Disprove Scriptural inspiration

understanding fractions

Originally posted by frisian
So reduce down 8/16 to 1/2 because you don't see the 14 other parts?
Click to expand...
Next time I'm in the pizza shop, I'll remember to order four slices instead of half a pie (i.e., 4/8 instead of 1/2), so I don't miss out on those 6 other parts.

What 6 other parts, you ask?

Aha . . . :)
 
69dodge said:
That's 5 kids per person. Meaning 10 kids per couple. And nobody can get sick and die before they have their 10 kids.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, yes if one descendant marries another descendant. Stretch it out to 28 generations then or 42....
 
Re: understanding fractions

69dodge said:
Next time I'm in the pizza shop, I'll remember to order four slices instead of half a pie (i.e., 4/8 instead of 1/2), so I don't miss out on those 6 other parts.

What 6 other parts, you ask?

Aha . . . :)
Click to expand...

Heh.

You are correct. That was crazy math I did.

4/8 is still different than 1/2 though.
 
frisian said:
;)

14 generations having 5 kids each, would get you over a billion.

Them der are pretty long generations you have.

:p
Click to expand...
My results...
Generation 1:
2 people (or 1 couples), they have a total of 5 kids.
Total people alive: 7

Generation 2:
2 people have died this generation.
5 people (or 2 couples), they have a total of 10 kids.
Total people alive: 15

Generation 3:
5 people have died this generation.
10 people (or 5 couples), they have a total of 25 kids.
Total people alive: 35

Generation 4:
10 people have died this generation.
25 people (or 12 couples), they have a total of 60 kids.
Total people alive: 85

Generation 5:
25 people have died this generation.
60 people (or 30 couples), they have a total of 150 kids.
Total people alive: 210

Generation 6:
60 people have died this generation.
150 people (or 75 couples), they have a total of 375 kids.
Total people alive: 525

Generation 7:
150 people have died this generation.
375 people (or 187 couples), they have a total of 935 kids.
Total people alive: 1310

Generation 8:
375 people have died this generation.
935 people (or 467 couples), they have a total of 2335 kids.
Total people alive: 3270

Generation 9:
935 people have died this generation.
2335 people (or 1167 couples), they have a total of 5835 kids.
Total people alive: 8170

Generation 10:
2335 people have died this generation.
5835 people (or 2917 couples), they have a total of 14585 kids.
Total people alive: 20420

Generation 11:
5835 people have died this generation.
14585 people (or 7292 couples), they have a total of 36460 kids.
Total people alive: 51045

Generation 12:
14585 people have died this generation.
36460 people (or 18230 couples), they have a total of 91150 kids.
Total people alive: 127610

Generation 13:
36460 people have died this generation.
91150 people (or 45575 couples), they have a total of 227875 kids.
Total people alive: 319025

Generation 14:
91150 people have died this generation.
227875 people (or 113937 couples), they have a total of 569685 kids.
Total people alive: 797560


Total number of people who ever live: 949487
Click to expand...

With your numbers, it doesnt look like anymore than about 800,000 people can arise from 14 generations.

Those numbers were derived by assuming maximum amount of inbreeding, assumption that no more than 2 people (1 couple) produced 5 children per generation, once a couple is formed they stay together forever, ideal distribution of males and females, and assumption that no generation could live for more than one generatio for these numbers to work. Even by tweeking the number of original people, number of generations a person could survive, there is no realistic way your are going to get 1 billion people in 14 generations (about 1000 years if you assume each generation lasts ~70 years). Even when you dont factor in people who die, you get a population of about 73.4 million (or more precisely, 73449852).

Here is the code:
Code: 
[size=1]Option Explicit
Dim iGenerations  As Double
Dim iTotalGenerations  As Double
Dim lNumPeople As Double
Dim lNumPeopleLast As Double
Dim lOffspring As Double
Dim lDied As Double
Dim lTotalPeopleEva As Double
Dim iPeopleToMakeCouple As Double
Dim iOffspringPerCouple As Double
Dim bEnableKill As Boolean

Private Sub CommandButton1_Click()
    [color=green]'##########################
    'Tweek these for testing purposes[/color]
    
[color=red]    iTotalGenerations = 14
    lNumPeople = 2
    iPeopleToMakeCouple = 2
    iOffspringPerCouple = 5
    bEnableKill = True[/color]
    [color=green]'##########################[/color]
    
    lTotalPeopleEva = lNumPeople
    For iGenerations = 1 To iTotalGenerations
        
        TextBox1.Text = TextBox1.Text & "Generation " & iGenerations & ":" & vbCrLf
        
            If iGenerations <> 1 And bEnableKill = True Then
                If bEnableKill = True Then
                    Call KillPeople
                End If
                
