Ken Ham (Creation) | Bill Nye (Evolution) Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter admin
  • Start date Start date
ALAYMAN said:
No, I don't subscribe to the "all opinions are equal", but I do vehemently oppose the notion that  consensus determines truth.  As Ham pointed out, there are a whole lot of assumptions that must be accepted for the theory of evolution to be true.  I'm a scientist at heart, a maverick in spirit that don't go along to get along, from the proverbial state of Missouri (you've got to show me, not merely attempt to force me to accept it because Stephen Hawking said it).

Its interesting to note that Hawking recently changed his mind on the theory of "black holes". It didn't gather a lot of publicity because the media and science doesn't really want anyone to realize just how many mistakes are being made in the name of "science".

Isn't it sad that Hawking has spent the better part of his academic life making a name for himself with various theories concerning "black holes".... only to come the conclusion they really don't exist.

In this.... you really see mainstream science in a "nut shell". Yes, there is plenty we have learned. Yet, having learned "so much" we really must admit we don't know as much as we thought we did. In general, I think that really is "moral of the story" in this life. The more we learn the more we realize we know so very little.

The evolutionary creationist takes such nonsense and tries to apply to the "Scriptures". What a useless endeavor. 
 
christundivided said:
You know what's laughable about both you guys????

Science has not defined the entirety of "natural law". They do not know its beginning nor do they know its end. YET, you both have the arrogance to claim it excludes the "super natural". While you might can use such a definition.... you have no practical way to apply it. NONE.

I'm sorry you're having such a hard time with definitions today. Can you tell us how that makes you feel?

christundivided said:
Since you do not know the beginning or end to "natural law"..... You may very well determine a "natural law" as being "supernal". Thus..... EXCLUDING such from "true science".

Your premise doesn't make sense. Science is defined by what is observable and falsifiable. It doesn't matter how far the inquiry takes us (as the human race). The important thing is we keep asking "Why?" We may end up running out of things to observe. For instance, the question "Why are there three generations of leptons?" or "Why do neutrinos have mass?" may never be answered by science. The answer may, ultimately, be "Because God made it that way." But then we are out of the realm of science, because such an answer lies outside science's tool kit. But that doesn't make it a dumb question, or a dumb answer.


christundivided said:
You boys are pitiful. You think you know so much and you really don't know much of anything.

For a good example of this, see your very next post! . . .

christundivided said:
Its interesting to note that Hawking recently changed his mind on the theory of "black holes". It didn't gather a lot of publicity because the media and science doesn't really want anyone to realize just how many mistakes are being made in the name of "science".

Actually it gained a ton of publicity because it was a big deal. Although, ironically, not as big a deal as one might think. It's called refinement of theory, and it's incredibly common.

christundivided said:
Isn't sad that Hawking has spent the better part of his academic life making a name for himself with various theories concerning "black holes".... only to come the conclusion they really don't exist.

If you're really interested, black holes, as originally conceived, were regions in spacetime where gravity had so warped spacetime so that anything that came within its reach (past the so-called "Event Horizon") would be lost forever inside the black hole.

However, this means that information about whatever "fell in" (called quantum numbers) would be lost forever to the outside world. This has actually been a problem for a long time, and Hawking proposed (and proved theoretically) that we should observe radiation from black holes (such a phenomenon has been observed in the lab).

So Hawking's big announcement was really that black holes aren't so black (in that nothing can escape) by "grey."

So to your point, no, Hawking has not wasted his career, and it's anything but sad. Inspiring, really.

christundivided said:
Yes, there is plenty we have learned. Yet, having learned "so much" we really must admit we don't know as much as we thought we did. In general, I think that really is "moral of the story" in this life. The more we learn the more we realize we know so very little.

Please print this out and tape it to your computer monitor.

christundivided said:
The evolutionary creationist takes such nonsense and tries to apply to the "Scriptures". What a useless endeavor. 

