"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

If every person had only two children on average, then (using an average inter-generational length of 30 years), the world population could reach 1,000 million in less than 900 years:-

Years Population
30 2
60 4
90 8
120 16
150 32
180 64
210 128
240 256
270 512
300 1024
330 2048
360 4096
390 8192
420 16384
450 32768
480 65536
510 131072
540 262144
570 524288
600 1,048,576
630 2097152
660 4194304
690 8388608
720 16777216
750 33554432
780 67108864
810 134217728
840 268435456
870 536,870,912
900 1,073,741,824

Your figures show a very precise growth rate for a race of immortals.

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

NO ... because God wouldn't decree such a thing!!

... please remember that it was God and not another Human who caused the Flood.

I digress a little but I wonder what you make of this:

It seems apparent from the bible that Eve was produced as an afterthought. God realised that Adam was unfulfilled and 'made meet for him'.

This seems to suggest that God did not create Adam for the purpose of reproduction.

So, God gathers up some dust from which He will fashion Adam and builds the genetic material which is to be placed inside each and every cell (apart from red blood-cells obviously) which comprise Adam.

Now, and this is what seems odd, when God was putting the chromosomes together in (presumably matching) pairs, why did He design an X- and Y-chromosome. I mean, how did that come about; if God settled on the X-chromosome first then He must have realised that simply doubling up the chromosome would not have created a man and so He would have had to design the Y-chromosome as a solution to that problem; and if He arrived at the Y-chromosome first, why didn't He simply 'double it up' since reproduction wasn't being considered. God could have made it so that a YY-chromosomed individual could survive.

In other words, it would have been less complicated if God had created Eve first. He would have only needed to design one sex chromosome. Adam could then have been created by simply breaking off a little piece of one of Eve's X-chromosomes.

Do you see what I mean?

To be honest, I think that what I've described is probably the way the Bible was originally written, before the female deity was betrayed and obliterated from the earliest scriptures.

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

The Egyptian language was produced at Babel ... after the Flood ... and along with all of the other languages of the World.

But according to the Egyptian time-line, Egyptians spoke the same language before and after the flood. It's called 'old-Egyptian'.

J C wrote: »

... the Ante-diluvians who originally built many of these enormous megalithic structures around the World weren't the peoples who took possession of these structures after the Flood.

... so the Pyramids probably weren't built by either the Hebrews or the Egyptians

Again, according to the Egyptian time-line, Egypt was populated before, during and after the flood.

BTW, the water-damage to the Sphinx is qualitatively different to the damage to the pyramids.

What -ism is it that compels you to choose a time-line that is dominated by human life-spans of upward of nine-hundred years over a time-line characterised by recognisably human life-spans?

J C

koth wrote: »

your figures for population growthm have no basis in the real world.

first of all, it doesn't allow for deaths reducing the overall population. Secondly, it presumes that every parent has 1 boy and 1 girl. you presume all children live long enough to reproduce.

My figures are conservative for a population starting off with the entire resources of the World at their disposal i.e. not limited by any resource constraints ... and I assumed two children per person on average ... which would translate into one boy and one girl on average

your rate of population growth is 200%. populations actually take longer to double the less there are according any documents i've found.
Population doubling normally takes longer with larger populations due to the likelihood of famine and outbreaks of contagious disease. The exception has been the past 200 years when massive (and unprecedented) technological advances allowed rapid population doubling ... but even this is showing signs of slowing ... with many 'firat world countries in population decline.

for example, from 0.5 million to 1 million takes approximately 300 years, not 30 as you suggested. however, 1 million to 2 million takes 120 approximately, so 30 years is wrong here also.

the less people means that it is more unlikely for a doubling to occur due to infant mortality, death before raising a family, childless adults etc.

Smaller populations with effectively unlimited resources and food supplies, no contraception and social pressure to 'go forth and multiply' will produce dramatic population increases. with women marrying very young and everyone being encouraged to have as many chidren as possible ... it wouldn't be beyond the bounds of possibility for average family sizes of 10 or more to be achieved ... and that would be allowing for heavy infant mortality, childless couples, singles, etc. A woman marrying at 18 years old is capable of producing up to 20 children, at an average gap of 18 months between them.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

My figures are conservative for a population starting off with the entire resources of the World at their disposal i.e. not limited by any resource constraints ... and I assumed two children per person on average ... which would translate into one boy and one girl on average

They most definitely are not conservative, if anything they're overly optimistic. And that's not even accounting for the immortality factor that Mad Hatter pointed out.

Population doubling normally takes longer with larger populations due to the likelihood of famine and outbreaks of contagious disease. The exception has been the past 200 years when massive (and unprecedented) technological advances allowed rapid population doubling ... but even this is showing signs of slowing ... with many 'firat world countries in population decline.