                TextBox1.Text = TextBox1.Text & _
                    lDied & " people have died this generation." & vbCrLf
            End If
        
        TextBox1.Text = TextBox1.Text & _
            lNumPeople & " people (or " & Fix(lNumPeople / iPeopleToMakeCouple) & _
            " couples), they have a total of " & GetOffspring(lNumPeople) & _
            " kids." & vbCrLf
        
        lNumPeople = lOffspring + lNumPeople
        lTotalPeopleEva = lTotalPeopleEva + lOffspring
            
        TextBox1.Text = TextBox1.Text & _
            "Total people alive: " & lNumPeople
        
            
        TextBox1.Text = TextBox1.Text & vbCrLf & vbCrLf
    Next iGenerations
        
    TextBox1.Text = TextBox1.Text & vbCrLf & "Total number of people who ever live: " & lTotalPeopleEva
End Sub

Private Function GetOffspring(ByVal I As Long)
    lNumPeopleLast = lNumPeople

    lOffspring = Fix(I / iPeopleToMakeCouple) * iOffspringPerCouple
    
    GetOffspring = lOffspring
End Function

Private Function KillPeople()
    lDied = lNumPeopleLast
    lNumPeople = lNumPeople - lDied
End Function[/size]

The code is in Visual Basic, I consider it some of my most sloppily written stuff ever :p. If anyone feels like testing the code, I made all the variables tweekable.

Edit to add: I changed variable bEnableKill from "False" to "True". Its a small change, but that is the original code that you need to use to reproduce the results above.
 
Hmmm.

Thanks Yahweh.

I did my numbers in my head only twice. Perhaps I missed something.

Tomorrow I will show how I came up with my number, and take a look at "your" code.

From a quick look, it seems I didn't think of some variables.
 
Originally posted by frisian
4/8 is still different than 1/2 though.
Click to expand...
In what way do you think they differ? For example, which do you think is larger?

I think they're identical.

(The notation "4/8" obviously differs from the notation "1/2", but both notations refer to the same number. )
 
69dodge said:
In what way do you think they differ? For example, which do you think is larger?

I think they're identical.

(The notation "4/8" obviously differs from the notation "1/2", but both notations refer to the same number. )
Click to expand...

Lol. I don't think either is larger.

My point being, 4/8 indicates 4 of 8 parts. 1/2 indicates 1 of 2 parts. No? That is how they differ.

I understand that 1 of 2 is half, much like 4 of 8 is half. But they are half of different totals.

Perhaps I am not explaining well.
 
Ok, for one thing I don't believe number currently alive is the issue. But I could be wrong.

Here is how I came up with my number.

David and his descendants. Each descendant having 5 children that also have children.

Generation 1 - 5 children
Generation 2 - 25 grandchildren
Generation 3 - 125 great-grandchildren
Generation 4 - 725 great-great grandchildren
Generation 5 - 3625 ggg grandchildren
Generation 6 - 18125 gggg grandchildren
Generation 7 - 90625 ggggg grandchildren
Generation 8 - 453125 gggggg grandchildren
Generation 9 - 2265625 ggggggg grandchildren
Generation 10 - 11328125 gggggggg grandchildren
Generation 11 - 56640625 ggggggggg grandchildren
Generation 12 - 283203125 gggggggggg grandchildren
Generation 13 - 1416015625 ggggggggggg grandchildren

So there you have over a billion descendants and that isn't even adding all of the numbers above. I know, not exact "math", I am merely asserting it is possible.

If you want to call a generation 70 years, which I will accept (even though I THINK it is inaccurate) then multiply by 13 you get 910 years.

David lived much longer ago than that.

Want to say they have only 2 children each?

Generation 1 - 2 children
Generation 2 - 4 children
Generation 3 - 8 children
Generation 4 - 16 children
Generation 5 - 32 children
Generation 6 - 64 children
Generation 7 - 128 children
Generation 8 - 256 children
Generation 9 - 512 children
Generation 10 - 1024 children
Generation 11 - 2048 children
Generation 12 - 4096 children
Generation 13 - 8192 children
Generation 14 - 16384 children
Generation 15 - 32768 children
Generation 16 - 65536 children
Generation 17 - 131072 children
Generation 18 - 262144 children
Generation 19 - 524288 children
Generation 20 - 1048576 children
Generation 21 - 2097152 children
Generation 22 - 4194304 children
Generation 23 - 8388608 children
Generation 24 - 16777216 children
Generation 25 - 33554432 children
Generation 26 - 67108864 children
Generation 27 - 134217728 children
Generation 28 - 268435456 children
Generation 29 - 536870912 children
Generation 30 - 1073741824 children

Over a billion. 30 generations times 70 years = 2100 years, still not back to David.


