err.. the flaw is that it didn't start with only TWO humans in the beginning !! There is no such thing as the "first two humans". So what's with the bacteria...
the difference b/w people and bacteria is that people have been top of the food chain and able to adapt to his environmental surroundings for thousands of years. bacteria and all animals have been at the mercy of predators, the environment and availability of food for this time, which is why their numbers are restricted, there is no such reasons for human population to be restricted. the population argument is a very good one showing the unlikeliness of human evolution over 100,000s of years.
@shanedk i'll restate my comment... if humans have been human for 100,000s of year, this means that they have had no predators, competitors or environmental constraints for thousands of generations. The things that restrict population growth in bacteria and animals simply don't apply to people. so what prevented humans from multiplying?
@ferrel81 "if humans have been human for 100,000s of year, this means that they have had no predators, competitors or environmental constraints for thousands of generations."
@shanedk Relative to other creatures humans have had NO predators. Civilisations migrated around the world to escape their competitors and move to more suitable environments. Humans have also been able to or change their environment. My point is human growth rate is not subject to the same constraints as other creatures. can you not see the truth in this!?
@ferrel81 We would freeze or starve on half the land mass on Earth; on half of the rest of it, we'd have a 50/50 chance of being eaten by a predator without modern technology!
And that's NOT counting all of the diseases etc. we have to contend with, which killed a HELL of a lot of people before modern medicine!
Since the beginning of the agricultural era, an estimated 100 billion people have lived; 50 billion--fully HALF--of those DIED AS CHILDREN!!!
@shanedk 'an estimated' - who's estimate? your theories are based on assumptions without evidence due to your commitment to an evolutionary model. you make these assumptions because evolution requires them to be true, not because the evidence suggests they are true! open your eyes, evolution didn't happen!
@shanedk thank you. coming from you that's a compliment.
the 'consensus of population experts' are theories based on assumptions, without evidence, due to their commitment to an evolutionary model. they make these assumptions because evolution requires them to be true, not because the evidence suggests they are true! Personally, i can't believe anyone would believe all the evolutionary nonsense that is out there. the more you investigate it, the more far fetched it gets.
@shanedk not just me, millions of others as well. it's no conspiracy, it's belief system that man has created because he doesn't want to accept the reality of a god who created him and, therefore, has authority over him. when you really think about it, you believe evolution on faith, not because it has been proven it to you beyond doubt. why is defending your faith in evolution so important that you create these videos and debate it with people like me? this video is bogus. evolution is debunked
@ferrel81 The question is "why" not "what" and the reason "why" is you are too stupid/ignorant to recognize reason when you see it even when it is made very understandable through the clarity offered by simple mathematics. You are a fool who serves another master than truth - hence, you are a tool. Get an education you simpleton..
@wkrepelin perhaps it is you who should acquire the education. I have no problem with the simple mathematics offered in this video, the problem i have is the comparison between the growth rate of bacteria and the growth rate of people. the two are completely unrelated. to suggest that this video is evidence for the evolutionary model for human population erroneous as best, propaganda at worst!
@ferrel81 I challenge you to find ONE population expert (note: that means, NOT idiot unqualified creationists like the guy in this video) who says it's different. ONE.
The formula for population growth is P' = rP(1 - P/m). Once you understand what "m" is, and why they chose "m" as the letter to use for the variable, you'll understand how you've been completely fucking stupid.
@shanedk i am unable to meet that challenge to your satisfaction because, by your definition of the word expert, someone who accepts the bible and rejects evolution is automatically excluded from being considered an expert. of course all of your 'experts' come to similar figures because their faith in evolution requires the figures to be as they state. There is no evidence to support the belief that humans were on the brink of extinction for 100,000 years, it's just that evolution requires it.
@shanedk (1) I can meet the challenge, jut not you your satisfaction. Nothing I can write will be to your satisfaction because you are a tad stubborn and dogmatic about your faith in evolution. And the 'brink of extinction' bit was a paraphrase of what your standard evolutionist claims about the history of human population, but the point still stands - the evolutionary view of population is not one based on evidence, rather it is based on what an evolutionary world view requires to be the case..
@shanedk (2) ... You look at the world today, you compare it to what you believe has taken place in the past and you connect the dots. hey presto - a graph of the human population over the last 100,000 years. I guess it's just a coincidence that a more plausible population growth rate marries up incredibly well with the proposed age if the earth from a biblical perspective. But then any concurrence between reality and the bible is mere coincidence isn't it!?
@ferrel81 "You look at the world today, you compare it to what you believe has taken place in the past and you connect the dots. hey presto - a graph of the human population over the last 100,000 years."
No, LIAR, that's what those creationist idiots did!
@shanedk Well if the assumptions they make in their calculations aren't evolutionary ones, what are they? And go on, prove to me once and for all that evolution is fact and the bible is fiction by telling me what the "m" means.
As a side note, what's with the childish insults you keep adding? I believe you are wrong, but I don't make it personal.
@shanedk i have very little interest in what the m stands for. I hardly see how it will strengthen your argument. My original point - that this video is unrelated to the history of human population - is still valid, whether you accept it or not. Call your population mechanics whatever you want, they are still based on a presumed age of humanity, which is based on a belief in evolution.
Let's talk plausible - an annual growth rate of less than 0.5% b/w 2000BC and 1800AD. The bible predicts this.
@shanedk The current global annual population growth rate is about 1.1%. During the baby boom it peaked at about 2.2%. Considering increased birth rates, but also significantly increased death rates due to war, disease etc. a long term average growth of about half what it is today is both conservative and realistic. If the bible is considered accurate, the actual average annual growth rate from the flood to 1800AD was about 0.455%.
@ferrel81 Are you high??? According to the Census Bureau, the current rate is 2.01 per couple, making a rate of 1.005, slightly more than 100% but slightly LESS than the 105% needed for replacement fertility (because not every child goes on to have children). 2.2% is a baby boom??? That's a baby BUST!!! Plug in .022 for r in rP(1-P/m) and you'll get a PLUMMETING population!!!
You know FUCK ALL about what you're talking about.
@shanedk Are you being intentionally ridiculous?... From Wikipedia - "Globally, the growth rate of the human population has been declining since peaking in 1962 and 1963 at 2.20% per annum. In 2009, the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%."
I don't know what you're on about but it appears that you either don't know how to use your formula or you're using the wrong formula. Put your formula away and just use a little logic. 1.1% means that 6.94 billion this year will be 7.01billion next year.
@shanedk 8 people came of the ark about 2310BC (+/- a few decades). 1 billion in 1800AD. Annual growth rate of 0.455% gets you from one to the other. Since 1800AD, growth rates are known pretty accurately.
In any event, the specifics are irrelevant. The fact of the matter is the worlds population fits the biblical world view of history FAR better than evolutionary one. It can be confidently stated that human evolution over 100,000s of year = implausible to the brink of impossibility.
@ferrel81 It will be the fact-filled pwnage that deluded creationist morons will wrongly call "ignorant and erroneous" because they have to LIE to sustain their world-view, yes.
@vspqbd I guess i should watch it out of respect. I won't resort to repeatedly calling you a liar if i don't agree with or understand your point of view, even thought this seems to be your default response if you disagree with me.
@shanedk watched and commented on... lies included for your entertainment!! And by lies, of course, I mean truths that are contrary to your belief system.
I'm trying to understand just how stupid you need to be not to understand this video... Could you please elucidate me?
As for your poor excuse of an argument that the rate "predicted" by the bible is "plausible", two questions:
1) how do you know? 2) how many other animal species did "creationist scientists" analyze for consistency?... I know it's a pet peeve of us who actually understand what evidence is, but we prefer having several data points to analyze instead of one.
Wow. I am a career math teacher myself. The only large numbers here are the number of errors in assumptions in that guys calculations. Actual population growth is NOT arithmetic. It is actually a rather complex series of differential equations last time I saw it.......
@th30r3m wait, are you saying that nature is accurately described by differential equations usually of order 2 and seldom of an order higher than four? Somebody bring me a runge- kutta model... yep, he's right. You are too correct my friend, well said. :)
Actually using the reproductive rate of bunnies, I calculated that in less then 2 years bunnies will reproduce to such a rate that they will be more massive then the earth.
@ironman197268 Decayed. VERY few skeletons actually survive any length of time. The dodo has only been extinct for ~200 years, but it was only last year that a full dodo skeleton was actually found.
I mean, don't you creationists know ANYTHING about the food cycle? Do you REALLY think we should be standing on the corpses of every single animal that lived before us?
@shanedk Does that mean you're banging your head on your desk? Is your bacteria analogy saying that bacteria can cover the Earth by 2 meters in a couple of years, but can't do it in 150,000 years?
Something tells me our confused friend didn't watch the video he's commenting on. Or if he did, he pulled a cult move, covering his ears going "la lalalala!"
