"Tell me: Where are all the bodies that should have piled up since the stone age? And please, don't embarrass yourself with such evilutionists arguments like: bodies are biodegradable!"
I never realized I wasted so much time with those biology, chemistry and physics classes in college. Are my Spanish and Japanese teachers deceiving me too?? 8(
@FlyingSpaghettiMoner I used to hate the term "evolutionist", but now I accept it as a term that distinguishes me from both creationists and professional scientists. I feel the term "rationalist" does not apply to everyone who does not doubt evolution, as many just don't really think about it. The more I hear the term, the more I like it. I'm an evolutionist and damn proud of it. Of course should evolution be falsified (vanishingly unlikely) I will renounce the title.
@labrat1807 evolutionism not evolutionist. There is no such thing "evolutionism". I doubt anyone with education will say "evolutionism". However there is a word "evolutionist". And the word is acceptable.
You'd think, as a biologist, he'd have studied population ecology at some point... and would realise that populations are limited by carrying capacity...
evolution is a lie put on paper by erasmus darwin, inspired from ancient idiot philosophers who did not know what we know now (they did not have high powered microscopes). They thought they were smart walkin around in those "clothes"(more like under-wear) talking about killing people because their heads were "not the right size". You are preaching their vomit in total ignorance.
Time to move on don't you think? I cannot believe how stupid people can be, even in this day and age
Surtees is also ignoring the load capacity of the earth in his population growth models. For most of human existence our hunter-gatherer lifestyle would not support a world population over a few million people. And even after the development of agriculture the load capacity topped out at 2 billion people before the invention of artificial fertilizers at the beginning of the 20th century.
So yes, not everyone that has died was buried in a tomb, even if they were, did anyone realise that "80 bodies per square mile" is far too dense?? we have 6 billion people on earth now and there definitely aren't more than 80 people per square mile! wtf!
a solar eclipse is a really sucker punch of a gift from god. for hundreds of thousands of years poeple would stare up at the sky in awe an wonder as the sun almost disapeared....then they went blind. thanks alot god.
My first reaction to you questioning his credentials was that you were underestimating that a PhD can still be credulous and silly... But then I heard him bring the rate growth "argument"...
It's hard to say what the most stupid thing about that argument is, but it might be the fact that these people don't even think five seconds about other species...
@uvauva2 If the only reason someone's word is taken is because of their supposed authority, then refuting it can be done by showing that the authority is suspect. Creationists often prop up people's credentials, such as "Astrophysicist Dr. Raymond Smith, PhD from Harvard," as though all of this makes evidence magically appear.
Well, questioning credentials does not, by itself, constitute an argument against the position defended. That must be done by showing that the arguments the individual used are invalid.
Although I do agree that creationists lie enough about credentials that checking their validity is worthwhile.
I made the comment I made because JR went straight for questioning if this man could even have a phd. On the face of it, that's quite a harsh claim. But the argument Surtees used is (...)
@uvauva2 No, an ad hominem, attacking only their credentials, would be a fallacy. But if the only thing supporting their argument is that they have a PhD, then what else is there to tear apart? Dr. Lisle is another one of those, who is paraded around as an astrophysicist, but constantly offers up logical fallacy after another, all while never presenting evidence to support creationism except quotes from the Bible. What else can you refute except the title?
*rolls eyes* I know what a fallacy is, thank you very much.
And what one needs to attack are the arguments they put forth themselves. When you do so you do attack the credentials, but only indirectly.
And I don't know why you keep mentioning other creationists (Smith & Lisle). My comment was directed at JR's opening gambit of questioning if Surtees could possible even have a degree in anything at all. Prior to hearing Surtees I thought this might be going to far. I no longer do so.
Look, whatever it is you meant by your comments, I do not think you are expressing it well. Your tone comes to me as critical, and yet does not really address the context of my initial comment.
The fact that you aren't saying anything I'm not already aware of (even if I don't know either Smith or Leslie, at least by name) doesn't help either.
And yes, I know you have no idea of what I know or not, but receiving critics that don't really apply is annoying.
(...) indeed stupid enough that JR is fully entitled to question if this man has indeed a phd, as I am doing it myself (but that is not to say that there are not creationists with phds using somewhat silly arguments. It's just that the population argument is on an entirely different scale. If not for the fact that these individuals are motivated by a deep emotional need to validate their delusions, I would say that using this argument is a sign of actual mental retardation).
@redsky It is valid when someone is displaying virtually no knowledge regarding the topics he supposedly studied. And in the video "Marc Surtees 2 - Addendum", I confirmed all of his educational qualifications.
@redsky Idiot. Of course it does. Scientists spend a lot of time on how to interpret information, how to perform experiments correctly, how to present data and what conclusions to deduce from it. You also learn what makes for bad experiments and other such information. Without this knowledge, you aren't qualified to interpret scientific findings. The reporter who presented the news on CNN can do so because they are experienced reporters.
Eek!! I made that comment 11 months ago. There's nothing like a quick response!
So then, does that mean that to be a good scientist I have to be an experienced CNN reporter?
If this is the case then I can see a common denominator. Mainstream scientists and news reporters are both guilty of making it up at times... Scientists more often than reporters.
@redsky Lol. I had only just seen the video, I often don't check how long ago the comment was made. No, to be a scientist you need to qualify in and practice science. To be a reporter you need to work in media and, ideally, report. I am aware of many journalists that are liberal with truth many people who make things up too. They call themselves creation scientists. Scientists aren't at liberty to make things up because they have to publish their methods so anyone can repeat the experiment.
@redsky That's not to say that it doesn't happen. But all scientific frauds and scams have been revealed by other scientists. That is the beauty of science. Unfortunately information of science reaches the public via mainstream media who have little understanding of science and prefer sensationalism. That is, of course, not the fault of scientists. Just remember that all the technology, medicine and advances - all the stuff you enjoy and make your life comfortable - were made by scientists.
@biggingeryeti I like your answer and agree with most of it. I'm not convinced that all scientific scams have been revealed yet though. Mm.... Let me think about that for a while and we'll see what evolves!
I'm more of a creationist, but I admit using current population growth rate as an argument, either way, is plain stupid. There are many better arguments favoring creationism.
He admitted that the moon IS moving away from the earth. So I guess God does not want our prodogy to enjoy solar eclipses?
Also you left out the fact that animals and natural decay are pretty tough on corpses when left out in the elements. Aka thats why they aren't around.
Wow! We happen to live in the right time to see a perfect eclypse!
So? If we were born just a few thousand years ago, the moon would have looked larger than the sun during an eclypse, we have writen records describing it!
A few thousand years from now our desendants will will see a moon that looks slightley smaller than the sun during an eclypse.
These are just statments of observed fact, was he trying to make a point?
Doesn't this creation scientist realise that even if his maths are correct, he's assuming that humans were here at the start of the earth. If his numbers were correct, the Brunel University chap would have the starting date for the human race. Obviously, that's assuming that his maths are correct, but they're not really, are they?
Did I insult Surtees? Yes. If someone is being an idiot, I will tell them. How can anyone use the human population growth argument with a straight face? However, an ad hominid attack would require that I replace a rebuttal with insults. I did not.
Now, point out where I claimed "accidents of nature" as a solution?
@Jer0mmel Calling an idiot an idiot isn't am ad hominem attack - he makes ignorant, fallacious, and dishonest arguments. He IS an idiot, and we can also add lying sack of shit to the list...
@D3ltaStar yeah we are working on either educating the idiots here in america or getting them out all together, all in all as an agnostic who facepalmed every time i spoke to my friends lutheran mother, i would have better luck with a mule lol.
Yeah... Nevermind the fact that the infant mortality rate used to be such that more babies died than lives, and nevermind the fact that mothers used to almost routinely die at childbirth... just go with it.
I know people have pointed out that Reading is pronounced "Redding" already, but it is particularly unfortunate because it makes it sound like we British people go to university to learn how to read - for which Surtees seems to be further evidence!