Just like arguing with you!
 
ddgently said:
Your premise doesn't make sense. Science is defined by what is observable and falsifiable. It doesn't matter how far the inquiry takes us (as the human race). The important thing is we keep asking "Why?" We may end up running out of things to observe. For instance, the question "Why are there three generations of leptons?" or "Why do neutrinos have mass?" may never be answered by science. The answer may, ultimately, be "Because God made it that way." But then we are out of the realm of science, because such an answer lies outside science's tool kit. But that doesn't make it a dumb question, or a dumb answer.

A wrong answer is a "dumb"answer. In your little world.... as long as you GIVE an answer... its not a dumb answer. Sorry you can't see the truth because you've set the bar so LOW.

Actually it gained a ton of publicity because it was a big deal. Although, ironically, not as big a deal as one might think. It's called refinement of theory, and it's incredibly common.

It wasn't a BIG deal in the news. You didn't hear about on the national news.

You're right. Refinement of theory is good. Too bad it was it was MISTAKE for so many years.

If you're really interested, black holes, as originally conceived, were regions in spacetime where gravity had so warped spacetime so that anything that came within its reach (past the so-called "Event Horizon") would be lost forever inside the black hole.

However, this means that information about whatever "fell in" (called quantum numbers) would be lost forever to the outside world. This has actually been a problem for a long time, and Hawking proposed (and proved theoretically) that we should observe radiation from black holes (such a phenomenon has been observed in the lab).

So Hawking's big announcement was really that black holes aren't so black (in that nothing can escape) by "grey."

Get a grip man. It was wrong. It was sold as fact and later revised.

I'm SO GLAD... that I don't have to worry about such happening with the Scriptures. I know you have a problem accepting them... but I am SO GLAD... I don't have to worry about them being fallible or full of error.

Just imagine how people would abandon the Scriptures if you treated them the same way as you do your "Hawking's revision". If anyone every proved they were "revised".... you'd want to throw them away. So much for being consistent in application.

So to your point, no, Hawking has not wasted his career, and it's anything but sad. Inspiring, really.

Sure its inspiring. It inspires me to try not to be WRONG. Gesh... what kind of person are you????

Please print this out and tape it to your computer monitor.

Which one? I have several. Along with secure shell sessions open to some very expensive equipment. I noticed you really didn't get my dd.... gently comments in a previous thread. dd is a command in vi that removes a line . You're not telling anything I don't already know.

Just like arguing with you!

I knew, sooner or later, I'd hit a nerve...

You're probably a smart guy. You're just looking at things all wrong.
 
ddgently said:
I think biologists, geologist, paleontologists, and cosmologists have done a fine job of presenting evidence for an old universe and evolution, without appeals to authority.

Where do you find the evidence to be lacking?

In the population of the earth.
 
Mathew Ward said:
ddgently said:
I think biologists, geologist, paleontologists, and cosmologists have done a fine job of presenting evidence for an old universe and evolution, without appeals to authority.

Where do you find the evidence to be lacking?

In the population of the earth.

Past global warming issues......  ::)
 
christundivided said:
ddgently said:
Your premise doesn't make sense. Science is defined by what is observable and falsifiable. It doesn't matter how far the inquiry takes us (as the human race). The important thing is we keep asking "Why?" We may end up running out of things to observe. For instance, the question "Why are there three generations of leptons?" or "Why do neutrinos have mass?" may never be answered by science. The answer may, ultimately, be "Because God made it that way." But then we are out of the realm of science, because such an answer lies outside science's tool kit. But that doesn't make it a dumb question, or a dumb answer.

A wrong answer is a "dumb"answer. In your little world.... as long as you GIVE an answer... its not a dumb answer. Sorry you can't see the truth because you've set the bar so LOW.

You're not even responding to what I'm saying here...

christundivided said:
ddgently said:
Actually it gained a ton of publicity because it was a big deal. Although, ironically, not as big a deal as one might think. It's called refinement of theory, and it's incredibly common.

