Early Egyptian Dynasties

Arikay said:

(population growth)

And your getting this from the bible?

Or from one of those creationist groups that treat the human population like an exponential equation and pretend thats how it worked in real life?

Click to expand...

Dodd, quoted in Clark's commentary (p.59)... also cited in Notes on Genesis Walter Maier, chapter 2, note 42.


I guess as a fundamentist YEC, I can't reference anything outside the Bible while other "professing Christians" can slaughter the Word of God with everything BUT biblical references??????


~malaka~

Malaka said:

There is enough time in the chronology for the flood to have occurred before the beginnings of civilizations in Egypt. The 6,000-10,000 year time frame allows for that.

Click to expand...

Most professional YEC organizations I've seen peg the flood around 4000-4500 years ago. Using their estimates, there is not enough time.

And why the 6k-10k year range? Where does this 4000 year discrepancy come from?

I was just wondering if it came from the bible.

The problem is, evidence says a different view on population growth, but thats often ignored for a nice false math version of population growth, that fits with what is needed.

The question is not whether it Can work but whether it Did happen.

The fact that a nice exponential equation can make it all work, is much different than whether it happend like that. So is there any evidence to back it up, or is it just a guess, with no backing?

Just like the flood. It could have happend, but evidence suggests that it didnt.

Could and Did are two different things.

Malaka said:

Dodd, quoted in Clark's commentary (p.59)... also cited in Notes on Genesis Walter Maier, chapter 2, note 42.


I guess as a fundamentist YEC, I can't reference anything outside the Bible while other "professing Christians" can slaughter the Word of God with everything BUT biblical references??????


~malaka~

Click to expand...

troodon said:

So how long would it take for Egypt, India, Mesopotamia, and China to have regained populations large enough to support a well developed culture? Were these people also migrating into Europe, Africa, Australia, and the Americas at the same time or did they wait for these other cultures to get on their feet before they expanded there?

Oh, and did women ever die during childbirth back then or is that a more recent development? Childhood diseases anyone? As of the 19th century infant mortality rates were around 25% (and I would assume it to be higher 4,000 years ago). Is that figured into your "estimated population"?

Click to expand...

Do you want the "exact" numbers of years from the global flood to the dispersal of people at the tower of Babel, or is a quick estimate good enough for you????

about 200 years passed from the flood to the tower of Babel.

But before the tower of Babel...

The Bible tells us that the descendents of Japeth seemed to have gone north (Caspian Sea, Black Sea, Asia Minor, and Europe (?)), the descendants of Ham went wouth and wouthwest (Egypt, Africa, eastern Med, and Arabia), and the descendants of Shem settled in Mesopotamia, Arabia, and Persia)

I hope that helps in your understanding....

I don't know the birth statistics for the BCE time frame.... but I am certain that everyone that was born, died at some time except Elijah.


~malaka~

Arikay said:

I was just wondering if it came from the bible.

The problem is, evidence says a different view on population growth, but thats often ignored for a nice false math version of population growth, that fits with what is needed.

The question is not whether it Can work but whether it Did happen.

The fact that a nice exponential equation can make it all work, is much different than whether it happend like that. So is there any evidence to back it up, or is it just a guess, with no backing?

Just like the flood. It could have happend, but evidence suggests that it didnt.

Could and Did are two different things.

Click to expand...

Well, since the population of the earth is in the billions today, I think the sons of Noah were successful in replentishing the earth. You're here... that should be enough evidence that the world was repopulated.


~malaka~

Pete Harcoff said:

Most professional YEC organizations I've seen peg the flood around 4000-4500 years ago. Using their estimates, there is not enough time.

And why the 6k-10k year range? Where does this 4000 year discrepancy come from?

Click to expand...

The major difference is the compression of geneologies such as in Ezra 7:3, Matthew 1:1-17, 1 Chronicles 7:7.

~malaka~

Thats, um, Not evidence.

So, tell me one thing, is your number of around 32,000 based on a guess, or actual physical evidence?

And yes, taking 2 people and then making them reproduce exponentially is still just a guess, as it would need to be backed up by some evidence to be more than that.

Speaking of the flood, maybe you can answer a question I have.
I wrote this on the forum awhile ago,
http://www.geocities.com/arikayx/Creationismasscience.html

Can you show me the evidence that Should show up if its true?

Im also curious, when do you say the flood is, as your idea apparently differs with places like AIG.

Malaka said:

Well, since the population of the earth is in the billions today, I think the sons of Noah were successful in replentishing the earth. You're here... that should be enough evidence that the world was repopulated.


~malaka~

Click to expand...

troodon said:

Did a little search. According to this site "In the worst 19th century maternity hospitals the natural death rate from childbirth was 9-10%". Seeing as there were no hospitals (even bad ones) before, during, or anything close to shortly after the flood, I would expect this number to be higher as well. So was mother mortality figured into these calculations? Did they figure that Eve might have died after ~12 births?

You cannot approach ancient population growth as if it were the 1980's, you have to look back a lot farther in order to appreciate what they could have accomplished.

Click to expand...

Jewish tradition teaches that Adam and Eve had 33 sons and 23 daughters.... how many live to be adults... I don't have a clue...

Oh yeah... a reference to that information.... Josephus (note c to book 3)

~malaka~

Arikay said:

(population growth)

And your getting this from the bible?

Or from one of those creationist groups that treat the human population like an exponential equation and pretend thats how it worked in real life?

Click to expand...

