Re: [Goanet] Evolution (contd)
--- Santosh Helekar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would you say is the scientific accuracy of anything in the Bible? I am asking you because you seem to question the accuracy of scientific methods like radiocarbon dating. Would 195,000 years be outside the margin of accuracy of Biblical dates? The Omo I modern human fossils are dated to be 195,000 years old using potassium-argon and geological dating. Bible history is full of metaphors, IMHO. Flaming sword - was it describing something like a laser gun a la Star Wars? Was the destruction of Sodom Gomorrah a nuclear destruction? Was the ascension of Elijah a flight by a something similar to a helicopter (wheels within wheels)? We have similar legends and stories in Greek Mythology, Arabian Nights, and the Mahabharata. Two heavenly arrows destroying one another in mid-air (Mahabharata) seems uncannily like the Patriot missiles destroying Saddam's missiles in Gulf War 1. Flying carpets / horses - could they be a way of describing planes in common everyday language when planes no longer existed? In other words - has man reinvented himself after some mighty catastrophe in the far past? As I understand Einstein is said to have stated at one time, I don't know what weapons will be used in WWIII, but surely WWIV will be fought with stones. My 2 cents' worth ... Gabriel de Figueiredo Melbourne - Australia. Find local movie times and trailers on Yahoo! Movies. http://au.movies.yahoo.com
Re: [Goanet] Evolution (contd)
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, Here are links to three articles discussing quite convincingly a creationist view point. Orlando, There is a lot of self-published pseudoscientific literature on creationism on the web and in print. It appears convincing only to believers, lay people or people who do not want to spend the time and effort to critically examine what they are saying. I give below links to scholarly articles that refute the basic arguments presented in the following articles that you provided. World Population Since Creation by Lambert Dolphin http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html Population of the PreFlood World by Tom Pickett http://www.ldolphin.org/pickett.html Both the above articles are based on Henry Morris's flawed equations and assumptions. Here are the papers that refute them. 1. Creationists, Population Growth, Bunnies, and the Great Pyramid by David H. Milne http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8828_issue_14_volume_4_number_4__6_23_2003.asp#Creationists,%20Population%20Growth,%20Bunnies,%20and%20the%20Great%20Pyramid 2. More on Population Growth and Creationism by James S. Monroe http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/823_issue_18_volume_6_number_2__4_29_2003.asp#More%20on%20Population%20Growth%20and%20Creationism Speed of Light Slowing Down? by Chuck Missler http://www.ldolphin.org/speedo.html The article on the speed of light as a constant (?) is specially interesting. Good food for thaught in the currentcontext. The fallacies in the above proposal are discussed in the following paper. Does the Speed of Light Slow Down Over Time? by Ronald Ebert http://www.magicdave.com/ron/Does%20the%20Speed%20of%20Light%20Slow%20Down%20Over%20Time.html Cheers, Santosh *** * G * O * A * N * E * T *** C * L * A * S * S * I * F * I * E * D * S * *** Greet your loved ones in Goa with flowers! http://www.goa-world.com/goa/expressions/ EXPRESSIONS - The Flower Shop. World famous all over Goa! ***
Re: [Goanet] Evolution (contd)
- Original Message - From: Peter D'Souza [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: goanet@goanet.org Sent: 28 February, 2005 6:41 PM Subject: [Goanet] Evolution (contd) Elsewhere in this post I have explained the seeming consistency in an evolutionist's belief that man might have existed for millions of years and yet might have been reduced to a population of 2 (two) as of about 6,000-10,000 years ago. My point in mentioning my friend and his luminary mentor shows that you can be a committed Hello, Here are links to three articles discussing quite convincingly a creationist view point. World Population Since Creation by Lambert Dolphin http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html Population of the PreFlood World by Tom Pickett http://www.ldolphin.org/pickett.html Speed of Light Slowing Down? by Chuck Missler http://www.ldolphin.org/speedo.html The article on the speed of light as a constant (?) is specially interesting. Good food for thaught in the current context. Orlando *** * G * O * A * N * E * T *** C * L * A * S * S * I * F * I * E * D * S * *** Greet your loved ones in Goa with flowers! http://www.goa-world.com/goa/expressions/ EXPRESSIONS - The Flower Shop. World famous all over Goa! ***
Re: [Goanet] Evolution (contd)
