Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007
|
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,20:32) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,21:04) | | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,05:09) | You seem to be having extreme difficulty coming to terms with very simple concepts.
Williams uses "doubling time". The formula for population growth via doubling time is standard and can be seen here. I don't have to present it, anybody who knows the slightest thing about the topic already knows it, and anyone else can locate it without difficulty.
The numbers I presented are based upon what Williams gave, not Morris.
Again, I am not Mark Isaac. But I'll note that if one works it using the equation you provided and the years and population that Williams provided, one finds that the growth rate resulting is about 0.0037217261 (given initial population of 8, final population of 1.8 billion, and interval of 5,177 years). Plugging that into the calculator you linked yields 969,787 for the population in AD 1, which isn't all that much different than the 655,683 interpolated based on Williams' numbers, and it is still plainly nonsensical, just as I had asserted. Again, you seem to be incompetent at this. |
Again, population doubling times have been decreasing exponentially since the time of Christ, so why would I use these obscure numbers ? More importantly, why do you base your whole premise here on steady doubling rates while denying exponential growth?
|
Williams is not obscure. I did not go seeking Williams' prose; it was brought into a discussion by a SciCre advocate as an authoritative, mathematical "disproof of evolution". I responded to it and made that response available generally.
First, it is not my premise. I've documented that it is Williams' premise that a fixed, continuous, constant exponential doubling rate is an adequate basis to overthrow evolution.
Second, I play SciCre balderdash where it lies. And it lies a lot. If you don't like the quality of the argument in question, get after the SciCre advocates to up their game.
Third, I have not denied that exponential growth occurs. What I've disputed is the assertion that exponential growth at a constant rate, as Williams and other SciCre advocates use, properly characterizes human population size in deep time.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) |
| Quote | | I am going to point out some problems with the SciCre population argument.....I am only interested in the anti-evolutionary components of the SciCre population argument; use of the population argument in apologetics is not something I care about. I don't think that anyone can demonstrate that real population dynamics disbar Global Flood scenarios, so if use in apologetics is all that is intended from some source, I have no real beef with it. |
So too bestow the role of the mellow hero, you proclaim "no beef" with SciCre as long as they conform to the Scopes monkey trial? Yet, in melodramatic fashion you scoured the web for some obscure paper from 1925 in order to falsely stereotype SciCre? Plus, your many posts here prove your boundless beefs with SciCre
|
SciCre is not science. I will vociferously resist advocates who insist that other people have to accord it status as science. If they don't insist that public policy be amended to privilege their falsehoods, I don't have much motivation to go after them. I've been quite consistent about this distinction over the years.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) |
| Quote | | We will be more generous in our calculations and start with eight people in 2350 B.C.E. (a traditional date for the Flood) |
Again, how are you being generous to Henry Morris when his 'Genesis Record ' tells in at least three places that the Flood could have appeared 2459 BC to 7459 BC?
|
Again, I am not Mark Isaak. You are quoting text that Mark Isaak wrote. I realize that you are cognitively challenged, but I've specifically pointed this out in at least two previous posts. Do you have some timetable for when the dead glowworm that serves as your mental light bulb might switch on? My critique was of the argument provided by Williams.
But let's take your asserted oldest date for Morris' estimate of The Flood as 7459. With an initial population of 8 (this is also generous) and 9384 years to 1925 with its 1.8 billion people, you will find a growth rate of about 0.00205. Plugging that in for the interval from 7459 to 2566 BCE, one gets an estimated total world population of about 181,000 at the time of the construction of the Great Pyramid in Egypt, which still isn't looking good for SciCre population dynamics.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) |
| Quote | No, my "model" is that there has not been a continuous, constant exponential growth of human population, thus no such conclusion follows. You really are reading-comprehension challenged, aren't you?
