1. ## Bible maths

A creationist on another forum I hang around posted this:

The population of the world, based upon the Berlin census reports of 1922, was found to be 1,804,187,000. The human race must double itself 30.75 times to make this number. This result may be approximately ascertained by the following computations:

At the beginning of the first period of doubling there would just be two human beings; the second, 4; the third, 8; the fourth, 16; the tenth, 1024; the twentieth 1,048,576, the thirtieth, 1,073,741,824; and the thirty-first, 2,147,483,648. In other words, if we raise two to the thirtieth power, we have 1,073,741,824; or to the thirty-first power, 2,147,483,648 Therefore, it is evident even to the school boy, that, to have the present population of the globe, the net population must be doubled more than thirty times and less than thirty-one times. By logarithms, we find it to be 30.75 times. After all allowances are made for natural deaths, wars, catastrophes, and losses of all kinds, if the human race would double its numbers 30.75 times, we would have the present population of the globe.

Now, according to the chronology of Hales, based on the Septuagint text, 5077 years have elapsed since the flood, and 5177 years since the ancestors of mankind numbered only two, Noah and his wife. By dividing 5177 by 30.75, we find it requires an average of 168.3 years for the human race to double its numbers, in order to make the present population. This is a reasonable average length of time.

Moreover, it is singularly confirmed by the number of Jews, or descendants of Jacob. According to Hales, 3850 years have passed since the marriage of Jacob. By the same method of calculation as above, the Jews, who, according to the Jewish yearbook for 1922, number 15,393,815, must have doubled their numbers 23.8758 times, or once every 161.251 years. The whole human race, therefore, on an average has doubled its numbers every 168.3 years; and the Jews, every 161.251 years. What a marvelous agreement! We would not expect the figure to be exactly the same nor be greatly surprised if one period were twice the other. But their correspondence singularly corroborates the age of the human race and of the Jewish people, as gleaned from the word of God by the most proficient chronologists. If the human race is 2,000,000 years old, the period of doubling would be 65,040 years, or 402 times that of the Jews, which, of course, is unthinkable.

While the period of doubling may vary slightly in different ages, yet there are few things so stable and certain as general average, where large numbers and many years are considered, as in the present case. No life insurance company, acting on general average statistics, ever failed on that account. The Jews and the whole human race have lived together the same thirty-eight centuries with very little intermarriage, and are affected by similar advantages and disadvantages, making the comparison remarkably fair.

Also, the 25,000,000 descendants of Abraham must have doubled their numbers every 162.275 years, during the 3,988 years since the birth of his son Ishmael. These periods of doubling which tally so closely, 168.3 years for the whole race, 161.251 for the Jews, and 162.275 years for the descendants of Abraham, cannot be a mere coincidence, but are a demonstration against the great age of man required by evolution, and in favor of the 5,177 years since Noah. None of the other various chronologies would make any material difference in these calculations. The correspondence of these figures, 168.3, 161.251 and 162.275 is so remarkable that it must bring the conviction to every serious student that the flood destroyed mankind and Noah became the head of the race.

Now the evolutionists claim that the human race is 2,000,000 years old. There is no good reason for believing that, during all these years the developing dominant species would not increase as rapidly as the Jews, or the human race in historic times, especially since the restraints of civilization and marriage did not exist. But let us generously suppose that these remote ancestors, beginning with one pair, doubled their numbers in 1612.51 years one-tenth as rapidly as the Jews, or 1240 times in 2,000,000 years. If we raise 2 to the 1240th power, the result is 18,932,139,737,991 with 360 figures following. The population of the world, therefore, would have been 18,932,139,737,991 decillion, decillion, decillion. decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion, decillion; or 18,932,139,737,991 vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion, vigintillion.

Or, let us suppose that man, the dominant species, originated from a single pair, only 100,000 years ago, the shortest period suggested by any evolutionist (and much too short for evolution) and that the population doubled in 1612.51 years, one-tenth the Jewish rate of net increase, a most generous estimate. The present population of the globe should be 4,660,210,253,138,204,300 or 2,527,570,733 for every man, woman and child! In these calculations, we have made greater allowances than any self-respecting evolutionist could ask without blushing. And yet withal, it is as clear as the light of day that the ancestors of man could not possibly have lived 2,000,000 or 1,000,000 or 100,000 years ago, or even 10,000 years ago; for if the population had increased at the Jewish rate for 10,000 years, it would be more than two billion times as great as it is. No guess that ever was made, or ever can be made, much in excess of 5177 years, can possibly stand as the age of man. The evolutionist cannot sidestep this argument by a new guess. Q. E. D.

