Author
|
Topic: Do mathmatics disprove evolution?
|
AstroMike
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 1 of 11 (27659)
12-22-2002 4:35 PM
|
|
|
Replies to this message: | | Message 2 by derwood, posted 12-22-2002 5:14 PM | | AstroMike has not replied | | Message 11 by Mozambu, posted 01-05-2003 1:22 AM | | AstroMike has not replied |
|
derwood
Member (Idle past 1904 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: 12-27-2001
|
|
Message 2 of 11 (27667)
12-22-2002 5:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by AstroMike 12-22-2002 4:35 PM
|
|
I don't think so, either. The address of your link says it all....
This message is a reply to: | | Message 1 by AstroMike, posted 12-22-2002 4:35 PM | | AstroMike has not replied |
|
forgiven
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 3 of 11 (27683)
12-22-2002 7:31 PM
|
|
|
why don't you think so? i don't *know* but i'd like to hear some arguments against it
|
joz
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 4 of 11 (27709)
12-23-2002 1:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by forgiven 12-22-2002 7:31 PM
|
|
quote: Originally posted by forgiven: why don't you think so? i don't *know* but i'd like to hear some arguments against it
Have you read it yet F'given? You're a pretty smart guy see if you can`t work out where it is so wrong that it isn`t even funny....
This message is a reply to: | | Message 3 by forgiven, posted 12-22-2002 7:31 PM | | forgiven has not replied |
|
mark24
Member (Idle past 5224 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: 12-01-2001
|
|
Message 5 of 11 (27714)
12-23-2002 4:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by forgiven 12-22-2002 7:31 PM
|
|
Do the calculation with a bacteria that has a generation time of 2 hours, see how long it takes its siblings to cover the earth. They haven't, though, why? Mark ------------------ Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 3 by forgiven, posted 12-22-2002 7:31 PM | | forgiven has not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 6 by zipzip, posted 12-23-2002 5:27 AM | | mark24 has not replied |
|
zipzip
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 6 of 11 (27719)
12-23-2002 5:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 5 by mark24 12-23-2002 4:12 AM
|
|
in layman's terms, 1) they can run out of chow 2) not enough room to relieve themselves 3) don't like crowds
This message is a reply to: | | Message 5 by mark24, posted 12-23-2002 4:12 AM | | mark24 has not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 7 by joz, posted 12-23-2002 8:56 AM | | zipzip has not replied |
|
joz
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 7 of 11 (27723)
12-23-2002 8:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by zipzip 12-23-2002 5:27 AM
|
|
quote: Originally posted by zipzip: in layman's terms, 1) they can run out of chow 2) not enough room to relieve themselves 3) don't like crowds
I was thinking more in terms of taking only one date and population and extrapolating back, also assuming that the time it takes to double the population is constant seems to me to be a gross error, I would imagine that the human population stayed pretty constant up untill the advent of agriculture (apart from probably taking a hit during the ice ages).... Also to use population data for the isrealites no matter how (/if) faithfully recorded raises issues of its own, didn`t the Isrealites at some points subjugate/exterminate neighbouring tribes and take the young women as concubines? wonder what that did to the rate of population growth compared to the whole world population.... Thats not all by a long shot but its proobably enough for now...
This message is a reply to: | | Message 6 by zipzip, posted 12-23-2002 5:27 AM | | zipzip has not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 8 by TechnoCore, posted 12-25-2002 10:04 PM | | joz has not replied |
|
TechnoCore
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 8 of 11 (27871)
12-25-2002 10:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 7 by joz 12-23-2002 8:56 AM
|
|
http://www.christianstudycenter.com/...vsevo/ev5-poplies.htm Must be one of the dumbest text's i've ever read. [This message has been edited by TechnoCore, 12-25-2002]
This message is a reply to: | | Message 7 by joz, posted 12-23-2002 8:56 AM | | joz has not replied |
|
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3245 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: 03-19-2002
|
|
Message 9 of 11 (27894)
12-26-2002 9:08 AM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by forgiven 12-22-2002 7:31 PM
|
|
The main problem (other than a lack of ANY support for the 1600 year doubling time) is an assumption of a constant rate. Any outside influence which causes a deviation of this supposed rate will trash the result. Here is one, the Black Plague in Europe in the 1300's. Historical documentation demonstrates that roughly 33 % of the overall population of Europe died in the plague (cause by the bacteria Y. pestis for the curious). No numbers exist that I know of for the death rates as the plague swept out of its eastern origins prior to visiting Europe. The same objections hold true for famine, war and other events which depress the doubling time. I am also not sure that these bozos even factored in death! Not only is the basic assumption flawed but it is quite poorly written. Here is what I mean by poorly written, concerning problems with the way that they present the math. They say that the population doubles every 1612 years and was roughly 2x10^9 in 1920, so that means that in ~the year 300 the population was 1 billion, in 1300 BC the population was 0.5 billion, ect. going back to 6400 years ago well that means the world had a population of 0.125 x 10^9 at the time of Ada;, in other words the way that they represent the written statements to describe the math is done in a piss poor fashion. They do mention 2^nth but they are still not doing the calculations properly because what they are trying to determine is log growth of a population, as was mentioned earlier with bacteria. Truly a sad site. ------------------ "Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
This message is a reply to: | | Message 3 by forgiven, posted 12-22-2002 7:31 PM | | forgiven has not replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 10 by joz, posted 12-26-2002 10:00 AM | | Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied |
|
joz
Inactive Member
|
quote: Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus: Truly a sad site.
From said sad site....
...According to Dr. Kent Hovind, former high school science teacher now minister, Well what did you expect Dr T?
|
Mozambu
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 11 of 11 (28430)
01-05-2003 1:22 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by AstroMike 12-22-2002 4:35 PM
|
|
quote: Originally posted by AstroMike: http://www.christianstudycenter.com/...vsevo/ev5-poplies.htm I don't think so, despite what this says.
Mathematics can't disprove evolution, but it doesn't help the idea of a casual evolution through natural selection. I'm starting a quarrel about this in my post "Blind Evolution".
This message is a reply to: | | Message 1 by AstroMike, posted 12-22-2002 4:35 PM | | AstroMike has not replied |
|