@shanedk Shane, I'm sure you know that the United States is #1 in obesity. That means there's too many resources going around. This planets population is as high as it's been, since before the flood of Noah. The resources we have today are doing MORE than enough for the nearly 7 billion humans on the planet today!! Why was there a problem back then?
@shanedk OK... first, I don't know why in the world an economy would even be necessary, in that make believe time, for a human to go out into the world and get free food. Second, how hard is it to pick an orange off a tree, or pull a carrot out of the ground? How is it the humans 150,000 years ago didn't advance in technology the way humans have today? They certainly had plenty of time?
@ironman197268 "I don't know why in the world an economy would even be necessary, in that make believe time, for a human to go out into the world and get free food."
Because nothing's free! And food was very rare. You think they could just go out and pick apples off a tree anytime they wanted to?
"Second, how hard is it to pick an orange off a tree, or pull a carrot out of the ground?"
Ask a farmer: it takes a LOT of hard work to do that!
@shanedk Bad news Shane, Farming is something I did for the first 25 years of my life, I know all about it. Yes, it is a lot of hard work...SO!! That's why families during the great depression had as many children as possible, "Free Labor." Now are you saying that if you have an pear tree on your property, that it would cost you money to go up and pick it off that tree?
@shanedk Another thing, if evilution gave birth to human beings 150,000 years ago, why were humans 130,000 years ago not making time machines, matter transporters an such. I mean, just look at what this population today has done with technology in the past 200 years.
@ironman197268 One, *anatomically* modern humans appeared before *behaviourally* modern humans--the latter only appeared about 50,000 years ago. Moreover, technology doesn't advance at a linear rate; it advances at an *exponential* rate--and no, this doesn't support your point considering that the only reason we've been advancing so fast is because we're already well into the curve. An exponential growth rate predicts that past development would have been slower than present development.
@belladonna5012 You got some evidence of these anatomic humans appearing before the behavioral ones? Scientists can't even find a "Make Believe" hominid skeleton, let alone find billions of real ones!! So what makes you think they know what kind of BRAIN activity, these make believe creatures, had going on 50,000 years ago? Watch your step!! Your YEARS are starting to get younger and younger, and your getting closer and closer to OBSERVABLE time...... Evilution is an endangered theory
@shanedk Now earlier you said bones decay, and that's why massive amounts of humans skeletons can't be found, now you're saying 8 million year old arthur lipithucas ones are found?
Show me some pictures of these so called "REAL" hominid skeletons please, and not those old ape and monkey skulls that have nearly half of their parts missing replaced with plastic.
@shanedk Hey Shane, are you going to answer me about why humans don't have space stations orbiting Neptune, and exploration vessels that can travel to the center of the sun to study nuclear fusion up close? Evilutionists say monkeys can learn sign language, shouldn't they be drawing blueprints for schools by now? Monkeys are our cousins right? What lack of resources held them back? They would simply follow the bananas, or just live off of the colony of lice that grows in their heads.
@shanedk Who's sick Shane? That didn't answer anything, it just made you look even WORSE!!! What about all those anti-gravity belts scientists found fossilized with a bunch of trilobites....Buwwaaahahaahahahahaa!!!
@shanedk I noticed at the end of your video you said, "always follow the evidence no matter where it leads you" what evidence for evilution are you following? Just face it, you're not going to be able to come up with an answer as to why technology isn't 150,000 times more advanced than it is today, if human beings walked this planet 150,000 years ago. Regardless of what the population did, the survivors would have passed on their knowledge to the next generation and so on.
@ironman197268 "what evidence for evilution are you following?"
I've got a whole book full of it. And it doesn't even scratch the surface.
And again, the reason why we aren't more advanced is because you religious fucks have been oppressing people for thousands of years. We didn't start taking off until the Enlightenment.
@shanedk A whole book full of it? It's full of it all right!! OK, just give me one empirical piece of that evidence that doesn't even scratch the surface. You do know that evolution is a religion too right? We haven't been holding anybody back, we love technology. Moses started righting The Bible 3500 years ago, so what religions were holding back the advancement of technology 146,500 years before that?
@ironman197268 I have lots throughout my videos. You could start with my series How Evolution Is Scientific (the book is a companion to this with the same title).
@shanedk I'm sure your videos are just going to be a lot of bias talk about cellular division, mutations, chromosome fusion and stuff like that. I want to here, or see something observable to support evolution, if you have one of those videos in particular, please send it to me. Now... why was technology held back because of religion, up until humans reached the age of 146,500 years old? 146,500 years of humans would produce some MASSIVE technology. What happened to it?
@vspqbd Did you really think I was serious about NASA announcing that? Yes, I do not believe NASA put a man on the moon. One day the truth will be known, and when the moon landings being FAKED are exposed, I'm going to be glad I'm not a part of yours and Shane's group that sat around and called people like me idiots for believing it's a hoax.
@vspqbd Oh yeah, you guys need to come up with some new names to call us. FUCKTARD, or any word to do with it, is really old now, and just shows how unoriginal you people are!!
ShaneDK arguments fail completely: The population:resource ratio is much lower today than when humankind started, according to the evo model, and still pop. growth rates have averaged > 1.5% under present circumstances. The implicit mortality rates under ShaneDK assumptions would have brought total extinction in less than a 1,000 years as per demographic math (just do the math, idiot!).
What a perfect moron you are!!!! The population : resource ratio is much more lower today that when humankind started according to the evolutionary model, and population growth rates have still averaged over 1.5% during present circumstances. So you fail. Also, the implicit mortality rates according to your argument should have been close to extinction levels for many thousand years, which renders your mathematic not susteinable....what a jerk!
ur kidding, that theory to animals that are different are stronger and all that crap, no way. as soon as there is an ugly ducking of sort it gets abandoned like in the story, and it happens with all animals the odd ones gets left out and will die. look at birds, if its different the mother will leave it to die, it will never learn how to fly and will either get eaten by a predator or starve.
@Sweddude i meant as soon as something starts to change it will just die off cause its different, look at animals for instance, if its different the mother will either eat, kill or leave it to die.
@CM211568 Exept that with evolution the changes are not happenin radicly enough to notice, and no, the mother wont kill/abandon their young just because its diferent, it will do that if it will become a hinderance.
Preachers=Snake-oil salemen. The majority of them in the South used biblical scriptures to justify their cold-blooded ownership of slaves. They've been using 'marketing' techniques to seduce people into their churches....blind leading the blind...
@MumblingMickey Since, your grasp on math is apparently better than mine. I think I'll leave the figuring of the population growth (backwards) to you. As far as THE ? you insist I ask. Your going to have to spell it out to me, because I have no ideal what it is. I wonder though can you tell how often an area of the ground was disturbed? Sqaure foot gardening can yeild a lot of veg.'s in a small area. And pre-flood/post-flood the land difference is a factor to me. I know you don't agree.
@vbirdieb My grasp of math is fine... Its on e of the things I pride myself on (ohh yeah pride in ones abilities is a sin isn't it?But I'm sorry if I feel pride that several thousand people have a degree in physics thanks to my input.)
Anyway a quick look at my channel will tell you my math is fucking off the charts compared to this idiot! and yes I'm over qualified to tell you he's an idiot... a bank teller could tell you that!
@vbirdieb The spelling out of that question I'm afraid is related to you understanding WHY this mathematician is wrong... So again I suggest you open up excel... and calculate a 10% compound interest rate on say $1000 dollars over ten years..
Then calculate the same figure for 5% over 5 years and 15% over the next 5 years... the average is still 10%....
10% x 10 ==100
5% over 5 years plus 15% over 5 years is 100!
You need to calculate that first...then ask the obvious.
@MumblingMickey IF you don't know how to do that in excel PM me and I'll send you an excel doc which you can fill in with the figures.... I'm not questioning your skills in math... but if you haven't grasped this then, well , what can I say?
As I said the question will not be related to religion... nor will it be related to evolution.... it'll be one of those unrelated questions you'll probably end up mailing or probably calling this guy about... You certainly won't be a happy camper!
@vbirdieb If I do it for you... it'll be just something you read... if you do it for yourself...you'll immediately ask the obvious question.... So I'm not you...ergo I can't reason for you.
@TakesTwoToTango Erm... I don't think any professor would be hired by a high school surely? And seriously what sort of education will those kids get... he isn't even familiar with basic mathematical principles...
@MumblingMickey And I didn't think anybody could read my above comment and not get it's just to mock the scenario and actor these creationists wrote out? If you see a creationist video: most of it is lies over and over again. Take Kent Hovind who introduces him as a highschool science teacher everywhere he goes: by that he means he homeschooled his kids on highschool science. And if that was just an isolated case, I wouldn't be complaining here...
@TakesTwoToTango I'd rather not 'take kent hovind' if you don't mind. Unless you are referring to me taking him to a real building concerned with real science for a day out?
Have you seen the junk he submitted and was awarded a doctorate for? When I was a teenager I had heard that you could literally buy a doctorate in the US for next to nothing. But I was too naive at the time to consider the consequences of that!
