Creationists: can you explain post-Flood repopulation?

[AV1611VET]

It ruined my life, the life of drinking, smoking, and womanizing. Thank you Lord for "ruining" my life.

We had a missionary visit our church once and he told this story:

He was on hospital visitation, carrying his Bible, and when he was leaving the hospital there was this woman smoking a cigarette.

When she saw him, she dropped her cigarette and put it out.

"Please pray for me that I can kick this filthy habit," she asked.

"No, mam, I won't do that," he replied.

Surprised, she scowled and asked, "Why not? Isn't that what you're supposed to do?"

"No, mam," he said. "Jesus died on the Cross to save you from your sins, not your habits; and until you see smoking as a sin, there's nothing God can do for you."

She walked off in a snit.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

When you have more than 1800 threads where you are the only participant and do nothing more than post numbers counting to a 1,000 in a lame attempt to intentionally inflate your post count, who cares how many posts you have?

I'm confuzzled as to why anyone would inflate their post count on an internet forum. Is there some sort of privilege or income that comes with a higher count? I just looked at mine and it is 3.96. I am deliberating abandoning my account here because it feels like an unproductive and discouraging use of time, and I mainly come here when I'm in the car, procrastinating, seriously bored, or can't sleep, and still......

Fine ... filter them out.

I would still have more posts than he.

Isn't quality more useful than quantity on here?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm confuzzled as to why anyone would inflate their post count on an internet forum. Is there some sort of privilege or income that comes with a higher count?

It keeps me off the streets.

I just looked at mine and it is 3.96. I am deliberating abandoning my account here because it feels like an unproductive and discouraging use of time,

DON'T DO THAT! STAY HERE!

... and I mainly come here when I'm in the car,

Hopefully not while driving!?

Isn't quality more useful than quantity on here?

Yes, indeed.

But would you say to someone who has, say, 1000 posts that he has never defended anything? especially if you don't know what all he has said in those thousand posts?

Suppose I made the statement: This site has never mentioned rice pudding!

Wouldn't you wonder how accurate my statement is, knowing that this site has tens of millions of posts in several different forums and sub-forums?

I couldn't possibly have read them all.

 

[crjmurray]

http://www.christianforums.com/search.php?searchid=7088746

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Rather than just going on impressions, we can look at data. Genetically, humans are more similar to each other than most members of animal species are.

So, Emperor penguins are more genetically diverse than humans?

 

[sfs]

So, Emperor penguins are more genetically diverse than humans?

I don't think anyone has done a study of enough of the genome to know for sure. The one study I can find suggests that yes, they're more diverse.

 

[KWCrazy]

Weren't you just telling me how silly it was to think that there would only be 24 people after 300 years?

With the population growth rate and doubling time that you have given, at 390 years after the Flood, there would be 36 people on the planet.

Year 1 = 8 people (only 6 of which are reproducing
Year 149 = 12 people
Year 298 = 24 people
Year 390 = 36 people (Time of Tower of Babel)
Year 447 = 48 people

Who's feeling silly now? No offense intended of course.

This example only showed an ultra conservative rate of growth which still answered the population issue. My version would be:
First generation, three women have 10 children each who live. Population is now Noah and wife, three sons with three wives, 30 children; population 38.
In the next generation, 15 children have 10 children each who live. Population is now 188. In the next generation, 75 children have 10 children who live. Population is now 938. By the next generation, the population is now 4,688. We'll let the whole first generation die off , so 4650. Assume half are women who continue to reproduce at the same rate, and now there are 23,250 people just five generations after Noah. Assume that you lose a generation with the next cycle, that's 23,250, half of whom are women, producing 116,250 people plus the previous 23,250 still alive minus the 188 who died. In the sixth generation you have 139,312 people. Assuming that a generation is 40 years (20 years to puberty, 20 years to birth a child every two years), that's only 120 years.

So now let's cut the birth rate down to four. This doubles the population with every subsequent generation. So in the seventh generation after Noah you have 274,624 people, in the 8th 549,248.00. By the twelfth generation you have 8,787,968 people on the planet.

Conceivable? Absolutely.

