Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation of the Earth v.s. creation of man
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 16 of 57 (210922)
05-24-2005 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by PaulK
05-24-2005 4:20 PM


Well here's the evolutionists answer to the human population curve.
250 million in 0 A.D.
1 billion in 1804,
2 billion in 1927 (123 years later)
3 billion in 1960 (33 years)
4 billion in 1974 (13 years)
5 billion in 1987 (12 years)
6 billion in 1999 (12 years)
Solid data...can't argue with that.
Oh look, it appears that the population curve levels out a tad after year 0....but suddenly its 10,000-50,000 bc!
And you can find almost endless other graphs. Funny how they can all stop around 5K years ago...or go on to infinity in the reverse direction depending on how you look at it.
Good stuff.

I may not agree with what you say, But I will die defending your right to say it.
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 05-24-2005 4:20 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Alasdair, posted 05-24-2005 4:51 PM Tal has replied
 Message 19 by PaulK, posted 05-24-2005 4:59 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 20 by coffee_addict, posted 05-24-2005 7:40 PM Tal has not replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6354 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 17 of 57 (210924)
05-24-2005 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tal
05-24-2005 4:13 PM


Re: Population statistics
So are you saying you posted two pieces of information which contradict each other without any explanation ? The way I read your original post was that you were either suggesting or assuming that the figures you quoted from the overpopulation site supported the figures used by Creation Evidences Museum (CEM).
If so I'm missing what the point of your two quoted boxes was ?
Actually though, none of that matters. Do you dispute the figures shown on the link I provided ? Unless you can show something wrong in those figures it pretty much nails the quote from CEM as worthless (since it produces nonsensical values for intermediate points in history).
P.S. I'll be away from the PC for an hour or two.

Oops! Wrong Planet

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tal, posted 05-24-2005 4:13 PM Tal has not replied

  
Alasdair
Member (Idle past 5750 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 18 of 57 (210927)
05-24-2005 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Tal
05-24-2005 4:29 PM


quote:
P(n), called the function P of n, is the population generated after n years. (With the proper adjustment of r, n could be months or generations, etc. For our purposes, years will do nicely and r will be adjusted accordingly.) P (the multiplied factor on the right-hand side of the equation) is the initial population which, in our case, is eight. The growth rate is r which would be close to zero for humanity per year. A negative value would indicate a population decline. Henry Morris used a value for r of 0.0033 [0.33%] in a similar calculation which started with Adam and Eve. However, since the flood supposedly reduced the population to eight people 1656 years after creation, a figure Dr. Hovind gives based on patriarchal ages, we should start our exponential curve at the latter date. If we assume, for the sake of this argument, that the earth is 6000 years old, then we start our calculation with 8 people 4344 years ago. We must wind up with the present population of 5.5 billion people.
It turns out that if r = 0.0047 then after 4344 years we would wind up with about 5.6 billion people (1995), which is close enough. After substituting the values for P and r into the above equation we are at liberty to try out different values for n to obtain the population at different times. At the time the Israelites entered Canaan, for instance, we get a world population of 2024! By the time you divide that up between Egypt, Canaan, the rest of the world, and Israel, that leaves maybe 6 or 7 people for the Israeli army! If we go back to the time that the Hykos were expelled from Egypt, in 1560 BC, we get a world population of 325 people!
quote:
Houseflies have a generation time of just a few weeks, and each female is capable of laying several hundred eggs per generation. At that rate, the current population of houseflies would be reached in less than a decade, if we assume that every female fly lived for one month and produced a clutch of 100 eggs, and that each resulting female also produced a clutch of 100 eggs. Thus, given the current population of houseflies, it is impossible for the earth to be more than ten years old.
Good stuff indeed
I'll research some bacterial reproduction rates for you later.
This message has been edited by Alasdair, May-24-2005 01:52 PM
This message has been edited by Alasdair, May-24-2005 01:53 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Tal, posted 05-24-2005 4:29 PM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Tal, posted 05-25-2005 9:09 AM Alasdair has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 19 of 57 (210930)
05-24-2005 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Tal
05-24-2005 4:29 PM


The data you are quoting shows that the population only increased by a factor of 4 between 0 AD and 1804 AD. Then it quadrupled again in a mere 170 years. That in itself illustrates that simplistic extrapolation isn't evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Tal, posted 05-24-2005 4:29 PM Tal has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 20 of 57 (210968)
05-24-2005 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Tal
05-24-2005 4:29 PM


What's your point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Tal, posted 05-24-2005 4:29 PM Tal has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4960 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 21 of 57 (211035)
05-25-2005 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tal
05-24-2005 3:16 PM


Choked on my Irn Bru!!
You really haven't thought this one through have you?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tal, posted 05-24-2005 3:16 PM Tal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 22 of 57 (211087)
05-25-2005 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by PaulK
05-24-2005 4:20 PM


It's not evidence that humans have been around only 6000 years. It's just selective use of data to make an invalid extrapolation.
I suppose if we used a period where the population growth was negative you'd accept that as evidence we didn't exist ?
Plug those numbers in on a standard graph where the population numbers represent X and the timeline represents Y. It would seem quite obvious where X and Y would originate.