You still didn't address what I said about the period it takes for population to double. The formula has existed since the time of the ancient Greeks and hasn't been disproven. Your projected population growth isn't even close to meeting the requirements of that formula.

Smaller populations with effectively unlimited resources and food supplies, no contraception and social pressure to 'go forth and multiply' will produce dramatic population increases. with women marrying very young and everyone being encouraged to have as many chidren as possible ... it wouldn't be beyond the bounds of possibility for average family sizes of 10 or more to be achieved ... and that would be allowing for heavy infant mortality, childless couples, singles, etc.

Thats not right either. When people living in tribes, it wasn't unusual for many of the men not to have children at all. It was usually the alpha males in the tribe who had children with various women.

There were also many men killing each other in an attempt to become the tribe leader. And we still haven't touched upon inter-tribal war, famine, disease and many other factors that go against what you proposed.

The Mad Hatter

koth wrote: »

They most definitely are not conservative, if anything they're overly optimistic. And that's not even accounting for the immortality factor that Malty_T pointed out.

!!

Delirium

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

!!

apologies about that:o corrected now.

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

Years Population
30 2
60 4
90 8
120 16
150 32
180 64
210 128
240 256
270 512
300 1024
330 2048
360 4096
390 8192
420 16384
450 32768
480 65536
510 131072
540 262144
570 524288
600 1,048,576
630 2097152
660 4194304
690 8388608
720 16777216
750 33554432
780 67108864
810 134217728
840 268435456
870 536,870,912
900 1,073,741,824

Your inability to understand the most basic mathematics continues to amuse and astound.

While we wait for you to finally admit you are nothing more than a non-Christian troll, lets take a look at your "college level" mathematics shall we

If everyone has 2 surviving children then the growth rate remains static (2 parents die replaced by 2 children, population remains same at 2). Your growth rate requires 4 surviving children (a doubling every generation) to compensate for the 2 parents who are eventually going to die, which is a higher sustained growth rate than at any point in recorded history.

Or perhaps you are supposing, as Hatter suggests, a race of immortals :rolleyes:

darjeeling

himnextdoor wrote: »

Now, and this is what seems odd, when God was putting the chromosomes together in (presumably matching) pairs, why did He design an X- and Y-chromosome. I mean, how did that come about; if God settled on the X-chromosome first then He must have realised that simply doubling up the chromosome would not have created a man and so He would have had to design the Y-chromosome as a solution to that problem; and if He arrived at the Y-chromosome first, why didn't He simply 'double it up' since reproduction wasn't being considered. God could have made it so that a YY-chromosomed individual could survive.

He could have used the ZW sex determination system in humans (ZZ = male; ZW = female). But He decided to stick to using the ZW system in the ancestor of all birds, and the XY system in the ancestor of all placental mammals. :pac:

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Your inability to understand the most basic mathematics continues to amuse and astound.

... and your ability to 'nit pick' ... even when you are clearly wrong, also amuses ... but doesn't astound me!!!:D

It is entirely probable that people will produce a net average 2 children each when they are trying to 'go forth and multiply' ... like I have said a woman is capable of producing 20 children if she produces one child every 18 months ... so producing 4 children is a very conservative birth rate in an environment where population growth is facilitated.

Wicknight wrote: »

If everyone has 2 surviving children then the growth rate remains static (2 parents die replaced by 2 children, population remains same at 2). Your growth rate requires 4 surviving children (a doubling every generation) to compensate for the 2 parents who are eventually going to die, which is a higher sustained growth rate than at any point in recorded history.

... so two children are possible ... but four children are impossible ... for Evolutionists ...
... another reason why women prefer Creationists!!!!:D:):eek:

J C

koth wrote: »

You still didn't address what I said about the period it takes for population to double. The formula has existed since the time of the ancient Greeks and hasn't been disproven. Your projected population growth isn't even close to meeting the requirements of that formula.

Some populations decline ... some are static ... and some increase ... and some dramatically increase ... and there isn't any formula!!!

Delirium

J C wrote: »

... and your ability to 'nit pick' ... even when you are clearly wrong, also amuses ... but doesn't astound me!!!:D

It is entirely probable that people will produce a net average 2 children each when they are trying to 'go forth and multiply' ... like I have said a woman is capable of producing 20 children if she produces one child every 18 months ... so producing 4 children is a very conservative birth rate in an environment where population growth is facilitated.

Wrong again. The average person didn't live to see 30 back in the early days of human kind. If the woman started producing children at 15 and had a child every 18 months until death, that would be a maximum of 10, not 20 children.

