Ihedinobi:

Pardonez moi, good sir fool. I actually tried to get into your head. I saw your point which was that there had to be coupling. And that at the assumed rate of reproduction barring any outside marriages, the population couldn't grow so fast. That would have been valid but for the assumptions you made which informed the questions I asked you regarding genetics.

Your assumptions need validating. And your position in your penultimate post showed very flawed reasonings given both your responses to my questions on genetics and physical laws governing the universe and uncovered by science.

Because of the thermodynamic law of entropy, it makes no sense to assume either increased or sustained quality of genes from any first parents till the current days. So that it is foolishness to ask whether I can father twenty children in order to establish Adam's and Eve's fertility.

You yourself said that from one generation to the next it can be expected that the genetic quality and variation of a race would reduce as it perpetuated intra-marriage and reproduction. History proves this true.

Adam and Eve contained within themselves the full genetic information of the entire human race such that when they bore children, their genetic similarity would have been much less than exists today. Furthermore, they lived much longer lives and enjoyed much longer fertility periods than are known today that allowed them to keep producing offspring that could mingle maritally with members of other generations. In that sense, you could have a man marry two great aunts of his. This would produce a diagram more similar to a pyramid than to a vertical line.

It would allow the 50-couple theory to change into a 50-couple producing 100 offspring that can marry their aunts, because their grandparents are still producing and go on to have far more than just another hundred offspring.

So you see, if you're gonna calculate assuming twenty children in one generation, you have to show why you make the assumption. Entropy allows for depreciation of genetic quality, so that over the millenia human vitality has been reducing. Whereas our first parents lived nearly a thousand years and were capable of producing over a hundred offspring, we do not hit 150 in age and our fertility is exhausted by the time we're eighty, for men, and sixty, for women.

This, in fact, agrees with your declaration that inbreeding causes depreciation of genetic quality. That was what happened with Adam's family which we are. It is also what the Bible indicates with progressive reduction in age and fertility such that by Abraham's time, humans barely made the age of 200 and women grew infertile by the age of 90.

sophistry is another name for well packaged BS.


It will forever remain impossible for 2 people to repopulate the earth in 6000 years. Adam and Eve were not the first people in the firs place. many religions existed before Judaism or Jewish names.

MacDaddy01:
Thank God! Allelujah! Anony has exposed himself to be a dummy.


First of all,

100 years is not equal to a 1000 people. Seeing as you are an old man, your father must be around 100 years. Has he and your mother produced up to 1000 offspring as the first parents? no. The most they will get to in 100 years would be very young great grandchildren. At most, over a 100 years, there will be not up to 100 direct descendants.

Lol, let me refresh your memory.

You said:

MacDaddy01:

in the space of my grandma's lifetime (105) years my big family has not even reached a 1000.
A rough calculation;

100 years = 1000 people

6000 years = 600,000 people

The above rough calculation is to give a basic idea how 6000 years is a short time. Such a basic method is erroneous but it is a good rule of thumb.

Secondly;

Remember that these people are the first people and so, there is no outside mating. They mate within themselves. Between the first 100 people. Assuming that the male to female ratio is 50/50, you have 50 couples with 2 children each will give you 100. Thats a total of 200 from hundred. The next total will be 300 people at the same rate

lol, your mistake if 50 couples(100 adults) produce a total of 100 children and the next generation produces 100 children, that makes 300. The thing you are not factoring in is death. because by the time the next generation adds another 100, the first 100 would have died off and as another 100 comes in, the first 100 also dies off thereby keeping the number at 300 for all eternity.

The only way for the species to increase is by multiplication (geometric progression). Your addition model is flawed and it is a pity that you can't see it.

It is getting very tedious arguing with a blockhead.

MacDaddy01:


In essence, you didnt have to mention your very fertile family in the 1st place huh?

Lol,very fertile indeed. My aunt had 5 kids in 6 years. It's caused a lot of confusion though. I have Gabonese cousins, and one of them already has a kid at 16. I hope you get the point I'm trying to make with all these.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, let me refresh your memory.