I may not agree with what you say, But I will die defending your right to say it.
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 05-24-2005 4:20 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 05-25-2005 9:18 AM Tal has not replied
 Message 29 by NosyNed, posted 05-25-2005 9:02 PM Tal has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 23 of 57 (211089)
05-25-2005 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Alasdair
05-24-2005 4:51 PM


What is the worldwide growth rate of houseflies in a year?
This message has been edited by Tal, 05-25-2005 09:17 AM

I may not agree with what you say, But I will die defending your right to say it.
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Alasdair, posted 05-24-2005 4:51 PM Alasdair has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Alasdair, posted 05-25-2005 2:49 PM Tal has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 24 of 57 (211092)
05-25-2005 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Tal
05-25-2005 9:07 AM


What do you mean by a "standard graph" ? What sort of curve does it use and how do you justify the choice of curve ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Tal, posted 05-25-2005 9:07 AM Tal has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 25 of 57 (211111)
05-25-2005 10:57 AM


Don't let the important part slip
Lets not let Tal slip the issue of the scant number of people his model proposes existed to fullfil all of the stories in the Bible. So far this has been ignored.
I find it just amazing that Creation Scientists will actually propose a statistically fragile argument to try to justify something that just so happens to go directly against Biblical literalism. What is more important, the age of the earth which is not mentioned in the Bible or all the stories in the Bible that require a reasonably established human population? Pick one.

FOX has a pretty good system they have cooked up. 10 mil people watch the show on the network, FOX. Then 5 mil, different people, tune into FOX News to get outraged by it. I just hope that those good, God fearing people at FOX continue to battle those morally bankrupt people at FOX.
-- Lewis Black, The Daily Show

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ringo, posted 05-25-2005 11:37 AM Jazzns has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 26 of 57 (211125)
05-25-2005 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Jazzns
05-25-2005 10:57 AM


Re: Don't let the important part slip
Jazzns writes:
Lets not let Tal slip the issue of the scant number of people his model proposes existed to fullfil all of the stories in the Bible.
Right now, in another topic, they are discussing whether or not there could have been 2 million Israelites in Egypt at the time of the Exodus. By Tal's scenario, there would only have been about a thousand people in the whole world at that time.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Jazzns, posted 05-25-2005 10:57 AM Jazzns has not replied

  
Alasdair
Member (Idle past 5750 days)
Posts: 143
Joined: 05-13-2005


Message 27 of 57 (211183)
05-25-2005 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Tal
05-25-2005 9:09 AM


quote:
What is the worldwide growth rate of houseflies in a year?
Exactly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Tal, posted 05-25-2005 9:09 AM Tal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Tal, posted 05-25-2005 3:45 PM Alasdair has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 28 of 57 (211209)
05-25-2005 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Alasdair
05-25-2005 2:49 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is the worldwide growth rate of houseflies in a year?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly.
We have the worldwide growth rate of humans in a year. We don't for the housflies.

I may not agree with what you say, But I will die defending your right to say it.
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Alasdair, posted 05-25-2005 2:49 PM Alasdair has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 29 of 57 (211308)
05-25-2005 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Tal
05-25-2005 9:07 AM


origins and other points
It would seem quite obvious where X and Y would originate.
You seem to have missed the point of a couple of previous posts.
No one is arguing with the origin point. The numbers were cooked to come up with that value.
The curves given predict a starting point for this population curve and predict the current population today. They were set up to do so.
However, the point is that they also predict a bunch of intermediate population figures. You have been given some.
And your comment on those intermediate figures is...?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Tal, posted 05-25-2005 9:07 AM Tal has not replied

  
d_yankee
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 57 (219580)
06-25-2005 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by New Cat's Eye
05-18-2005 7:43 PM


Yes it can...
Yes it can be accurate as the book of Genesis states that when God "first" created the earth it was "formless and void".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-18-2005 7:43 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024