It wasn't a BIG deal in the news. You didn't hear about on the national news.

I don't know what national news you're listening to. I guess NBC, Nature, National Geographic, TIME, NPR, PBS, Forbes, the Christian Science Monitor, etc. don't count to you?

https://news.google.com/news?ncl=dBeDF0kucWqLRjMSfq7K5yYh6fpbM&q=%22stephen+hawking%22&lr=English&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j4z6UqXfAqKz2QX98YBY&ved=0CDIQqgIwAA

christundivided said:
You're right. Refinement of theory is good. Too bad it was it was MISTAKE for so many years.

You could say this about any scientific theory. He wasn't flat out wrong. He refined the definition of a black hole.

christundivided said:
ddgently said:
If you're really interested, black holes, as originally conceived, were regions in spacetime where gravity had so warped spacetime so that anything that came within its reach (past the so-called "Event Horizon") would be lost forever inside the black hole.

However, this means that information about whatever "fell in" (called quantum numbers) would be lost forever to the outside world. This has actually been a problem for a long time, and Hawking proposed (and proved theoretically) that we should observe radiation from black holes (such a phenomenon has been observed in the lab).

So Hawking's big announcement was really that black holes aren't so black (in that nothing can escape) by "grey."

Get a grip man. It was wrong. It was sold as fact and later revised.

It was never "sold as fact." It was a theoretical construct that fit the theory, made predictions, and . . . you know what? Never mind. You're willfully ignorant, and there's nothing to be done with you.

christundivided said:
I'm SO GLAD... that I don't have to worry about such happening with the Scriptures. I know you have a problem accepting them... but I am SO GLAD... I don't have to worry about them being fallible or full of error.

Just imagine how people would abandon the Scriptures if you treated them the same way as you do your "Hawking's revision". If anyone every proved they were "revised".... you'd want to throw them away. So much for being consistent in application.

Yeah, just like we're still cool with slavery (a formerly accepted "Biblical truth"); subjugating women (oops! I'm on a forum where that's probably still okay); segregation; etc. Don't tell me you believe something that's "always" been believed. Unless you're Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. Otherwise, what is "Biblical" to you wasn't believed 600 years ago.

christundivided said:
ddgently said:
So to your point, no, Hawking has not wasted his career, and it's anything but sad. Inspiring, really.

Sure its inspiring. It inspires me to try not to be WRONG. Gesh... what kind of person are you????

One who finds it inspiring that someone with a (literally) crippling disability has contributed so much during his miraculously long life.

christundivided said:
ddgently said:
Please print this out and tape it to your computer monitor.

Which one? I have several. Along with secure shell sessions open to some very expensive equipment. I noticed you really didn't get my dd.... gently comments in a previous thread. dd is a command in vi that removes a line . You're not telling anything I don't already know.

I'm not a programmer.

christundivided said:
ddgently said:
Just like arguing with you!

I knew, sooner or later, I'd hit a nerve...

You're certainly on some people's nerves!

christundivided said:
You're probably a smart guy. You're just looking at things all wrong.

That sounds charitable, but you've called me "moron" and "heretic" enough times, and been generally insulting, that I'll just let that lie.
Mathew Ward said:
ddgently said:
I think biologists, geologist, paleontologists, and cosmologists have done a fine job of presenting evidence for an old universe and evolution, without appeals to authority.

Where do you find the evidence to be lacking?

In the population of the earth.

Could you elaborate?
christundivided said:
Mathew Ward said:
ddgently said:
I think biologists, geologist, paleontologists, and cosmologists have done a fine job of presenting evidence for an old universe and evolution, without appeals to authority.

Where do you find the evidence to be lacking?

In the population of the earth.

Past global warming issues......  ::)

Could you elaborate?
 
ddgently said:
Could you elaborate?

