Evidence for God from Science

gone

gone

gone

gone

Jbuza wrote:Jbuza Wrote
That's true, but if I analyze growth rates of millions of boys and incorporate them into some kind of an average, than I could create a growth chart and place it into thousands of pediatric offices across the country, and predict within some veriences and inconsistincies that there is a high degree of probability that an individual will plot close to that line.
Bgood Wrote
There is only one history of population of the human race not millions.

What has this got to do with anything? There is only one actual rate of growth for any individual, yet projections are made based upon average of millions of measurements of growth of children. It is the same with history of the population of the human race. There is only one actual number for amount of people at any given point in time, but projections can be made based upon the population growth of millions of people. Not sure what you are trying to claim here.

For determining growth rate of boys in your example above you use the growth rate of millions of boys to predict the growth rate of other boys. Then you say you are using the amount of people at any given time to predict the population in the past. This is not analagous. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother.

See it's like you using my height to predict how tall I was when I was younger. And you have no other peoples growth history to compare to.

Jbuza wrote:Jbuza Wrote
And incorporate years and even decades that saw little or no growth due to the variety of negative factors on growth.
Bgood Wrote
Are you saying there were periods of little or no growth?

Yup.

If it is possible to have periods of zero or negative growth then have you considered that this alone negates any sort of predictive applications. In other words if zero growth is possible humans population extrapolated back to trillions of years are just as valid. See below.
1Trillion to 1 Billion Years %.00000005
1 Billion to 900 million years ago zero growth.
etc...

Jbuza wrote: sandy_mcd Wrote
What does this mean ? I thought your data started in 1500 ?

Oops sorry! I forget what I posted, and what I read but didn't post.
__
Upon doing an average of eight different studies with population claims for the year 1AD I get an average population claim of 209,500,000 people for that year. IT seems that this should be as realistic a number as can be had for that year. This indicates an average population growth of .00168% during the last 1997 years.

What does that number mean???

Jbuza wrote:Evolution model indicates that at the average rate of growth observed over the past 1997 years that if 2 people were alive 150,000 years before 1997 that the current population after 150,000 years would be 5,365,526,637,3...,000,000 people. This indicates that the growth rate is off by ~11.5, and that the final population is off by a factor of 9,230,...,000,000,000.

We have already estabilished that zero growth is possible.

Jbuza wrote:Now lets be fair to evolution and cut it some slack, just like creation has been cut slack and assume that there are some unknown factors on depressing...thousand years population studies show that evolution is absurd. See how long it takes to end up with too many people.

1000 years 10 people
...
22000 years 19,471,622,740 people

Now to carry this one further a disaster happens that kills 9,735,811,370 people. I'm not sure what disaster happened that caused all those skeletons in the fossil record (LOL), but just the same say something happened that wiped out those people. A thousand years later the population will be 52,238,040,830. Lets have another grand disaster kill of 25 billion people. Where are all the skeletons?

Goodness, the data already doesn't fit any of your reasoning, why do you cary on? The data does not fit any average growth rates, and growth rates cannot be predicted using data. The average can only be determined from the data, not the other way around.

Jbuza wrote:Even after only 22,000 years at a rate that includes 100 million Hindus murdered in Islam invasions, 500 million deaths by small ... years. If you would like I can project these millennial disasters, that happen on top of all the disasters of the past ~2000 years, as killing 90% of the population, but evolution is still going to end up with too many people.

Yes if the population obeyed your simplestic rate, however this is not the case.

Jbuza wrote:Bgood Wrote
So it is much more reasonable to assume that the human population reached an equilibrium before the more recent advances in technology allowed an explosion in population.

The population growth is much much higher in those parts of the world that do not have access to advances in technology. The poor countries that have little or no medicine, and where starvation is most rampant are seeing the highest rates of population growth, so your claim has no evidence.

Most places facing famine can largely be attributed to social conflicts. This disrupts the food supply which supported the population. See Ethiopia, Congo's. In other cases it is a natural disaster of some sort. See Pakistan, Philipines. In all those cases it is modern farming techniques and medicine which caused the population to grow in the first place.

Jbuza wrote:The most advanced countries are seeing some of the lowest rates of growth.

This is true, perhaps you can tell me why? In the more advanced countries the mortality rates had been reduced earlier. In other countries longer life spans contribute much to the growing population while in developed nations it is only new borns and immigration which factor in as mortality rates have leveled off.

Jbuza wrote:Your not making general statements without empirical support again are you?

When have I ever? I tire of this.
Not knowing which of my statements you are reffering to here is evidence that modern technology has something to do with increases in world population.

Agricultural Revolution ~1790
Medical Men in birthing Chambers 1500 http://www.bookrags.com/sciences/scienc ... -0312.html
The Renaissance 1400-1700

Now if I take away modern medicine, hospitals, farming techniques, etc. Would you expect to see alot of suffering in the world?

Jbuza wrote:Since you accused me of that I would assume you would at least look at the evidence before making this claim.

Perhaps you should educate yourself more about population growth before you start making these kinds of claims.

What claims? Would you mind quoting them? As far as I knew it was you making the claims. I was only providing critisism.

gone

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:For determining growth rate of boys in your example above you use the growth rate of millions of boys to predict the growth rate of other boys. Then you say you are using the amount of people at any given time to predict the population in the past. This is not analagous. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother.

Nope that isn't what I am saying. I am saying that I am using the growth rate of boys to predict the actual growth of 1 boy, and that I am using the growth rate of millions of humans to predict the actual amount of humans for 1 paticular time.

Tell me what is the growth rate of millions of humans if not one figure?
It's the growth rate of a population you are measuring, and as far as I know there is only one world population.

See if one draws a chart it is height which changes as a function of time.
as it is population which changes as a function of time.

H = rt + Hi
P = Po e^rt

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: See it's like you using my height to predict how tall I was when I was younger. And you have no other peoples growth history to compare to.

no it isn't.

Joe grew 4% ayear
Bob grew 3% a year
Tod grew 5 % a year
Average growth rate 4% Billy likely to grow around 4% a year.

Human population grew 2.5% a year.
...
Human population will grow...

gone

gone

gone

Is there really an issue with a local flood?

gone

gone

gone

Jbuza wrote: These numbers are taken from population expert Paul Ehrlich

The human population that lived in 1850 with the factors of that year grew .9%
The human population that lived in 1650 with the factors of that year grew .3%
The human populatoin that lived in 650 with the factors of that year grew .07%
Many more similar measures
We create a predictive chart
Average growth rate .168% The population likely to have grown around .168% a year

I don't see this trend. The trend I see is that the rate of growth is increasing not constant.
Do you disagree?