Off the Grid wrote:
The US is an amazing place....people will believe anything...so out of step w/ the rest of the world...
Unlike that beacon of progressive thought, Taiwan, right? Gotta love smug American expats scumming around Asia.
Off the Grid wrote:
The US is an amazing place....people will believe anything...so out of step w/ the rest of the world...
Unlike that beacon of progressive thought, Taiwan, right? Gotta love smug American expats scumming around Asia.
Rational Faith wrote:
It takes a lot of "belief" in evolution. Take for example the population of the earth today. If humans have populated the earth for hundreds of thousands of years, there wouldn't be enough room on this planet to fit them all. Here is the math and explanation.
Example #1:
Fact: gestation period for a human is roughly 9 months
Fact: a human can easily have a baby every year during child bearing years
Fact: child bearing years last AT LEAST 20 years
So, year zero being the exiting of the Ark.
This is of course conservative, and doesn't take into account variables that can't be taken into account as this is a fact based look.
Noah and 3 sons and 4 wives have a child every year for 20 years. At year 20 then, there are a total of 80 children.
Since this is conservative, I'm waiting 20 years before reproducing any children from the children, ie the next set of child bearing children will be between the ages of 20 and 40.
So at year 40, those 80 children begin reproducing for 20 consecutive years. After 20 years of reproduction, those 80 children will turn into 800 children. This is year 60, and there are 800 children on top of the 80 and 4.
So at year 80, those 800 children who are now between the ages of 20 and 40 begin reproducing. This results in a population of 8,000 at year 100.
Sticking with the 20 year wait period. At year 120 those 8,000 begin reproducing resulting in 80,000 children of the ages of 20 - 40 at year 160.
So at year 200, there are 800,000 children who begin reproducing.
Resulting in 8 million children between the ages of 20 and 40 at year 240.
So at year 280 there are 80 million children between the ages of 20 and 40 able to reproduce, and at year 320 there are 800,000,000 who begin reproducing...
Leaving us at a tidy and fully factually possible sum, based on human genetics and child birth, at 8 BILLION PEOPLE ON THE PLANET 360 YEARS AFTER NOAH LEFT THE ARK.
----------------------------------------------------------
Example #2:
Today’s world population hovers near 6.5 billion people, growing at an annual rate of 2.3%. A statistic somewhat mind-boggling observation is, that more people are alive today than have ever lived before. Just in the last one hundred years, the world population has increased more than six-fold.
We can use these numbers and attempt to work backwards to calculate how long it would take to grow this world population at different growth rates starting with “Adam and Eve”. The result of this exercise has resulted in table 7-2. Assuming a generation to be 25 years, the table also shows the average number of children per family that corresponds with the growth rate:
Growth Rate Aver num of children Age of Mankind
2% 3.3 1,150 years
1% 2.5 2,275 years
0.5% 2.25 4,550 years
0.25% 2.12 9,100 years
This demonstrates that even with a very low growth rate of the population, such as .5% (quite low compared to the current 2.3%) and the average number of children per family 2.25, only 4,550 years would be required to grow a population of 6.5 billion from just one original couple. Even with the growth rate at only .25%, only 9,100 years would be required to achieve the same.
One might claim that the lack of medical knowledge dramatically lowered the average life expectancy of our “ancient” ancestors, forcing the growth rate to be much lower. However mankind has a strong drive to populate and continue to preserve and grow the species. As observed often today, areas with the lowest degree of development and by far the lowest life expectancy, see their population growing the fastest. Women can bear children in their teenage years, so even a life expectancy of only 25 or 30 years of age, still gives more than enough time to get large families.
The same applies for the aftermath of epidemics (for instance, the plague in Europe in 1347) and the effect of major wars or other catastrophes. Historical records show usually a population boom right afer the catastrophic event. This boom compensates within a few generations for the more than average loss of life. For instance, the devastating plagues of 1347 killed an estimated 50-75% of the population in many European countries, but in less than 200 years, the dip in population had been completely recovered. That’s why the generation born right after WWII is called – the Baby Boomers.
The Population Boom After the European Plagues
A similar line of thinking challenges that even the low range of the biochemical estimate of 37,000 years of human habitation might still be too high. If the “first family” was alive that long ago, even at a low growth rate of .5% we now should have a world population of 1.4 x 1080 (that would be calculated as (1 + 0.005 (the .5% growth rate)) ^ 37,000 (years)).
Lastly, please notice that the global flood described by the Bible happened about 4,500-5,000 years ago. This event would be quite consistent with the above calculations of growth rate and size of today’s world population.
