Population doubling; a challenge to the Darwinist

[Jonahdog]

In all likelihood, more than 1 billion people went into eternity at the time of the flood. "Then he used the water to destroy the ancient world with a mighty flood. And by the same word, the present heavens and earth have been stored up for fire. They are being kept for the day of judgment, when ungodly people will be destroyed." 2Pet.3:6,7

Creation..... 2 people. Double every 60 years
60 ... 4 people
120 ... 8
180 ... 16
240 ... 32
300 ... 64
360 ... 128
420 ... 256
480 ... 500 (Rounding)
540 ... 1000
600 ... 2000
660 ... 4000
720 ... 8000
780 ... 16,000
840 ... 32,000
900 ... 64,000
960 ... 128,000
1020 ... 256,000
1080 ... 512,000
1140 ... 1,024,000
1200 ... 2,048,000
1260 ... 4,100,000 (rounding)
1320 ... 8,200,000
1380 ... 16,400,000
1420 ... 32,800,000
1480 ... 65,600,000
1520 ... 132,000,000
1580 ... 264,000,000
1640 ... 528,000,000
1700 ... 1,000,000,000+

I get the feeling that Stripe no longer accepts doubling at 60 years since creation, you on the other hand seem stuck.

 

[patrick jane]

you raving retard.

:rotfl:

 

[Jonahdog]

:rotfl:

I see you are in the same grade as Stripe. Do your homework and get to bed.

 

[Jonahdog]

That is pretty much a immature debate tactic of 10 year olds.

Yeah, Stripe usually starts the name calling when his ignorance shows.

And you, 6, are you sticking to the 60 year doubling rate since creation? Since Noah?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Stripe on a 60 year population doubling constant:

Nobody claimed that it was.

Then I'm wondering why you limit your equation to using only that one doubling factor. I also wonder how you know with so much certainy that the doubling period is indeed 60 years. Could it be that using that figure complies with your conclusion?

Math isn't flawed because of a false assumption; it is flawed because someone makes a calculating error, say they multiplied when they should have divided.

Your false assumption flaws the equation, get over it.

That you failed to pick up on an actual mistake I made shows that you're not paying attention to the numbers; all you care about is the assault on your precious religion.

:chuckle: Your mistake is your false assumption, it yields false results.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

...are you sticking to the 60 year doubling rate since creation? Since Noah?

I believe Stripe said that the current rate is that the population doubles every 60 years. Starting with 8 people just 4500 years ago, we could use a much lower figure than doubling every 60 years ago to arrive at earths current population. However, the figures are not as realistic in the evolutionary model if you start with 7million.

 

[Stripe]

Your assumption, that the current doubling rate has been true historically for thousands of years is clearly flawed.

I didn't make that assumption. I issued a challenge and as usual the Darwinists will do anything to avoid it.

I'm wondering why you limit your equation to using only that one doubling factor.

I don't. You made no effort to see my working, did you?

I also wonder how you know with so much certainy that the doubling period is indeed 60 years. Could it be that using that figure complies with your conclusion?

If you'd done even a smidgeon of investigation, you'd know exactly where the number comes from and my post above this explains exactly why I use this number.

Your false assumption flaws the equation, get over it.

Nope. Equations are flawed because of a mistake in a calculation, not because an assumption is incorrect.

Your mistake is your false assumption, it yields false results.

Nope. That's just the challenge. Darwinists hate those.

 

[Stripe]

The most sensible response to the challenge is the tu quoque wail: "But you did it too."

That YEC numbers in the same equation provide a challenge to our camp does not eliminate the challenge to the Darwinists.

