Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussing the evidence that support creationism
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 241 of 301 (443683)
12-26-2007 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Buzsaw
12-26-2007 11:22 AM


Driving your stupid Population Argument Home
How do evolutionists account for the lack of evdence accounting for the population growth problem here?
By pointing out that the problem only exists in the minds of Biblical Creationists.
First, you did not even use the formula in your original link. Second you did not even use the 82 year fudge factor.
Did you even read any of the responses? It appears not since they clearly answered that question.
Population growth is limited by the ability to make use of the resources available.
Can you understand that?

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2007 11:22 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 242 of 301 (443684)
12-26-2007 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by cavediver
12-26-2007 11:58 AM


Re: Driving My Population Argument Home
cavediver writes:
Buzz, I'm truly speachless... have you read anything that Percy has stated? A growth rate of 0.5% for 20500 years??? You've just been told that the growth rate from 1CE to 1000CE was around 0.04%. Where the hell do you get 0.5% from?
I was way, way beyond speechless! Thanks for noticing!
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by cavediver, posted 12-26-2007 11:58 AM cavediver has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 243 of 301 (443702)
12-26-2007 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Buzsaw
12-26-2007 11:22 AM


Re: Driving My Population Argument Home
What I'm trying to do is to simplify the solution to this debate since there's so much controversy over the reading of the original website and so few messages to move on from this.
I'll give plenty of leeway to make it more than fair with the advantage to evolutionists.
Calculate beginning with 2 persons 40000 years ago today. That allows 60000 years of advancement in the human race before we begin the calculation as per the evolutionist model. Now again for your advantage let's set the average growth rate at .1% factoring in everything. After 40000 years the population should still be:
Population in 40000 yrs (present) = 46,099,380,681,100,000
And that's even allowing the advantage to evolution of a hypothetical starting point beginning 40000 years ago with two people!
Population in 40000 = 46,099,380,681,100,000
Calculator: Human Population Calculator
Edited by Buzsaw, : add calculator link
Edited by Buzsaw, : correct typo on percentage.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2007 11:22 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by CK, posted 12-26-2007 1:47 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 245 by cavediver, posted 12-26-2007 2:00 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 246 by Percy, posted 12-26-2007 2:21 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 269 by Modulous, posted 12-26-2007 7:40 PM Buzsaw has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 244 of 301 (443705)
12-26-2007 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Buzsaw
12-26-2007 1:39 PM


Evidence of creationist ability to misuse/mis-represent numbers but that's it.
but that's a daft calculation to make because it takes no account of resource availability, which has already been pointed out to you three or four times already... even the calculator you use states that:
quote:
Many factors, such as culture, infant mortality, quality of health care, life expectancy, availability of birth control, illiteracy and education all effect population growth. For the sake of simplicity, this calculator assumes a consistent Growth Rate throughout the given date range.
I also like how you think you are doing a favour by setting average growth at 0.1% when it already know that the growth rate from 1CE to 1000CE was around 0.04%!
Edited by CK, : Clarification
Edited by CK, : typo
Edited by CK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2007 1:39 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2007 3:57 PM CK has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 245 of 301 (443707)
12-26-2007 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Buzsaw
12-26-2007 1:39 PM


Re: Driving My Population Argument Home
et's set the average growth rate at .01% factoring in everything
Buz, if you did use .01% then your answer would be 109 people in 60,000 years
You've used 0.1%
Give it up, Buz - the horse isn't just dead, it's partly fossilised - thats not a hole anymore, it's a tunnel to Australia, etc, etc
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2007 1:39 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2007 4:00 PM cavediver has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 246 of 301 (443712)
12-26-2007 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Buzsaw
12-26-2007 1:39 PM


Re: Driving My Population Argument Home
Buzsaw writes:
What I'm trying to do is to simplify the solution to this debate since there's so much controversy over the reading of the original website and so few messages to move on from this.
There is no controversy over the original website. It is wildly wrong no matter how you interpret it, and this has already been explained in detail.
Calculate beginning with 2 persons 40000 years ago today. That allows 60000 years of advancement in the human race before we begin the calculation as per the evolutionist model. Now again for your advantage let's set the average growth rate at .01% factoring in everything. After 40000 years the population should still be:
Population in 40000 yrs (present) = 46,099,380,681,100,000
Buz, what term would you use to describe someone who continues making the same erroneous point over and over again, despite that it's been explained why it's wrong many times in different ways by multiple people? Whatever term that might be, please take that term and apply it to yourself. Thank you.
Now let's move on to another evidence for creationism.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2007 1:39 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by jar, posted 12-26-2007 2:42 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 250 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2007 4:04 PM Percy has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 247 of 301 (443716)
12-26-2007 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Percy
12-26-2007 2:21 PM


