A new video by Aron-Ra

EternalDragon said:

From the wiki it says the Akkadian Empire was ca. 2334-2154 BC. The end of the flood was around 2300 BC.

I think the dates fit closely enough. Although scientists dating methods are not exactly accurate. They use circular reasoning a lot of times. Of course you always see established dates yet no details on how they were derived. Like we are supposed to just accept the stated dates on faith.

Click to expand...

Now that's some impressive cogantive dissonance.

First you use an arbritrary date for the Flood - something that never even happend - to establish your premise, then you go on to claim it is scientists who are being capricious with their dating.

Wow. Just wow.

EternalDragon said:

Just from some research I can see they are off with Egyptian dates as they are not reliable. That pushes all the dates up some.

Click to expand...

According to Creationists who need them to be "unreliable" so they can shoehorn their rediculous chronologies into known archeology and anthropology. In fact, the dates are pretty close because there are a number of kings lists and they can be compared.
Abydos King List - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EternalDragon said:

In just 350 years, according to population growth statistics, 4 couples could re-populate the earth to 14 million people. (It was just not Noah and his wife.)

Click to expand...

This Creationist math falls apart on so many levels. You wind up with every woman giving birth to X children who all grow up and have children themselves, etc. etc. - in a period where the entire surface of the planet had been scowered clean by the Flood, where technology was reduced to whatever Noah took on the Ark, where infant mortality rates are lower than they were until the late 20th Century, etc. etc.

You also wind up with stumpers like the Akkadian empire consisting of 25 people or the entire world having 1000 people when some of the Pyramids were built.

It's the data version of quote mining - looking at a single factor in a vacuum without considering the myriad other factors that would effect population growth.

And has anyone mentioned the lack of a genetic bottleneck yet?

EternalDragon said:

How is it so hard to do simple math or look up population statistics? Each couple, if they have 3 daughters and those three daughters have 3 daughters and so on you get to over 14 million in 350 years. It is 3 to the power of 15.

Click to expand...

See above - it's not just simple math.

Besides, simple math shows I have 11 fingers.

Counting down from right hand pinkey - 10
right hand ring - 9
right hand middle - 8
right hand index - 7
right hand thumb - 6
plus 5 on my left hand is 11.

See.. it's simple math.

EternalDragon said:

For people who seem to know so much about evolution I figured this stuff was common knowledge. Or do you really ignore anything that doesn't fit your belief system?

Click to expand...

You might want to take your irony meter into the shop. It doesn't appear to be working.

lasthero said:

Heck, as one of the commentors point out, at 650 years, this would have the population at 15 trillion. TRILLION. With a T. Not million. Not billion. TRILLION. And the guy who wrote that never proposes any reason for this number to slow down. Nothing.

This is amateur hour.

Click to expand...

There is some evidence that a sentient population in the trillions existed in the past...
Xenu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...for very elastic definitions of "some".

Plus the fact that Sumaria has a myth similar to the tower of Babe

Click to expand...

Has it ever occurred the reason these myths are similar is because the Bible cribbed it from them? Just saying. That's a possibility.

Central America also has a story of a tower of babel that is close to what the Bible states.

Click to expand...

Where in Central America, and who did it belong to? I'm pretty sure there was a lot more than just one group of people in Central America.

So if you look at the oldest known Sumarian language (around 2000 B.C.) and the oldest known beginning of Egypt (around 2686 B.C.) they both fall within very close proximity to the end of the flood which was around 2349 B.C

Click to expand...

Couple things.

First, I'm not sure where you got those numbers, but they're wrong. Egyptian civilization goes back further than that.

Ancient Egyptian Timeline

Sumerian language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Second, even if that was when Egypt began - and it's not - that gives Egypt only 337 years to develop a culture, religion, technology and society that are so far apart from one another that nobody would think they have roots in the Abrahamic tradition.

The Toltecs also have a story of a deluge, people building a tower and then their languages were confounded and they scattered.

Click to expand...

Let's explore that story about the deluge.


