Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2019 4:27 AM
29 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,816 Year: 4,853/19,786 Month: 975/873 Week: 331/376 Day: 8/116 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do mathmatics disprove evolution?
AstroMike
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 11 (27659)
12-22-2002 4:35 PM


http://www.christianstudycenter.com/evidence/creatvsevo/ev5-poplies.htm

I don't think so, despite what this says.


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by derwood, posted 12-22-2002 5:14 PM AstroMike has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Mozambu, posted 01-05-2003 1:22 AM AstroMike has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member
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 yet responded

    
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
Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by joz, posted 12-23-2002 1:54 AM forgiven has not yet responded
 Message 5 by mark24, posted 12-23-2002 4:12 AM forgiven has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 12-26-2002 9:08 AM forgiven has not yet responded

  
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 yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3299 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 yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by zipzip, posted 12-23-2002 5:27 AM mark24 has not yet responded

    
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 yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by joz, posted 12-23-2002 8:56 AM zipzip has not yet responded

  
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 yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by TechnoCore, posted 12-25-2002 10:04 PM joz has not yet responded

  
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/evidence/creatvsevo/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 yet responded

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 1321 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 yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by joz, posted 12-26-2002 10:00 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not yet responded

    
joz
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 11 (27900)
12-26-2002 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
12-26-2002 9:08 AM


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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 12-26-2002 9:08 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not yet responded

  
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/evidence/creatvsevo/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 yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019