Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

Sorry, but Behe was humiliated (along with other creationist), at the Dover trial.

The Panda's Thumb: Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity

Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity

Ed Brayton posted Entry 1596 on October 22, 2005 12:22 PM. Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.fcgi/1591

One of the interesting segments of the Michael Behe cross examination begins on page 42 of the Day12AM transcript, and it concerns a paper that Behe wrote with David Snoke.

Nonsense and you are reduced to use an ideological site

Fact the eye could not slowly evolve and be any use to the organism. The many cells that make up an organism would not be any use if it slowly evolved.

Did you miss this important part ?

In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote:


“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” – On the Origin of the Species, page 171

Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In Darwin’s day, Scientists knew about the cell but no one had ever been able to peer inside of one. Cells are among the examples of things that Michael Behe calls “irreducibly complex”.

Something is irreducibly complex when it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to anything less and still function. Think of a mouse trap, for example. All of the parts of the mousetrap must be in place before it can properly work. If just once piece of the mouse trap is missing (e.g. the spring or the hammer), then it could not possibly perform the task of catching mice. Thus, it is “irreducibly complex”.

An irreducibly complex system or thing cannot have an intermediate state. Remember, evolution gets rid of that which does not work and keeps only that which does work. Organs such as the eye must have all of the parts or it will not work. It could not have become an eye over time; it must have been there at all once or else it would have never before functioned. Look at how complex the eye is. It is irreducibly complex. You take away one part of the eye and you have nothing that functions.

Darwin knew some about the eye and realized the problem he faced. On page 167 of the Origin of the Species he wrote,


“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Darwin today could not be a Darwinist. Science disproves his own theories. It “absolutely break down” when one understand that inside of each cell there are about 3,000 million pairs of the genetic alphabetic letters. Further, each body has trillions of cells and “makes millions of new cells every second, but each cell is irreducibly complex and contains irreducibly complex subsystems!” (Geisler and Turek, “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist”, pgs. 145-6). True, he would most likely still be atheistic and would hold to some other scientific system. One thing however, is for sure: he could not be a Darwinist.


This is slowly evolving ?

link? slap dick!

A link was provided in the first post pervert, learn to read.

 

[daws101]

Why you don't like the questions that were asked to evolutionist ?

Why do I need a link these were actual questions asked to evolutionist in debates.

you know why slapdick. to source the articles, copy write laws.
you must be afraid that we'll find you quote mining out of context.
just like you've done here.

Copyright Guidelines:
Copyright infringement is illegal. USmessageboard.com will enforce the law. Never post an article in its entirety. When posting "Copy and Paste" material, please use small sections and link to the content. When posting copyrighted material you MUST give credit to the author in your post. You are responsible for including links/credit, Publisher, regardless of how you originally came across the material.
Link Each Copy And Paste To It's Source.

A link was provided when they were first posted. I merely went back to the same link that Was provided, evidently you guys are not reading.

lie and a dodge ..a link is necessary each and every time you post. slapdick.

 

[daws101]

bible length 1,281 pages
this thread 1002 pages
278 pages to go.

A better use of those pages
would be to read HEALING by Francis MacNutt (1999 edition or later)
which has 268 pages. I give out free copies of this book, so if anyone here wants one, I would gladly argue over that, and what it will take to prove spiritual healing scientifically!

When you understand the spirit of the process humanity is going through,
in terms of individual process multiplied collectively to equal all society,
then it is clear there is no need to nitpick over little arguments.
All that would be resolved in the same process.

There are much bigger things we can use science to study and agree on that are just as critical to resolving the same issues (of reconciling science and faith in general and not judge blame or reject any person or group), AND have practical application in real life.

Arguing over creation and evolution isn't going to solve the world's problems
that spiritual healing and generational therapy can change. Both the Buddhists and the Christians, and even more secularized methods of forgiveness and recovery therapy such as AA and the 5 stages of grief, recognize how issues carried from the past affect our mental and psychological states of mind, which affect our perceptions actions and relations.

These are based on natural laws that govern all human relations, where faith and science can agree and show there is a common process going on that we are all a part of.

Might as well work together and figure out the best way to facilitate that process as smoothly and peacefully as possible, without pressuring anyone to compromise or prove each other right or wrong for personal defense, but stick to points that prove themselves.

ahh, that was meant to be humorous.....