All these computations have been made upon the supposition that the human race sprang from one pair. If from many in the distant past, as the evolutionists assert, these bewildering figures must be enormously increased.

Yet we are gravely told that evolution is "science". It is the wildest guess ever made to support an impossible theory.

That their guesses can not possibly be correct, is proven also by approaching the subject from another angle. If the human race is 2,000,000 years old, and must double its numbers 30.75 times to make the present population, it is plain that each period for doubling would be 65,040 years, since 2,000,000 divided by 30.75 is equals 65,040. At that rate, there would be fewer than four Jews! If we suppose the race to have sprung from one pair 100,000 years ago, it would take 3252 years to double the population. At this rate, there would be five Jews!

Do we need any other demonstration that the evolution of man is an absurdity and an impossibility? If the evolutionists endeavor to show that man may have descended from the brute, the population of the world conclusively shows that MAN CERTAINLY DID NOT DESCEND FROM THE BRUTE. If they ever succeed in showing that all Species of animals may have been derived from one primordial germ, it is impossible that man so came. He was created as the Bible declares, by the Almighty Power of God.

The testimony of all the experts in the famous Scopes trial in Tennessee (who escaped cross-examination) was to the effect that evolution was in harmony with some facts and therefore possibly true. The above mathematical calculations prove that the evolution of man was certainly not true. They fail to make their case even if we grant their claims. These figures prove the Bible story, and scrap every guess of the great age and the brute origin of man. It will be observed that the above calculations point to the unity of the race in the days of Noah, 5177 years ago, rather than in the days of Adam 7333 years ago, according to Hale's chronology. If the race increased at the Jewish rate, not over 16,384 perished by the Flood, fewer than by many a modern catastrophe. This most merciful providence of God started the race anew with a righteous head.

Now, if there had been no flood to destroy the human race, then the descendants of Adam, in the 7333 years would have been 16,384 times the 1,804,187,000, or 29,559,799,808,000; or computed at the Jewish rate of net increase for 7333 years since Adam, the population would have been still greater, or 35,184,372,088,832. These calculations are imperfect accord with the Scripture story of the special creation of man, and the destruction of the race by a flood. Had it not been for the flood, the earth could not have sustained the descendants of Adam. Is not this a demonstration, decisive and final?
What do you make of it?

NB. This is now a view I share, I am just asking for your opinion on it.

2. Originally Posted by w1z4rd
A creationist on another forum I hang around posted this:

What do you make of it?

NB. This is now a view I share, I am just asking for your opinion on it.
I actually made a similar, but much more simplistic calculation, like this once. I only wanted to see if the flood story was plausible and it did actually show similar results for me. It looked plausible, at least, based on my population data.

Can anyone else confirm these calculations? Have there ever been any scientific studies done on this? Or was my brain or calculator malfunctioning?

Thanks!

3. The first flaw:

"and 5177 years since the ancestors of mankind numbered only two, Noah and his wife."

They didn't number two. Not only was there Noah and his wife but also their sons and their sons wives. Clearly his maths would have worked out differently if he had have included these people - and I suspect that's the very reason he didn't. Other than Adam and Eve, there has never been a biblical time when there were just two people.

I'll get to the maths tomorrow.

the population of the world conclusively shows that MAN CERTAINLY DID NOT DESCEND FROM THE BRUTE.
Even if the figures stood up under scrutiny it wouldn't show any such thing.

He was created as the Bible declares, by the Almighty Power of God.
Even if the figures stood up under scrutiny it wouldn't show any such thing. We are still left with the possibility that the existence of the universe and all life in it was farted into existence by an omnipotent marshmallow chewing orang utan.

4. The proposed rates of doubling in the article are far too large. For most of human history, the average human life span has been about 30 years - it still is in some places. Disease, death in childbirth, infant mortality and so on meant that the doubling rate has actually been quite slow.

Probably, somebody else will provide numerical estimates.

5. Summary: you cannot deduce the age of man by knowing the doubling rate and population then working backwards.

Some kind of doubling time it not realistic. Yes, for bacteria in a jar when there is plenty of room and nutrients but not for anything more complicated.

Just think about it: variables in environmental conditions, availability of natural resources, diseases/plagues - all of these will destroy any nice straight line you are expecting to see on a log graph because they change over time.

6. Another thing: the article assumes the doubling rate has been constant over the last 5000 years. It hasn't.

7. I want to see his full equation. Did he use 'b' or 'B' to stand for the Bubonic Plague? And how did he factor in the huge decline in infant deaths? And did God create AIDS just to balance an unsettled equation? Like Einstein's cosmological constant?

