Mathematics can estimate the date of Adam and Eve

[Leifmk]

Also, the OP's "idea" is standard creationist nonsense. And the standard qualitative-absurd refutation is to pick some prolific species with a short generation span and calculate that said species must have been created in the 1990s or something like that.

Carbon dating is a theory with a strong case against it.

It is not.

 

[Tee Kay]

Carbon dating is a theory with a strong case against it.

It's not a theory.

 

[Dachs]

Math is more reliable than any theory.

Applied math is nonsensical "without theory".

 

[Gustave5436]

I'm not interested in what an "anthropologist" might say, I'm more interested in what a mathematician would come up with because that's the most logical approach. Leave the theories to the anthropologists, leave the true calculating to the mathematicians. Numbers are numbers.

Anthropology is the scientific discipline which studies human evolution, among other things. Pure mathematicians are no more qualified to speak about human evolution than the average lay person; as their name would imply, their training is in mathematics. It is not in archaeology, evolutionary biology, genetics, or any other discipline related to the study of human evolution.

 

[Dachs]

Anthropology is the scientific discipline

Well. Let's not go that far.

 

[Hehehe]

Sorry Kruelgor. Your maths is just a theory (and a bad one at that), while evolution is a proven fact.

 

[Leifmk]

Certain people in this thread need to learn what "theory" means.

 

[Kruelgor]

Anthropology is the scientific discipline which studies human evolution, among other things. Pure mathematicians are no more qualified to speak about human evolution than the average lay person; as their name would imply, their training is in mathematics. It is not in archaeology, evolutionary biology, genetics, or any other discipline related to the study of human evolution.

And that's exactly why the whole world is still lost and clueless. You're looking for answers in the wrong places. Instead of logic and the obvious, you get lost and sidetracked within the effects.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

While these days we can probably fit a smooth curve to population, it has not always been the case. The larger and more stable the population the better estimate a curve will be. When population is low, we need to apply a dynamical system to the data in a discrete form which implies a chaotic system.

 

[Gustave5436]

And that's exactly why the whole world is still lost and clueless. You're looking for answers in the wrong places. Instead of logic and the obvious, you get lost and sidetracked within the effects.

Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not its end.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Logic is flawed anyway (see Godel)

 

[Kruelgor]

...while evolution is a proven fact.

A sandbox which I use as a battlefield for my play toys of my own personal leisure and entertainment, some play toys look like other play toys which I grew bored of, but they are not related to one another, nor evolved from another. Simply similar. If you dig deep enough in the sandbox you will find all sorts of play things which I toyed around with. Make up whatever kind of "theories" meet your fancy. Whatever makes you feel in control little man. You are merely my play toy, neither the first, nor the last.

Moderator Action: Trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Hehehe]

You are merely my play toy, neither the first, nor the last.

I take it you admit you're trolling.

 

[dido]

\

Carbon dating is a theory with a strong case against it. Math is more reliable than any theory.

said who?

 

[Kruelgor]

I take it you admit you're trolling.

Proving a point, is all.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

I don't know the formula, but a math wizad should be able to start with the current population of 6.7 billion and work backwards to estimate the date of the very first man and woman. You would have to factor in variables such as the average life expectancy per era, average family size, etc...

I think this might very well disprove the theory of evolution. According to some math, the first two humans would not have been much longer than 5,000 to 6,000 years ago, which interestingly enough it is currently the year 5771 on the Jewish calendar.

This website shows some examples of what I'm talking about as far as the math is concerned:

Does it factor in the life expectancy of several hundred years for the first centuries?

 

[Dachs]

I take it you admit you're trolling.

lolololol

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Maths is super reliable.

Look at this statement:

given any collection of bins, each containing at least one object, it is possible to make a selection of exactly one object from each bin

Pretty uncontroversial. However, you can use this (the axiom of choice) to show that given a closed ball in 3D space, you can do a weird dissection on it, translate and rotate the (finite number) of pieces, and stick them back together to get 2 copies of the original ball, identical in every way to the original. (Banach-Tarski paradox).

Hurrah! Only 1 pea for dinner? Simply use the Banach-Tarski dissection to assemble as many peas as you desire!

 

[Kruelgor]

Does it factor in the life expectancy of several hundred years for the first centuries?

I don't believe in the bible, but I do believe there may be clues in the bible as to what REALLY happened back then.

I take it you admit you're trolling.

The first one to name call without substance is always the loser in a debate.

 

[Heretic_Cata]

So this is what happens when creationists discover math ?