Jump to content


Photo

Population Flaw.


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#21 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 22 April 2008 - 07:21 AM

Creationism is just as rational an explantion, if not more, than evolution.
The laws of physics have no known origin, and most of what we deal with in science is derived from them.

Can you explain to origin of gravitational forces?

Terry

View Post

Even if creationism is true it is not rational because it appeals to the super natural – it is outside the methodology of science.

Let’s take a look at the laws of physics: Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic, and Gravity. We know that the weak force and the electromagnetic force have been unified into the electroweak force which is a powerful theory that makes extremely accurate predictions. There are powerful reasons to believe that all of the forces are just low energy approximations to a high energy force – or in other words at high energies the four forces exist as one force. So your question is really whether or not I know the origin of that one force right? However it is thought that this ultimate force came about at the big bang. So now the question is what caused the big bang – and on that I would say I have no idea. There is speculation but even if there is a natural explanation we can’t at this moment say anything concrete. For now we need get gravity unified with the standard model.

But not knowing the origin of something and claiming that it is god is an argument from incredulity and all through out history that argument has been continuously pushed to higher and higher levels as science has been able to explain more and more phenomenon. If we have now pushed it all the way back to the moment of the big bang I would say that we are doing pretty good.

#22 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 April 2008 - 04:45 PM

Even if creationism is true it is not rational because it appeals to the super natural – it is outside the methodology of science.


You are confusing materialism with rationalism. Rationalism just means that it makes sense philosohpically. Rationalism is a system of perception and nothing more. All things rational are not based on materialism.

Information is something that's rational, and its definately not materialistic!


Let’s take a look at the laws of physics:  Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic, and Gravity.  We know that the weak force and the electromagnetic force have been unified into the electroweak force which is a powerful theory that makes extremely accurate predictions.  There are powerful reasons to believe that all of the forces are just low energy approximations to a high energy force – or in other words at high energies the four forces exist as one force.  So your question is really whether or not I know the origin of that one force right?  However it is thought that this ultimate force came about at the big bang.  So now the question is what caused the big bang – and on that I would say I have no idea.  There is speculation but even if there is a natural explanation we can’t at this moment say anything concrete.  For now we need get gravity unified with the standard model. 


No one has any idea what the uncaused 1st cause was. No one.....

The laws of physics tell us that matter cannot be its own cause, therfore its a rational conclusion to allow the possibility that someone created the universe. Its not a materialistic conclusion but its is rational. Yes it is supernatural, but the cause of matter is best understood as such since the law of conservation of mass/energy tell us that the origin of the universe cannot be understood in a materialistic sense.

But not knowing the origin of something and claiming that it is god is an argument from incredulity and all through out history that argument has been continuously pushed to higher and higher levels as science has been able to explain more and more phenomenon.  If we have now pushed it all the way back to the moment of the big bang I would say that we are doing pretty good.


Science cannot explain the origin of the universe. Its irrational to claim that it can. Science can only tell us how the universe works today, and that's it. Everything else is just speculation.

Terry

#23 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 22 April 2008 - 06:27 PM

The laws of physics tell us that matter cannot be its own cause

View Post


Which laws of physics say this?

Of course information isn't materialistic anymore than mathematics is materialistic -however what meaning does either have outside the context of substance?

Rationalism is the philosophical position that the universe can be understood through logical reasoning. How can incredulity leading to belief in God be considered logical reasoning? It is more rational to simply say "I don't know" rather than "God did it".

#24 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 April 2008 - 02:50 AM

Which laws of physics say this? 


The Law of conservation of mass and energy.

Of course information isn't materialistic anymore than mathematics is materialistic -however what meaning does either have outside the context of substance?


The living cell is an information processing system. Understanding the origin of information is the key to understanding the origin of life. Since information is not matter, it cannot have a materialistic origin.

Rationalism is the philosophical position that the universe can be understood through logical reasoning.  How can incredulity leading to belief in God be considered logical reasoning?  It is more rational to simply say "I don't know" rather than "God did it".


This has nothing to do with incredulity, understanding how the universe works should lead to a belief in God. Unless you are just incredulous toward God. :)

Terry

#25 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 23 April 2008 - 06:12 AM

The Law of conservation of mass and energy.
The living cell is an information processing system.  Understanding the origin of information is the key to understanding the origin of life.  Since information is not matter, it cannot have a materialistic origin.
This has nothing to do with incredulity, understanding how the universe works should lead to a belief in God.  Unless you are just incredulous toward God. :)

Terry

View Post


Nobody said anything about violating the conservation of energy. Particles and their antiparticles pop into existence all of the time without violating energy conservation. It’s a byproduct of quantum mechanics. Processes like vacuum polarization have Lagrangians that are invariant under time translations so energy is still conserved.

What information are we talking about? A computer code for example has very low entropy when compared to any kind of information we find in nature such as a cell. This is because a good program utilizes all parts of its code to carry out a specific function. We don’t see that in DNA – only small parts of it has a function.

