- Dec 31, 2016
- 7,221
- 3,311
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
Just like I read this somewhere... but unreliable before 1800 still makes more sense.
Upvote
0
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.
Just like I read this somewhere... but unreliable before 1800 still makes more sense.The Brits knew their population at the time of the Magna Carta and the Domesday book (one of the most comprehensive surveys done by any country to that time). Having a formal census isn't the same as totalling everyone for the purpose of taxes and knowing what workforce one had. And the Babylonians counted those things as well as the population. And the Mongols ruled the largest empire the world has ever seen.
These are examples of ancient knowledge that you said didn't exist. There's countless more. Population has remained pretty much static this last millennium or so up until recent times. Literally all the evidence points to it and none points to anything remotely like a doubling every 150 years.
You've been told a lie. It's patently obvious. The only problem is, they seem to be the ones that know it's a lie and you don't. But hey, you 'read it somewhere'. Versus all the knowledge of population growth you're ever likely to find anywhere.
Seriously?
You've been pretty busy... you'd have to read my portion of the thread to get it. Their population model includes areas of omission, counting butter, corn, and livestock stashes, and apparently a door-to-door Mongol census.What about the Mongols?
I also believe in cats that like to eat rabbits. If it were up to me I would not even kill a spider.You believe in a God that will drown infants who have no opportunity to make choices.
Area density. It's used in fisheries science.You can also measure the density of settlements and determine the typical population of each and get reasonable estimates of populations.
Genghis Khan has 16 million descendants today. He made it a law that only his descendants could own land. So he made sure that his descendants had food to eat.a door-to-door Mongol census.
Must be why I own land.Genghis Khan has 16 million descendants today. He made it a law that only his descendants could own land. So he made sure that his descendants had food to eat.
That only holds true if they knowingly distort information. Yes, that has happened on occasion. It's happened on occasion in mainstream science, too. And both sides show a hostility at being questioned.
It is not circular reasoning but rather you setting up a strawman fallacy.That's circular reasoning. You could just as well define pseudoscience as anything you disagree with.
And here you have gone from making a strawman fallacy to one of false equivocation.Yet by his own words the inspiration of his hypothesis came to him in a daydream. Giving that a pass while labeling the catastrophic tectonic plate hypothesis a pseudoscience due to its origin is a double standard. What separates the two is not the inspiration, but the final results.
I suggest you take another look at the criteria for pseudoscience.Sigh. That is precisely why I used that as an example. It's a refutation for the catastrophic tectonic plate hypothesis. The first time I heard of catastrophic tectonic plate hypothesis, the sea mount and island chain as the Pacific Plate passed over the Hawaiian hot spot came to mind almost immediately (if anyone wants to see why, go to Google Earth, rotate the globe to the Pacific, and note the sea mount and island chain that stretches from Asia to Hawaii).
Now, the catastrophic tectonic plate hypothesis doesn't hold up. That in itself doesn't make it a pseudoscience. What makes it a pseudoscience is its persistence despite the hypothesis not holding up.
Better this than your boneheaded link which assumes populations have access to infinite resources.You've been pretty busy... you'd have to read my portion of the thread to get it. Their population model includes areas of omission, counting butter, corn, and livestock stashes, and apparently a door-to-door Mongol census.
There was no omission and the Mongol survey was more than accurate enough for purpose. If you really thought that population figures were so wrong and they actually were doubling every 150 years then you'd make some sort of effort to investigate. You've given all indications that you're not interested in the slightest.You've been pretty busy... you'd have to read my portion of the thread to get it. Their population model includes areas of omission, counting butter, corn, and livestock stashes, and apparently a door-to-door Mongol census.
You've explained your position quite well. The facts are that you worship God. The bible tells us He flooded the planet and drowned everyone. Including children. I don't think that happened but you have confirmed that you believe it and, to quote your own words, they all got what they deserved. All that has been stated quite plainly.My dad was a pediatrician. He worked 6 days a week, 12 hours a day for 50 years taking care of children. Then you have the audacity to accuse me of worshiping a God who wants to destroy children.
Actually they do stay infants for a long time in Heaven.For one thing, they don't stay infants for long.
You twist everything into a lie.they all got what they deserved.
Except you can find the same things elsewhere. Call it a mindset. Call it blinders. Call it stubbornness. The upshot is that not all on opposing sides of such things are deliberate frauds. I've heard archeologists who argued for an earlier arrival of humans to the Americas half-jokingly refer to the "Clovis Police," meaning the then accepted view of settlement of the Americas (this was at a secular forum BTW).AIG, DI, CMI, et al. regularly and *knowingly* push false narratives about science. Their attacks are too precise and require too much knowledge of the *actual* science. If they didn't understand what they were attacking, they wouldn't be able to attack it as they do. (It is possible that Ken Ham is as ignorant as he appears, but I have my doubts. His gaggle of PhD employees though are professional liars without doubt.)
Actually they do stay infants for a long time in Heaven.
You twist everything into a lie.
You twist everything into a lie.
You deal with him. I am not interested.
This is a fairly small aspect of science, which eventually self-corrects.Except you can find the same things elsewhere. Call it a mindset. Call it blinders. Call it stubbornness. The upshot is that not all on opposing sides of such things are deliberate frauds. I've heard archeologists who argued for an earlier arrival of humans to the Americas half-jokingly refer to the "Clovis Police," meaning the then accepted view of settlement of the Americas (this was at a secular forum BTW).
You will find some who deliberately falsify data. That goes for both. That doesn't mean all do so, or all hold to an opinion that they know is unsupportable. That may seem hard to believe at times - as an Old Earth Creationist who's denomination seems to be now dominated by Young Earth Creationists, I've wondered about that. But I've met too many quite sincere YEC supporters to think they're all frauds.
Avoid them all. The all produce "new" materials that are knowingly false.That doesn't mean I can stand some of them, and some I avoid in the interests of civility.
I dunno...some cops fake evidenceThis is a fairly small aspect of science, which eventually self-corrects.
Those organizations (DI, CMI, AiG) don't have any data of their own. They only offer commentary and do so from a predetermined position.
Avoid them all. The all produce "new" materials that are knowingly false.
So much for embracing criticism and properly considering all evidence & arguments on the science side of the 'science vs. pseudoscience' chart in post # 648.This is a fairly small aspect of science, which eventually self-corrects.
Those organizations (DI, CMI, AiG) don't have any data of their own. They only offer commentary and do so from a predetermined position.
Avoid them all. The all produce "new" materials that are knowingly false.
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?