You said:



lol, your mistake if 50 couples(100 adults) produce a total of 100 children and the next generation produces 100 children, that makes 300. The thing you are not factoring in is death. because by the time the next generation adds another 100, the first 100 would have died off and as another 100 comes in, the first 100 also dies off thereby keeping the number at 300 for all eternity.

The only way for the species to increase is by multiplication (geometric progression). Your addition model is flawed and it is a pity that you can't see it.

It is getting very tedious arguing with a blockhead.

lol....you are seeing the problem now. An additional model (Arithmetic progression) only works with a large base and an incresing birth rate (more than 2 children on average). However, an additional model works far better than a geometric progression that will give you insanely large number no matter what.

A large base is needed. That is why we could never start from 2 people

musKeeto:
Lol,very fertile indeed. My aunt had 5 kids in 6 years. It's caused a lot of confusion though. I have Gabonese cousins, and one of them already has a kid at 16. I hope you get the point I'm trying to make with all these.

Nope. What is your point because, my model is based on assumptions and averages. Thats what models are. There are families that have 2 children per couple, some 8.

MacDaddy01:


Nope. What is your point because, my model is based on assumptions and averages. Thats what models are. There are families that have 2 children per couple, some 8.

Sometimes statistics can be misleading. As long as this argument is based on ASSUMPTIONS and averages, you'd be fighting a losing battle against the likes of Ihedinobi..

MacDaddy01:


lol....you are seeing the problem now. An additional model (Arithmetic progression) only works with a large base and an incresing birth rate (more than 2 children on average). However, an additional model works far better than a geometric progression that will give you insanely large number no matter what.

A large base is needed. That is why we could never start from 2 people

What??! Just when I think I have reached the limits of your ignorance, you just had to show me that there's more where it came from. Wow!

MacDaddy01:





sophistry is another name for well packaged BS.


It will forever remain impossible for 2 people to repopulate the earth in 6000 years. Adam and Eve were not the first people in the firs place. many religions existed before Judaism or Jewish names.

Typical Logicboy! Don't tell me that you just lost your balloon cos of my needle lol.

As for that second part, you still have the burden of proof, you know. And, please, pretty please, with peaches, sugar, cream and all them lovelies on top, don't embarrass yourself by insisting that that lame comment at the end of your second paragraph is your proof. It's way too lame!

musKeeto:
Sometimes statistics can be misleading. As long as this argument is based on ASSUMPTIONS and averages, you'd be fighting a losing battle against the likes of Ihedinobi..

losing battle ke?


Because they are two, you think I am losing?

Mr_Anony:
What??! Just when I think I have reached the limits of your ignorance, you just had to show me that there's more where it came from. Wow!

lol......the facts dey pain you? Your geometric model fails from the beginning. 2 people repopulating the earth to quadrillion people in 6,000 years and you didnt question the numbers? Olodo

MacDaddy01:


lol......the facts dey pain you? Your geometric model fails from the beginning. 2 people repopulating the earth to quadrillion people in 6,000 years and you didnt question the numbers? Olodo

Wow

Ihedinobi:

Typical Logicboy! Don't tell me that you just lost your balloon cos of my needle lol.

As for that second part, you still have the burden of proof, you know. And, please, pretty please, with peaches, sugar, cream and all them lovelies on top, don't embarrass yourself by insisting that that lame comment at the end of your second paragraph is your proof. It's way too lame!

lol....you people hate facts.


Facts
-2 people can not populate the earth in 6000 years. Impossiblity,. We ignore the factors of death, genetic defects from incest and the numerical impossibility.
-Adam and Eve are Jewish/Hebrew names. Humans existed before hebrew/Judaism existed. Human existed longer than 6000 years ago.
-Adam and Eve would be clones if Eve came from Adams ribs
-God loved incest then changed his mind in the old testament

MacDaddy01:


Nope. What is your point because, my model is based on INCREDIBLE assumptions and DREAMED-UP averages. Thats what MacDaddy's farted-out models are. There are families that have 2 children per couple, some 8. There are also families that have 19 children, some 13, but I'm too dumb and ignorant to factor them in.

lolling madly here

MacDaddy01:



lol....you people hate my crazy, completely illogical and invented facts.