Thankfully the saying 'publish or perish' is alive and well!
What an unpleasant character. I gave up trying to work out your maths, because it doesnt appear very accurate. Bacteria, if of the coccus type, are generally spherical and on average about 1 micron in diameter. It appears you dont know the formula for calculating the volume of a sphere. I was nearly convinced what you were stating, but your offensiveness made me search for more accurate material which I found by way of Equestions.
Well considering what you are stating here would require some degree of accuracy at least, then I would have thought it was pretty well relevant. I too have seen PLENTY of bacteria FAR from spherical. OK!
@gillettsibert1 WHAT degree of accuracy? We're talking exponential growth here! If I'm off by a factor of a thousand, just add one more week to the time!
Besides, I deliberately used a size on the SMALLER end of the scale for bacteria, just as I used a longer-than-average generation time. And I STILL got them consuming the world in just over a year.
@shanedk It doesn't matter what shape they are...since many bacteria are several times the size of others anyway.
These are very old arguments... addressed at the end of the 18th century by Malthus!
I find it absolutely incredible that there are people who put forward such idiotic arguments. And absolutely incredulous that there are those who think such idiocy is valid.
If anyone I ever met stated nonsense like this I'd automatically assume they were mentally retarded.
ShaneK you missed the bit where he said that evolution states there were only 2 humans at the start of this timescale.... that in itself of course is bullcrap...since if there were only 2 humans then...there would be NO humans now...we'd have bred ourselves into extinction!
So the bit slipped in there was the strawman that evolutionary biology supports the idea of adam and eve!
vbirdieb is correct, your math is wrong. You treated the bacteria as little ity-bity half micron cubes.
If you treated them as little itty-bity half micron spheres and took sphere packing into account, the bacteria would need an extra three and a half days to consume the entire planet.
Your answer is wrong by nearly 1/500th of an order of magnitude. Considering 3.5 creationist days is equivalent to 6.8 billion evolutionist years, that is clearly an unacceptable margin of error.
@smariot Next 3.5 creationist days are NOT equivalent to 6.8bn years... thats total bullcrap just manufactured to allow creationists who accept geologic time to square of the creation story with themselves. And there was a time when you thought the world was 6k years old yourself... until you realised that it simply couldn't be!
You should actually read and evaluate what the bible says... rather than listening to the pathetic excuses for its inaccurately by desperate wannabe scientists.
I didn't say it was 500 times less, I said 1/500th of an order of magnitude less, i.e., 10^(-1/500) or 0.995405417351527 the scale, or a difference of 3.5 days from the original answer.
Turning the 3.5 days into 6.8 billion years was a joke referencing the huge magnitude of the error young earth creationists are wrong by. 3.5 days is nothing. Unless you're a creationist, in which case you've gone from big bang to fully formed planets with liquid water.
@smariot And if I got confused there... then I can only imagine what the average creationist would make of it?!?!? Its a pity Youtube doesn't allow diagrams...we could produce them...and creationists could download them and color them in!
@smariot fuck you done the same as I did...calculated the space (as if bacteria are non malleable solids) then worked out the difference between that and a cube that is equal to the diameter of the sphere......and the time taken to compensate for the empty space.
Seriously...this is way too much energy exhausted by both of us for no good reason other than to show that observed idiocy is just that!
I just did a quick sum and extrapolated the population growth backwards based on the population growth since 1860. Guess what, at around 300AD I found that this was the point that the first two humans existed (under the model of creationism). Therefore Jesus couldn't have existed by this logic.
Therefore Christianity can't be the correct religion as Jesus had no Earth to go to at the time.
He would have if the population growth was limited by natural resources.
@sculpt2live Nope, that's why I asked for him to point it out to me. But it would've been helpful if he wasn't so hostile. Are you hostile or rational?
@shanedk My comments are based upon your video. So......who was hostile?? But, I do appologize for not fully understanding your points, because of your harsh words and for any harshness on my part, I'm sorry. Tempers fly when unnecessary insults are thrown around, although I wasn't trying to insult, but felt that your video didn't explain any faults as much, as it insults and if I missed your point the first time through. That lies at your feet.
You act like they didn't account for the industrial age. That's the thing about video's you can chop them up to make your point more valid. It also looks like you have alot of supporters to keep your ratings up and do battle for the cause. LOL. Nobody likes to be taken by surprise, and beat over the head without a fair shot at presenting their side, arguement, or belief. Why don't you let people make their own decisions of what is true or not? They have access to the same info. as you or I
@shanedk I went back and watched the original video. You didn't include how 'low' of a percentage he went down to in his calculations. Which was way below the average ever recorded in history. So the math is based on reasonable available data. If there is any mistakes, it would be in the number of years man has been on this planet.
Are you a mathmatician? If so, why not show us the calculation error, instead of mocking and suggesting he's ignorant.
@vbirdieb Because it's NOT a calculation error! It's a case of garbage in, garbage out! The lowest percentile he went to DOESN'T MATTER! (And he only did that to try and account for the flood anyway.)
@shanedk No he didn't. If that was true you would use math to prove it. I don't see you doing that. Use the same method to disprove the incorrect outcome, if that is the case.?
@vbirdieb I can't use the "same method," because as I showed the method he used is WRONG!!! I used that same method to show that we could expect bacteria to take over the entire Earth in two years. Reductio ad absurdum. Case closed; he's just WRONG.
@shanedk Bacteria has a different life span. So, that is why it cannot take over the earth. Seems to me your the one who is being absurd. Comparing apples with oranges, both living but totally different. I'm asking you to show me using the math calculation required, and point out the error. You can't do that with bacteria, it's an absurd comparison.
@vbirdieb No, I used the bacteria's lifespan. That's NOT why--the reason is LIMITED RESOURCES. A population can only grow as large as the available resources can sustain. This should be completely fucking obvious, but once again, the creationists go to any lengths to deny reality in order to support their delusion.
@shanedk I watched your video again. You used their reproducing length of time, so I geuss that would be a % of a growth rate. But, I still think the comparison of bacteria growth to human is not a suitable comparison. If you were seriously only trying to expose an error in his concept, why all the fowl language. That turns people off right away, they have trouble getting past it. How am I to take anything you say as truthful if you attack a presentation from the very start? Truth??
@vbirdieb bacteria reproduce asexually...they divide... essentially they are immortal unless something actually kills them. Or if you'd prefer to look at it another way...they ALL die during reproduction...giving birth to two bacteria each! thus they all last 1 week...the same time it takes to multiply by 2. Either way is fine.
The supposed mathematician here is an idiot... and if he was trying to convince you to invest in something using your life savings you'd agree on the spot!
@MumblingMickey- "if he was trying to convince you to invest in something using your life savings you'd agree on the spot!" WRONG......I have no money to invest in anything. Even if I did, I wouldn't unless GOD made it clear that I should.
So, bacteria die as they reproduce, more live than die, but only if nothing else kills them. Of course they are singular cell in structure, fragile actually, and really tiny. Makes sense to ensure survival, and why we're NOT overrun by them.
@shanedk I was thinking physically fragile. As in they could be crushed, but then again maybe not since their so tiny. I assumed something, without knowing all the facts, much like the assumptions made by others, perhaps you, perhaps not, that all christians are gullible and foolish with money. Or that we reject all science. Many.....times I make a point but I'm called foolish or ignorant just because I don't agree, and that's all it really is, a disagreement.
@vbirdieb because there simply aren't enough resources in their environment to allow that.... so when they run out of resources they die! then there's bacterial agents, predators, etc.
You yourself can demonstrate all this to yourself. So theres no point in arguing it...
Are you seriously trying to tell me you can't understand a simple concept like a life cycle? Tell you what... look out your window there... grass grows everywhere... so why is it not growing from your ceiling?
@MumblingMickey Good greif I was trying to be brief about what you said! You insult me right after you talk about the life cycle/reproduction of some bacteria. I don't like going on and on to make a point.
You said about bacteria- "others can stay in suspended animation for hundreds of thousands of years." Your assumption, no real proof. That the Earth has been around for millions/billions of years. There's no way to test it for accuracy. They all start with an assumption of age.
@vbirdieb Nope its not an assumption...that would indeed be a lack of evidence or validity...or proof...
Fortunately I can provide the proof, and rarely make assumptions.
Please look up professor Eske Willerslev of copenhagen university...and compare with this paper on Pubmed PMID:16701245 which incidentally has over 100 citations
I'm delighted to see you also like the idea of knowledge requiring evidence... now... is there anything else you might apply that to? hmmmm?
@vbirdieb also when I said they all last one week I was referring to the hypothetical unknown bacteria in the video... some bacteria have a lifespan of less than a few minutes before they reproduce... others can stay in suspended animation for hundreds of thousands of years.