 

[Hollie]

Nonsense and you are reduced to use an ideological site

Fact the eye could not slowly evolve and be any use to the organism. The many cells that make up an organism would not be any use if it slowly evolved.

Did you miss this important part ?

In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote:


“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” – On the Origin of the Species, page 171

Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In Darwin’s day, Scientists knew about the cell but no one had ever been able to peer inside of one. Cells are among the examples of things that Michael Behe calls “irreducibly complex”.

Something is irreducibly complex when it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to anything less and still function. Think of a mouse trap, for example. All of the parts of the mousetrap must be in place before it can properly work. If just once piece of the mouse trap is missing (e.g. the spring or the hammer), then it could not possibly perform the task of catching mice. Thus, it is “irreducibly complex”.

An irreducibly complex system or thing cannot have an intermediate state. Remember, evolution gets rid of that which does not work and keeps only that which does work. Organs such as the eye must have all of the parts or it will not work. It could not have become an eye over time; it must have been there at all once or else it would have never before functioned. Look at how complex the eye is. It is irreducibly complex. You take away one part of the eye and you have nothing that functions.

Darwin knew some about the eye and realized the problem he faced. On page 167 of the Origin of the Species he wrote,.....


This is slowly evolving ?

Ah, yes. Typical, dishonest creationist "quote mining". You have apparently forgotten that this bit of creationist falsehood had been exposed as fraudulent as has so much of your dishonest "quote mining".

I'm afraid that as usual, the inability of creationist to defend their supermagical gawds leaves them no option but to attack science.

Three Darwin quote-mines corrected? | The Dispersal of Darwin



Secondly, you have scoured the bowels of creationist nonsense by employing a mainstay of creationist nonsense: the eye is too complex to have evolved.

This is another failed attempt by creationist to discredit science with truly nonsensical claims.

Yet again, creationist are forced to expose themselves as frauds by attacking science as their gawds tales fade into obscurity.

CB301: Eye complexity

Evolution of vertebrate eyes - The Panda's Thumb

You're a dishonest Ideologue.

I understand you're embarrassed. Once again, you were exposed as a fraud by copying and pasting falsified “quotes” that you scour from creationist websites.

Similarly, your silly copy and paste from the charlatan Behe have been refuted as fraudulent.

 

[daws101]

Nonsense and you are reduced to use an ideological site

Fact the eye could not slowly evolve and be any use to the organism. The many cells that make up an organism would not be any use if it slowly evolved.

Did you miss this important part ?

In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote:


“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” – On the Origin of the Species, page 171

Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In Darwin’s day, Scientists knew about the cell but no one had ever been able to peer inside of one. Cells are among the examples of things that Michael Behe calls “irreducibly complex”.

Something is irreducibly complex when it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to anything less and still function. Think of a mouse trap, for example. All of the parts of the mousetrap must be in place before it can properly work. If just once piece of the mouse trap is missing (e.g. the spring or the hammer), then it could not possibly perform the task of catching mice. Thus, it is “irreducibly complex”.

An irreducibly complex system or thing cannot have an intermediate state. Remember, evolution gets rid of that which does not work and keeps only that which does work. Organs such as the eye must have all of the parts or it will not work. It could not have become an eye over time; it must have been there at all once or else it would have never before functioned. Look at how complex the eye is. It is irreducibly complex. You take away one part of the eye and you have nothing that functions.

Darwin knew some about the eye and realized the problem he faced. On page 167 of the Origin of the Species he wrote,.....


This is slowly evolving ?

Ah, yes. Typical, dishonest creationist "quote mining". You have apparently forgotten that this bit of creationist falsehood had been exposed as fraudulent as has so much of your dishonest "quote mining".

I'm afraid that as usual, the inability of creationist to defend their supermagical gawds leaves them no option but to attack science.

Three Darwin quote-mines corrected? | The Dispersal of Darwin



Secondly, you have scoured the bowels of creationist nonsense by employing a mainstay of creationist nonsense: the eye is too complex to have evolved.

This is another failed attempt by creationist to discredit science with truly nonsensical claims.

Yet again, creationist are forced to expose themselves as frauds by attacking science as their gawds tales fade into obscurity.

CB301: Eye complexity

Evolution of vertebrate eyes - The Panda's Thumb

You're a dishonest Ideologue.

dishonest? seems like you are the one fucking with the facts.