I agree this is highly speculative as we don't have a full genealogical chart. However to say impossible as was first asserted...I think not.


Hmmm... found this after the fact.

http://www.maa.org/features/mathchat/mathchat_06_14_96.html
 
frisian said:



;)

14 generations having 5 kids each, would get you over a billion.

Them der are pretty long generations you have.

:p
Click to expand...

O.K., that's one( billion ). Are you aware of how many stars there are, or how many grains of sand there are in the sea..

I think a billion might be a little short..

Actually, we could end the discussion by suggesting that God was exagerating here, but that wouldn't be very Godly, now would it?


I hope Yahweh didn't waste too much time with all the ' Visual Basic ', and etc...
 
Diogenes said:


O.K., that's one( billion ). Are you aware of how many stars there are, or how many grains of sand there are in the sea..

I think a billion might be a little short..

Actually, we could end the discussion by suggesting that God was exagerating here, but that wouldn't be very Godly, now would it?


I hope Yahweh didn't waste too much time with all the ' Visual Basic ', and etc...
Click to expand...

Indeed, I think the analogy wasn't an exact number biblically. Not sure how that deems it ungodly though.

Hmmm, found another angle to my genealogical quests however.

Off I go to study.

:p
 
"Hoogland entertained no doubts about the Bible’s essential veracity. He held the Bible to be inspired by the Holy Spirit; he regarded its teachings as absolutely authoritative; and he accepted its deliverances as the church’s only rule of faith and practice. But he did not think the Bible was inerrant - or infallible in every part and particle. Not only does the Bible not claim infallibility for itself, it exhibits on its face the marks of human frailty. Found in it are faulty grammatical constructions, stylistic infelicities, scientific misconceptions, anachronistic geographical references, historical inaccuracies, discrepant accounts, and other such things, and for this reason the whole ought not to be called infallible. Is the Bible then not a divinely inspired book? Of course it is, but inspiration does not of itself entail infallibility. Of this the existing text is proof. A conservative tradition contends that an inspired book must be a blameless book, a thoroughly sanitized book, a book inerrant in every detail and with respect to every dimension. It argues from the perfection of the Spirit to the perfection of the Scriptures; as God is so is the Bible. However, to discover what inspiration really means, one must start from the other end, from a careful scrutiny of the text. When this is done it will become evident that the Holy Spirit in enlightening and guiding the biblical writers was out to proclaim and preserve the Message, but was not concerned to suppress every deficiency or short-coming of the writers, or to lift them at every juncture above the cultural level of their day. And let this not bother us; our reliance on and commitment to the Word is not by this put in jeopardy -- "what sense does it make to say that our faith must necessarily falter and disintegrate if we admit that the Holy Spirit not only did not choose to reveal an accurate astronomy, but also allowed the inspired writers to use grammar in their own inaccurate way, and possible misstate a few historical facts?"

http://stobfamily.com/SumUp22.html
 
frisian said:
Ok, for one thing I don't believe number currently alive is the issue. But I could be wrong.

Here is how I came up with my number.

David and his descendants. Each descendant having 5 children that also have children.

Generation 1 - 5 children
Generation 2 - 25 grandchildren
Generation 3 - 125 great-grandchildren
Generation 4 - 725 great-great grandchildren
Generation 5 - 3625 ggg grandchildren
Generation 6 - 18125 gggg grandchildren
Generation 7 - 90625 ggggg grandchildren
Generation 8 - 453125 gggggg grandchildren
Generation 9 - 2265625 ggggggg grandchildren
Generation 10 - 11328125 gggggggg grandchildren
Generation 11 - 56640625 ggggggggg grandchildren
Generation 12 - 283203125 gggggggggg grandchildren
Generation 13 - 1416015625 ggggggggggg grandchildren

So there you have over a billion descendants and that isn't even adding all of the numbers above. I know, not exact "math", I am merely asserting it is possible.
Click to expand...
Your math is a little off.

Your example is closer to the way a bacteria would reproduce. Say 1 bacteria produces 5 copies of itself and never produces anymore. Those 5 copies each produces 5 more copies... and so on. (Yes, I know bacteria reproduce by splitting in two... but just imagine a hypothetical bacteria that split into 5...)

However, it takes 2 humans to produce 5 humans. And to get those 2 humans, you couldnt gather from outside the family tree (there isnt a decent supply as it is), you have to resort to inbreeding. Keep in the mind the death ratio that occurs naturally (i.e. a recursive function).

If you want to call a generation 70 years, which I will accept (even though I THINK it is inaccurate) then multiply by 13 you get 910 years.

David lived much longer ago than that.[/b]
Click to expand...
From AnsweringGenesis - Living for 900 years:
However, not even the most avid enthusiast for healthy eating would suggest that, by simply changing our diet, we could live for 950 years today. Perhaps some of these other factors are the reason for the continuing decline, lasting for centuries. Isaac lived to 180, Moses 120, King David only 71 years.
Click to expand...