But this planet can only sustain a certain weight in biomass... because it only has finite resources .
and that was explained a bloody long time before evolution theory ever came about! (see Malthusian catastrophe)
@MumblingMickey "But this planet can only sustain a certain weight in biomass... because it only has finite resources ." Ok, but the same biomass of plants and animals degrade to dust eventually, unless it's fossilized, but for the most part dust or dirt. Which definately is a lot less biomass, right? So it would take an awfully long time before we could ever reach that certain weight, whatever that may be? Now in terms of bacteria, really.....long. Bacteria to Human comparison, really?
@vbirdieb Biomass... remains the same...its the same because there is a finite size to the surface of the planet....and the same quantity of energy is used on an ongoing basis....please go off and look up the definition of biomass. And a word of advice (so you don't have people like me calling you an idiot all the time) .... look these things up before commenting on them.
@MumblingMickey-" the same quantity of energy is used on an ongoing basis" Ok, then why make statements that would lead me, to believe that there is, a point of critical biomass that could be obtained and then criticize me for saying it can't.? The only way it could even come close to critical unsustanability is the increase in age and number of, lets say, people to cause an imbalance. That won't happen, because people are having less babies. Which seems like a contradiction, but it's true.
@vbirdieb There is a point of critical biomass that the earth cannot sustain... thats my point. But the actual biomass has remained static.... and its done so because the same amount of energy is being received if you increase that... then the biomass of the earth will increase.... which explains why the earths biomass is higher at the equator and lower at the poles.
It has nothing to do with the amount of 'people'... what makes you think people are having 'fewer' children?
@vbirdieb And no.. the earth has that weight in biomass now... and it has been for a very long time.... regardless of how many individuals die....
The maximum biomass of the planet (the maximum biomass earth can sustain) is calculable... As you will realise after you read up on what is measured by the term 'biomass'
@MumblingMickey Now, lets take the whole population and Earth age math question. The professor took an average, a low one at that, of births per adult couple, average age at death, and then multiplied by two different Earth ages. He did this to show that millions of years is not right based upon the average number of people and population growth. So...where if at all did he go wrong? It's based on the average (not exact) of availiable information of population, we use averages all the time.
1. John HJeffner is not a professor of math... his Phd like hovinds is in theology. He's not a qualified mathimatician.
2. This would be bad enough... but to use the 'recent' increase in human population as if it were the norm is absolute bullshit... Why doesn't he use the recent 'static' population of other animals that do not have medical technology that increases their life expectancy?
3. The math is absolutely flawed if you use any other period of time... 1600-1700 for example.
@vbirdieb population of earth 1800 990million population of earth in 1900 was 1.6 billion... and in the next 100 year the same population that increased by only 60% from 1800 to 1900 increased by over 400% So yes.. lets look at this mathematicians work...century by century...using a 400% growth rate! 2000 - 5 billion 1900 - 1.5 billion 1800- 375 million 1700 - 94 million 1600 - 23 million 1500 - 6 million Now do you think there were only 6 million people alive in 1600?
@vbirdieb If you continue doing that by the time you reach the year 400ad there is only one person on the planet!
So tell me? which percentage increase should we use... 1900-2000? 1800-1900? 1700-1800? The actual rate of increase...is also increasing.exponentially and this supposed mathematician completely ignored that! What's more...he knows it!
He also knows that evolution DOES NOT state there were only two people at the outset. So he's disproving something of his own invention.
@vbirdieb Why might I ask did he not use the known population of other animals... for example the population of cheetahs in africa? or of caraboo in canada? Well those examples would show a serious 'decrease' in population of those animals...and obviously aren't going to help him...
Instead he deliberately cons naive suckers like you...who think that the worlds population growth has remained static since the year dot! It hasn't.... in the last 600 years its grown exponentially.
0.5% growth rate in population if applied year on year from 1171 when we know there were 375 million people on earth to 2011 would mean there should now be about 17 billion people on earth!
The reason there are not... is because that 0.5% was applied across the entire timespan.... and this idiot knows damn well that this is not accurate.
If it were...then from 1171 to 1800 the world population would have gone from 375 million... to 7 billion!
@vbirdieb The actual rate... from 1171 to 1750 was 0.02% growth rate.... and from 0AD to 1750 it was a lot lower.... only in 1750 with the advent of modern technology, farming techniques etc did the growth rate increase.... it now stands at 1.13%% which is 55 times what it was in 1171 AD
Now that you know why he's wrong to apply the same growth rate across the full time line you need to ask a different question! Do you know what that question is?
so the conclution of the video is that creatuionists are wrong, earth is not 6000 years old, its less than 3 years old!
OptimalElement 3 days ago
@OptimalElement Exactly! And any people you may meet from time to time are really the products of a deranged imagination.
shanedk 3 days ago
really informative and interesting
ericajjful 6 days ago
some sweet info here
alexasmithy 1 week ago
interesting video and very informative
jayejayeee 1 week ago
err.. the flaw is that it didn't start with only TWO humans in the beginning !! There is no such thing as the "first two humans". So what's with the bacteria...
Baerchenization 3 months ago
@Baerchenization According to the Bible they did.
The point with the bacteria was to demonstrate the flaw in the model he was using.
shanedk 3 months ago
the difference b/w people and bacteria is that people have been top of the food chain and able to adapt to his environmental surroundings for thousands of years. bacteria and all animals have been at the mercy of predators, the environment and availability of food for this time, which is why their numbers are restricted, there is no such reasons for human population to be restricted. the population argument is a very good one showing the unlikeliness of human evolution over 100,000s of years.
ferrel81 5 months ago
@ferrel81 Place on the food chain has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with it.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk i'll restate my comment... if humans have been human for 100,000s of year, this means that they have had no predators, competitors or environmental constraints for thousands of generations. The things that restrict population growth in bacteria and animals simply don't apply to people. so what prevented humans from multiplying?
ferrel81 5 months ago
@ferrel81 "if humans have been human for 100,000s of year, this means that they have had no predators, competitors or environmental constraints for thousands of generations."
Oh, geez, are YOU deluded!
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk Relative to other creatures humans have had NO predators. Civilisations migrated around the world to escape their competitors and move to more suitable environments. Humans have also been able to or change their environment. My point is human growth rate is not subject to the same constraints as other creatures. can you not see the truth in this!?
ferrel81 5 months ago
@ferrel81 We would freeze or starve on half the land mass on Earth; on half of the rest of it, we'd have a 50/50 chance of being eaten by a predator without modern technology!
And that's NOT counting all of the diseases etc. we have to contend with, which killed a HELL of a lot of people before modern medicine!
Since the beginning of the agricultural era, an estimated 100 billion people have lived; 50 billion--fully HALF--of those DIED AS CHILDREN!!!
You're deluded!
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk 'an estimated' - who's estimate? your theories are based on assumptions without evidence due to your commitment to an evolutionary model. you make these assumptions because evolution requires them to be true, not because the evidence suggests they are true! open your eyes, evolution didn't happen!
ferrel81 5 months ago
@ferrel81 That's the consensus of population experts--who arrived at the SAME ESTIMATE INDEPENDENTLY.
You look for any excuse, pull any semantics, to avoid the facts. You're pathetic.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk thank you. coming from you that's a compliment.
the 'consensus of population experts' are theories based on assumptions, without evidence, due to their commitment to an evolutionary model. they make these assumptions because evolution requires them to be true, not because the evidence suggests they are true! Personally, i can't believe anyone would believe all the evolutionary nonsense that is out there. the more you investigate it, the more far fetched it gets.
ferrel81 5 months ago
@ferrel81 That's right, it's all a conspiracy, and you're the only one in the world who knows TEH TR00TH...
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk not just me, millions of others as well. it's no conspiracy, it's belief system that man has created because he doesn't want to accept the reality of a god who created him and, therefore, has authority over him. when you really think about it, you believe evolution on faith, not because it has been proven it to you beyond doubt. why is defending your faith in evolution so important that you create these videos and debate it with people like me? this video is bogus. evolution is debunked
ferrel81 5 months ago
Shanedk . . . oh shanedk . . . if only I could subscribe to your channel more than once. Too good my friend . . . too good!
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin yeah and imagine how much better it would be if there were any truth to it!
ferrel81 5 months ago
@ferrel81 you're a tool
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin what, because i acknowledge that this video is complete and utter nonsense!?
ferrel81 5 months ago
@ferrel81 The question is "why" not "what" and the reason "why" is you are too stupid/ignorant to recognize reason when you see it even when it is made very understandable through the clarity offered by simple mathematics. You are a fool who serves another master than truth - hence, you are a tool. Get an education you simpleton..
wkrepelin 5 months ago
@wkrepelin perhaps it is you who should acquire the education. I have no problem with the simple mathematics offered in this video, the problem i have is the comparison between the growth rate of bacteria and the growth rate of people. the two are completely unrelated. to suggest that this video is evidence for the evolutionary model for human population erroneous as best, propaganda at worst!
ferrel81 5 months ago
@ferrel81 I challenge you to find ONE population expert (note: that means, NOT idiot unqualified creationists like the guy in this video) who says it's different. ONE.