 

[daws101]

Nonsense and you are reduced to use an ideological site

Fact the eye could not slowly evolve and be any use to the organism. The many cells that make up an organism would not be any use if it slowly evolved.

Did you miss this important part ?

In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote:


“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” – On the Origin of the Species, page 171

Since then, the work of science has brought to light numerous organs that could not have possibly formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. In Darwin’s day, Scientists knew about the cell but no one had ever been able to peer inside of one. Cells are among the examples of things that Michael Behe calls “irreducibly complex”.

Something is irreducibly complex when it is so complex that it cannot be reduced to anything less and still function. Think of a mouse trap, for example. All of the parts of the mousetrap must be in place before it can properly work. If just once piece of the mouse trap is missing (e.g. the spring or the hammer), then it could not possibly perform the task of catching mice. Thus, it is “irreducibly complex”.

An irreducibly complex system or thing cannot have an intermediate state. Remember, evolution gets rid of that which does not work and keeps only that which does work. Organs such as the eye must have all of the parts or it will not work. It could not have become an eye over time; it must have been there at all once or else it would have never before functioned. Look at how complex the eye is. It is irreducibly complex. You take away one part of the eye and you have nothing that functions.

Darwin knew some about the eye and realized the problem he faced. On page 167 of the Origin of the Species he wrote,


“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Darwin today could not be a Darwinist. Science disproves his own theories. It “absolutely break down” when one understand that inside of each cell there are about 3,000 million pairs of the genetic alphabetic letters. Further, each body has trillions of cells and “makes millions of new cells every second, but each cell is irreducibly complex and contains irreducibly complex subsystems!” (Geisler and Turek, “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist”, pgs. 145-6). True, he would most likely still be atheistic and would hold to some other scientific system. One thing however, is for sure: he could not be a Darwinist.


This is slowly evolving ?

link? slap dick!

A link was provided in the first post pervert, learn to read.

stating fact is in no way a perversion.. but quote mining is.

 

[daws101]

Ah, yes. Typical, dishonest creationist "quote mining". You have apparently forgotten that this bit of creationist falsehood had been exposed as fraudulent as has so much of your dishonest "quote mining".

I'm afraid that as usual, the inability of creationist to defend their supermagical gawds leaves them no option but to attack science.

Three Darwin quote-mines corrected? | The Dispersal of Darwin



Secondly, you have scoured the bowels of creationist nonsense by employing a mainstay of creationist nonsense: the eye is too complex to have evolved.

This is another failed attempt by creationist to discredit science with truly nonsensical claims.

Yet again, creationist are forced to expose themselves as frauds by attacking science as their gawds tales fade into obscurity.

CB301: Eye complexity

Evolution of vertebrate eyes - The Panda's Thumb

You're a dishonest Ideologue.

I understand you're embarrassed. Once again, you were exposed as a fraud by copying and pasting falsified “quotes” that you scour from creationist websites.

Similarly, your silly copy and paste from the charlatan Behe have been refuted as fraudulent.

lying for god! jerry Falwell WOULD BE PROUD!

 

[Reality91]

The belief that the world is 6,000 years old is simply astounding. If the world really were 6000 years old there wouldn't be enough humans born up to now to make up a population of 7 billion.

 

[Intense]

The belief that the world is 6,000 years old is simply astounding. If the world really were 6000 years old there wouldn't be enough humans born up to now to make up a population of 7 billion.

How long was the first day?

 

[emilynghiem]

The belief that the world is 6,000 years old is simply astounding. If the world really were 6000 years old there wouldn't be enough humans born up to now to make up a population of 7 billion.

Hi R91: Since that doesn't even make sense, it can't be the real meaning of the Bible for the Bible to be true. The most consistent interpretation I have found is that 6,000 represents 6 eras or Days such as the Day of Technology which is not just 1 earth day.

Also the 6,000 year timeline represents the HEBREW lineage or Adamic and Mosaic Law, as claimed by Jewish Christian and Muslims, and which Christians teach is fulfilled in Christ Jesus. [I also believe and teach that natural laws such as in Buddhism and the Constitution are also fulfilled in Christ, and these are equally given by God to the secular Gentiles, but you won't find many who believe in both Universal Salvation and the central role of Christ Jesus, usually you will find one but not the other, where people are either centered in Christ so much they EXCLUDE other tribes, or if people are open to all groups they don't hold Christ to be the central authority for all others united in agreement.]