 

[crjmurray]

This example only showed an ultra conservative rate of growth which still answered the population issue. My version would be:
First generation, three women have 10 children each who live. Population is now Noah and wife, three sons with three wives, 30 children; population 38.
In the next generation, 15 children have 10 children each who live. Population is now 188. In the next generation, 75 children have 10 children who live. Population is now 938. By the next generation, the population is now 4,688. We'll let the whole first generation die off , so 4650. Assume half are women who continue to reproduce at the same rate, and now there are 23,250 people just five generations after Noah. Assume that you lose a generation with the next cycle, that's 23,250, half of whom are women, producing 116,250 people plus the previous 23,250 still alive minus the 188 who died. In the sixth generation you have 139,312 people. Assuming that a generation is 40 years (20 years to puberty, 20 years to birth a child every two years), that's only 120 years.

So now let's cut the birth rate down to four. This doubles the population with every subsequent generation. So in the seventh generation after Noah you have 274,624 people, in the 8th 549,248.00. By the twelfth generation you have 8,787,968 people on the planet.

Conceivable? Absolutely.

Conceivable? I don't think that word.......never mind too easy.

 

[JacksBratt]

Perhaps but sometimes an abortion can save two lives, the child from being unloved, unwanted and rejected and the mother from living a life filled with regret and hate.

Thousands of couples who cannot have their own children would argue this point. You should check out the baby box. Places in different countries where babies are put if they are not wanted and people take them from the box and find them homes.

If you talk to most women who have had an abortion, in time they will be the ones who are filled with regret.

People even American people will look back on this argument as just so much wasted effort just like gay marriage,
it's here and it's all over the world and it's here to stay.

Hopefully, as we gain knowledge, we will look back on this argument with shame.

A human life is not disposable.

Of course, if you are of the evolution belief, we are just random beings, the product of random mutations over a huge span of time. There is no soul, just flesh and blood which is just a link in the bendable breakable malleable chain of organisms on this planet.

 

[JacksBratt]

It ruined my life, the life of drinking, smoking, and womanizing. Thank you Lord for "ruining" my life.

 

[crjmurray]

Thousands of couples who cannot have their own children would argue this point. You should check out the baby box. Places in different countries where babies are put if they are not wanted and people take them from the box and find them homes.

If you talk to most women who have had an abortion, in time they will be the ones who are filled with regret.




Hopefully, as we gain knowledge, we will look back on this argument with shame.

A human life is not disposable.

Of course, if you are of the evolution belief, we are just random beings, the product of random mutations over a huge span of time. There is no soul, just flesh and blood which is just a link in the bendable breakable malleable chain of organisms on this planet.

That's a very ignorant and insulting opinion of me.

 

[justlookinla]

Of course, if you are of the evolution belief, we are just random beings, the product of random mutations over a huge span of time. There is no soul, just flesh and blood which is just a link in the bendable breakable malleable chain of organisms on this planet.

This is a basic worldview of those who embrace atheistic Darwinist creationism. And it's the worldview which is being covertly promoted in our schools.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

It keeps me off the streets.

Ha. Though..... some streets are worth spending time on. We have jacaranda trees in bloom now and the streets in our neighborhood are covered in purple petals. It's loveliness. Anyhooooo. If you enjoy your hobby it's all good in da hood. I just hope you get enough vitamin D and exercise! I worry about people who are online too much!

DON'T DO THAT! STAY HERE!

We shall see! Teens keep bolting from here.

Hopefully not while driving!?

Nope, not while I'm driving. I don't drive on freeways yet and I live in LA, so that basically means....... I don't drive that often even though I have a car and a license. I'm usually on here when I'm in the car with my parents or taking an Uber ride (like a taxi service) and trying to find a way to put the time to use.

But would you say to someone who has, say, 1000 posts that he has never defended anything? especially if you don't know what all he has said in those thousand posts?

I would just address the relevant current post. It's not always a requisite to defend something in order to provide insight or knowledgeable commentary about it.

I actually discovered this site because I was writing a paper on Kierkegaard last spring and I found a thoughtful post during a Google search. The author had only written about a dozen or so posts on here, but it was that one that drew me in. Quality is definitely more valuable to me than quantity.

Suppose I made the statement: This site has never mentioned rice pudding!

Wouldn't you wonder how accurate my statement is, knowing that this site has tens of millions of posts in several different forums and sub-forums?

No. I would just do a keyword search of rice pudding and find out that there's 325 results.

Oh. BTW. If you don't mind me asking, why did you have this thread closed? http://www.christianforums.com/t7492014/

 

[Queller]

Cool.

What's your point?

My point is that you have never actually attempted to defend your beliefs as you claimed.

 

[Queller]

LOL -- solid aurum.

I'll give you credit though for stating it as an interrogative statement, rather than a declarative one.

Which I notice you didn't answer.