My invented Facts
-2 people can not populate the earth in 6000 years. Impossiblity,. We ignore the factors of death, genetic defects from incest and the numerical impossibility.
-Adam and Eve are Jewish/Hebrew names. Humans existed before hebrew/Judaism existed. Human existed longer than 6000 years ago.
-Adam and Eve would be clones if Eve came from Adams ribs
-God loved incest then changed his mind in the old testament

Lovely facts, no?

MacDaddy01: -2 people can not populate the earth in 6000 years. Impossiblity,. We ignore the factors of death, genetic defects from incest and the numerical impossibility.

Ihedinobi: How many then would you say are needed? And how does that many agree with your position on evolution that nothing can populate the whole universe with the whole universe? lol
Incest is up to you to define. What God banned through Moses's law was not applicable in the time of the patriarchs. Reason? They were genetic siblings about as far as the negro is brother to the mongoloid.
Genetic defects? Why, accepted! Isn't it obvious that our lifespan and fertility, even intelligence apparently, if you're anything to go by is by far inferior to theirs? No argument here.
Numerical impossibility? Only to you, good sir fool, only to you
Death? How is that neglected? You are amusing at your ability to pull rabbits out of your backside

MacDaddy01: -Adam and Eve are Jewish/Hebrew names. Humans existed before hebrew/Judaism existed. Human existed longer than 6000 years ago.

Ihedinobi: Mmiri is an Igbo word, but water has existed for longer than there has been an Igbo language

MacDaddy01: -Adam and Eve would be clones if Eve came from Adams ribs

Ihedinobi: Hmmmm... I distinctly remember you describing identical twins as clones and emphasizing their "same-sexedness"....boy-boy, girl-girl, right? How then is Eve Adam's clone if her gender is different?

MacDaddy01: -God loved incest then changed his mind in the old testament

Ihedinobi: Wondered when you'd pull the old Bible-bashing out hehe. Can you show that God changed His approach to incest?

Can you blame us for hating your invented facts, good sir fool? They're just way too foolish for us lol

EPIC FAILLLL! Lol ouch mcdaddy, u should have mercy upon ur poor self, the fact there are a million and one possibilities that can make u loose this argument fact is u confessed to being a novice in science. Now muskeeto showed clearly that at high fertility rate, anything is possible, now to burst ur bubble the highest number of children a known to have been given birth to by a woman is 67 children, wow we wonder what if we assume each child gave birth to 10 where would that leave u good sir fool argument?

www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/3978800-who-gave-birth-naturally-to-the-most-children-in-the-world-she-had-69-children-and-gave-birth-27-times-all-multiples

vedaxcool: EPIC FAILLLL! Lol ouch mcdaddy, u should have mercy upon ur poor self, the fact there are a million and one possibilities that can make u loose this argument fact is u confessed to being a novice in science. Now muskeeto showed clearly that at high fertility rate, anything is possible, now to burst ur bubble the highest number of children a known to have been given birth to by a woman is 67 children, wow we wonder what if we assume each child gave birth to 10 where would that leave u good sir fool argument?

www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/3978800-who-gave-birth-naturally-to-the-most-children-in-the-world-she-had-69-children-and-gave-birth-27-times-all-multiples

Troll harder, please.

Ihedinobi:

Lovely facts, no?