If Nye's number of man being here 30,000 years was correct the population of the earth would be incredibly higher.

But if you believe man was placed here by God some 6000 years ago, then the population of 7 Billion makes sense. 

“Okay Bill, using your numbers (3 billion people in 1964, and 7 billion people in 2013) at an exponential growth rate y=Ae^rt, where A = 5.345778E-6, and r=0.01729179, the human population would go back to 2 people in the year 742. Yeah, that’s A.D. 742. We know that infant mortality rates were higher in the past, so that will push the date back another ~3 thousand years. But where is Bill getting 30,000 years??!?!? Could it be that Bill is relying on some other source of information that he believes to be more trustworthy than science & math?” – Dr. Jason Lisle
 
Mathew Ward said:
ddgently said:
Could you elaborate?

If Nye's number of man being here 30,000 years was correct the population of the earth would be incredibly higher.

But if you believe man was placed here by God some 6000 years ago, then the population of 7 Billion makes sense. 

“Okay Bill, using your numbers (3 billion people in 1964, and 7 billion people in 2013) at an exponential growth rate y=Ae^rt, where A = 5.345778E-6, and r=0.01729179, the human population would go back to 2 people in the year 742. Yeah, that’s A.D. 742. We know that infant mortality rates were higher in the past, so that will push the date back another ~3 thousand years. But where is Bill getting 30,000 years??!?!? Could it be that Bill is relying on some other source of information that he believes to be more trustworthy than science & math?” – Dr. Jason Lisle

An evolutionist would argue that population growth remained virtually nil until thousands of years ago because they were hunter-gatherers.  Population growth only started when man discovered agriculture.

Then, in the next breath, they'll tell you the reason the Sahara desert was once a lush green area millions of years ago but is now a desert is because ancient man destroyed the environment with too much agriculture. 

 
Increased food production, better medicine, sanitation improvements, increased human lifespan, industrialization,  the Black Death, WWI, WWII.....

It's not as simple as y=Ae^rt
 
[quote author=The Rogue Tomato]An evolutionist would argue that population growth remained virtually nil until thousands of years ago because they were hunter-gatherers.  Population growth only started when man discovered agriculture.[/quote]

I would hope they would argue that the rate of growth (the exponent in the population equation) is also increasing at an exponential rate due to advances we've made.

[quote author=The Rogue Tomato]Then, in the next breath, they'll tell you the reason the Sahara desert was once a lush green area millions of years ago but is now a desert is because ancient man destroyed the environment with too much agriculture. [/quote]

If an evolutionist is talking about this, he's likely outside of his field of study. He's also full of crap.  8)
 
rsc2a said:
Increased food production, better medicine, sanitation improvements, increased human lifespan, industrialization,  the Black Death, WWI, WWII.....

It's not as simple as y=Ae^rt

Take a look at a population growth graph.  The black death, WWI, WWII, communist cleansing (up to 100 million in China, and who knows how many million in Russia) are insignificant blips in the growth line. 

total-world-population-chart-inline-400.jpg
 
The Rogue Tomato said:
rsc2a said:
Increased food production, better medicine, sanitation improvements, increased human lifespan, industrialization,  the Black Death, WWI, WWII.....

It's not as simple as y=Ae^rt

Take a look at a population growth graph.  The black death, WWI, WWII, communist cleansing (up to 100 million in China, and who knows how many million in Russia) are insignificant blips in the growth line. 

total-world-population-chart-inline-400.jpg

But food production, sanitation, improved medicine, industralization, etc are not...

...the whole point I was making was that it's not simply a matter of plugging numbers into a population equation unless one accounts for the exponential change in the rate variable itself.  :)
 
rsc2a said:
Increased food production, better medicine, sanitation improvements, increased human lifespan, industrialization,  the Black Death, WWI, WWII.....

It's not as simple as y=Ae^rt

Then give us the formula you think is better suited to it.