Anyways, you said 2 children produced by a couple. Don't try and move the goal post now that you've shown that your maths is wrong.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

Some populations decline ... some are static ... and some increase ... and some dramatically increase ... and there isn't any formula!!!

that means your suggested population growth in 900 year is very unlikely then.

AhSureTisGrand

Doesn't the Bible say that early humans lived for centuries? Or did I miss something?

AhSureTisGrand

J C wrote: »

NO ... because God wouldn't decree such a thing!!

... please remember that it was God and not another Human who caused the Flood.

If God decreed it, it would be right, wouldn't it? Why wouldn't God decree it if it were right?

King Mob

Oh wait, got a conundrum to make JC's head explode like a robot given the Liar's paradox.

Can God make Darwinian evolution (the specific one you deny) happen?

liamw

King Mob wrote: »

Oh wait, got a conundrum to make JC's head explode like a robot given the Liar's paradox.

Can God make Darwinian evolution (the specific one you deny) happen?

Or more specifically, can god make one Kind evolve into another Kind? :pac:

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

... not really ...
If every person had only two children on average, then (using an average inter-generational length of 30 years), the world population could reach 1,000 million in less than 900 years:-

Years Population
30 2
60 4
90 8
120 16
150 32
180 64?
210 128
240 256
270 512
300 1024
330 2048
360 4096
390 8192
420 16384
450 32768
480 65536
510 131072
540 262144
570 524288
600 1,048,576
630 2097152
660 4194304
690 8388608
720 16777216
750 33554432
780 67108864
810 134217728
840 268435456
870 536,870,912
900 1,073,741,824

PS ... it is likely that population growth was actually much more rapid earlier on as large families led to large populations quickly ... and growth would have slowed down as resources became limiting ... and disease / famine took their toll later on.

Dude, there is a problem with your maths. According to your list, at year 90 there are 8 people living. Of those 8, two are Adam and Eve, four are their children and two are their grandchildren.

At 120 years there are 16 people living; Adam and Eve, their six children, six grand-children and two great-grandchidren...

... At 900 years there would be loads of people; Adam and Eve, their fifty-eight children, 3248 grand-children, ...., and half a billion ((great-great) times 28) -great-great-grandchildren.

For your figures to be correct, there are some strict constraints.

1) Not one single person can die,

2) Every time a generation produces two children, all the previous generations must produce two too!

3) Each couple must produce one each of a boy and girl

and 4) Only brothers and sisters mate.

You have another problem too; First there was Adam and Eve and they produced two boys, one of whom slew the other. When Adam was 'one-hundred and thirty' Seth was born.

That mean, giving you the extra ten years, that at 120 years there were four people alive one of whom was a baby. That means that since Eve was the only female, only one child would be produced by the next generation and unless a female is born, the following two generations will each produce one child.

So, at best, your figures should start at 180 years there are six people alive.

Isn't that right?

sponsoredwalk

I don't think JC's math is wrong in this situation.

J C wrote: »

If every person had only two children on average,

...

Yrs Population
00 1 (1 person has two children)
30 2 (These two children have grown up to around the age of 30 & have 2 kids each))
60 4 (These 4 kids have grown up & each have two kids, lets assume the two original children die now***)
90 8 (These 8 kids are now 30 & each have their own two children)
120 16 (You get where I'm going with this)
150 32
180 64
210 128
240 256
270 512
300 1024
...

So in general you can see how the population would surge if we were like
bacteria on a petri dish ignoring realistic constraints like people dying at
the age of 20, that people did not live to the age of 40 usually & would
not be able to wait until 30 to have children and about 50 other things JC
is ignoring in his calculation. He's already been shown to be a lying
charlatan both through his words & his "mathematical proofs", I don't
think people should allow him to forget that or to humour him with new
calculations designed to deceive, & lie to, you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlem1R-lUF0

*** Doesn't he believe that people around this time lived to the age of 900?

The Mad Hatter

Um, sponsoredwalk, I'm not sure how you've been doing it, but traditionally it takes two people to make a child.

himnextdoor

He might be learning something though and we could all end up agreeing.

Wouldn't that be mad?:cool:

sponsoredwalk

I always thought my asexual secret would be safe

But there's no reason why JC's calculation can't be interpreted as being the
lineage that just comes from Noah say, we could always include another
tree from the other incestuous folk living aboard the ancient yellow submarine.
Better include this disclaimer: None of this in any way validates anything he
is saying, just pointing out that the exponential growth he is talking about
could, in vacuo, make sense. He's got a real problem with
accounting for the real world, took us at least 5 months to get him to
acknowledge his last proof only makes sense in empty space working with
abstract entities permutating ignoring everything in reality.

himnextdoor wrote: »

He might be learning something though and we could all end up agreeing.

