Piasan: Yours are equally easy to deal with .... if you think them through.
Take your 4 billion people and assume that each and every one of them has been buried. Forget that many cultures destroyed the bodies of their dead (Vikings, Romans, and Hindus come to mind.) Let's just ass-u-me that each and every one of those 4 billion bodies was buried. Confine the burials only to the (roughly) 24 million habitable square miles of the planet. That leaves us about 166 bodies per square mile (64 per square km). That means in my 10 acres, I can expect two bodies..... probably less. If we figure each body to be about 5 feet by one foot, the two bodies would be about 10 square feet. My property is 435,600 square feet.
That means there's about a 0.002% chance of finding a body.... if I dig deep enough. Most of the holes I dig are post holes and are rarely more than 16 inches (40 cm) deep. There would be zero chance of finding anything that's just 18 inches down.... and most burials are far deeper than that. IOW, it's not like we should expect to encounter a body each and every time we dig a hole.
The reason we don't find bodies all over the place is we shouldn't expect to.
Well, what's clear is you haven't thought it through, because my claim isn't that all those bodies will be equally spread out, nor was my claim that you would find them buried underneath you, that was McMurtry's claim. My claim is it is a simple fact that if we have on about 6,000 years, about 240 generations of people, at most we would expect a certain amount of people's remains. We find relatively few. But if we have 100, 000 years, that's approx 4,000 generations.
So my claim is we should find a portion if there were 4 billion buried (which is the conservative estimate remember), much more in line with that figure.
It's easy to give ad hoc excuses then say "in fact we would expect the figure we have".
Piasan: and most burials are far deeper than that. IOW, it's not like we should expect to encounter a body each and every time we dig a hole.
Where did I claim we should expect it? My claim is if 4 billion bodies/artefacts, existed, we would find a much larger number than we do. Your little strawman is a wild goose chase. Poor Piasan, he though the maths would make him look smart but didn't even realise they had nothing to do with what mike say.
And why would I believe the bodies would be spread evenly? Didn't you even notice that faulty premise in your maths?
Piasan: That means in my 10 acres, I can expect two bodies..... probably less.
No it doesn't, it's a non-sequitur. If you have 166 bodies per square mile, that doesn't mean you can expect to find two in your 10 acres, because 80% of them might be in a location that is only a small portion of that square mile.
But I appreciate the time Fjuri and Piasan have given to show us some napkin maths.
Fjuri: As I see it, the only evidence provided was the 'napkin-math' (as Popoi put it, I like the term), but as both Piasan and I showed, the implications as proposed by the author where wrong.
Well, in a debate it's what I the debater am claiming. I never claimed what McMurtry claimed yet you stick to arguing his little comment because it's all you've got. CEASE arguing the strawman implication, that I am arguing what he argued about digging beneath us.
Even if you call correctly figured out maths by CMI "napkin-math", all that represents is a question-begging-epithet I am afraid.
Me? I'll go with being smart by observing the law of the excluded middle, by saying that either maths is figured out correctly or it isn't. If it is correct then it doesn't matter if it is a claim that two add two is four. So then, a conservative estimate for those generations in the stone age is about 4 billion bodies/artefacts.
As for my "evidence" of missing transitionals, one can only hope you are aware of what a conditional implications gives us in science by prediction as shown by Popper, which seems incredibly optimistic given your recent posts. So then, if our claim as creationists is that macro evolution didn't happen, it would "follow" that the evidence for that would be a lack of evolution, meaning a lack of transitionals, since they would never have existed under creation, apart from the tautological handful.
So then the only evidence we can predict is their non-existence, for how else can non-existence leave a trace we can call, "tangible evidence"? Lol. That is like requesting I show evidence there isn't a pink unicorn in the room.
The evidence there isn't, is it's absence. In logical absence of evidence is not evidence of absence unless and if and only if the absence is conspicuous. So then with a pink unicorn it is a conspicuous absence of evidence meaning we can conclude it is not there, but if it is an invisible pink unicorn, it isn't conspicuous because we wouldn't expect to see it.
Fjuri. You and the two Ps can, with great energy, try and worm out of the fact that the transitionals and the fictionally absurd amount of billions of dead bodies, somehow could exist without a trace. Me? I go with precise logical rules, and I obey them, and they show according to those rules, that the best explanation is the negation of those claims, given we would expect exactly what we see from creation, not evolution.
So yes, you can if you so wish create many "escapes" for the obvious, but I am not hanging around here to be patronised by those feeble, ad-hoc rescue devices. I value my own high standards and cannot converse with those that have no interest in intellectual honesty, for it is plainly obvious that the best explanation of the lack of evidence for these evolutionary claims, is that there simply hasn't been that amount of time available because there wasn't that amount of people living for that long.
This is my last post in this thread (because I regard the PRETENCE that I have argued the "we should find beneath us a body" tactic, to be mendacious, and I can't respect liars that pretend I have claimed things I haven't because they can't read properly.) You continue with that strawman so as to try and highlight the maths you can figure out. That's because you're desperately hoping it has some relevance where in fact, I am afraid, it simply doesn't, because it doesn't change the fact we should find a very great many more remains from 4,000 generations of people, than 240, and digging beneath us directly hoping they were spread equally, has nothing to do with my claim.
So what does your maths prove? You took a course in maths?
I can also count; http://evolutionfair...e-7#entry139106