A Fundamental Philosophical Error within Theories of Evolution.

[dmmesdale]

Ancient cultures (and moderns ones actually too) have phantasisied magnificient beasts:
the Minotaurus (half man half bull), the centaur (half man, half horse) the mermaid, the satir, Pegassus (a winged horse) etc.
That they depicted an animal slighttly looking like an existing is a very tiny base to reject all the conclusions made from paleontology, geology, paleoclimatology, nuclear physiscs, chemistry, dendrochronology, genetics, comparative anatomy and many more.

but hey, jedem das seine.

That is called explaing away actual evidence. i mean, if they were depicting what they actually saw then your whole evo theory wounld be falsified. In the trash where it belongs. Atheists are skeptics, what a joke! It is simply coincidence their mythical beasts look so much like the real thing!

 

[Jimmy D]

if they were actually depicting what they actually saw

If they were? Is there any supporting evidence?

then your whole evo theory wounld be falsified

Why's that?

Atheists are skeptics, what a joke! It is simply coincidence their mythical beasts look so much like the real thing!

What a strange thing to say.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The context of your argument was disease, and now you are switching up.

Nope.
Here's what I said:
You mean the one that ignores that in the past 200 years, we have trippled general life expectancy while also bringing infant mortality to an all-time low?

I by no means limited the cause of the trippling of life expectancy and lowering infant mortality it to just "disease" or "medicine".

Because I understand that it's about much more then that. It's about advances in ALL area's.
It's even about silly things like understanding that it's a good idea to not keep fecies around in open area's or in the proximity of food, to wash ones hands after taking a dump. It's about technological progress which yields better crops, easier transport, central heat, powered homes, ease of communication, better clothing, etc etc etc.

There is no "single" thing you can point to as "THE FACTOR" in higher survivability of humans the past couple centuries as opposed to the millenia before that. Except if you bundle them all and just call it "progress".

All those other things were already well on their way in society when medical science started to really make big jumps.

A remarkable coincidence?
The Jews are descendants of Jacob (also called Israel). The number of Jews in the world in 1930, before the Nazi Holocaust, was estimated at 18 million. This represents a doubling in population, on average, every 156 years, or 0.44% growth per year since Jacob. Since the Flood, after which the world population was eight, the world population has doubled every 155 years, or grown at an average of 0.45% per year. There is agreement between the growth rates for the two populations. Is this just a lucky coincidence?

It is, most of all, a complete misrepresentation.
First, it assumes quite ridiculous things, like the flood.
Second, it assumes that you can take a population size X millenia ago, compare it to the size today and then pretend as if you can conclude from those 2 numbers a "steady growth rate".

That is the kind of nonsense that is completely out of touch with reality.

To show how unreasonable it is to assume humans have been around for 200 K years.

The only unreasonable thing here, is the ridiculous conclusion drawn from the extremely false premises and assumptions.

The real problem is an undying commitment to myths that ignore actual evidence.

Says the guy who just made an argument that used as a premise that the flood actually happened and that there were only 8 humans in existance a couple thousand years ago.

Good grief.....

Also ignoring arguments.

Arguments that use demonstrably false premises only deserve being ignored.

Why is it silly?

Because it is not in line with the evidence.

Darwin assumed change in his present meant change in the deep past,

For good reason. An he turned out to be smack in the face correct.

so again, why can't we use current population trends to extrapolate back to deep time?

Because population growth is determined by external factors, like availability of food and other environmental things.

Whereas reproduction with variation is simply the mechanism of reproduction and it is not dependend on any environmental factors. It's just how reproduction works.

By the by i am still waiting for your positive case and empirical evidence for humans being here for 200 K years since it does not jibe with current population trends.

I linked you a paper.
I can also link you a bunch of homo sapiens fossils.

But most importantly: your claim that it "does not jib with current population trends" is demonstrable nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is called explaing away actual evidence. i mean, if they were depicting what they actually saw then your whole evo theory wounld be falsified. In the trash where it belongs. Atheists are skeptics, what a joke! It is simply coincidence their mythical beasts look so much like the real thing!

And "if hindu's are correct, then your whole christian belief system goes into the trash where it belongs".

