Evidence for God from Science

gone

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: There are processes which build mountains and there are those which tear them down. A better understanding is reached after analyzing all of the available data.

Have you done that? What mechanism within unifrom geology taking 4.5 billion years explains why we see plate tectonics?

The mechanism governing plate tectonics is not yet fully understood. The time scales are not based on sedimentation rates but on degradation rates of various isotopes.

Jbuza wrote:What mechansim explains sea floor sediment on mountians?

Plate tectonics.

Jbuza wrote:Since you have examined all the evidence you must know that continental crust is pushing up into mountians.

Exactly, which is why we see seafloor sedimentation on mountains. You mistakenly differentiate between continental crust and underwater crust. The distinction is one of elevation only.

Jbuza wrote:

Bgood wrote:

Jbuza wrote:I guess it's OK to accept the argument if it proves your position, but it must be rejected if it doesn't fit your theory.

Ar you admiting this is what you are doing? Or are you accusing me of doing this? I have not made any claims, only you have.

I am accusing you of accepting relative uniformity of processes in the explanation of a geological column because it "proves" evolution with its 4.5 billion year history, but rejecting uniformity of reproductive processes in population growth because the evidence "disporves" evolution.

Neither process is uniform. Sedimentation can be large in a catostrophe or none at all in certain locations. Like the rings of a tree which grow thicker in a good growing season and less when conditions are less conducive to growth. Like most things there are limiting factors which will cause a population to reach an equilibrium.

Jbuza wrote:I am accusing you of accepting the processes of time to explain speciation, but rejecting the processes of reproduction across time.

I do not reject that population size changes over time. I reject your oversimplification of the subject. Population does not grow at a constant rate and cannot be extrapolated back in time. In other words human population does not have a half life, like a radioactive isotope and cannot be used to date anything.

Jbuza wrote:

bgood wrote:]Can you show me then what determines the rate of human population growth?

Well since the present is the key to the past sure. I agree that it isn't an exact science, but there are conclusions to be made, and you can't just ignore it, unless of course you are more interested in believing in your ideas than scientific investigation.

Care to go into more detail?

Jbuza wrote:Current observations suggest that poor people without "modern convieniences" and all those grand advancements you point out tend to have more children and grow a larger population.

Has this always been the case or has modern medicine, and trade helped to support a population which previously would have suffered a high rate of mortality?

Jbuza wrote:The best lifestyle is in America, yet we have a pretty small population compared to areas where disease and starvation are prevalent.

I would have to interject, and say without a doubt that this is a recent phenomenon.

Jbuza wrote:In era's past when it was more work to provide basic subsistence families had more children to help with the work.

There was also a higher mortality rate in the past.

Jbuza wrote:Population growth rates are observations and suggestive of a shorter history than evolution proposes.

Again how do you reach this conclusion? Can you show us the empirical data?

Jbuza wrote:Scream "no, no" cover your ears move on and preach the truth of evolution everywhere you go.

I am not preaching evolution, I am only questioning the science behind your statements.

gone

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: The time scales are not based on sedimentation rates but on degradation rates of various isotopes.

Uniform geology and time scales were proposed before atomic half-lives were even proposed.

Yes however initial estimates were in the millions of years, as people concluded that sedimentation required a great amount of time.

Jbuza wrote:There is no way to determine an age of 4.5 billion years.

This estimate is reached through radiometric dating techniques as I stated above.

Jbuza wrote:IG plate tectonics and earth geology are not known facts, and we don't even have a sample of molton core yet, how can we know how many processes a paticular rock has been through, what the make up of the molton envrionment it was formed in was.

We cannot, however we can determine consistency by analyzing seismic recodings, and studies of pyroclastic events allow us to glimpse into this underworld.

Jbuza wrote:sedimentation rates is the event and came from the assumptions of uniformity that caused assumptions of location of strata within a column, and prescencse of certian elements to have any causal relationship with the age of the rock.

Not entirely true, ages are based on comparative analysis and radiometric dating.

Jbuza wrote:Further there are numerous hidden variables that could have caused a change in the amount's of radioactive chemicals present in the rock.

Perhaps but the data is consistant enough to preclude this possibility.