Learn to respond rationally. :up:

 

[Stripe]

In all likelihood, more than 1 billion people went into eternity at the time of the flood. "Then he used the water to destroy the ancient world with a mighty flood. And by the same word, the present heavens and earth have been stored up for fire. They are being kept for the day of judgment, when ungodly people will be destroyed." 2Pet.3:6,7

Creation..... 2 people. Double every 60 years
60 ... 4 people
120 ... 8
180 ... 16
240 ... 32
300 ... 64
360 ... 128
420 ... 256
480 ... 500 (Rounding)
540 ... 1000
600 ... 2000
660 ... 4000
720 ... 8000
780 ... 16,000
840 ... 32,000
900 ... 64,000
960 ... 128,000
1020 ... 256,000
1080 ... 512,000
1140 ... 1,024,000
1200 ... 2,048,000
1260 ... 4,100,000 (rounding)
1320 ... 8,200,000
1380 ... 16,400,000
1420 ... 32,800,000
1480 ... 65,600,000
1520 ... 132,000,000
1580 ... 264,000,000
1640 ... 528,000,000
1700 ... 1,000,000,000+

The second worksheet in my link has a calculator that does this for you. It gives: 676,414,963.

 

[chair]

I used that rate because it's the only one that is possibly verifiable, you raving retard.

You used this "verifiable" rate, projected it into the past, and got nonsense results. Now you are spouting insults and nonsense to cover up your error.

Jeremiah 13:23

 

[Stripe]

You used this "verifiable" rate, projected it into the past, and got nonsense results. Now you are spouting insults and nonsense to cover up your error.

What error?

You lot keep throwing this word around as if you had shown where I multiplied when I should have divided. Show us the error; don't just talk about it.

If you want to discuss realistic numbers, I'm all ears. But whining about the clear presentation of the facts because the numbers do not bode well for the Darwinist camp is just plain boring.

 

[chair]

What error?

You lot keep throwing this word around as if you had shown where I multiplied when I should have divided. Show us the error; don't just talk about it.

If you want to discuss realistic numbers, I'm all ears. But whining about the clear presentation of the facts because the numbers do not bode well for the Darwinist camp is just plain boring.

There is an error in your assumptions. Specifically in the doubling rate you use. Not in your math. And the results do not bode well for creationists either.

 

[Stripe]

There is an error in your assumptions. Specifically in the doubling rate you use.

That's not an error; it's very obviously a device to set up a challenge.

To answer the challenge, just provide the numbers that you think are reasonable.

Not in your math.

Well, nothing that the froth-at-the-mouth Darwinist horde noticed at least.

And the results do not bode well for creationists either.

Yep. This is what powers a discussion. Feel free to engage rationally. :up:

 

[chair]

...Feel free to engage rationally. :up:

I'll engage rationally with rational humans. You do not qualify.

I really do not understand why you insist on being such a jerk. It is not required of fundamentalist Christians, as far as I know. Nor is it required of people living in Taiwan.

 

[Stripe]

I'll engage rationally with rational humans. You do not qualify.I really do not understand why you insist on being such a jerk. It is not required of fundamentalist Christians, as far as I know. Nor is it required of people living in Taiwan.

:chuckle:

:loser:

 

[chair]

:chuckle:

:loser:

Stripe. Know where to go.

 

[Stripe]

Stripe. Know where to go.

I think I'll go outside. :idunno: In Taipei. :idunno:

It's clear you do not want OP to be discussed any further.

 

[chair]

I think I'll go outside. :idunno: In Taipei. :idunno:

It's clear you do not want OP to be discussed any further.

The OP is ridiculous. The fact that you refuse to admit it, and spend your time insulting people and being obnoxious, does not change that.

I'll be in Taiwan soon. Mostly Hsinchu. Don't wait for me- I won't be looking you up.

 

[Stripe]

The OP is ridiculous. The fact that you refuse to admit it, and spend your time insulting people and being obnoxious, does not change that.

I'll be in Taiwan soon. Mostly Hsinchu. Don't wait for me- I won't be looking you up.

Why is it that every time you can't deal with a simple conversation you tell us all how you're going to deliberately avoid me again?

 

[chair]

Why is it that every time you can't deal with a simple conversation you tell us all how you're going to deliberately avoid me again?

You do not have simple conversations. You consistently bait people you label as "evolutionists"
into ridiculous conversations with no basis in reality, then accuse them of not being able to have a decent conversation. You have an evil streak in you. Good thing that you have a religion that says you can be a complete jerk, and still get to heaven as long as you believe.

You are a bad person, Stripe. You could be better. You could find more positive forms of entertainment.

Mt apologies, once again, to myself, for wasting time with you.