This exercise shows that mankind didn't need to take 100,000 years to reach 6.5 Billion people.
You just copied that word for word from:
Prepared to Answer: A Step-by-step Guide to Bring the Power of Christian Evidences to You Life
http://books.google.com/books?id=4B-TKk_q48kC&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=%22The+same+applies+for+the+aftermath+of+epidemics%22&source=bl&ots=MLbr8yv_qZ&sig=CD3HU4mjA5qwCguHqzzygJbd2u8&hl=en&ei=T-LaS86eDpO4NpHzqWU&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20same%20applies%20for%20the%20aftermath%20of%20epidemics%22&f=falsetrolls or not, I do enjoy these topics and what spews out of some people
AnEngineer wrote:
Old Boat != Noah's Ark.
"There have been several reported discoveries of the remains of Noah's Ark over the years, most notably a find by archaeologist Ron Wyatt in 1987. At the time, the Turkish government officially declared a national park around his find, a boat-shaped object stretched across the mountains of Ararat."
So, they already "found" the ark once, and declared it a national park. Oops!
An old boat is not necessarily Noah's Ark. Even if it is a boat from an old story, that doesn't prove the flood happened, or even if it did, that God caused it and Noah was on a mission from God with 2 of every animal.
How big is the ark? Has anyone calculated how much space you'd need for 2 of every species that exists today?
It is not 2 of every species that exists to day. It would be 2 of every kind. Species is a relatively new term and it's meant to classify basically any diverging genetic pathway. Kinds would have been much broader.
"Kinds" is not a valid biological term. It is a catch all phrase invented by creationists because it is obscure enough in its definition to evade direct attack, but specific enough to magically solve all the problems that come up when one thinks critically about genesis. How could at the very least a million species of animals fit on a boat? Hmm, well they weren't species, they were kinds! And there are only 800 or so kinds, that's not that many at all! Easily could've fit on a boat! Kinds adapted and evolved by regular evolutionary means, can't you evolutionists accept that!? Funny how you can use the theory when it suits you, but deny the evidence when it contradicts the Bible.
bootsie wrote:
It's a hoax. Guaranteed.
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0429/ark-hunter-potential-noah-hoax-christians-gullible/And just yesterday, it was in the news that they found an asteroid in between Mars and Jupiter that contained water and organic material. Further proof of how life started on earth. I'm proud to live in a time where we are finally thoroughly discrediting religious nonsense and using reason and science to explain how we came to be. A world without religion= a chance for world peace.
Don't kid yourself. If you think getting of religion would solve all the world's problems and eliminate violence, then you are more gullible than anyone else here or anyone who believed this story. Not only because humans are inherently evil, but because some of the biggest mass murderers throughout history were atheists. I'm not even saying that means all atheists are immoral. I'm just saying you better watch where you place your blame because eventually you're going to find that it applies to all of us, even you and everyone you know.
bootsie wrote:
Don't kid yourself. If you think getting of religion would solve all the world's problems and eliminate violence, then you are more gullible than anyone else here or anyone who believed this story. Not only because humans are inherently evil, but because some of the biggest mass murderers throughout history were atheists. I'm not even saying that means all atheists are immoral. I'm just saying you better watch where you place your blame because eventually you're going to find that it applies to all of us, even you and everyone you know.
Name them...I wanna hear this piece of mis-information...
(This thread could use a new direction as I think we have proven quite soundly that this is a hoax and religion is for the feeble-minded)
Well....
trotty moore wrote:
The Silent Super Majority wrote:Haha you people that are SO sure that we all evolved from material less than pond scum are quiet humorous. I understand that religion takes a huge leap of faith, but if you understood the human body and how utterly complex it is, it would take another huge leap of faith to believe we came from a few atoms of organic material. There are so many things that could go wrong with your theories but you still believe them, not because you know, but largely because you are ignorant. Any one that is 100% certain we come from a couple specs of carbon is completely ignorant.
But it is believable to think a man in the sky could create the complexities of the human body and the natural world around us out of nothing? Now THAT is humorous.
Why is it so hard to think that God created the world so we would evolve? I think for him that would be more fun. If you take the story of Adam and Eve and think they were the first humans, wow.
But it's even more humorous to think that it poofed out of nothing on its own and THEN somehow made itself into everything. By the way, God is outside of time and space. It doesn't matter what's "fun." He is not affected by the dimensions of the universe. If everything can just create itself, why is it so humorous to believe that an all-powerful creator could have done it? Why should the complexity of the human body be a barrier to an all-powerful creator?
