Bible maths

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by w1z4rd, Jan 23, 2007.

  1. w1z4rd Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,541
    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,283
    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!
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    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.

    Even if the figures stood up under scrutiny it wouldn't show any such thing.

    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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    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.
     
  8. Blue_UK Drifting Mind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    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.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Another thing: the article assumes the doubling rate has been constant over the last 5000 years. It hasn't.
     
  10. swivel Sci-Fi Author Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,494
    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.
     
  11. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    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.
     
  12. Blue_UK Drifting Mind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    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!
     
  13. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    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.
     
  14. Blue_UK Drifting Mind Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    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.
     
  15. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    "Saturation," with a few million people and continents of lush pastures and forests? You've got to be kidding!
     
  16. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    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.
     
  17. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    That was just brilliant Snake, now back to humans.
     
  18. everneo Re-searcher Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,621
    Wars, famines, earth quakes, epidemics - you should ask how humanity survived extinction.
     
  19. SnakeLord snakeystew.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,758
    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.
     
  20. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Just run the numbers, fits right in the timeline, too bad for your team.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    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.
     
  22. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    "Twist some facts," huh?
     
  23. Prince_James Plutarch (Mickey's Dog) Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,214
    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.
     

Share This Page