Do you agree with Nye that man has been on the earth for 30,000 years?

Dr. Henry Morris put it this way...

To illustrate the problem, assume that the human population increases geometrically. That is, the increase each year is equal to a constant proportion of the population the previous year. This relationship can be expressed algebraically as follows:

(1) Pn = P (l + r)n

in which P is the population at any certain time, r is the proportionate annual increase in population, and Pn is the population n years later. For example, if the present population is 3.5 billion and the planet's permissible population is 50 billion, the number of years before this number will be reached at the present 2% annual increase can be calculated as follows:

50 x 109 = 3.5 x 109 (1.02)n

from which
log 50/3.5 = n log 1.02



and
n = 1.156/0.0086 = 135 years

We have already discussed this result, however. Looking toward the past, instead of the future, equation (1) will also indicate how long it would take to produce the present population at 2% growth per year, starting with two people. Thus:

3.5 x 109 = 2 (1.02) n

from which
n = 9 + log 3.5 /2 = 1075 years
log 1.02

That is, an initial population of only two people, increasing at 2% per year, would become 3.5 billion people in only 1075 years. Since written records go back over 4,000 years, it is obvious that the average growth rate throughout past history has been considerably less than the present rate.

As a matter of interest, we can also use equation (1) to determine what the average growth rate would have to be to generate the present population in 4,000 years. Thus:

3.5 x 109 = 2(l + r)4000

from which

r = (1.75 x 109)1/4000-1 = 1/2%

Thus, an average population growth rate of only (1/2)% would generate the present world population in only 4000 years. This is only one-fourth of the present rate of growth.

Now, although it is obvious that the present rate of growth (2%) could not have prevailed for very long in the past, it does seem unlikely that the long-time growth rate could have averaged significantly less than (1/2)%. Very little is known about the world population in earlier times, but everything that is known indicates the population has steadily increased throughout recorded history.

http://www.icr.org/article/67/
 
Mathew Ward said:
ddgently said:
Could you elaborate?

If Nye's number of man being here 30,000 years was correct the population of the earth would be incredibly higher.

But if you believe man was placed here by God some 6000 years ago, then the population of 7 Billion makes sense. 

“Okay Bill, using your numbers (3 billion people in 1964, and 7 billion people in 2013) at an exponential growth rate y=Ae^rt, where A = 5.345778E-6, and r=0.01729179, the human population would go back to 2 people in the year 742. Yeah, that’s A.D. 742. We know that infant mortality rates were higher in the past, so that will push the date back another ~3 thousand years. But where is Bill getting 30,000 years??!?!? Could it be that Bill is relying on some other source of information that he believes to be more trustworthy than science & math?” – Dr. Jason Lisle

That statement doesn't even make sense. The "A" in that equation should be 2.
 
ddgently said:
I don't know what national news you're listening to. I guess NBC, Nature, National Geographic, TIME, NPR, PBS, Forbes, the Christian Science Monitor, etc. don't count to you?

I listen to the national broadcast news every day. Every DAY. Yes. You can do a google search and find it. Never said you couldn't. Pay attention to what I wrote.

You could say this about any scientific theory. He wasn't flat out wrong. He refined the definition of a black hole.

You MORONS are always want to change a definition to cover up the fact you've been FLAT OUT WRONG.

It was never "sold as fact." It was a theoretical construct that fit the theory, made predictions, and . . . you know what? Never mind. You're willfully ignorant, and there's nothing to be done with you.

Then shut up.

Yeah, just like we're still cool with slavery (a formerly accepted "Biblical truth"); subjugating women (oops! I'm on a forum where that's probably still okay); segregation; etc. Don't tell me you believe something that's "always" been believed. Unless you're Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. Otherwise, what is "Biblical" to you wasn't believed 600 years ago.

Never once said slavery was cool. Never once advocated subjugation for women... and my wife would tell you differently. You married or still finding your way through all those nice scientific women you meet in college?

