Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2019 11:11 AM
39 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 854,595 Year: 9,631/19,786 Month: 2,053/2,119 Week: 89/724 Day: 21/68 Hour: 0/11


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Author Topic:   Discussing the evidence that support creationism
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 256 of 301 (443735)
12-26-2007 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by jar
12-26-2007 4:19 PM


Re: Still NO support for Biblical Creationism
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by jar, posted 12-26-2007 4:19 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by DrJones*, posted 12-26-2007 4:38 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 258 by cavediver, posted 12-26-2007 4:42 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 259 by jar, posted 12-26-2007 4:44 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 260 by Percy, posted 12-26-2007 4:47 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1867
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 257 of 301 (443737)
12-26-2007 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Buzsaw
12-26-2007 4:31 PM


Re: Still NO support for Biblical Creationism
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2007 4:31 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

cavediver
Member (Idle past 1814 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 258 of 301 (443738)
12-26-2007 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Buzsaw
12-26-2007 4:31 PM


Re: Still NO support for Biblical Creationism
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2007 4:31 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30994
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 259 of 301 (443740)
12-26-2007 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Buzsaw
12-26-2007 4:31 PM


Re: Still NO support for Biblical Creationism
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!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2007 4:31 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-26-2007 5:09 PM jar has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 18491
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 260 of 301 (443741)
12-26-2007 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Buzsaw
12-26-2007 4:31 PM


Re: Still NO support for Biblical Creationism
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2007 4:31 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-26-2007 5:07 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1218 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 261 of 301 (443750)
12-26-2007 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Percy
12-26-2007 4:47 PM


Re: Still NO support for Biblical Creationism
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Percy, posted 12-26-2007 4:47 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1218 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 262 of 301 (443752)
12-26-2007 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by jar
12-26-2007 4:44 PM


Re: Still NO support for Biblical Creationism
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by jar, posted 12-26-2007 4:44 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by obvious Child, posted 12-26-2007 5:56 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1218 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 263 of 301 (443755)
12-26-2007 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by jar
12-26-2007 2:42 PM


Re: Creationism: overwhelming support
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


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by jar, posted 12-26-2007 5:23 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 265 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-26-2007 5:40 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30994
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 264 of 301 (443756)
12-26-2007 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Cold Foreign Object
12-26-2007 5:18 PM


Re: Creationism: overwhelming support
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!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-26-2007 5:18 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 265 of 301 (443765)
12-26-2007 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Cold Foreign Object
12-26-2007 5:18 PM


Re: Creationism: overwhelming support
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-26-2007 5:18 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2286 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 266 of 301 (443770)
12-26-2007 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Cold Foreign Object
12-26-2007 5:09 PM


Re: Still NO support for Biblical Creationism
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-26-2007 5:09 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 12-26-2007 6:05 PM obvious Child has responded

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1218 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 267 of 301 (443776)
12-26-2007 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by obvious Child
12-26-2007 5:56 PM


Re: Still NO support for Biblical Creationism
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by obvious Child, posted 12-26-2007 5:56 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by CK, posted 12-26-2007 7:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 270 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-26-2007 8:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 272 by obvious Child, posted 12-26-2007 11:21 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2298 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 268 of 301 (443796)
12-26-2007 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Cold Foreign Object
12-26-2007 6:05 PM


more spoon-feeding of the most basic points.
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%!!!



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

Modulous
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 269 of 301 (443804)
12-26-2007 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Buzsaw
12-26-2007 1:39 PM


Re: Driving My Population Argument Home
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2007 1:39 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 270 of 301 (443812)
12-26-2007 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Cold Foreign Object
12-26-2007 6:05 PM


Re: Still NO support for Biblical Creationism
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.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Buzsaw, posted 12-26-2007 10:34 PM Dr Adequate has responded

RewPrev1
...
1617
18
192021Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019