24 May 05
Originally posted by TheBloopYou need to go back to beginners maths 101 and preschool logic 001.
The math is not flawed...the formula involves four variables:
1) Beginning population
2) Rate of Growth (average per year)
3) The # of years in a given time span
4) The current population (in this case, I used 6 billion, so I guess it's not really a 'variable' in this case, but you get the idea.
The formula is:
start_pop*((1+(rate/100))^yea ...[text shortened]... (2.4 billion)
1985 5,000 million (5 billion)
(also projects 8 billion by 2020).
You propose a formula with two unknowns and make an assumption on one of them applying a rate of growth of .01%. Then when the figures don't add up, its somehow something wrong with my point????
You also seem to make a mockery of my statement about the population 'explosion' with the statements: "assume an annual growth of 1/100 of 1% (not much of an explosion, really)" and "And again, this assumes a population growth rate of 1/100th of 1% per year...hardly my idea of an explosion...". So you MAKE UP a tiny figure, and because the figure you MADE UP is really tiny, you seem to take that as somehow proving me wrong.
Then when you work backwards applying this tiny rate of growth (that u completely MADE UP), the other unknown variable in your formula ends up huge. And you take this as being point proven????
And then you add to your 'proof' some population history figures which completely make a mockery of the tiny rate of growth figure which you MADE UP.
I'm surprised delmer hasn't been along to give u another rec.
D
25 May 05
Originally posted by RagnorakI never said that the assumptions I made regarding population growth rate represented actual growth rate #s as they historically exist... all I said was that, given a growth rate of 1/100th of 1% per year, this would be the population 8,000 years ago... I never said that this is what actually happened...
You need to go back to beginners maths 101 and preschool logic 001.
You propose a formula with two unknowns and make an assumption on one of them applying a rate of growth of .01%. Then when the figures don't add up, its somehow something wrong with my point????
You also seem to make a mockery of my statement about the population 'explosion' wit ...[text shortened]... gure which you MADE UP.
I'm surprised delmer hasn't been along to give u another rec.
D
IMO, it is not possible for the population of the world to be only 6 billion people after a million or so years of human existence...and that's what evolutionists keep telling me, that man has been around for at least 1-2 million years, certainly not for just a few thousand...this is why I used a tiny rate of growth (that I MADE UP) - to show that the current population should far exceed 6 billion if man has been here for a million years...
You can plug any #s you want into the formula, all the formula does is solve for the unknown (and "rate" represents the AVERAGE rate of population growth per year). That's all it does...
Why do evolutionists get so angry when one merely disagrees with them?
25 May 05
Originally posted by TheBloopWho said I was angry. I smiled quite a few times while writing my post, because I had to keep reading yours.
I never said that the assumptions I made regarding population growth rate represented actual growth rate #s as they historically exist... all I said was that, given a growth rate of 1/100th of 1% per year, this would be the population 8,000 years ago... I never said that this is what actually happened...
IMO, it is not possible for the population of th ...[text shortened]... t's all it does...
Why do evolutionists get so angry when one merely disagrees with them?
As I said, you need to go back to Logic 001.
I'll help you out. Here's how our exchange went...
1) You state that going by evolution, humans have been here millions of years, and the population should be wayyyy higher than 6b, offering some wacky formula.
2) I state that the population explosion only occured after the agricultural revolution, some 8000 years ago.
3) You apply your wacky, MADE UP formula to my statement, and when the result is all over the place, you say that I'm wrong.
4) I say that your post is laughably lacking in mathematical and logical skills and tell you why I say that.
5) You return to your original statement saying that if man had been around millions of years, then there would be billions more people today.
I will offer 6), which is my original statement: The current population exposion only began with the agricultural revolution, which was about 8000 years ago.
D
25 May 05
Originally posted by TheBloopHuman (and animal) growth rate is not constant, it is as simple as that. Some years the growth rate is high (e.g. due to generally good conditions like good harvest) and some years it is low or even negative (e.g. due to famine, disease, wars, and other malices). So your formula is all wrong right from the start.
I never said that the assumptions I made regarding population growth rate represented actual growth rate #s as they historically exist... all I said was that, given a growth rate of 1/100th of 1% per year, this would be the population 8,000 years ago... I never said that this is what actually happened...
IMO, it is not possible for the population of th ...[text shortened]... t's all it does...
Why do evolutionists get so angry when one merely disagrees with them?
