Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Pappy Jack · 07-08-2007, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pappy Jack

And what was the growth rate (if any) in the preceding 58 years? ....

I don't know about their history prior to my father.

When using 'real-world' data to support a model you are using to argue a hypothetical situation 5000 years ago, you cannot ignore variables which make the validity of that data irrelevant to the model. The points I raised impact directly on how you can apply your data to the model you are trying to support; ignoring the variables is intellectually sloppy and immediately throws into doubt any 'authority' your model may have.

Quote:

Yes, my father introduced good hygiene to the Wai wais, but why do you suppose Noah's early descendants did NOT have good hygiene?

Irrelevant. You need to establish the validity of your Wai wai = Flud survivors' model. You have no more idea of the hygiene standards of the postulated Flud survivors than I have.

Quote:

I should think they also knew a lot more than you think did about medicine.

'I think' proves nothing. Where's your evidence?

Quote:

They evidently carried some pretty advanced knowledge with them from pre-Flood times.

For example, and where's the proof?

Quote:

Woolley excavating at Ur found some pretty advanced stuff--medical texts, scientific texts, astronomical texts, schools, etc.

What do you mean by 'advanced'. 'Advanced' in relation to what? The non-existence of same in pre-literate, pre-agrarian, nomadic, hunter-gatherer communities of a few hundred, perhaps?

Quote:

Skeptics who frequent these boards seem to have the odd view that man's cultural development was Dumb->Less Dumb->Fairly Smart->Really Smart, the "Dumb" starting about 5000 ya and the "Really Smart" being the Modern Era.Well ... I don't think that squares with the evidence.

I have no idea what you mean by this. I, for one, believe that the culture of Dynastic Egypt in respect of its legal treatment of women, for example, was more just and more liberal ('smarter'?) than anything else most of the world saw for the better part of 2000 years after the emergence of the Graeco-Roman system. Also, you are making the mistake of assuming that if I regard a culture as less technologically capable, then somehow I regard it as less smart, whatever you mean by 'smart'. The Roman Empire endured far longer than the British Empire ..... how is this less or more 'smart'?

Pappy Jack · 07-08-2007, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

......3) SMYTH'S GP DATE IS MORE FIRM THAT HIS FLOOD AND DISPERSION DATES......Smyth has more reasons for the 2170 BC date than just the alignment with Alpha Draconis. Dean also seems to be unaware of this. So I am fairly confident about Smyth's GP date and I think you may be too before long.......

I still await your arguments about why you prefer Smyth's astronomical calculations (which are supported by no other evidence as to the date of Khufu's Pyramid) over, for example, Dr Kate Spence's calculations (which are, and which can also be related directly to the orientations of other pyramids in Egypt)

NB I am not saying that Spence's calculations establish beyond any doubt the date for Khufu's Pyramid. I am only interested in why you prefer Smyth's calculations (and those of other 19th and/or early 20th Century sources) to those using more accurate and refined data than was available 100+ years ago?

Paul2 · 07-10-2007, 11:26 AM

Question, if the tower of babel was much, much larger than the great pyramid of giza, why is there no physical evidence of its existence today? Surely, there would be a large pile of rocks left at least.

Morgana · 07-10-2007, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

2) POPULATION GROWTH. My father is a Bible Translator for a South American Indian tribe called Wai wai. When he began working with them in 1949, there were about 400 Wai Wais. Now there are about 4000. This is 4% annual growth over 58 years. This should tell you two things: 1) small founding populations can be viable genetically, and 2) small populations can grow rapidly.

And I can tell you two things:
1) 400 is 50 times more than 8. But this does not strike you at all being in any way important.
2) You never addressed this post, where I pointed out that a population of less than 50 individuals is considered to be critically endangenered". 50 is still more than 6 times more than 8.

If you are considering genetic diversity, then I think the population size is 5, not 8. Noah, his wife, and his son's wives.

SpaghettiSawUs · 07-10-2007, 12:15 PM

Mike,
amazing post.
Excellent find BTW, seems Dave will now have to selectively use Josephus.

He's fallen into the trap of the making quoteminers who have misled him. By not having read all of J for himself, but merely in parroting the arguments of others, Dave now has to face the dissonance that this "reliable historical source" actually contradicts him (and a literal - higher than the mountains - flood of genesis).

Of course, with the amazing Cognitive Compartmentalizer^TM Dave will reject those bits of J that disagree with him because:
a) J wasn't inspired,
b) if J disagrees with what is inspired, we reject J
c) only the bible is inspired.

Poor Dave.
Cheers
Spags

Pilsboy5 · 07-11-2007, 04:22 AM

Apologies if this is a somewhat stupid question. In relation to the points raised by Sven and Morgana, re the available breeding population.
Do you mean that the small population available to breed just isn't viable to re-start a society, are you saying that it is enough but the society that sprang from it would contain enough genetic diversity (I mean with all the related people who can breed we're heading into incest territory) or both of those points?

The reason I ask is Dave has always believed that we started off with super DNA which has degraded since the fall, so a further problem we now have is a tiny genetic population with degrading DNA. Not so much a genetic bottleneck, more like a genetic pin hole.