I can play the "what if?" game too, you know...

 

[driewerf]

That is called explaing away actual evidence. i mean, if they were depicting what they actually saw then your whole evo theory wounld be falsified. In the trash where it belongs. Atheists are skeptics, what a joke! It is simply coincidence their mythical beasts look so much like the real thing!

Not, that's callled weighing the evidence. And it turns out to be feather light.
There is no reason the believe that the ancient cultures saw a Minotaur, a centaur, a basilisk, a gorgon, and all the other magnificent beasts they depicted. So why should I believe that the picturing of what looks vaguely a dinosaur has based on more than fantasy alone?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is called explaing away actual evidence. i mean, if they were depicting what they actually saw then your whole evo theory wounld be falsified. In the trash where it belongs. Atheists are skeptics, what a joke! It is simply coincidence their mythical beasts look so much like the real thing!

But they really don't. An educated eye can see that most of those pictures are merely distortions of existing creatures or chimeras. None of them are actual drawings of dinosaurs.

 

[pitabread]

OP is clearly parody, right?

Right???

 

[dmmesdale]

Not, that's callled weighing the evidence.

Against what?

And it turns out to be feather light.

Don't believe your own eyes?

There is no reason the believe that the ancient cultures saw a Minotaur, a centaur, a basilisk, a gorgon, and all the other magnificent beasts they depicted.

Why not? They made depictions of them.

So why should I believe that the picturing of what looks vaguely a dinosaur has based on more than fantasy alone?

Its called actual evidence and yours is called denial and excuse making.

 

[dmmesdale]

But they really don't. An educated eye can see that most of those pictures are merely distortions of existing creatures or chimeras. None of them are actual drawings of dinosaurs.

Educated eye they are artist renditions not meant to be exact. More excuse making. Educated eye somehow now equals blind eye.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Educated eye they are artist renditions not meant to be exact. More excuse making. Educated eye somehow now equals blind eye.

Hardly. Those Mesoptomanian figures that you found are though to be stylized lions. All you looked at was the long neck. You ignored the body and head and even tail:

File:Cylinder seal lions Louvre MNB1167.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

You are seeing patterns that are just not there. Have you heard of paredolia?

Perhaps you should learn what is and what is not evidence. A subject that creationists hate almost as much as science. In a scientific debate we should be using scientific evidence, don't you agree?

Pareidolia - Wikipedia

 

[Astrophile]

Since the Flood, after which the world population was eight, the world population has doubled every 155 years, or grown at an average of 0.45% per year.

If the flood occurred in 2345 BC, the total population of the world was 3355½ in 1000 BC, and about 300,000 at the time of Jesus.

 

[Gene2memE]

Where are all the people? - creation.com

Good grief, how ignorant was the person that wrote this argument? It's like they possess a superpower, which allows them to selectively ignore most of world history.

I love the claim that world population doubled every 155 or 156 years. If you use this figure and the current global population 7.516 billion as a base line, and then work backwards, you get a global population of ~915,500 in 2 AD.

2 AD is a nice convenient date - as it just happens the year of a major census conducted by the Chinese Han Dynasty. That census gives a figure of 57.67 million people, across 12.7 million households, in the Han Kingdom. So, either the official Han census is lying, or Don Batten of creation.com is wrong.

If you're suspicious of the Han Chinese' census data and figures, how about the Romans?

The Augustinian census of 14 AD gives the Roman Empire population of just over 4.9 million adult males citizens eligible to vote. If you include women, children under 15, slaves, freedmen and non-citizens living in the boundaries of the Empire (less than 1 in 20 males in the Roman colonies were citizens), this translate into a total population of somewhere around 35 million at the low end and 45 million at the upper end.

Then there's the tens of millions that lived in the other major empires that existed at the time (Parthian, Kush, Sarmatian, Mayan, Nazca, Satavahana). And also the thousands of major tribal groups (Germanic, Celtic, Turkic, Slavic, Saami, Malay, Thai, Indian ect, ect) that existed.

Yet somehow, Dr Batten expects his readers to believe that the global population around this time was around a million.

Yeesh!