Jbuza wrote:

bgood wrote:You mistakenly differentiate between continental crust and underwater crust. The distinction is one of elevation only.

No this isn't true. The crust that you find beneath oceans isn't the same as continental crust with seawater on it. What causes oceans is in fact the very opposite of what you are saying. Oceans are occeans because the oceanic crust is not in fact just contitntal crust that happens to be underwater.

And how did it get this way, in other words without out plate tectonic theory how did the lighter rock rise above the heavier rock? And how did the sedimentation which forms the mountains become rock? In any case This thread is about your conclusion based on population studies. If you wish to discuss this some more we can continue on the geology thread.

Jbuza wrote:The difference between oceanic crust and continental crust can be plainsy seen where they meet. Oceanic crust is largely basalt and is denser than contintal crust which is largely granites...

Let us stick to the subject, there is another thread on geology if you wish to continue this discussion.

Jbuza wrote:

Bgood wrote:Neither process is uniform. Sedimentation can be large in a catostrophe or none at all in certain locations.

Are you rejecting then the assumptions that lead to the geological column, and rejecting that it has to take millions of years for the strata to be laid down?

There is no assumption that sedimentation is constant, in fact the reverse some areas lack any sedimentation thus fossil representation is biased. But again let us stick to the subject.

Jbuza wrote:

Bgood wrote:

Jbuza wrote:Ar you admiting this is what you are doing? Or are you accusing me of doing this? I have not made any claims, only you have.

Like most things there are limiting factors which will cause a population to reach an equilibrium.

ANd perhaps we will see that someday with the human race. The earth hasn't reached carrying capacity in the past 2000 years, and there is no indication that it ever has.

Without modern farming techniques I doubt that the current population can be maintained.

Jbuza wrote:

bgood wrote:Can you show me then what determines the rate of human population growth?

Yes I can there are numerous places to find that information, and several organizations that study those forces. Birth rates, death rates, longevity, desire to have children, ability to have children. It is clearly observed that people have more children in places and at times when life is harder. There is a population decline because of recent advancements not the other way around.

This is an oversimplification of the current state of humanity.

Jbuza wrote:Population studies are solid science, and if you actually look at the numbers they indicate that there have been disasters. My extrapolations are not a best case scenario, and seem to consistently indicate periods of high death rates as one might expect, and as history shows.

So you are admiting that death rates were higher in the past? Is there proof that shows that populations must always increase?

Jbuza wrote:

bgood wrote: There was also a higher mortality rate in the past.

That's true, but the turn around in high mortality is a quite recent phenomenon. There are pretty consistent population numbers from the first century AD all the way up until today. Death rates are what create the predictions to fall somewhat short of the time period they reflect to. Average poplation growth numbers include a considerable period of time before anaseptic practices, sanitary conditions, and antibiotic cures. They also include two world wars, several bloody civil wars, revolutionary wars, plaugues, outbreaks.

So now you are saying that recent increases in population are due to modern advances in technology? So tell me again how an extrapolation was done, and how it is valid?

gone

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:There is no way to determine an age of 4.5 billion years.

This estimate is reached through radiometric dating techniques as I stated above.

Yes that's right, and it is based on unfirmity that arose during that geological explanation of sedimentation.

No it is based on several radiometric dating tehniques.

Jbuza wrote:It also as I said above ignores unknowns wihtin the geological past that could influence the quanitity of the elements being measured.

No most rocks date well younger than the age of the Earth. The age of the Earth is a rough estimate as there are no rocks on Earth which survived from that age.

Jbuza wrote:You have told me more than once that every time a rock erodes the geological clock is reset, and I have told you that rock that passes into an unsampled molten core goes through unknown processes.

This is correct.

Jbuza wrote:The only way to measure based upon decay is to assume the begining amount of the element, and assume that unknown factors are not influenceing, nor have influenced in the past, the rate of decay or the introduction of more of that paticular redioactive element in question.

Again this is correct.

Jbuza wrote:I tsupposes uniformity just like the geological interpretation about sedimentation did that originally began to inflate the amount of earth history.

When multiple techniques agree the liklyhood that one is on the right track increases.