You will find more and more Christians who will interpret the 6,000 year timeline to represent a period or progression that IS consistent with history as well as spiritual teachings.

For the fundamentalists who won't let go of the literal 6 day interpretation, you'll find as many fundamentalist stuck on any idea in any faith or belief system. It's really about that person's process, and less about whatever they are stuck on, which can vary. The common factor is that all people go through phases in their spiritual growth, and fundamentalism is one of those phases, no matter WHAT their beliefs, they go through it.

 

[emilynghiem]

bible length 1,281 pages
this thread 1002 pages
278 pages to go.

A better use of those pages
would be to read HEALING by Francis MacNutt (1999 edition or later)
which has 268 pages. I give out free copies of this book, so if anyone here wants one, I would gladly argue over that, and what it will take to prove spiritual healing scientifically!

When you understand the spirit of the process humanity is going through,
in terms of individual process multiplied collectively to equal all society,
then it is clear there is no need to nitpick over little arguments.
All that would be resolved in the same process.

There are much bigger things we can use science to study and agree on that are just as critical to resolving the same issues (of reconciling science and faith in general and not judge blame or reject any person or group), AND have practical application in real life.

Arguing over creation and evolution isn't going to solve the world's problems
that spiritual healing and generational therapy can change. Both the Buddhists and the Christians, and even more secularized methods of forgiveness and recovery therapy such as AA and the 5 stages of grief, recognize how issues carried from the past affect our mental and psychological states of mind, which affect our perceptions actions and relations.

These are based on natural laws that govern all human relations, where faith and science can agree and show there is a common process going on that we are all a part of.

Might as well work together and figure out the best way to facilitate that process as smoothly and peacefully as possible, without pressuring anyone to compromise or prove each other right or wrong for personal defense, but stick to points that prove themselves.

ahh, that was meant to be humorous.....

Actually Daws, I am being serious!

I'm still glad you see the humor in this, which shows your high intelligence which helps.
I truly urge and encourage you to apply your intellect to more successful approaches
and focus, and I hope to form a team of people like you who can discuss this as logically!

As for the import and impact of spiritual healing,
to realize that it is real and free, consistent with science and medicine,
and can be proven so everyone has equal access to it, not just Christian believers,
is quite humbling.

You may either "cry" to think of the people who died or could have been cured
if they had at least tried it. I grieve for the people who commit suicide or seek euthanasia for pain that others have overcome through spiritual therapy and live free of pain or fear.

Or you may laugh for joy to know that one day we won't have to fear criminal illness, people killing their babies fearing demons are in them, or going mad with rage and shooting up innocent people. All these addictive mental and criminal disorders can be diagnoses, treated and even cured by applying spiritual methods of deliverance and forgiveness prayer that both Buddhists and Christians are studying for generational healing.

Once the idea catches on that these things can be studied, measured and proven, we will see more and more productive work between the communities of faith and science, and not this false division and fear of propoganda and denial by one side or the other. It will change the whole paradigm as well as speed up reform of the mental health, health care and also criminal justice system when people are treated effectively for their sicknesses.

 

[newpolitics]

You mean which parts have they studied but admitted ignorance to and moved on only to come at agian years later ?

Wtf are you talking about?

For one the origins question. You needed chemical evolution to form a living cell. Then you needed abiogenesis to form living organisms all these are forms of evolution which they have no evidence for and have to plead ignorance on.

As do you, yet you know the answer? Argument from ignorance.

 

[newpolitics]

I think the problem here is that our epistemologies are different. The science crowd considers knowledge of the universe to be something that is only possible with evidence. I belong in this camp. Religionists consider faith to be sufficient to grant knowledge. As long as this vast separation exist, this thread will continue forever. Any thoughts? Is this the fundamental problem here? I am convinced it is definitely one of epistemology.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

How the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

I'm a little baffled by your question: what does creationism in and of itself, i.e., the notion that God exists and therefore created all things apart from Himself, have to do with the age of the earth?

Certainly, the Bible doesn't indicate the age of the Earth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ah, yes. Typical, dishonest creationist "quote mining". You have apparently forgotten that this bit of creationist falsehood had been exposed as fraudulent as has so much of your dishonest "quote mining".