 

[Allandavid]

They do not care about the future of Giraffes and Polar bears?
Not reflected in your posts. Are you asserting creationists never made a prediction? All you have to do is google ''predictions by creationists'' to address that. How hard can it be? Your assertions are not demonstrated by your posts since you continually post inaccurate information about Creationists. Anybody can fact check your assertions against the actual writings by using Google. The articles are there and calls into question your credibility and puts the damper on your claims you do your homework when you clearly do not. You can't get past your own prejudices to accurately reflect the information. No professionalism there. There is a deep divide here, and you would not be a reliable source since Creationists is the equivalent of the N word for blacks in your camp and don't deny it. You despise them in spite of their education credentials. Here is an example.
Does the Creation Model Make Predictions? Absolutely! | Answers in Genesis
''Second, the creation model, unlike evolutionary models, is very tightly constrained by Scripture that must be accounted for without wiggle room. Ken Ham outlined some of these in his opening statement. Some constraints include:

1. The creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them took place in 6 normal, 24 hour days roughly 6,000 years ago based on the genealogies in Scripture.
2. All humans are descended from 2 individuals . . . Adam and Eve.
3. There was a worldwide, globe covering flood at the time of Noah.
4. God made the sun, moon, and stars on day 4 after there were already plants on the earth.

These constraints on the creation model are highly detailed, leave no room for change and are impossible to get around. We have a defined timeline for which all of the different kinds of animals were made. Evolutionists are not so constrained. To demonstrate, a fun exercise is to do a google search for the term “fossil” with “older than previous.” Such a search turns up millions of websites (many of these are duplicates) describing numerous fossils that are found “millions of years” earlier “than previously thought.” So when evolutionists find a fossil in strata that they didn’t expect, they can just revise the date range.''
You wrote the article makes no predictions, and I proved you wrong. One should reasonably be able to produce five predictions based on the available data in the article. If you can't then that shows incompetence. If you can't connect the dots??? It could be a test question. Produce five predictions based on this data.
How bout this; Giraffes and Polar Bears will not change throughout the future. The only possible change is extinction. Polar bears will not develop sonar via natural means nor will they evolve into a different species. There is a prediction based on current data from the present.
This is coming from a guy whose first sentence is this.
'''Your post does not address a fundamental reality.'''

None. Doubtful that has changed discussing biology with you. John Martin took all that time and energy to type out a thoughtful post, and all he gets from you is hand-waving dismissals. I don't have to think about it because of some trumped up rule according to you. So don't talk to me about polite. Martin did not do anything different then Darwin did with Origins. They both made cases and came to different conclusions. The difference being nobody dismissed Darwin's work with a hand-wave dismissal based on not making predictions. Predictions are not the problem in the first place. It is the excuse which says nothing about whether the position is reasonable or not. You simply do not want to discuss it. Your open mind slams shut.
So they start with their conclusion. Provide a couple of exoteric examples. Then the alternative being a statement can easily be false even if the belief in the statement was reached by true reasoning. Faulty premises lead to inaccurate conclusions. It seems they would follow the evidence and not depend on blunders or the stopped clock analogy being right at least two times a day. Assumptions about historical reality are either advanced or rejected based on an investigation. Evolution makes a host of really far out claims relative to historical reality. We have fish in our lineage for one. Nature caused sonar in whales from sources which did not have sonar is another. I would like to see the empirical corroborating data from nonbiological sources for assuming nature can do such things absent the intervention of an intelligent source. Because you know what, there are none.

Here's my evolutionary prediction for giraffes...

They will remain ungulates, mammals, vertebrates, animals and eukaryotes....

Good enough?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why not? They made depictions of them.

So by that logic, since we've made depictions of walking chickens that talk with a Southern accent, then Foghorn Leghorn must exist.

 

[Jimmy D]

Against what?

An engraving of something that looks a bit dinosaurish, found amongst carvings of many mythical beasts against the accumulated scientific knowledge (geology, biology, paleontology, archaelogy etc) of the last hundred years or so.

You forgot to tell us how, if we miraculously discovered such beasts were alive and well in Mesopotamia at that time, it would falsify evolution.

I blame sites like AIG for this sort of nonsense, in the cold light of day such claims are so obviously wrong it's laughable. The very existence of these sites make such ideas seem normal....