The formula for population growth is P' = rP(1 - P/m). Once you understand what "m" is, and why they chose "m" as the letter to use for the variable, you'll understand how you've been completely fucking stupid.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk i am unable to meet that challenge to your satisfaction because, by your definition of the word expert, someone who accepts the bible and rejects evolution is automatically excluded from being considered an expert. of course all of your 'experts' come to similar figures because their faith in evolution requires the figures to be as they state. There is no evidence to support the belief that humans were on the brink of extinction for 100,000 years, it's just that evolution requires it.
ferrel81 5 months ago
@ferrel81 So, you ADMIT that the only people you can find on your side are people who are biased towards doing it.
"of course all of your 'experts' come to similar figures because their faith in evolution requires the figures to be as they state."
There is NOTHING about evolution that focuses on 4.55 billion years specifically. It could have been 3, or 8, or 10 billion, or whatever.
And no one said anything about "brink of extinction for 100,000 years." Another LIE.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk (1) I can meet the challenge, jut not you your satisfaction. Nothing I can write will be to your satisfaction because you are a tad stubborn and dogmatic about your faith in evolution. And the 'brink of extinction' bit was a paraphrase of what your standard evolutionist claims about the history of human population, but the point still stands - the evolutionary view of population is not one based on evidence, rather it is based on what an evolutionary world view requires to be the case..
ferrel81 5 months ago
@ferrel81 "I can meet the challenge, jut not you your satisfaction."
If the only possible sources you have are people who are already biased toward the conclusion, you CANNOT meet the challenge.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk (2) ... You look at the world today, you compare it to what you believe has taken place in the past and you connect the dots. hey presto - a graph of the human population over the last 100,000 years. I guess it's just a coincidence that a more plausible population growth rate marries up incredibly well with the proposed age if the earth from a biblical perspective. But then any concurrence between reality and the bible is mere coincidence isn't it!?
ferrel81 5 months ago
@ferrel81 "You look at the world today, you compare it to what you believe has taken place in the past and you connect the dots. hey presto - a graph of the human population over the last 100,000 years."
No, LIAR, that's what those creationist idiots did!
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk AND thats what your evolution 'idiots' do!
ferrel81 5 months ago
@ferrel81 Many of those population experts are NOT biologists and do NOT base their calculations on evolution. YOU ARE A LIAR.
Ever figured out what the "m" in the equation means?
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk "Ever figured out what the "m" in the equation means?"
Mortality?
interstate317 5 months ago
@interstate317 No.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk Well if the assumptions they make in their calculations aren't evolutionary ones, what are they? And go on, prove to me once and for all that evolution is fact and the bible is fiction by telling me what the "m" means.
As a side note, what's with the childish insults you keep adding? I believe you are wrong, but I don't make it personal.
ferrel81 5 months ago
@ferrel81 They're based on population mechanics that have NOTHING to do with evolution.
I'll give you a hint about the "m": it's the last initial of a guy who did his work LONG before Darwin published Origin of Species.
I have said nothing personal; only evaluating the statements and actions you have made here.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk i have very little interest in what the m stands for. I hardly see how it will strengthen your argument. My original point - that this video is unrelated to the history of human population - is still valid, whether you accept it or not. Call your population mechanics whatever you want, they are still based on a presumed age of humanity, which is based on a belief in evolution.
Let's talk plausible - an annual growth rate of less than 0.5% b/w 2000BC and 1800AD. The bible predicts this.
ferrel81 5 months ago
@ferrel81 If there's not a name that sprang immediately to mind when I said that, then you haven't studied population mechanics one tiny bit!
It's Malthus, by the way...and age is NOWHERE in the equation.
And how do you get a growth rate of 0.5%? There are only 5 babies born for every 1000 people???
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk The current global annual population growth rate is about 1.1%. During the baby boom it peaked at about 2.2%. Considering increased birth rates, but also significantly increased death rates due to war, disease etc. a long term average growth of about half what it is today is both conservative and realistic. If the bible is considered accurate, the actual average annual growth rate from the flood to 1800AD was about 0.455%.
ferrel81 5 months ago
@ferrel81 Are you high??? According to the Census Bureau, the current rate is 2.01 per couple, making a rate of 1.005, slightly more than 100% but slightly LESS than the 105% needed for replacement fertility (because not every child goes on to have children). 2.2% is a baby boom??? That's a baby BUST!!! Plug in .022 for r in rP(1-P/m) and you'll get a PLUMMETING population!!!
You know FUCK ALL about what you're talking about.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk Are you being intentionally ridiculous?... From Wikipedia - "Globally, the growth rate of the human population has been declining since peaking in 1962 and 1963 at 2.20% per annum. In 2009, the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%."
I don't know what you're on about but it appears that you either don't know how to use your formula or you're using the wrong formula. Put your formula away and just use a little logic. 1.1% means that 6.94 billion this year will be 7.01billion next year.
ferrel81 5 months ago
@ferrel81 "If the bible is considered accurate, the actual average annual growth rate from the flood to 1800AD was about 0.455%."
OK, time to put up or shut up: show your math here. If you can't, you're just spouting out random numbers--LYING again.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk 8 people came of the ark about 2310BC (+/- a few decades). 1 billion in 1800AD. Annual growth rate of 0.455% gets you from one to the other. Since 1800AD, growth rates are known pretty accurately.
In any event, the specifics are irrelevant. The fact of the matter is the worlds population fits the biblical world view of history FAR better than evolutionary one. It can be confidently stated that human evolution over 100,000s of year = implausible to the brink of impossibility.
ferrel81 5 months ago
@ferrel81 I'm working on a video now that shows how pathetically wrong and deluded you are.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk i look forward to it... will it be as ignorant and erroneous as this one?
ferrel81 5 months ago
@ferrel81 It will be the fact-filled pwnage that deluded creationist morons will wrongly call "ignorant and erroneous" because they have to LIE to sustain their world-view, yes.
Uploading as we speak.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk
You made another video? SWEET! :D I look forward to it. :)
vspqbd 5 months ago
@vspqbd I guess i should watch it out of respect. I won't resort to repeatedly calling you a liar if i don't agree with or understand your point of view, even thought this seems to be your default response if you disagree with me.
ferrel81 5 months ago
@ferrel81 It's not a default response for disagreeing with me...it's a RATIONAL response for you LYING.
shanedk 5 months ago
@shanedk watched and commented on... lies included for your entertainment!! And by lies, of course, I mean truths that are contrary to your belief system.
ferrel81 5 months ago
@vspqbd don't hold your breath, i'm sure it will be a load of nonsense, as this one is.
ferrel81 5 months ago
@ferrel81 I take it you haven't even watched it? Typical.
pythor2 5 months ago
@pythor2 I have watched it. And yes, I did find it typical.
ferrel81 5 months ago
@ferrel81 You aren't capable of basic comprehension nice.
pythor2 5 months ago
@ferrel81
I'm trying to understand just how stupid you need to be not to understand this video... Could you please elucidate me?
As for your poor excuse of an argument that the rate "predicted" by the bible is "plausible", two questions:
1) how do you know? 2) how many other animal species did "creationist scientists" analyze for consistency?... I know it's a pet peeve of us who actually understand what evidence is, but we prefer having several data points to analyze instead of one.
uvauva2 3 months ago
@ferrel81 /watch?v=6gISyHRR1RU
shanedk 5 months ago
@ferrel81
"And that[']s what your evolution 'idiots' do!" [Citation Needed]
vspqbd 5 months ago
Wow. I am a career math teacher myself. The only large numbers here are the number of errors in assumptions in that guys calculations. Actual population growth is NOT arithmetic. It is actually a rather complex series of differential equations last time I saw it.......
th30r3m 6 months ago 6
@th30r3m wait, are you saying that nature is accurately described by differential equations usually of order 2 and seldom of an order higher than four? Somebody bring me a runge- kutta model... yep, he's right. You are too correct my friend, well said. :)
wkrepelin 5 months ago
Actually using the reproductive rate of bunnies, I calculated that in less then 2 years bunnies will reproduce to such a rate that they will be more massive then the earth.
All fear the bunny apocalypse.
Craigmw45 6 months ago 4
Just admit that you're WRONG ShameDK!!!
ironman197268 7 months ago
Oh Shane... your videos are hilarious, but they are very WRONG at the same time. Seriously Man, where are all of the TRILLIONS of human skeletons?
ironman197268 7 months ago
@ironman197268 Decayed. VERY few skeletons actually survive any length of time. The dodo has only been extinct for ~200 years, but it was only last year that a full dodo skeleton was actually found.
I mean, don't you creationists know ANYTHING about the food cycle? Do you REALLY think we should be standing on the corpses of every single animal that lived before us?
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk Why are 150,000 year old human skeletons decayed, when 65,000,000 year old dinosaur bones are found...WORLDWIDE?
ironman197268 7 months ago
@ironman197268 They're not bones, they're fossils. Learn the difference.
Idiot.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk OK, then where are all the billions of fossilized human skeletons?
