Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[pitabread]

There is an entire field of study called population biology that studies how populations grow and shrink in response to different factors, and this argument ignores every single thing that researchers have learned in this area.

Creationists ignoring entire swaths of human knowledge?

 

[dmmesdale]

Sorry, but the population argument is extremely bad whatever your philosophical, religious or whatever views.

Opinion. Now what can you empirically prove?

There is an entire field of study called population biology that studies how populations grow and shrink in response to different factors, and this argument ignores every single thing that researchers have learned in this area.

Really? All these ad-nauseam appeals to fields of study and research by keyboard cowboys.

Populations only increase exponentially when they have unlimited resources.

Not according to the stats. It went from 1 bil in 1804 to 1.6 bil in 1900. (60%^)It doubled in 123 years. On average, an annual 6.4 mil increase for 96 years? How can that be given your above postulate? So did they have unlimited resources on the 1800s? How bout cures for all the diseases which ran rampant, like Smallpox, Polio, Cholera, the Civil war and the war of 1812? Did they have any other wars happening in the 1800s? Timeline of the British Army 1800–99 - Wikipedia

Humans have not generally had unlimited resources, and in particular, have often been limited by their food supply.

In places like Africa? They have unlimited food in Africa where the populations are booming? What about all the starvation and disease? Do you know Africa is the birthplace for a lot of diseases?

The food supply available to humans changed dramatically with the invention of agriculture, and then with increased agricultural land, and then with better farming techniques and artificial fertilizers.

Yawn, it has been offset by birth control and abortion. Technology is a double edged sword relative to population increase. Technology makes killing a heck of a lot more efficient than back in the day where killing was up close and personal, and they had no efficient means of birth control like we have today. Are you doing your homework or shooting from the hip? Because I can tell you, you need to do better.

The only real application for this argument is if you want to come up with a meaningless answer. Otherwise, no. Just no.

Don't let the actual empirical evidence stand in your way. Just put on your ignore button and go on and by the way, how do current population trends extrapolate back with your model? It doesn't. It seems you are making unscientific ad hoc rescues for your faith. If you are saying current population trends do not extrapolate back then to be consistent Darwin is called into question because he assumed changed in his present meant change in the past. One set of rules for your home team and another for the visitors?

 

[dmmesdale]

Mere assertions don't prove anything. Evidence does.

The population stats are the evidence.

 

[lesliedellow]

Opinion. Now what can you empirically prove? Really? All these ad-nauseam appeals to fields of study and research by keyboard cowboys.

Not according to the stats. It went from 1 bil in 1800 to 1.6 bil in 1900. (60%^)It doubled in 127 years. So did they have unlimited resources on the 1800s? How bout cures for all the diseases which ran rampant, like Smallpox, Polio, Cholera, the Civil war and the war of 1812? Did they have any other wars happening in the 1800s? Timeline of the British Army 1800–99 - Wikipedia

A parabola can be made to fit three data points. You need a lot more than that before you start using terms like "exponentially". Not that it is likely to be a terribly helpful procedure anyway, with so many environmental variables which would have to be taken into account in any realistic model.

 

[SkyWriting]

As I said, it describes an example of how particles can be created from 'nothing' in quantum mechanics.

It says no such thing. Please quote your source and claim.

 

[sfs]

Opinion. Now what can you empirically prove?

That human genetic variation is incompatible with a recent expansion from a very small population size.

Really? All these ad-nauseam appeals to fields of study and research by keyboard cowboys.

Really. Word of advice: if appeals to fields of scientific study cause you nausea, it's likely you're in the wrong forum. (And "keyboard cowboys"? Seriously? Is that your idea of an argument?)

Not according to the stats. It went from 1 bil in 1804 to 1.6 bil in 1900. (60%^)It doubled in 123 years. On average, an annual 6.4 mil increase for 96 years? How can that be given your above postulate?