Dave Hawkins · 07-11-2007, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pappy Jack

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

I don't know about their history prior to my father. Yes, my father introduced good hygiene to the Wai wais, but why do you suppose Noah's early descendants did NOT have good hygiene? I should think they also knew a lot more than you think did about medicine. They evidently carried some pretty advanced knowledge with them from pre-Flood times. Woolley excavating at Ur found some pretty advanced stuff--medical texts, scientific texts, astronomical texts, schools, etc. Skeptics who frequent these boards seem to have the odd view that man's cultural development was Dumb->Less Dumb->Fairly Smart->Really Smart, the "Dumb" starting about 5000 ya and the "Really Smart" being the Modern Era. Well ... I don't think that squares with the evidence.

Then how does it square with the Dynastic Era in Egypt? Medical knowledge in Egypt was at least as advanced as anywhere else; indeed, New Kingdom Egyptian doctors could be found in most neighbouring important foreign courts, either as chief physicians or as advisers. I would also be interested in how much more 'advanced' you think Ur of the Chaldees was than Dynastic Egypt?

I think it squares quite well. Noah and his clan apparently carried a lot of knowledge with them from the pre-Flood world, much of it no doubt on written documents os some type. This knowledge was then preserved and passed on in varying degrees to the different cultures that arose after Babel, of which Egypt was one.

Dave Hawkins · 07-11-2007, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

2) POPULATION GROWTH. My father is a Bible Translator for a South American Indian tribe called Wai wai. When he began working with them in 1949, there were about 400 Wai Wais. Now there are about 4000. This is 4% annual growth over 58 years. This should tell you two things: 1) small founding populations can be viable genetically, and 2) small populations can grow rapidly.

And I can tell you two things:
1) 400 is 50 times more than 8. But this does not strike you at all being in any way important.
2) You never addressed this post, where I pointed out that a population of less than 50 individuals is considered to be critically endangenered". 50 is still more than 6 times more than 8.

Quote:

3) SMYTH'S GP DATE IS MORE FIRM THAT HIS FLOOD AND DISPERSION DATES. Dean Anderson has acknowledged that he was wrong about Smyth and his astronomical dating of the building of the Great Pyramid,

And followed this directly afterwards with:

However, before you get too excited, this means nothing.

There was a star lined up with the north/south axis of the pyramid in 2170 BCE. There have been many stars which have lined up with the north/south axis at various times, and there have been many stars which have lined up with the east/west axis at various times.

But you don't ever quote out-of-context, Dave, we know.

1) It is important, but there are studies available of very small founder populations which are quite viable. I will try to get you some citations.
2) See (1)
3) Keep reading. Dean didn't yet address the part about the Pleiades alignment. http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...09#post4604009

Someone mentioned that my population chart used 8 founders (i.e. 4 couples). Actually, if you examine it carefully, it only uses 3 reproducing couples, hence 7 X 3 = 21 kids in the second line.

Dave Hawkins · 07-11-2007, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoverCraftWheel

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

...
2) POPULATION GROWTH. My father is a Bible Translator for a South American Indian tribe called Wai wai. When he began working with them in 1949, there were about 400 Wai Wais. Now there are about 4000. This is 4% annual growth over 58 years.
...
.

Can you substantiate those numbers Dave? The only figures I can find on the internet say there in the year 2000 there were around 2020 Wai Wai in Brazil and 130 in Guyana. (from here).

Yes I can. The UNESCO and Joshua project numbers are outdated. The 4000 figure is from THIS YEAR (2007). I received this from my father who is in direct, regular e-mail contact with the American school teacher at the main Brazilian village of Mapuera. My understanding is that this lady gathers her data from regular censuses conducted by all the chiefs of the various villages. It is important to her for many reasons: projections for native teacher needs to handle school growth, communications with the government for obtaining medicine, planning new villages to avoid overcrowding of crop land and hunting territories, etc. She will be visiting our house sometime before October of this year. I will make a special point to ask her for more details on how she obtains her population numbers, but I believe they are very solid.

The Evil One · 07-11-2007, 07:08 AM

The population has doubled in seven years??? Did someone put fertility drugs in the village well???

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-10-2007, 11:26 AM	#33
Paul2 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,088	Question, if the tower of babel was much, much larger than the great pyramid of giza, why is there no physical evidence of its existence today? Surely, there would be a large pile of rocks left at least.

07-10-2007, 12:15 PM	#35
SpaghettiSawUs Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Birmingham England Posts: 170	Mike, amazing post. Excellent find BTW, seems Dave will now have to selectively use Josephus. He's fallen into the trap of the making quoteminers who have misled him. By not having read all of J for himself, but merely in parroting the arguments of others, Dave now has to face the dissonance that this "reliable historical source" actually contradicts him (and a literal - higher than the mountains - flood of genesis). Of course, with the amazing Cognitive Compartmentalizer^TM Dave will reject those bits of J that disagree with him because: a) J wasn't inspired, b) if J disagrees with what is inspired, we reject J c) only the bible is inspired. Poor Dave. Cheers Spags

07-11-2007, 04:22 AM	#36
Pilsboy5 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Sunderland, England Posts: 18	Apologies if this is a somewhat stupid question. In relation to the points raised by Sven and Morgana, re the available breeding population. Do you mean that the small population available to breed just isn't viable to re-start a society, are you saying that it is enough but the society that sprang from it would contain enough genetic diversity (I mean with all the related people who can breed we're heading into incest territory) or both of those points? The reason I ask is Dave has always believed that we started off with super DNA which has degraded since the fall, so a further problem we now have is a tiny genetic population with degrading DNA. Not so much a genetic bottleneck, more like a genetic pin hole.

07-11-2007, 07:08 AM	#40
The Evil One Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: England Posts: 2,561	The population has doubled in seven years??? Did someone put fertility drugs in the village well???

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.