Is Astrology a science?

[sjastro]

The maths is ok. The science, specifically the biology, is abysmal. Nay, non existent. From here: Why populations can't be saved by a single breeding pair.

The mathematics is as abysmal as the biology.
It completely ignores the carrying capacity of a population or in other words the resources available such as food to maintain the population as well as to grow it.
A simple mathematical model for population growth is the Logistic Growth Differential Equation.

 

[Bradskii]

What do you think of the population figures for 50,000 years?

Population size only started doubling every 150 years since the 18th century (and the rate has been increasing since then). Before that it was virtually flatlining.

Start with an incorrect assumption when you're calculating an algebraic increase and you'll be so far out after a few iterations that the figures become meaningless. And the people at Answers in Genesis aren't actually stupid. They know it's wrong to use the figures they did. They just assume (quite rightly in most cases) that the people for whom they write this garbage won't bother doing even a cursory investigation.

Now you know they are wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

The mathematics is as abysmal as the biology.
It completely ignores the carrying capacity of a population or in other words the resources available such as food to maintain the population as well as to grow it.
A simple mathematical model for population growth is the Logistic Growth Differential Equation.

Agreed. I meant that using their figures, the calculated numbers would be correct. But the figures are wrong in the first instance and won't map onto population increases for any number of reasons in the second.

 

[Astrid]

Science is based on testing your hypothesis. I read a lot of research. I grew up reading my dad's medical journals. He use to talk about stuff, but chances are I already read the article before he did.

Do we have to list all of the ways we see
you start with conclusions?

 

[Astrid]

I admit I peeked.

Even I do sometimes.

 

[sjastro]

Agreed. I meant that using their figures, the calculated numbers would be correct. But the figures are wrong in the first instance and won't map onto population increases for any number of reasons in the second.

The author of this article is Dr Monty White.

A.J. Monty White is a British young Earth creationist and was formerly the Chief Executive of the UK branch of Answers in Genesis. White is a graduate of the University of Wales; he obtained a BSc in Chemistry in 1967 and in 1970 earned his PhD for research in the kinetic theory of gas from Aberystwyth University.

Having a PhD in chemistry this individual should very well understand in reaction kinetics the rate of increase of a product in a chemical reaction does not increase exponentially indefinitely but depends on concentration of the reactants.
There is an analogy with the rate of population growth which he should understand.
It does raise the issue that the deception is coming from the creationist side in trying to fool a gullible public with a clearly incorrect mathematical model.

 

[Tuur]

There is no evidence for a biblical flood.

So you keep saying. But respectfully, simply repeating something doesn't make it an argument. Your post about expected conditions if a flood covered the Antarctic Ice Cap was an actual argument against a global flood (and a rather good one).

Catastrophic plate tectonics relies on a faith based argument where the conclusion (the flood) is assumed to true and one works backwards to get the desired theory.
This is pseudoscience 101.

The basis of the formation of an hypothesis is irrelevant to its validity. The chemist Kekule famously formed an hypothesis for benzene rings from a daydream. By the argument you've presented here, you would have to call it pseudoscience.

What constitutes a pseudoscience is a discipline which purports to be a science but which does not lend itself to the scientific method, or is not supported by the scientific method. The origin of a hypothesis doesn't fit this definition.

Now, you can easily argue against the catastrophic tectonic plate theory by pointing to a particular long sea mount and island chain in the Pacific that terminates in the Hawaiian Islands and noting the progression of erosion. If this suggestion seems satisfactory, ask yourself why. Is it because you know of the chain in question and the progressive erosion, or because, if true, it would confirm what you already believe? If the latter, how is that any different than proposing the catastrophic tectonic plate theory?

It is one thing to dismiss an hypothesis proven false; quite another to dismiss it because of its inspiration.

 

[inquiring mind]

Population size only started doubling every 150 years since the 18th century (and the rate has been increasing since then). Before that it was virtually flatlining.

View attachment 326210

Start with an incorrect assumption when you're calculating an algebraic increase and you'll be so far out after a few iterations that the figures become meaningless. And the people at Answers in Genesis aren't actually stupid. They know it's wrong to use the figures they did. They just assume (quite rightly in most cases) that the people for whom they write this garbage won't bother doing even a cursory investigation.

Now you know they are wrong.

It's my understanding there were no reliable population numbers prior to 1800.

 

[Bradskii]

It is one thing to dismiss an hypothesis proven false; quite another to dismiss it because of its inspiration.

This from Answers In Genesis: Can Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Explain Flood Geology?

'If uniformitarian assumptions are discarded, however, and Snider’s original biblical proposal for continental “sprint” during the Genesis Flood is adopted, then a catastrophic plate tectonics model explains everything that slow-and-gradual plate tectonics does...'

It literally says that the theory is based on a biblical proposal. A proposal assuming that a flood occured. Which is the conclusion that they are seeking.

