A question for those believing in Evolution

[Jet Black]

5th time: why do you assume there is an equation.

 

[Valen]

5th time: why do you assume there is an equation.

because there is none other

 

[Jet Black]

can you repeat that one in English.

okay, if you want an equation:

P=c*exp((b^2)/2)+n

refute that then.

 

[Valen]

can you repeat that one in English.

okay, if you want an equation:

P=c*exp((b^2)/2)+n

refute that then.

define: c, exp, b, n
systematics of the equation?

 

[Jet Black]

no.

 

[Valen]

no.

I am tired of this endless circular sarcasm. Youre like that proud scientist i dealt with... Sorry please use mathematical logic

 

[Jet Black]

oh, you still haven't answered my question,(6) why should there be an equation?

 

[Jet Black]

I am tired of this endless circular sarcasm. Youre like that proud scientist i dealt with... Sorry please use mathematical logic

well you used it first. I am just demonstrating to you the stupidity of your argument.

 

[Valen]

oh, you still haven't answered my question, why should there be an equation?

You're a scientist are you how did you arrive with the 1,600,000 years ago existence of the first human?

 

[Jet Black]

radioactive decay. why should there be an equation to determine the number of humans? (7)

 

[Valen]

well you used it first. I am just demonstrating to you the stupidity of your argument.

those were just examples...

 

[Valen]

I'm tired of this place... I'm leaving there is no complete reasoning

 

[Jet Black]

and all I was pointing out is that there is no necessity for an equation. leave if you like, but you can't expect me to come up with an equation when there is no need for one. you might as well ask: Given that there are 10 monkeys in the amazon rainforest (5 breeding pairs), how many will there be in 1.6 million years time?

 

[lucaspa]

notto said: Evolution does not equal atheism.

Some who accept evolution believe in a spiritual realm, some do not.

You are equating evolution with atheism and a "spiritual realm" with a literal biblical interpretation. Neither of these is a valid comparison.

You seem to be saying that scientists can't be spiritual or theists. This is not the case. Their are many scientists (biologists, astronomers, physicists) who accept naturalistic explainations for events and phenomena based on evidence and study. This does not mean that they cannot accept spiritual matters as well.

I think you misread notto. Didn't you see the "not" in that sentence? Notto agrees with you and several of us have been saying exactly what you said here for the past several months. I have a thread 1 page back entitled "Evolution is not atheism". I quote from Origin to show that evolution never was atheism. What we are used to dealing with on the creationist side are those who "are equating evolution with atheism and a "spiritual realm" with a literal biblical interpretation" We agree that this comparison is not valid, but look at the posts by Weboffin, Worship4ever, Ikester, and JohnR7 and you will see exactly this comparision.

There are evolutionists who are theists, evolutionists who are agnostics, and evolutionists who are atheists.

 

[Nathan David]

Valen, give me an equation that explains why Rome beat Carthage.

 

[Meatros]

I'm tired of this place... I'm leaving there is no complete reasoning

Couldn't answer the question, could you?

 

[Jet Black]

well put meatros

 

[lucaspa]

I need someone to explain my contradictory conclusions.
Using the theory of evolution we derive on the following geologic time line
First Primates: 138,000,000 years ago
First Humans: 1,600,000 years ago

Here they are:
(1) Human Population
As you can see the first humans long ago should have a population explotion problem since it took 1,600,000 years from now.
Nowadays every continent of the planet by humans. Based on UN Standards, World Population growth has appreciation rates of 1%-2% per year. The world population reach 6 billion in 1999 and is increasing annually by more than 77 million persons.
Well create a formula to calculate the population during 1,600,000 years ago.
6,000,000,000 - (1,600,000 X 77,000,000) = -123194000000000
It tells us that the total population of the first humans appeared on 1,600,000 years ago was -123,194,000,000,000 humans.

The flaw with these calculations is that you are taking a very atypical point in history and saying it equates to ALL of history and every species.

Humans right now are in a very unusual position in terms of population growth. The reason is that we are expanding resources as fast as we are expanding population. This doesn't happen very often and, in fact, humans may be unique in the last 100 years or so.

Most populations are STABLE. This is because there is a limited amount of resources -- usually food, but sometimes space and predators -- and this limits population.

I did this for you in another thread, but apparently you ignored it or didn't read it.