Wow I only came across Marc Surtees the other day and was hoping someone would burn his lying ass. Thank you for doing such an excellent job. It's nice to see a UK creationist being debunked!
Okay, enlighten me: What's the big picture? If a false dichotomy at the core of your whole argument isn't big picture what is? If time estimates that are orders of magnitude beyond the 6,000 years you want to prove isn't big picture, what is? If misrepresenting basic facts about rates of population growth, salinity of the oceans and solar astronomy isn't big picture, what is? What possible perspective could I be missing that would explain away these egregious fallacies and errors?
The big picture is that there is a whole load of evidence that is consistent with a young Earth and a whole lot that is not consistent with an old Earth.
The point of the presentation is that there is a scientific case that can be made for a young Earth.
There is evidence that is 'consistent' with a flat-earth and inconsistent with a round one if you're willing to cherry pick your evidence.
But more to the point, all of the evidence you've presented has been grossly skewed, if not outright lied about. Population growth rates, for example, VARY and you've given no acknowledgment of how that threatens your argument.
And 40,000,000 years is NOT consistent with a 'young' (10,000 year old) earth. It's off by more than 3 orders of magnitude!
You still haven't said how "the simplier solution is to assume a young Earth" instead of basing your assumption on some observations and then testing them.
"there is a scientific case that can be made for a young Earth."
...yeah, and there's people who still believe the earth is flat, and that the holocaust didn't happen. People believe in all sorts of silly shit and try to shoe horn fit the evidence to fit their pre-disposed assumption instead of letting the evidence speak for itself!
"Try looking at the big picture rather than setting fire to straw men"
How dare you speak to anyone of straw men? I've seen several of your videos. Like Kent Hovind, you use your degree to make arguments from authority fallacies and rely on the gullibility, naivety, and ignorance of your audience to sway their opinions.
Does consensus mean nothing to you?
You're a biologist. Do you not believe in evolution by natural selection, and common descent of humans and the other great apes?
Yes of course humans are apes by definition. But what about in reality. As you say (evolutionary) biology defines human as apes. And when this was only a descriptive definition that was fine.
But when it means we are apes because we descended from (other) apes then that is evolutionism.
Creation biologists state that humans are not apes by definition.
"Yes of course humans are apes by definition. But what about in reality"
In reality it's the same. ALL humans are apes. It's not up to a handful of you to change the definition of a word. Calling a cow a fly, doesn't make it so
"But when it means we are apes because we descended from (other) apes"
You could have tried to explain that the first time rather than looking like a complete idiot. Now it looks like you frantically open your old bio 101 text and looked it up! "holy cow, we are apes!"
Yes. And the evolution each of these differences are documented in great detail. As a matter of fact... The differences you cite actually are PART of the evidence that we share a common ancestor... Why do so many people have lower back pains? Answer: our atanomy (the spine) is actually still not very fit to walk upright. Why are humans born prematurely? Answer: because women walk upright and simply can't carry babies long enough.
"I do not assume that we decended from apes. And the evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that we are not."
I appreciate you're busy, but there are MANY things on here that you assert without a shred of empirical evidence to back it up. PLEASE provide evidence that we do not share a common ancestor with other great apes
PLEASE provide evidence that it's possible 7B people could have populated the earth in 4400y, not wild conjecture, EVIDENCE! (we have PLENTY of evidence it didn't)
Is that Reading in the UK? like in Berkshire? because then it's pronounced Redding, I had a quiet laugh about that :)....I still love your videos though
Since he is trying to prove Genesis his (false) assumption that Humans were here since the beginning is semi-founded, because if we couldn't be then Genesis is wrong, and whats the point. The number of people on Earth is an established fact so if the current population couldn't have formed within an allotted time frame than the time frame is wrong.
I hope anyone reading this can understand what I am trying to say (basically why he is addressing human population in the topic age of the earth).
Of course we virtually never get a "perfect eclipse", due to the moon's orbbit, it's distance from the Earth actually varies 10% as it orbit is elliptical, so virtually all "full" eclipses are either total eclipses when the moon is appears larger then the sun, or annular eclipses when the sun appears larger then the moon, thus has an annulus, surrounding the outline of the Moon. So the sun-moon apparent size ratio from our vantage point is virtually never 1:1.
Haha, two minutes in, and "dr." says human population growth rate might be slowing down now. What a fool. even my 8 year old cousin knows population of the earth is growing by the day. Honestly, they learn this shit in 2nd grade.
Yes the population is increasing (1st order derivative) but the rate of increase is decreasing (2nd order derivative), Both can be true and in the case of human population the second is probably true.
You quite clearly outlined that you would be arguing for a young Earth. Yet you also stated that 20-30Ma was "nothing" compared to the age of the Earth. If you maintain that the Earth is young, then on what ground can you substantiate that point? It seems to me you would have to admit then the Earth is as old as evidence suggests for that point to be valid. One too many coincidences? You realise that over 5% of moons in the solar system produce total solar eclipses? It's not unlikely.
The point was that if the Earth is 4.8 billion years old it is fairly improbable that we would be around to see solar eclipses which are a short lived affair but if the solar system is young then it is not
Which moons produce total solar eclispes where the moon and the sun have very similar apparent diameters?
How did you arrive at the figure of 20-30Ma? I make it between 500Ma and 1Ba depending on whether or not you factor in the slowing rate of recession of the Moon. Hardly a short-lived affair.
All other total eclipses in the solar system are occultations, which is to be expected considering the distance from those planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) and Pluto to the Sun.
Do explain why eclipses are probable in a young solar system. Does your specific deity like them?
"How did you arrive at the figure of 20-30Ma? I make it between 500Ma and 1Ba depending on whether or not you factor in the slowing rate of recession of the Moon. Hardly a short-lived affair."
I didn't notice that! It makes sense now. I added an annotation.
Your not even making a point here, Its a simple co-incidence. Your simply listing phoenomena and saying "God did it" and leaving it at that. What decuctions can you make from that closing statements about aparant surface areas? The Jupiter-Europa Transit is a pheonomenon, therefore god exists. I threw a rock in the air, that totally obscured the sun for a second, and had a very similar aparant diameter, therefore God designed the rock for that purpose?
"if the Earth is 4.8 billion years old it is fairly improbable that we would be around to see solar eclipses"
Talking snakes, virgin births, resurrections, healing of the sick/blind, global floods, living in whales for 3 days, talking snakes, and unicorns are MORE THAN fairly improbable, there's NO evidence they're possible. Considering the vastness of the universe, and the billions of moons, it's FAR more likely to happen than many things in the bible.
What is the probability of a beautifull semetric purple crystal to form? Trillions of atoms in exactly the right order. Heaps more improbable then loads of stuff. yet, the earth holds millions of those. if you don't understand applied probability, don't use it.
I'm glad that someone has the time to do this video. While I could refute some of these claims in several comments made(dunno if they made it throught the tight scrutiny he demonstrates towards comments), there was many points that I didn't honestly have the slightest idea how to rebut.
And being busy writing a rebuttal to "The Dawkins Letters" I secretly hoped someone else would rise up to the task. Looking forward to the rest of the series. Doing great so far :)
Thanks BiggusRobbicus for your support! The important thing to remember is that my calcualtions are all approximations. The aim is to show that 1) the current comditions on Earth could be arrived at quite quickly. 2) When we assume an Earth that is millions or billions or years old then some of the observations do not seem to fit. Yes there are possible explanations, but the simplier solution is to assume a young Earth
Absolute rubbish, the simplest solution is to account for all available evidence and fit them into a coherent model concerning cosmological timescales. Evidence across the sciences all point to timescales of billions of years. Besides, you should be aware that the current diversity of the global population could never stem from a single family without mass death from irrecoverable genetic homozygosity.