25 May 05
2 edits
Originally posted by nickybuttI never said that human growth rate was constant... the #s I used were for an average growth rate over several thousand years...
Human (and animal) growth rate is not constant, it is as simple as that. Some years the growth rate is high (e.g. due to generally good conditions like good harvest) and some years it is low or even negative (e.g. due to famine, disease, ...[text shortened]... other malices). So your formula is all wrong right from the start.
While we're on the subject, can you explain how it's possible to make projections about what the population of the earth will be at some point in the future? People do that, you know... Since we know that the growth rate is not constant, how can anyone even pretend to know what future populations will be?
The answer is, nobody knows what the future population will be... the use projections, and these projections are based partly on past (and recent) growth rates, as well as making assumptions about what may happen in the future (in terms of medical breakthroughs, economic factors) etc.
All I was basically saying was that if the population was x in, let's say, 1900, and grew to y in 2000, then this is what the average growth rate over that period of time would be...that's all that 'wacky' formula does...
It doesn't say that this was the growth rate during every single year within this date range...
If we say that man started with two people, and a year later they had a child, that represents a 50% growth rate (from 2 to 3)... then, if they had another child a year later, that would represent a 33% growth rate (i.e. from 3 to 4)... a third child would represent a rate of 25% (from 4 to 5)... etc etc.
Over three years, the population would increase from 2 to 5. The fomula I listed would say that the "average" rate of growth for the three years was 35%. Of course, it was never 35% during any one year, but 35% is the average rate of growth per year... that's all the formula does.
25 May 05
Originally posted by TheBloopI must admit that you are right. You never said that human growth rate was constant, I simply misinterpreted your statement. You talk about average growth rate (Correct me if I'm wrong).
I never said that human growth rate was constant... the #s I used were for an average growth rate over several thousand years...
While we're on the subject, can you explain how it's possible to make projections about what the population of the earth will be at some point in the future? People do that, you know... Since we know that the growth rate is ...[text shortened]... one year, but 35% is the average rate of growth per year... that's all the formula does.
That being said, you premises are still wrong. There is no meaningful thing as an average growth rate of human population, over the entire history of human. Over short periods of time (e.g. 100 or 1000 or 10000 years) you can talk average growth rate, but over the entire time that human has walked the Earth, there is just too much fluctuation in the growth (or decline) of the numbers of humans on Earth, for an average number to make sense.
That was why I refuted your formula.
25 May 05
Originally posted by nickybuttI'll post this here since it seems the other evo myth thread is dying out.
I must admit that you are right. You never said that human growth rate was constant, I simply misinterpreted your statement. You talk about average growth rate (Correct me if I'm wrong).
That being said, you premises are still wrong. There is no meaningful thing as an average growth rate of human population, over the entire history of human. Over short p ...[text shortened]... of humans on Earth, for an average number to make sense.
That was why I refuted your formula.
Originally posted by telerion
The assumption is that the rate is constant. That's what makes the math work out. The model takes a hypothetical average and asks what the world population be today if this growth rate were constant.
It does not allow for fluctuations in the growth rate over time. If the growth rate fluctuated about an average of .5%, the model would almost never get the same final population as it does with a constant average rate. It's just a property of averages and exponents.
end
25 May 05
Originally posted by RagnorakYour proof for this statement that the agricultural revolution
Who said I was angry. I smiled quite a few times while writing my post, because I had to keep reading yours.
As I said, you need to go back to Logic 001.
I'll help you out. Here's how our exchange went...
1) You state that going by evolution, humans have been here millions of years, and the population should be wayyyy higher than 6b, offering som ...[text shortened]... ion exposion only began with the agricultural revolution, which was about 8000 years ago.
D
began 8,000 years ago, and not 9000 years ago, or 12,000
years ago, and so on is what?
Kelly
25 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm afraid I had to rely on archaeology for that one. I thought that the general dates of the initial settled agriculturalisation was an accepted fact.
Your proof for this statement that the agricultural revolution
began 8,000 years ago, and not 9000 years ago, or 12,000
years ago, and so on is what?
Kelly
What's your point btw?
D
25 May 05
Originally posted by KellyJayWhile I'd absolutely love to get into a discussion as to the meaning of science and archaeology, I'm afraid I have to cut my nails tonight. And the toilet needs a cleaning.
Define your terms, what do you mean by science and archaeology.
Kelly
Anybody else wanna take my place in this riveting discussion, please feel free.
; D