Logical Faith wrote:
NObama Owns You wrote:3 words: Show me proof.
How old is the earth?
If we go back 500 years, we come to the time of Martin Luther (born in 1483), and Columbus, who “sailed the ocean blue in 1492.”
If we go back 1000 years, we come to the time of Leif Ericson, Christian explorer, who preached Christ to pagans. (World Book, 1983, vol.6, page 270.)
If we go back 2000 years, we come to the birth of Jesus Christ. Our calendar is dated from His birth.
If we go back 3000 years, we come to the time of David and Solomon; they ruled Israel about 1000 BC.
If we go back 4000 years, we come to the time of Abraham (2000 BC), ancestor of Arabs and Jews.
If we go back 5000 years, we come to the time of Enoch, who “walked with God 300 years … and God took him [into Heaven].”
If we go back 6000 years, we come to the time of Creation, and Adam and Eve (4004 BC). Luke, evangelist and historian, records Adam as the first man (Luke 3:38).
The earth is about 6000 years old. Let God's people rejoice in Him who made them! (Psalm 149:2)
If not, then when?
Although many people don't accept the Bible's timeline of history, they have difficulty deciding exactly when to start disagreeing with it.
* Was Jesus Christ real? The Bible says he was, and no serious historian doubts it.
* Was King David real? The Bible says he was. Again, there is no reason to doubt it.
* Was Abraham real? The Bible says he was. There seems no reason to doubt this either.
* Was Enoch real? The Bible says he was. There is no reason to think the Bible has suddenly lapsed into fiction when the other people were genuine historical figures.
* Was Adam real? Well, Enoch was a son of Cain, who was a son of Adam. So if Enoch was real there is no reason to think that his father Cain wasn't, or that his grandfather Adam wasn't. They were only two generations away.
And Adam was the first man, created in the first week of the earth's existence.
According to the Bible, he lived about 6000 years ago. So according to the Bible, the world also is about 6000 years old.
A word of caution: The Bible does not SAY the world is 6000 years old or that Adam lived 6000 years ago because then the Bible would only be right for 1 year. You get the dates by following the chronology.
I guess you believe no Christians ever go to college, then. That would make you the dumb one.
5000 years isn't nearly enough time for 800 "kinds" to evolve into millions and millions of species spread everywhere around the globe. In addition, there's no evidence of a huge explosion in species occurring 5000 years ago.
I would think the existence of dinosaurs would end any debate about a young Earth, but apparently some people have found an intellectual loophole to avoid thinking about it?
I was wondering how they stowed 2 of each of these.
First off you are pretty brave to call Moe stupid. Nice guy but don't piss him off. Having known him for 12 years I can say he one of the most intelligent people you'll ever meet. Genius IQ. Taught himself spanish, french, and has had contracts be held valid in federal court and to my knowledge has never taken a law course. Just my 2 cents for a great guy. And a good man who do anything for most anyone this board. BTW two of his hobbies are genealogy and history I guess both deal in numbers.
I don't think I called him stupid....
If I recall without looking at my exact post I called his theory pretty stupid because it is.
Good for him for teaching himself history. Going by that plagiarized theory he didn't teach himself very well. He did after all use someone else’s theory from the 1950s without really doing any research into the theory to find out that it has been debunk for a long time.
I am honestly trying to not be insulting but if you just read what he wrote it is obvious that he has some major flaws in his views of human population growth.
And I am not really worried about pissing him off this is an anonymous message board after all. Anyone who gets mad about what someone says over the internet has other issues that need to be dealt with.
Why must there be so much hate on this board?
KKiprotich wrote:
Why must there be so much hate on this board?
Testosterone + ignorance breeds hate
This entire thread is interesting because there have been few "real" attacks on posters, and even trolls. There is a lot of debate and no one is required to change their position, just like in a real life debate.
I agree with swafford11, that saying a theory is stupid is not saying a person is stupid. It simply means you disagree and find holes in what in what someone believes. Moes Tavern should feel offended. He can simply offer more information, or improve on his theory.
GRRRRRR
Moes Tavern should NOT feel offended.
Sorry for that dumb typo.
this is why wrote:
KKiprotich wrote:Why must there be so much hate on this board?
Testosterone + ignorance breeds hate
As the good book says, "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." Man seeks to worship himself, therefore he denies God. In so doing, he is in danger of losing his soul, seeing as how he denies the existence of the same, he isn't worried about it.
I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work.
- Adolf Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936