I'm afraid that as usual, the inability of creationist to defend their supermagical gawds leaves them no option but to attack science.

Three Darwin quote-mines corrected? | The Dispersal of Darwin



Secondly, you have scoured the bowels of creationist nonsense by employing a mainstay of creationist nonsense: the eye is too complex to have evolved.

This is another failed attempt by creationist to discredit science with truly nonsensical claims.

Yet again, creationist are forced to expose themselves as frauds by attacking science as their gawds tales fade into obscurity.

CB301: Eye complexity

Evolution of vertebrate eyes - The Panda's Thumb

You're a dishonest Ideologue.

I understand you're embarrassed. Once again, you were exposed as a fraud by copying and pasting falsified “quotes” that you scour from creationist websites.

Similarly, your silly copy and paste from the charlatan Behe have been refuted as fraudulent.

Why would the science community debate the man or that matter even respond to him if his arguments were no threat ? kinda like how you and daws operate.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ah, yes. Typical, dishonest creationist "quote mining". You have apparently forgotten that this bit of creationist falsehood had been exposed as fraudulent as has so much of your dishonest "quote mining".

I'm afraid that as usual, the inability of creationist to defend their supermagical gawds leaves them no option but to attack science.

Three Darwin quote-mines corrected? | The Dispersal of Darwin



Secondly, you have scoured the bowels of creationist nonsense by employing a mainstay of creationist nonsense: the eye is too complex to have evolved.

This is another failed attempt by creationist to discredit science with truly nonsensical claims.

Yet again, creationist are forced to expose themselves as frauds by attacking science as their gawds tales fade into obscurity.

CB301: Eye complexity

Evolution of vertebrate eyes - The Panda's Thumb

You're a dishonest Ideologue.

dishonest? seems like you are the one fucking with the facts.

Wrong, Behe was accurate with his argument of irreducible complexity to bad neither of you understand it. There are many organs in the human body where it could not work by slowly evolving. They had to be fully formed or they would not work.

Funny, the cambrian was full of fossils that were fully complete and showed no gradualism. Remember the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium ? This further supports Behe.

 

[Youwerecreated]

link? slap dick!

A link was provided in the first post pervert, learn to read.

stating fact is in no way a perversion.. but quote mining is.

You bring this slap dick up to often for it not to be something you do or think about a lot.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The belief that the world is 6,000 years old is simply astounding. If the world really were 6000 years old there wouldn't be enough humans born up to now to make up a population of 7 billion.

This has been throughly refuted and the population growth rate better supports the worlds current population with the timeline and the people that came off the ark than it supports evolutionists millions of years story.

Population Statistics and a Young Earth




by

Jeff Miller, Ph.D.




Both sides of the creation/evolution debate are locked in a heated battle over the truth about human origins, the age of the Universe, and the ultimate Cause of all things. Interestingly, while this debate rages and arguments are flying from both sides of the issue, there is reasonable evidence available which sidesteps much of the seeming complexity of this conflict and helps to illuminate the truth on the matter of human origins. This evidence comes from the realm of population statistics. What is the reasonable conclusion that should be drawn from the evidence in this area?

There is no question that both viewpoints—biblical and evolutionary—require a commencement point for mankind to begin propagation of the species. The biblical (i.e., Flood) model asserts that God started the process, creating both Adam and Eve—one male and one female—approximately 6,000 years ago. From them, the human race was established and ultimately exterminated in the global Flood of Noah’s day (Genesis 6-9), with the exception of Noah and his family. After the Flood, Noah’s three sons and their wives commenced the repopulation of the human species (Genesis 9:19).

The evolutionary model claims that the first “man” of the genus Homo emerged around two to three million years ago (cf. Corballis, 2002, p. 183; Johanson, 2001; “The Emergence…,” 2011; University of Utah, 2005; Walker, 2002). It has always been intriguing that the evolutionary side of the aisle appears to be quiet about the fact that at the commencement of the human species, both male and female human beings had to evolve simultaneously, in the same geographic area, and while both were alive, in order for the human species to propagate itself—not just one male or one female, and not two males or two females. Further, these male and female human bodies also had to contain the fully functional reproductive components that would be necessary to replicate humanity. In The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality, Graham Bell discusses this quandary, stating that:


Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing its obscurity by its very isolation (1982, p. 19).

