by 3.4 children in each generation…..you will get the following expansion leading up to 43.5 MILLION people in the 28th generation (or about 1,000 years).
BTW, as the generations actually overlap, the number of people alive at any one time will be much greater than these figures suggest.



Generations ....Number of people in each generation
0............ 8
1............ 13.6
2............ 23.1
3............ 39.3
4............ 66.8
5............ 113.6
6............ 193.1
7............ 328.3
8............ 558.1
9............ 948.7
10........... 1612.8
11........... 2741.8
12........... 4661.0
13........... 7923.7
14........... 13470.2
15........... 22899.4
16........... 38929.0
17........... 66179.2
18........... 112504.7
19........... 191257.9
20........... 325138.5
21........... 552735.5
22........... 939650.3
23........... 1597405.5
24........... 2715589.4
25........... 5,431,179
26........... 10,862,357
27........... 21,724,715
28........... 43,449,430


Wicknight

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.

What is ridiculously high about 3.4 children in a World of effectively unlimited resources, at the time and no availability or inclination to use contraception …….3.4 children per woman is a very SMALL number……and Creation Scientists believe that the average fertility rate was ACTUALLY about 10 children per woman for the long lived people in the immediate generations after the Flood!!!
…..and 78 million people could have arisen within only 350 years of Noah’s Flood with this fertility rate!!!


Originally Posted by J C
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.

Son Goku
No it couldn't have, for several mathematical and practical reasons.

It both mathematically and practically possible that the earlier generations of Mankind achieved very high fertility rates and therefore, populations in excess of 100 million could have been achieved very rapidly.
With an average fertility rate of 9 children per woman 27 million people would have been produced by the 10th generation and over 100 million by the 11th generation!!!

9.0
Generations....People
0........... 8
1........... 36.0
2........... 162.0
3........... 729.0
4........... 3,280.5
5........... 14,762.3
6........... 66,430.1
7........... 298,935.6
8........... 1,345,210.0
9........... 6,053,445.1
10.......... 27,240,503.1
11.......... 122,582,264.1

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


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

……I don’t know……are you becoming a Creationist, perhaps????? :eek:

rockbeer

J C wrote:

……divide any date figures by about 20 and for "Mitochondrial Eve and Y-Chromosome Adam" ….just read “Adam and Eve”…….and you will be alright……

Equally, for the words “Toba Eruption” just read “Noah’s Flood” and instead of 15,000 people…..the bottleneck only consisted of only 8 people......apart from these few minor interpretation errors the whole thesis basically 'hangs together'!!!

Hangs together?

J C Listen to yourself.
Divide the date figures by 20.... We are talking about a disparity of more than 60,000 years and you propose we just ignore it?

Ditto the difference between 8 localised individuals and a dispersed population of 15,000. Just another minor interpretation error.

So what you're saying is that if we take somebody's evidence-based theory, discard their figures and replace them with some arbitrarily selected ones of our own, we can make their theory appear to support ours.

What worries me is that impressionable people reading this might mistake it for valid science.

Oh, and Toba was a volcanic event that triggered a massive temperature drop. Not a flood. I guess to a creation scientist clutching at straws they must seem like almost the same thing.

What do you make of the statement that "Toba is not conjectured to be an extremal bottleneck event"?

Zombrex

J C wrote:

I DID take account of the fact that 2 parents were required in my calculation …..and that was why I expressed the fertility rate as 3.4 children PER WOMAN.

No you didn't. The formula is quite simply JC

If A1 (the 1st generation BTW, there is no 0 generation) is 8 then A2 equals (A1/2) * 3.4

That gives the following pattern

1 8.00
2 13.60
3 23.12
4 39.30
5 66.82
6 113.59
7 193.10
8 328.27
9 558.06
10 948.70
11 1,612.80
12 2,741.75
13 4,660.98
14 7,923.66
15 13,470.23
16 22,899.38
17 38,928.95
18 66,179.22
19 112,504.68
20 191,257.95
21 325,138.51
22 552,735.47
23 939,650.30
24 1,597,405.51
25 2,715,589.37
26 4,616,501.93
27 7,848,053.28
28 13,341,690.58

I don't know what maths you think you are using but they are wrong.

