A Fundamental Philosophical Error within Theories of Evolution.

[dmmesdale]

No you haven't.

You've repeated a baseless claim. Repeatedly.

You've yet to provide ANY demonstration.

Show me your math. Give me your population estimates in 156 year increments and well see how they pan out.

#78 on the previous page. Try to keep up.

 

[Jimmy D]

The problem here is not with the actual evidence, it has to do with a rock solid emotional comittment to modern myths which ignores actual data in favor of la la land history scenarios no more valid than Alice in Wonderland fictions.

 

[Gene2memE]

#78 on the previous page. Try to keep up.

Huh? That's bizarre.

The closest you went towards a demonstration of anything was a claim that: "From 1600 to 2020 you have an expontential doubling 4 times from 500 mil to 8 bil."

Using that math and extrapolating just one increment the other way, gives you a global population of 250 million at 1450. Yet, you agreed with a figure of 300 million population around the time of Jesus.

So. In your version of events, it took 1600 years for population to go from 300 million to 500 million? A 66% total growth. But then it only took another 400 years and four exponential doublings to go to 8 billion by 2020? A 1500% total growth.

Also, using your own 1600/500 million figures as a baseline, and extrapolating exponentially backwards, global population is in the single digit millions by the ninth Century, and under a million by the fifth century.

Seriously this is getting bizarre. I'm going to have to ask again for you to show your working.

 

[dmmesdale]

Huh? That's bizarre.
The closest you went towards a demonstration of anything was a claim that: "From 1600 to 2020 you have an expontential doubling 4 times from 500 mil to 8 bil."

Right and that is extrapolating the present growth rates to the past. You, on the other hand, used this example. ''The Spanish Flu outbreak from 1918 to 1920 maybe 50 to 100 million, 3-6% of the global population possibly more.''
Again, the overall population grew from 1.6 (1900) to approx 2.6 bil in 1951. That is an overall growth of 1 Bil in spite of the Spanish flu both world wars including the holocaust along with the depopulating which occurred under Mao and Stalin. Once again, you ignored. You are not fact checking the population stats against your assumptions.

Using that math and extrapolating just one increment the other way, gives you a global population of 250 million at 1450. Yet, you agreed with a figure of 300 million population around the time of Jesus.

That is because they are using overall and not constant.

Also, using your own 1600/500 million figures as a baseline, and extrapolating exponentially backwards, global population is in the single digit millions by the ninth Century, and under a million by the fifth century.

You are doing something wrong. If you take 6 bil which was the approx population in 2000 and allow for 4500 yrs back then it would have to be calculated how many times the population would double from single digit numbers. 4500yrs/145yrs=31 times. Start with 6 and double that number 31 times and you end up around 6 bil. Or it can be reversed. Start with 6 bil and divide by two 31 or 32 times and it gets to single digits.
Modern population stats better fits the young Earth then its modern counterpart of 10 K people 200 K years ago.

Many possible pasts often correspond to any given present state. Establishing the past with certainty, or even beyond reasonable doubt, can therefore, be very difficult especially when the past in question occurred billions of years ago. Elliot Sober.
Quote
''Ernst Mayr has explained: “The real core of Darwinism, however,
is the theory of natural selection. This theory is so important for the Dar-
winian because it permits the explanation of adaptation, the ‘design’ of the
natural theologian, by natural means, instead of by divine intervention.”
12
Or as Mayr put it recently:
First, Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations. The
theory of evolution by natural selection explains the adaptedness and diver-
sity of the world solely materialistically. It no longer requires God as creator
or designer (although one is certainly free to believe in God even if one ac-
cepts evolution). Darwin pointed out that creation, as described in the Bible
and the origin accounts of other cultures, was contradicted by almost any
aspect of the natural world. Every aspect of the “wonderful design” so ad-
mired by natural theologians could be explained by natural selection.''

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Artists do real images and fictional images and most can make the distinctions. Yours got support around here in spite of its sophomoric nature.

The problem here is not with the actual evidence, it has to do with a rock solid emotional comittment to modern myths which ignores actual data in favor of la la land history scenarios no more valid than Alice in Wonderland fictions.

And yet you possess ZERO evidence for any of your claims. Geology doesn't support you, biology doesn't support you, physics doesn't support. God's creation does not support you.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

That is because they are using overall and not constant.

Your cherry-picked overall rate only works for the population at about Y2K with a starting population of 6. At any other date it is not even wrong. It also ignores the fact there were, according to the bible, 8 people on the ark. With 8 the population in 2000 should have been closer to 8.6 billion.

 

[xianghua]

Scientists rely upon a world view and principles to propose theories. If a principle is false as shown above, then the theory is in principle false. TE is false in principle, even if many think the theory has predictive value.

JM

if we define evolution as "common descent for all creatures": then it will be easier. and we indeed have evidence against that belief.

 

[bhsmte]

And yet you possess ZERO evidence for any of your claims. Geology doesn't support you, biology doesn't support you, physics doesn't support. God's creation does not support you.

Yea but.........