Stripe's Population Doubling Thread

Epoisses

New member
Population statistics utterly refute an evolutionary timeline. Going back just 15 or 20 thousand years and you would have so many people on the planet that it would be unsustainable. Millions of years is sheer and utter comedy that has to be spoon fed to people at infancy for the indoctrination to take.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
It looks to me like Stripe failed to consider on very obvious consideration: the doubling rate is not a constant.
 

6days

New member
It looks to me like Stripe failed to consider on very obvious consideration: the doubling rate is not a constant.
You are creating a Strawman. Stripe didn't claim the rate is constant.

What Stripes thread did show is that today's population is consistent with the Biblical account and time frame.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
You are creating a Strawman. Stripe didn't claim the rate is constant.

What Stripes thread did show is that today's population is consistent with the Biblical account and time frame.
Did he? Lets look at what Stripe actually said in his OP
stripe said:
The Darwinist believes that the population about 4,000 years ago was something like 7 million.

Today's population doubling period is thought to be 60 years.

Assuming the accuracy of those numbers over all history, there would be 2.93x1033 people on planet Earth. :D

The Earth is estimated to weigh about 6x1025 kilograms, or about the equivalent of 6x1023 sizable people.
Stripe did, in fact, assume the rate is constant through history.
 

chair

Well-known member
Stripes thread was a pile of manure, as most of his are. He lies, twists facts, insults people, then closes the thread when his games become too obvious.
 

6days

New member
Did he? Lets look at what Stripe actually said in his OP

Stripe did, in fact, assume the rate is constant through history.
Nope.....you are reading it wrong. He even clarified in additional posts that he did not say the rate was constant.

What Stripes thread did show is that the earths current population is realistic using the Biblical account.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Nope.....you are reading it wrong. He even clarified in additional posts that he did not say the rate was constant.

What Stripes thread did show is that the earths current population is realistic using the Biblical account.

I see. So what happened in that Stripe made an unsupported assertion in his OP that the rate was " accurate over all history," he didn't really mean it was accurate of all history. What would you call a misleading statement like that? Then, he got called out on it and had to revise his position. So what Stripe actually showed is that if he can revise his statements enough he can make the numbers fit his world view.

Here is something for you to consider: when Stripe said "accurate of all history," what was he referring to? How many years of history? Young Earth creation puts the age of the Earth at someplace between 6,000 and 10,000 years. Old Earth puts the age at 4.5 billion years but the amount of human history is considerably shorter. Some estimates say that "modern" humans have been around for nearly 200,000 years but civilization, as we know it, is only around 6,000 years old. So when Stripe ran his calculations, what numbers did he use? As you can see, it can have quite an impact.

Here is a simple doubling formula:
Simple doubling time formula:
N ( t ) = C 2 t / d {\displaystyle N(t)=C2^{t/d}}
fe30b0c09f41a19cbb78ae3a831f798eb736134e

  • N(t) = the number of objects at time t
  • d = doubling period (time it takes for object to double in number)
  • c = initial number of objects
  • t = time
Per Stripe, d=60 and C=2. Lets start there and see where we end up:
N(6000) = 2.535E30 (This is the same for YEC of 6000 years and for civilization being 6,000 years old)
N(10,000) = 2.969E50
N(200000) = This number actually caused an overflow error in my calculator.

How did Stripe do his calculations? Why don't these numbers line up with what the actual population of the earth is today (which is about 7xE9]? Did Stripe forget about death rates? Does the doubling ate stay constant? Do his estimates account for catastrophes?

Stripe did not prove anything other than he has no real idea of what he is talking about.
 
Last edited:

6days

New member
I see. So what happened in that Stripe made an unsupported assertion in his OP that the rate was " accurate over all history,"
Your dishonesty is showing. It's obvious why you quote only part of the sentence. And it's obvious why you ignore subsequent posts where Stripe clarified.
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Your dishonesty is showing. It's obvious why you quote only part of the sentence. And it's obvious why you ignore subsequent posts where Stripe clarified.