 

[Queller]

Ah, No

A similar, smaller scale, canyon was formed when Mt. St. Helen blew her top.
Scientists witnessed the formation of a canyon, stratified rock and polystrate trees in the layers of rock.

The Mt. St. Helens canyon bears no relationship to the Grand Canyon.

The effects of Mount St. Helens, however, have cast some serious doubt on the long-held uniformitarian theory that the Grand Canyon must have been slowly carved over millions of years. Before the eruption, Spirit Lake (the lake close to Mount St. Helens) drained into the Toutle River. The upper river, however, was buried by up to 600 feet of debris from the eruption, which blocked the lake’s usual drainage site. For two full years, Spirit Lake was unable to drain into the Toutle River. Then, on March 19, 1982, a small eruption around the summit of Mount St. Helens caused a mudflow that was 20 miles long. The mudflow pooled behind the debris dam, and sent mud flowing furiously over the west end of the big steam pit. The flow quickly cut a canyon that was 140 feet deep. “The canyon produced by the mud has been called ‘The Little Grand Canyon’ because it appears to be a one-fortieth scale model of the Grand Canyon” (Morris and Austin, 2003, pp. 74-75).

Except that it doesn't. Do you really think that this;

looks like a model of this;

or this;

(that's from orbit).

 

[Queller]

Except for identical twins humans are uniquely different from each other. How does evolution account for this peculiarity?

First off, that has nothing to do with my example of litters of dogs so why don't you address my argument?

Second, each litter of puppies is uniquely different from other litters as well, just like human children.

Third, evolution predicts that, except for monozygotic twins, every child will have a genetic code that is slightly different from that of its parents and any siblings. What's the problem?

 

[Queller]

My observations of animals doesn't support this claim. I used to raise chickens, and I couldn't tell one from another even though I saw them several times a day. On the other hand each time I go to the grocery store I observe that the people all look different from each other. In fact if they all looked the same I would probably freak out. I have been in many hunting camps where the only way to tell the does apart was where they were shot.

I guarantee you that the chickens have no trouble telling each other apart and I would be that they think we all look alike.

Not to mention that humans don't necessarily do that great at discerning differences in features, especially concerning people of different races. It's called the cross-race effect.

 

[crjmurray]

My observations of animals doesn't support this claim. I used to raise chickens, and I couldn't tell one from another even though I saw them several times a day. On the other hand each time I go to the grocery store I observe that the people all look different from each other. In fact if they all looked the same I would probably freak out. I have been in many hunting camps where the only way to tell the does apart was where they were shot.

When you say you raised chickens, I assume you meant you had chicken houses. By that I mean you had lots and lots of chickens and not just a couple dozen. I grew up with a few dozen chickens around at all times and I most certainly knew which one was which. We also had a couple hundred head of cattle on average and I could differentiate between each one. Hell, my mother can still tell which guinea is which.

 

[Queller]

This example only showed an ultra conservative rate of growth which still answered the population issue.

The problem is that in solving one problem, it creates other problems.

My version would be:
First generation, three women have 10 children each who live. Population is now Noah and wife, three sons with three wives, 30 children; population 38.

You really should think this through. How did 8 people produce enough food for 38 people? Actually, let's make that how did five people grow enough food for 38 people? Somebody had to take care of those 30 kids. You do understand that this is exactly the issue that limited population growth for thousands of years, right?

In the next generation, 15 children have 10 children each who live.
Population is now 188. In the next generation, 75 children have 10 children who live. Population is now 938. By the next generation, the population is now 4,688. We'll let the whole first generation die off , so 4650. Assume half are women who continue to reproduce at the same rate, and now there are 23,250 people just five generations after Noah. Assume that you lose a generation with the next cycle, that's 23,250, half of whom are women, producing 116,250 people plus the previous 23,250 still alive minus the 188 who died. In the sixth generation you have 139,312 people. Assuming that a generation is 40 years (20 years to puberty, 20 years to birth a child every two years), that's only 120 years.

So now let's cut the birth rate down to four. This doubles the population with every subsequent generation. So in the seventh generation after Noah you have 274,624 people, in the 8th 549,248.00. By the twelfth generation you have 8,787,968 people on the planet.

What's the reason for the sudden drop in birth rate? Because you want it to happen because otherwise your number get ridiculous very quickly?

Conceivable? Absolutely.

Goes against everything known about population growth in primitive agrarian societies? Absolutely. Evidenced? Absolutely not.

BTW, I can make up anything I want to have the population work out. Doesn't mean that whatever I make up is reasonable and supported by evidence.