How does understanding how the universe works lead to a belief in God? So far every process we see in the universe has a natural explanation and a mountain of evidence to back it up. The initial cause of the Big Bang is for now outside the reach of our intellect and perhaps outside of the reach of science – who knows. However, using that as a basis for belief in God is belief from incredulity.

But that is beside the point – I am not trying to argue that there is no God because that is futile. I think we have successfully derailed this thread by the way – I forgot that this conversation was going on in a thread called “population flaw”. lol. :)

#26 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 23 April 2008 - 06:47 AM

The Law of conservation of mass and energy.


I don't think you can apply that. According to the laws pf physics we currently know, matter does not need a cause. It just exists. We can discuss the cause of the universe, but that is another matter.

The living cell is an information processing system.  Understanding the origin of information is the key to understanding the origin of life.  Since information is not matter, it cannot have a materialistic origin.


I'm sorry, but that is demonstratable wrong. I can easily supply you with information that has a materialistic origin.


This has nothing to do with incredulity, understanding how the universe works should lead to a belief in God.


For a very wide definition of God, I would tend to agree.

Hans

#27 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 April 2008 - 01:20 PM

But that is beside the point – I am not trying to argue that there is no God because that is futile.  I think we have successfully derailed this thread by the way – I forgot that this conversation was going on in a thread called “population flaw”. lol. :)

View Post


Agreed, taken to a new thread.

Terry

#28 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 24 April 2008 - 06:59 AM

Good idea. And on the original subject, can we all agree that since populations have never been observed to grow in a linear fashion for any considerable number of generations, no information about the age of Earth can be gleaned from extrapolating the present growth-rate of the human population?

Hans

#29 Guest_ItinerantLurker_*

Guest_ItinerantLurker_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2008 - 06:13 AM

If that were true then first world countries should be growing at an even greater rate since they are the source of medicine and technology. However, countries like the United States and Australia are growing at rates just a little less than 1%


1st world countries tend to have low population growth because of increased birth control measures due to cultural shifts and affluence.  When modern medicine can drastically improve the survivability of offspring it's not necessary to have a large number of children in order to get a few of them to survive.  Additionally, higher education rates of young girls tends to decrease population growth as they are less likely to get married at an extremely young age, more likely to be financially independent, and have fewer children later in life.  We also happen to live in relatively mild climates (US & Europe) that are not subject to the kind of widespread tropical diseases such as Malaria which ravage many third world equatorial nations.

Because they don't fit the idea that modern advancements are the primary factors behind population growth. It seems as though populations grow despite technology in many cases. My example of underdeveloped countries overproducing being one of them. That's significant because it means that the, 'financial and medical aid to the third world,' argument is not a good explanation for the growth that should have taken place over the last million years.


This is quantifiably the most retarded argument I have ever heard, and having lived in third world countries for twelve years I can authoritatively say that your arguments have a degree of wrongness about them comparable to eating yellow snow. Please go to a third world country or just read a wiki article or pretty much ANY reputable publication on population growth in the third world to get a better handle on this.

Modern medicine has provided vaccines which have drastically reduced diseases such as polio throughout much of the world while at the same time severely reducing the mortality rates of diseases such as Malaria which is still the number on killer in Africa, for example. Technological advancements associated with the medical fields such as mosquito nets and those things we call hospitals, tend to improve the life spans of populations for some reason as well. Technological advancements associated with transportation and refrigeration allow for a shift in third world economies from sustanence farming to trading and allow people to have more free time to develop infrastructure and more effective civil governments. They also allow populations to get much needed calories from sources other than what is immediately available, this is especially important when a communities only source of meat is extremely labor-intensive hunting for dwindling wild game.

All these advancements have come at a historically break neck pace; where western culture developed these technologies somewhat slowly and had time to adjust culturally to low infant mortality rates - most third world countries have not. Thus third world cultures typically stress large families to the extreme and under value education for women. Combine this with relatively low infant mortality rates and you get a population explosion.

Seriously, I cannot stress enough how gonadical it is to infer that population growth occurs independent of technological and medical advancements. That's right, "gonadical", I had to make up a new word to express just how awful that point was.

Lurker,
I lurk because I care

#30 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 27 November 2008 - 09:12 PM

It is true that popuation growth does fluctuate,for various and obvious reasons.We know it always stays between 1-3% per year,and thats taking into account different isolated populations.

If we start with only 2 people and take 2% as an average growth rate we would have a population of 6 billion people in just 1100 years.Lets be generous and reduce that to 1% per year,then we have 6 billion in 2200 years.Now lets border on the absurd,and imagine some fantastic and imaginary scenario that somehow reduces our average to .5% a year.That would put us back to the biblical account of noah's flood 4400 years ago.

The last genetic bottleneck that could have possibily happened is noah's flood and that is by stretching it.

Thanks.

