- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Study: All Humanity Comes From One Couple.................... You don't say
Posted on 11/29/18 at 12:22 pm to blackrose890
Posted on 11/29/18 at 12:22 pm to blackrose890
quote:
The whole is irrelevant when its components are false,
You just admitted the Black sea was correct, your argument was that it's not part of the whole.
So it's not false.
quote:
I will not be bogged down by having to address everything you say. That old apologetics technique of constantly setting up new barriers and splitting to counterpoints is not something that I'm obligated to take part in.
Translation.. I will not consider the whole picture. I will only take a small part and CLAIM it was not a part of the picture.
quote:
This has been addressed, the flood narratives largely do not remotely resemble one another and the Biblical account is not even the oldest. Japan doesn't even have a flood myth.
They don't have to. In fact, the event doesn't have to look the same to peoples in different parts of the world.
Is it raining where you are today? Is it snowing? Weather is different all around the world. What you write about right now may be very different than me in the area I live.
The fact that they all wrote about a flood only compliments each other from their own perspectives.
quote:
What's he's suggesting is stupid, it's a manipulation of math to show false data based on a predetermined narrative. There's a mathematical proof that 1 = 2 with the same sort of deception.
Then disprove it. Use actual facts, not suggestions of it's just stupid.
quote:
Oh, the old hydrologic column argument. The argument that the creatures of earth wound up buried in order of evolutionary history somehow in a global flood. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that areas that were consistently alternating between sea and dry land according to history has alternating layers of sea life and land creatures. As to the human artifact evidence I would invite you to actually check a site that isn't AnswersinGenesis to show you that the artifact record is rather unbroken.
So you can't disprove that....
quote:
There is a lot of apologetics and fabrication.
No. I am giving evidence and because you have no explanation, you attack it rather than just say "I don't know... it could be possible"
The reason... you need it to not be true... for what ever reason.
quote:
Because the actual evidence shows a 5 to 10 meter, glacier fed rise in sea level over the course of years. Not a flood that covered even the highest mountain on Earth by 15 cubits as per Genesis.
Just to be clear, you are suggesting that the glacier could not be a.. A (as in one component of multiple) part of a global flood?
You do understand you are about to disprove a lot of scientists who claim the world will flood because the caps are melting due to global warming.
Be careful...
quote:
I'm reading the false account in Genesis regarding a flood that covered the whole of earth overtopping the highest peaks of the world by 15 cubits in which all of the world, for the exception of Noah's crew, died a horrible death.
Context... How did that flood happen in your eyes based on what you are reading?
2
Posted on 11/29/18 at 12:37 pm to blackrose890
quote:
That makes the assumption that no women on-demand breast fed their child which is a 99% effective form of birth control over 6 months and 80% effective over a year. Makes the assumption that no pregnancy resulted in miscarriage. Makes the assumption that no abortion was performed. Makes the assumption that the mother would survive all 17 births.
Fist of all, I didn't make any assumptions. Thus the word "Possibility".
Second :
quote:
Many women believe the old wives' tale that getting pregnant while breastfeeding isn't possible. And if they do, they might give their baby a sibling sooner than they thought!
Most breastfeeding moms experience lactation amenorrhea, which means they have little or no periods. This can lead them to believe that they are not ovulating, but the University of Maryland Medical Center says that getting pregnant while breastfeeding can and does happen.
Can you prove that the human body was the exact same then as now. That the reproductive system was not in the least different than now?
There are a lot of things we know, and a lot we don't.
Even still, If it is a 100% no new baby for 6 months... It's still a pregnancy every 14 to 15 months.
My point stands.
quote:
It also makes the assumption that modern menarche age applies to a time where nutrition would have been a huge barrier and also implies that nutrition was good enough for a woman to be capable of conception each time.
The fact is you are guessing. You don't know and current its a guess.
Posted on 11/29/18 at 12:47 pm to Azkiger
quote:
That logic also states that women have the possibility of having ~27 kids today.
Or more.
quote:
How many are they actually having?
Has nothing to do with what could have or might have happened then.
Just within the last 100 years in the USA people have gone from having 13+ kids to having 1 or 2.