 

[lesliedellow]

they are artist renditions not meant to be exact.

You said it. So to my eyes they could either be depictions of giraffes, or elephants with unbelievably long trunks.

 

[dmmesdale]

You said it. So to my eyes they could either be depictions of giraffes, or elephants with unbelievably long trunks.

To your eyes? Whatever you say.

 

[dmmesdale]

Good grief, how ignorant was the person that wrote this argument? It's like they possess a superpower, which allows them to selectively ignore most of world history.

What world history? Most is made up if humans have been around for 200 K years. You have perhaps 190 K years of undocumented historical silence.

I love the claim that world population doubled every 155 or 156 years.

Overall, not constant.

If you use this figure and the current global population 7.516 billion as a base line, and then work backwards, you get a global population of ~915,500 in 2 AD.

Even if you are right it would assume constant, not overall. He references 300 mil at the time of Christ! Did you see that? There is nothing wrong with his math and you need to redo yours. The population was 6 bil around 1999-2000. Divide that number by 2 for approx 30-31 times and you are down to the approx number for Noah. 6 people. That works out to a overall doubling every 150 yrs which is growth at .46% assuming 4500 yrs ago. Batton is right in the ballpark for two different groups.

2 AD is a nice convenient date - as it just happens the year of a major census conducted by the Chinese Han Dynasty. That census gives a figure of 57.67 million people, across 12.7 million households, in the Han Kingdom. So, either the official Han census is lying, or Don Batten of creation.com is wrong.

The article lists the population at around 300 mil at the time of Christ resurrection. ''If there were 300 million people in the world at the time of Christ’s Resurrection,2'' His footnote is to the Encyclopedia Britannica. You ignored that.

If you're suspicious of the Han Chinese' census data and figures, how about the Romans?

The Augustinian census of 14 AD gives the Roman Empire population of just over 4.9 million adult males citizens eligible to vote. If you include women, children under 15, slaves, freedmen and non-citizens living in the boundaries of the Empire (less than 1 in 20 males in the Roman colonies were citizens), this translate into a total population of somewhere around 35 million at the low end and 45 million at the upper end.

Then there's the tens of millions that lived in the other major empires that existed at the time (Parthian, Kush, Sarmatian, Mayan, Nazca, Satavahana). And also the thousands of major tribal groups (Germanic, Celtic, Turkic, Slavic, Saami, Malay, Thai, Indian ect, ect) that existed.

Yet somehow, Dr Batten expects his readers to believe that the global population around this time was around a million.

Yeesh!

He references an overall growth at around .46 and the numbers work out and now you produce empirical evidence based on anything from the present to justify a population of 7.5+ bil people given humans have been around 200 K years with a 10 K seed population. You can quibble about the numbers during the 1st century but you cannot about the math. From 1600 to 2020 you have an expontential doubling 4 times from 500 mil to 8 bil. You cannot extrapolate them numbers back 200 K years. You get far better results 4500 years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What world history? Most is made up if humans have been around for 200 K years. You have perhaps 190 K years of undocumented historical silence.

There is nothing wrong with his math and you need to redo yours. The population was 6 bil around 1999-2000. Divide that number by 2 for approx 30-31 times and you are down to the approx number for Noah. 6 people. That works out to a overall doubling every 150 yrs which is growth at .46% assuming 4500 yrs ago. Batton is right in the ballpark for two different groups.


The article lists the population at around 300 mil at the time of Christ resurrection. ''If there were 300 million people in the world at the time of Christ’s Resurrection,2'' His footnote is to the Encyclopedia Britannica. You ignored that.

He references an overall growth at around .46 and the numbers work out and now you produce empirical evidence based on anything from the present to justify a population of 7.5+ bil people given humans have been around 200 K years with a 10 K seed population. You can quibble about the numbers during the 1st century but you cannot about the math.

So he changes the rate as needed but claims an "average rate". You really can't do both. If the rates change that much then his "average rate" claim is worthless.

By the way, we do have records that go back past 200,000 years. We just do not have written records.

 

[dmmesdale]

So by that logic, since we've made depictions of walking chickens that talk with a Southern accent, then Foghorn Leghorn must exist.

You call that logic?