Hi Peter, Your latest post under the above thread did appear on Goanet (Please see the archives). Therefore, I am posting this reply. Here are my responses to your points. Peter D'Souza wrote: You are incorrect in stating that he assumed a constant_ growth rate. In fact, this is what he did say: although it is obvious that the present rate of growth (2%) could not have prevailed for very long in the past, it does seem unlikely that the long-time growth rate could have averaged significantly less than (1/2)%. I don't know whether you have a mathematics background or not. But if you tried to understand the math behind how you calculate a population change based on a variable growth rate (i. e. positive growth as well as negative growth or decline) then you would realize that the formula used by Morris assumes only a constant positive growth rate. He also assumes a constant average growth rate from 1800 to all the way back to the origin of man. You cannot simply average positive and negative growth rates, and use the average in the formula. There are good estimates that in the last 2000 years there were at least two periods when there was a negative growth rate (decline). Nobody has the slightest idea of the directions of population changes during the 4000 years prior to that. It is very likely that because of high infant mortality rates there was 0% growth or negative growth during some phases of this era. A real scientist with knowledge about the math involved would never have attempted to do the type of calculation that Morris attempted. One cannot derive a formula for this because one has absolutely no knowledge of when the population increased and when it decreased, and by how much, before 200 B.C. It is next to impossible to derive a realistic combination formula for variable increases during some variable periods and variable decreases at other variable periods. People have written hundreds of papers using all kinds of mathematical models on this subject. He seems to believe that one man or couple might have been in existence 8,000/10,000/6,300 years ago and that such a man's contemporaries were destroyed. This seems rational, given his mindset. I'm surprised that you wouldn't agree but choose to dispute population growth rate instead. Please read your first Goanet post on your friend's argument. What you stated in that post emphasizes the 2% population growth, and mentions that your friend's estimate is an extrapolation based on that growth rate, allowing for some natural disasters. This original argument is similar to that of Morris, and is mathematically flawed, as shown above. It does not appear to me to be a genuine scientific argument at all. Perhaps, you misunderstood what your friend was saying. If you tell me his name, I could check if he has published his calculation in any scientific journal. If he has not published it, it is unlikely to be a serious, well-researched argument. I would not use the words real and estimates in the same sentence. I mean real scientific estimates as opposed to the pseudoscientific estimate of Morris. The same table says that the world population grew at 0% (zero percent) and stayed at exactly 5 million for a period of 3,000 (three whopping thousand)years. Are these guys serious? This was before the condom was invented. There is nothing unusual about 0% growth rate. I am sure you know that growth rate is birth rate minus death rate. If these two rates are equal then you have zero growth. If the death rate is more than birth rate then you have a decline or negative growth. In the old days the death rate was very high, especially the infant mortality rate. The latter rate was in some cases higher than 500 per 1000 live births. At this rate one needed a very high birth rate (more than 8%) in order to prevent extinction of mankind. This was very hard to do before large residential communities were established. People's life expectancy was also very low perhaps, in the twenties. So the reproductive life span was also very short. The people who contributed the data in the table provided by the U.S. Census Bureau are the worlds experts on population theory, history and statistics. They are certainly more knowledgeable and qualified than Morris. Please do not prejudge them without reading and understanding their research papers cited at the bottom of that table. If your friend has published a paper like that, please let me know. I can read his and their papers, try to understand and compare them, and see whose estimates make more sense. Radiocarbon dating, which depends on the steady decay of carbon-14, becomes less and less reliable once the artefact under study gets older than about 16,000 years. is what Dr. Chris Stringer, Natural History Museum, London, Radiocarbon dating is only one of many methods used for dating fossils and artifacts today. There are a whole bunch of other methods such as potassium-argon dating, geological dating,
