28-11-2001 10:47									#31
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Asher No, the problem here is you Religious whores need to dig yourself out of your hole and look around. Us Darwinist whores are smart enough to figure it out without having our hands held the whole way like you seem to need.

No.....incorrect. I approach this subject with an open mind of debate. You are indoctrinated and would refuse to believe even if I give you evidence to the contrary.

quote: Er...you think they had farming technology and whatnot many thousands of years ago?

They still only used a small percentage of what they COULD of used! And 3 million years? think about what your saying man! Mathatematicians dont lie..... (especially the swiss ones on TV)

	28-11-2001 10:49									#32
	Re: Somthing for evolutionist's to ponder Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by faded glory Well......I just heard the most damning evidence against evolution ever. Mathematicians have set it is impossible that man could have walked the earth for 3 million years.

You can't prove this with mathematics only. Mathematics doesn't say or prove anything about our world. You could use mathematics to support (or refute) biological hypotheses, but that would still be biology, not mathematics. Mathematicians are not qualified to make the statement that you quote, because they lack the biological background that is needed to make it.

It's out-bloody-rageous nonsense, or bad trolling.

	28-11-2001 10:49									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by faded glory No.....incorrect. I approach this subject with an open mind of debate. You are indoctrinated and would refuse to believe even if I give you evidence to the contrary.

The problem is there is nothing to believe in here.
You have no evidence, no links, no sources, your numbers are WRONG to start with.

It's like me saying mathematically it's impossible to have a God because 0 * 1 is not 1. Then I could go on a stupid rant like you just did.

quote: They still only used a small percentage of what they COULD of used! And 3 million years? think about what your saying man! Mathatematicians dont lie..... (especially the swiss ones on TV)

You're right, he knows Math.
Therefore he can disprove a theory like Darwinism.

	28-11-2001 10:51									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Asher LOL! You're COMPLETELY right, we ALWAYS had ample food for everyone. lol....

I sense that you may be in complete denial.....

We are not 3 not million years old. The people who did this the local ABC station took all your wishy-wash variables into account. And that was answer. 500,000 per square mile.

So Darwin proves to be an old fool who just made up as he went along

	28-11-2001 10:53									#35
	Suffering from ads?

Troll, troll, troll!!

Darwin never formulated the idea of evolution... but natural selection, which evolution came from.

	28-11-2001 10:54									#36
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Asher You're right, he knows Math. Therefore he can disprove a theory like Darwinism.

Yes......I just told you humans could not have been on earth for 3 million years. The present day population would NOT reflect what it should be!

Yet you are continually bombarding me with that same line I quoted...

	28-11-2001 10:54									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by faded glory I sense that you may be in complete denial..... We are not 3 not million years old. The people who did this the local ABC station took all your wishy-wash variables into account. And that was answer. 500,000 per square mile. So Darwin proves to be an old fool who just made up as he went along

Look at what you're saying! Christ man, it's not me who's in denial.

The ABC station just disproved Darwinism, a theory that's been supported for AGES by science (That includes the realm of Mathematics).

Then you say I'm in denial because I don't believe their bullshit?
They're obviously doing something wrong with the input variables, plus they have no way of knowing about major slaughters or deaths due to famine, disease, etc. It's entirely pulled out of their ass, probably for ratings boosts in a very religious area.

Then you come here, try to state that as hardcore evidence that Darwinism is wrong, without providing us with the formulas or input variables used, then you're SURPRISED when it's thoroughly rejected and you're ridiculed?

	28-11-2001 10:56									#38
	Remove this text

Dude even if the slightest mistake is made......the margin for error still is in favor of my arguement.

	28-11-2001 10:57									#39
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

no, our specific species isn't 3 million years old. that's a given. but our ancestoral species are.

	28-11-2001 10:58									#40
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by faded glory Dude even if the slightest mistake is made......the margin for error still is in favor of my arguement.

You really do believe that, don't you?

But then again, people like Hitler could never have existed before the modern era.

There have never been MASSIVE disease outbreaks in the eras before medicine.

It's all very exponential and easy to calculate, isn't it?
Basic math operation, right?

	28-11-2001 11:00									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Just all you sideliners out there. this is NOT a debate about god/creation..... this is more simply about trying to get an explanation about somthing I heard on local news.


(no bibles please )

Ya Ashur my UFO theory is lookin pretty good now

	28-11-2001 11:01									#42
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Asher It's all very exponential and easy to calculate, isn't it? Basic math operation, right?

Your still a few hundred Billion off!

	28-11-2001 11:03									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by faded glory Your still a few hundred Billion off!

Fraid not.
What if half of the population was killed in a single incident?

You're thinking too narrow.

And don't say that kind of **** is impossible, because it's supported by science with some forms of proof, and we have 6B people today.

	28-11-2001 11:06									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

But your assuming all these people existed.....I tell you. At the begining of recorded history there was not a whole lotta people running around. Certainly not enough to make sense from a mathematical point of view! If we had been around for 3 million years there would have been tons more people. History would of recorded this.

