The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Galvasean

Wicknight wrote:

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.

Reminds me of when a child uses a calculator to get the correct answer in long division homework, then makes up jibberish calculations to prove he actually did something.

Zombrex

Galvasean wrote:

Reminds me of when a child uses a calculator to get the correct answer in long division homework, then makes up jibberish calculations to prove he actually did something.

LOL

J C

Originally Posted by J C

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!!

Bisar wrote:

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

Please READ what I said......that the Ice Age was confined to the higher latitudes and altitudes. The people who arose in the first few years after the Flood had ALL of the middle latitudes, rougly between the 50th parallels to themselves......which was more than enough to be going on with .....until the ice melted in the higher latitudes within a few years ....and they could then colonise this area as well!!!:D

Bisar

There was a localized nuclear winter?

J C

Son Goku wrote:

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.

You would get a bigger population increase if nearly all of the men were vasecomised and nearly all of the women had their 'tubes tied' !!!:eek:

.....IF the 5,000 women in your 10,000 original population ONLY produced 2.5 children each.....you would reach a population of 12,500 children in the FIRST generation!!!:D

......and by the 28th generation over 5 MILLION people would be present at an average fertility rate of only 2.5 chldren per woman (and starting with 10,000 people)!!!:D

......were most of the men 'shooting blanks' in your 'logistical map'.....or what was going on, so that after 1,000 years, a population of 10,000 had only expanded to 12,000???!!!!!!!:eek:

.....or as Borat might ask........ did they have little, if any, "sexy times"???!!!!:D

J C

Bisar wrote:

There was a localized nuclear winter?

It had it's PIMARY effect in the polar latitudes.....the incident solar radiation and the air movements in the tropics ameliorated the worst effects between the 50th parallels!!:D

The Ice Age also didn't last very long.......

.....and you can read all about it here

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/iceage16.asp

J C

Scofflaw
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.

The only problem with your ‘Thesis’ is the rather problematical FACT that the EVIDENCE is a much better ‘fit’ for the Creation Hypothesis than it is for the unfounded idea that muck spontaneously ‘lifted itself up by it’s own bootstraps’ via billions of MISTAKES to create the enormous levels of COMPLEX TIGHTLY SPECIFIED INFORMATION that is found in the genomes of all living organisms!!:D


Scofflaw
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!".

…Evolution is actually like saying that NEITHER John or Alan were the murderer, because “science knows” that muck can ‘lift itself up by it’s own bootstraps’ via billions of MISTAKES to strangle the victim……and so inanimate muck should always be the prime suspect in every murder investigation…..and anybody who suggests that an INTELLIGENT AGENT (like either John or Alan) could have anything to do with it, must be ‘off their rocker’!!!!:D
......you see, there is NO need for Evolutionists to ever cite Intelligent Action, or God forbid, Intelligent Design to explain anything....because, matter is ITSELF capable of amazing feats of spontaniety.......like producing Man in the first place .......and it is therefore more than capable of murdering a Man in the second place!!!:eek:

Bisar

Edited cos it was an unnecesary dig at JC

Question for Son though. Are those numbers correct? If I'm running them correctly the population stabilizes at 12,000 within a couple of generations and then plateaus. Intuitively, that doesn't look very reasonable

J C

The Mad Hatter wrote:

.....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?

LOL....my hypothesis DOESN'T posit a STEADY population growth....the early long-lived, healthy generations of Mankind had net fertilities of about 10 children per woman.......the intermediate generations had fertilities which were just marginally above replacement and with considerable variability .....and the latter generations have been expanding at a fertility rate of about 3 children per woman (which encompasses as little as 1.5 children per woman in the Developed World and as much a 4 children per woman in Developing Countries)!!!:D

Zombrex

Bisar wrote:

There was a localized nuclear winter?

I don't think JC actually understands what a nuclear winter is.

Its probably just a buzz word he liked the sound of :rolleyes:

2Scoops

J C wrote:

On mature reflection I take your point.

Apparently not...
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=547710&postcount=1

J C

Wicknight wrote:

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

I sometimes wonder if this entire thread is 'cheek in tongue'!!!!:D

Wicknight wrote:

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

The Ice Age was confined to the higher latitudes and altitudes. The people who arose in the first few years after the Flood had ALL of the middle latitudes, rougly between the 50th parallels to themselves......which was more than enough to be going on with .....until the ice melted in the higher latitudes within a few years ....and they could then colonise this area as well!!!:D

Wicknight wrote:

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

Groan.....aah...aah.....aaaa....aah....ahem.....ooh.....eek:eek:
..........just like there is Ground Zero.....there is Generation Zero...or the population that you are starting off with....and the FIRST generation is the population generated by Generation ZERO (hence the name)!!!:D

MooseJam

J C wrote:

The Ice Age was confined to the higher latitudes and altitudes.

What was with the ice age ? he'd killed off everyone with the flood, the people left were supposed to be the good guys so why an ice-age, was that just something for his own amusement that had nothing to do with anything really

5uspect

So lets get this straight.
-Noah builds an Ark full of animals from all around the world.
-God floods the planet.
- Everyone not on the Ark is dead except the rafting insects (does that make them evil or something?)
-The flood ends and God commands Team Noah to go out and spread across the Earth, but they can't cos, well there's an ice age.
- Nor can they bring back all the wildlife cos of the ice age.
-Then God goes and punishes them for not spreading out.