As for your approximations, no doubt you modelled them on biblical scripture, not science
Being unwilling to accept the veracity of scientific proof is not adequate refutation. It doesn't matter that you hate the notion of having chimp DNA. Our DNA is pretty similar to that of bananas, or shrimp. You may not like it. But if you're going to question it, you're going to have to do an awful lot of work to overturn the research of decades.
In fact, let's stick with your bashing of Wikipedia. A publicly editable encyclopaedia will not automatically become nonsense. Anything scientific is going to end up being edited and entered by scientists or students of science, and incorrect or unsupported entries will be challenged and deleted. Why not trace to the citation for our genetic similarity to chimps, and directly question THOSE scientists instead of just blanket-dismissing the entirety of Wikipedia?
"I was not bashing wikipedia I was actually approving of the fact that it states that humans and chimps are 30% different.
Rather than the usual 1 to 5% that we get in the text books."
well it sure looked like sarcasm the first time i read it.
now wait a minute. You're saying something that can be edited by any creationist moron to support their world view is a more reliable source than the peer reviewed and tested claims made by a consensus of scientists that make it to text books? wow.
"when Wiki supports you it is good when it doesn't it is not?"
You're a scientist and this is the way you argue?
I asked you for clarification for what you talking about because all i was able to find was several instances that contradicted your comment, and since you didn't clarify the first time. Unlike you, I don't make assumptions on non evidence
I'll read up on the references and the wiki article and get back to you on this.
" you mean that wonderful repository of knowledge that tells us that the difference between human and chimp DNA is 30%."
I've just browsed wiki and found more than a dozen articles stating a 95-98% similarity in human/chimp DNA. PLEASE show me a page that states anything greater than 6%
Also, regarding homozygosity, you didn't seriously just link us to your own paper regarding it as your evidence to support yourself, did you!?
If you mean "simpler" in the sense of 'that way I don't need to think, ask difficult questions and invest loads of time in research" then yes, you are correct. it is far simpler to just say "god-dun-it".
If this guy is a biologist, did he just not turn up to his microbiology or ecology lessons? If biological populations could happily continue to grow without regard to resources, we'd all be buried miles deep in bacteria and fungi in less than a decade. There's such a thing as the maximum capacity of an ecosystem, plus plagues, plus famines, all of which dent both population growth and populations. If this guy is a biologist, does he really believe this? I know Nephilimfree would.
The obvious Biological reasons for debunking that bullshit argument have been stated so many times that I did not want to do it again. So, I figured it would be more interesting to demonstrate Surtee's "calculation". I did not even want to attempt to figure out the random numbers he used to figure out how many dead bodies there "should be." Perhaps he looked up the size of the average grave site and multiplied it by 4,000,000,000?
I think that would be about right. His maths may be correct, but you know what they say, nonsense in, nonsense out.
Going by his numbers, we should also expect to see 24 "tombs" per square mile of Earth's land surface (which of course, has never changed at all, despite the ice ages) just from the people alive in 1850. I wonder how many of those bodies have survived 150 years as intact, identifiable, skeletons, let alone ones from 100,000 plus years ago.
Thanks, BiggusRobbicus, for your (partial) support!
The important thing to remember is that my calcualtions are all approximations. The aim is to show that 1) the current comditions on Earth could be arrived at quite quickly. 2) Also if we assume an Earth that is millions or billions or years old then some of the observations do not seem to fit. Yes there are possible explanations, but the simplier solution is to assume a young Earth
"Thanks, BiggusRobbicus, for your (partial) support!"
Marc, my support for you here is non-existent. I find your use of the argument "maybe we haven't been here long enough to fill the planet" to be unbelieveably ignorant at best and extremely deceptive at worst.
Your calculations are heavily over simplistic, and you have given me no reason, here or in your messages, to think that there are any observations of the natural world that fit better with a younger Earth.
You state that the moon being in a position to give solar eclipses in the first place is a "a bit too much" coincidence, when most moons in the solar system will manage at least a partial one, by virtue of being on roughly the same orbital plane as their parent planet.
I can respect your (apparent) willingness give ground in the area of alternate theories, but the arguments you are presenting here appear to have little to no basis.
"but the simplier solution is to assume a young Earth"
You're a scientist... WHY would you START with an assumption!? The BEST solution is to start with NO assumptions and let the empirical evidence speak for itself, and then to TEST the evidence.
tinyurlDOTcom/cqhya2
shows the world population chart based on available data. Note that it DOES NOT show exponential growth.
Please show some credible evidence to suggest the current rate has been constant throughout history.
All hypotheses are assumptions which are then tested. That's the way I do science.
Yes actual population growth was not exponential but it can be when resources are not limited and there are no factors preventing high reproductive rates.
I was not trying to prove that population growth was constant. I was illustrating the reasonableness of assuming a recent start to the human population by showing even a very modest groth rate gets to 6 billion very quickly.
"All hypotheses are assumptions which are then tested. That's the way I do science."
Well then you're doing it wrong little demented one. If you cannot see you're shoe horn fitting your evidence to fit a pre-conceived assumption, then you're beyond the help anyone here can provide. What you SHOULD start with is an OBSERVATION and then make an assumption on that observation and test it.
"the simplier solution is to assume a young Earth"
Again, HOW could you possibly START with that assumption?
"Yes actual population growth was not exponential"
but you went and assumed it was anyway?! WHY?
"it can be when resources are not limited..."
But you KNOW the resources WERE limited, and you KNOW factors prevented high reproductive rates. You're being purposely disingenuous or obfuscating
"I was illustrating the reasonableness of assuming a recent start to the human population by showing even a very modest groth rate gets to 6 billion very quickly"
I do not know that resources were limited, and I do not know that there were factors that prevented high reproductive rates.
Those are your assumptions about the past that you cannot verify. Yes, I know that there is a case that can be made, but the alternative hypothesis is also one that can be tested. The fixed slow rate of growth was an illustration and as with all illustrations fall apart when pushed to extremes.
Ok. Please cite scientific journals (issue number + page) in wich we can read your peer reviewed papers about the crap you spew on here. Because you see... peer review and publication in science journals are quite an important part of the scientific method. In fact... you're not doing science if you're not doing that.
Using YOUR ridiculous assumption of constant growth rates:
1) Every square inch of earth would have a 10ft pile of bacteria in a few weeks!
2) There would have been LESS THAN 1K people on earth when the pyramids were built, given what we know about civilizations at the time, this would leave Egypt with about SEVENTEEN people to build all the pyramids at Giza!
3) This would give the WORLD population at christ's birth LESS THAN the number of Roman citizens at the time!
As I have said previously the const rate was to illustrate the point that it would not take very long to populate the Earth and that there is therefore no problem to explain 6 billion plus people in a young Earth paradigm.
"As I have said previously the const rate was to illustrate the point that it would not take very long to populate the Earth"
As we have REPEATEDLY shown, it's pretty STUPID to use a constant rate because it is a well known FACT that it wasn't constant, so throw that wild conjecture of yours right out the window!
"and that there is therefore no problem to explain 6 billion plus people in a young Earth paradigm."
There IS if the evidence says otherwise. Mainly agricultural technology.
Hey, Dr. F.D. I did not realize you were still commenting on my videos. I can not believe you are still defending your growth rate argument! Can you at least let that go?
Why not make a video in your realm of expertise? What about the breading cycles of Gray Squirrels disproves evolution? Why talk about Astronomy when you don't understand it?
I would also be interested in your thoughts on my last two videos on you.
Especially when it comes out to 1100 years, so that means Charlemagne existed 100 years before the two people we supposedly start with if that calculation of human growth was anything close to reality. LOL
Great, this guy is spouting off on what is outside of his field. Also most biologists would know a thing or two about populations. Not to mention he was using a constant equation to something that is not constant. Maybe he should get back to selling rocks and other shiny baubles to kids to get them interested in the "controversy".