	28-11-2001 11:10									#45
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by faded glory But your assuming all these people existed.....I tell you. At the begining of recorded history there was not a whole lotta people running around. Certainly not enough to make sense from a mathematical point of view! If we had been around for 3 million years there would have been tons more people. History would of recorded this.

People were running around 3 million years ago?
Better still, people were recording history 3 million years ago?

Your argument has more holes in it than a Sampan in a modern naval war.

	28-11-2001 11:16									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

This one time, at band camp,

	28-11-2001 12:34									#47
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Faded G:
Obviously you don't know what you are talking about.

Humans haven't existed 3 million years. 500 000 years is closer to the truth. And for the most of that time the humans were hunters, not farmers (which makes a big difference which you don't seem to understand). During the last 2000 years or so the natural enemies (beasts, diseases) of human race have been eliminated - that is the main reason why population is growing so fast now.

Dinosaurs populated earth 200 million years ago - where are they now? According to the calculations you seem to rely on there should be 20 000 000 000 000 000 billion dinosaurs populating the earth...

So leave it, FG. And go back to school... it's good for you

	28-11-2001 13:31									#48
	Inflate your Upload Space

Steve,

What's to ponder for evolutionists?

First of all, as many have pointed out, Homo Sapiens Sapiens hasn't been around for that long.

Secondly, ever heard of "garbage in, garbage out?" Or the more famous "lies, damned lies, and statistics?" Yes, mathematics doesn't lie, but people can. Anybody can build a skewered model to prove his little pet theory. Give Dr Spin the model and let him stomp on it

Thirdly, the whole thing has nothing to do with evolution per se.

	28-11-2001 14:53									#49
	Put an end to popups!

fg:
Dear oh dear...

OK.

First off, hunter gatherer societies can support about 1 person per 10 square kms...which isn't much considering most of the earths land area isn't particularly hospitable. This is known using current HG populations, as well as archaeological remains of settlements. So a population of (say) 20 million at around 4000 BCE (which sounds high to me), with a surface area of the earth of 150,000,000 sq km gives us 1 person per 7.5 sq km. The extra lot being the appearance of agriculture in a number of places, which can increase the density to 50 people per 10 sq km (in its basic form).

So you see that the food levels were such that we couldn't support the ridiculous numbers your source is implying...ergo it's rubbish.

	28-11-2001 15:47									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Tolls fg: Dear oh dear... OK. First off, hunter gatherer societies can support about 1 person per 10 square kms...which isn't much considering most of the earths land area isn't particularly hospitable. This is known using current HG populations, as well as archaeological remains of settlements. So a population of (say) 20 million at around 4000 BCE (which sounds high to me), with a surface area of the earth of 150,000,000 sq km gives us 1 person per 7.5 sq km. The extra lot being the appearance of agriculture in a number of places, which can increase the density to 50 people per 10 sq km (in its basic form). So you see that the food levels were such that we couldn't support the ridiculous numbers your source is implying...ergo it's rubbish.

Absolutely correct. It wasn't until agriculture came along around 6000-4000 bc, that we could support any substantial population per sq km.



The fossil and living hominidae:

(From: The Scientific Companion: Exploring the Physical World with facts, figures and Formulas. Chapter 9 The origion and early evolution of life. Ceasare Emilani, University of Miami)



Name:.........................................Age range...........Geographical distr.
..............................................(millions of years)

Australiopithecus Afarensis.........3.7-2.6................East Africa

Australiopithecus Africanus ........3.0-2.3................South Africa

Paranthropus Boises....................2.5-1.3................East Africa

Paranthropus Robustus...............1.9-1.6.................South Africa

Homo Habilis.................................2-1.8...................East Africa

Homo Erectus...............................1.6-0.4................Africa, Asia

Homo Sapiens "Presapiens".........0.4-0.125............Africa, Europa, Asia

Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis..0.125-0.030........Africa, Europa, Asia

Homo Sapiens Sapiens.................0.125-0...............Worldwide



Of these The Paranthropus and Neaderthalensis became extinct.



This table shows that it wasn't until Homo Erectus came along that humans migrated out of Africa, and not until Modern man (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) came along that humans had spread to the entire world. You also have to take into account a couple of ice ages, etc...



This along with what others in this thread have mentioned, makes it quite obvious that the calculations is totally ridiculous. I would also like to see the source.

	28-11-2001 15:53									#51
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Which becomes even stupider is that Faded Glory can't even take natural disasters into account... the black plague for example wiped out 2/3s of Europe. He has proven nothing and never will, his support for creationism is based on idiocy.

	28-11-2001 15:58									#52
	Remove this text

faded indeed....

Look, put too many living organisms in a limited space and the surplus will start dying. Pure and simple. They'll starve, or kill themselves, or get wiped out by epidemics, until such times as the numbers get back within limits. Some might emigrate, others will adapt and change their diet, maybe sentient beings will start inventing more efficient ways to produce food, but in the same problem will crop back again eventually.