Huh? I'm searching for a logical point there and not finding one. I can't tell whether you're arguing that the population was growing exponentially in the 19th century or that it wasn't. And I have no idea what this has to do with my point, which is that the human population was not growing exponentially for very long periods of time.

In places like Africa? They have unlimited food in Africa where the populations are booming? What about all the starvation and disease? Do you know Africa is the birthplace for a lot of diseases?

Do you know that your responses have nothing to do with my point? They do not have unlimited food in Africa, but they do have a great deal more food available there than they did a century ago, or a millennium ago. Are you arguing that population grows exponentially even if there's no food for the additional people? What the heck is your point?

If you are saying current population trends do not extrapolate back then to be consistent Darwin is called into question because he assumed changed in his present meant change in the past.

I am saying that it would be ridiculous to blindly assume indefinite exponential population growth when every single real-world population does not experience sustained exponential population growth. Applying a model that is known to be always and uniformly wrong. Now if you have some argument to make about Darwin and some extrapolation that he did, start another thread to make it.

 

[USincognito]

quoting Don Batten
there were 300 million people in the world at the time of Christ’s Resurrection,2

Batten's source is a CD version of the Encyclopedia Britannica. He also references a Henry Morris study who notes:
World Population Since Creation
>> For the time of Christ, most demographers make an intelligent guess that the world population was between 100 and 300 million. The lower figure tends to be preferred. <<

So Batten is taking the highest population and using that to do his calculations. That's not very honest, is it. Let's take a look at an actual academic source.
http://faculty.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/210a/readings/kremer1993.pdf
On page 4 there's a chart showing population growth and growth rates since 1,000,000 B.C. Note that in year 1 the world population is 170,000,000 with a growth rate of .0559%.

this requires a population growth rate of only 0.75% since the Flood, or a doubling time of 92 years—much less than the documented population growth rate in the years following the Flood.

No, just no. A few verses in Genesis 10 is not a "documented population growth". As Kremer shows in his study we don't even get to a .75% growth rate until after 1850 C.E.

Of course all of this is academic since we know the Flood never happened.

cont. -

 

[USincognito]

They had to evolve via accidenct and blind chance at the same rate.

I know Creationists think using blustery hyperbole helps make your case, but it really just makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.

Your hand wave dismissal does not change the fact.

You're very confused. I'm not hand waving your supposed objection. I'm noting it's not an accurate portrayal of how evolution works and thus is a ridiculous straw man. No individual has a mutation that makes them so different from the rest of the population that they cannot mate with them. Actually let me clarify that, if they do, then they simply cannot mate and their allele goes extinct rather than fixes to the population.

Why aren't there two groups? What about the problems associated with chromosomal fusion? Again cherry picked responses ginned up after the fact. You are saying all the human population are from two people? {snip}

You're trying too hard. Let me simplify it one more time.
- An individual undergoes a chromosome fusion. None of the genetic material on the new fused chromosome is damaged so they can still mate with the population. That individual is successful reproductively (for whatever reason) and so are it's offspring. That mutation then becomes fixed in the population and over time, it becomes so dominant, that all Homos who still have the unfused chromosomes don't reproduce and it goes extinct in the Homo line. This is very basic population genetics so I don't know why you're having such trouble with it.

cont. -

 

[USincognito]

They compare DNA with DNA and in your case you don't have the DNA of the imaginary creature because it did not exist. It is all theoretical, not conclusive. So don't go trying to pass your theoretical as conclusive.

I'm sorry to do this, but in this case it seems necessary - I'm talking about Homo sapiens, specifically the 8 of them who supposedly rode out the Flood. We have plenty of Homo sapien DNA, in fact you and I have it. But one thing our DNA does not have, as does no terrestrial tetrapod, is an indication of a genetic bottleneck, and a very severe, near extinction level one happening about 4,000 years ago.

My start was the past 400 years of population data and you are cherry picking the data which was there to make a point which was ignored.

Do you not even see what you're doing here? I mean seriously...

If your appeal is to math then do the math for your model of 10 K humans 200 K years ago. How does current population trends align with the overall growth for the last 400 years? It doesn't.