My father came from a family of 15.
quote:
Even your sub-Saharan African countries aren't even averaging 1/3rd of that. Taking a third of your 17 child figure leaves us with less than 6 kids per woman, and that's assuming the woman actually lives through all the child births and starts having children right off the bat.
You are trying to apply data from today to thousands of years ago.
Posted on 11/29/18 at 12:48 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
You just admitted the Black sea was correct, your argument was that it's not part of the whole.
So it's not false.
I did no such thing. As a matter of fact I disputed the idea that the Black Sea suddenly flooded all of mankind. At best it, over years, increased in height a level that would have forced out the local population. Further they wouldn't have all died from sudden flooding in that time frame unless you're suggesting that all early humans in the area were quadriplegics.
quote:
Translation.. I will not consider the whole picture. I will only take a small part and CLAIM it was not a part of the picture.
Gross misrepresentation.
quote:
They don't have to. In fact, the event doesn't have to look the same to peoples in different parts of the world.
So Genesis lied then? Interesting that there are other people who survived the flood. Also doesn't address the fact that not every culture has one, and most cultures don't say the flood was global either.
quote:
Then disprove it. Use actual facts, not suggestions of it's just stupid.
It's already disproven, multiple times. Assume you're asking me to prove that abstract mathematical modeling won't give the answers that are already predetermined. No one could take an equation and make the equation not the equation. And the proof is in the archaelogical record, the lack discontinuity in history, and the incredible amount of work that would fall on an army of children to built simultaneously The Tower of Babel, the Ziggaraut of Ur, and a number of other structures all over the earth in the immediate 150 years.
quote:
So you can't disprove that....
Um, I just did. Sorry that the explanation is over your head.
quote:
No. I am giving evidence and because you have no explanation, you attack it rather than just say "I don't know... it could be possible"
The reason... you need it to not be true... for what ever reason.
You haven't given a shred of evidence, you've given conjecture from creation scientists who ignore actual evidence.
quote:
Just to be clear, you are suggesting that the glacier could not be a.. A (as in one component of multiple) part of a global flood?
You do understand you are about to disprove a lot of scientists who claim the world will flood because the caps are melting due to global warming.
Be careful...
If all the of the moisture on earth were released simultaneuosly, there would not be enough water to cover all land on earth. You would wind up with coasts and inlands seas. There would actually be ocean front (sea front) property in Arizona.
quote:
Context... How did that flood happen in your eyes based on what you are reading?
I'm showing the literal interpretation, are you now suggesting that it wasn't a global flood?
Here's the account from Genesis: 17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.[e][f] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
Posted on 11/29/18 at 12:48 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
You do understand you are about to disprove a lot of scientists who claim the world will flood because the caps are melting due to global warming.
The sea levels rising a few feet =/= "the world will flood".
You know telling lies is a sin, right?
Posted on 11/29/18 at 12:52 pm to tarzana
quote:
How do you account for Neanderthals and other human-like creatures? Did they come from this same couple
You don't. They died off.
Posted on 11/29/18 at 12:56 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
Has nothing to do with what could have or might have happened then.
Sorry, reality is a better determiner of reality than "what could have or might have happened."
It doesn't matter how many kids a woman could theoretically have, it only matters how many children the average woman had.
quote:
Just within the last 100 years in the USA people have gone from having 13+ kids to having 1 or 2.
The average family had 3.67 kids in 1960 and 3.14 in 2017.
- LINK
quote:
My father came from a family of 15.
Oh, well then. Clearly everyone else did as well.
quote:
You are trying to apply data from today to thousands of years ago.
Yep, I'm taking the most primitive region of the world today because that's the best comparison we can make. You're talking about how your dad came from a family of 15
Can you make a better comparison than Sub-Saharan Africa? No. Exactly.
Posted on 11/29/18 at 12:57 pm to Balloon Huffer
quote:
You are a snarky little frick.
You really kick arse at internet forums and social media.
Thus basically confirming that you really suck arse at real life.
Keep hiding on the internet, it is scary for pseudo-intellectuals like yourself out in the real world.