I call bullshit on the entire quoted piece. Rubbish, all. And the only reason that you can pull this off is because you can pick any number between 12 and 40 for a generation (the age span in which women can conceive). Which number did he use, and why? The age of reproduction controls the length of time required for a doubling. Because of this, you could make the Bible correct for a very broad range.

Proof of the Bible's validity would have been much easier if God had included some higher mathematics, or even some correct cosmology.

8. With allowances for shorter generations back then, and for the eight on Noah's Ark from whom we came, the numbers are still way out of the ballpark for the Darwinian chronology.

And the incentive to have many children was very great back then, obviously.

9. IceAge, perhaps you think it is possible to predict the size of a population? You can't - there are too many variable factors.

The incentive to have more children might seem sensible from a 'do it for the species' point of view, but certainly not from the point of view that 'evolutionists' (or should I say scientists) hold, as childbirth is a very dangerous event and furthermore it is sometimes best to invest more effort into a few children than spread what little resources you have over a large family. I could really go on and on about contrived great flood theory is, but what would convince you most are the works of a man called Richard Dawkins. He is widely feared by Christians and for good reason too!

10. Richard Dawkins is a piece of cake.

Regarding the ancients' desire to have many children, as was the consensus in the ancient world, the Bible states it this way, "it is good to have many arrows in your quiver."

Little resources, c' mon, the whole big vacant world was theirs to be had, and don't forget, early on, 'til about 1500 B.C., the deserts of today's world were well watered pastures and lakes, like in Iraq and Egypt.

11. The Bible can state whatever it likes - it doesn't mean it's correct. The more arrows you make in a given time will naturally reduce the quality. In fact, I can't believe you quoted the Bible to me on this matter - the Bible has no idea how many children are appropriate for maximum survival because that figure will change. I would interpret that quote as "it is, of course, good to have many children - you just need to know how many you can handle before you start to harm the previous ones e.g. by dying or having too little food".

Although I do not know the exact facts behind what actual conditions existed at 1500 B.C, I would never expect humanity to have an effortless spree of growth. There will always be saturation of a particular resource.

12. "Saturation," with a few million people and continents of lush pastures and forests? You've got to be kidding!

13. You might not be aware of it, but 10 years ago there was a mass hamster war. It was long and bloody and violent and ended up with the death of all but 2 hamsters.. a boy and a girl named Valerie and Roger. Now they were quite lucky - hamsters have an average of 10 offspring 3 times a year. That means that in just one year these two hamsters would have 30 children. In two years you'd have a total of 900 hamsters. By the end of year three you'd have a total global population of 27000 hamsters. Come year four there'd be 810,000 of the little buggers running rampant.

Basically by the end of the tenth year, (which hamster historians claim is today), you have a total global population of 196830000000000 hamsters.

And that's in just ten years! (Some idiot claims hamsters have been around for ages)

This leads us to some conclusive undeniable facts:

1) Given the current estimated global population of hamsters it is safe to say that the entire hamster species hasn't existed for more than 3 years.

2) We should all be training in the art of hamster slaughter before this planet is crammed to the ceiling with hamsters.

3) The hamster species never evolved from anything but was instead created by an omnipotent furry hamster god.

14. That was just brilliant Snake, now back to humans.

15. Wars, famines, earth quakes, epidemics - you should ask how humanity survived extinction.

16. That was just brilliant Snake, now back to humans.
It was a pertinent analogy to point out the idiocy of the guys mathematics - unless you're going to claim that there are 196830000000000 hamsters from a decades work on the basis that hamsters have 30 kids per year, (and I was working on the lower end of the scale).

I have used the same system that this guy has, even adding that the end result clearly concludes that there is a sky fairy in control when if you were going give 3 seconds honesty you'd realise the whole thing is bollocks.

17. Just run the numbers, fits right in the timeline, too bad for your team.

18. Many seemingly-plausible scenarios fit the timeline. If you want to twist some facts and ignore others, it's easy enough to do. That doesn't in any way make it right.

Failing to acknowledge obvious flaws in your argument is intellectually dishonest, IceAgeCivilizations. Of course, that's par for the course with fundamentalists.

19. "Twist some facts," huh?

20. His references to the Jews are wrong.

90 percent are not Hebraic. 90 percent are Turkic Khazars who converted in the 800's.

Moreover, there has never been 25 million Jews on this planet. The Holocaust killed off 6 million and there is now 15 million.

Page 1 of 5 12345 Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•