Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The mathematics is as abysmal as the biology.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.
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.What do you think of the population figures for 50,000 years?
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 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.
Do we have to list all of the ways we seeScience 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.
The author of this article is Dr Monty White.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.
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.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.
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).There is no evidence for a biblical flood.
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.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.
It's my understanding there were no reliable population numbers prior to 1800.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.
This from Answers In Genesis: Can Catastrophic Plate Tectonics Explain Flood Geology?It is one thing to dismiss an hypothesis proven false; quite another to dismiss it because of its inspiration.
Your understanding is completely wrong: Milestones and Moments in Global Census HistoryIt's my understanding there were no reliable population numbers prior to 1800.
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.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.
I can see it being considered unreliable.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.
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 can see it being considered unreliable.
I'll stick with it being 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...
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.
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?I'll stick with it being unreliable.
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.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).
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 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.
It ironical you use the Hawaiian Islands as an example.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?
I hope to have convinced you catastrophic plate tectonics is false.It is one thing to dismiss an hypothesis proven false; quite another to dismiss it because of its inspiration.
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.Then why say that there is truth in all of them?
How irresponsible for the modelers to ignore the population aged up to 350 years old.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.
That is easy Gerald Schroeder explains the age of the universe.OEC incidentally claims God created the Earth 4.5 billion years ago, YEC 6000 years ago.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?