From 2 people to 6 billion? Dude, how long until severe birth defects?
arayalrio 2 weeks ago
"Tell me: Where are all the bodies that should have piled up since the stone age? And please, don't embarrass yourself with such evilutionists arguments like: bodies are biodegradable!"
mehja1 4 months ago in playlist More videos from JRChadwick
@mehja1 Oh...my......thinking organ HURTS.
I never realized I wasted so much time with those biology, chemistry and physics classes in college. Are my Spanish and Japanese teachers deceiving me too?? 8(
arayalrio 2 weeks ago
@arayalrio Yes, they do: Spain and Japan do not actually exist. It is all just a big conspiracy.
mehja1 2 weeks ago
I hate people who say "evolutionism" they imply evolution as a belief system. i.e. neph
FlyingSpaghettiMoner 8 months ago
@FlyingSpaghettiMoner I used to hate the term "evolutionist", but now I accept it as a term that distinguishes me from both creationists and professional scientists. I feel the term "rationalist" does not apply to everyone who does not doubt evolution, as many just don't really think about it. The more I hear the term, the more I like it. I'm an evolutionist and damn proud of it. Of course should evolution be falsified (vanishingly unlikely) I will renounce the title.
labrat1807 8 months ago
@labrat1807 evolutionism not evolutionist. There is no such thing "evolutionism". I doubt anyone with education will say "evolutionism". However there is a word "evolutionist". And the word is acceptable.
FlyingSpaghettiMoner 8 months ago
@FlyingSpaghettiMoner Ah, I misread. Apologies for the time waste.
labrat1807 8 months ago
Dude, it's pronounced red-ding, not read-ing.
flapjackboy 9 months ago
You'd think, as a biologist, he'd have studied population ecology at some point... and would realise that populations are limited by carrying capacity...
0mniaV1nc1t 9 months ago
comparing the age of the earth to human population is like comparing the age of a person to how long they've had a hair lice infection.
RPBiohazard 1 year ago
The cats in this vid seem to know more than this guy! XD
njintau 1 year ago
evolution is a lie put on paper by erasmus darwin, inspired from ancient idiot philosophers who did not know what we know now (they did not have high powered microscopes). They thought they were smart walkin around in those "clothes"(more like under-wear) talking about killing people because their heads were "not the right size". You are preaching their vomit in total ignorance.
Time to move on don't you think? I cannot believe how stupid people can be, even in this day and age
crazybuttful 1 year ago
Surtees is also ignoring the load capacity of the earth in his population growth models. For most of human existence our hunter-gatherer lifestyle would not support a world population over a few million people. And even after the development of agriculture the load capacity topped out at 2 billion people before the invention of artificial fertilizers at the beginning of the 20th century.
rrward 1 year ago
I have a penis
TAz69x 1 year ago
So yes, not everyone that has died was buried in a tomb, even if they were, did anyone realise that "80 bodies per square mile" is far too dense?? we have 6 billion people on earth now and there definitely aren't more than 80 people per square mile! wtf!
iliketool 1 year ago
Just as a side note, it's not pronounced "reading" as if you're reading a book, it's pronounced "redding", but great video anyway!
craig6944 1 year ago
a solar eclipse is a really sucker punch of a gift from god. for hundreds of thousands of years poeple would stare up at the sky in awe an wonder as the sun almost disapeared....then they went blind. thanks alot god.
jasoncomplicated 1 year ago
What a fucking retard
Rusvi1 1 year ago
He sounds to me like he's trying to be the Fundy Creationist version of Richard Dawkins---and not very well!!!
ChurchOfKali66619 1 year ago
My first reaction to you questioning his credentials was that you were underestimating that a PhD can still be credulous and silly... But then I heard him bring the rate growth "argument"...
It's hard to say what the most stupid thing about that argument is, but it might be the fact that these people don't even think five seconds about other species...
uvauva2 1 year ago
@uvauva2 If the only reason someone's word is taken is because of their supposed authority, then refuting it can be done by showing that the authority is suspect. Creationists often prop up people's credentials, such as "Astrophysicist Dr. Raymond Smith, PhD from Harvard," as though all of this makes evidence magically appear.
csbair 1 year ago
@csbair
Well, questioning credentials does not, by itself, constitute an argument against the position defended. That must be done by showing that the arguments the individual used are invalid.
Although I do agree that creationists lie enough about credentials that checking their validity is worthwhile.
I made the comment I made because JR went straight for questioning if this man could even have a phd. On the face of it, that's quite a harsh claim. But the argument Surtees used is (...)
uvauva2 1 year ago
@uvauva2 No, an ad hominem, attacking only their credentials, would be a fallacy. But if the only thing supporting their argument is that they have a PhD, then what else is there to tear apart? Dr. Lisle is another one of those, who is paraded around as an astrophysicist, but constantly offers up logical fallacy after another, all while never presenting evidence to support creationism except quotes from the Bible. What else can you refute except the title?
csbair 1 year ago
@csbair
*rolls eyes* I know what a fallacy is, thank you very much.
And what one needs to attack are the arguments they put forth themselves. When you do so you do attack the credentials, but only indirectly.
And I don't know why you keep mentioning other creationists (Smith & Lisle). My comment was directed at JR's opening gambit of questioning if Surtees could possible even have a degree in anything at all. Prior to hearing Surtees I thought this might be going to far. I no longer do so.
uvauva2 1 year ago
@uvauva2 I wasn't saying you didn't know what a fallacy was. Geez, lighten up.
And I pointed out others to show what I meant about parading out the credentials rather than the substance.
csbair 1 year ago
@csbair
Look, whatever it is you meant by your comments, I do not think you are expressing it well. Your tone comes to me as critical, and yet does not really address the context of my initial comment.
The fact that you aren't saying anything I'm not already aware of (even if I don't know either Smith or Leslie, at least by name) doesn't help either.
And yes, I know you have no idea of what I know or not, but receiving critics that don't really apply is annoying.
uvauva2 1 year ago
(...) indeed stupid enough that JR is fully entitled to question if this man has indeed a phd, as I am doing it myself (but that is not to say that there are not creationists with phds using somewhat silly arguments. It's just that the population argument is on an entirely different scale. If not for the fact that these individuals are motivated by a deep emotional need to validate their delusions, I would say that using this argument is a sign of actual mental retardation).
uvauva2 1 year ago
btw reading is pronounced more like redding
CocoMac877 1 year ago
Questioning someone's scientific qualifications isn't a valid argument. They are, after all presenting the findings of scientists.
It's a bit like saying that 911 didn't happen because the news reporter who presented it on CNN wasn't a qualified terrorist.
redsky 1 year ago
@redsky It is valid when someone is displaying virtually no knowledge regarding the topics he supposedly studied. And in the video "Marc Surtees 2 - Addendum", I confirmed all of his educational qualifications.
JRChadwick 1 year ago
@redsky Idiot. Of course it does. Scientists spend a lot of time on how to interpret information, how to perform experiments correctly, how to present data and what conclusions to deduce from it. You also learn what makes for bad experiments and other such information. Without this knowledge, you aren't qualified to interpret scientific findings. The reporter who presented the news on CNN can do so because they are experienced reporters.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti
Eek!! I made that comment 11 months ago. There's nothing like a quick response!
So then, does that mean that to be a good scientist I have to be an experienced CNN reporter?