Can you blame us for hating your invented facts, good sir fool? They're just way too foolish for us lol

only a fool argues against facts;

Fact 1;
Evolution starts from a living organism and not from nothing as you wrongly put it (Epic fail number 1)
What? You dont know what inbreeding is now? What do you call sleeping with your sister? Do you know what consanguinity is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consanguinity
Earlier humans had shorter lifespans. You wouldnt know this since you believe a grandfather like Abraham could have children and Metusellah could live for over 400 years. In case you want to argue; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Life_expectancy_variation_over_time



Fact 2;
Your argument works against you. Water existed before the igbo language. Humans existed thousands of years before the hebrew language. How can the first human have a Hebrew name? Unless like the igbo name for water, people just decided to attach names to the first humans which they could not have known anything about.


Fact 3;
Read your bible again. It claims that Eve came from Adams ribs. Clones. By admitting that it wouldnt make sense to call them clones then you are also admitting that the bible is nonsense and the Adam and Eve story is a myth.

Fact 4;
Adam and Eve = incest (Adam is the parent of Eve)
Abraham Sarah = step-siblings = incest.

But wait, God's laws in the old testament are against incest. Is God schizophrenic?

^^^

Why don't we explore evolution a bit? After all, it's your alternative to biblical history.

Please explain this living organism from which evolution began. What is it? Where did it come from? How did it manage to defeat the second law of thermodynamics?

Ihedinobi: ^^^

Why don't we explore evolution a bit? After all, it's your alternative to biblical history.

Please explain this living organism from which evolution began. What is it? Where did it come from? How did it manage to defeat the second law of thermodynamics?

I see that you have studied some apologetics.

Evolution is not an alternative to the bible. It is scientific and has nothing to do with a Jewish fairytale

Furthermore, nobody can tell exactly how this first organism came about. There is even an issue on how we define life? are some viruses even living things?


It is not a bad thing to admit that you dont know something. It is evil to claim that you know God did it when you dont know.

^^^ Lololololol.... Dude, you too much. You attack a position that the Bible submits that is verifiable using a fair-to-good understanding of genetics, fall flat on your face doing so, and give excuses when you're granted amnesty and asked to provide as good, or better a case.

You de fall hands! This thread was dedicated to your massive intelligence and great skill at dismantling the God argument. And here you are embarrassing the op. That's just nasty, dude. It ain't nice.

With no more than basic biology, your case against the Bible's creation account has been rendered absurd. It's the same basic biology that you claim knowledge of o.

I'm sure, there's enough gray matter in that bony mass in your skull to appreciate that your last arguments for your invented facts were totally inept. They have been shown as completely id.io.tic. As for your argument that Adam and Eve are Jewish names, it's a pity that you're too dense to recognize the answer in my echo of your logic. Mmiri = Water. Period. Even the translations of the Bible indicate that the names were simply Man and Mother. If the original writings were in English, Adam's name would have been Man and Eve's Mother. But your foolishness couldn't let you see that.

Don't run saying that those names aren't names because you'll just start showing off your id.io.cy again. Before Adam, there was no such thing as a name. Man was then as valid a personal name as any, as was Mother.

Yeah, God's Change of Heart! So important to you. Good sir fool, did you skim over the part where I said that the commands in Leviticus 18 were not applicable to the patriarchs? Or did you dislike my reason? Why don't you show my reason as illogical and scientifically untenable, dunce?

If you do not know the History of Life, fool, you are willfully ignorant. It is well documented and available for proofing. I've helped you do that here on this thread that extols Logicboy's great intellect. Do not be so foolish as to throw it out without any solid unemotional reason, fool.

MacDaddy01:

I see that you have studied some apologetics.

Evolution is not an alternative to the bible. It is scientific and has nothing to do with a Jewish fairytale

Furthermore, nobody can tell exactly how this first organism came about. There is even an issue on how we define life? are some viruses even living things?


It is not a bad thing to admit that you dont know something. It is evil to claim that you know God did it when you dont know.

It is even a greater evil to claim that you know what someone else knows or doesn't know especially when you don't know yourself.

Ihedinobi: ^^^ Lololololol.... Dude, you too much. You attack a position that the Bible submits that is verifiable using a fair-to-good understanding of genetics, fall flat on your face doing so, and give excuses when you're granted amnesty and asked to provide as good, or better a case.