One of the Tezcatlipocas (sons of the original dual god) transformed himself into the Sun and created the first humans to show up his brothers. The other gods, angry at his audacity, had Quetzalcoatl destroy the people, which he did with a flood. The people became fish. [Leon-Portilla, p. 450]

So, yeah. Polytheistic. The Sun is god. Happened not because of anything man did, but because the gods are jerks and they didn't like people. Ends with everyone becoming fish.

...but yeah, it does mention a flood. It's not like floods happen all over the world and would be very devastating to people who can't even begin to fathom why it's raining so much.

Also, I can't find any source for the tower thing. At least not one that isn't a Christian website and doesn't bother to show an independent source. But hey, let's take that at face value and ignore the fact the Toltec share absolutely nothing else with Noah's culture. A couple of myths must mean they're connected.

This can't be a coincidence across the entire globe

Click to expand...

Really? It can't? Countless myths around the world, cultures sharing stories and crossing over and mingling for thousands of years, and it's just impossible that there might be some mixing? Heck, it's not even possible that some of the mythmakers might have had similar ideas?

lasthero said:

Heck, as one of the commentors point out, at 650 years, this would have the population at 15 trillion. TRILLION. With a T. Not million. Not billion. TRILLION. And the guy who wrote that never proposes any reason for this number to slow down. Nothing.

This is amateur hour.

Click to expand...

It's a math equation based on what we already know about population increases. It's not meant to show a slow down or factor in assumptions. It just basically shows that it can happen...easily.

We can see growth rates today that already have those other things factored in and it does not slow down growth rates. The Israelites in Egypt actually multiplied faster than the Egyptians and they were worked as hard as humanly possible.

If you and 3 other couples were the only ones on earth after a disaster are you going to have less kids or as many as possible? In just one or two years and so on there would have been an abundance of food for everyone.

EternalDragon said:

It's a math equation

Click to expand...

That is true.

based on what we already know about population increases.

Click to expand...

And that is not.

It's not meant to show a slow down or factor in assumptions. It just basically shows that it can happen...easily.

Click to expand...

And that is wrong also, for the reasons already explained. You basically need to have a disease free, famine free, mortality free society for this to happen. You don't have that, especially if this would happen after a global flood.

We can see growth rates today that already have those other things factored in and it does not slow down growth rates. The Israelites in Egypt actually multiplied faster than the Egyptians and they were worked as hard as humanly possible.

Click to expand...

Source?

If you and 3 other couples were the only ones on earth after a disaster are you going to have less kids or as many as possible? In just one or two years and so on there would have been an abundance of food for everyone.

Click to expand...

You may have many kids, but many will die as well. You need to be able to support kids you know. They eat, they need attention, they get sick, etc. We do know what population growth rates are, and except for the past fifty to hundred years or so, growths rates are not at all high.

It's a math equation based on what we already know about population increases. It's not meant to show a slow down or factor in assumptions. It just basically shows that it can happen...easily.

Click to expand...

It's not how population growth rates are actually determined, it factors in absolutely nothing, it has human beings growing at rate that's never been observed, not even in the present day, and it makes the insanely boneheaded assumption that everyone is going to have three daughters. In other words, it utterly useless, and no, it can't happen.

It's a random blog made by a guy with no expertise on the subject doing 6th grade math. Find a better source. The fact that it has human beings reaching to the trillions should be the first clue that this is not a reflection of realistic growth rates, and that it's way, way too high. We don't multiply like that. You can't just follow something like to the point where it fits what you want it to say, then ignore the rest of it.

The Israelites in Egypt actually multiplied faster than the Egyptians and they were worked as hard as humanly possible.

Click to expand...

That's what the Bible says, yeah, but seeing as there's very little, if any indication that the Israelites were ever actually enslaved in Egypt, much less any way to verify independently how quickly they might have reproduced, this does not help your case. As far as real, verifiable populations go, there is no reason to think such reproduction is even feasible.

If you and 3 other couples were the only ones on earth after a disaster are you going to have less kids or as many as possible? In just one or two years and so on there would have been an abundance of food for everyone.

Click to expand...