#31 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 27 November 2008 - 10:17 PM

What if people had been around for one million years?
Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. This number is so big that not even the Texans have a word for it! To try to put this number of people in context, say each individual is given ‘standing room only’ of about one square metre per person. However, the land surface area of the whole Earth is ‘only’ 1.5 x 1014 square metres. If every one of those square metres were made into a world just like this one, all these worlds put together would still ‘only’ have a surface area able to fit 1028 people in this way. This is only a tiny fraction of 1043 (1029 is 10 times as much as 1028, 1030 is 100 times, and so on). Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.10 This stretches credulity to the limits.

www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/people.asp - 39k -

#32 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 December 2008 - 12:58 AM

What if people had been around for one million years?
Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. This number is so big that not even the Texans have a word for it! To try to put this number of people in context, say each individual is given ‘standing room only’ of about one square metre per person. However, the land surface area of the whole Earth is ‘only’ 1.5 x 1014 square metres. If every one of those square metres were made into a world just like this one, all these worlds put together would still ‘only’ have a surface area able to fit 1028 people in this way. This is only a tiny fraction of 1043 (1029 is 10 times as much as 1028, 1030 is 100 times, and so on). Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.10 This stretches credulity to the limits.

www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/people.asp - 39k -

View Post


Look up "carrying capacity" of the environment. It should become pretty clear why this argument is flawed.

If this argument was true, the bigger problem is we'd be drowning in bunnies.

#33 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 01 December 2008 - 07:59 AM

What if people had been around for one million years?
Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. This number is so big that not even the Texans have a word for it! To try to put this number of people in context, say each individual is given ‘standing room only’ of about one square metre per person. However, the land surface area of the whole Earth is ‘only’ 1.5 x 1014 square metres. If every one of those square metres were made into a world just like this one, all these worlds put together would still ‘only’ have a surface area able to fit 1028 people in this way. This is only a tiny fraction of 1043 (1029 is 10 times as much as 1028, 1030 is 100 times, and so on). Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.10 This stretches credulity to the limits.

www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/people.asp - 39k -

View Post

Name one population of a life form that grows arithmetically over a longer period of time.

Just one. :)

Hans

#34 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 01 December 2008 - 12:15 PM

Look up "carrying capacity" of the environment. It should become pretty clear why this argument is flawed.

If this argument was true, the bigger problem is we'd be drowning in bunnies.


Exactly.Thats why australia is being over run by bunnies.No natural predators to keep the numbers in check.Do you know of any natural predators that are now or ever have kept the human population in check.

Thanks.

#35 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 01 December 2008 - 12:18 PM

Name one population of a life form that grows arithmetically over a longer period of time.

Just one.


Like I just said,look up rabbit population explosion in australia.Want me to name just one more?

Thanks.

#36 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 December 2008 - 04:00 PM

Do you know of any natural predators that are now or ever have kept the human population in check.


I'm sure back in the hunter-gatherer days there were likely some (not mention other things like disease and what-not).

But more important are resources particularly food supply. That has the biggest cap on population growth. This is why, for example, predator-prey cycles exist.

The reason humans have seen such a population explosion is because we developed technology that opened up greater overall food supplies which allow us to sustain larger populations. This wasn't always the case.

#37 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 01 December 2008 - 05:05 PM

Most of that is true,but it still does'nt change the average.40% of the European population was wiped out by the black plauge and the population still increaed.I'm sure it would have been difficult to survive an ice age to be honest with you,neanderthal bones do show evidence of cannibalism,but it may not of had much of any effect on populations further south.

After you also take into account Noah's sons had 10 sons each that makes the average go up in the past.The average family today only has 2.3 children(I hate that number,it implies they only have part of a kid)hehehe.

Thanks

#38 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 December 2008 - 05:31 PM

Most of that is true,but it still does'nt change the average.


Average population growth? It depends on your segment in time you look at. Population growth is not linear. It's dependent on technology to give access to resources (i.e. food) to support population size.

#39 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 01 December 2008 - 07:41 PM

Apes moving out of the trees "where there is plenty of food" to roam around starving to death waiting for pizza hut to establish itself for at least a million years.

Why did'nt I think of that?

Seriously though,the starving people in africa are increasing.It is also a known fact that the food and meicine being sent there is being stolen by warlords to trade for drugs and weapons.The people are'nt getting any of it.

#40 MRC_Hans

MRC_Hans

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 576 posts
  • Age: 59
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Denmark

Posted 02 December 2008 - 05:42 AM

Exactly.Thats why australia is being over run by bunnies.No natural predators to keep the numbers in check.Do you know of any natural predators that are now or ever have kept the human population in check.

Thanks.

View Post

No. If the bunny population on Australia was growing arithmetically, Australia would now be mile-high in bunnies. Even without predators, there are limiting factors: Availability of food, climate, breeding success, etc.

Predators against humans? Surely you jest? Up til the dawn of civilization, there were plenty. Later there were diseases, famine, and the most dangerous predator on planet Earth: Man.

Hans




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users