J C wrote:

BTW, as the generations actually overlap, the number of people alive at any one time will be much greater than these figures suggest.

LOL ... JC there is very little point in arguing that the figures need to be more realistic. NONE of this is realistic, population growth isn't linear and the idea that each couple would have 3+ children is ridiculous.

The only use this has is to demonstrate there is another area you don't know anything about.

J C wrote:

What is ridiculously high about 3.4 children in a World of effectively unlimited resources

The stuff simply being there has never been an issue JC, the issue has been how humans have got at it.

By that logic the middle ages had far greater resources than now because there were less people and more raw materials. So why weren't everyone in the middle ages living wonderful lives? Because they lacked the technology to access these resources.

You really do talk an awful lot of nonsense JC.

J C wrote:

, at the time and no availability or inclination to use contraception …….3.4 children per woman is a very SMALL number

JC your ignorance of history is quite startling.

3.4 children per woman was a very small number. Most women in their life times would have had on average 7 children. But the point you seem to be continuously ignoring is that the vast majority of these children DIED!

Infant mortality rates were very high only 150 years ago. Couples had a large number of children to play the odds game that 1 or 2 of them actually survived. The idea that they all managed to get 3 or more to survive is utterly ridiculous and just demonstrates that you know nothing about history before the 1950s :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

……and Creation Scientists believe that the average fertility rate was ACTUALLY about 10 children per woman for the long lived people in the immediate generations after the Flood!!!

If that is true Creation Scientists are idiots

J C wrote:

…..and 78 million people could have arisen within only 350 years of Noah’s Flood with this fertility rate!!!

Yes and there would have been trillions of people in the time of Jesus :rolleyes:

Like I said, idiots.

J C

rockbeer wrote:

Hangs together?

So what you're saying is that if we take somebody's evidence-based theory, discard their figures and replace them with some arbitrarily selected ones of our own, we can make their theory appear to support ours.

No, what we have got are two INTERPRETATIONS of the evidence.....Creation Scientists use different regression equations to their Evolutionists colleagues.....and my coments were 'tongue in cheek'!!!!!:D

rockbeer wrote:

What worries me is that impressionable people reading this might mistake it for valid science.

Are you equally worried that they might mistake 'big picture Evolution' for valid science as well???

rockbeer wrote:

Oh, and Toba was a volcanic event that triggered a massive temperature drop. Not a flood. I guess to a creation scientist clutching at straws they must seem like almost the same thing.

Please do bear in mind the an Ice Age directly followed the Flood in the higher latitudes and altitudes because of the 'nuclear winter' type condirtions that prevailed after the Flood (due to the enormous quantities of dust in the atmosphere following the huge volcanic activity that accompanied the Flood!!:cool:

J C

Originally Posted by J C
I DID take account of the fact that 2 parents were required in my calculation …..and that was why I expressed the fertility rate as 3.4 children PER WOMAN.

Wicknight wrote:

No you didn't. The formula is quite simply JC

If A1 (the 1st generation BTW, there is no 0 generation) is 8 then A2 equals (A1/2) * 3.4

8 people at the start would include 4 WOMEN who EACH had an average of 3.4 children giving a total number of 13.6 people in the first generation or 6.8 WOMEN who each had an average of 3.4 children giving a total number of 23.1 people in the second generation......and this pattern repeats itself up to the 28 th Generation when there will be a total number of over 43 million people in this generation.


Generations ....Number of people in each generation
0............ 8
1............ 13.6
2............ 23.1
3............ 39.3
4............ 66.8
5............ 113.6
6............ 193.1
7............ 328.3
8............ 558.1
9............ 948.7
10........... 1612.8
11........... 2741.8
12........... 4661.0
13........... 7923.7
14........... 13470.2
15........... 22899.4
16........... 38929.0
17........... 66179.2
18........... 112504.7
19........... 191257.9
20........... 325138.5
21........... 552735.5
22........... 939650.3
23........... 1597405.5
24........... 2715589.4
25........... 5,431,179
26........... 10,862,357
27........... 21,724,715
28........... 43,449,430

BTW, as the generations actually overlap, the number of people alive at the end of 28 generations under the above scenario would be something like 60 million people i.e. most of the 27th and 28th generations and some of the 26th generation!!!:D :eek: .