If this is the case then I can see a common denominator. Mainstream scientists and news reporters are both guilty of making it up at times... Scientists more often than reporters.
redsky 9 months ago
@redsky Lol. I had only just seen the video, I often don't check how long ago the comment was made. No, to be a scientist you need to qualify in and practice science. To be a reporter you need to work in media and, ideally, report. I am aware of many journalists that are liberal with truth many people who make things up too. They call themselves creation scientists. Scientists aren't at liberty to make things up because they have to publish their methods so anyone can repeat the experiment.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@redsky That's not to say that it doesn't happen. But all scientific frauds and scams have been revealed by other scientists. That is the beauty of science. Unfortunately information of science reaches the public via mainstream media who have little understanding of science and prefer sensationalism. That is, of course, not the fault of scientists. Just remember that all the technology, medicine and advances - all the stuff you enjoy and make your life comfortable - were made by scientists.
biggingeryeti 9 months ago
@biggingeryeti I like your answer and agree with most of it. I'm not convinced that all scientific scams have been revealed yet though. Mm.... Let me think about that for a while and we'll see what evolves!
redsky 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
See Nephies POOR-ME crying video: v=LD13FJKr4hA
He admits he has spent the last 3-4 years FREELOADING off a stroke victims disability benefits and fears she will move out and stop paying his rent!
He quickly deleted the video in February but it has re-surfaced.
This hypocritical parasite needs to be exposed
themsfightinwoids 1 year ago
@4:23
I'm at cal III. well, I was there, I've since passed it and moved on to other, less annoying subjects-like mineraology and sed strap :P
Albukhshi 1 year ago
I'm more of a creationist, but I admit using current population growth rate as an argument, either way, is plain stupid. There are many better arguments favoring creationism.
SounzNice 1 year ago
He admitted that the moon IS moving away from the earth. So I guess God does not want our prodogy to enjoy solar eclipses?
Also you left out the fact that animals and natural decay are pretty tough on corpses when left out in the elements. Aka thats why they aren't around.
myrdale 2 years ago
Wow! We happen to live in the right time to see a perfect eclypse!
So? If we were born just a few thousand years ago, the moon would have looked larger than the sun during an eclypse, we have writen records describing it!
A few thousand years from now our desendants will will see a moon that looks slightley smaller than the sun during an eclypse.
These are just statments of observed fact, was he trying to make a point?
SkyDoginthetube 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I was consfused about the University of Reading bit until I heard Surtess speak, it's not Readng as in 'to read', it's pronounced 'Redding'.
My mum teaches there . . . she has a REAL Ph.D.
TheAngryBum 2 years ago
Comment removed
TheAngryBum 2 years ago
It's pronounced Redding, JR :)
Scotracer 2 years ago
stupid votebots.
GRNoam 2 years ago
Rofl, that solar eclipse argument has to be one of the most stupid creationist arguments ever!
Farksisten 2 years ago
Doesn't this creation scientist realise that even if his maths are correct, he's assuming that humans were here at the start of the earth. If his numbers were correct, the Brunel University chap would have the starting date for the human race. Obviously, that's assuming that his maths are correct, but they're not really, are they?
SpiritKnob 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why the difference between HOW an atheist debunks a theist and a theist debunking an atheist, in case of similar grade of errs.
Even if atheists are right, they're usually extremely arrogant and "ad hominim".
Smug accidents of nature...
Jer0mmel 2 years ago
Did I insult Surtees? Yes. If someone is being an idiot, I will tell them. How can anyone use the human population growth argument with a straight face? However, an ad hominid attack would require that I replace a rebuttal with insults. I did not.
Now, point out where I claimed "accidents of nature" as a solution?
JRChadwick 2 years ago 2
@Jer0mmel Calling an idiot an idiot isn't am ad hominem attack - he makes ignorant, fallacious, and dishonest arguments. He IS an idiot, and we can also add lying sack of shit to the list...
0mniaV1nc1t 9 months ago
I've never doubted the existence of British imbeciles. We Americans gratefully remember King George III's idiocy quite well! ;)
maxpolaris99 2 years ago 8
@maxpolaris99
"I have always said, as I say now, that I would be the first to meet the friendship of the United States as an independent power" -- H.M. George III
Yes, obviously a real fucking idiot.
Just sod off and read some proper history, you damed yank!
SLRL1A1 2 years ago
@maxpolaris99 Must be nice having someone stood beside you! :D
wolverine005 1 year ago
@maxpolaris99 It seems George is a name given to idiots on both side of the pond :)
labrat1807 8 months ago
This guy is one old joke. We've heard these arguments time and time again. 5/5
Cyraside 2 years ago
the moon thing was so lame
bdpickett 2 years ago 4
Oh dear, oh dear oh DEAR!
I didn't realise we had people like this here in the UK, I thought it was just an American problem. He's like the British Kent Hovind...
PS. Great vid, but "Reading" is pronounced "Redding" (Gotta love English...!)
D3ltaStar 2 years ago 13
@D3ltaStar Being an American, I can sadly attest that for every "surtees" in the U.K. we have at least 100 here. :(
WisdomVendor 1 year ago
@D3ltaStar yeah we are working on either educating the idiots here in america or getting them out all together, all in all as an agnostic who facepalmed every time i spoke to my friends lutheran mother, i would have better luck with a mule lol.
wakcedout 1 year ago
This guy is like the next Kent Hovind.
TheDarkKnight987 2 years ago 4
Yeah... Nevermind the fact that the infant mortality rate used to be such that more babies died than lives, and nevermind the fact that mothers used to almost routinely die at childbirth... just go with it.
Way to go Marc Surtees.
TheFifthApes 2 years ago 3
I think he admits his mistake as soon as he says, "I tend to think..."
jsmxwll 2 years ago
I didn't see a solar eclipse today. What does that mean God?
DanielJGreenJr 2 years ago
try moar prayers
Muvlonion 2 years ago 3
"Where are all the bodies?" LOL! 5 out of 5.
calhoun81670 2 years ago 3
I would LOVE to know what Surtees' graduate work was about. From what I can see in this video alone, he is chemically free of critical thinking.
photodube 2 years ago 2
Check the second video on him. I noted it in the side bar.
JRChadwick 2 years ago
curiosity sake, you ever recieve that email?
Ethrock 2 years ago
Yep. They confirmed that the Surtees was awarded with Ph.D in 1985.
JRChadwick 2 years ago
I know people have pointed out that Reading is pronounced "Redding" already, but it is particularly unfortunate because it makes it sound like we British people go to university to learn how to read - for which Surtees seems to be further evidence!
UppruniTegundanna 2 years ago 4
Doesn't his equation assume that nobody dies?
tmcthree 3 years ago 3
Actually, a growth rate is the ratio of births vs. deaths. If the death rate is faster than the birth rate, the growth rate will be negative.
JRChadwick 3 years ago
Hi Guys,
This is me signing off from this debate. I don't think I can add anything more. Just follow the evidence.
marcsurtees 3 years ago
"Just follow the evidence"
but doc, that's EXACTLY what I DID do! What evidence do you have that we did NOT come from a common ancestor?
You mentioned creation biologists disagree that we are apes. (when it was a christian who classified us as such 230 yrs ago)
What is the TOTAL number of papers published in peer reviewed journals to support the creation biologists' claims?
It appears I have this in common with all the creation biologists: the very same number of published literature!
lennyhipp 3 years ago 3
I hope you took something away from this. Really think before you present your ideas next time. Research, Dr. False Dichotomy. Research!
JRChadwick 3 years ago
FYI if it's "Reading University" in the UK, it's pronounced Red-ing. Like the colour red.
tmcthree 3 years ago
Yes, others have made me aware of this error, thank you.
JRChadwick 3 years ago
Wow I only came across Marc Surtees the other day and was hoping someone would burn his lying ass. Thank you for doing such an excellent job. It's nice to see a UK creationist being debunked!
mousegeek 3 years ago
Thanks, mousegeek. I think we certainly gave him pause.
JRChadwick 3 years ago
That is some serious ownage. Thanks for the vid, and the hard-work.
SisyphusRedeemed 3 years ago
Try looking at the big picture rather than setting fire to straw men
marcsurtees 3 years ago
Okay, enlighten me: What's the big picture? If a false dichotomy at the core of your whole argument isn't big picture what is? If time estimates that are orders of magnitude beyond the 6,000 years you want to prove isn't big picture, what is? If misrepresenting basic facts about rates of population growth, salinity of the oceans and solar astronomy isn't big picture, what is? What possible perspective could I be missing that would explain away these egregious fallacies and errors?
