Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?

[sandwiches]

Then we could walk by sight like you guys do, couldn't we?

Are you afraid to open your eyes and see what you've really been following, AV?

 

[Targ]

YouTube - World Population Debunks Macro Evolution

So many problems with the video:

• It assumes that the growth rate is constant. This is rarely ever the case. It only takes a few natural disasters, disease outbreaks, food failures, increases in predators, decreases in prey, outbreaks of wars etc for the population to fall.
• It assumes that human population follows a continuous upward progression, when studies of the animal kingdom shows that populations of all types of life tend to oscillate between predator and prey. No species on earth follows their unrealistic scenario of a constantly increasing population up to sizes as ridiculous as 10^43, because population has various factors that set limits on the extent of the population, such as availability of food and water.
• The population of Earth is currently rising but there is a limit to its growth. In some countries of the world such as Japan the population is no longer growing and has been stagnant for the last few years, while in places such as Ukraine (and other former Soviet nations), the population is in decline, with the population decreasing by around 6 million in the last few decades. Other countries are expected to follow suit as the use of resources reaches its maximum.
• There is little evidence that they have selected 0.456% in an unbiased way - it appears they have selected it because it fits the result.

 

[Nabobalis]

So many problems with the video:

• It assumes that the growth rate is constant. This is rarely ever the case. It only takes a few natural disasters, disease outbreaks, food failures, increases in predators, decreases in prey, outbreaks of wars etc for the population to fall.
• It assumes that human population follows a continuous upward progression, when studies of the animal kingdom shows that populations of all types of life tend to oscillate between predator and prey. No species on earth follows their unrealistic scenario of a constantly increasing population up to sizes as ridiculous as 10^43, because population has various factors that set limits on the extent of the population, such as availability of food and water.
• The population of Earth is currently rising but there is a limit to its growth. In some countries of the world such as Japan the population is no longer growing and has been stagnant for the last few years, while in places such as Ukraine (and other former Soviet nations), the population is in decline, with the population decreasing by around 6 million in the last few decades. Other countries are expected to follow suit as the use of resources reaches its maximum.
• There is little evidence that they have selected 0.456% in an unbiased way - it appears they have selected it because it fits the result.

It is amazing that they think that we bred like bacteria, not only that, to assume that there is 2 people at the start and what about inbreeding? The genetic pool would collapse with a couple of generations.

Fail

 

[HAPMinistries]

I understand if you're bitter about that kind of person, but where have I ever been derogatory towards Christians? (Links, please, otherwise it's slander.)

Also note that being derogatory towards a specific idea a subset of Christians happen to hold, or towards individual people, is not the same as being derogatory towards Christians. I'm abundantly guilty of the former two, but I'd be just as derogatory towards atheists if they held the same belief or behaved in the same way.

LOL, um, way to debunk yourself.

Nothing can be empirically proven.

Rene Descartes would disagree.

Such as? See, I'm happy to discuss evidence. Even happier than trying to think up the most politely insulting response to flippant remarks.

Again, way to debunk yourself.

Can events be inferred from their consequences? If you wake up in the morning and look out your window to find brand new puddles everywhere, is it reasonable to conclude that it rained during the night?

From the water being left on... waterline broke... neighbors pool has a leak...

A deductive argument is valid if the conclusion does follow necessarily from the premises. That is the problem with the many conclusions of long term evolution, it does not follow the premises. It is more concerned with defending a philosophy then giving a rational explanation in accordance to what we know.

If you read my posts for understanding, instead of trying to find keywords you can use to craft irrelevant responses,

Like reversing speciation with birds, where speciation happens ONLY by reproduction? Where I say just reverse the reproduction order? Keywords like that?

you'd know that I "got" and worked with your definition.

I never said you didn't I have said many have here, AND I was being precise with you.

That doesn't change the fact that your definition is not the accepted biological meaning of the word.

Did I claim to be using the biological definition of the word species? No I did not.

Also, where did you show your example of reversed speciation again?

Read above

 

[HAPMinistries]

You've already answered your own question.

Thank you for agreeing with me, World population debunks the macro evolution timeline.

World Population is meaningless with regard to the age of the planet

But is absolutely valid with the age of mankind being on the earth.

And if you think the world population has no reason to decrease, you've obviously never heard of disease, famine, flood, fire, earthquake, tsunami, etc.

We have experienced them all, and still have a growth rate % of 1.14% last time I checked. Maybe it is more now.

 

[HAPMinistries]

at one point, there was no life.

We do not know that.

 

[HAPMinistries]

My first comment was, "The fact that people know the Bible very well and are still not Christians demonstrates that a false claim was made."