Mommy lied to you, there appears to be absolutely nothing special about you at all. You don't even realize that when all non-conformists are actually doing the same thing --- you become the conformists.
Success will change you...This is how we know you have accomplished nothing of substance in your life.
Every post just proves it. All while making you feel clever and special.
You know who is really laughing? Your bank teller when she pulls up your account.
What a weird melt.
Posted on 11/29/18 at 1:00 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
ist of all, I didn't make any assumptions. Thus the word "Possibility".
That possibility makes an assumption. All scenarios necessarily make assumptions.
quote:
Can you prove that the human body was the exact same then as now. That the reproductive system was not in the least different than now?
There are a lot of things we know, and a lot we don't.
Even still, If it is a 100% no new baby for 6 months... It's still a pregnancy every 14 to 15 months.
My point stands.
No it doesn't: They were modern humans, They won't get pregnant every time they ovulate, and 15 months assuming they got pregnant everytime lowers the number to 13 of which most would have died. Remember the infant mortality rate post agricultural was still 50%. Many more would have died in childhood. So at best assuming 100% pregnancy at 15 months with a low projection of child and infant mortality you're looking at 5. And that's assuming perfect resources.
quote:
The fact is you are guessing. You don't know and current its a guess.
You're ignoring the information from another poster which you dismissed with an anecdote from the first world. There's a reason the average number of children is greatly beneath the typical ovulation rate. I'm not guessing, I'm making logical inferences based on the best information available.
This post was edited on 11/29/18 at 1:04 pm
Posted on 11/29/18 at 1:10 pm to Azkiger
quote:
The sea levels rising a few feet =/= "the world will flood".
You know telling lies is a sin, right?
If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet... smallest estimate).
What impact would it have on the weather?
Second, The point is the ice that melted then. If the above would raise it 200 feet, the ice melted then would also raise the levels. Agreed?
This post was edited on 11/29/18 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 11/29/18 at 1:14 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Sorry, reality is a better determiner of reality than "what could have or might have happened."
Thanks for admitting you don't really know.
quote:
It doesn't matter how many kids a woman could theoretically have, it only matters how many children the average woman had.
Nope.
quote:
The average family had 3.67 kids in 1960 and 3.14 in 2017.
- LINK /
quote:
My father came from a family of 15.
Oh, well then. Clearly everyone else did as well.
In their area... yes. Farmers. Next...
quote:
Yep, I'm taking the most primitive region of the world today because that's the best comparison we can make.
It doesn't make if factual then.
It's a guess.
quote:
Can you make a better comparison than Sub-Saharan Africa? No. Exactly.
I don't need to. Why would I?
Posted on 11/29/18 at 1:15 pm to FT
quote:
I love how the article I posted refuting this silliness just gets ignored
I read it. Your boy posits that evolution happened at a really fast rate one time,.....just not now.....sometime...….
And that there is no evidence of a catastrophic event that wiped out most of humanity.
Posted on 11/29/18 at 1:35 pm to bmy
quote:
Our communal mom and dad got together after a “catastrophic event” almost wiped out the human race, the Daily Mail reported of the study.
This actually wouldn’t be Adam and Eve, but Noah and his wife after the great flood. And the animals.
Posted on 11/29/18 at 1:39 pm to Korkstand
But it didn't stay the same, it only looks that way because of the scale of the chart. Any chart depicting exponential growth with a linear y axis will have the same "hockey stick" shape. For this reason many times we use a logarithmic scale to compensate, but none of the charts posted so far did. Regardless, if you chop off the end of the chart and rescale, the end would still have a similar shape at most points in human history.
I admire your intelligence. So if you are as smart as you seem to be. Show me a logical graph where what you say is possible. Your line will dip below 0 faster that you think. Their is no way possible for this theory to work. None. NaDa. Try it. I counted back every 50 years and it surprised me by halving the 6 billion in the year 2000. You don't like 50 years, use 25 or 10 which is ridiculous. and you still can't make human pop. growth work. It is impossible. We are not even getting close to the primitive prehistoric men that they claimed existed. It is all a lie.
