Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Discussing the evidence that support creationism
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 301 (443830)
12-26-2007 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Dr Adequate
12-26-2007 8:41 PM


Re: Still NO support for Biblical Creationism
DA writes:
That it is sufficient, with our modern methods, to support about six billion people, some of them on the brink of starvation.
We hit 1 billion by 1200 which increased fourfold in just 6 centuries when the industrial revolution got underway. How do you account for 1 billion to 4 billion before modern methods if modern methods is what enabled the larger populations.
It appears that it allegedly took 19000 years to go from whatever the population was during ICE to just 1 billion by 1200 AD.
It seems logical that 3 couples capabable of offspring after the flood 4500 years ago would fit the model better than a 20000 year model of continuous human propagation. Likely if you count out the flood the planet could have sustained a much larger population 10 or 12 thousand years ago than a few million and the population should have escalated much earlier in human history.

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 270 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-26-2007 8:41 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Modulous, posted 12-27-2007 2:23 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 277 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-27-2007 12:04 PM Buzsaw has not replied

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 272 of 301 (443834)
12-26-2007 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Cold Foreign Object
12-26-2007 6:05 PM


Re: Still NO support for Biblical Creationism
quote:
I thought Buzsaw was talking only about humans?
I don't see how that disqualifies the criticism of his argument.
quote:
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?
Seeing as no creationist has ever proved the flood occurred (and most just flee from a honest discussion about it), you are using the fallacy of begging the question. As noted in prior threads, the salt water from the flood would have resulted in salted soil, resulting in virtually no food for herbivores. If the flood occurred, there wouldn't be life beyond herbivores capable of surviving off salt tolerable plants and a few predators. And those herbivores are few. Your point is moot as a condition you assume to be true results in a world vastly different then what we have today and that you've, like all creationists, have completely failed to prove that the flood occurred.
quote:
Resources are not the paucity that you make them out to be.
And your argument only works in fantasy land where the laws of physics, chemistry and biology don't apply and everything that doesn't make sense is credited to God.
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-26-2007 6:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 273 of 301 (443852)
12-27-2007 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Buzsaw
12-26-2007 10:34 PM


We hit 1 billion by 1200
Not according to anyone who knows anything - only using your weird maths. Most sources would estimate it around 300 million in 1200. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the world's population was 3 - 4 times larger in 1200 and we didn't notice? How do you account for the fact that experts in the field would say that we didn't hit 1 billion until the 1800s? The calculator you provided gives a number of 1850. How did they get it so very wrong?
It seems logical that 3 couples capabable of offspring after the flood 4500 years ago would fit the model better than a 20000 year model of continuous human propagation.
Actually now we have to change our number to 0.00462
This means we hit 1billion in the 1600s
During Jesus' time the population now has gone to about 600,000 and 1,000BC sees the population of the world at a massive 6,000. I like the fact that in 500BC you seem to think the world's population was 60,000!
If the Exodus was somewhere in the region of 1500BC, then I make the population of the world at that time to be about 600. Erm...so how many people were in the Exodus? 6? Egypt wasn't so much a powerful empire as it was a small hamlet. Kind of gives a different impression of Biblical history really, doesn't it?
No Buz, the numbers are nonsense unless you plan to provide some...evidence that they are true?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2007 10:34 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Buzsaw, posted 12-27-2007 10:19 AM Modulous has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 274 of 301 (443880)
12-27-2007 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Modulous
12-27-2007 2:23 AM


I didn't do the math myself. I went by the online population calculator. I see that was too simplistic to get real numbers. I got the 1200 from your previous message not realizing what you were doing there.
It does however appear problematic for evolutionists that factoring the Malthusian factor and all we only reached 300 million from ICE by 1200 AD (around 20000 years). Imo the flood model would explain that low number given that the number trippled in just 600 years from 1200AD to 1800AD before modern methodology according to the experts.

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 273 by Modulous, posted 12-27-2007 2:23 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by jar, posted 12-27-2007 10:30 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 276 by Modulous, posted 12-27-2007 11:13 AM Buzsaw has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 275 of 301 (443883)
12-27-2007 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Buzsaw
12-27-2007 10:19 AM


No problem
It does however appear problematic for evolutionists that factoring the Malthusian factor and all we only reached 300 million from ICE by 1200 AD (around 20000 years).
No, Buz, you have had this explained to you a brazillion times.
Population growth is limited by the ability to use the available resources.
Imo the flood model would explain that low number given that the number trippled in just 600 years from 1200AD to 1800AD before modern methodology according to the experts.
There is no Flood model!