There was a flood.
Here is some biblical information regarding the flood that we can use to form a theory.
The theory confirms that there was a flood.

And they call this science. I am absolutely certain that most of the people putting forward this junk know it's not science. They know they are lying.

 

[Bradskii]

It's my understanding there were no reliable population numbers prior to 1800.

Your understanding is completely wrong: Milestones and Moments in Global Census History

3800 BCE The Babylonian Empire takes the first known census, counting livestock and quantities of butter, honey, milk, wool, and vegetables.

---

2 CE China’s Han Dynasty records the oldest surviving census data, showing a population of 57.7 million people living in 12.4 million households. Chengdu, the largest city, has a population of 282,000.

---

1086 While not a census in the strictest sense of the word, the Domesday Book surveys English landowners and their holdings, forming the basis for the tax system implemented by William the Conqueror.

---

1250-1270 The Mongols take a census of captured Chinese, Russian, and Asian territories to demand resources from conquered peoples in exchange for a peace treaty. The resources are used to conduct further conquests.

1700s-1800s European colonialist nations like England, France, and Denmark avoid conducting censuses of their own countries due to opposition from the nobility, who fear losing power to the central government. The story is quite different when it comes to their colonies in the Americas, the Caribbean, and Iceland, however, where censuses are used to promote growth and keep the colonies under control and well-taxed.

---

1790 Enumerators on horseback begin the first U.S. census, which takes 18 months to complete. The results are used to establish the size of the House of Representatives. Enslaved people are counted as three-fifths of a person until after the Civil War (1861-1865), and Native Americans aren’t counted at all until 1860.

And this from wiki: 'Published estimates for the 1st century ("AD 1") suggest uncertainty of the order of 50% (estimates range between 150 and 330 million)'

Even with that margin of error, the line on the graph shown earlier would barely deviate from a straight line because the population was tiny compared to today and remained so for centuries. And don't forget we are looking at rates of increase. It was negligeable for a very long time

There is nothing you will find, outside pseudo scientific sites like AiG, that will shown anything different.

 

[inquiring mind]

Having a PhD in chemistry this individual should very well understand in reaction kinetics the rate of increase of a product in a chemical reaction does not increase exponentially indefinitely but depends on concentration of the reactants.

Yes, it’s all about compounding growth. And, Noah and those guys lived to be 350 years old, so it’s likely your models don’t take into consideration those ‘reacting’ concentration figures.

 

[inquiring mind]

Your understanding is completely wrong: Milestones and Moments in Global Census History

3800 BCE The Babylonian Empire takes the first known census, counting livestock and quantities of butter, honey, milk, wool, and vegetables.

---

2 CE China’s Han Dynasty records the oldest surviving census data, showing a population of 57.7 million people living in 12.4 million households. Chengdu, the largest city, has a population of 282,000.

---

1086 While not a census in the strictest sense of the word, the Domesday Book surveys English landowners and their holdings, forming the basis for the tax system implemented by William the Conqueror.

---

1250-1270 The Mongols take a census of captured Chinese, Russian, and Asian territories to demand resources from conquered peoples in exchange for a peace treaty. The resources are used to conduct further conquests.

1700s-1800s European colonialist nations like England, France, and Denmark avoid conducting censuses of their own countries due to opposition from the nobility, who fear losing power to the central government. The story is quite different when it comes to their colonies in the Americas, the Caribbean, and Iceland, however, where censuses are used to promote growth and keep the colonies under control and well-taxed.

---

1790 Enumerators on horseback begin the first U.S. census, which takes 18 months to complete. The results are used to establish the size of the House of Representatives. Enslaved people are counted as three-fifths of a person until after the Civil War (1861-1865), and Native Americans aren’t counted at all until 1860.

I can see it being considered unreliable.

 

[Bradskii]

I can see it being considered unreliable.

You can see it any way you like. You won't find anything at all that tells a different story. Feel free to waste your time and look. We'll wait here...

 

[inquiring mind]

You can see it any way you like. You won't find anything at all that tells a different story. Feel free to waste your time and look. We'll wait here...

I'll stick with it being unreliable.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And they call this science. I am absolutely certain that most of the people putting forward this junk know it's not science. They know they are lying.

And so do we.

This is why I call the creation ministries all "professional liars". The things they "craft" as "science" are things that *require* them to understand what they are doing and therefore understand that what they propose is false.

 

[Bradskii]

I'll stick with it being unreliable.

On what basis? Your forum name indicates that you have an inquiring mind. What enquiries have you made that will lead you to your conclusion?

 

[sjastro]

So you keep saying. But respectfully, simply repeating something doesn't make it an argument. Your post about expected conditions if a flood covered the Antarctic Ice Cap was an actual argument against a global flood (and a rather good one).

A theory which tries to explain an observation when there is no evidence for the observation in the first place is a definite example of pseudoscience.