Evolutionist Philip Kitcher admitted, “Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians, there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction” (1982, p. 54). Evolutionist Mark Ridley noted that “ex is a puzzle that has not yet been solved; no one knows why it exists” (2001, p. 111). Julie Schecter said that “sex remains a mystery to researchers, to say nothing of the rest of the population. Why sex?” (1984, 34:680). [See Thompson and Harrub, 2002 for an in depth discussion on the origin of genders and sexuality.]

Besides the problem raised for evolutionists by the origin of sexual reproduction, more problems exist that evolutionists appear to be quite reticent about. For instance, the patriarch and matriarch of the human race, having miraculously emerged in the same time period of history with each other, also had to be able to find each other on planet Earth without first starving, without being eaten by the ferocious animals that evolutionary images of early man portray, and without getting too old to replicate. And still further, just because there is another human being near you, does that mean you will be attracted to him/her? The male and female had to decide that they liked each other and do something about it before dying. And even further, the baby and mother had to survive the ordeal of child birth in those allegedly primitive circumstances. If the emergence of one human being from a non-human being seems ludicrous due to its contradiction of the Law of Biogenesis, surely this realization makes the evolutionary proposition beyond preposterous.

POPULATION STATISTICS AND THE EVOLUTIONARY MODEL

However, for the sake of argument, let us grant the atheistic evolutionist several miraculous feats—two living, opposite-sex human beings, with the necessary sexual components to propagate the species, in the same region on Earth, safe guarded from their primitive environment, with a desire for each other, and young enough to replicate. Even granting all of these significant but unrealistic assumptions, the evolutionist is left with statistical obstacles. Consider the mathematics for this argument.

Let us suppose that couples throughout history have had an average of (2 × c) children (i.e., c boys plus c girls). Starting with two humans, this would make the population after the first generation, Pn = 2+2 ∙ c. Then, the children, marrying each other, had another (2 ∙ c) children per couple. As illustrated in Scientific Studies in Special Creation (Lammerts, 1971), continuing this progression results in the following equation, where n is the number of generations for which the calculation is done.



After multiplying both sides of Equation (1) by c, subtracting the resulting equation from Equation (1), grouping, and dividing both sides by (c - 1), the following equation results:



This gives the total population after n generations, without any deaths. Assuming each person lives an average of d generations, the number of deceased people by the final generation (i.e., the (n - d)th generation) can be calculated using Equation (3):



Therefore, the total population after n generations, accounting for death, can be calculated by subtracting the population of the (n - d)th generation from the population calculated in Equation (2), resulting in the following:



If each couple has only two children (i.e., c = 1), the population will remain constant, and if each couple has fewer than two children on average (i.e., c < 1), the population will decrease (Lammerts, pp. 198-205). [See also Morris and Morris, 1996 and Wysong, 1976 for more information on the derivation of the above equations.]

The actual value of the constants (c, d, and n) are unknown, since the world’s population has not been known with any certainty until the last few hundred years. They also would almost certainly have fluctuated at different times in history based on the state of technology, lifespans (especially considering the long lifespans in the generations immediately following the Flood and the shorter lifespans preceding the current state of medical knowledge), and fluctuating offspring production rates. However, this approach allows for the use of long-term averages to get a rough estimate of what the world’s population should look like over time.

Being very conservative, accounting for periods of famine, disease, war, natural calamity, etc., let us assume that c = 1.2. Thus, each couple throughout history has had, on average, at least two children, and many times three or more children were born. Also, let us assume that each person has lived, on average, one and a third generations (i.e., d = 1.3). This means that each person died having seen some, though not all, of their grandchildren. Again, this estimate is likely very conservative, especially since effective birth control methods are a relatively recent innovation. However, these conservative estimates certainly take into account the long periods of time in history when people lived shorter lives and had fewer children. Let us further assign a reasonable estimate of a “generation” to be 38 years. This means that each couple has had all of their children by age 38. All of these numbers could easily and fairly be increased, but doing so would do even further damage to the evolutionist’s case.

