1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Mathematics can estimate the date of Adam and Eve

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Kruelgor, Feb 19, 2011.

  1. Arakhor

    Arakhor Dremora Courtier Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Messages:
    33,798
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    The Old Testament goes out of its way to show God as cruel and vindictive and the whole concept of Hell and a burning pit for sinners shows him to be negligent and uncaring. As I've said before, if current scientific theory is also incorrect about the age of everything, God is also mendacious and manipulative, whom enjoys deceiving his creations.
     
  2. Kruelgor

    Kruelgor Emperor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,165
    Location:
    The United States
    Again, the idea of evolution doesn't even for a second discredit or suggest there is no designer/creator. The creator can easily design rules for evolution.
     
  3. Berzerker

    Berzerker Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    17,896
    Location:
    the golf course
    Perhaps, unless the same act of creation - a collision between planetary bodies - responsible for life here was also responsible for the alien life... The Sumerians said as much, their "gods" (our term) came from the celestial sky god that slew Tiamat leaving behind "Heaven" and Earth (and life). And I suspect humanoid life everywhere is close enough that minor differences could eventually be over come by science...
     
  4. Kruelgor

    Kruelgor Emperor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,165
    Location:
    The United States
    Even here on earth, just a slight difference such as blood type can cause the mother's internal defense systems to kill the unborn baby. http://parents.berkeley.edu/advice/pregnancy/oneg.html
     
  5. emzie

    emzie wicked witch of the North

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    20,715
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario
    If you suppose a creator set forth rules of evolution, you have merely reset the question. For if life on earth is improbable, it must me many orders of magnitude more improbable that a being capable of magic spontaneously come into existence. What would be a simpler explanation is that such a being gradually gained in complexity and hence... well you're back to evolution.

    When we are capable of creating truly artificial life, that life isn't going to follow some new rules or laws because it was created by humans. If 5 billion years from now (pretend the sun won't have destroyed the habitability of earth in this time frame) the life we created this century has evolved into complex organisms contemplating their existence, their postulation that they were created doesn't solve the question of their existence. That we created them just opens up a new question: how did we get here in the first place? It would also lead to another point. If the mechanism at work for creating variety in life is indistinguishable from evolution, there is no reason to postulate a creator, as the existence of a creator becomes superfluousness. Only if you truly run into something like irreducible complexity does the question of a creator even bother passing consideration.
     
  6. Abegweit

    Abegweit Anarchist trader

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Messages:
    4,829
    Location:
    One step ahead of the authorities
    I'm coming in late and I haven't waded through this entire thread but early on Truronian touched on the real issue here. In short, the math is absolutely impeccable; it's the premises which are false.

    From the article: "If the population of the world is 6 billion people in the year 2000 and the population has consistently doubled every 100 years, when were there only 2 people on earth?" While the first part is right (the population was indeed around 6 billion in 2000), the second has absolutely no relationship to reality whatever. Since the math is based on this false premise, the conclusion it draws is completely wrong. Unfortunately, doubling every hundred years does not lead to the conclusion that these folks want so they changed it to every 160 years. Magical! Given that premise, there were two people on the planet about six thousand years ago.

    However, why choose 100 or 160 years, or any other number.

    The human species is capable of doubling its population far faster than once every 160 years. For example the French Canadian population, with no new immigration, doubled 10 times over from 1700 to 1960, or roughly once every 25 years - going from 15,000 to 8 million. The population of the few Acadians left in Canada after the expulsion of 1745 (remember Evangeline) grew even faster in the following hundred years. At the peak, each woman had 15-20 children who survived to maturity. This implies three doublings every generation.

    But this kind of growth can only happen when there are empty lands and untapped resources to support it. Cases like this are truly exceptional. Throughout the vast majority of human existence, the amount of resources available to one generation was pretty much the same as the amount available to the next. So people either limited the number of children they had, or their children died. That was about it.

    For all of history prior to agriculture, the population had to have remained roughly stable. Well, it would have grown slowly as people moved to colonise new land masses and developed technologies to exploit new food sources.

    It is estimated that the world population was about 1-5 million people at the advent of agriculture around 10,000BC. As agriculture spread, new species were domesticated and new technologies developed, the population grew steadily. It doubled roughly once every thousand years reaching 500 million people around 1500 AD.

    Then came the industrial revolution and the liberation of new resources. The next doubling took barely over 300 years when the population reached a billion in about 1805. Next doubling was a mere 125 years and the two afterwards around 45-50 each (do the math, the last one ends in the near future).

    In short, the assumption that the growth rate was constant is simply nonsense. And the reasons why it is nonsense are obvious.
     
  7. Ceoladir

    Ceoladir Come Fly With Me

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2009
    Messages:
    8,466
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    :goodjob:
     
  8. Leifmk

    Leifmk Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,017
    Location:
    Outskirts of Oslo, Norway
    Well, more or less; there would have been the odd dieback incident due to various factors such as disease, climate change etc., and in the wake of such incidents I guess the growth rate could go higher for a while until the carrying capacity was approached again. There's some pretty strong indications that our ancestors passed through a particularly severe population bottleneck around 70k years ago where there were maybe only 15 thousand survivors (see the Toba catastrophe theory), for example. Significant but not really species-threatening dieback incidents have happened many times after the introduction of agriculture as well. The ones we have the best historical records of are obviously the most recent ones, specifically the Black Death and the devastation brought upon the various Native American peoples after contact with Europeans (again, disease).
     
  9. dido

    dido Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    371
    Location:
    Badgerville
    Can you have a 3D space which never ends but which is not infinite?:confused:
     
  10. Leifmk

    Leifmk Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,017
    Location:
    Outskirts of Oslo, Norway
    Yes, if it exists in a higher-dimensional space.
     

Share This Page