Plate tectonics had its origins from continental drift theory which tried to explain the observations of the jigsaw puzzle like fit of the east coast of South America with the west coast of Africa.
Another observation which continental drift theory addressed were common plant and animal fossils found in South America, Africa, Antarctica, India, and Australia would could only be explained if these continents were joined in the past.
Plate tectonics provides the cause for continental drift, where oceanic and continental crust form plates which move due to heat convection in the mantle and sea floor spreading at plate boundaries which are also observations.

How does catastrophic plate theory compare to this?
It speeds up the rate of sea flooring spreading to become consistent with a biblical narrative.
It doesn’t explain how seafloor spreading is accelerated and is contradicted by the rate of sea floor spreading at the mid Atlantic ridge of 0.02 meters/year which is far too slow to explain the distance between the South American and African continents over a 6000 year time span.
It states a global flood broke up the Pangea supercontinent but there is no evidence of this and it cannot explain how the flood caused the break up.

The basis of the formation of an hypothesis is irrelevant to its validity. The chemist Kekule famously formed an hypothesis for benzene rings from a daydream. By the argument you've presented here, you would have to call it pseudoscience.

What constitutes a pseudoscience is a discipline which purports to be a science but which does not lend itself to the scientific method, or is not supported by the scientific method. The origin of a hypothesis doesn't fit this definition.

The Kekule example is not a case of pseudoscience as he was addressing an observation which could not be explained by 19th century chemistry the low reactivity of benzene.
The scientists of the day were able to determine the empirical formula of benzene contained double bonds which would make it more reactive than saturated single bonded molecules of carbon and hydrogen.
His benzene ring structure hypothesis partially addressed this issue, it was not until the development of quantum mechanics in the 20th century where the low reactivity was primarily due to delocalization of electrons in the benzene ring.

Now, you can easily argue against the catastrophic tectonic plate theory by pointing to a particular long sea mount and island chain in the Pacific that terminates in the Hawaiian Islands and noting the progression of erosion. If this suggestion seems satisfactory, ask yourself why. Is it because you know of the chain in question and the progressive erosion, or because, if true, it would confirm what you already believe? If the latter, how is that any different than proposing the catastrophic tectonic plate theory?

It ironical you use the Hawaiian Islands as an example.
The islands are formed through volcanism when the Pacific plate passes over a hotspot in the mantle.
By knowing the age of the Hawaiian volcanoes and their distance from the hotspot, the velocity of the Pacific plate can be calculated and is around 7 cm/year.
This is another example which shows the plates are moving a far too slowly and contradicts catastrophic plate theory.

It is one thing to dismiss an hypothesis proven false; quite another to dismiss it because of its inspiration.

I hope to have convinced you catastrophic plate tectonics is false.

 

[Diamond72]

Then why say that there is truth in all of them?

Because there is. I prefer dispensationalism. But I can just as easy defend YEC as I can OEC. There are people who say the Bible has up to 100 different levels of understanding.

 

[sjastro]

Yes, it’s all about compounding growth. And, Noah and those guys lived to be 350 years old, so it’s likely your models don’t take into consideration those ‘reacting’ concentration figures.

How irresponsible for the modelers to ignore the population aged up to 350 years old.
Incidentally Noah lived for 950 years so we need to include the 950 year olds in the model as well.

 

[Diamond72]

OEC incidentally claims God created the Earth 4.5 billion years ago, YEC 6000 years ago.

That is easy Gerald Schroeder explains the age of the universe.

The Age of the Universe | Gerald Schroeder

Bishop Ussher in his book explains YEC.
Dispensationalism may be a bit more difficult to explain.

Ussher's work is now used to support Young Earth Creationism, which holds that the universe was created thousands of years ago (rather than billions). But while calculating the date of the Creation is today considered a controversial activity, in Ussher's time such a calculation was still regarded as an important task, one previously attempted by many Post-Reformation scholars, such as Joseph Justus Scaliger and physicist Isaac Newton.

Ussher's chronology represented a considerable feat of scholarship: it demanded great depth of learning in what was then known of ancient history, including the rise of the Persians, Greeks and Romans, as well as expertise in the Bible, biblical languages, astronomy, ancient calendars and chronology. Ussher's account of historical events for which he had multiple sources other than the Bible is usually in close agreement with modern accounts – for example, he placed the death of Alexander in 323 BC and that of Julius Caesar in 44 BC. Ussher's last biblical co-ordinate was the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II, and beyond this point, he had to rely on other considerations. Faced with inconsistent texts of the Torah, each with a different number of years between the Genesis flood narrative and Creation, Ussher chose the Masoretic version, which claims an unbroken history of careful transcription stretching back centuries – but his choice was confirmed for him, because it placed Creation exactly four thousand years before 4 BC, the generally accepted date for the Nativity of Jesus; moreover, he calculated, Solomon's Temple was completed in the year 3000 from creation, so that there were exactly 1,000 years from the temple to Jesus, who was thought to be the 'fulfilment' of the Temple.[17]