"There is no particular reason to choose a population growth rate of 0.5 percent for the calculation. The population growth from 1000 to 1800 has been closer to 0.1227 percent per year (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1984). At that rate, the population would have grown to its present size from the eight Flood survivors in 16,660 years." |
Again, you insist that I provide sources for my numbers yet here you are writing dogmatic articles based on a 1984 Britannica. Furthermore, I provided all kinds of scholarly books that disagree with your dogma but of course you didnt accept them.
|
Once again, you are falsely attributing to me work done by Mark Isaak. Get a grip.
I notice that you completely failed to address my point. I take that you have abandoned your claim.
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) |
| Quote | | The SciCre argument is self-contained, and deliberately ignores all other sources of information. Human history does not record a global flood. Human history is continuous through the times proposed for a global flood. Human history is continuous through the times proposed for a global flood. Geological evidence shows no sign of a global flood. |
Creationists are inspired by the natural and spirit world so your "self contained" is an obvious projection. In fact, the earliest histories are all about the Flood and the spirit worlds.
 See these receding seas
http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false
Although the fail to understand the power of oral traditions, the following site contains several of the Flood stories from around the world http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......hs.html |
I see that you don't comprehend what "self-contained" means. I think I could have guessed that without confirmation. |
| Quote | | I notice that you completely failed to address my point. I take that you have abandoned your claim. |
Sorry if I missed something. I’ll try to be more thorough on this interesting topic.
| Quote | | Second, I play SciCre balderdash where it lies. And it lies a lot. If you don't like the quality of the argument in question, get after the SciCre advocates to up their game. |
First of all you are misrepresenting and/or stereotyping creationists because when it comes right down to it, a huge proportion from diverse religions are extremely interested in discussing their belief in creation in scientific and logical ways.
| Quote | I will add a fifth point, really a corollary to the first point. The SciCre argument is self-contained, and deliberately ignores all other sources of information. | Quote | Creationists are inspired by the natural and spirit world so your "self contained" is an obvious projection. In fact, the earliest histories are all about the Flood and the spirit worlds. | Quote | | I see that you don't comprehend what "self-contained" means. I think I could have guessed that without confirmation. |
|
|
Hmm...you knock us for not using science but get vociferously resistant when we do. And all this rage about our so called quote mining is a real double standard.
| Quote | | SciCre is not science. I will vociferously resist advocates who insist that other people have to accord it status as science. If they don't insist that public policy be amended to privilege their falsehoods, I don't have much motivation to go after them. I've been quite consistent about this distinction over the years. |
You don’t mean the so called Totalitarian Scientific Inquisition ready for even militant intolerance of whom it deems as heretics, marked by the severity of questioning and punishment and lack of any academic freedom afforded to the accused?
| Quote | SciCre Population Dynamics: An Exercise in Selective and Misleading Use of Data
Williams is not obscure. I did not go seeking Williams' prose; it was brought into a discussion by a SciCre advocate as an authoritative, mathematical "disproof of evolution". I responded to it and made that response available generally. |
There are much more well known versions that would have seemed less cherry picked than this one. Btw, from what feedback did TalkOrigins fill their archives?
| Quote | Again, I am not Mark Isaak. You are quoting text that Mark Isaak wrote. I realize that you are cognitively challenged, but I've specifically pointed this out in at least two previous posts. Do you have some timetable for when the dead glowworm that serves as your mental light bulb might switch on? My critique was of the argument provided by Williams.