Did you here that NASA is going to announce that they really did fake the moon landings?
ironman197268 7 months ago
@ironman197268 [HEADDESK]
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk Does that mean you're banging your head on your desk? Is your bacteria analogy saying that bacteria can cover the Earth by 2 meters in a couple of years, but can't do it in 150,000 years?
ironman197268 7 months ago
@ironman197268 It can't do it AT ALL! There's no way it can get enough resources to do so! How could it possibly???
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk
Something tells me our confused friend didn't watch the video he's commenting on. Or if he did, he pulled a cult move, covering his ears going "la lalalala!"
vspqbd 7 months ago
@shanedk Shane, I'm sure you know that the United States is #1 in obesity. That means there's too many resources going around. This planets population is as high as it's been, since before the flood of Noah. The resources we have today are doing MORE than enough for the nearly 7 billion humans on the planet today!! Why was there a problem back then?
ironman197268 7 months ago
@ironman197268 Because they didn't have the economy or technology that we do, duh! Do you even THINK???
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk OK... first, I don't know why in the world an economy would even be necessary, in that make believe time, for a human to go out into the world and get free food. Second, how hard is it to pick an orange off a tree, or pull a carrot out of the ground? How is it the humans 150,000 years ago didn't advance in technology the way humans have today? They certainly had plenty of time?
ironman197268 7 months ago
@ironman197268 "I don't know why in the world an economy would even be necessary, in that make believe time, for a human to go out into the world and get free food."
Because nothing's free! And food was very rare. You think they could just go out and pick apples off a tree anytime they wanted to?
"Second, how hard is it to pick an orange off a tree, or pull a carrot out of the ground?"
Ask a farmer: it takes a LOT of hard work to do that!
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk Bad news Shane, Farming is something I did for the first 25 years of my life, I know all about it. Yes, it is a lot of hard work...SO!! That's why families during the great depression had as many children as possible, "Free Labor." Now are you saying that if you have an pear tree on your property, that it would cost you money to go up and pick it off that tree?
ironman197268 7 months ago
@ironman197268 It costs time and effort in upkeep of the tree--pruning etc.--so that, for one very brief period of the year, you can get pears.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk Another thing, if evilution gave birth to human beings 150,000 years ago, why were humans 130,000 years ago not making time machines, matter transporters an such. I mean, just look at what this population today has done with technology in the past 200 years.
ironman197268 7 months ago
@ironman197268 One, *anatomically* modern humans appeared before *behaviourally* modern humans--the latter only appeared about 50,000 years ago. Moreover, technology doesn't advance at a linear rate; it advances at an *exponential* rate--and no, this doesn't support your point considering that the only reason we've been advancing so fast is because we're already well into the curve. An exponential growth rate predicts that past development would have been slower than present development.
belladonna5012 7 months ago
@belladonna5012 You got some evidence of these anatomic humans appearing before the behavioral ones? Scientists can't even find a "Make Believe" hominid skeleton, let alone find billions of real ones!! So what makes you think they know what kind of BRAIN activity, these make believe creatures, had going on 50,000 years ago? Watch your step!! Your YEARS are starting to get younger and younger, and your getting closer and closer to OBSERVABLE time...... Evilution is an endangered theory
ironman197268 7 months ago
@ironman197268 "Scientists can't even find a "Make Believe" hominid skeleton"
Yeah, 'cause they keep finding real ones!
Even though Ardipithecus was only discovered a couple years ago, they've already found more specimens of that than T. rex!
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk Now earlier you said bones decay, and that's why massive amounts of humans skeletons can't be found, now you're saying 8 million year old arthur lipithucas ones are found?
Show me some pictures of these so called "REAL" hominid skeletons please, and not those old ape and monkey skulls that have nearly half of their parts missing replaced with plastic.
ironman197268 7 months ago
@ironman197268 Are you a creationist?
bebop7c2 7 months ago
@bebop7c2 Yes Sir!! Check out my page.
ironman197268 7 months ago
@shanedk I have have to give you credit, you haven't blocked me. Only quitters, losers, and cowards do that.
ironman197268 7 months ago
@ironman197268 HAHA!! have have...scratch one please
ironman197268 7 months ago
@shanedk Hey Shane, are you going to answer me about why humans don't have space stations orbiting Neptune, and exploration vessels that can travel to the center of the sun to study nuclear fusion up close? Evilutionists say monkeys can learn sign language, shouldn't they be drawing blueprints for schools by now? Monkeys are our cousins right? What lack of resources held them back? They would simply follow the bananas, or just live off of the colony of lice that grows in their heads.
ironman197268 7 months ago
@ironman197268 Fine, here's your answer: it's because of YOU SICK FUCKS!!! /watch?v=Oj9rDCrKSHw
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk Who's sick Shane? That didn't answer anything, it just made you look even WORSE!!! What about all those anti-gravity belts scientists found fossilized with a bunch of trilobites....Buwwaaahahaahahahahaa!!!
ironman197268 7 months ago
@shanedk I noticed at the end of your video you said, "always follow the evidence no matter where it leads you" what evidence for evilution are you following? Just face it, you're not going to be able to come up with an answer as to why technology isn't 150,000 times more advanced than it is today, if human beings walked this planet 150,000 years ago. Regardless of what the population did, the survivors would have passed on their knowledge to the next generation and so on.
ironman197268 7 months ago
@ironman197268 "what evidence for evilution are you following?"
I've got a whole book full of it. And it doesn't even scratch the surface.
And again, the reason why we aren't more advanced is because you religious fucks have been oppressing people for thousands of years. We didn't start taking off until the Enlightenment.
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk A whole book full of it? It's full of it all right!! OK, just give me one empirical piece of that evidence that doesn't even scratch the surface. You do know that evolution is a religion too right? We haven't been holding anybody back, we love technology. Moses started righting The Bible 3500 years ago, so what religions were holding back the advancement of technology 146,500 years before that?
ironman197268 7 months ago
@ironman197268 I have lots throughout my videos. You could start with my series How Evolution Is Scientific (the book is a companion to this with the same title).
shanedk 7 months ago
@shanedk I'm sure your videos are just going to be a lot of bias talk about cellular division, mutations, chromosome fusion and stuff like that. I want to here, or see something observable to support evolution, if you have one of those videos in particular, please send it to me. Now... why was technology held back because of religion, up until humans reached the age of 146,500 years old? 146,500 years of humans would produce some MASSIVE technology. What happened to it?
ironman197268 7 months ago
@ironman197268 Part 1 is observation.
shanedk 7 months ago
@ironman197268
Oh, dear sweet goodness you're a moon hoaxer too! Well, at least you're consistent in your fucktardedness.
vspqbd 7 months ago
@vspqbd Did you really think I was serious about NASA announcing that? Yes, I do not believe NASA put a man on the moon. One day the truth will be known, and when the moon landings being FAKED are exposed, I'm going to be glad I'm not a part of yours and Shane's group that sat around and called people like me idiots for believing it's a hoax.
ironman197268 7 months ago
@vspqbd Oh yeah, you guys need to come up with some new names to call us. FUCKTARD, or any word to do with it, is really old now, and just shows how unoriginal you people are!!
ironman197268 7 months ago
ShaneDK arguments fail completely: The population:resource ratio is much lower today than when humankind started, according to the evo model, and still pop. growth rates have averaged > 1.5% under present circumstances. The implicit mortality rates under ShaneDK assumptions would have brought total extinction in less than a 1,000 years as per demographic math (just do the math, idiot!).
raponte1955 7 months ago
What a perfect moron you are!!!! The population : resource ratio is much more lower today that when humankind started according to the evolutionary model, and population growth rates have still averaged over 1.5% during present circumstances. So you fail. Also, the implicit mortality rates according to your argument should have been close to extinction levels for many thousand years, which renders your mathematic not susteinable....what a jerk!
raponte1955 7 months ago
ur kidding, that theory to animals that are different are stronger and all that crap, no way. as soon as there is an ugly ducking of sort it gets abandoned like in the story, and it happens with all animals the odd ones gets left out and will die. look at birds, if its different the mother will leave it to die, it will never learn how to fly and will either get eaten by a predator or starve.
CM211568 8 months ago in playlist Atheist General
@CM211568 And your point is? you think evolution happens in the way of fish gives birth to half fishhalf-lizard wich gives birth to a lizard?
Sweddude 7 months ago
@Sweddude i meant as soon as something starts to change it will just die off cause its different, look at animals for instance, if its different the mother will either eat, kill or leave it to die.
CM211568 7 months ago
@CM211568 Exept that with evolution the changes are not happenin radicly enough to notice, and no, the mother wont kill/abandon their young just because its diferent, it will do that if it will become a hinderance.
