Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational:  Memescape that

Topic: Post Flood Population Growth (Read 3525 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Seven Popes
  • So would the opposite be a good-ger?
Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #25
Dean W ineptly - or dishonestly - tried to use Don Batten's hand grenade math which was intended to show the hilarity of 0.5% population growth over 1 million + years to try to show that there wouldn't be enough population to build the Tower of Babel.

See?
Awesome, continue!
You may hear people saying how fast they can make compost -- some say only a few weeks. Stay away from these people as they don't know what they're talking about. --Humanure handbook

  • Pingu
Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #26
ETA (don't peek, Dave):

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
  • Last Edit: December 31, 2016, 07:11:28 AM by Pingu

  • Seven Popes
  • So would the opposite be a good-ger?
Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #27
ETA (don't peek, Dave):

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Pingu, I need this.  Please don't ruin it for me.
  • Last Edit: December 31, 2016, 07:30:45 AM by Seven Popes
You may hear people saying how fast they can make compost -- some say only a few weeks. Stay away from these people as they don't know what they're talking about. --Humanure handbook

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #28
Dean W ineptly - or dishonestly - tried to use Don Batten's hand grenade math which was intended to show the hilarity of 0.5% population growth over 1 million + years to try to show that there wouldn't be enough population to build the Tower of Babel.

See?
Did Dean use standard population growth equations, the same ones Batten used?
Did Dean use the same growth factor, the same one Batten used?

In case you don't or won't know, Dean did use the same formula and the same growth factor as well as published figures for populations at given times, mythical figures to be sure, but the ones Batten is trying to support.

The real point here, Bluffy, is Dean was showing the hilarity of Battens misuse, most likely intentionally and dishonestly, of population growth equations.

That you don't want to accept that is understandable given your belief system and your militant ignorance.

What a bluffoon. Indeed, the bluffooniest.
Are we there yet?

  • Pingu
Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #29
Spoiler (click to show/hide)
Pingu, I need this.  Please don't ruin it for me.

I added spoiler tags.

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #30
ETA (don't peek, Dave):

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
No.  The numbers work fine in the YEC model using a simple math model ... Population 6 at 2348 BC yields 7 billion or so at a bit less than 0.5% growth rate.

Compared to 1 million + years for the Old Earth model ... which is hilariously out.

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #31
Now if you want to get more granular - you don't because you will look silly - then we can do something like my spreadsheet I posted.

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #32
Are there any more questions on this topic?

Which of the 101 Evidences would you like to discuss next?

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #33
ETA (don't peek, Dave):

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
No.  The numbers work fine in the YEC model using a simple math model ... Population 6 at 2348 BC yields 7 billion or so at a bit less than 0.5% growth rate.

Compared to 1 million + years for the Old Earth model ... which is hilariously out.
If the formula works for your YEC model, how many people were around to build the pyramids?

  • Pingu
Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #34
ETA (don't peek, Dave):

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
No.  The numbers work fine in the YEC model using a simple math model ... Population 6 at 2348 BC yields 7 billion or so at a bit less than 0.5% growth rate.

Compared to 1 million + years for the Old Earth model ... which is hilariously out.

So you think that the world population was around 10 when the Tower of Babel was built?

And a bit less than that whenever the fuck YECs think the pyramids were built?

And about 200 at the beginning of the Shang dynasty?  Even though Emperor Tang's standing army is recorded at 1000?

You think Don Batten's numbers "work out fine"?

Can you add?




  • Pingu
Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #35
Now if you want to get more granular - you don't because you will look silly - then we can do something like my spreadsheet I posted.

Dave, the granularity is what sinks you, you birdbrained nincompoop.

The growth rate proposed by Don Batten CANNOT BE CORRECT, even if YEC were true.  And if it isn't correct for YEC, what support can it possibly give YEC?

And how could it possibly falsify the standard chronology?  You can't falsify a proposition with a false premis!

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #36
Good God.  Are you people really this stupid?

  • Seven Popes
  • So would the opposite be a good-ger?
Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #37
Dave, pick whichever you want to start with.  I suggest you start with the first, and you defend all 101, though, as you have claimed
Quote
you conveniently ignore that list of 100 evidences of a young earth.
Mods, could this and the "100 evidences" be merged?
  • Last Edit: December 31, 2016, 07:55:03 AM by Seven Popes
You may hear people saying how fast they can make compost -- some say only a few weeks. Stay away from these people as they don't know what they're talking about. --Humanure handbook

  • Seven Popes
  • So would the opposite be a good-ger?
Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #38
Good God.  Are you people really this stupid?
YES WE ARE. PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS TO US SLOWLY.
You may hear people saying how fast they can make compost -- some say only a few weeks. Stay away from these people as they don't know what they're talking about. --Humanure handbook

  • Pingu
Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #39
Good God.  Are you people really this stupid?

Dave, your bluff has been called.

How many people do you think were alive at the time of the building of the Tower of Babel?

How many people do you think were alive at the time of the building of the pyramids?

And even if we discount the records of Tang's standing army, how many people do you think were alive when the Shang dynasty began? 

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #40
Good God.  Are you people really this stupid?
Bluffy, militant ignorance and bald bravado don't constitute effective argument.
Bluffy, explain where Dean goes wrong. Explain how Batten's math doesn't result in populations at important and well established dates as Dean posted.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #41
Good God.  Are you people really this stupid?

Dave, your bluff has been called.

How many people do you think were alive at the time of the building of the Tower of Babel?

How many people do you think were alive at the time of the building of the pyramids?

And even if we discount the records of Tang's standing army, how many people do you think were alive when the Shang dynasty began?
What pyramids? There never were any. Not in hebrew mythical times. They were actually built by the Romans to bury Cleopatra and Mark Antony. (Caesar as well, in the little one).
Are we there yet?

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #42
Good God.  Are you people really this stupid?

Dave, your bluff has been called.

How many people do you think were alive at the time of the building of the Tower of Babel?

How many people do you think were alive at the time of the building of the pyramids?

And even if we discount the records of Tang's standing army, how many people do you think were alive when the Shang dynasty began? 
You didn't even look at my spreadsheet did you?

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #43
Not only are you people idiots.  You're lazy too.  And assholes.

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #44
Good God.  Are you people really this stupid?

Dave, your bluff has been called.

How many people do you think were alive at the time of the building of the Tower of Babel?

How many people do you think were alive at the time of the building of the pyramids?

And even if we discount the records of Tang's standing army, how many people do you think were alive when the Shang dynasty began? 
You didn't even look at my spreadsheet did you?
Is your spreadsheet a direct application of the equations and figures used by Batten and/or Dean? If not, then it's irrelevant as it's not one of the "Evidences".

I'd also note a number of assumptions you make that you haven't validated and have no way of doing so. There is no mention whatsoever of any children aboard the Ark. None. At all. There is no mention of any children being born immediately after the Ark lands and the passengers disembark. There's no mention of any pregnancies. None. At all.

Your assumptions of the fecundity of the Ark's passengers is wildly optimistic and without any validation. In particular, your implied assumption of mortalities of both the passengers of the Ark and their offspring is unvalidated. Trying to use the myth as validation is unacceptable. It's basically accepting the word of a singular source that is talking about itself. I know, I know, self-promotion and aggrandizement is extremely rare. Yeah, right.
Are we there yet?

  • RAFH
  • Have a life, already.
Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #45
Not only are you people idiots.  You're lazy too.  And assholes.
Really great arguments there, Bluffy.
Are we there yet?

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #46
Good God.  Are you people really this stupid?

Dave, your bluff has been called.

How many people do you think were alive at the time of the building of the Tower of Babel?

How many people do you think were alive at the time of the building of the pyramids?

And even if we discount the records of Tang's standing army, how many people do you think were alive when the Shang dynasty began? 
You didn't even look at my spreadsheet did you?

Are they the figures Batten uses? If they're not then that's not part of the "evidence for a young Earth". Its "the Earth must be young, so what must the birth rate have been at various points in time to produce enough people to both build various ancient monuments, and give us a population of 7bn".

Which is not the same thing at all. That you think so is further evidence that you suck at science.
Why do I bother?

  • Faid
Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #47
ETA (don't peek, Dave):

Spoiler (click to show/hide)
No.  The numbers work fine in the YEC model using a simple math model ... Population 6 at 2348 BC yields 7 billion or so at a bit less than 0.5% growth rate.

Compared to 1 million + years for the Old Earth model ... which is hilariously out.
So there were 936 people in the world when Stonehenge was built?
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #48
Good God.  Are you people really this stupid?
Oh, this should be good.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.

  • Faid
Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #49
Not only are you people idiots.  You're lazy too.  And assholes.
Uh-huh. That's it. Don't hold back, dave. Say what you really feel.

Then tell us how many people were alive when stonehenge was built.
Who even made the rule that we cannot group ducks and fish together for the simple reason that they are both aquatic? If I want to group them that way and it serves my purpose then I can jolly well do it however I want to and it is still a nested hierarchy and you can't tell me that it's not.