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
I DID take account of the fact that 2 parents were required in my calculation …..and that was why I expressed the fertility rate as 3.4 children PER WOMAN.



8 people at the start would include 4 WOMEN who EACH had an average of 3.4 children giving a total number of 13.6 people in the first generation or 6.8 WOMEN who each had an average of 3.4 children giving a total number of 23.1 people in the second generation......and this pattern repeats itself up to the 28 th Generation when there will be a total number of over 43 million people in this generation.


Generations ....Number of people in each generation
0............ 8
1............ 13.6
2............ 23.1
3............ 39.3
4............ 66.8
5............ 113.6
6............ 193.1
7............ 328.3
8............ 558.1
9............ 948.7
10........... 1612.8
11........... 2741.8
12........... 4661.0
13........... 7923.7
14........... 13470.2
15........... 22899.4
16........... 38929.0
17........... 66179.2
18........... 112504.7
19........... 191257.9
20........... 325138.5
21........... 552735.5
22........... 939650.3
23........... 1597405.5
24........... 2715589.4
25........... 5,431,179
26........... 10,862,357
27........... 21,724,715
28........... 43,449,430

BTW, as the generations actually overlap, the number of people alive at the end of 28 generations under the above scenario would be something like 60 million people i.e. most of the 27th and 28th generations and some of the 26th generation!!!:D :eek: .

Why did you change the formula at 25? Did you hope no-one would check your calculations?

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

rockbeer wrote:

Hangs together?

So what you're saying is that if we take somebody's evidence-based theory, discard their figures and replace them with some arbitrarily selected ones of our own, we can make their theory appear to support ours.

No, what we have got are two INTERPRETATIONS of the evidence.....Creation Scientists use different regression equations to their Evolutionists colleagues.....and my coments were 'tongue in cheek'!!!!!:D

It is a superb example of how "Creation 'Science'" works. Essentially, the authors of the study have said that there was "a pre-historic bottleneck in the human population possibly due to a catastrophe".

That's the authors' conclusion. They have reached it by examining the evidence, and their conclusion is their explanation of the evidence.

Now we have the Creation 'scientist'. He likes the conclusion, because you could describe Adam & Eve as "a pre-historic bottleneck in the human population possibly due to a catastrophe". He likes the conclusion still more because it has scientific evidence behind it, and has been published in reputable journals.

So he discards the evidence that proves the conclusion, and substitutes the story of Adam & Eve, saying that the Genesis account would equally well provide such a conclusion, assuming the details to be slightly wrong. Voila! The story of Adam & Eve is scientifically proven! The conclusion is known to be true, and Genesis he knows to be true, so this is clearly the correct thing to do.

I'm not even sure he doesn't know this is wrong. For the rest of us, of course, it's rather like finding the fingerprints of one person on a murder weapon, and saying "aha! fingerprints on a murder weapon show who the murderer is. These fingerprints are John's. However, Alan also has fingerprints - and we know him to be guilty! Clearly, the existence of these fingerprints on the murder weapon, which could have been Alan's, show Alan to be the murderer!".

J C wrote:

Please do bear in mind the an Ice Age directly followed the Flood in the higher latitudes and altitudes because of the 'nuclear winter' type condirtions that prevailed after the Flood (due to the enormous quantities of dust in the atmosphere following the huge volcanic activity that accompanied the Flood!!:cool:

For all of which there is no evidence whatsoever, and which is contradicted by all the available geological evidence - which is, once again, why this farrago of myths and crackpot speculation is not actually in use by the oil and mining companies, or anyone else who has to earn their living by actually understanding the geology of this planet.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Mad Hatter

Scofflaw wrote:

I'm not even sure he doesn't know this is wrong. For the rest of us, of course, it's rather like finding the fingerprints of one person on a murder weapon, and saying "aha! fingerprints on a murder weapon show who the murderer is. These fingerprints are John's. However, Alan also has fingerprints - and we know him to be guilty! Clearly, the existence of these fingerprints on the murder weapon, which could have been Alan's, show Alan to be the murderer!".