SisyphusRedeemed 3 years ago
The big picture is that there is a whole load of evidence that is consistent with a young Earth and a whole lot that is not consistent with an old Earth.
The point of the presentation is that there is a scientific case that can be made for a young Earth.
marcsurtees 3 years ago
There is evidence that is 'consistent' with a flat-earth and inconsistent with a round one if you're willing to cherry pick your evidence.
But more to the point, all of the evidence you've presented has been grossly skewed, if not outright lied about. Population growth rates, for example, VARY and you've given no acknowledgment of how that threatens your argument.
And 40,000,000 years is NOT consistent with a 'young' (10,000 year old) earth. It's off by more than 3 orders of magnitude!
SisyphusRedeemed 3 years ago
You still haven't said how "the simplier solution is to assume a young Earth" instead of basing your assumption on some observations and then testing them.
"there is a scientific case that can be made for a young Earth."
...yeah, and there's people who still believe the earth is flat, and that the holocaust didn't happen. People believe in all sorts of silly shit and try to shoe horn fit the evidence to fit their pre-disposed assumption instead of letting the evidence speak for itself!
lennyhipp 3 years ago
"Try looking at the big picture rather than setting fire to straw men"
How dare you speak to anyone of straw men? I've seen several of your videos. Like Kent Hovind, you use your degree to make arguments from authority fallacies and rely on the gullibility, naivety, and ignorance of your audience to sway their opinions.
Does consensus mean nothing to you?
You're a biologist. Do you not believe in evolution by natural selection, and common descent of humans and the other great apes?
lennyhipp 3 years ago
I do not assume that we decended from apes. And the evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that we are not.
marcsurtees 3 years ago
You're a biologist you MORON! We ARE apes by definition! WTF is wrong with you!? It was a CHRISTIAN that classified us as such.
Now, if you want to say you misspoke, we can start this discussion anew.
"the evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that we are not."
PLEASE provide ANY empirical evidence that says we do not share a common ancestor.
Your response here leads me to believe you're not really Marc Surtees the biologist...
lennyhipp 3 years ago
To list all the differences between apes and humans would take too long.
But here are few:
Walking upright
Running
Brain size and architecture
Speech
Reproductive behaviour
etc
marcsurtees 3 years ago
"To list all the differences between apes and humans would take too long.
But here are few:"
Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong. Humans ARE apes by definition. Apparently you slept through your first class of introductory biology.
If you want to say those are differences between homo sapiens sapiens and the other great apes, okay... we're still apes!
The more you type, the more you make it bluntly obvious you're not the real Marc Surtees. (or that someone else did your bio homework)
lennyhipp 3 years ago
Yes of course humans are apes by definition. But what about in reality. As you say (evolutionary) biology defines human as apes. And when this was only a descriptive definition that was fine.
But when it means we are apes because we descended from (other) apes then that is evolutionism.
Creation biologists state that humans are not apes by definition.
marcsurtees 3 years ago
"Yes of course humans are apes by definition. But what about in reality"
In reality it's the same. ALL humans are apes. It's not up to a handful of you to change the definition of a word. Calling a cow a fly, doesn't make it so
"But when it means we are apes because we descended from (other) apes"
You could have tried to explain that the first time rather than looking like a complete idiot. Now it looks like you frantically open your old bio 101 text and looked it up! "holy cow, we are apes!"
lennyhipp 3 years ago
"then that is evolutionism"
There you go again making new words up! I accept "gravitationism" , "germism" , "atomicism" and "relativism"
guess what doc, there's MORE evidence for evolution than for those other theories
You're like a historian that denies the holocaust
a Geologist that denies the earth is round
a meterologist denying snowflakes form naturally
"Creation biologists state that humans are not apes..."
Then ALL creation biologists are idiots. BOTH of you! It's not open to opinion
lennyhipp 3 years ago
//Yes of course humans are apes by definition//
Not what you said 2 days ago!
//But what about in reality//
Are you suggesting his reality and your reality are different? How is that possible? Are you not living in our reality?
//Creation biologists state that humans are not apes by definition//
You're a biologist. Do you deny that biologically, we have more in common with chimps than they do to monkeys?
NinaObmanshica 3 years ago
there's no "-ism" in evolution you retard.
Creation biologists are morrons by defenition.
dxrocker69 2 years ago
Yes. And the evolution each of these differences are documented in great detail. As a matter of fact... The differences you cite actually are PART of the evidence that we share a common ancestor... Why do so many people have lower back pains? Answer: our atanomy (the spine) is actually still not very fit to walk upright. Why are humans born prematurely? Answer: because women walk upright and simply can't carry babies long enough.
dxrocker69 2 years ago
"I do not assume that we decended from apes. And the evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that we are not."
I appreciate you're busy, but there are MANY things on here that you assert without a shred of empirical evidence to back it up. PLEASE provide evidence that we do not share a common ancestor with other great apes
PLEASE provide evidence that it's possible 7B people could have populated the earth in 4400y, not wild conjecture, EVIDENCE! (we have PLENTY of evidence it didn't)
lennyhipp 3 years ago
Is that Reading in the UK? like in Berkshire? because then it's pronounced Redding, I had a quiet laugh about that :)....I still love your videos though
BioBrit92 3 years ago
Yeah yeah, already have been made aware of that error. I live near Reading, CA. So I should have known.
JRChadwick 3 years ago
Since he is trying to prove Genesis his (false) assumption that Humans were here since the beginning is semi-founded, because if we couldn't be then Genesis is wrong, and whats the point. The number of people on Earth is an established fact so if the current population couldn't have formed within an allotted time frame than the time frame is wrong.
I hope anyone reading this can understand what I am trying to say (basically why he is addressing human population in the topic age of the earth).
wswordsmen 3 years ago
According to his website htt p:// sss-ltd. net/html/marc_surtees__phd.h tm
His PhD thesis was titled "The hormonal control of seasonal breeding of the grey squirrel"
Minttzz 3 years ago
Yep! Squirrel love!
JRChadwick 3 years ago
Holy...
That moon eclipse argument made me lol.
niiidar 3 years ago
Loved the pizza argument!
TheKingOfFresno 3 years ago
I am baffled... this man is insane!
carrierexchange 3 years ago
that argument doesn't even fit the bible. according to the bible the current population comes from 8 people 4kya not 2 6kya or 2 1kya
DonHoraldo 3 years ago
Of course we virtually never get a "perfect eclipse", due to the moon's orbbit, it's distance from the Earth actually varies 10% as it orbit is elliptical, so virtually all "full" eclipses are either total eclipses when the moon is appears larger then the sun, or annular eclipses when the sun appears larger then the moon, thus has an annulus, surrounding the outline of the Moon. So the sun-moon apparent size ratio from our vantage point is virtually never 1:1.
brianblackberry 3 years ago
Yes, I referred him to related videos by Thunderf00t and AndromedasWake.
JRChadwick 3 years ago
Haha, two minutes in, and "dr." says human population growth rate might be slowing down now. What a fool. even my 8 year old cousin knows population of the earth is growing by the day. Honestly, they learn this shit in 2nd grade.
DeadBabyJesus 3 years ago
Yes the population is increasing (1st order derivative) but the rate of increase is decreasing (2nd order derivative), Both can be true and in the case of human population the second is probably true.
marcsurtees 3 years ago
Citation?
DeadBabyJesus 3 years ago
You quite clearly outlined that you would be arguing for a young Earth. Yet you also stated that 20-30Ma was "nothing" compared to the age of the Earth. If you maintain that the Earth is young, then on what ground can you substantiate that point? It seems to me you would have to admit then the Earth is as old as evidence suggests for that point to be valid. One too many coincidences? You realise that over 5% of moons in the solar system produce total solar eclipses? It's not unlikely.