I'm neither Catholic or Eastern Orthodox but they don't have an exclusive claim to truth.

One who finds it inspiring that someone with a (literally) crippling disability has contributed so much during his miraculously long life.

Nothing against his popularity. Yet, I can find inspiration in men who fought infirmities to spread the Gospel. I don't think I have to worry about them changing the changing the definition of the Gospel because they realized they were wrong.

Who knows if he is right now. He might still be wrong. I don't have to worry about such with the Scriptures.
I'm not a programmer.

Me neither. You're batting zero. You don't even know enough to classify what I've told you.

That sounds charitable, but you've called me "moron" and "heretic" enough times, and been generally insulting, that I'll just let that lie.

So be it. You insult the teaching of inerrancy and infallabilty and I'll keep on calling you a moron.

Past global warming issues......  ::)

I see sarcasm is lost on you....

Everything that happens now is blamed on global warming. I'm certain one of you will claim its the reason for the last ice age killing off large parts of the human population.

 
rsc2a said:
Mathew Ward said:
ddgently said:
Could you elaborate?

If Nye's number of man being here 30,000 years was correct the population of the earth would be incredibly higher.

But if you believe man was placed here by God some 6000 years ago, then the population of 7 Billion makes sense. 

“Okay Bill, using your numbers (3 billion people in 1964, and 7 billion people in 2013) at an exponential growth rate y=Ae^rt, where A = 5.345778E-6, and r=0.01729179, the human population would go back to 2 people in the year 742. Yeah, that’s A.D. 742. We know that infant mortality rates were higher in the past, so that will push the date back another ~3 thousand years. But where is Bill getting 30,000 years??!?!? Could it be that Bill is relying on some other source of information that he believes to be more trustworthy than science & math?” – Dr. Jason Lisle

That statement doesn't even make sense. The "A" in that equation should be 2.

Maybe if you're talking about the life span in dog years..... Its always to the "dogs" with numb num.
 
christundivided said:
ddgently said:
I don't know what national news you're listening to. I guess NBC, Nature, National Geographic, TIME, NPR, PBS, Forbes, the Christian Science Monitor, etc. don't count to you?

I listen to the national broadcast news every day. Every DAY. Yes. You can do a google search and find it. Never said you couldn't. Pay attention to what I wrote.

This is everything you wrote on the subject:

christundivided said:
Its interesting to note that Hawking recently changed his mind on the theory of "black holes". It didn't gather a lot of publicity because the media and science doesn't really want anyone to realize just how many mistakes are being made in the name of "science".

christundivided said:
ddgently said:
Actually it gained a ton of publicity because it was a big deal. Although, ironically, not as big a deal as one might think. It's called refinement of theory, and it's incredibly common.

It wasn't a BIG deal in the news. You didn't hear about on the national news.

But it WAS on the national news. Hawking submitted his paper on January 22, 2014.  Newspapers around the country (from Seattle to Atlanta) were covering it by January 24. The story was covered by major media outlets. I presented much more than a "Google search." I'm sorry whatever radio station you listen to didn't cover it.

It's not a very sexy story, so I'm not really surprised Brian Williams didn't lead off with it.

But if your definition is "it didn't get covered unless I heard it personally" then, you're right, it didn't get covered.

christundivided said:
ddgently said:
You could say this about any scientific theory. He wasn't flat out wrong. He refined the definition of a black hole.

You MORONS are always want to change a definition to cover up the fact you've been FLAT OUT WRONG.

But he wasn't flat out wrong!

christundivided said:
ddgently said:
It was never "sold as fact." It was a theoretical construct that fit the theory, made predictions, and . . . you know what? Never mind. You're willfully ignorant, and there's nothing to be done with you.

Then shut up.