Sweddude 7 months ago
@CM211568 Why don't you go learn biology from actual biologists, and not whatever Nazi propaganda you've been reading?
shanedk 7 months ago
How is it that a man (Darwin) that lived about one-hundred and fifty years ago, can be smarter then any Creationist today?
atchisrj1 8 months ago
@atchisrj1 Because creationists are just that dumb?
shanedk 8 months ago 5
Preachers=Snake-oil salemen. The majority of them in the South used biblical scriptures to justify their cold-blooded ownership of slaves. They've been using 'marketing' techniques to seduce people into their churches....blind leading the blind...
Licmycat 9 months ago
When are people going to realize that the religious are liars.
movieklump 9 months ago
Oy, that "professor of math" hasn't even heard of a Logistic function.
That's pathetic...I learned about those in friggin' high school...
vspqbd 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey Since, your grasp on math is apparently better than mine. I think I'll leave the figuring of the population growth (backwards) to you. As far as THE ? you insist I ask. Your going to have to spell it out to me, because I have no ideal what it is. I wonder though can you tell how often an area of the ground was disturbed? Sqaure foot gardening can yeild a lot of veg.'s in a small area. And pre-flood/post-flood the land difference is a factor to me. I know you don't agree.
vbirdieb 11 months ago
@vbirdieb My grasp of math is fine... Its on e of the things I pride myself on (ohh yeah pride in ones abilities is a sin isn't it?But I'm sorry if I feel pride that several thousand people have a degree in physics thanks to my input.)
Anyway a quick look at my channel will tell you my math is fucking off the charts compared to this idiot! and yes I'm over qualified to tell you he's an idiot... a bank teller could tell you that!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@vbirdieb The spelling out of that question I'm afraid is related to you understanding WHY this mathematician is wrong... So again I suggest you open up excel... and calculate a 10% compound interest rate on say $1000 dollars over ten years..
Then calculate the same figure for 5% over 5 years and 15% over the next 5 years... the average is still 10%....
10% x 10 ==100
5% over 5 years plus 15% over 5 years is 100!
You need to calculate that first...then ask the obvious.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey IF you don't know how to do that in excel PM me and I'll send you an excel doc which you can fill in with the figures.... I'm not questioning your skills in math... but if you haven't grasped this then, well , what can I say?
As I said the question will not be related to religion... nor will it be related to evolution.... it'll be one of those unrelated questions you'll probably end up mailing or probably calling this guy about... You certainly won't be a happy camper!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@vbirdieb If I do it for you... it'll be just something you read... if you do it for yourself...you'll immediately ask the obvious question.... So I'm not you...ergo I can't reason for you.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
He's a math professor who works at a highschool! This video shows why the university kicked him out xD
TakesTwoToTango 1 year ago
@TakesTwoToTango Erm... I don't think any professor would be hired by a high school surely? And seriously what sort of education will those kids get... he isn't even familiar with basic mathematical principles...
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey And I didn't think anybody could read my above comment and not get it's just to mock the scenario and actor these creationists wrote out? If you see a creationist video: most of it is lies over and over again. Take Kent Hovind who introduces him as a highschool science teacher everywhere he goes: by that he means he homeschooled his kids on highschool science. And if that was just an isolated case, I wouldn't be complaining here...
TakesTwoToTango 1 year ago
@TakesTwoToTango I'd rather not 'take kent hovind' if you don't mind. Unless you are referring to me taking him to a real building concerned with real science for a day out?
Have you seen the junk he submitted and was awarded a doctorate for? When I was a teenager I had heard that you could literally buy a doctorate in the US for next to nothing. But I was too naive at the time to consider the consequences of that!
Thankfully the saying 'publish or perish' is alive and well!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
What an unpleasant character. I gave up trying to work out your maths, because it doesnt appear very accurate. Bacteria, if of the coccus type, are generally spherical and on average about 1 micron in diameter. It appears you dont know the formula for calculating the volume of a sphere. I was nearly convinced what you were stating, but your offensiveness made me search for more accurate material which I found by way of Equestions.
gillettsibert1 1 year ago
@gillettsibert1 How can you POSSIBLY think that's at all relevant?
And I've seen PLENTY of bacteria that are FAR from spherical.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk
Yeah, so have I.
gillettsibert1 1 year ago
@shanedk
Well considering what you are stating here would require some degree of accuracy at least, then I would have thought it was pretty well relevant. I too have seen PLENTY of bacteria FAR from spherical. OK!
gillettsibert1 1 year ago
@gillettsibert1 WHAT degree of accuracy? We're talking exponential growth here! If I'm off by a factor of a thousand, just add one more week to the time!
Besides, I deliberately used a size on the SMALLER end of the scale for bacteria, just as I used a longer-than-average generation time. And I STILL got them consuming the world in just over a year.
shanedk 1 year ago 3
@shanedk It doesn't matter what shape they are...since many bacteria are several times the size of others anyway.
These are very old arguments... addressed at the end of the 18th century by Malthus!
I find it absolutely incredible that there are people who put forward such idiotic arguments. And absolutely incredulous that there are those who think such idiocy is valid.
If anyone I ever met stated nonsense like this I'd automatically assume they were mentally retarded.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
ShaneK you missed the bit where he said that evolution states there were only 2 humans at the start of this timescale.... that in itself of course is bullcrap...since if there were only 2 humans then...there would be NO humans now...we'd have bred ourselves into extinction!
So the bit slipped in there was the strawman that evolutionary biology supports the idea of adam and eve!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
1.10 seconds in the podium looks like a cock and balls.
prunt23 1 year ago
Shane, you need to learn how to "CHOP" video better.
ironman197268 1 year ago
vbirdieb is correct, your math is wrong. You treated the bacteria as little ity-bity half micron cubes.
If you treated them as little itty-bity half micron spheres and took sphere packing into account, the bacteria would need an extra three and a half days to consume the entire planet.
Your answer is wrong by nearly 1/500th of an order of magnitude. Considering 3.5 creationist days is equivalent to 6.8 billion evolutionist years, that is clearly an unacceptable margin of error.
smariot 1 year ago 6
@smariot
1. ShaneK's bacteria are hypothetical, their shape or overall volume is mostly irrelevant to the mathematical argument.
2. A Cube 10nm wide is 1micrometer cubed. A sphere 10nn in diameter is 523.6nm cubed roughly half the volume of the cube.
It is not 500 times less! As you'd realise immediately if you put a hypothetical soccer ball back in the box it came in!
To compensate just imagine larger bacteria than the ones you used since they are not all the same size anyway.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@smariot Next 3.5 creationist days are NOT equivalent to 6.8bn years... thats total bullcrap just manufactured to allow creationists who accept geologic time to square of the creation story with themselves. And there was a time when you thought the world was 6k years old yourself... until you realised that it simply couldn't be!
You should actually read and evaluate what the bible says... rather than listening to the pathetic excuses for its inaccurately by desperate wannabe scientists.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey
I didn't say it was 500 times less, I said 1/500th of an order of magnitude less, i.e., 10^(-1/500) or 0.995405417351527 the scale, or a difference of 3.5 days from the original answer.
Turning the 3.5 days into 6.8 billion years was a joke referencing the huge magnitude of the error young earth creationists are wrong by. 3.5 days is nothing. Unless you're a creationist, in which case you've gone from big bang to fully formed planets with liquid water.
smariot 1 year ago
@smariot And if I got confused there... then I can only imagine what the average creationist would make of it?!?!? Its a pity Youtube doesn't allow diagrams...we could produce them...and creationists could download them and color them in!
A brave suggestion for their development team...
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey Forgive me, I meant to say the duration was longer, not less. Pretend I didn't have that negative sign in there.
It's been a while since I wrote that, it wasn't fresh in my head.
smariot 1 year ago
@smariot fuck you done the same as I did...calculated the space (as if bacteria are non malleable solids) then worked out the difference between that and a cube that is equal to the diameter of the sphere......and the time taken to compensate for the empty space.
Seriously...this is way too much energy exhausted by both of us for no good reason other than to show that observed idiocy is just that!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
I just did a quick sum and extrapolated the population growth backwards based on the population growth since 1860. Guess what, at around 300AD I found that this was the point that the first two humans existed (under the model of creationism). Therefore Jesus couldn't have existed by this logic.
Therefore Christianity can't be the correct religion as Jesus had no Earth to go to at the time.
He would have if the population growth was limited by natural resources.
genericmember1 1 year ago
@sculpt2live Nope, that's why I asked for him to point it out to me. But it would've been helpful if he wasn't so hostile. Are you hostile or rational?
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb Read over your posts and you'll see that people are only responding to YOUR hostility.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk My comments are based upon your video. So......who was hostile?? But, I do appologize for not fully understanding your points, because of your harsh words and for any harshness on my part, I'm sorry. Tempers fly when unnecessary insults are thrown around, although I wasn't trying to insult, but felt that your video didn't explain any faults as much, as it insults and if I missed your point the first time through. That lies at your feet.
vbirdieb 1 year ago
You act like they didn't account for the industrial age. That's the thing about video's you can chop them up to make your point more valid. It also looks like you have alot of supporters to keep your ratings up and do battle for the cause. LOL. Nobody likes to be taken by surprise, and beat over the head without a fair shot at presenting their side, arguement, or belief. Why don't you let people make their own decisions of what is true or not? They have access to the same info. as you or I
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb "You act like they didn't account for the industrial age."