Again, you're trying too hard. The current population trend (since 1950) cannot even be expanded to the last 400 years. Again, going back to Kremer the growth rate in 1500 was .25%. In 1600, because of the 30 Years War and Ming collapse, the growth rate was 0.0%. In 1650 it climbs back to .225%.

The population doubles exponentially four times from a half bill to one to two to four to eight bil in approx 2020. That is a doubling of 105 years overall. .66%? By the rule of 70.

1. What the heck does an economic rule about investments have to do with population growth (which is even more dynamic and has even more variables)?
2. Again, why do you keep talking about the current, historically anomalous growth rates?

Lets drop it down to .1% for you model and do the math which you failed to do. The 10 K population would double every 700 years. From 10 to 20 to 40 to 80 to 160 and on. So how long would it take to reach 8 Bil at thoses rates? Not long.

Why would we drop it to .1%? The evidence shows it being .1%+ 1000-500 BCE and 1000-1100 CE, but for most of the time between a million BCE and 1400 CE it's below .1%.

 

[Gene2memE]

Look here. World Population by Year - Worldometers

The population doubles from 1850 (1.2 Bil) to 1950 (2.5 Bil) in spite of the Civil War, all the incurable disease, both the world wars of the 20th century. The holocaust and the great flu epidemic of the early 20th century.

Groan. You got woefully smacked down last time you tried this.

It was just so cringingly awful to have a poster try and entertain this as an argument, I had to eject from that thread before any more palms did any more damage to the faces of those reading.

People are laughing at you AND your line of argument. All the harder too, as you apparently fail to realise it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm sorry to do this, but in this case it seems necessary - I'm talking about Homo sapiens, specifically the 8 of them who supposedly rode out the Flood. We have plenty of Homo sapien DNA, in fact you and I have it. But one thing our DNA does not have, as does no terrestrial tetrapod, is an indication of a genetic bottleneck, and a very severe, near extinction level one happening about 4,000 years ago.

Would it help if we were all inbred depressed like the cheetah? would you be a believer then?

 

[Jimmy D]

Would it help if we were all inbred depressed like the cheetah? would you be a believer then?

Are cheetahs depressed?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It says no such thing. Please quote your source and claim.

It's about virtual particles, which are one example of the creation of particles from the quantum vacuum by fluctuations of the quantum fields that permeate it.

These fluctuations are a fundamental feature of quantum mechanics, resulting from Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. See quantum fluctuations.

 

[SkyWriting]

It's about virtual particles, which are one example of the creation of particles from the quantum vacuum by fluctuations of the quantum fields that permeate it.

These fluctuations are a fundamental feature of quantum mechanics, resulting from Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. See quantum fluctuations.

Please quote your source and support your stand that the cosmos could be created from nothing
and that we can test your theory with the goal of disproving it.

 

[dmmesdale]

That human genetic variation is incompatible with a recent expansion from a very small population size.

Is that conclusive or theoretical? Your model asserts a common ancestor between apes and man when you don't know what the creature was nor is there any DNA.

Really. Word of advice: if appeals to fields of scientific study cause you nausea, it's likely you're in the wrong forum. (And "keyboard cowboys"? Seriously? Is that your idea of an argument?)

See below.

Huh? I'm searching for a logical point there and not finding one. I can't tell whether you're arguing that the population was growing exponentially in the 19th century or that it wasn't. And I have no idea what this has to do with my point, which is that the human population was not growing exponentially for very long periods of time.

This was your claim.

Populations only increase exponentially when they have unlimited resources.

My response refuted your claim with actual data. Now you're confused?

Do you know that your responses have nothing to do with my point? They do not have unlimited food in Africa, but they do have a great deal more food available there than they did a century ago, or a millennium ago. Are you arguing that population grows exponentially even if there's no food for the additional people? What the heck is your point?

This is what you wrote.

Populations only increase exponentially when they have unlimited resources.