Once again, you are falsely attributing to me work done by Mark Isaak. Get a grip. |
Ok sorry but your name was the one highlighted on the page. Plus, Mark Isaak edits all of TalkOrigin’s archive of Creationist Claims but according to his website, he has only wrote on six of them.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....ex.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....rs.html
You would know this since: “In 1995, Vickers established an easily browsed site, coded a feedback system, and handled all the updates to the Archive from 1995 to 2001. In 2001, Vickers transferred the TalkOrigins Archive to Wesley R. Elsberry, since Vickers's work demanded much of his attention, leaving little time to maintain the web site. Elsberry organized a group of volunteers to handle the maintenance of the Archive, now including Mark Isaak, etc…etc….In 2004, Kenneth Fair incorporated the TalkOrigins Foundation as a Texas 501©(3) non-profit organization.[1] The Foundation's purposes include funding and maintaining the TalkOrigins Archive and holding copyrights to Archive articles, thereby simplifying the process of reprinting and updating those articles. The copyright issue has posed a particular problem since the FAQs started off as a small collection with little thought given to copyright but have since mushroomed. In 2005, the Foundation was granted tax-exempt status by the IRS.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......Archive
Btw, were creationists ever allowed to edit this “archived feedback” over at the TalkOrigins forum ?
| Quote |
Certain proponents of "scientific creationism" (SciCre) have put forward an argument that humans could not have evolved, simply because human population size shows that humans have only been around a few thousand years. Those putting forward the argument tie the original population size to either two (sometimes Adam and Eve, sometimes Noah and his wife) or eight (Noah's immediate family), note a current population figure, and derive a rate of increase by use of some Biblical chronology to either creation, Noah's birth, or The Flood. It should be noted that biblically, what should be argued is either descent from two (Adam and Eve) or from six (Noah's sons and their wives). While some admit up front that the calculation of rate of increase yields an average value and that the actual rate of increase varies, many do not.
The argument assumes what it is supposed to prove. |
Secondly, Williams simply had the doubling times too small but you deny it to a point that disagrees even with most evolutionists.
Thirdly, all of these beefs that you have with Williams are exactly what your EvoCre preaches. For instance:
Fourthly, evolutionism is riddled with assumptions, abides less with Occam’s razor, and is much more pseudoscientific on average.
Fifthly, most scientific models start out with either two or small band of individuals and often with the same rates that creationists use..
Sixthly, evolutionists base many of their chronologies on phylogenetic assumptions known to be racked with fraud and calibrated to radiometric dating, which also has been suspect.
| Quote | While I worked from Williams' example, any similar argument will produce a similar set of counter-factual intermediate values. What the real values tell us is that human population does not always increase exponentially, and thus current population cannot tell us an initial population time.
Final population size is an unreliable indicator of initial population time. This is really a reiteration of the last point. There is no general means of inferring a history of population sizes from a current population size. Attempting to do so coupled with the claim that such attempts disprove evolution shows both ignorance and hubris. |
Unless there is a global event like the Flood, it does.
“Rough estimates of population growth rates are derived from the doubling time interval estimates……The simplest arithmetical way to count the number of doublings is to start with 1 and continue with a doubling until one passes the current population level”
http://www.drhern.com/pdfs.......ing.pdf
Ethnohistorical approaches to population rates do depend on primary variables like final populations. Archaeological approaches often do not use it but I have been reading that even this approaches with Aborigine and Native American population rates conclude with exponential growth patterns
| Quote | The crux of the argument comes when they use the derived rate of increase for comparison to the deep time that evolutionary timetables give. The numbers of humans that would be present, they say, were evolution true, would be far greater than what we observe today, and thus evolution of humans must be false.
In recent times, human population growth has been exponential, but this does not mean that the human population has been growing exponentially for all its residence time.
|
With your brand of deep time, no rate of increase seems to fit even uniformitarianism because there is no evidence for the kind of chronic perturbations needed to account for all the missing bodies. I mean it would have to have been vastly more plagued or volcanic than places in historical Africa or Asia whose population growth rates are soaring even amongst rampant AIDS, malaria, poverty, etc…
 Most, including your own Richardhughes, who posted the above chart, would seem to agree that even the first band of humans grew exponentially.
Exponential Doubling times chart http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history/world-population-growth.htm
| Quote |
In no case do exponentially reproducing populations "take over the world" as SciCre'ists assure us would be the case if evolution were true.
