Rejecting evolution with science...

[_kabal_]

Wiki is pro-evolution and therefor bias against anything that contradicts that

Ok, it's official. You are either an utter whack job, mentally retarded or trolling. No sane person actually could believe the above.

I bet when people write the truth on wiki(being editable) the bias evil moderators revert it to hide the truth, and delete the history/rollbacks.

 

[DJ...]

The "other side" is saying the same thing about that side. So there's that.

This so called "other side" makes no such distinction. The only distinctions are those in the minds of the whackjobs convinced that there is a conspiracy. Do you not see the circular logic here? Make claims; claim other side is against you; use this as evidence not to trust science. It is the logic of a moron or a 6 year old, not that of a rational adult.

Moreover, you still haven't refuted any of the points I raised...

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Ok, it's official. You are either an utter whack job, mentally retarded or trolling. No sane person actually could believe the above.

I bet when people write the truth on wiki(being editable) the bias evil moderators revert it to hide the truth, and delete the history/rollbacks.

It must be Satan that somehow manages to syncronize all the scientists thoughts so they all come to the exact same conclusions.

 

[Ekstasis]

This so called "other side" makes no such distinction. The only distinctions are those in the minds of the whackjobs convinced that there is a conspiracy. Do you not see the circular logic here? Make claims; claim other side is against you; use this as evidence not to trust science. It is the logic of a moron or a 6 year old, not that of a rational adult.

Moreover, you still haven't refuted any of the points I raised...

the "whacjobs" who started the "conspiracy" are scientists with actual credentials

 

[Unhappy1]

You know your argument is terribly weak when you have to resort to conspiracy theories.

 

[porchrat]

Wiki is pro-evolution and therefor bias against anything that contradicts that

Oh for goodness sake Ekstasis.

That insane video all but blames evolution for Nazism. That is simply not rational.

 

[Swa]

Dude if they could credibly discredit ToE scientifically then that would be a major scientific advance, like on Einstein advance level. Any Journal would jump at the opportunity to be part of that bandwagon, so please take a step back into reality on this one.

Apparently you don't know how science works.

This despite the fact that the predictions and claims within evolutionary theories are constantly being tested and retested by researchers all over the globe.

Yes and they fail countless times. What more do you need to see it's hogwash?

And yet most of them will reject the claim that there is any bias involved and that their religious beliefs have nothing to do with it. Sure.

The problem with this is that no matter what cited, accurate, truthful references you make, or suggestions for certain people to watch, they simply won't believe it. They have far too much invested in believing the "other" side of the story, no matter how much bullschit they spew. Pointless continuing further debate when you post scientific sources with citations to actual research that are rebutted with a conspiracy video of what has been subsequently exposed to be lie after lie after lie. Pointless trying to debate with someone who believes that there is a warring faction between science and "the truth". They have created that line in the sand and have already picked a side...

Oh the massive irony again...

I don't know if it is all about religion. Conspiracy theorists don't necessarily need to be driven by religion. Guys like Ekstasis have a clear distrust of the scientific community and I don't see how it is based on anything rational. Ekstasis views the scientific community as some sort of hierarchy where a scientist can be voted off the island for presenting valid science. I don't know where this view comes from. Perhaps it is a result of having never been involved in the scientific community, having never watched it work from the inside. I just don't understand where this misinformation comes from.

Then explain why people don't want their names mentioned in a book contradicting accepted ideas. It seems very much a case that if you don't agree with the establishment you get voted off the island.

Moreover, you still haven't refuted any of the points I raised...

I have. So are you going to respond to any of it or just continue rambling?

You know your argument is terribly weak when you have to resort to conspiracy theories.

Weak your argument is then.

 

[SaiyanZ]

Looks like Ekstasis is trying to take Swa's place as clown of the forums. It will be tough but I think he can do it.

 

[RiaX]

Apparently you don't know how science works.

thats you .... out of curiosity what do you do for a living swa? (i ask because I believe you are 13 years old now)

Yes and they fail countless times. What more do you need to see it's hogwash?

well for me to see its hogwash bring god to me and let me have a beer with him and ask why he made stupid people ... why is god a he BTW ?

Oh the massive irony again..

this is you being to stupid to realise levels of information. Homework swa go and find out what is meant by primary, secondary and tertiary levels of information

Then explain why people don't want their names mentioned in a book contradicting accepted ideas. It seems very much a case that if you don't agree with the establishment you get voted off the island.

NO because it will ruin one's name, just like how you ruined yours. Secondly enough people have tried to go against evolution and they have ALL failed. What happened to michael behe again ?

I have. So are you going to respond to any of it or just continue rambling?