Before this conversation continues... I am posting on a forum that is reserved for Christians.... might I hear your profession of faith before we continue... you seem to be standing against what the Bible teaches, and I don't believe that a professing Christian would make such a stand.

Maybe it's against the "rules" to ask for such a statement? *(I don't know) But then, maybe you don't mind sharing?


~malaka~

Arikay said:

Thats, um, Not evidence.

So, tell me one thing, is your number of around 32,000 based on a guess, or actual physical evidence?

And yes, taking 2 people and then making them reproduce exponentially is still just a guess, as it would need to be backed up by some evidence to be more than that.

Speaking of the flood, maybe you can answer a question I have.
I wrote this on the forum awhile ago,
http://www.geocities.com/arikayx/Creationismasscience.html

Can you show me the evidence that Should show up if its true?

Im also curious, when do you say the flood is, as your idea apparently differs with places like AIG.

Click to expand...

My friend,

If you want me to critique your article, send a request to me by PM... and I will be glad to address each point you posted in your article.

and as I posted in my last posting.... are you posting on the right forum?

~malaka~

"I am posting on a forum that is reserved for Christians.... might I hear your profession of faith before we continue"

This forum description is:
"Science, Creation & Evolution
Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers."

Maybe it is you who are on the wrong forum. However, if you are looking for people who agree with your views, you may not find the christians only forum any more comforting, as there are many christians there who accept evolution and are against creationism (remember, there is a difference between creation and creationism).

Nope, im not christian. But im not against christianity either. I actually support it. Unfortunatly Creationists seem to present a distorted image of it, and I dont like that.

" you seem to be standing against what the Bible teaches, and I don't believe that a professing Christian would make such a stand."

Please tell me how I am doing that?
I may be standing against Your interpretation of what the bible teaches, but I have not said anything here that is against christianity.

Are you against the flat earth theory, and believe the earth is round? If so you are going against what a literal interpretation of the bible teaches.

However, if you would like to claim that you must be a YEC to be christian, maybe you should start a thread on it, I know quite a few christians who would probably want to have a word with you.

As far as the article, I dont really want a critique, just the evidence that should be there if those creationist claims in the "article" (I dont really think of it as one ) are right. however im always open to corrections.

However, it would be interesting to know if you are baseing your population count on actual physical evidence, just exponential math, or maybe something else?

Malaka said:

Before this conversation continues... I am posting on a forum that is reserved for Christians.... might I hear your profession of faith before we continue... you seem to be standing against what the Bible teaches, and I don't believe that a professing Christian would make such a stand.

Maybe it's against the "rules" to ask for such a statement? *(I don't know) But then, maybe you don't mind sharing?



~malaka~

Click to expand...

Arikay said:

"I am posting on a forum that is reserved for Christians.... might I hear your profession of faith before we continue"

This forum description is:
"Science, Creation & Evolution
Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers."

Maybe it is you who are on the wrong forum....

Click to expand...

I returned to look at the posting, and I find that I was sent her by a link posted by another member...

My apologies... I have no intention of spending time on this forum as I have publicly posted in the past.


The members on this forum don't follow the rules, and therefore, I don't want to be a participant.

Again, my regrets. Have a good day.
~malaka~

Malaka said:

The members on this forum don't follow the rules, and therefore, I don't want to be a participant.

Again, my regrets. Have a good day.
~malaka~

Click to expand...

in what way don't se follow the rules? I barely ever see any anti-christian postings in the science forum, and equally little pro-atheist posts. The majority of people here seem to be either theistic evolutionists, agnostic evolutionists, or atheistic who say so little about their religious bias that they may as well be agnostic.

please don't go round making accusations that we don't follow the rules, because we do.

I, like Jet black, am curious what rules you think I or others are breaking?

You may see me as going against the bible, but I am only going against your personal interpretation of the bible, and not it or christianity.

That is, if you do come back here. Which I hope you do, and not leave your claim unsubstantiated.

Malaka said:

I returned to look at the posting, and I find that I was sent her by a link posted by another member...

My apologies... I have no intention of spending time on this forum as I have publicly posted in the past.


The members on this forum don't follow the rules, and therefore, I don't want to be a participant.

Again, my regrets. Have a good day.
~malaka~

Click to expand...

I PMed him to find out what he was talking about, and he doesnt like that we often break the guidelines posted at the top of the forum (the top post).

From the sound of it, I doubt we will get him back here to actually support his claims.

Arikay said:

I PMed him to find out what he was talking about, and he doesnt like that we often break the guidelines posted at the top of the forum (the top post).

From the sound of it, I doubt we will get him back here to actually support his claims.

Click to expand...

heh: well from what I see,

(1) is rarely broken

(2) not applicable

(3) broken more often than not by YECers, rarely broken by evolutionists

(4) see 3

(5) this seems to be fairly chilled out place, though anyone can reture from a convo if they like. so six of one and half a dozen of the other if it happens

(6) I'll let him have this one though as with 5, both sides are equally to blame, though I do see evolutionists try and limit the conversation more than the creationists do

(7) see 3 and 4.

Yeah, I was looking at them and I agree. And not to mention that number 4 (Im assuming thats the Talk origins and AIG one) states at the begining that its only a suggestion.

As far as 3 and 4, I have rarely seen evolutionists plagerize, but it almost seems common with some creationists that I have run into recently.
And with 4, I also rarely see evolutionists post entire articles, only quote sections, but we have recently had creationists do so with AIG articles.

It seems like he is either really sensative to rule breaking, or he just wanted a reason to leave. But I dont know.

I think he just wanted an excuse. not many people like it when their opinions are under assault by fact.