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Buzsaw, posted 12-27-2007 10:19 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 276 of 301 (443888)
12-27-2007 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Buzsaw
12-27-2007 10:19 AM


It does however appear problematic for evolutionists that factoring the Malthusian factor and all we only reached 300 million from ICE by 1200 AD (around 20000 years)
Where is the problem? The growth was low for a long time, it started to increase and it peaked in the 1960s, it is now slowing. We can expect that to continue slowing and quite possibly going backwards depending on future advances in science (disease control and other health issues, energy issues, food production etc).
Imo the flood model would explain that low number given that the number trippled in just 600 years from 1200AD to 1800AD
How does the flood model explain how the world population tripled between 1200 and 1800? How does it explain that this number quickly doubled up after that? How does the flood model account for the numbers before 1200, given they were in lower numbers? Might I ask you give us some idea of what the population was each 1000 years since the flood?
Here is the normal model, give or take:
-8000 : 5,000,000 (disputed)
-1000 50,000,000
-500 100,000,000
1 200,000,000+
1000 310,000,000
1750 791,000,000
1800 978,000,000
1850 1,262,000,000
1965 3,334,874,000
2000 6,070,581,000
(wiki)
If you want an average growth rate for all of humanity that'd give you 0.00071 for the start and end poitns but that wouldn't reproduce these figures at all (unless we propose 1 billion was reached by 500BC) so obviously we can agree that growth rates have changed throughout history. Does the flood model give us any information on when these growth rates change and why?
Where would you fit flood related data into that to make an improvement, and more to the point of the thread - is there any evidence that flood model predicts these figures? Does the flood model give any clues into why China or India has the population it does?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Buzsaw, posted 12-27-2007 10:19 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Buzsaw, posted 12-27-2007 12:21 PM Modulous has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 277 of 301 (443895)
12-27-2007 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Buzsaw
12-26-2007 10:34 PM


Re: Still NO support for Biblical Creationism
Likely if you count out the flood the planet could have sustained a much larger population 10 or 12 thousand years ago than a few million ...
Why do you think this "likely"?
At that point they'd only just invented agriculture. There is no way that their way of life could have supported our modern billions.
This is perhaps the duffest argument in the creationist arsenal. Or a close second to "Why are there still monkeys?" Give it a rest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2007 10:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 278 of 301 (443899)
12-27-2007 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Modulous
12-27-2007 11:13 AM


Applying your numbers beginning -1000 we come up with the following for the Biblical flood model beginning -2500.
-2500 =8 (population) (lifespan being 200-400 for the earlier generations which would factor more children per parent)
-1000 50,000,000
-500 100,000,000
1 200,000,000+
1000 310,000,000
1750 791,000,000
1800 978,000,000
1850 1,262,000,000
1965 3,334,874,000
2000 6,070,581,000
Note the constant increase all the way up the scale. I would assume there would have been at least a half million population around -20000
Factoring in everything your chart only allows for 5 million from whatever the population was during ICE to -8000. That's 10000 years, about the same timespan that it took to go from 5 million to over a billion when the industrial revolution began to weigh in.
My conclusion is that the Biblical flood model better suits the population data.

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 276 by Modulous, posted 12-27-2007 11:13 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Modulous, posted 12-27-2007 1:04 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 280 by obvious Child, posted 12-27-2007 4:26 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 282 by Percy, posted 12-27-2007 5:10 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 279 of 301 (443905)
12-27-2007 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Buzsaw
12-27-2007 12:21 PM