YOU HAVE ?!?! please take a picture of your science rating for disproving evolution and the human genome itself. Shaw swa i mustve missed the article in the paper where you became famous for disproving it and showing that MRSA doesnt exist and it was just a dream state we were all in.

you have disproved jack s**t and you the one rambling

Weak your argument is then.

Yeah your powers are weak old man..... bring god here i will beat the shyte out of him ... what a scaredy cat he is

 

[AlmightyBender]

Apparently you don't know how science works.

Yeah I definately don't. But I do know how businesses and motivating incentives and human nature work.

But please elaborate on how science does work for me then, because I'd like to know.

 

[dudewotevr]

So.. Swa and Ekstasis battling it out for top spot then..

 

[Ekstasis]

I'm trying to find any explanations against the human population problem regarding evolution. Modern human came in existence about 40000 yrs ago according to evolution, but population statistics incorporating past history of recorded population numbers and growth percentage suggests that the first 2 humans were around 6200 yrs back

 

[DJ...]

I'm trying to find any explanations against the human population problem regarding evolution. Modern human came in existence about 40000 yrs ago according to evolution, but population statistics incorporating past history of recorded population numbers and growth percentage suggests that the first 2 humans were around 6200 yrs back

Where the fsck do you get this bullschit information? :wtf:

 

[Unhappy1]

Where the fsck do you get this bullschit information? :wtf:

From is arse , where else?

 

[porchrat]

I'm trying to find any explanations against the human population problem regarding evolution. Modern human came in existence about 40000 yrs ago according to evolution, but population statistics incorporating past history of recorded population numbers and growth percentage suggests that the first 2 humans were around 6200 yrs back

What?

Are you really trying to predict human population growth trends?!? You have no idea what the mortality rates and birth rates were back then mate. How could you even begin to hope to accurately predict population trends before recorded history. Do you not question anything that you read even in some rudimentary fashion?

I'm not kidding when I say that the sort of nonsense you have presented, and the ignorance you have demonstrated, in this thread put you on par with the infamous rza in my mind. This is moronic stuff that kids in high school would be able to see holes in.

 

[Ekstasis]

What?

Are you really trying to predict human population growth trends?!? You have no idea what the mortality rates and birth rates were back then mate. How could you even begin to hope to accurately predict population trends before recorded history. Do you not question anything that you read even in some rudimentary fashion?

I'm not kidding when I say that the sort of nonsense you have presented, and the ignorance you have demonstrated, in this thread put you on par with the infamous rza in my mind. This is moronic stuff that kids in high school would be able to see holes in.

And scientists have accurate data to prove common decent?? lol
Dating methods have been known to get age wrong of items with a known age.

Anyway.....

To illustrate the problem, assume that the human population increases geometrically. That is, the increase each year is equal to a constant proportion of the population the previous year. This relationship can be expressed algebraically as follows:

(1)

Pn = P (l + r)n

in which P is the population at any certain time, r is the proportionate annual increase in population, and Pn is the population n years later. For example, if the present population is 3.5 billion and the planet's permissible population is 50 billion, the number of years before this number will be reached at the present 2% annual increase can be calculated as follows:

50 x 109 = 3.5 x 109 (1.02)n

from which
log 50 = n log 1.02
3.5



and
n = 1.156 = 135 years
0.0086

We have already discussed this result, however. Looking toward the past, instead of the future, equation (1) will also indicate how long it would take to produce the present population at 2% growth per year, starting with two people. Thus:

3.5 x 109 = 2 (1.02) n

from which
n = 9 + log 3.5 / 2 = 1075 years
log 1.02

That is, an initial population of only two people, increasing at 2% per year, would become 3.5 billion people in only 1075 years. Since written records go back over 4,000 years, it is obvious that the average growth rate throughout past history has been considerably less than the present rate.

As a matter of interest, we can also use equation (1) to determine what the average growth rate would have to be to generate the present population in 4,000 years. Thus:

3.5 x 109 = 2(l + r)4000

from which

r = (1.75 x 109)1/4000-1 = 1/2%

Thus, an average population growth rate of only (1/2)% would generate the present world population in only 4000 years. This is only one-fourth of the present rate of growth.

Now, although it is obvious that the present rate of growth (2%) could not have prevailed for very long in the past, it does seem unlikely that the long-time growth rate could have averaged significantly less than (1/2)%. Very little is known about the world population in earlier times, but everything that is known indicates the population has steadily increased throughout recorded history.

Dr. Ansley J. Coale, Director of the Office of Population Research at Princeton University, has discussed the paucity of such data in an important recent study.