Using these conservative estimates, if human beings have been on the planet producing offspring for one million years, over 26,000 generations have passed. There are currently about seven billion people on earth—6.9x109 (“U.S. & World Population…,” 2011). However, according to Equation (4), there should be over 102,000 people on the Earth today if propagation commenced one million years ago. That is a one, followed by 2,000 zeros. In order to try to fathom that number, consider the following analogy. The known Universe is thought to be 28 billion light years in diameter (Powell, 2006; Tully, 2000). That is the equivalent of over 1070 cubic miles of volume. If tiny, three foot humans, modeled as cylinders with five inch radii (i.e., very narrow shoulders), were crammed into the Universe like sardines, 1082 people might fit (if they have not eaten in awhile). That leaves more than 101,918 additional people! And what’s worse, if c, d, or n are increased, as they legitimately could be, the problem is further amplified. Consider also that these numbers are based on a starting point of one million years ago. Evolutionists claim that humans have been on the Earth for two to three million years. To make their plight even worse, the evolutionary community digs its own grave significantly deeper by speculating that the original Adam and Eve were actually Adam, Eve, and about 10,000 other people (Hawks, et al., 2000). Even if 10,000 such miracles were accomplished in the same period of time in human history, one can easily imagine how many more people would result in a given period of time if 5,000 couples initially began bearing children instead of one couple. Where, pray tell, are all of the imaginary people that should be in existence if evolution is the true history of humanity?

The evolutionary community certainly has trouble adjusting the numbers to allow for this preposterous scenario. However, they must be able to come up with a reasonable explanation in order to maintain their position. If evolution is true, it must be assumed that there were times when the human population remained constant for very long periods of time or decreased to the point of extinction at different times in history (cf. Weiss, 1984; Hawks, et al., 2000). Such speculation is a leap into the dark without sufficient, verifiable evidence. [NOTE: Incidentally, such speculation is in contradiction with uniformitarian principles, which are fundamental to evolutionary dating techniques. If the Earth has not progressed in a constant, uniform fashion as macroevolution suggests, then old ages based on those uniformitarian assumptions cannot be assigned to the Earth. It seems that the evolutionary community wants to “have their cake and eat it, too.”] History grants us no world population estimates based on census’s until the last 200 years. Before that, according to population statisticians’ estimates, the average annual population growth was estimated to be relatively constant, ranging between 0.03-0.15% from 1750 A.D. to 10,000 B.C. (“Historical Estimates of World Population,” 2010) [NOTE: World populations are estimated at this later date based on the assumption that the theory of evolution is true. Such a time frame would be pre-Creation, according to the Bible, and is rejected by the author.] Likely due to medical breakthroughs and technological advancement, the annual population growth has since jumped to about 2%. Note that even the irreligious community recognizes the likelihood of significant population growth on average over time throughout history and makes its estimates accordingly. The evolutionary position, in order to exist at all, must stand in contradiction to this fact. The evidence, as well as common sense, cannot be denied. If growth is the norm as the evidence indicates, evolution is impossible. The evidence conveyed by population statistics simply does not support the evolutionary model.

POPULATION STATISTICS AND THE CREATION MODEL

What about the creation model? Is it supported by the evidence from population statistics? The biblical position asserts that after the Flood, repopulation of the Earth commenced, starting with six people (i.e., Shem, Ham, Japheth, and their wives), instead of two (or 10,000). Using the aforementioned procedure, the following equation can be derived for calculation of the projected population for any given time, starting with six people:



If we assume, based on biblical genealogies, that the Flood took place roughly 4,300 years ago (cf. Bass, 2003), using the same c andd as above, as well as a generation of 38 years, then 113 generations have passed since the global Flood of Noah’s day. Based on these numbers, the approximate projected population for today can be calculated. According to the calculations, there should be approximately seven billion people on Earth—6.7x109. This is strikingly close to the current population as recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau—6.9x109.

CONCLUSION

What does the evidence indicate? Is the evolutionary model a plausible explanation for man’s existence? The evidence from the field of population statistics says, “Certainly not.” Even granting very conservative numbers in the calculation of projected populations, it is the biblical model that is in keeping with the numerical evidence provided by the world’s population. The evidence supports a young age for the Earth and mankind. One would have to be dishonest to examine such concrete evidence and dismiss it out of hand. Yet, this attitude pervades much of the scientific community today. The same people who proclaim that they, unlike theists, are the ones who examine the evidence without bias, only drawing those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence, are the very ones who turn against the evidence when it does not suit their purpose and agenda. Philosopher David Hume once said that no man turns against reason until reason turns against him (as quoted in Warren, 1982, p. 4). That certainly sums up the mentality of many in the scientific community. Why not choose to go with the reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence? The Earth is young. Evolution cannot explain human existence. The biblical model can…and does.