What is more interesting is the fact that Stripe needed to clarify his position. It is equally interesting that you only quoted two sentences of my reply to you. By your own words, are you not being dishonest?

Please show us from Stripes OP why quoting the line from his post is a dishonest. What part of his OP am I missing that would have changed what Stripe quite clearly said in his OP?
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
Nope.....you are reading it wrong. He even clarified in additional posts that he did not say the rate was constant.

What Stripes thread did show is that the earths current population is realistic using the Biblical account.

Lying for yourself is one thing but lying for Stripe is just bizzare
 

6days

New member
Not really. It's like declaring that you "belong" to ISIS, even when you don't have any real affiliation with them.
Hahaaaaaa You made me burst out in laughter.2 days ago someone said I was worse than Hitler ... Now I'm compared to ISIS. :luigi:

Chair..... You should be kind to Biblical creationists!!
Creationists have been teaching that we need to know and understand evolutionary theory. Kids in grade school should know the material at least as well as their teachers. Well... it seems that the evolutionist camp is now embracing the idea in reverse.

The Chronicle of Higher Education wrote:
As it stands, scientists’ blundering hostility toward creationism actually encourages creationist belief. By offering a stark division between religious faith and scientific belief, evolutionary scientists have pushed creationists away from embracing evolutionary ideas. And, by assuming that only ignorance could explain creationist beliefs, scientists have unwittingly fostered bitter resentment among the creationists, the very people with whom they should be hoping to connect
http://chronicle.com/article/To-Teach-Evolution-You-Have/135832/
 

Stuu

New member
The Chronicle of Higher Education wrote:
As it stands, scientists’ blundering hostility toward creationism actually encourages creationist belief. By offering a stark division between religious faith and scientific belief, evolutionary scientists have pushed creationists away from embracing evolutionary ideas. And, by assuming that only ignorance could explain creationist beliefs, scientists have unwittingly fostered bitter resentment among the creationists, the very people with whom they should be hoping to connect
http://chronicle.com/article/To-Teach-Evolution-You-Have/135832/
What a topsy-turvey world it is when a bit of pressure to learn about reality ends up pushing creationists' heads further into the sand, while the effect of Catholic education is to produce atheists at a higher rate than secular schools do.

In any case, good on you for highlighting the problem of intentional religious ignorance of science.

Stuart
 

6days

New member
In any case, good on you for highlighting the problem of intentional religious ignorance of science.

Stuart
Hey Stuu...nice to have you back.
I think you are a bit confused. The article is not about faith against science. It is faith against faith. The article specifically is referring to science belief...IE evolutionism and creationism. Both faith systems examine the same set of evidences and then interpret according to your faith.
The evidence best fits the eye witness testimony in God's Word.
 

Stuu

New member
Hey Stuu...nice to have you back.
Thanks!

I think you are a bit confused. The article is not about faith against science. It is faith against faith. The article specifically is referring to science belief...IE evolutionism and creationism. Both faith systems examine the same set of evidences and then interpret according to your faith.
Do you think that I am committed to evolution as a philosophy? I'm not, and I don't know anyone who is. The idea of evolution by natural selection is brutal and not something to love, although there is a huge amount of elegance in Darwin's brilliantly simple explanation for the diversity of life on this planet, and on any other planet where there might be life.

Natural selection isn't a faith, it is a fact of history. There is no point in having faith in facts of history, and there is no point in making them personal philosophy.

If evolution is wrong, then as an idea it deserves to die, and I would be delighted to see how science has been wrong and is disproved by a better explanation.

But there isn't one. There is no theory of creation. There is a fantasy conspiracy theory of imaginary friends running the universe, indeed there are many of those, but that doesn't actually explain anything.

The evidence best fits the eye witness testimony in God's Word.
What eye witness testimony? Half of the biblical references to being able to see or hear your god say it's impossible.

Of course those are contradicted by the other half of the references.

Stuart
 
Top