"Any numerical description of the development of the human population cannot avoid conjecture, simply because there has never been a census of all the people of the world ... The earliest date for which the global population can be calculated with an uncertainty of only, say 20 per cent is the middle of the 18th century. The next earliest time for which useful data are available is the beginning of the Christian era, when Rome collected information bearing on the number of people in various parts of the empire."1

The usually-accepted estimates of world population for these two dates are, respectively, about 200 million in A.D. 1 and about one billion in 1800 A.D. The first, however, may be vastly in error, since no one really knows the population in most parts of the world at that early date.

For earlier periods than A.D. 1, absolutely nothing is known concerning world populations. It should be emphatically stressed that all estimates of earlier populations except that recorded in the Bible (namely, that immediately after the great Flood, the world population consisted of eight people) are based solely on evolutionary concepts of human technological development.

"For still earlier periods (than A.D. 1) the population must be estimated indirectly from calculations of the number of people who could subsist under the social and technological institutions presumed to prevail at the time. Anthropologists and historians have estimated, for example, that before the introduction of agriculture the world could have supported a hunting and gathering culture of between five and ten million people."1

Such guesses are useless, however, because they are based on a discredited model, that of human evolution. The creation-cataclysm model of earth history fits all the known facts of man’s history much better than the evolution model does2, and it recognizes that man’s agriculture and other basic technologies are essentially as old as man himself.

In 1650 the world population has been estimated with perhaps reasonable accuracy to have been 600 million. In 150 years this had grown to approximately one billion. The average rate of increase for this period, therefore, is:
r = ( 10 )1/150 -1 = 1/3 %
6

Since this period from 1650 to 1800 antedated the great advances in medicine and technology which have stimulated the more rapid population growth of the 19th and 20th centuries, and also since this is the earliest period of time for which population data are at all reliable, it seems likely that this figure of (1/3)%, rather than the (1/2)% previously calculated, could be used as the norm for population growth throughout most of past history.

In that case, the length of time required for the population to grow from 2 people to one billion people, at 1/3% increase per year is:
n = log(109 / 2) = 6100 years
log(1.00333)

To this should be added the 175 years since 1800. Thus, the most probable date of human origin, based on the known data from population statistics, is about 6,300 years ago.

This figure, of course, is vastly smaller than the usually assumed million-year history of man. Nevertheless it correlates well not only with Biblical chronology but also with other ancient written records as well as with even the usual evolutionary dates for the origin of agriculture, animal husbandry, urbanization, metallurgy and other attributes of human civilization.

By arbitrary juggling of population models, of course, the evolutionist can manage to come out with any predetermined date he may choose. People should realize, however, that this does require an arbitrary juggling of figures, based solely on the assumptions of human evolution. The actual data of population statistics, interpreted and applied in the most conservative and most probable manner, point to an origin of the human population only several thousands of years ago. The present population could very easily have been attained in only about 6000 years or so, even if the average population growth rate throughout most of history were only one-sixth as much as it is at present. The burden of proof is altogether on evolutionists if they wish to promote some other population model.

The Biblical model for population growth starts with eight people (Noah, his three sons, and their wives) right after the great Flood. The date of the Flood is not certain; the Ussher chronology dates it about 2350 B.C., but possible gaps in the genealogies of Genesis 11 may justify a date as far back as say, about 6000 B.C., with the probabilities favoring the lower limit rather than the upper limit.

Even using the short Ussher chronology, it is quite reasonable, as we have seen, for the population to have grown from 8 people to 3.5 billion people in 4350 years. This growth represents an average annual increase of only 0.44%, or an average doubling time of 152 years. Such figures are quite consistent with all known data of population statistics, especially in light of the fact that the human death rates were very low for many centuries after the Flood, and family sizes quite large. Thus, in all likelihood, the population growth was very substantial in the early centuries, at least as great as it has become in the present century. In turn, this means that the rate may have been much less than 0.44% during the long period in between.

 

[Ekstasis]

Before I get slashed with "oh not the Institute for creation research", quick question:

The scientists in the ICR, are they not real scientists with real credentials? 'Cause I've been hearing from certain members that the "other side" have preachers and helping hands

 

[Ekstasis]

/waits for tl;tr

 

[porchrat]

And scientists have accurate data to prove common decent?? lol

No they don't... because science doesn't prove anything, it is empirical. Common decent merely fits the evidence they have so far.

How many times do I have to tell you this Ekstasis? Do you perhaps have some sort of learning disability?

 

[Ekstasis]

No they don't... because science doesn't prove anything, it is empirical. Common decent merely fits the evidence they have so far.

How many times do I have to tell you this Ekstasis? Do you perhaps have some sort of learning disability?

so if science doesn't prove common decent, but common decent merely fits the "evidence", why can't an ID agent fit the evidence of intelligent designed life all around us