None of your links show anyone thinking that continuous, constant exponential growth is an expected feature of any population. Why would you? |
This is another gross misinterpretation and/or stereotype We simply say the population of living and dead don’t support your premise. Creationist don’t worry about overpopulation, but rather over exploitation by the oligarchy, with their survival of the fittest philosophies. On the other hand there has been a powerful population control and eugenics lobby by influential evolutionist for over a century now. They implement Darwin’s double edged “wedge” (also known as biological replacement, survival of the fittest, Malthusian death struggle, etc) as a law that must be harnessed by the academic aristocracy.
And yes, those links do propose prehistoric exponential growth and the one by devout evolutionist Jeffrey Mckee has a real Mein Kampf to it; and how fitting that this Mckee fellow learned under apartheid South Africa, with its NeoNazi control of the fossil records. He goes on and on about the assumed overkill via Native Americans, Africans Aborigines, etc….Its a shame that he wont even consider the Biblical explanation of the overkill and how it occurred before the Flood
http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false
http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false
http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false
http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false
| Quote | | Fossil evidence indicates that mankind is far more ancient than SciCre'ists would admit. None of this evidence goes away or is addressed by the population argument. |
Yeah bones last and/or fossilize but preserved DNA? Imo, the abundance of soft tissue and DNA in these fossil humans and animals is the strongest case against the deep ages required by evolution.
| Quote | | But let's take your asserted oldest date for Morris' estimate of The Flood as 7459. With an initial population of 8 (this is also generous) and 9384 years to 1925 with its 1.8 billion people, you will find a growth rate of about 0.00205. Plugging that in for the interval from 7459 to 2566 BCE, one gets an estimated total world population of about 181,000 at the time of the construction of the Great Pyramid in Egypt, which still isn't looking good for SciCre population dynamics. |
Again, your premise is based on the very model that you are apposing, which is the “use of a final population” when it fits your own agenda. Likewise, you like to compare human population rates to bacteria or correlate fossil apes with humans or dinosaurs with birds, etc…etc…but when a creationist correlates ancient humans to modern humans, you cry foul.
However, due to the many human errors in estimating the current population, one can only get a rough estimate on population rates of the past. “One of the sources of errors in official estimates is that some of the highest fertility in developing countries is occurring outside the scope of official census observations (Hern, 1977), an observation made by Pearl in 1939 (1939, p. 253)… The demographers use an accurate number for the previous population base – since it was collected ten years ago and now we know that it was higher than we thought – and an inaccurate, falsely low estimate for the current (today’s) population, giving again a falsely low official estimate of growth rate.” http://www.drhern.com/pdfs.......ing.pdf
Getting back to your question, Noah had at least 16 grandchildren with only the most prominent recorded. That is a 4.5 % growth rate, which is about the same as some modern African countries; so there definitely would have been no shortage of people at the pyramid era. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......th_rate
However there were tectonic upheavals one to two hundred years during the fall of Babel, which may have lead to widespread bottlenecks.
The Great Pyramid is the oldest, largest and most complex. pyramid in Giza Egypt. Egyptologists believe that the pyramid and Sphinx were built for fourth dynasty Egyptian Pharaoh Khufu (Cheops in Greek) over an approximately 20 year period concluding around 2560 BC. However, C14 dating of the pyramid and Sphinx has been discordant due to the necessity of dating charcoal that was used to process the pyramid’s gypsum mortar. This charcoal, it is believed, came from differently aged trees that could have sat in the desert for ages. Recycling of wood and other materials was a common practice in Egypt. Not only because of desertification and heavy consumption, but possibly because Pharaohs felt a need to make a conscious connection with their ancestors. Bonani G, Haas H, Hawass Z, Lehner M, Nakhla S, Nolan J, Wenke R, Wölfli W. “Radiocarbon Dates of Old and Middle Kingdom Monuments in Egypt,” Radiocarbon 43, No. 3 (2001), 1297-1320(24). |
OMG YES I IT LIKE ELEVEN TIMES
--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK
Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG
the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat
I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles
|
