The flood is impossible.

[Vatis]

YEC's like to do a silly math trick, where they show how if population doubled every 150 years or so since the flood, there would be about 8 billion people today.
Now I know that every biologist will laugh at that argument since humans don't procreate like bacteria, but I would like to show how Creationists who make these claims debunk themselves without even knowing.
So here are the supposed facts:
-8 people survived the flood
-the flood happened arounnd 2.4K BC
-humans procreate at an exponential rate of 0,5% per year
So let's pick a random time in history and see if this check's out, what about the roman empire at the time of Jesus' birth?
Again, here are the facts:
-Jesus was born at around 0 BC
-the roman empire had a population of about 60 million (this is pretty accurate because it was taken from reports which were made at that time)

Here's the math:
8*2^(2400/150) = 524k
Now how about that?
Where were the other 59.5 million who lived in the roman empire at that time, not to mention everybody else in the world?

 

[shinbits]

YEC's like to do a silly math trick, where they show how if population doubled every 150 years or so since the flood, there would be about 8 billion people today.
Now I know that every biologist will laugh at that argument since humans don't procreate like bacteria, but I would like to show how Creationists who make these claims debunk themselves without even knowing.
So here are the supposed facts:
-8 people survived the flood
-the flood happened arounnd 2.4K BC
-humans procreate at an exponential rate of 0,5% per year
So let's pick a random time in history and see if this check's out, what about the roman empire at the time of Jesus' birth?
Again, here are the facts:
-Jesus was born at around 0 BC
-the roman empire had a population of about 60 million (this is pretty accurate because it was taken from reports which were made at that time)

Here's the math:
8*2^(2400/150) = 524k
Now how about that?
Where were the other 59.5 million who lived in the roman empire at that time, not to mention everybody else in the world?

Some things you need to consider.

In those times, people lived longer. Noah lived to be at least 500 years old. Lots of time to procreate. A person that had one kid every two years with that kind of lifespan, would make a little village all by himself. Then each of those offspring could repeat the pattern. Noah could've had thousands of people around in his own life time.

Add to that, that men often married multiple wives (Solomon had a thousand), then it's easy to see how the human population could've grown so fast.

 

[Vatis]

Some things you need to consider.

In those times, people lived longer. Noah lived to be at least 500 years old. Lots of time to procreate. A person could have at least fifty (or maybe a whole lot more) kids in one life time. Then each of those offspring could repeat the pattern. Noah could've had thousands of people around in his own life time.

Add to the fact, that men often married multiple wives (Solomon had a thousand), then it's easy to see how the human population could've grown so fast.

The part with the multiple wives is actually an argument against your claims because a thousand women procreating with a thousand men equals more people than a thousend women procreating with one man.
Or are you saying that male:female ratio was 1:1000?
And people living for 500 years?
4000 years ago you could be lucky to even live one year!
Life expectancy in ancient egypt for example was 30-35 years, without counting infant deaths. Again, this was taken from contemporary statistics.
And what about wars? Hungers? All the smiting God did?

 

[AV1611VET]

The part with the multiple wives is actually an argument against your claims because a thousand women procreating with a thousand men equals more people than a thousend women procreating with one man.
Or are you saying that male:female ratio was 1:1000?
And people living for 500 years?
4000 years ago you could be lucky to even live one year!
Life expectancy in ancient egypt for example was 30-35 years, without counting infant deaths. Again, this was taken from contemporary statistics.
And what about wars? Hungers? All the smiting God did?

Let me let you in on a little secret, Vatis.

Once we make a good point -- like shinbits did -- and you guys have to resort to the Bible being wrong, or resort to saying the "original Hebrew or Greek says..."; we (okay, some of us) consider our point won.

As I said in an earlier post, Shem lived right up to the time of Jacob; providing eyewitness testimony of the Flood -- not to mention longevity.

So go ahead and say the Bible was wrong -- that makes us right.

 

[MoonLancer]

Let me let you in on a little secret, Vatis.

Once we make a good point -- like shinbits did -- and you guys have to resort to the Bible being wrong, or resort to saying the "original Hebrew or Greek says..."; we (okay, some of us) consider our point won.

As I said in an earlier post, Shem lived right up to the time of Jacob; providing eyewitness testimony of the Flood -- not to mention longevity.

So go ahead and say the Bible was wrong -- that makes us right.

so when you say science is wrong... does that make it right? just trying to figure out the rules here.

And shinbits post was not a good point as it came down to incest.

 

[Vatis]

Let me let you in on a little secret, Vatis.

Once we make a good point -- like shinbits did -- and you guys have to resort to the Bible being wrong, or resort to saying the "original Hebrew or Greek says..."; we (okay, some of us) consider our point won.

As I said in an earlier post, Shem lived right up to the time of Jacob; providing eyewitness testimony of the Flood -- not to mention longevity.

So go ahead and say the Bible was wrong -- that makes us right.

So what you're saying is basically that after you make some wild claim with no biblical, scientific or statistical proof, you go "LALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALA"? That's denialism and ignorance, and that makes you wrong.

