Rejecting evolution with science...

[porchrat]

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

Considering that these "scientists" are attempting to use science to test for some sort of God magick creation event, no they are not real scientists. Science cannot be used to test the metaphysical. They fail from the start. Creationism isn't science, it is religion.

Let me be more specific, they may be scientists in the sense that they might have some sort of science degree (whether that degree is worth the paper it is printed on is another matter), but what they are attempting to do is not scientists, they are currently not acting as scientists, they are acting like religious fundamentalists. They start with a conclusion and then try to see if evidence fits that conclusion. Not science.

 

[Unhappy1]

Ekstatis just a quick look , please explain the mathematics in the first point. You look to solve the nth power via logarithms , totally legit but the figures dont seem to make sense. If you could clarify this as i cant go any further until this is made clear ?

 

[porchrat]

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

Read back in the thread, it has all been dealt with already and for some reason (learning disability?) you seem to have forgotten it already.

I'm being entirely serious here I think you have a learning disability of some sort.

BTW the entire calculation you propose above starts with this:"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.". Fail. They just magically assume that the population grows at the same rate all the time and then come up with a magic number. How can you look at that and assume it is accurate? How do you not ask these sorts of questions Ekstasis? Are you so desperate for this stuff to be making a valid point that you just ignore that sort of thing? :wtf:

It is obvious reading that set of calculations that it is pure conjecture. The author even says in there that any population estimate is going to contain an awful lot of conjecture. How on Earth did you read this and assume it was a legitimate and bulletproof estimation? Is your comprehension of the English language truly that weak?

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Major fail Ekstasis.

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.

They are basing their assumptions on biblical creation and then creating a model around this. Let's just say the world is 45000 years old then we can create a model to fit this data too.

 

[porchrat]

Major fail Ekstasis.



They are basing their assumptions on biblical creation and then creating a model around this. Let's just say the world is 45000 years old then we can create a model to fit this data too.

It is obviously not science. Ekstasis thinks it is but then again Ekstasis seems to have some serious problems comprehending what science is exactly and how it operates so I'm not surprised that he thinks it is all perfectly legitimate. He doesn't see why it is a problem to create a conclusion and work backwards from there.

 

[RiaX]

look i would like to read it honestly, but reading the posts afterwards I can see its warped bias and dishonest.

Nothing irritates me more than dishonest "science" , Incorrect science is fine if you calculate something get it wrong and end up with wrong results its ok. Though when you lie and make models to fit an agenda thats just disgraceful.

Science is the study of the natural world ..... THERE IS NO SUPERNATURAL GET OVER IT

thanks for saving me the time guys

 

[Ekstasis]

Read back in the thread, it has all been dealt with already and for some reason (learning disability?) you seem to have forgotten it already.

I'm being entirely serious here I think you have a learning disability of some sort.

BTW the entire calculation you propose above starts with this:"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.". Fail. They just magically assume that the population grows at the same rate all the time and then come up with a magic number. How can you look at that and assume it is accurate? How do you not ask these sorts of questions Ekstasis? Are you so desperate for this stuff to be making a valid point that you just ignore that sort of thing? :wtf:

It is obvious reading that set of calculations that it is pure conjecture. The author even says in there that any population estimate is going to contain an awful lot of conjecture. How on Earth did you read this and assume it was a legitimate and bulletproof estimation? Is your comprehension of the English language truly that weak?

If you carry on you'll see that they don't assume constant growth rate.

 

[Ekstasis]

Ekstatis just a quick look , please explain the mathematics in the first point. You look to solve the nth power via logarithms , totally legit but the figures dont seem to make sense. If you could clarify this as i cant go any further until this is made clear ?

better to give you the link to their site. Copy and paste does not put all the elements in the equations in the correct place I see....like "n" should be the exponent. Sorry about that

article on population statistics

 

[porchrat]

If you carry on you'll see that they don't assume constant growth rate.

Yes Ekstasis I'm sure they make lots of guesses about lots of things but the source you are citing very clearly states that any attempted estimates of world population growth since the emergence of humanity is conjecture. You somehow ignore that and interpret the entire thing as though it were solid. It isn't. They themselves play around with the growth figures.

Why even present this fairytale of an equation?!? Is this the sort of crap you consider to be evidence?

 

[Unhappy1]

better to give you the link to their site. Copy and paste does not put all the elements in the equations in the correct place I see....like "n" should be the exponent. Sorry about that

article on population statistics

Thanks the formula make sense now , however the numbers input into the formula is basically pulled out of thin air.

 

[Ekstasis]

Thanks the formula make sense now , however the numbers input into the formula is basically pulled out of thin air.

Are you referring to the growth rates?

 

[Jings]

better to give you the link to their site. Copy and paste does not put all the elements in the equations in the correct place I see....like "n" should be the exponent. Sorry about that

article on population statistics

Do the calculations take into account Toba, Ice Age and a couple of comets and meteorites.. I don't see any mention.

 

[Swa]

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.

Well answer the question as well: Why would people be afraid to have their names published in a book contradicting "established" evolutionary dogma?

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

Oh good luck getting any explanation at to why if humans existed for hundreds of thousands of years with similar intelligence there's only a recorded and developmental history of a few thousand years. I predict a lot of ducking and diving though.

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

Funny as I got that same impression of you.

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

Another one who doesn't realise the irony there.

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 ?

You prove my point.

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.

More misrepresentation I see

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

I can assure you God is not scared of the likes of you. You however should be scarred of how pissed off He gets when you make such derogatory statements about Him.

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

No it doesn't.

Considering that these "scientists" are attempting to use science to test for some sort of God magick creation event, no they are not real scientists. Science cannot be used to test the metaphysical. They fail from the start. Creationism isn't science, it is religion.

