Discussing the evidence that support creationism

Evidence presented supporting creationism = 0%

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, : ClarificationEdited by CK, : typoEdited by CK, : No reason given.

Let's deal with Jar's question - how is this evidence FOR creationism?

quote:

---

Resources are not the paucity that you make them out to be.

---

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:

---

The answer is no. Human populations cannot grow beyond the resources they can extract from the local environment. Improving technology increases the size of a population a region can sustain. Stone age technology could not sustain a world population of 6.454 billion, not even close. The current world population is not 6.454 billion simply because of the passage of time, but because of the contributions of modern technology, primarily in the form of improved agriculture and medicine.

​

A good example of an old technology that cannot sustain large populations that is still practiced in some parts of the world such as South America is slash-and-burn. At one time it was widely practiced, and it can sustain only low population densities. Another example of a technology that cannot sustain large populations is hunter/gatherer.

​

Technology advanced very little during the middle ages, and if we look at the rate of population growth during the period from 1000 to 1750 we see that it has an annual rate of increase of .13%, an incredibly small figure. That's a growth only slightly larger than a 10th of a percent a year! And between year 1 and year 1000, a good part of that the heart of Middle Ages, the annual growth rate was .04%!!!

---

I cannot believe after all this time that you still do not understand that arguments against evolution are not arguments for creationism - how long have you been here? 4 years? And you still don't understand that very basic point - what are people suppose to conclude?Either you have a learning difficulty (which I see no evidence for) or you know this but also know that you don't actually have any evidence for creationism and mentally you push that to the back of your mind.Let's be clear about this - no evidence AT ALL was presented for creationism, the nearest we got to any evidence was your attack on population models - which was a) full of noddy numbers and a complete disregard for resource allocation/ultisation; and b) if it was correct (which it wasn't) would DISPROVE the bible because exodus could not have happened with your numbers.If you claim in any future thread that you have provided evidence for creationism via population numbers, you should be blocked on the spot for lying.