Wars and famines and the rest are not phenomenon which affect population growth: they are phenomenons that are the direct consequence of population growth. The more individuals you have, the more will die before begetting offspring and a balance will be reached again.

And only the strongest individuals will be amongst the chosen... indeed if you look at it closely, your math not only doesn't discredit natural selection, it actually helps support it: it provides a solid argument to explain why living organisms keep changing from generation to generation, why only the fastest, the strongest, the smartest or the more versatile individuals survive to pass on their genes.

	28-11-2001 16:02									#53
	Got spare money?

Isn't anyone else interested in seeing a source for this data? I sure am.

	28-11-2001 16:23									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I don't think I have much to add to some other peoples debunks of that total piece of crap faded glory. Over time and with more sophisticated agricultural methods, the ceiling on the number of people we can support has increased. If it is surpassed, people die through starvation, simple as that. In recent years agricultural yield has been increasing phenomenally, hence the population increases we have seen, and even 'just about' sustainable.

The bloke may have good maths, but his biology is complete and utter bollocks. Good reason why pure mathematicians should keep their nose out of things they don't have the faintest idea about. From my experience, people who are highly trained in the mathematical disciplines rarely have a faintest notion of biological systems. Like my mathematics is completely crap. I wouldn't try and debunk superstring theory with my rather rudimentary knowledge of mathematics, would I?

	28-11-2001 16:43									#55
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

PH:

here is a link to the official superstring theory site. It has a quite simple basic tour to the amazing (and totally mind-messing) world of superstrings (I like to refer "superstrings" as NOODLES, because they look like that).

	28-11-2001 16:53									#56
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by faded glory account.....war...famine..disease...old age...

Are you sure ?

Do you know that in the past (during anthic age and medieval age) there was plague (pest) which kill the half of living humans
on the earth ?

If you follow the evolutionalist theory , then you must discover that more there is human, more plagues evolve quicky and deadly.

	28-11-2001 16:57									#57
	Re: Somthing for evolutionist's to ponder Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by faded glory Well......I just heard the most damning evidence against evolution ever. Mathematicians have set it is impossible that man could have walked the earth for 3 million years. According to them.if this was the case..the population should be roughly around 500,000 per SQUARE mile ...putting the total population on earth well above 5 trillion instead of billion..... Darwin whores, Explain yourselves here

Actually, they're assuming that we've had a constant growth rate over all that time. Not so.

What conditions did they assume (growth rate, life expectancy, etc.)?

One thing you've neglected is carrying capacity, a rather important factor. Carrying capacity should be rather self-explanatory: the size of the population an environment could support. Up until 12,000 years ago, humans were hunter-gatherer-foragers. The carrying capacity if that's the only way humans get their food is somewhere around 20 million, at most. Once we had agriculture, Earth could support more than that.

quote: -Look at it this way, a single bacterium can reproduce into a number of bacteria having a mass equal to that of the Earth in under a year. Why doesn't it? There's nothing to feed that many, and they die off.

Actually, wasn't it in a week?

	28-11-2001 17:50									#58
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

By the way, Mr. Faded Glory:

You happen to live in Kansas by any chance? For what I've heard their education emphasis currently SUCKS BIG TIME! A few years ago the state of Kansas eliminated Darwin from their curricula altogether. And the state won an AIR-award that year for this dropping...

quote: The 1999 Ig Nobel Prize Winners SCIENCE EDUCATION The Kansas State Board of Education and the Colorado State Board of Education, for mandating that children should not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution any more than they believe in Newton's theory of gravitation, Faraday's and axwell's theory of electromagnetism, or Pasteur's theory that germs cause disease.

Here is a link for more of the Annals of Impropable Research (AIR)

	28-11-2001 17:54									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by aaglo By the way, Mr. Faded Glory: You happen to live in Kansas by any chance? For what I've heard their education emphasis currently SUCKS BIG TIME! A few years ago the state of Kansas eliminated Darwin from their curricula altogether. And the state won an AIR-award that year for this dropping...

That is so stupid... that state can't even look at the proven facts of evolution. Thanks for pointing that out.

	28-11-2001 19:24									#60
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Incompetence is not an excuse: the mathematician must be a creationist fraudster.

Only a very carefully selected figure for poulation growth can give a result which supports Young-Earthism. Because of the way exponential growth works, any figure used is almost certain to give a result which is either far too small or far too large. It is just as easy to pick a figure which "proves" that the human race is only a few centuries old.

With a good food supply, families with a dozen kids are common. That's a sixfold growth rate per generation. A population of a single couple will pass 6 billion in 13 generations. Assuming a quarter-century per generation, that's 325 years. Adam and Eve were created in 1676.

Not only have I disproved Darwinism, I've disproved Columbusism (1492), William-The-Conquerorism (1066), Christianity (0)... Oops...