Why Creationists Shouldn't Number Crunch Part 1

The first part in a possible series showing why creationists make trouble for themselves the minute they start doing math to prove their points.

I haven't even covered any major points yet; those will come in following videos. I just thought it was amusing that even using numbers creationists provide completely screws Heffner's rather assumptive calculations up.

Clip is from Creation in the 21st Century: Crunch The Numbers Part 1.

Feel free to mirror.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• thelastholdout
• atheist
• atheism
• creationist
• creationism
• funny
• stick
• figure
• number
• crunching
• evolution
• god
• religion
• bible
• noah's
• flood
• population
• growth
• argument

[Mozza314]

It's pretty clear that 0.00456 has been carefully chosen to fit an exponential growth from 8 to ~6.5billion to the chosen time estimate since the biblical flood. Obviously the real flaw here is the notion you can assume a constant rate of exponential growth. That's as stupid as assuming since I ate 50g of food in the last minute my total consumption for today should be around 72kg.

[slipcurve]

The huge human population increases were made possible by the industrial revolution, vaccinations etc.

If you halt scientific progress to, let's say to the dark ages, the population will not increase. We are limited by the carrying capacity of the planet and our knowledge and methods to survive.

The world is not filled with rabbits right now for the same exact reason.

[supermunyi]

lil wayne why did you send us here

[viridismonasteriense]

Funny how those creationists don't take into account events like the Spanish flu or Black Plague in which the entirety of (western) civilizations faced near-extinction, low life expectancy and child deaths...but that was all part of god's plan right? 99% of all living species that have ever lived on earth are already extinct. And they just pretend like it's no big deal.

Not to mention the fact that it would've taken a whole lot of incest to get Noah to repopulate the planet!

[dave28lax]

If you take this kind of model and apply it to the bacterial population, then the results say the world began last Tuesday.

[tifforo1]

Population growth rates are variable even over the time period for which highly reliable data is available. From 1960 to 1985, the world population growth rate averaged 1.9% per year. From 1985 to 2009, the world population growth rate averaged 1.4% per year.

[finderfinder100]

They love to throw big numbers around since most people can't grasp big numbers. They do this too with Statistics for the chance of life arising etc. They figure the guy with the biggest number wins so...

[mortemdei]

It's just stupid to say population growth can be predicted with a simple mathematical formula.

[Orygyn]

As a former Maths student, I find what Heffner's doing cringeworthy.

[Microtardz]

Lol. It also fails to take into account scientific advancements that are currently the main reason for the extreme rise and stability in our population. Otherwise population density dependent factors would've controlled us. Things such as disease, famine, etc etc etc.

So a steady rate incline is pretty much impossible to ever truly ever be accurate. Tho it could be used as a model.

It loses to the fact that we've only recently been going through exponential growth.