Dave Hawkins

First, it is not the "first world" that is contributing to present world over-population. My understanding is that developed countries have almost zero pop growth. Secondly, the comparison is valid because the pre-contact tribe would be expected to have far less knowledge of medicine, hygiene, etc. than Noah's clan because Noah's clan came from an advanced civilization which existed prior to the Flood. Thirdly, I suggest that you study Mt. Saint Helens and the rapid recovery that area experienced after the eruption. Resources would have been available again very rapidly following the Flood.

Dave Hawkins

I did not assert this. Please don't misquote me. Other translations render it thus also as you say. I explained already why these English renderings are not necessarily warranted.

Dave Hawkins

Smyth didn't claim accuracy on the Flood date. He made it clear that there is difference of opinion on this.

Constant Mews

Which rather destroys any attempt at literalism, doesn't it, Dave? By the way, are you planning to provide anything except unwarranted speculation to support any of your claims? It would be fun to argue scientific facts with you for a change, rather than the fact that you haven't provided any science.

The Evil One

Oh, so you don't understand the term "post-industrial population explosion" either.

Well let's explain it:

Human societies have two states in which the population is mostly stable or gorws very slowly.

* high birthrate, high premature deathrate
* low birthrate, low premature deathrate

For most of history and prehistory the first has applied. HOWEVER, when a society transitions from the first state to the second state, there is an intervening period when deathrates fall (due to technology, medicine etc.) but birthrates remain high. Population increases massively during this period.

Then people adjust their birthrates and the population stabilises at the new, higher level.

This transition occurs along with or immediately after industrialisation (many developing countries are currently in the middle of it). This is the "post-industrial population explosion", and the fact that the Wai Wai managed a massive population increase by undergoing it does not by any means indicate that six (or eight) couples on a planet covered by two miles of mud could do the same thing.

(And Mount St Helens was recolonised by the surrounding unaffected area. Your Flood scenario however is limited to the contents of the Ark to recolonise the whole planet. Apples and oranges.)

deadman_932

TRY READING for COMPREHENSION. VOX SAID "post-industrial population explosion" The industrial revolution began long ago and population increases in industrialized societies only recently began to level off or decline

2. Are you blind? Seriously, are you blind?
The post flood world HAD NO SURROUNDING VEGETATION LEFT TO WORK FROM by your story.

Mt. St. Helens DID have surrounding vegetation left. The entire continent wasn't blasted clean of all vegetation, was it?

deadman_932

I had asked you a long time ago to show me the validity of the WaiWai population figures you gave, Dave. I cited the same reduced figures others have here. You never provided any support at all for the claims you gave. NONE

Why on Earth should I believe you would provide that now?

Febble

I honestly don't see that this is a problem. The flood is not explicable by natural means, so any re-vegetation could avail itself of a supernatural cause as well.

The silly thing is trying to claim that science supports it. Science doesn't have to support it. The whole thing is nuts, scientifically. The only way it could have happened is if God jiggered with the science. If we find another bit that must have been jiggered with, then that's just another bit that must have been jiggered with.

The problem is Dave's, because he claims to believe all this on the basis of the scientific evidence. There is no scientific evidence to support the story - all the science contradicts it. The mystery is why any creationist bothers with science at all.

The Evil One

I think YECs dislike positing miracles that aren't specified in the Bible, because it implies that the Bible record is not a complete record of God's interaction with humankind.

Also, if you allow yourself to posit nonbiblical miracles to deal with the evidence, it's a slippery slope and you end up either with a deliberately deceptive God or with Last Thursdayism.

To be honest though I don't care why it is - it's just fun to see afdave and his ilk tying themselves in knots over it.

Constant Mews

Resources were available from undamaged countryside beyond the Mt. St. Helens area; no such undamaged areas were available in your post-flood world.

Learn to think, Dave. It will help you immensely.