 

[shinbits]

The part with the multiple wives is actually an argument against your claims because a thousand women procreating with a thousand men equals more people than a thousend women procreating with one man.
Or are you saying that male:female ratio was 1:1000?
And people living for 500 years?
4000 years ago you could be lucky to even live one year!
Life expectancy in ancient egypt for example was 30-35 years, without counting infant deaths. Again, this was taken from contemporary statistics.
And what about wars? Hungers? All the smiting God did?

It's a statistical fact that there are more women females born than men. There's a scientific reason for it that I don't feel like googling right now. So if it was common for men to have two wives, that means no potential mother was left unhitched.

 

[rockaction]

Some things you need to consider.

In those times, people lived longer. Noah lived to be at least 500 years old. Lots of time to procreate. A person that had one kid every two years with that kind of lifespan, would make a little village all by himself. Then each of those offspring could repeat the pattern. Noah could've had thousands of people around in his own life time.

Add to that, that men often married multiple wives (Solomon had a thousand), then it's easy to see how the human population could've grown so fast.

There's no way this accounts for the current genetic diversity of the human race

 

[rockaction]

It's a statistical fact that there are more women females born than men. There's a scientific reason for it that I don't feel like googling right now. So if it was common for men to have two wives, that means no potential mother was left unhitched.

Whaaaaat? Nooooo....

Sex ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In humans, the secondary sex ratio is estimated to be 105 boys to 100 girls

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Atheism and evolution are scientifically impossible.

 

[rockaction]

Atheism and evolution are scientifically impossible.

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

I'm guessing you'll never know.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

Atheism and evolution are scientifically impossible.

And yet both are real.

 

[kharisym]

Some things you need to consider.

In those times, people lived longer. Noah lived to be at least 500 years old. Lots of time to procreate. A person that had one kid every two years with that kind of lifespan, would make a little village all by himself. Then each of those offspring could repeat the pattern. Noah could've had thousands of people around in his own life time.

Add to that, that men often married multiple wives (Solomon had a thousand), then it's easy to see how the human population could've grown so fast.

Can you show me a 500 year old human skeleton?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you show me a 500 year old human skeleton?

And that would do it for you and the scientific world?

That's all it would take to confirm the longevity of the early patriarchs?

Or, as I suspect, would scientists take that and use it against the Bible somehow?

 

[lemmings]

And that would do it for you and the scientific world?

It would be a rather remarkable find in of itself. First an foremost I would assume that billions would be thrown into research in order to duplicate the condition. Genetic samples would be taken to determine if the condition is genetic and the individuals diet would be scrutinized in hopes that we can find the fountain of youth and duplicate it. Other possibilities are that we could look into what conditions he suffered and succumbed to as he aged and his remains would be invaluable in the next few centuries if our life expectancy continues to improve.

 

[AV1611VET]

It would be a rather remarkable find in of itself.

What's a "remarkable find"?

Every time a scientist "discovers" something, it stuns the world, shocks the world, or amazes someone.

Every day, scientists probably walk back and forth across the stone (if not over it) that was rolled away from Jesus' tomb, wondering if Jesus was real or not.

 

[shinbits]

There's no way this accounts for the current genetic diversity of the human race

Never said it did.

Whaaaaat? Nooooo....

Sex ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In humans, the secondary sex ratio is estimated to be 105 boys to 100 girls

1) From YOUR link:

sex ratios at birth or among infants may be considerably skewed by sex-selective abortion and infanticide.

2) What Are the Differences Between Sperm Carrying the X and Y Chromosomes? I'll Tell You

"The most noticeable and important difference between the two is longevity. Like in real life, the girls live longer than the boys. X sperm can last for days longer than Y sperm can. Also, the Y sperm is more vulnerable to changes in environment or obstacles that it will need to overcome.


3) Look at these charts:

File:Sex ratio below 15 per country smooth.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
File:Sex ratio total population per country smooth.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:Sex ratio over 65 per country smooth.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



^ The sections in blue represent the countries where there are more women than men, which WAY more than the countries in red that show the inverse. That's why there are more females in the world than men.

 

[kharisym]

And that would do it for you and the scientific world?

That's all it would take to confirm the longevity of the early patriarchs?

Or, as I suspect, would scientists take that and use it against the Bible somehow?

It'd be amazing, yes. However more detail would be needed to establish the nature of the longevity. For instance, if "Joe" lived to be 500 years old because "Joe" is an alien or a clam, then this would either be an interesting foot-note or actually go against much of what you claim. I cannot, however, draw any conclusions from a 500 year old fellow until you or someone else actually produces the remains.

 

[shinbits]

so when you say science is wrong... does that make it right? just trying to figure out the rules here.

And shinbits post was not a good point as it came down to incest.

How is it "not a good point"? I was using the same premise the OP used about 8 people populating the world, and the mathematical logistics of it. Using that premise and those same 8 people, how did I not make a good point?