Still NO support for Biblical Creationism
Assume for a second that Buz's nonsense was correct, and that we do not see Malthusian Growth all around.
How would that provide any support for Creationism?
The problem is the same one that gets repeated here all the time.
The fact we do not see straight geometric population growth does not offer any support for Biblical Creationism. By Buz continuing to waste everyones time on a point that does not offer any support for his assertion in the first place, he gets to claim some form of victory by filling the thread without admitting he is spouting nonsense.
The fact is that the current population models explain what we see in humans as well as every other species. Populations are limited by the ability to use the resources available.
When is Buz or any other Creationist going to present some evidence that actually supports Biblical Creationism?

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Percy, posted 12-26-2007 2:21 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2007 4:11 PM jar has replied
 Message 263 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-26-2007 5:18 PM jar has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 301 (443724)
12-26-2007 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by CK
12-26-2007 1:47 PM


Re: Evidence of creationist ability to misuse/mis-represent numbers but that's it.
DA writes:
I also like how you think you are doing a favour by setting average growth at 0.1% when it already know that the growth rate from 1CE to 1000CE was around 0.04%!
But we're not talking ICE to CE. We're talking 40000 to present. That's what you need to address. Thanks for correcting my typo to 0.1%

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by CK, posted 12-26-2007 1:47 PM CK has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 249 of 301 (443725)
12-26-2007 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by cavediver
12-26-2007 2:00 PM


Re: Driving My Population Argument Home
So it was a typo. We all make them on occasion. What is your response to 0.1% relative to my calculations.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by cavediver, posted 12-26-2007 2:00 PM cavediver has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 250 of 301 (443726)
12-26-2007 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Percy
12-26-2007 2:21 PM


Re: Driving My Population Argument Home
I've lowered the bar considerably for you from the original website. Why do you want to move on so quickly without countering my skewed calculations which are all in your favor? (Correction in typo = 0.1%)

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by Percy, posted 12-26-2007 2:21 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by CK, posted 12-26-2007 4:06 PM Buzsaw has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 251 of 301 (443727)
12-26-2007 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Buzsaw
12-26-2007 4:04 PM


Re: Driving My Population Argument Home
Let's deal with Jar's question - how is this evidence FOR creationism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2007 4:04 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2007 4:26 PM CK has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 252 of 301 (443728)
12-26-2007 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by jar
12-26-2007 2:42 PM


Re: Still NO support for Biblical Creationism
Jar, my calculations are not based on straight geometric population growth. I'm sure you are aware of that. Why do you try to argue otherwise? Who's wasting bandwidth? They are based on a low average basis which allows for periods of lower growth. Plus I'm giving you all a 60000 year head start for good measure! Have you forgotten that already?

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by jar, posted 12-26-2007 2:42 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by jar, posted 12-26-2007 4:19 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 255 by Percy, posted 12-26-2007 4:28 PM Buzsaw has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 253 of 301 (443730)
12-26-2007 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Buzsaw
12-26-2007 4:11 PM


Re: Still NO support for Biblical Creationism
All you are doing is spouting your bullshit as usual Buz. You have been given the answer MANY times in this thread but maybe if I give it one more time it might get through.
Populations are limited by their ability to utilize the available resources.
It really is that simple and someone's gotta be dumber than a red brick not to understand that.
Oh, and one more thing.
They offer no support for the perversion called Biblical Creationism.

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2007 4:11 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2007 4:31 PM jar has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 254 of 301 (443732)
12-26-2007 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by CK
12-26-2007 4:06 PM


Re: Driving My Population Argument Home
DA writes:
Let's deal with Jar's question - how is this evidence FOR creationism?
No matter how you cut it the math appears to bode in favor of the Biblical model of relatively recent created humans.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by CK, posted 12-26-2007 4:06 PM CK has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 255 of 301 (443733)
12-26-2007 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Buzsaw
12-26-2007 4:11 PM


Re: Still NO support for Biblical Creationism
Buz, this is just breathtaking, even for you. Isn't there even a hint of something nibbling at the back of your mind that perhaps you're overlooking something? Like maybe the one thing that everyone keeps mentioning? Like maybe Malthusian limits?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2007 4:11 PM Buzsaw 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