Wouldn't that be mad?

3900+ posts & 8 months into this thread I still believe it's possible!

himnextdoor

Maybe each baby makes its own parents?

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

The differential in time is accounted for by Noah being the common male ancestor of all men ... and Eve being the common female ancestor of all Humans.
The evolutionist dates are 'out' by a factor of approximately 20 in each case i.e. Eve lived about 7,000 years ago ... and Noah lived about 4,500 years ago!!!:)
... so it was actually Y-Chromosome Noah ... and Mitochondrial Eve.

... but Adam was the original common ancestor ... and the original Y-chromosome progenitor.

Have you any proof that "The evolutionist dates are 'out' by a factor of
approximately 20 in each case"? If you don't I am going to say, again,
that you are a complete liar when you make a statement like this.

The Mad Hatter

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I always thought my asexual secret would be safe

But there's no reason why JC's calculation can't be interpreted as being the
lineage that just comes from Noah say, we could always include another
tree from the other incestuous folk living aboard the ancient yellow submarine.
Better include this disclaimer: None of this in any way validates anything he
is saying, just pointing out that the exponential growth he is talking about
could, in vacuo, make sense.

I'm afraid it doesn't. Think about it again:

00 1 (1 person has two children) (We'll ignore this one, for reasons above.)
30 2 (These two children have grown up to around the age of 30 & have 2 kids each)) (No, two kids with each other. Result: two kids.)
60 4 (These 4 kids have grown up & each have two kids, lets assume the two original children die now***)(And here it begins. Grandparents die, the two children beget two more children. Still two kids.)
90 8 (Ditto. Amazingly lucky, though, that so far every generation has had a boy and a girl, isn't it?)
120 16 (You get where I'm going with this)(Dittoer.)

sponsoredwalk

Madhatter you didn't read what JC wrote, he said:

If every person had only two children on average

00 1 (1 person has two children) (We'll ignore this one, for reasons above.)
30 2 (These two children have grown up to around the age of 30 & have 2 kids each)) (No, two kids with each other. Result: two kids.)
(JC said "every person" so I take that to mean just that, every child born has two kids - not every couple).

I thought we were talking about the population surge after Noah's magic
yellow wooden submarine, if we are then because there were 8 people on
it there is every possible chance that child A of 1 couple could have 2
children with child B of another couple & that child B could have two
children of his/her own with child C (incestually of not). You see what I
mean.

I think this fantasy is just not worth talking about, it's plausible in a
sense but the whole fcuking idea of it is just ludicrous to begin with.
If you indulge him in this you're letting him win, there are thousands of
facts we should be putting in his face about why this whole thing never
happened to begin with rather than accepting his premise & looking for
the many flaws that still exist therein (not even mentioning the immorality
of the whole fcuking idea to begin with).

The Mad Hatter

Ah, I see, there's wordplay here as well. I imagine what J C meant to imply was what I inferred, but what you - correctly - read was his fall-back when we first found fault with his figures. (Further evidence that he's trolling.)

sponsoredwalk

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Ah, I see, there's wordplay here as well. I imagine what J C meant to imply was what I inferred, but what you - correctly - read was his fall-back when we first found fault with his figures. (Further evidence that he's trolling.)

Yeah, the whole thing is a trap to begin with...

himnextdoor

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Madhatter you didn't read what JC wrote, he said:

I thought we were talking about the population surge after Noah's magic
yellow wooden submarine, if we are then because there were 8 people on
it there is every possible chance that child A of 1 couple could have 2
children with child B of another couple & that child B could have two
children of his/her own with child C (incestually of not). You see what I
mean.

We were talking of the population size at the time of the flood. (I thought)

The problem I was trying to solve is how did eight people who survived the flood managed to repopulate the world to the extent that there were nations established within seconds of the flood abating.

The Egyptian timeline shows no sign of a population crash caused by a flood and J C has implied that the 'Egyptian' history was invented by the descendents of the flood survivers.

Thing is; if Noah's descendants are to invent an Egyptian history then why would they write it in such a way as to contradict the Bible which they also wrote?

Whoever wrote Egyptian history completely ignored the flood and created a continuous lineage that spans the period before and after the flood; of Egyptians complete with a language they spoke before and after the flood.

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

NO ... because God wouldn't decree such a thing!!

... please remember that it was God and not another Human who caused the Flood.

And it would have been a violent event. Apparently trees were seperated from their roots; animal bones were smashed to pieces. How come we don't find 4500-year old Egyptian artifacts in archeological digs outside Egypt?