The fact that people know evolution very well and are still not evolutionists demonstrates that a false claim was made.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

We do not know that.

At what point do we begin "life" in the geologic column?

 

[HAPMinistries]

So many problems with the video:

• It assumes that the growth rate is constant.

It is a constant %, but it does not assume the rate was at a perfect constant. It is a range of natural growth, sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less.

It assumes that human population follows a continuous upward progression.

There is no record of mankind's population ever decreasing on a worldwide scale. Never.

The population of Earth is currently rising but there is a limit to its growth.

Now, but not then. There has been plenty of room and resources to this point for mankind to grow.

There is little evidence that they have selected 0.456% in an unbiased way

The growth rate today is 1.14%
Take away farming and medicine, and .456% is still below half the rate of growth as today. It is a number that is congruent with EVIDENCE. Your questioning it's 'bias' shows that .456% does not agree with your presupposition, so you are willing to throw it out, just for that reasoning.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, and that is why some of the anti science movement is to be blamed on scientists.

 

[HAPMinistries]

At what point do we begin "life" in the geologic column?

At what point does the geologic column get to have authority to decide if life existed or not?

 

[HAPMinistries]

It is amazing that they think that we bred like bacteria, not only that, to assume that there is 2 people at the start and what about inbreeding? The genetic pool would collapse with a couple of generations.

Fail

You obviously have never been to Arkansas.

 

[HAPMinistries]

And a new video to expose why some of the anti-science movement is to be blamed on Scientists, because they let bias and presupposition get in their way of revealing real evidence that proves otherwise.


YouTube - The Complexity of Cells Debunks Macro Evolution

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

At what point does the geologic column get to have authority to decide if life existed or not?

Inanimate objects do not "decide" anything. It is absurd to think so.
It was a simple question really, at what point in the geologic column do we first begin to see simple celled organisms?

 

[Delphiki]

If I pour out a bag of marbles, and if there are enough marbles, there can be a 10^4,478,296 chance that they will land on the floor in any given arrangement. That doesn't make their arrangement guided by some divine hand.

Every time I pour the bag of marbles out, however, there's a 100% chance they will hit the ground at all.

 

[Nabobalis]

You obviously have never been to Arkansas.

What has Arkansas got to do with anything?


The world population has not really ever been stable and was a slow process. People died young, there was alot of constant war and there was not the food supply to support huge populations like we have now.

The Black Death is estimated to have killed 30% – 60% of Europe's population, reducing the world's population from an estimated 450 million to between 350 and 375 million in 1400.

Nope, no event has ever reduced the world population

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

So many problems with the video:

• It assumes that the growth rate is constant.

It is a constant %, but it does not assume the rate was at a perfect constant. It is a range of natural growth, sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less.

It assumes that human population follows a continuous upward progression.

There is no record of mankind's population ever decreasing on a worldwide scale. Never.



The growth rate today is 1.14%
Take away farming and medicine, and .456% is still below half the rate of growth as today. It is a number that is congruent with EVIDENCE. Your questioning it's 'bias' shows that .456% does not agree with your presupposition, so you are willing to throw it out, just for that reasoning.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, and that is why some of the anti science movement is to be blamed on scientists.

Apparently at some point between 195,000 and 123,000 years ago, the population size of H. sapiens plummeted, thanks to cold, dry climate conditions that left much of our ancestor's African homeland uninhabitable. Everyone today is descended from a group of people from a single region who survived this catastrophe.

 

[AV1611VET]

At what point do we begin "life" in the geologic column?

The geologic column is not my Bible.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

The geologic column is not my Bible.

What is your bible, then?

 

[Targ]

There is no record of mankind's population ever decreasing on a worldwide scale. Never.

Utterly wrong.

• The Black Death between 1347 and 1351 was responsible the deaths of one third of the population of Asia and Europe.
• European settlement of the Americas resulted in large scale depopulation of the natives. Smallpox, influenza, measles, malaria, pertussis, cholera etc (all diseases that were imported from Europe and that the natives had no immunity to), added to wars and massacres saw the native population of the Americas decline by around 90% (from around 100 million down to 10 million).

Neither of these events are factored into the televangelist's calculations.

Also, if you work backwards using the constant rate of growth stated, you arrive at the situation where the total population of the world during the time of Moses would have had to have been considerably less than the few million children of Israel living at that time, which is obviously absurd. Quite simply, the calculation doesn't work.

 

[Nabobalis]

And a new video to expose why some of the anti-science movement is to be blamed on Scientists, because they let bias and presupposition get in their way of revealing real evidence that proves otherwise.


YouTube - The Complexity of Cells Debunks Macro Evolution

Can I please get how they find out these probabilities? I'm rather interested.