Over a billion. 30 generations times 70 years = 2100 years, still not back to David.
Click to expand...
Premature death: The Global Deathtoll, just under 225,794,000.

From The Day Of 6 Billion:
The arrival of a new child is not in itself big international news, since three are born every second
Click to expand...

From Stanford - A Solution To The Doctor's Dilemma:
Approximately 60,000,000 people under seventy die each year, i.e. two people die each second.
Click to expand...

From Central Statistics Office:
The average number of children per family has fallen from 2.2 in 1981 to 1.6 in 2002.
Click to expand...
 
frisian said:
"Hoogland entertained no doubts about the Bible’s essential veracity. He held the Bible to be inspired by the Holy Spirit; he regarded its teachings as absolutely authoritative; and he accepted its deliverances as the church’s only rule of faith and practice. But he did not think the Bible was inerrant - or infallible in every part and particle. Not only does the Bible not claim infallibility for itself, it exhibits on its face the marks of human frailty. Found in it are faulty grammatical constructions, stylistic infelicities, scientific misconceptions, anachronistic geographical references, historical inaccuracies, discrepant accounts, and other such things, and for this reason the whole ought not to be called infallible. Is the Bible then not a divinely inspired book? Of course it is, but inspiration does not of itself entail infallibility. Of this the existing text is proof. A conservative tradition contends that an inspired book must be a blameless book, a thoroughly sanitized book, a book inerrant in every detail and with respect to every dimension. It argues from the perfection of the Spirit to the perfection of the Scriptures; as God is so is the Bible. However, to discover what inspiration really means, one must start from the other end, from a careful scrutiny of the text. When this is done it will become evident that the Holy Spirit in enlightening and guiding the biblical writers was out to proclaim and preserve the Message, but was not concerned to suppress every deficiency or short-coming of the writers, or to lift them at every juncture above the cultural level of their day. And let this not bother us; our reliance on and commitment to the Word is not by this put in jeopardy -- "what sense does it make to say that our faith must necessarily falter and disintegrate if we admit that the Holy Spirit not only did not choose to reveal an accurate astronomy, but also allowed the inspired writers to use grammar in their own inaccurate way, and possible misstate a few historical facts?"

http://stobfamily.com/SumUp22.html
Click to expand...
153 Conflicts with Science and History.

173 Prophecies That Never Quite Happened.

773 Conflicts With Logic And Other General Absurdities.

1112 Contradictions.

I'd like the author to explain to me why he prefers the Bible over all other equally valid Non-Christian Scriptures and dismisses all other Gods from all other 6,500 religions.
 
frisian said:
Off I go to study.
Click to expand...
It would be wise to include the study of Minimum Viable Population and the impact of demographic, ecological, and genetic stochasticity. The real world is more nuanced than the times tables.
 
ReasonableDoubt said:
It would be wise to include the study of Minimum Viable Population and the impact of demographic, ecological, and genetic stochasticity. The real world is more nuanced than the times tables.
Click to expand...


Thanks, if you are being serious. I had found some studies online, but I kept getting links to links.

Now that I have seen how wrong about my assertions numerically were, I am intrigued even more so.
 
frisian said:


Well he is dead for one thing.

Likely because of subjective experience and family tradition?
Click to expand...

Come now, give the guy a little credit... doesn;t have to be all subjectivity and tradition.
 
calladus said:


If you create a good argument that proves the bible's inaccuracys, contradictions, or proof against god, then you will be labeled as either hateful or will be dismissed as an atheist kook by true believers.
Click to expand...
You lose.

The only "true believers" that are threatened by the Bible's "inaccuracy's, contradictions...." are fundamentalists. If you're not a fundamentalist, then the Bible's failings are easily understood: it's a collection of letters, songs, poems and documents written by fallible human beings, bound together in a single volume by another group of fallible human beings, to be used by *other* fallible human beings as one of many tools on their own spiritual journey.

Sparkle: If you're not interested in a Judeo-Christian spiritual journey (whatever that might mean to you) then you can disregard the Bible. Unless, of course, you are student of history, in which case it can be used to gain a glimmer of ancient cultural traditions, among other things. I think you are bound to be disappointed if you think using logic will somehow enlighten a fundamentalist.

Tim
 
Oh, but I'm quite interested in the whole Judeo-Christian thing :)

Though I also love history and am a student who does take some classes in it... ancient near east especially.

And I'm holding out hope that if its logical enough, they just might listen.

Justine
 
sparklecat said:


Come now, give the guy a little credit... doesn;t have to be all subjectivity and tradition.
Click to expand...

You are correct, repeatable experience as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom