Skip to main content
Log In | Register

TR Memescape


Topic: Post Flood Population Growth (Read 3417 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • 2,930

  • 747

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #50
Lol Dave, stop spitting out insults and give your own math, and the assumptions behind it, an honest review.

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 7,107

  • 1064

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #51
I did this very hurriedly and there's probably some big errors ... but ...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Dave, listen:

YES we looked at your spreadsheet. 

YES we saw that you had found set of growth rate assumptions to get you enough people to build the Tower of Babel.

But you DID SO by using a GROWTH RATE FIGURES that are MUCH LARGER[1] than the one that Don Batten uses.

So YOU, Dave Hawkins, agree that the POPULATION GROWTH RATE that Don Batten used doesn't work.  That's why you used a different one.

Therefore you agree that  Don Batten's figure can't be correct. Therefore it can't support YEC.

And nor can it falsify the standard chronology.

NOW do you get it?

ETA: specifically, you needed a growth rate of over 11% per year, whereas Don Batten's growth rate is less than half a percent (0.48%)
  • Last Edit: December 31, 2016, 09:17:27 AM by Pingu

  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • wtactualf
  • 4,565

  • 874

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #52
Are there any more questions on this topic?
Not from me!
You've succeeded in showing this "evidence" for the absurdity it is.

Quote
Which of the 101 Evidences would you like to discuss next?
I'll take Mitochondrial Eve for $6000!

:popcorn:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • 69

  • 10

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #53
I did this very hurriedly and there's probably some big errors ... but ...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Dave, listen:

YES we looked at your spreadsheet. 

YES we saw that you had found set of growth rate assumptions to get you enough people to build the Tower of Babel.

But you DID SO by using a GROWTH RATE FIGURES that are MUCH LARGER[1] than the one that Don Batten uses.

So YOU, Dave Hawkins, agree that the POPULATION GROWTH RATE that Don Batten used doesn't work.  That's why you used a different one.

Therefore you agree that  Don Batten's figure can't be correct. Therefore it can't support YEC.

And nor can it falsify the standard chronology.

NOW do you get it?


I don't know if Dave realizes that in his just-so (and non-Batten) YEC model, every year of the 11% growth rate he desperately needs to  increase population must correspondingly require a decrease in the rate for the remaining period up to the present.

For instance, now he claims there were 936 people in 2300 BC.  To get 7.4 billion in 2016 AD the growth rate during the intervening years in the YEC model must then be adjusted to 0.369%.

And I notice that proponents of the YEC model apparently can't envision a stable population or even a DROP in population.  That being the case, in the YEC model what happened to world population between, say, 2349 BC and 2347 BC?  Dave?
ETA: specifically, you needed a growth rate of over 11% per year, whereas Don Batten's growth rate is less than half a percent (0.48%)
  • Last Edit: December 31, 2016, 11:35:48 AM by Dean W

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 7,107

  • 1064

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #54
Not only that, but he's got to account for the rapid recent RISE in population growth again.

Which is something he likes to avoid, because of the strong correlation with industrialisation.

So he's got to keep it high for long enough to get the pyramids and Babel built, and account for all those civilisations other than the Hebrew one who somehow thrived enough to forget about Noah et al and invent their own mythologies, then drop it drastically (I think it will have to go negative) in order to have room to climb to the present at current rates.

But it doesn't matter, because that wasn't Don Batten's argument.

  • RAFH
  • Needs a Life
  • Have a life, already.
  • 3,210

  • 281

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #55
Are there any more questions on this topic?
Not from me!
You've succeeded in showing this "evidence" for the absurdity it is.

Quote
Which of the 101 Evidences would you like to discuss next?
I'll take Mitochondrial Eve for $6000!

:popcorn:
I'm sorry, Vox, but as Eve's pimp, you're going to have to pony up a lot more than that. Typical night with the Mother of Humanity is about $10K. I note, that does include the hot tub rub. You can get a week with her in the Cradle of Man for around $50K.

And I swear to you, there's nothing like getting it on with your genome.
Are we there yet?

  • Faid
  • Needs a Life
  • 2,906

  • 583

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #56
Does anyone have a link to Brown's "corrected" C14 timeline, where he contrasts "apparent" C14 ages with "real" ages? I wonder how that works with dave's model.
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.

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 7,107

  • 1064

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #57
Does anyone have a link to Brown's "corrected" C14 timeline, where he contrasts "apparent" C14 ages with "real" ages? I wonder how that works with dave's model.

I had a search, but didn't find it.

ETA: oh here:

http://www.grisda.org/origins/21066.htm

  • RAFH
  • Needs a Life
  • Have a life, already.
  • 3,210

  • 281

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #58
Not only that, but he's got to account for the rapid recent RISE in population growth again.

Which is something he likes to avoid, because of the strong correlation with industrialisation.
And better food supplies, and farming techniques, including the damnable tillage. As well as sanitation improvements and vaccinations. And better health care. And better diet overall.
\
Despite Bluffy's fantasies. Too much food might not be all that great for one, but too little food is fatal, almost immediately. I'm pretty sure the Donner Party wouldn't have given way more than two shits (about all they had left) if the food they would hope for was 100% saturated fat and lacerated with all sorts of bad shit. It would have gotten them through the crisis.

While it's true, uncontrolled and unconsidered tillage is not a good strategy,indeed, a very bad one in the long run, with modern techniques, wherein rows are contour cut with laser accuracy, the big problems of erosion are eliminated. And less water is used, less pesticides, less fertilizer. Contour cutting is a pretty old concept, dating back quite a while. It's just that it takes a lot more thought and work.

So he's got to keep it high for long enough to get the pyramids and Babel built, and account for all those civilisations other than the Hebrew one who somehow thrived enough to forget about Noah et al and invent their own mythologies, then drop it drastically (I think it will have to go negative) in order to have room to climb to the present at current rates.

But it doesn't matter, because that wasn't Don Batten's argument.
Exactly.

Bluffy truly is a bluffoon.
Who truly doesn't understand science. Or engineering. Or most anything else.
Are we there yet?

  • 7,305

  • 1092

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #59
I can already see one error I made but I don't think it's huge ... Columns F and G would ramp up and ramp down ... instead of 15 15 15 ... etc. ... it would be more like 1 3 6 9 12 15 15 15 ... 15 15 12 9 6 3 1 ...

Anyway, I've made my point ... that Dean W's figures are totally unrealistic.
So do we now agree that Dean W was way off base?
No. He was exactly on base. Look at the argument he was critiquing.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • 7,305

  • 1092

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #60
In other words, you disgree with the population growth statistics used by the YEC website? Because that's what Dean used.
Damn. Ninja'd.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • 7,305

  • 1092

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #61
Still, realising he totally goofed on Popper, and realising in a minute or so that he totally goofed on Don Batten, maybe will finally get him started down the sunnier slope of Mount Stupid.


He is parked at the summit of mount stupid. Every time he goes to the right, all he sees is the valley of dispair.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • 7,305

  • 1092

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #62
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?
Amazing.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • 7,305

  • 1092

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #63
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?




Add what? More stupid?
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • VoxRat
  • Needs a Life
  • wtactualf
  • 4,565

  • 874

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #64
Are there any more questions on this topic?

Which of the 101 Evidences would you like to discuss next?
Did you notice, incidentally, that nowhere in this thread did you present or defend any evidence for any YEC proposition?

(No, arguing that numbers could be tortured so that - if you ignore all sorts of pesky realities - human reproduction rates could conceivably be accommodated by the YEC fable does not constitute evidence FOR that fable.)

So that leaves...
let's see...

0 down, 101 to go.

"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • 7,305

  • 1092

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #65
Are there any more questions on this topic?
Not from me!
You've succeeded in showing this "evidence" for the absurdity it is.

Quote
Which of the 101 Evidences would you like to discuss next?
I'll take Mitochondrial Eve for $6000!

:popcorn:
I took dendrochronology for $1 and never collected.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • 69

  • 10

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #66
I don't know much about Dean W ... but I suspect he's a professional scientist of some sort. 
So you suspect I'm a professional scientist because I'm comfortable working with logarithms?

  • RAFH
  • Needs a Life
  • Have a life, already.
  • 3,210

  • 281

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #67
Still, realising he totally goofed on Popper, and realising in a minute or so that he totally goofed on Don Batten, maybe will finally get him started down the sunnier slope of Mount Stupid.


He is parked at the summit of mount stupid. Every time he goes to the right, all he sees is the valley of dispair.

And he backs away. It's too scary.
You know what, I think I will, from this point on, refer to Bluffy in the feminine.
So, she backs away, it's too scary.

Think about how those two statements compare emotionally.
"And he backs away. It's too scary."
vs
"and she backs away, it's too scary."

How do you take each situation? Would you give more credence to the male? Or consider him a wimp?
Would you discount the danger in the latter or give it more validity.

What about comparing the two situations, is the male correct, it really is too scary, as in there is a 400' tall iron giant that can destroy stars upon whom (or maybe some rabbits just getting it on). Or is the female correct, it really is a situation where the Worm of Glogam which is invulnerable to any form of attack short of a galacto-nova, and eats the minds of intelligent species, the process being the most painful ever imagined ever, and there's no defense other than suicide, and so she backs away from the assignment, it's too scary. Way too scary, even if it's inevitable she will have to face this fate at some point.

If it were my Girl, I'd think it was really too scary. Not much scares her. Way less than me. Then again, she's really tough. She'd take on the mission and probably end up with the Worm as a pet. She would never destroy an intelligent creature. And the Worm would be happier than I am.  Which is hard to imaginel, except she cleanes their potty boxes and doesn't expect me to do so. On the flip side, she doesn't even clean mine!!! I have to do that! It's cruel. But she loves me, So it's OK.

NO, she's not a Playboy centerfold, though reportedly she was approached when she was young. Long time ago.
Are we there yet?

  • 2,930

  • 747

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #68
I don't know much about Dean W ... but I suspect he's a professional scientist of some sort. 
So you suspect I'm a professional scientist because I'm comfortable working with logarithms?
I am barely mathematically literate and have to expend a lot of brain cells to follow anything remotely complex. I depend on people like Brother Daniel (he's very good at reducing difficult concepts to something even I can grasp) to explain anything I can't understand.

But Dave's professional scientist, or octohatter, as he prefers, aversion is hilariously out of touch with the real world. My husband is a pipefitter/steamfitter, and he uses calculus, logarithms, established equations, etc., every day for practical applications. So I guess by Dave's standards, mr.b is a professional scientist. Can't wait to tell him.

  • Pingu
  • Needs a Life
  • 7,107

  • 1064

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #69
You just need to know how to calculate compound interest ffs.

Specifically, an APR.

  • 69

  • 10

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #70
Quote
96. Human population growth.  A less than 0.5% (0.481%) p.a. growth from 936 people in 2300 BC would produce a population today of 919 billion people. Where are all the other 912 billion people?

  • Seven Popes
  • Needs a Life
  • So would the opposite be a good-ger?
  • 942

  • 154

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #71
Are there any more questions on this topic?

Which of the 101 Evidences would you like to discuss next?
Hey look what I found:

http://talkrational.org/archive/showthread.php?t=28293

Guess what happened at the end of the thread...
Dave, you badgered before, are you going to badger again?
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
  • Needs a Life
  • 7,107

  • 1064

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #72

I want to know his response to the point that he changed Batten's growth rate from less than half a percent to more than 11.

  • RAFH
  • Needs a Life
  • Have a life, already.
  • 3,210

  • 281

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #73
Are there any more questions on this topic?

Which of the 101 Evidences would you like to discuss next?
Hey look what I found:

http://talkrational.org/archive/showthread.php?t=28293

Guess what happened at the end of the thread...
Dave, you badgered before, are you going to badger again?
Apparently already has

Maybe it doesn't count as a badger if one has already badgered on that subject. Sort of a continuing badgerment.
Are we there yet?

  • 8,803

  • 49

Re: Post Flood Population Growth
Reply #74

I want to know his response to the point that he changed Batten's growth rate from less than half a percent to more than 11.
Good God.

Don.

Batten.

Was.

Pointing.

Out.

The Hilarity.

Of applying ANY current population growth rate - he picked one close to modern industrial countries growth rates - to Old Earth time frames vs. the YEC timeframe.

How is it possible to not understand this?