Let me be more specific, they may be scientists in the sense that they might have some sort of science degree (whether that degree is worth the paper it is printed on is another matter), but what they are attempting to do is not scientists, they are currently not acting as scientists, they are acting like religious fundamentalists. They start with a conclusion and then try to see if evidence fits that conclusion. Not science.

Read back in the thread, it has all been dealt with already and for some reason (learning disability?) you seem to have forgotten it already.

I'm being entirely serious here I think you have a learning disability of some sort.

BTW the entire calculation you propose above starts with this:"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.". Fail. They just magically assume that the population grows at the same rate all the time and then come up with a magic number. How can you look at that and assume it is accurate? How do you not ask these sorts of questions Ekstasis? Are you so desperate for this stuff to be making a valid point that you just ignore that sort of thing? :wtf:

It is obvious reading that set of calculations that it is pure conjecture. The author even says in there that any population estimate is going to contain an awful lot of conjecture. How on Earth did you read this and assume it was a legitimate and bulletproof estimation? Is your comprehension of the English language truly that weak?

Major fail Ekstasis.



They are basing their assumptions on biblical creation and then creating a model around this. Let's just say the world is 45000 years old then we can create a model to fit this data too.

It is obviously not science. Ekstasis thinks it is but then again Ekstasis seems to have some serious problems comprehending what science is exactly and how it operates so I'm not surprised that he thinks it is all perfectly legitimate. He doesn't see why it is a problem to create a conclusion and work backwards from there.

Oh the irony again...

 

[RiaX]

Funny as I got that same impression of you.

standard I am rubber you are glue swa attitude. Your come backs are on par with a 13 year old

Another one who doesn't realise the irony there.

care to explain or is irony a word you learnt in english class recently ?

You prove my point.

lol they ruin their name because of the idiocy, not because they not being popular kids. How daft can one be really :wtf:

More misrepresentation I see

But you claim to have evidence that disproves evolution ? publish it and become an A-rate international scientist. Its not misconception its you having no reply to your madness when you have to step up to the plate.

I can assure you God is not scared of the likes of you. You however should be scarred of how pissed off He gets when you make such derogatory statements about Him.

F**k god. Let him come I will put a pineapple up his arse ..... hey im still breathing oh well. Just so you know Jesus didnt come back from the dead, he had a big mouth and got stabbed for it. OW GANGSTER. Then he regained consciousness and died from blood loss later.

BTW if adam and eve were created why they have belly buttons ? well anyways god is really a dumbass if I was in charge of design the world would be a nice place.

 

[zippy]

how does natural selection "know" that though? Excuse the dumb question, I'm no scientist .

Natural selection isn't a invisible person who every now and then goes "hmmm I choose them.." You can't get away from something greater than you being in charge, can you ?

Think of natural selection as a rugby match. Usually the better side wins, but luck also comes it. That last minute drop goal, or interception against the run of play. And losing a game or 2 isn't the end of it.

The Curry Cup isn't won in April

If you suck enough over a long period you get relegated. Dropped. Extinct

But you still be in the competition despite never winning all your games

 

[Swa]

standard I am rubber you are glue swa attitude. Your come backs are on par with a 13 year old

Funny, as your replies to everything read like that of a 13 y.o.

care to explain or is irony a word you learnt in english class recently ?

Don't fret. The audience can clearly see it even if you can't.

lol they ruin their name because of the idiocy, not because they not being popular kids. How daft can one be really :wtf:

They ruin their name by going against the establishment. Pretty hard to ignore the dictatorship in science then.

But you claim to have evidence that disproves evolution ? publish it and become an A-rate international scientist. Its not misconception its you having no reply to your madness when you have to step up to the plate.

Again you're the one spreading lies like DJ.

BTW if adam and eve were created why they have belly buttons ? well anyways god is really a dumbass if I was in charge of design the world would be a nice place.

Now you were there to see that Adam and Eve had belly buttons? :wtf:

Btw if you were in charge then judging by your comments the universe would be a pretty disorganised incoherent place.

 

[porchrat]

Are you referring to the growth rates?

Lets rather figure out why exactly you thought that set of equations were at all accurate. You have presented them as though this presents a very real problem for the modern theory of evolution. Why did you do that? Do you think those numbers are all accurate and if so please explain why.

 

[Swa]

Lets rather figure out why exactly you thought that set of equations were at all accurate. You have presented them as though this presents a very real problem for the modern theory of evolution. Why did you do that? Do you think those numbers are all accurate and if so please explain why.

They are. Unlike evolutionary dogma that requires making up a bunch of figures to fit with the hypothesis these are based on known statistics.

 

[RiaX]

Don't fret. The audience can clearly see it even if you can'

so you dont know. That adds to the list

They ruin their name by going against the establishment. Pretty hard to ignore the dictatorship in science then.

conspiracy looney. Who is the establishment btw swa ? where is their base of operations ?

Again you're the one spreading lies like DJ.

only liar here is you. Again what evidence you have PRESENT IT

Now you were there to see that Adam and Eve had belly buttons?

nope but art work of them shows they had belly buttons, which means they were dreamt up and did not exist and formed from common human perception.


ok ive had enough of you. You a moron /ignored

 

[Swa]

only liar here is you. Again what evidence you have PRESENT IT

And again YOU are misrepresenting the argument just like DJ.

nope but art work of them shows they had belly buttons, which means they were dreamt up and did not exist and formed from common human perception.

So artists representations somehow confirms your notion they didn't exist. :wtf: This is getting hilarious. Please man don't ignore keep it up while we enjoy the comedy.