You're a father, so I assume you realize there's a lot more to raising and having kids than feeding them. Nevermind that I seriously doubt the entire planet's ecosystem is just gonna bounce back from a global catastrophe in two years.

...and it has human beings growing at rate that's never been observed, not even in the present day.

Click to expand...

That's the key take away. My rough estimate indicates every couple would need to produce 3.5-4 children to produce 14.5 million in 350 years from just 6 starting individuals.

With 100% survival. 100% fertility. And all the incumbent problems of taming a salted over, barren hellscape.

Not to mention war and conflict.

Meanwhile, in similar technological levels (eg: rural west african villages), mortality is nearly 20% just for children under one year old. And closer to 40% die before reproduction.

When you get these prominent anti-theist atheists talking about evolution I believe it gives a false impression that evolution and atheism are somehow inextricably linked, and that if you accept the former you're in danger of accepting the latter. That turns Christians away from evolution and science in general...

Annualized growth rate: P(t) = P_0 * e^(r * t)
solve for r with p = 14,500,000, P_0 = 6 and t= 350

r = ln ( 14,500,000/6) /350
r = 4.2%

Let's see if even with modern technology, the fastest growing countries on earth are, in order...
Rank ordering countries by growth rate (UN 2010 figures):
Liberia 4.55%
Burundi 3.9%
Afghanistan 3.85%

Therefore it is reasonable to assume, as usual, that the Discovery Institute, AIG & Ken Ham are full of BS.

Strathos said:

When you get these prominent anti-theist atheists talking about evolution I believe it gives a false impression that evolution and atheism are somehow inextricably linked, and that if you accept the former you're in danger of accepting the latter.

Click to expand...

Paul says it best.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

In other words, professing themselves to be [Homo] sapiens, they became atheists.

Annualized growth rate: P(t) = P_0 * e^(r * t)
solve for r with p = 14,500,000, P_0 = 6 and t= 350

r = ln ( 14,500,000/6) /350
r = 4.2%

Click to expand...

One thing to add - it should actually be higher than this. It's easy to miss, but the equation is only for daughters - so, and I'm saying this knowing that mathematics aren't my specialty in the least - I'm guessing the rate should be double, 8.4%? Correct me if my thinking's wrong.

Irrelevant since a two shows up on both sides.

Okay. Generally do not touch math, I tend to fumble it.

Speaking in terms of fertility, which is children per woman, you would be correct. To acheive a 4% annualized growth rate as a country (men and women), 8% of all women in the country need to have born a child that year. Which is pretty much every fertile woman based on the demographics in these countries.

* slightly more, death and all.

AV1611VET said:

Paul says it best.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

In other words, professing themselves to be [Homo] sapiens, they became atheists.

Click to expand...

No. He did not mean if you profess yourself to be human, you become an atheist. You "bible" Christians love to change the bible to meet your own prejudices. And then you claim it is sacred and inerrant.

Lethe said:

Annualized growth rate: P(t) = P_0 * e^(r * t)
solve for r with p = 14,500,000, P_0 = 6 and t= 350

r = ln ( 14,500,000/6) /350
r = 4.2%

Let's see if even with modern technology, the fastest growing countries on earth are, in order...
Rank ordering countries by growth rate (UN 2010 figures):
Liberia 4.55%
Burundi 3.9%
Afghanistan 3.85%

Therefore it is reasonable to assume, as usual, that the Discovery Institute, AIG & Ken Ham are full of BS.

Click to expand...

I believe the growth rate mathematically calculated for Noah's group was at .46%. That is comparable with current population growth rates in Switzerland, France, the United Kingdom....

Are you trying to help me prove my point?

I'm demonstrating that 350 years from 6 to 14.5 million is absurd.

How did you not follow that?

1) What growth rate would be required to achieve 14.5 million from six?
Answer: Somewhere north of 4.2%

2) Have we ever seen that growth rate today, with all our amazing technology and ability to defeat death in numerous ways?

NO.

3) CONCLUSION: Ken Ham is full of nonsense. Or, much more unlikely, a pre-industrial society, pre-modern medicine, achieved growth rates never achieved anywhere else except certain locations during the height of the industrial revolution.