Mathematics can estimate the date of Adam and Eve

Kruelgor said:
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.
Click to expand...
Now why don't you provide some articles/evidence/data supporting your theories?

I take it you don't know much about science and math. You don't need a mathematicians to produce a model like this, especially when it looks like a simple exponential curve a high school kid can make. Most engineers, scientists or even business majors can fit some data into a graph, but they all need DATA. Do you have some accurate data about population size from 500 years ago? 1000 years ago?

And if it helps, pure mathematics is more of a theory than any other scientific discipline since math does not use (nor need) evidence from the outside world.
 
/nick Cassandra
 
Kruelgor said:
Proving a point, is all.
Click to expand...

2/10

+I like the post where your toys supposedly disprove evolution

-trolling CFC is just lame
-real trolling is supposed to offend people. Too many trolls out there think that just getting some replies is enough.

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

I calls them like I sees them

Moderator Action: Trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
dido said:
Now why don't you provide some articles/evidence/data supporting your theories?
Click to expand...

What theory?

You want proof of the one who created you? What kind of proof would you like to see? You want to see what the creator looks like? You want to talk to it? What if it wishes for none of those privileges to be granted to you? You are then left in the dark caught in the mess of the effects. Within the mess of the effects feel as free as you like to make up whatever theories meet your fancy.
 
I've already mentioned 2 things about maths which means it isn't some kind of holy grail (Godel's theorems and the Banach-Tarski paradox).

I've also said your model is overly simplistic, relying on a single parameter.

I also mentioned when population is low (especially when faced by predators) a dynamical system is a better approximation (which introduces chaos into the system).

Meanwhile you haven't provided anything except a link which doesn't even have any real-world data to back it up.
 
ParadigmShifter said:
I've already mentioned 2 things about maths which means it isn't some kind of holy grail (Godel's theorems and the Banach-Tarski paradox).

I've also said your model is overly simplistic, relying on a single parameter.

I also mentioned when population is low (especially when faced by predators) a dynamical system is a better approximation (which introduces chaos into the system).

Meanwhile you haven't provided anything except a link which doesn't even have any real-world data to back it up.
Click to expand...


Again, there is no specific model. We do know the average age where a person dies of old age due to cell deterioration. All the other factors can be speculated within a reasonable range. Each mathametician would come up with a different date, but it would be interesting to look at the consensus range of dates for the first two humans. What you would probably see is between the ages of 15,000bc to 4,000bc, which if that's the case then the theory of evolution is nowhere near close and would be an incorrect THEORY.
 
Kruelgor said:
You want proof of the one who created you? What kind of proof would you like to see? You want to see what the creator looks like? You want to talk to it? What if it wishes for none of those privileges to be granted to you? You are then left in the dark caught in the mess of the effects. Within the mess of the effects feel as free as you like to make up whatever theories meet your fancy.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. What does this have to do with Mathematics, Population Models, or the date of Adam and Eve?

Math is a truly interesting subject, if you can accept it's rigor. Unfortunately it seems like rigor is not something you're interested in; you're just trying to fudge some ideas to prove a point.
 
Kruelgor said:
Again, there is no specific model. We do know the average age where a person dies of old age due to cell deterioration. All the other factors can be speculated within a reasonable range. Each mathametician would come up with a different date, but it would be interesting to look at the consensus range of dates for the first two humans. What you would probably see is between the ages of 15,000bc to 4,000bc, which if that's the case then the theory of evolution is nowhere near close and an incorrect THEORY.
Click to expand...

Dynamical systems can oscillate for long periods. This model fits low population systems better than an exponential curve. And it will be chaotic i.e. sensitive to initial conditions, so an unmeasurably small tweak of a parameter will give wildly varying results in the long run.
 
Look, the basic point of the mathematical calculation is that you know the growth rate and calculate the size of the human population in earlier times. If you know that human population doubles every 50 years, then you know that in 1961 about 3.5 Billion people lived on earth. And so on.
But in fact you have no idea what the growth rate was in earlier times. You calculation is flawed because of lack of data.
 
Kruelgor said:
Again, there is no specific model. We do know the average age where a person dies of old age due to cell deterioration. All the other factors can be speculated within a reasonable range. Each mathametician would come up with a different date, but it would be interesting to look at the consensus range of dates for the first two humans. What you would probably see is between the ages of 15,000bc to 4,000bc, which if that's the case then theory of evolution is an incorrect THEORY.
Click to expand...

When your model is inconsistent with reality, you don't throw reality out the window. You rework your model.
 
Kruelgor said:
Interesting assumptions you have.
Click to expand...

Yeah, those of us that are extraordinarily good looking tend to do that.

There is no level of rigor in the link you provided. No level of rigor in anything you've said. The only one that's making an effort seems to be ParadigmShifter and those saying stuff about lack of data.
 
ParadigmShifter said:
Dynamical systems can oscillate for long periods. This model fits low population systems better than an exponential curve. And it will be chaotic i.e. sensitive to initial conditions, so an unmeasurably small tweak of a parameter will give wildly varying results in the long run.
Click to expand...

I believe it's extremely logical to assume that the birth rate in the beginning ages was much much MUCH higher than what we're accustomed to. The human females were almost ALWAYS pregnant during the ages of 12 to 50.
 
Kruelgor said:
What theory?

You want proof of the one who created you? What kind of proof would you like to see? You want to see what the creator looks like? You want to talk to it? What if it wishes for none of those privileges to be granted to you? You are then left in the dark caught in the mess of the effects.
Click to expand...
Your theory of creationism, or more specifically, your statement that the model you provided describes what really happened in the last 5000 years. The model you gave is based on a number of assumptions that is not necessarily true.

And if the Bible is to be believed, that model only dates back to Noah and his immediate family. Even if you don't believe in the Bible, and even if the model is accurate, how do you know Homo sapiens didn't go through a mass extinction event?
 
Maybe the bodies got crushed into a fine paste under a glacier ;)
 
Kruelgor, do you make some kind of living off of posting ridiculous, self-biased and self-important conspiracy theories and/or pseudo-science?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Aurelesk
[R&F] “Knights are too weak!” - A tale of Combat Strength across the era
Replies
16
Views
3K
Sostratus
Sostratus
Berzerker
Adam and Eve Have a Date
2
Replies
25
Views
3K
Kyriakos
Kyriakos
Mr. Dictator
A question of Adam and Eve
4 5 6
Replies
112
Views
4K
ParkCungHee
ParkCungHee
Leoreth
UK court rules against use of Bayes' Theorem
2 3
Replies
43
Views
3K
azzaman333
azzaman333
Integral
Stimulus Plan Stimulates the Economy (round 2)
Replies
9
Views
739
Integral
Integral
Top Bottom