|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Discussing the evidence that support creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
jar writes: Populations are limited by their ability to utilize the available resources. The low 0.1 percentage factors the unfavorable resource factor in, not to mention the 60000 head start which I gave you. How many times must I repeat that? (Watch the personal insults, smart ass!) BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
The low 0.1 percentage factors the unfavorable resource factor in
Care to show your math? Live every week like it's Shark Week! Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3671 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The low 0.1 percentage factors the unfavorable resource factor in, not to mention the 60000 head start which I gave you NO! You CANNOT treat true population growth over some extended period this way, by picking some "appropriate" average growth rate - it is simply WRONG. Look at the rate now, at the rate 80 years ago, 200 years ago, 1000 years ago. Do these look like figures you can simply average and hope to retain some semblance of reality? You have demonstrated nothing except a willful ignorance of the subject matter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Repeating bullshit may be your only tactic Buz but it is still just bullshit. A straight population projection is nothing but bullshit.
The fact is ... Populations are limited by their ability to utilize the available resources. Do you understand that simple rule? But the really important part is it STILL does not offer any support for the perversion called Biblical Creationism. Do your EVER plan to provide any such support or keep repeating shit that has been refuted? Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Buzsaw writes: The low 0.1 percentage factors the unfavorable resource factor in, not to mention the 60000 head start which I gave you. How many times must I repeat that? No more times, I hope. Once a population reaches the Malthus limit, population growth goes to 0. If climatic conditions take a turn for the worse, such as the onset of an ice age, or such as happened in Greenland to the Norse during the mini-ice age, then population growth will go negative. Think what your mistaken approach to population growth would mean. A pair of rabbits from the ark would outreproduce humans by a long-shot. They overran Australia in just a short time after being introduced, but their population growth eventually stopped because their numbers exhausted all resources available to them. Once they hit the Malthus limit their population growth stopped. Hitting the Malthus limit doesn't mean population growth diminishes - it means it stops. The point you've been either missing or ignoring is that for much of human history mankind has existed at subsistence levels that did not permit population growth. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3076 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
No more times, I hope. Once a population reaches the Malthus limit, population growth goes to 0. If climatic conditions take a turn for the worse, such as the onset of an ice age, or such as happened in Greenland to the Norse during the mini-ice age, then population growth will go negative. Why are you invoking Malthusian geometric population principle since the same was offered as evidence against evolution? Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3076 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
The fact is ... Populations are limited by their ability to utilize the available resources. Do you understand that simple rule? A simple truism, what's the point? Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3076 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
When is Buz or any other Creationist going to present some evidence that actually supports Biblical Creationism? This is your standard question. In reality it is a rhetorical device used to deny the evidence status as evidence. Creationism is supported by: 1. Observation of design seen abundantly in reality. Logically, the same corresponds to invisible Designer. 2. Cambrian explosion: we could not ask or dream of better evidence corroborating Genesis special creation. Above we have interlocking evidence: observation of design indicates Designer and the crust of the Earth says the Designer is the Genesis Creator. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
1. Observation of design seen abundantly in reality. Logically, the same corresponds to invisible Designer. So far no one has been able to show design, only the appearance of design, and the appearance of design we do see is not that of a Designer but rather what we expect from random mutation filtered by natural selection.
2. Cambrian explosion: we could not ask or dream of better evidence corroborating Genesis special creation. Except that we have now found the precursors from pre-Cambrian rocks. Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Creationism is supported by: 1. Observation of design seen abundantly in reality. Logically, the same corresponds to invisible Designer. Ooh, are we playing petitio principii again? My turn. Evolution is supported by: 1. Observation of adaptation seen abundantly in reality. Logically, the same corresponds to evolution.
2. Cambrian explosion: we could not ask or dream of better evidence corroborating Genesis special creation. The evolution of creatures with hard parts over a period of 35 million years is the best evidence for Genesis you can dream of? Suit yourself. I can dream of better evidence for Genesis, such as anything at all that was actually evidence for Genesis in any way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4143 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
The point is that Buz does not take into account the availability of resources. His argument is essentially assuming a constant growth pattern not taking in to account the scarcity of resources much less plagues and natural disasters. The point has been made to Buz at least three times and he ignores it every single time. What is funny is that Buz and other creationists attack evolution for assuming constant radioactive decay, except he uses the same argument in principle only with something we know did not follow constant rates.
Buz's argument is total hash because of his failure to incorporate the scarcity of resources.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3076 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
The point is that Buz does not take into account the availability of resources. His argument is essentially assuming a constant growth pattern not taking in to account the scarcity of resources much less plagues and natural disasters. The point has been made to Buz at least three times and he ignores it every single time. What is funny is that Buz and other creationists attack evolution for assuming constant radioactive decay, except he uses the same argument in principle only with something we know did not follow constant rates. Buz's argument is total hash because of his failure to incorporate the scarcity of resources. I thought Buzsaw was talking only about humans? But let me say this: if resources are as you say then how do you explain the nature we see today - the same of which was destroyed by the Flood about 5300 years ago? Resources are not the paucity that you make them out to be. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4155 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: Because like Buzz, you don't understand what the word "resource" means in this context (well either that or like Buzz, you just don't want to understand no matter how many times it is repeated). In regards to population growth, the ability to get utility from a physical resource is as important as possessing physical resources. This has already been explained at least once - Here is Percy explained it in 228 - note the important point:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
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 Well let's see, to get from two to 6 billion in 10,000 years requires inputting 0.00218 into the growth rate field. That means the population after 1,000 years after creation was 17. After 2,000 years it was 155. After 3,000 years it was 1,377. As we get to about 6,000 years ago we have a population of about 12,000. 5k years ago it was about 100k. 4,000 years ago it was a million. That figure becomes 8million by 3,000 years ago, it was at 73million by Jesus' day. 1000 years ago we're at 650million. In 1200 AD we managed to hit the first billion. It's 2billion by 1500. In about 1700AD there were 3billion. In 1850 there were 4 billion people. Most 'secular' authorities would have you believe that we didn't reach 3billion until the 1960s or so. Fools, didn't they assume a constant average growth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But let me say this: if resources are as you say then how do you explain the nature we see today ... That it is sufficient, with our modern methods, to support about six billion people, some of them on the brink of starvation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024