AndromedasWake 3 years ago 2
The point was that if the Earth is 4.8 billion years old it is fairly improbable that we would be around to see solar eclipses which are a short lived affair but if the solar system is young then it is not
Which moons produce total solar eclispes where the moon and the sun have very similar apparent diameters?
marcsurtees 3 years ago
How did you arrive at the figure of 20-30Ma? I make it between 500Ma and 1Ba depending on whether or not you factor in the slowing rate of recession of the Moon. Hardly a short-lived affair.
All other total eclipses in the solar system are occultations, which is to be expected considering the distance from those planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune) and Pluto to the Sun.
Do explain why eclipses are probable in a young solar system. Does your specific deity like them?
AndromedasWake 3 years ago 4
"How did you arrive at the figure of 20-30Ma? I make it between 500Ma and 1Ba depending on whether or not you factor in the slowing rate of recession of the Moon. Hardly a short-lived affair."
I didn't notice that! It makes sense now. I added an annotation.
JRChadwick 3 years ago
Your not even making a point here, Its a simple co-incidence. Your simply listing phoenomena and saying "God did it" and leaving it at that. What decuctions can you make from that closing statements about aparant surface areas? The Jupiter-Europa Transit is a pheonomenon, therefore god exists. I threw a rock in the air, that totally obscured the sun for a second, and had a very similar aparant diameter, therefore God designed the rock for that purpose?
revolvingdoo 3 years ago 2
This comment was to Mr Certees about his comment on the total solar ecplipse.
revolvingdoo 3 years ago
"if the Earth is 4.8 billion years old it is fairly improbable that we would be around to see solar eclipses"
Talking snakes, virgin births, resurrections, healing of the sick/blind, global floods, living in whales for 3 days, talking snakes, and unicorns are MORE THAN fairly improbable, there's NO evidence they're possible. Considering the vastness of the universe, and the billions of moons, it's FAR more likely to happen than many things in the bible.
lennyhipp 3 years ago
Probability fail.
What is the probability of a beautifull semetric purple crystal to form? Trillions of atoms in exactly the right order. Heaps more improbable then loads of stuff. yet, the earth holds millions of those. if you don't understand applied probability, don't use it.
dxrocker69 2 years ago
I reffered him to both "Why do People Laugh at Creationists? (Part 2)" and "CrAP Debunked 2". Yet he still deffends this argument!
JRChadwick 3 years ago
I'm glad that someone has the time to do this video. While I could refute some of these claims in several comments made(dunno if they made it throught the tight scrutiny he demonstrates towards comments), there was many points that I didn't honestly have the slightest idea how to rebut.
And being busy writing a rebuttal to "The Dawkins Letters" I secretly hoped someone else would rise up to the task. Looking forward to the rest of the series. Doing great so far :)
Daealis 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Want to know Nephilimfree's
Home address?
His silent phone number?
Names of his family members?
stonedcommander10 3 years ago
I do not condone the release of anyone's personal information without their prior consent. Any such posts will be deleted and you will be blocked.
JRChadwick 3 years ago
"Reading" is a town in the UK and it's pronounced "RED-ING"
geffel 3 years ago 3
Damn, my bad. That makes a lot more sense. :)
JRChadwick 3 years ago
Yes reading's famous children include Ricky Gervais and Kate Winslet and..that's it I think.
geffel 3 years ago
And I don't know who those people are!
JRChadwick 3 years ago
You know what is even funnier? I live near Reading, CA. and I still made that mistake!
JRChadwick 3 years ago
Now that's a mistake!
geffel 3 years ago
Actually it is Redding, CA. I feel less thick now! :)
JRChadwick 3 years ago
Redding is way north - that's practically Oregon! Anyway, it's another little bit of useless trivia to store in your brain.
geffel 3 years ago
Thanks BiggusRobbicus for your support! The important thing to remember is that my calcualtions are all approximations. The aim is to show that 1) the current comditions on Earth could be arrived at quite quickly. 2) When we assume an Earth that is millions or billions or years old then some of the observations do not seem to fit. Yes there are possible explanations, but the simplier solution is to assume a young Earth
marcsurtees 3 years ago
Absolute rubbish, the simplest solution is to account for all available evidence and fit them into a coherent model concerning cosmological timescales. Evidence across the sciences all point to timescales of billions of years. Besides, you should be aware that the current diversity of the global population could never stem from a single family without mass death from irrecoverable genetic homozygosity.
As for your approximations, no doubt you modelled them on biblical scripture, not science
lonerook860 3 years ago 2
Regarding the problem of homozygosity
see:
tinyurl(dot)com/b65a6z
marcsurtees 3 years ago
Two questions:
1.) Are you medically insane?
2.) Have you seen Wikipedia? It seems to me that you have been living under a rock the past 100 years.
carrierexchange 3 years ago
1) last time I asked myself I seemed to give a reasonable answer ;-)
2) you mean that wonderful repository of knowledge that tells us that the difference between human and chimp DNA is 30%.
marcsurtees 3 years ago
Being unwilling to accept the veracity of scientific proof is not adequate refutation. It doesn't matter that you hate the notion of having chimp DNA. Our DNA is pretty similar to that of bananas, or shrimp. You may not like it. But if you're going to question it, you're going to have to do an awful lot of work to overturn the research of decades.
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
In fact, let's stick with your bashing of Wikipedia. A publicly editable encyclopaedia will not automatically become nonsense. Anything scientific is going to end up being edited and entered by scientists or students of science, and incorrect or unsupported entries will be challenged and deleted. Why not trace to the citation for our genetic similarity to chimps, and directly question THOSE scientists instead of just blanket-dismissing the entirety of Wikipedia?
Th1sWasATriumph 3 years ago
I was not bashing wikipedia I was actually approving of the fact that it states that humans and chimps are 30% different.
Rather than the usual 1 to 5% that we get in the text books.
marcsurtees 3 years ago
"I was not bashing wikipedia I was actually approving of the fact that it states that humans and chimps are 30% different.
Rather than the usual 1 to 5% that we get in the text books."
well it sure looked like sarcasm the first time i read it.
now wait a minute. You're saying something that can be edited by any creationist moron to support their world view is a more reliable source than the peer reviewed and tested claims made by a consensus of scientists that make it to text books? wow.
lennyhipp 3 years ago
So when Wikipedia supports you it is good when it doesn't it is not? You pick and chose like a liberal christian!
Look under:
Human_evolutionary_genetics
Sequence divergence between humans and apes - last sentence of first paragraph
marcsurtees 3 years ago
"when Wiki supports you it is good when it doesn't it is not?"
You're a scientist and this is the way you argue?
I asked you for clarification for what you talking about because all i was able to find was several instances that contradicted your comment, and since you didn't clarify the first time. Unlike you, I don't make assumptions on non evidence
I'll read up on the references and the wiki article and get back to you on this.
lennyhipp 3 years ago
" you mean that wonderful repository of knowledge that tells us that the difference between human and chimp DNA is 30%."
I've just browsed wiki and found more than a dozen articles stating a 95-98% similarity in human/chimp DNA. PLEASE show me a page that states anything greater than 6%
Also, regarding homozygosity, you didn't seriously just link us to your own paper regarding it as your evidence to support yourself, did you!?
lennyhipp 3 years ago
If you mean "simpler" in the sense of 'that way I don't need to think, ask difficult questions and invest loads of time in research" then yes, you are correct. it is far simpler to just say "god-dun-it".
You are a disgrace to biology.
dxrocker69 2 years ago
If this guy is a biologist, did he just not turn up to his microbiology or ecology lessons? If biological populations could happily continue to grow without regard to resources, we'd all be buried miles deep in bacteria and fungi in less than a decade. There's such a thing as the maximum capacity of an ecosystem, plus plagues, plus famines, all of which dent both population growth and populations. If this guy is a biologist, does he really believe this? I know Nephilimfree would.