Make me, oh wise one.

christundivided said:
ddgently said:
Yeah, just like we're still cool with slavery (a formerly accepted "Biblical truth"); subjugating women (oops! I'm on a forum where that's probably still okay); segregation; etc. Don't tell me you believe something that's "always" been believed. Unless you're Catholic or Eastern Orthodox. Otherwise, what is "Biblical" to you wasn't believed 600 years ago.

Never once said slavery was cool. Never once advocated subjugation for women... and my wife would tell you differently. You married or still finding your way through all those nice scientific women you meet in college?

I'm neither Catholic or Eastern Orthodox but they don't have an exclusive claim to truth.

I didn't say you were for those things. I said that prevailing thought on what the Bible meant was cool with them. I didn't say EO and RC's had a monopoly on truth, only that they have a monopoly on saying the Bible has always meant the same thing. Because the rest of us have Luther to thank for shaking up what was centuries worth of the Bible meaning one thing.

christundivided said:
ddgently said:
One who finds it inspiring that someone with a (literally) crippling disability has contributed so much during his miraculously long life.

Nothing against his popularity. Yet, I can find inspiration in men who fought infirmities to spread the Gospel. I don't think I have to worry about them changing the changing the definition of the Gospel because they realized they were wrong.

The two are not mutually exclusive.


christundivided said:
ddgently said:
I'm not a programmer.

Me neither. You're batting zero. You don't even know enough to classify what I've told you.

Sorry I can't classify what your [expletive deleted]ty job is from two sentences bragging about your fancy equipment.

christundivided said:
ddgently said:
That sounds charitable, but you've called me "moron" and "heretic" enough times, and been generally insulting, that I'll just let that lie.

So be it. You insult the teaching of inerrancy and infallabilty and I'll keep on calling you a moron.

I've never insulted those teachings. I just think they're wrong.
Past global warming issues......  ::)

I see sarcasm is lost on you....

I'll not be drawn into a battle of wits. After all, you're unarmed!
 
christundivided said:
rsc2a said:
Mathew Ward said:
ddgently said:
Could you elaborate?

If Nye's number of man being here 30,000 years was correct the population of the earth would be incredibly higher.

But if you believe man was placed here by God some 6000 years ago, then the population of 7 Billion makes sense. 

“Okay Bill, using your numbers (3 billion people in 1964, and 7 billion people in 2013) at an exponential growth rate y=Ae^rt, where A = 5.345778E-6, and r=0.01729179, the human population would go back to 2 people in the year 742. Yeah, that’s A.D. 742. We know that infant mortality rates were higher in the past, so that will push the date back another ~3 thousand years. But where is Bill getting 30,000 years??!?!? Could it be that Bill is relying on some other source of information that he believes to be more trustworthy than science & math?” – Dr. Jason Lisle

That statement doesn't even make sense. The "A" in that equation should be 2.

Maybe if you're talking about the life span in dog years..... Its always to the "dogs" with numb num.

Honestly, if you didn't think you were infallible, you might learn something. In the population equation, the "A" above (although normally, the constant is given the variable Po) is the initial population, in this case 2. "t" is the standard variable for time. If the quoted statement made any sense at all, t would then equal 1272 (from 12014-742) if the speaker is correct, ~30k if Nye was.

As quoted though, the equation is pretty much meaningless. The dependent variable is the final population, not the initial one, and the final population is 190,716. It can tell you nothing about the initial population since that variable is already defined.

Now if someone has no idea what they are talking about, they might think "A" was the time variable, not "t" although most high school algebra students could probably let you know you are generally wrong. Now, I realize that this is only math and I barely know anything about it since I've only had advanced theoretical calculus classes, but I'm sure you'll be able to explain how I got it wrong.
 
rsc2a said:
christundivided said:
rsc2a said:
Mathew Ward said:
ddgently said:
Could you elaborate?

If Nye's number of man being here 30,000 years was correct the population of the earth would be incredibly higher.

But if you believe man was placed here by God some 6000 years ago, then the population of 7 Billion makes sense. 