You de fall hands! This thread was dedicated to your massive intelligence and great skill at dismantling the God argument. And here you are embarrassing the op. That's just nasty, dude. It ain't nice.

With no more than basic biology, your case against the Bible's creation account has been rendered absurd. It's the same basic biology that you claim knowledge of o.

I'm sure, there's enough gray matter in that bony mass in your skull to appreciate that your last arguments for your invented facts were totally inept. They have been shown as completely id.io.tic. As for your argument that Adam and Eve are Jewish names, it's a pity that you're too dense to recognize the answer in my echo of your logic. Mmiri = Water. Period. Even the translations of the Bible indicate that the names were simply Man and Mother. If the original writings were in English, Adam's name would have been Man and Eve's Mother. But your foolishness couldn't let you see that.

Don't run saying that those names aren't names because you'll just start showing off your id.io.cy again. Before Adam, there was no such thing as a name. Man was then as valid a personal name as any, as was Mother.

Yeah, God's Change of Heart! So important to you. Good sir fool, did you skim over the part where I said that the commands in Leviticus 18 were not applicable to the patriarchs? Or did you dislike my reason? Why don't you show my reason as illogical and scientifically untenable, dunce?

If you do not know the History of Life, fool, you are willfully ignorant. It is well documented and available for proofing. I've helped you do that here on this thread that extols Logicboy's great intellect. Do not be so foolish as to throw it out without any solid unemotional reason, fool.

Wow, a long post that is full of nothing but BS and insults.


1) Man lived thousands of years before Hebrew. The first man (or men) could not have had a hebrew name and the hebrew writers could not have known the first men. So who gave Adam his name? God or the mythology hebrew writers?


2) Adam has various meanings but you chose the one that would almost bolster you foolish point

"Adam" (Hebrew: אָדָֿם) comes from the trilateral root אָדַֿם ( 'ADM ), meaning "red", "fair", "handsome".[2] In the Book of Genesis, Adam occurs as a proper name in chapters 2-5. As a masculine noun, 'adam [3] means "man", "mankind" usually in a collective context as in humankind,[2] and may also refer to the individual human.[4] The noun 'adam is also the masculine form of the word adamah which means "ground" or "earth"



3) No one can tell you exactly how the first organism came about. To claim that you know that God did it is a lie. You and your God are FAKE!

Mr_Anony:
It is even a greater evil to claim that you know what someone else knows or doesn't know especially when you don't know yourself.

Show me one person that knows the exact origin of the first organism on earth. Liar. You people lie so much that you cant tell when you are spouting nonsense

Let me show you what you have said in your comments here.

MacDaddy01:

I see that you have studied some apologetics.

This comes across like a statement of surprise. I was about to debate against the theory, wasn't I? This is what you should do before attacking any position. If you knew that, you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself attacking the Bible.

MacDaddy01: Evolution is not an alternative to the bible. It is scientific and has nothing to do with a Jewish fairytale

You are implying that it is possible to hold both the Bible position and evolution. Now, that is a curious thing to say.

MacDaddy01: Furthermore, nobody can tell exactly how this first organism came about. There is even an issue on how we define life? are some viruses even living things?

This is an excuse not to defend a position you hold upon the claim of logic. It is not just a poor excuse but an incredibly st.upid one as well considering that it implies that you are not sure whether you are living or not.

MacDaddy01: It is not a bad thing to admit that you dont know something. It is evil to claim that you know God did it when you dont know.

This is a pathetic plea to your opponent to not be so convincing in their argument. You wish to project your willful ignorance upon your opponent. That is a pitiful stance in argument.


Believe me, I'd have had more fun just editing your comments. But, I'm more inclined right now to take pity on your arrogant foolishness

And here I was, thinking that you were getting straightened out My, my. Your foolishness is deep indeed. Now you want to enter languages. You fail at genetics, fail at math and wanna add languages to the list too? Lordy, you must be a sucker for punishment lol

Ihedinobi:


You are implying that it is possible to hold both the Bible position and evolution. Now, that is a curious thing to say.

