Originally posted by FMFI don't recall where I read it, but it has been estimated that the population of the world when the deluge occurred was what the worlds population is at today.
Does this mean that you perhaps see the Great Flood as not being so bad because 'virtually 100%' of people getting annihilated deliberately is not as bad as it sounds when you hear it in "the raw numbers" and compare it to, say, the 20thC population of the world?
Luke 17:26
And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
Could mean something! IDK
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by Suzianneit is not a statistical whitewash. using percentages is the appropriate method to show the conditions of life at the time (which is what we are discussing).
And I already said that percentages are a statistical whitewash.
The sheer actual number difference is staggering and I do not see why you ignore it. Oh, yeah, you want it to appear that you "won" the argument.
if we use your method of looking at the numbers specifically it tells us nothing. look at this statement.
"did you know that during the war on planet zaarg 1 billion people died."
can we extrapolate from this how big the war was on planet zaarg? nope, it could be a tiny fringe in a tiny corner of the planet or could be the population of the entire planet. so what if 1 billion turns out to be 0.000000000000000000000001% of the planet? you would say that its a pretty safe and peaceful place to live.
the correct method when looking at these statistics is to look at the percentage. if my statement had been -
95% of people died during the war on zaarg, you would understand that it was a pretty devastating war, even if it turned out the population was only 1million.
no whitewash here, just the correct method.
Originally posted by josephwNo it was not.
I don't recall where I read it, but it has been estimated that the population of the world when the deluge occurred was what the worlds population is at today.
Do you recall reading about how many Aboriginals lived in Australia 40,000 years ago?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by Suziannehere is another one for you.
Okay, to the people who pride themselves on their powers of "logic" and yet cannot understand plain English, here it is again.
"The loss of 2% of the world population in 1945 is far worse than the loss of 11% of the world's population in 1220."
"Why don't you research the raw numbers and see for yourself?
Then you can ask yourself if you really thi ...[text shortened]... s, percentages are a statistical whitewash. What is being compared is often apples and oranges.
in spalfie city 1million of the people have food.
are the people of spalfie city starving?
would it be a statistical whitewash if i had used percentages?
Originally posted by FMFIt was calculated, given the Biblical life span of man prior to the flood, that the population could easily have reached seven billion within 1500 years, assuming pregnancy rates are comparable to that of today. A safe assumption.
I don't recall where I read it.
But you said it wasn't so. How do you know that?
Originally posted by josephwWho made the calculation you are citing?
It was calculated, given the Biblical life span of man prior to the flood, that the population could easily have reached seven billion within 1500 years, assuming pregnancy rates are comparable to that of today. A safe assumption.
But you said it wasn't so. How do you know that?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by josephwdid they have the technology and farming methods to feed seven billion?
It was calculated, given the Biblical life span of man prior to the flood, that the population could easily have reached seven billion within 1500 years, assuming pregnancy rates are comparable to that of today. A safe assumption.
But you said it wasn't so. How do you know that?
I just have to comment on the % stuff that some here always bring up and argue with and which era or century or whatever time was worst because of the "percentag"e of the world population at that time of any given war compared to other generations such as in the last hundred years up till now.
I think it's pathectic and sad that anyone would say that any time of our history of humans being killed in war was not as bad as another reguardless of the % of the amount of humans alive during that time.
That is not the point at all and why argue over it?
First the stats are online for anyone to see if they really want to see the facts. Second this arguing is taking away the horrible truths of what humans do to other humans in wars. It's not just ones being killed but it all the other facets of torture, rape, beatings, families being torn apart, ones losing their homes and the starvation from the land being ruined that almost always follows war torn areas and other nightmares that most of us could never think of.
Get over this stupid numbers game and think of the horrors of all this.
It seems that some here don't see this terrible issue and are wanting to argue just to be arguing. I think that is just sick.....
So for those who seem to justify these horrors as being ok and not worse then the time period before, in the future when the earths population is saydouble of what it is now, it would be ok according to your arguments that if another world war happened and the resulting death toll would be double that of WWII, that is ok with you and not worse then WWII because of the population increase? 160 million compared to 320 million in the future?
That's not worse? Sick minded fools.....
Originally posted by galveston75This has to be the biggest straw man argument I've ever read. To start with -
I just have to comment on the % stuff that some here always bring up and argue with and which era or century or whatever time was worst because of the "percentag"e of the world population at that time of any given war compared to other generations such as in the last hundred years up till now.
I think it's pathectic and sad that anyone would say that a ...[text shortened]... e? 160 million compared to 320 million in the future?
That's not worse? Sick minded fools.....
'I think it's pathectic and sad that anyone would say that any time of our history of humans being killed in war was not as bad as another.......'
Where has anyone said that in this thread?
And this -
'So for those who seem to justify these horrors as being ok and not worse then the time period before'
Where has anyone said that in this thread?