This made me laugh.

Yes, I've seen people use the same evidence to come to different conclusions, but this is the first time I've seen someone use the same conclusion to come to different evidence.

Scofflaw

The Mad Hatter wrote:

This made me laugh.

Yes, I've seen people use the same evidence to come to different conclusions, but this is the first time I've seen someone use the same conclusion to come to different evidence.

That's a nicely pithy summary! Can I use it elsewhere? Believe it or not, I come across a lot of people who 'use the same conclusion to come to different evidence' (copyright The Mad Hatter).

cordially,
Scofflaw

The Mad Hatter

Scofflaw wrote:

That's a nicely pithy summary! Can I use it elsewhere? Believe it or not, I come across a lot of people who 'use the same conclusion to come to different evidence' (copyright The Mad Hatter).

cordially,
Scofflaw

Heh, help yourself. (quite honoured)

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote:

Why did you change the formula at 25? Did you hope no-one would check your calculations?

My apologies....it was a copying error (or mutation) in my calculation !!!:o

The correct number is 22 million in the 28th generation for 3.4 children per woman and starting with 8 people .....
......and if the fertility rate was just marginally higher at 4.0 children per woman this would result in over 2 BILLION people in the 28th generation!!!:eek:

In any event, the 'bottom line' point remains that all historical population levels (including our present 6 billion figure) are comfortably accounted for starting with only 8 people about 5,000 years ago......and assuming reasonable fertility rates!!:D

rockbeer

Scofflaw wrote:

you could describe Adam & Eve as "a pre-historic bottleneck in the human population

For goodness sake Scofflaw, get your facts right! It was obviously Noah's family, not Adam & Eve.

Scofflaw

rockbeer wrote:

For goodness sake Scofflaw, get your facts right! It was obviously Noah's family, not Adam & Eve.

Silly me! I was thinking of the last time JC trotted out this argument...in respect of the 'mitochondrial Eve'.

forgetfully,
Scofflaw

Bisar

J C wrote:

Please do bear in mind the an Ice Age directly followed the Flood in the higher latitudes and altitudes because of the 'nuclear winter' type condirtions that prevailed after the Flood (due to the enormous quantities of dust in the atmosphere following the huge volcanic activity that accompanied the Flood!!:cool:

These are the conditions that provided the unlimited resources that allowed the rapid expansion of the human population?

Scofflaw

Bisar wrote:

These are the conditions that provided the unlimited resources that allowed the rapid expansion of the human population?

No, no - this bit of evidence proves something else. One doesn't reconcile bits of evidence with each other - that's what the conclusion is for.

cordially,
Scofflaw

zod

Hey JC,

Did Noah collect two of every insect also because apparently there are about a million different species ?

Also he is supposed to have brought 7 pairs of every "clean" animal and just one pair of "unclean" animals .. which animals were clean ? ( I hope not the insects )

I think the clean and unclean ones were listed in leviticus?

The Mad Hatter

bluewolf wrote:

I think the clean and unclean ones were listed in leviticus?

Yes, they were. Well, at least the criteria for identifying them were.

And Zod, the insects thing has been covered. Apparently they floated around on bits of debris during the flood. Yup.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote:

My apologies....it was a copying error (or mutation) in my calculation !!!:o

The correct number is 22 million in the 28th generation for 3.4 children per woman and starting with 8 people .....
......and if the fertility rate was just marginally higher at 4.0 children per woman this would result in over 2 BILLION people in the 28th generation!!!:eek:

In any event, the 'bottom line' point remains that all historical population levels (including our present 6 billion figure) are comfortably accounted for starting with only 8 people about 5,000 years ago......and assuming reasonable fertility rates!!:D

Ok, so your alleged miscalculation accounted for, we're back to the fact that your argument is wrong. How do you reconcile your idea of steady population growth according to current norms with fact?