I admire your intelligence. So if you are as smart as you seem to be. Show me a logical graph where what you say is possible. Your line will dip below 0 faster that you think. Their is no way possible for this theory to work. None. NaDa. Try it. I counted back every 50 years and it surprised me by halving the 6 billion in the year 2000. You don't like 50 years, use 25 or 10 which is ridiculous. and you still can't make human pop. growth work. It is impossible. We are not even getting close to the primitive prehistoric men that they claimed existed. It is all a lie.
Posted on 11/29/18 at 1:41 pm to blackrose890
quote:
I did no such thing. As a matter of fact I disputed the idea that the Black Sea suddenly flooded all of mankind.
Did I suggest it suddenly did? Who made that suggestion?
You tend to do that alot. In this case, you appear to be assuming that.
quote:
Gross misrepresentation.
But it isn't and you are still doing it. In light of the climate change arguments of the day, you should grasp that events compound future events.
You narrow view is "It started to rain and flood the earth" and that's all you see. And because you refuse to look a t a whole picture, you in turn, state "as described by the Bible" etc etc..
For proof of that see your next response:
quote:
They don't have to. In fact, the event doesn't have to look the same to peoples in different parts of the world. So Genesis lied then? Interesting that there are other people who survived the flood. Also doesn't address the fact that not every culture has one, and most cultures don't say the flood was global either.
As I explained, you and I would see things differently. Absence of information is not proof of incorrect.
It doesn't matter that some don't claim global flooding. Absence of information is not a contradiction. If you and I walk outside hand in hand in a cute little skip sing joy to the world, we will both have a lot of details that are the same. You will include somethings unique from your point of view, and I would do the same.
quote:
It's already disproven, multiple times.
I have not seen it in this thread.
quote:
You haven't given a shred of evidence, you've given conjecture from creation scientists who ignore actual evidence.
No.. I most certainly did. You have yet to refute the evidence.
quote:
If all the of the moisture on earth were released simultaneuosly, there would not be enough water to cover all land on earth. You would wind up with coasts and inlands seas. There would actually be ocean front (sea front) property in Arizona.
Slow down.... Back up. And tell me how much water was on the earth to begin with.... etc etc.. Has it always been the same?
quote:
I'm showing the literal interpretation, are you now suggesting that it wasn't a global flood?
No, you quoting the account. I asked how YOU are interpreting what you are reading. In other words, Are you saying all flood waters had to come from just rain? ETC..
BTW... are mountains still being formed? tectonic uplift happening?
Posted on 11/29/18 at 1:56 pm to Jjdoc
Alright if you're going to sit there and claim I haven't gotten you right in terms of your beliefs. Lay them out. Because everytime you're hammered on what you've said you say "Oh no, you're misunderstanding me" Lay out your view and we can go from there.
Posted on 11/29/18 at 2:02 pm to rickyh
quote:
I admire your intelligence. So if you are as smart as you seem to be. Show me a logical graph where what you say is possible. Your line will dip below 0 faster that you think. Their is no way possible for this theory to work. None. NaDa. Try it. I counted back every 50 years and it surprised me by halving the 6 billion in the year 2000. You don't like 50 years, use 25 or 10 which is ridiculous. and you still can't make human pop. growth work. It is impossible. We are not even getting close to the primitive prehistoric men that they claimed existed. It is all a lie.
Because you are presupposing that the retroactive best fit for an equation designed specifically to get this result is correct. It would be like if I predicted today that Christopher Columbus journey took 12 weeks and developed an equation to prove the journey took 12, but evidence including his own journals say it took 10 weeks.
You're essentially saying that evidence doesn't matter because someone appealed to my bias.
Posted on 11/29/18 at 2:12 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
I don't need to. Why would I?
Because you're making a claim.
YECs are so clueless.Posted on 11/29/18 at 2:15 pm to Azkiger
quote:
YECs are so clueless.
He's going to say that's not his belief, he's just using all of their arguments. Get ready to laugh harder.
Posted on 11/29/18 at 2:18 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
reality is a better determiner of reality than "what could have or might have happened."
nice touch.
Page 23 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News