If there is a 2% growth in parts of Africa which doubles every 35 years then it is not because of unlimited resources like we have in the west.

I am saying that it would be ridiculous to blindly assume indefinite exponential population growth when every single real-world population does not experience sustained exponential population growth.

So we cannot look at it overall? You do know they use evidence from the present to determine conditions in the past. Your prejudices are governing your response, not the actual evidence.

Applying a model that is known to be always and uniformly wrong.

It sounds to me like you are making excuses.

Now if you have some argument to make about Darwin and some extrapolation that he did, start another thread to make it.

There is nothing wrong with the argument, and you simply refuse to consider empirical data which calls into question your model of 10 K humans 200 K years ago where both sexes evolved at the same rate via accidents, blind chance. (talk about faith) You cannot compare the two models clinically or detached because your bias governs your reasoning. It has everything to do with materialistic philosophy, and nothing to do with actual science where the evidence is followed and models are either eliminited or advanced. Again, how does your model jibe with current population trends? I don't see any of you making an evidence based case for your model.

 

[dmmesdale]

I'm sorry to do this, but in this case it seems necessary - I'm talking about Homo sapiens, specifically the 8 of them who supposedly rode out the Flood. We have plenty of Homo sapien DNA, in fact you and I have it. But one thing our DNA does not have, as does no terrestrial tetrapod, is an indication of a genetic bottleneck, and a very severe, near extinction level one happening about 4,000 years ago.

And i bet all that magical DNA better fits your model of 10 K humans 200 K years ago which had a common ancestor with apes all via blind chance and accidents along with magical fusion events that happened in the human line only with no deleterious effects. So how does the last 400 years of population data align with all of your assumptions?

Do you not even see what you're doing here? I mean seriously...

Making an argument. While your group is on the back foot where you belong. Making excuses, equivocating, and cherry picking.

Again, you're trying too hard. The current population trend (since 1950) cannot even be expanded to the last 400 years. Again, going back to Kremer the growth rate in 1500 was .25%. In 1600, because of the 30 Years War and Ming collapse, the growth rate was 0.0%. In 1650 it climbs back to .225%.

So they can't use overall?

1. What the heck does an economic rule about investments have to do with population growth (which is even more dynamic and has even more variables)?
2. Again, why do you keep talking about the current, historically anomalous growth rates?

They are not anomalous with the Noah model of three breeding couples 4500 years ago with two groups. Jews and non Jews. It jibes with current population data far better, to say the least, with your alternative model of 10 K 200 K years ago where both males and females magically evolved at the same rate via blind chance and accidents.

Why would we drop it to .1%?

Why not? Even at that low of rate there are not enough people today.

The evidence shows it being .1%+ 1000-500 BCE and 1000-1100 CE, but for most of the time between a million BCE and 1400 CE it's below .1%.

Well i just used 200 K years. Your model has a basic flatline for perhaps 194,000 years. Anyways, your model is all fiction and fiction is incompatible with science which is a search for truth. Science is not there to validate your fictional philosophy. It is all made up nonsense.

''No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story —amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
― Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time
tags:

“The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”
― Gareth J. Nelson

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would it help if we were all inbred depressed like the cheetah? would you be a believer then?

You are the one that keeps making the rather ignorant "depressed" claim. You don't seem to understand that you are the one that keeps claiming we would be inbred like cheetahs. The fact that we aren't tells us that your beliefs are wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

The fact that we aren't tells us that your beliefs are wrong.

So that's a YES?

 

[lesliedellow]

And i bet all that magical DNA better fits your model of 10 K humans 200 K years ago which had a common ancestor with apes all via blind chance and accidents along with magical fusion events that happened in the human line only with no deleterious effects. So how does the last 400 years of population data align with all of your assumptions?
Making an argument. While your group is on the back foot where you belong. Making excuses, equivocating, and cherry picking. So they can't use overall?

I wonder if he thinks his magical use of the word magical will magically make the scientific evidence magically go away.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So that's a YES?

No, your had a false claim built into your question.

Try again.