BiggusRobbicus 3 years ago 2
The obvious Biological reasons for debunking that bullshit argument have been stated so many times that I did not want to do it again. So, I figured it would be more interesting to demonstrate Surtee's "calculation". I did not even want to attempt to figure out the random numbers he used to figure out how many dead bodies there "should be." Perhaps he looked up the size of the average grave site and multiplied it by 4,000,000,000?
JRChadwick 3 years ago
I think that would be about right. His maths may be correct, but you know what they say, nonsense in, nonsense out.
Going by his numbers, we should also expect to see 24 "tombs" per square mile of Earth's land surface (which of course, has never changed at all, despite the ice ages) just from the people alive in 1850. I wonder how many of those bodies have survived 150 years as intact, identifiable, skeletons, let alone ones from 100,000 plus years ago.
BiggusRobbicus 3 years ago
Thanks, BiggusRobbicus, for your (partial) support!
The important thing to remember is that my calcualtions are all approximations. The aim is to show that 1) the current comditions on Earth could be arrived at quite quickly. 2) Also if we assume an Earth that is millions or billions or years old then some of the observations do not seem to fit. Yes there are possible explanations, but the simplier solution is to assume a young Earth
marcsurtees 3 years ago
"Thanks, BiggusRobbicus, for your (partial) support!"
Marc, my support for you here is non-existent. I find your use of the argument "maybe we haven't been here long enough to fill the planet" to be unbelieveably ignorant at best and extremely deceptive at worst.
Your calculations are heavily over simplistic, and you have given me no reason, here or in your messages, to think that there are any observations of the natural world that fit better with a younger Earth.
BiggusRobbicus 3 years ago
You state that the moon being in a position to give solar eclipses in the first place is a "a bit too much" coincidence, when most moons in the solar system will manage at least a partial one, by virtue of being on roughly the same orbital plane as their parent planet.
I can respect your (apparent) willingness give ground in the area of alternate theories, but the arguments you are presenting here appear to have little to no basis.
BiggusRobbicus 3 years ago
"but the simplier solution is to assume a young Earth"
You're a scientist... WHY would you START with an assumption!? The BEST solution is to start with NO assumptions and let the empirical evidence speak for itself, and then to TEST the evidence.
tinyurlDOTcom/cqhya2
shows the world population chart based on available data. Note that it DOES NOT show exponential growth.
Please show some credible evidence to suggest the current rate has been constant throughout history.
lennyhipp 3 years ago
All hypotheses are assumptions which are then tested. That's the way I do science.
Yes actual population growth was not exponential but it can be when resources are not limited and there are no factors preventing high reproductive rates.
I was not trying to prove that population growth was constant. I was illustrating the reasonableness of assuming a recent start to the human population by showing even a very modest groth rate gets to 6 billion very quickly.
marcsurtees 3 years ago
"All hypotheses are assumptions which are then tested. That's the way I do science."
Well then you're doing it wrong little demented one. If you cannot see you're shoe horn fitting your evidence to fit a pre-conceived assumption, then you're beyond the help anyone here can provide. What you SHOULD start with is an OBSERVATION and then make an assumption on that observation and test it.
"the simplier solution is to assume a young Earth"
Again, HOW could you possibly START with that assumption?
lennyhipp 3 years ago
"Yes actual population growth was not exponential"
but you went and assumed it was anyway?! WHY?
"it can be when resources are not limited..."
But you KNOW the resources WERE limited, and you KNOW factors prevented high reproductive rates. You're being purposely disingenuous or obfuscating
"I was illustrating the reasonableness of assuming a recent start to the human population by showing even a very modest groth rate gets to 6 billion very quickly"
but you just admitted your model was WRONG!
lennyhipp 3 years ago
I do not know that resources were limited, and I do not know that there were factors that prevented high reproductive rates.
Those are your assumptions about the past that you cannot verify. Yes, I know that there is a case that can be made, but the alternative hypothesis is also one that can be tested. The fixed slow rate of growth was an illustration and as with all illustrations fall apart when pushed to extremes.
marcsurtees 3 years ago
"I do not know that resources were limited"
Then you haven't done your homework! It's very silly to assume it wasn't based on the evidence
"I do not know that there were factors that prevented high reproductive rates"
contradicting what you said yesterday:
"actual population growth was not exponential"
"The fixed slow rate of growth was an illustration and as with all illustrations fall apart when pushed to extremes"
WRONG. The ONLY way your illustration fits is by being pushed to the extreme!
lennyhipp 3 years ago
Ok. Please cite scientific journals (issue number + page) in wich we can read your peer reviewed papers about the crap you spew on here. Because you see... peer review and publication in science journals are quite an important part of the scientific method. In fact... you're not doing science if you're not doing that.
dxrocker69 2 years ago
Using YOUR ridiculous assumption of constant growth rates:
1) Every square inch of earth would have a 10ft pile of bacteria in a few weeks!
2) There would have been LESS THAN 1K people on earth when the pyramids were built, given what we know about civilizations at the time, this would leave Egypt with about SEVENTEEN people to build all the pyramids at Giza!
3) This would give the WORLD population at christ's birth LESS THAN the number of Roman citizens at the time!
lennyhipp 3 years ago
As I have said previously the const rate was to illustrate the point that it would not take very long to populate the Earth and that there is therefore no problem to explain 6 billion plus people in a young Earth paradigm.
marcsurtees 3 years ago
"As I have said previously the const rate was to illustrate the point that it would not take very long to populate the Earth"
As we have REPEATEDLY shown, it's pretty STUPID to use a constant rate because it is a well known FACT that it wasn't constant, so throw that wild conjecture of yours right out the window!
"and that there is therefore no problem to explain 6 billion plus people in a young Earth paradigm."
There IS if the evidence says otherwise. Mainly agricultural technology.
lennyhipp 3 years ago
Hey, Dr. F.D. I did not realize you were still commenting on my videos. I can not believe you are still defending your growth rate argument! Can you at least let that go?
Why not make a video in your realm of expertise? What about the breading cycles of Gray Squirrels disproves evolution? Why talk about Astronomy when you don't understand it?
I would also be interested in your thoughts on my last two videos on you.
JRChadwick 3 years ago
you forgot geometry:)
calvinhobbesliker2 3 years ago
Actually, it is not required. Although, many of the basic Geometric principles are covered in some of the other classes.
JRChadwick 3 years ago
when the first argument is about human population growth, you just know he's made of fail.
Creationism: Re-using refuted arguments in the hope that one day everyone will forget how stupid they are.
ThetaOmega 3 years ago 5
I am going to find an appropriate image and use that second line as a Demotivational poster.
JRChadwick 3 years ago
Especially when it comes out to 1100 years, so that means Charlemagne existed 100 years before the two people we supposedly start with if that calculation of human growth was anything close to reality. LOL
brianblackberry 3 years ago
Great, this guy is spouting off on what is outside of his field. Also most biologists would know a thing or two about populations. Not to mention he was using a constant equation to something that is not constant. Maybe he should get back to selling rocks and other shiny baubles to kids to get them interested in the "controversy".
Shizzam42 3 years ago
"Not to mention he was using a constant equation to something that is not constant."
My thoughts exactly. I can't wait for the next installment.
sockpuppetsfromhell 3 years ago
I hate that growth rate argument, it has to be one of the dumbest arguments against evolution.
sweatytoothmadman 3 years ago
I simply can not fathom how anyone can think it is a good argument!
JRChadwick 3 years ago
Debunk the crap out of this fool. I'm ashamed he's from England and sony should be ashamed he's using a vaio.
th3d3wd3r 3 years ago 2
Hey, you may feel bad that this guy is English, but I am glad that there is finally an idiot Creationist who isn't an American! :)
I wonder if NephilimFree will see this.
JRChadwick 3 years ago