Apologetics Press - Population Statistics and a Young Earth

 

[Hollie]

You're a dishonest Ideologue.

I understand you're embarrassed. Once again, you were exposed as a fraud by copying and pasting falsified &#8220;quotes&#8221; that you scour from creationist websites.

Similarly, your silly copy and paste from the charlatan Behe have been refuted as fraudulent.

Why would the science community debate the man or that matter even respond to him if his arguments were no threat ? kinda like how you and daws operate.

Behe and Christian fundies are not a threat to the science community. Christian creationism has long ago been defined as void of science and simply a front for Christian cultists.

The danger represented by charlatans such as Behe and fundies such as yourself is your need to impose your retrograde fear and superstition on others, especially in the public school system. Should the teaching of Christianity in public schools become widespread, the harm it would cause our nation would be tragic. As fundie Christians would have it, school children would be taught that the bibles are literally true and that soundly based scientific principles, when not accord with the biblical interpretation, would cease to be fact.

Childrens minds would be confused because fear, ancient superstition and myth masquerading as science would be used to instill fear and superstition. Children in public schools should be encouraged to explore their curiosity about nature, science and the natural world and to use their curiosity to arrive at the facts of a matter by rational deduction framed by the discipline of the scientific method. Any attempts to indoctrinate our public school children with false information, fear instilling doctrines and ancient superstitions based on the unscientific hypotheses of christian creationists would be a tragedy.

 

[Hollie]

The belief that the world is 6,000 years old is simply astounding. If the world really were 6000 years old there wouldn't be enough humans born up to now to make up a population of 7 billion.

This has been throughly refuted and the population growth rate better supports the worlds current population with the timeline and the people that came off the ark than it supports evolutionists millions of years story.

Population Statistics and a Young Earth


by

Jeff Miller, Ph.D.


Both sides of the creation/evolution debate are locked in a heated battle over the truth about human origins, the age of the Universe, and the ultimate Cause of all things. ]

I snipped out the wall of christian creationist nonsense for lack of relevance, utter absurdity and the usual appeals to fear, ignorance and conspiracy theory.

There really are no parties locked in any debate or battle over the truth about human origins. While science doesn&#8217;t have every answer regarding the origin of life (and to educate brain-dead christian fundies, evolution does not address origins of life), Christian fundies typically seek to link life origins and evolution as a way to weaken the science of evolution.

There is absolutely no controversy within science about the reality of evolution. There is a well accepted, solidly established body of evidence showing that evolution is observable and testable. Although knowledge of some of the precise mechanisms by which evolution occurs may be incomplete, vast knowledge is known about how evolution works.

What Christian fundies attempt to avoid is that the same processes of theory, hypothesis and testing that led to the theory of evolution exist in all branches of science. It's known as the scientific method. In addition, evolution gets direct and indirect support from complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology, physics, etc., different facts from varied science disciplines, all supporting the fact of evolution. Science is not an isolated batch of unrelated theories - science is a consolidation of many disciplines of knowledge.

As Christian fundies propose it, their dogma demands we believe that six thousand years ago the universe was created by magic, that two proto-humans were created by magic and that those humans were deceived by the magical creator gawds. Further, we&#8217;re to believe that the sun appeared long after plants, and that humankind lived concurrently with dinosaurs.

Fundie Christian creationists further demand that all the valid evidence which coincides with evolutionary theory (continental drift, plate tectonics, the geologic table, et cetera), all the testable biological / chemical evidence (anthropology, biochemistry, DNA, microbiology, et cetera), all the relevant historical evidence (archaeology, the fossil record, paleontology, anthropology, et cetera), all the astronomical evidence (Black Holes, the distance to stars, the effects of gravity on celestial bodies and light, et cetera) has been shaped as a global conspiracy by those &#8220;evolutionists&#8221;. The evidence from chemistry and physics (the laws of thermodynamics, the chemistry of proteins and amino acids and even the speed of light, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad absurdum) according to brain dead christian creationists amounts to one, grand, global conspiracy.