So many straws, so much clutching...

Zombrex

J C wrote:

The Ice Age was confined to the higher latitudes and altitudes. The people who arose in the first few years after the Flood had ALL of the middle latitudes, rougly between the 50th parallels to themselves......which was more than enough to be going on with .....until the ice melted in the higher latitudes within a few years ....and they could then colonise this area as well!!!:D

Let me say this slowly

Do you actually understand what a nuclear winter is JC?

J C wrote:

just like there is Ground Zero.....there is Generation Zero

Wow .. one sentence demonstrating that you understand neither the concept of Ground Zero (which is a point) or Generations (which start at 1), despite the fact that these are unrelated concepts.

Well done JC, hats off.

Bisar

J C wrote:

The Ice Age was confined to the higher latitudes and altitudes. The people who arose in the first few years after the Flood had ALL of the middle latitudes, rougly between the 50th parallels to themselves......which was more than enough to be going on with .....until the ice melted in the higher latitudes within a few years ....and they could then colonise this area as well!!!:D

A few years? Your link says the ice age lasted 700 years.

Zombrex

MooseJam wrote:

What was with the ice age ? he'd killed off everyone with the flood, the people left were supposed to be the good guys so why an ice-age, was that just something for his own amusement that had nothing to do with anything really

The ice age is from all the dust that is thrown into the air from the massive tectonic movement of the land masses causing the formation of of mountain ranges such as the Alps, activity that isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bible

One of the advantages of being a Creationists is that once you start making things up you can just keep going ... why worry about inserting a little ice age into your theory when you have already introduced a completely impossible world wide tectonic shift that is never even mentioned in the Bible.

5uspect

Wicknight wrote:

The ice age is from all the dust that is thrown into the air from the massive tectonic movement of the land masses causing the formation of of mountain ranges such as the Alps, activity that isn't mentioned anywhere in the Bible

Maybe a galaxy fell out of the sky?

Scofflaw

MooseJam wrote:

What was with the ice age ? he'd killed off everyone with the flood, the people left were supposed to be the good guys so why an ice-age, was that just something for his own amusement that had nothing to do with anything really

Showing off? Or perhaps, just perhaps, it's because the evidence for an Ice Age is just too ruddy obvious (in North America and Europe - the 'higher latitudes') for even a Creationist to deny, and so the Creationists have to put one in somewhere, whatever it may say in the Bible.

But hey, that's just crazy talk, right?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Galvasean

Well lets not forget that during the ice age (its not technically over yet because the poles are still frozen) the entire world wasn't covered in ice. For example South America covered in hot grasslands which were home to some very weird and spectacular animals.

http://www.museum.vic.gov.au/prehistoric/mammals/sth_america.html

Although I'm pretty sure Turkey (where Moses is said to have arrived after the flood) was pretty damn cold.

MooseJam

After everybody got out of the ark how did it work, seems as there were only two prey items, what for example did the lions eat, if they ate one of the zebras then the zebras were screwed, so what did all of the predators eat ?, did they have to farm all the prey until they bred enough that they could be released without danger of them being made extinct ? and if they did this what were all the predators being fed with

Scofflaw

MooseJam wrote:

After everybody got out of the ark how did it work, seems as there were only two prey items, what for example did the lions eat, if they ate one of the zebras then the zebras were screwed, so what did all of the predators eat ?, did they have to farm all the prey until they bred enough that they could be released without danger of them being made extinct ? and if they did this what were all the predators being fed with

Salted deep-frozen carrion. Don't believe me? Ask JC - he can tell you all about it. I'll just...just go away while that happens.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Bisar

Scofflaw wrote:

Salted deep-frozen carrion. Don't believe me? Ask JC - he can tell you all about it. I'll just...just go away while that happens.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Man, that God chap thought of everything

Scofflaw

Bisar wrote:

Man, that God chap thought of everything

That's omniscience for you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Galvasean

Id imagine after the flood water went away there would be lots of washed up fish, the odd whale etc. lying around. They'd probably rot something awful after a week or two, Good times to be a komodo dragon.

Bisar

Galvasean wrote:

Id imagine after the flood water went away there would be lots of washed up fish, the odd whale etc. lying around. They'd probably rot something awful after a week or two, Good times to be a komodo dragon.

There's a though. Someone, somewhere, said fish, whales etc would not have been on the Ark since they could swim and hence didn't need to be rescued. Do you think the flood was precisely engineered to leave only two of each kind of aquatic creature? Or were they not subject to the whole "two of every kind" rule that the land based creatures got stuck with?

2Scoops

Galvasean wrote:

Good times to be a komodo dragon.

Or indeed a dinosaur, to use the modern nomenclature:D

Scofflaw

2Scoops wrote:

Good times to be a komodo dragon.

Or indeed a dinosaur, to use the modern nomenclature:D

Or even a rhino.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Galvasean

Since the Rhinoceros was named and described before the Triceratops the name Rhinoceros is valid.
Not sure but I think the word dinosaur (deinos+sauros) was coined before the discovery of the scientific discovery of komodo dragon. I hereby petition that it be renamed Komodosaurus dracoii!

rockbeer

MooseJam wrote:

what did all of the predators eat ?

Insects, obviously. There were loads of them floating about.

Honestly, anyone would think you chaps were deliberately setting out to find holes in JC's arguments or something.