OK, so from -2500 to -1000 the population growth rate between -2500 to -1000 was about 0.01049 Then the population growth rate for the next 500 years then plummeted considerably to 0.0015. The next 500 years had a similar rate, and the next 1,000 years it dropped again to 0.0004. For the period of 1000 - 1750 you have a growth rate that shoots up to 0.0012 - nearly matching earlier growth rates. Between 1750 and 1800 the growth rate massively jumps up to 0.004. 1800-1850 it slightly rises to about 0.0045, 1850-1965 it jumps yet again to about 0.009 and the final leap is to 0.0175!!!
As I said, you accept that growth rates have changed. You seem to think that being able to live to a bit longer means they their population increased quickly, but how is it we are matching them despite our short child producing span (35 years at best), and comparably short life span?
More importantly, where is your evidence that supports these growth rates or population figures?
Note the constant increase all the way up the scale. I would assume there would have been at least a half million population around -20000
Why? What evidence?
Factoring in everything your chart only allows for 5 million from whatever the population was during ICE to -8000. That's 10000 years, about the same timespan that it took to go from 5 million to over a billion when the industrial revolution began to weigh in.
I don't see your point or how this leads to the conclusion that "the Biblical flood model better suits the population data." How does it? It assumes a population growth rate comparable to today's that gets absolutely slashed in size very suddenly at some unspecified moment. At what point did our life expectancy drop to a level so that growth rate suddenly slowed down?
Why do the growth rates change after that? Look at 1 - 1000...what caused this stagnation period after such proposed growth? Did we have a second un-longevity curse placed upon us?
How is the increase from 5,000,000 less startling than increasing from 8? How is starting from 8 a 'better fit'? You can't just tell me what your conclusion is, you need to explain the steps that got you there.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Buzsaw, posted 12-27-2007 12:21 PM Buzsaw has not replied

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 280 of 301 (443948)
12-27-2007 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Buzsaw
12-27-2007 12:21 PM


Buz, how can your model be valid when it fails to incorporate changing resource availability, diseases which wiped out millions of people, war, massive migrations which curtail population growth, and assumes a constant rate of growth?
Hasn't the past 50 years showed that human population growth rates are indeed not constant?
I noticed your numbers do not show a decrease, such as when 1/2 of the population of Europe was wiped out, or when the Spanish nearly eliminated the South American natives, or the Spanish Influenza or the myriad of other population reducing events through out history.
Could you care to explain how your model is valid when it fails to incorporate large reductions in human numbers?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Buzsaw, posted 12-27-2007 12:21 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Buzsaw, posted 12-27-2007 4:57 PM obvious Child has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 301 (443959)
12-27-2007 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by obvious Child
12-27-2007 4:26 PM


OC writes:
I noticed your numbers do not show a decrease, such as when 1/2 of the population of Europe was wiped out, or when the Spanish nearly eliminated the South American natives, or the Spanish Influenza or the myriad of other population reducing events through out history.
The numbers are basically Modulous's. I assume the items you mention are factored in the figures.

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 280 by obvious Child, posted 12-27-2007 4:26 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by subbie, posted 12-27-2007 5:11 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 284 by obvious Child, posted 12-27-2007 6:22 PM Buzsaw has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 282 of 301 (443965)
12-27-2007 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Buzsaw
12-27-2007 12:21 PM


Buzsaw writes:
My conclusion is that the Biblical flood model better suits the population data.
The Biblical model you originally provided yields a world population of 1581 during the Exodus. It is wrong. Nothing more need be said. It is time to move on. Please, you or someone, introduce the next evidence for creationism.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Buzsaw, posted 12-27-2007 12:21 PM Buzsaw has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 283 of 301 (443966)
12-27-2007 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Buzsaw
12-27-2007 4:57 PM


The numbers are basically Modulous's.
In other words, the only thing you did was omit the first two entries from Mod's list and substitute an entry of your own with an explanation that has no evidential basis but is nothing more than your ad hoc rationalization, such rationalizations being the sine qua non of what passes for cdesign proponentist "analysis."

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Buzsaw, posted 12-27-2007 4:57 PM Buzsaw has not replied

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 284 of 301 (443997)
12-27-2007 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Buzsaw
12-27-2007 4:57 PM


but you have no evidence that indeed they are included?
Can you cite any evidence on his page that shows he in fact did include these things?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Buzsaw, posted 12-27-2007 4:57 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Buzsaw, posted 12-27-2007 11:40 PM obvious Child has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 301 (444049)
12-27-2007 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by obvious Child
12-27-2007 6:22 PM


No. Time to move on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by obvious Child, posted 12-27-2007 6:22 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by obvious Child, posted 12-28-2007 7:13 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