Because, BY HIS OWN EXPLANATION, he didn't. He used a growth rate that was present during the modern era that does NOT reflect the time before it.
He HAD a fair shot. That video was ALL TO HIMSELF. Then it was MY turn.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I went back and watched the original video. You didn't include how 'low' of a percentage he went down to in his calculations. Which was way below the average ever recorded in history. So the math is based on reasonable available data. If there is any mistakes, it would be in the number of years man has been on this planet.
Are you a mathmatician? If so, why not show us the calculation error, instead of mocking and suggesting he's ignorant.
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb Because it's NOT a calculation error! It's a case of garbage in, garbage out! The lowest percentile he went to DOESN'T MATTER! (And he only did that to try and account for the flood anyway.)
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk No he didn't. If that was true you would use math to prove it. I don't see you doing that. Use the same method to disprove the incorrect outcome, if that is the case.?
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb I can't use the "same method," because as I showed the method he used is WRONG!!! I used that same method to show that we could expect bacteria to take over the entire Earth in two years. Reductio ad absurdum. Case closed; he's just WRONG.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk Bacteria has a different life span. So, that is why it cannot take over the earth. Seems to me your the one who is being absurd. Comparing apples with oranges, both living but totally different. I'm asking you to show me using the math calculation required, and point out the error. You can't do that with bacteria, it's an absurd comparison.
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb No, I used the bacteria's lifespan. That's NOT why--the reason is LIMITED RESOURCES. A population can only grow as large as the available resources can sustain. This should be completely fucking obvious, but once again, the creationists go to any lengths to deny reality in order to support their delusion.
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I watched your video again. You used their reproducing length of time, so I geuss that would be a % of a growth rate. But, I still think the comparison of bacteria growth to human is not a suitable comparison. If you were seriously only trying to expose an error in his concept, why all the fowl language. That turns people off right away, they have trouble getting past it. How am I to take anything you say as truthful if you attack a presentation from the very start? Truth??
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb bacteria reproduce asexually...they divide... essentially they are immortal unless something actually kills them. Or if you'd prefer to look at it another way...they ALL die during reproduction...giving birth to two bacteria each! thus they all last 1 week...the same time it takes to multiply by 2. Either way is fine.
The supposed mathematician here is an idiot... and if he was trying to convince you to invest in something using your life savings you'd agree on the spot!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey- "if he was trying to convince you to invest in something using your life savings you'd agree on the spot!" WRONG......I have no money to invest in anything. Even if I did, I wouldn't unless GOD made it clear that I should.
So, bacteria die as they reproduce, more live than die, but only if nothing else kills them. Of course they are singular cell in structure, fragile actually, and really tiny. Makes sense to ensure survival, and why we're NOT overrun by them.
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb "Of course they are singular cell in structure, fragile actually"
Yeah, that explains how they can survive in extremes of cold, heat, pressure...because they're so fragile...
shanedk 1 year ago
@shanedk I was thinking physically fragile. As in they could be crushed, but then again maybe not since their so tiny. I assumed something, without knowing all the facts, much like the assumptions made by others, perhaps you, perhaps not, that all christians are gullible and foolish with money. Or that we reject all science. Many.....times I make a point but I'm called foolish or ignorant just because I don't agree, and that's all it really is, a disagreement.
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb because there simply aren't enough resources in their environment to allow that.... so when they run out of resources they die! then there's bacterial agents, predators, etc.
You yourself can demonstrate all this to yourself. So theres no point in arguing it...
Are you seriously trying to tell me you can't understand a simple concept like a life cycle? Tell you what... look out your window there... grass grows everywhere... so why is it not growing from your ceiling?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey Good greif I was trying to be brief about what you said! You insult me right after you talk about the life cycle/reproduction of some bacteria. I don't like going on and on to make a point.
You said about bacteria- "others can stay in suspended animation for hundreds of thousands of years." Your assumption, no real proof. That the Earth has been around for millions/billions of years. There's no way to test it for accuracy. They all start with an assumption of age.
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb Nope its not an assumption...that would indeed be a lack of evidence or validity...or proof...
Fortunately I can provide the proof, and rarely make assumptions.
Please look up professor Eske Willerslev of copenhagen university...and compare with this paper on Pubmed PMID:16701245 which incidentally has over 100 citations
I'm delighted to see you also like the idea of knowledge requiring evidence... now... is there anything else you might apply that to? hmmmm?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@vbirdieb also when I said they all last one week I was referring to the hypothetical unknown bacteria in the video... some bacteria have a lifespan of less than a few minutes before they reproduce... others can stay in suspended animation for hundreds of thousands of years.
But this planet can only sustain a certain weight in biomass... because it only has finite resources .
and that was explained a bloody long time before evolution theory ever came about! (see Malthusian catastrophe)
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey "But this planet can only sustain a certain weight in biomass... because it only has finite resources ." Ok, but the same biomass of plants and animals degrade to dust eventually, unless it's fossilized, but for the most part dust or dirt. Which definately is a lot less biomass, right? So it would take an awfully long time before we could ever reach that certain weight, whatever that may be? Now in terms of bacteria, really.....long. Bacteria to Human comparison, really?
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb Biomass... remains the same...its the same because there is a finite size to the surface of the planet....and the same quantity of energy is used on an ongoing basis....please go off and look up the definition of biomass. And a word of advice (so you don't have people like me calling you an idiot all the time) .... look these things up before commenting on them.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey-" the same quantity of energy is used on an ongoing basis" Ok, then why make statements that would lead me, to believe that there is, a point of critical biomass that could be obtained and then criticize me for saying it can't.? The only way it could even come close to critical unsustanability is the increase in age and number of, lets say, people to cause an imbalance. That won't happen, because people are having less babies. Which seems like a contradiction, but it's true.
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb There is a point of critical biomass that the earth cannot sustain... thats my point. But the actual biomass has remained static.... and its done so because the same amount of energy is being received if you increase that... then the biomass of the earth will increase.... which explains why the earths biomass is higher at the equator and lower at the poles.
It has nothing to do with the amount of 'people'... what makes you think people are having 'fewer' children?
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@vbirdieb And no.. the earth has that weight in biomass now... and it has been for a very long time.... regardless of how many individuals die....
The maximum biomass of the planet (the maximum biomass earth can sustain) is calculable... As you will realise after you read up on what is measured by the term 'biomass'
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@MumblingMickey Now, lets take the whole population and Earth age math question. The professor took an average, a low one at that, of births per adult couple, average age at death, and then multiplied by two different Earth ages. He did this to show that millions of years is not right based upon the average number of people and population growth. So...where if at all did he go wrong? It's based on the average (not exact) of availiable information of population, we use averages all the time.
vbirdieb 1 year ago
@vbirdieb
1. John HJeffner is not a professor of math... his Phd like hovinds is in theology. He's not a qualified mathimatician.
2. This would be bad enough... but to use the 'recent' increase in human population as if it were the norm is absolute bullshit... Why doesn't he use the recent 'static' population of other animals that do not have medical technology that increases their life expectancy?
3. The math is absolutely flawed if you use any other period of time... 1600-1700 for example.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@vbirdieb If you continue doing that by the time you reach the year 400ad there is only one person on the planet!
So tell me? which percentage increase should we use... 1900-2000? 1800-1900? 1700-1800? The actual rate of increase...is also increasing.exponentially and this supposed mathematician completely ignored that! What's more...he knows it!
He also knows that evolution DOES NOT state there were only two people at the outset. So he's disproving something of his own invention.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@vbirdieb Why might I ask did he not use the known population of other animals... for example the population of cheetahs in africa? or of caraboo in canada? Well those examples would show a serious 'decrease' in population of those animals...and obviously aren't going to help him...
Instead he deliberately cons naive suckers like you...who think that the worlds population growth has remained static since the year dot! It hasn't.... in the last 600 years its grown exponentially.
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@vbirdieb That growth rate is absolutely huge.
0.5% growth rate in population if applied year on year from 1171 when we know there were 375 million people on earth to 2011 would mean there should now be about 17 billion people on earth!
The reason there are not... is because that 0.5% was applied across the entire timespan.... and this idiot knows damn well that this is not accurate.
If it were...then from 1171 to 1800 the world population would have gone from 375 million... to 7 billion!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago
@vbirdieb The actual rate... from 1171 to 1750 was 0.02% growth rate.... and from 0AD to 1750 it was a lot lower.... only in 1750 with the advent of modern technology, farming techniques etc did the growth rate increase.... it now stands at 1.13%% which is 55 times what it was in 1171 AD
Now that you know why he's wrong to apply the same growth rate across the full time line you need to ask a different question! Do you know what that question is?
Go on, you know... ask it!
MumblingMickey 1 year ago