“Okay Bill, using your numbers (3 billion people in 1964, and 7 billion people in 2013) at an exponential growth rate y=Ae^rt, where A = 5.345778E-6, and r=0.01729179, the human population would go back to 2 people in the year 742. Yeah, that’s A.D. 742. We know that infant mortality rates were higher in the past, so that will push the date back another ~3 thousand years. But where is Bill getting 30,000 years??!?!? Could it be that Bill is relying on some other source of information that he believes to be more trustworthy than science & math?” – Dr. Jason Lisle

That statement doesn't even make sense. The "A" in that equation should be 2.

Maybe if you're talking about the life span in dog years..... Its always to the "dogs" with numb num.

Honestly, if you didn't think you were infallible, you might learn something. In the population equation, the "A" above (although normally, the constant is given the variable Po) is the initial population, in this case 2. "t" is the standard variable for time. If the quoted statement made any sense at all, t would then equal 1272 (from 12014-742) if the speaker is correct, ~30k if Nye was.

As quoted though, the equation is pretty much meaningless. The dependent variable is the final population, not the initial one, and the final population is 190,716. It can tell you nothing about the initial population since that variable is already defined.

Now if someone has no idea what they are talking about, they might think "A" was the time variable, not "t" although most high school algebra students could probably let you know you are generally wrong. Now, I realize that this is only math and I barely know anything about it since I've only had advanced theoretical calculus classes, but I'm sure you'll be able to explain how I got it wrong.

Excuse me, but isn't the total number of people on earth a moot point as the total antediluvian population

would have been destroyed save eight? How could we tell now if 600 billion or 600 million died in the flood.

I didn't think a worldwide flood was in doubt among Christians gap or no gap.

Am I wrong on that?
 
bgwilkinson said:
rsc2a said:
christundivided said:
rsc2a said:
Mathew Ward said:
ddgently said:
Could you elaborate?

If Nye's number of man being here 30,000 years was correct the population of the earth would be incredibly higher.

But if you believe man was placed here by God some 6000 years ago, then the population of 7 Billion makes sense. 

“Okay Bill, using your numbers (3 billion people in 1964, and 7 billion people in 2013) at an exponential growth rate y=Ae^rt, where A = 5.345778E-6, and r=0.01729179, the human population would go back to 2 people in the year 742. Yeah, that’s A.D. 742. We know that infant mortality rates were higher in the past, so that will push the date back another ~3 thousand years. But where is Bill getting 30,000 years??!?!? Could it be that Bill is relying on some other source of information that he believes to be more trustworthy than science & math?” – Dr. Jason Lisle

That statement doesn't even make sense. The "A" in that equation should be 2.

Maybe if you're talking about the life span in dog years..... Its always to the "dogs" with numb num.

Honestly, if you didn't think you were infallible, you might learn something. In the population equation, the "A" above (although normally, the constant is given the variable Po) is the initial population, in this case 2. "t" is the standard variable for time. If the quoted statement made any sense at all, t would then equal 1272 (from 12014-742) if the speaker is correct, ~30k if Nye was.

As quoted though, the equation is pretty much meaningless. The dependent variable is the final population, not the initial one, and the final population is 190,716. It can tell you nothing about the initial population since that variable is already defined.

Now if someone has no idea what they are talking about, they might think "A" was the time variable, not "t" although most high school algebra students could probably let you know you are generally wrong. Now, I realize that this is only math and I barely know anything about it since I've only had advanced theoretical calculus classes, but I'm sure you'll be able to explain how I got it wrong.

Excuse me, but isn't the total number of people on earth a mute point as the total antediluvian population

would have been destroyed save eight? How could we tell now if 600 billion or 600 million died in the flood.

I didn't think a worldwide flood was in doubt among Christians gap or no gap.

Am I wrong on that?

Neither ddgently nor rsc2a believe in a global flood. They could care less what the Scriptures teach.
 
Back
Top