[Goanet] Evolution (contd)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Santosh Helekar said: SH I have to say that your understanding of the article SH is completely off. What you state above refers only to SH the first couple of paragraphs of that article with SH quite revealing title of Evolution and the Population SH Problem. If you read the entire article, you will SH find that Morris makes an argument for a Biblically SH mandated recent origin of man based on a constant SH population growth rate. When I said: I don't think Mr. Morris was making a case for a 2% population growth rate I meant that his thesis was not to push a 2% growth theory, i.e. he wasn't making that his primary case, rather (you're right in this) his argument is for a biblical creation time line based on population growth rate. You are incorrect in stating that he assumed a _constant_ growth rate. In fact, this is what he did say: although it is obvious that the present rate of growth (2%) could not have prevailed for very long in the past, it does seem unlikely that the long-time growth rate could have averaged significantly less than (1/2)%. SH He gives a formula to SH calculate the number of years that have elapsed since SH the origin of man assuming that the entire human SH population emerged from one human couple created by SH God given whatever the actual value of the population SH of the world was around 1800 A.D. When he plugs in a SH population growth rate of 1/3% (not 2%) in the SH formula he gets a value of 6300 years for the origin SH of man. He says that this is consistent with what is SH inferred from the Biblical account. Correct. He is quite consistent in assuming the population growth rate to have been between 1/2% (an assumed low) and 2% (current). SH Here are some of SH the relevant quotes from his article that you seem to SH have missed somehow: Morris In that case, the length of time required for the Morris population to grow from 2 people to one billion [...] Morris Thus, the most probable date of human origin, based on Morris the known data from population statistics, is about Morris 6,300 years ago. The in that case was referring to the estimated population growth rate--based on the actual populations--between 1650 and 1800, which he uses to bolster his case. No, I didn't miss this. Again, he is not making up the 2% figure and also accommodates a growth rate as low as 1/3%. SH Please ask your friend where he got his fallacious SH argument for linking the population growth rate with SH the origin of man. I am willing to bet that it is from SH Henry Morris?s writings or their derivations. My friend would be very reluctant to say that man actually originated 6,300 years ago. He probably has a good explanation...perhaps there was a cataclysmic event which left just two people on the planet 6,300 or 10,000 years ago is what he is likely to say. (I don't really discuss this issue very much with him, we're both committed to our separate beliefs.) Like you, he believes the x million-year theories that have been floating around for the last century. He seems to believe that one man or couple might have been in existence 8,000/10,000/6,300 years ago and that such a man's contemporaries were destroyed. This seems rational, given his mindset. I'm surprised that you wouldn't agree but choose to dispute population growth rate instead. | Ergo, the extrapolation is based purely on | demographic trends and recorded natural events which | might have skewed the patterns of population growth. SH Henry Morris?s (and your friend?s) argument is SH completely wrong for the following reasons: SH 1. It is well known that the rate and direction of SH population change has not remained constant throughout SH [...] SH increased growth rate of up to 2% occurred only in the SH last century. No one has disputed that. See my statement that you'd quoted above. Also see Henry Morris' paper. SH last century. One does not have to be Harvard educated SH or a friend of Stephen Jay Gould to realize any of SH this. Correct. I don't see where we disagree on this point. SH this. Here are the real scientific estimates of world I would not use the words real and estimates in the same sentence. SH http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html SH Please note that the table showing these estimates SH says that there were anywhere from 1 ? 10 million SH people in the world in 10,000 B.C. The original The same table says that the world population grew at 0% (zero percent) and stayed at exactly 5 million for a period of 3,000 (three whopping thousand) years. Are these guys serious? This was before the condom was invented. SH 2. It should be obvious to most people today that SH there is an overwhelming amount of physical evidence SH such as fossilized human skeletal parts, which has SH been dated with high accuracy to being at least 80,000 SH years old. Radiocarbon dating, which depends on the steady decay of carbon-14,