Consider the number of acorns a single oak tree produces each year or consider the number of eggs a single salmon lays each year. Both are in the thousands to tens of thousands. Yet we are not overrun with either oak trees or salmon. Why? Because all but two of these individuals die before they reach the age of reproduction! Acorns fail to germinate, young trees are either eaten by herbivores or crowded out by other plants, succumb to disease, or die from drought or fire. Salmon are eaten by a large number of predators, both as young in the stream and in the ocean, or by bears on their way back upstream to spawn.

This was called the Struggle for Existence by Darwin.

For the last 50 years, humans have conqueored most of the forces that limit our population thru the use of our technology. Our farms produce a lot of food, herding is more productive than hunting, modern medicine takes care of most diseases and injuries so they are not fatal, we have exterminated all the predators, etc. So humans are enjoying an population bloom. However, none of this technology was available to our evolutionary ancestors and their population was kept in check.

In other circumstances where this population bloom happens, there is a population catastrophe and crash. Deer on islands off Vancouver have been documented to go thru these cycles because there are no predators on the islands. The deer population blooms until they eat all the available food on the island and then, in one season, 98% of the deer starve and the cycle starts over again.

The calculations simply overlooked elements of reality and therefore are not correct.

(2) Ethnic Migrations
Evidence of Ethnic Migrations dates back from 300BC to AD600 (A total of 900 years)
I conclude the ff:
1. Huns migration (200 BC)
2. Cimbri movements (200 BC)
3. Germanic groups (100BC)
4. Mongol migration (300AD)
5. Hun Invasion
6. Goth's migration
7. Germanic Vandals Migration
8. Visigoth advance
9. Ostrogoth migration
10. Huns movement
11. Slav migration
m (other migrations)

For 900 years human migration has an estimation total of 11+m migrations
Let's trace how many migrations that should have happened for 1,600,000 years...
(1,600,000 / 900) x (11+m) = 1956+m migrations

Again, an extrapolation from recent history that isn't justified. Many species of hominid NEVER migrated anywhere, but lived in the region where they evolved. Only H. erectus and H. sapiens show any major migrations at all. Even H. neandertals never migrated south of the cold regions for which they were adapted.

4. Traces of Human Civilization
The first trace of Human Civilization that is undeniably true is the Egyptian Civilization (3000BC). Now where are the rest of the civilizations in those 1,599,500 years? Don't tell me the scientists have gone lazy and sleepy to find any single evidence in those years. Imagine that!

What civilizations? BTW, your 1.6 million years is NOT H. sapiens but from A. afarensis -- not only a different species but a different genus! And one with less than half the brain size of H. sapiens to boot! So, not smart enough to develop the technology needed for civilization.

What you call "civilization" depends on both the development of technology but also the means to pass on records and achievments to the next generation. As soon as you develop those skills in passing on knowledge so that it does not have to be rediscovered every few generations, and you can build on previous knowledge, you set up a geometric curve for developing technology. Which explains your problems in #5.

Realization:
I was an inspiring inventor before. I thought I could invent a flying luxury car. It really caused my faith in Science(LIES!!!) to fall back. To look for what is really there. Now my faith is in CHRIST Alone!!!

LOL!! So because you didn't know the rules the universe operates on and foolishly thought the universe was going to be what YOU wanted it to be, then you don't like science! LOL!! Science is discovering what the universe IS, not what we want it to be (allowing flying luxury cars). Come to think of it, there already ARE flying luxury cars: they are called Lear jets. You were just late.

(I hate reasoning to would-be scientists please pay me a million dollars before I ruin your career.)

Since I already am an ESTABLISHED scientist and have 5 issued patents, I don't think I'll pay. So I call your bluff and threat.

 

[Meatros]

Valen, give me an equation that explains why Rome beat Carthage.

'Cause Carthage was rampant with 'sour grapes'...

 

[lucaspa]

Show me an equation that holds few human survivors 1,600,000 years ago basing the factual 6,000,000,000 in 1999

See Chapter 3 in Origin of the Species at http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/origin_6th/origin6th_03.html for why your calculations don't apply.

Also look at the following papers for documentation of bottleneck (= about 10 breeding humans) about 200,000 years ago.

A Gibbons, Studying humans -- and their cousins and parasites. Science 292:627-629, April 27, 2001.