Jbuza wrote:It seem slike for every hundred years of time we gain a billion years of past. It is garbage science.

No it is a re-evaluation of the data. More data will allow for better interpretation. Its like a stage slowly being lit by tiny spotlights.

gone

Jbuza wrote:... average population growth of about .4% per year. If we start with 8 people comming of the ark and hold to that average rate of growth we find those 8 people would be 6,822,342,253 within 3100 years.

For these 3 values, I get a final population of 1,942,413 using the standard formula of
P(t) = P_i x e ^ (r x t),
where P(t) is the population at t years,
P_i is the starting population,
x means multiply,
e = 2.71828... (base of natural logarithm)
^ means raised to the power,
r is average fractional population growth per year
t is number of years since start.

1,942,413 = 8 x e ^ (0.004 x 3100)

Where did your number come from ?

Jbuza wrote:This link is quite informative
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/Pap ... /chap1.htm

Yes, it shows that population growth is not constant - look at all the different future populations based on different assumptions. Yet you seem to be arguing for a uniform population growth rate. Despite your opposition to uniformitarianism in other threads for physical processes, you seem to be in favor of uniformitarianism for human behavior.

Jbuza wrote: And given the 100,000-year history of mankind we should have a population of 4,782,204,409,227,510,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. And that's at a growth rate of .02%/year.

I get, starting with 2 people, 100,000 years, 0.02% growth rate, only 970,330,391. That's a lot different from your number. How are you getting these figures ?

Jbuza wrote:So to calculate Growth based on 1% .... increase every year the created pair of humans ... at 1% growth per year would create 6,455,917,690 within 2700 years.

1,064,096,481,204 Now you are off in the other direction.

How can we discuss what these figures might mean when our numbers are so far apart ? I have showed you how my numbers are generated; you can do it easily by going to http://waynesword.palomar.edu/lmexer9.htm and plugging in the numbers.

gone

Jbuza wrote:I think my numbers are wrong. I was up way past my bedtime last night. Sorry let me run som enew numbers and see if they agree with what you got.

Yup sorry I think I was a decimel place off.

I am using microsoft excel and projecting growth in 50 year increments. The problem is when I was doing .4 percent growth I multiplied by 1.04. That would be 4 percent not .4 percent.



Lets see I just redid a projection based on 8 people and 1 percent growth/year in 1 year increments.
With these numers I arrived at just over 6 billion people in 2054 years.

Sorry for the confusion. I will try and be more sure of where my decemil is. Would this projection jive with your method?

No this is incorrect, you need to use P = Po*e^rt
I get 6.6 billion however the numbers don't fit.
Because its been 4349 years since the flood and the number I get is,
6x10^7 Trillion People.

Also using your 2054 year figures I get,

Year Your figures ....Actual figures
1997 6.6 billion.........6000 million
1950 4.2 billion.........2500 million
1800 928 million.......1000 million
1650 207 million.......550 million
1500 44 million.........300 million
1000 311,000
0 .....13 people

If you play with the figures you get
from a population of 8 in 4441 years at a rate of .4605%
you get 6 billion people

Year Your figures ....Actual figures
1997 6 billion............6000 million
1950 4.9 billion.........2500 million
1800 2.45 billion.......1000 million
1650 1.23 million......550 million
1500 617 million.......300 million
1000 61 million
0 .....617,000

gone

gone

Jbuza wrote:I don't understand why my method of calculations isn't correct, except for my mistakes why wouldn't his work.

If one takes 2000 years of history and calculates for instance 1% yearly growth on average wouldnt this be true starting with 10 people

10
10.1
10.201
10.303
10.406

I am having excel increase the number 1 percent per year for this example. IF we assume an average population growth of 1% per year and than show a 1% larger number each year, than what is the problem?

Likewise if I tell excel to show 100 percent growth per Year I get these numbers
10
20
40
80
160
320

What is the problem with this method?

Because people dont grow in increments. Its compounded.
People don't go hey its been one year lets double.
Check out this link.

Understanding compound interest
http://www.latimes.com/business/investi ... 0876.story

Here's 100% compounded.
10
27
73
200
545
1484
4034

Boy I would hate to have 100% interest on my credit card.