Scofflaw wrote:

Bisar wrote:

These are the conditions that provided the unlimited resources that allowed the rapid expansion of the human population?

No, no - this bit of evidence proves something else. One doesn't reconcile bits of evidence with each other - that's what the conclusion is for.

cordially,
Scofflaw

lol

Son Goku

J C wrote:

Son Goku
No it couldn't have, for several mathematical and practical reasons.

It both mathematically and practically possible that the earlier generations of Mankind achieved very high fertility rates and therefore, populations in excess of 100 million could have been achieved very rapidly.
With an average fertility rate of 9 children per woman 27 million people would have been produced by the 10th generation and over 100 million by the 11th generation!!!

9.0
Generations....People
0........... 8
1........... 36.0
2........... 162.0
3........... 729.0
4........... 3,280.5
5........... 14,762.3
6........... 66,430.1
7........... 298,935.6
8........... 1,345,210.0
9........... 6,053,445.1
10.......... 27,240,503.1
11.......... 122,582,264.1

Okay, let's use the logistic map, which is the correct mathematics and see what we get. We will start off with 10000 people, represented by the ratio 0.5 and see what we get.
(Usually things are modelled with the correct maths, not the maths you feel it should be).
GR stands for generation ratio. I'll take the growth coeffecient to be r = 2.5, which is very generous and represents a very fertile region.
The logsitic map would be:
GR(N+1) = r*GR(N)*(1 - GR(N))

Okay so:
GR1 0.5
GR2 0.625
GR3 0.5859375
GR4 0.606536865
GR5 0.596624741
GR6 0.601659149
GR7 0.599163544
GR8 0.600416479
GR9 0.599791327
GR10 0.600104228
GR11 0.599947859
GR12 0.600026064
GR13 0.599986966
GR14 0.600006516
GR15 0.599996742
GR16 0.600001629
GR17 0.599999185
GR18 0.600000407
GR19 0.599999796
GR20 0.600000102
GR21 0.599999949
GR22 0.600000025
GR23 0.599999987
GR24 0.600000006
GR25 0.599999997
GR26 0.600000002
GR27 0.599999999
GR28 0.6

Since the original generation was 10,000 with ratio 0.5, the final generation population is:

(0.6)/(0.5) * 10,000 = 12,000.

Which is exactly what you would expect if you actually looked at population charts.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

and my coments were 'tongue in cheek'!!!!!:D

One wonders if all your posts on this entire thread are "tongue in cheek" :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

Please do bear in mind the an Ice Age directly followed the Flood in the higher latitudes and altitudes because of the 'nuclear winter' type condirtions that prevailed after the Flood (due to the enormous quantities of dust in the atmosphere following the huge volcanic activity that accompanied the Flood!!:cool:

Yet some how didn't effect the descendents of Noah who suffered from no death or disease or for that matter food shortages despite the fact that they were supposed to be living through a nuclear winter

Yes JC, you have clearly thought that one through :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

Generations ....Number of people in each generation
0............ 8

Groan .. there is no such thing as generation zero JC. The 1st generation is the 1st generation (hence the name)

J C wrote:

My apologies....it was a copying error (or mutation) in my calculation !!!

Its very easy to produce any number you wish when you just make the results up. As a Creationist you should be quite skilled at that :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

The correct number is 22 million in the 28th generation for 3.4 children per woman and starting with 8 people .....
......and if the fertility rate was just marginally higher at 4.0 children per woman this would result in over 2 BILLION people in the 28th generation!!!

The correct rate is the one I've been presenting to you all along, the one that is far far short of what we know the human population was around that time. Of course that is the least of the problems with the idea of a linear population rate of 3.4 children, but it just demonstrates that when you are making up the numbers you can't even get it right

Your predictable response to that is to simply alter the numbers again. Which just goes to show how much nonsense you are talking. Where is the science in any of this JC? You are just randomly picking numbers until one fits the conclusion you want.