I called the bible a fairytale and you think I am even seeing the bible as a sensible position? You trolling?

Ihedinobi:
This is an excuse not to defend a position you hold upon the claim of logic. It is not just a poor excuse but an incredibly st.upid one as well considering that it implies that you are not sure whether you are living or not.

Non-sequitur. It implies that we cant always define life accross all organisms. Are viruses living things or not? If you are ignorant of the scientific debate, please say so and dont insult me; http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080822-giant-virus.html

Ihedinobi:
This is a pathetic plea to your opponent to not be so convincing in their argument. You wish to project your willful ignorance upon your opponent. That is a pitiful stance in argument.

A pathetic plea or a statement of fact? Do you or anyone know the exact origin of the first organism on earth?

Ihedinobi: And here I was, thinking that you were getting straightened out My, my. Your foolishness is deep indeed. Now you want to enter languages. You fail at genetics, fail at math and wanna add languages to the list too? Lordy, you must be a sucker for punishment lol

lmao.

You know, you didnt put up any math figures and you were rejoicing at anony's failed geometric progressions.


I would leave this for you to think about.

MacDaddy01:


lmao.

You know, you didnt put up any math figures and you were rejoicing at anony's failed geometric progressions.


I would leave this for you to think about.

Mr Anony's GP failed? How'd I miss that? Oh, I didn't miss it, did I? It's just one of those crazy themes in your head, right? You badass you you nearly had me there.

Dude, go eat some smarts so you can talk sense. Your math is despicable. Your biology is almost non-existent. Your evolution is a wish. And your logic is a nightmare.

MacDaddy01:

I called the bible a fairytale and you think I am even seeing the bible as a sensible position? You trolling?




Non-sequitur. It implies that we cant always define life accross all organisms. Are viruses living things or not? If you are ignorant of the scientific debate, please say so and dont insult me; http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/08/080822-giant-virus.html




A pathetic plea or a statement of fact? Do you or anyone know the exact origin of the first organism on earth?

Would you like a debate on viruses based on Junior Secondary Integrated Science? It might do your heavy bones brains some good. Oh yeah, I read the article. I was quite tempted by it to teach you some more biology.

I didn't get any new info on viruses on that article, so, even with the provision of that link, your entire comment is inane.

Ihedinobi:

Would you like a debate on viruses based on Junior Secondary Integrated Science? It might do your heavy bones brains some good. Oh yeah, I read the article. I was quite tempted by it to teach you some more biology.

I didn't get any new info on viruses on that article, so, even with the provision of that link, your entire comment is inane.

Ihedinobi:

Mr Anony's GP failed? How'd I miss that? Oh, I didn't miss it, did I? It's just one of those crazy themes in your head, right? You badass you you nearly had me there.

Dude, go eat some smarts so you can talk sense. Your math is despicable. Your biology is almost non-existent. Your evolution is a wish. And your logic is a nightmare.

A geometric progression will always give you insanely high numbers.

a_n = ar^n-1

2^10 = 1064. in the 11th term or year, you would have 1064 people.



My biology remains basic. You believe in magic. Talking snakes and donkeys

MacDaddy01:


A geometric progression will always give you insanely high numbers.

a_n = ar^n-1

2^10 = 1064. in the 11th term or year, you would have 1064 people.



My biology remains basic. You believe in magic. Talking snakes and donkeys

My friend, your constant display of ignorance usually starts by being mildly amusing first then gradually becomes annoying and eventually all I have left for you is a feeling of pity because the worst kind of ignoramus is one that doesn't know that he doesn't know but claims to know and won't receive correction. I am becoming increasingly worried about you because it appears to me that even if wisdom kicked you in the head, you wouldn't recognize it.
Hopefully when we meet in 10 days time I'll be kind enough to show you where you got it wrong in your math.