Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Kruelgor, Feb 19, 2011.
Whoah! Group think
The posters of OT are merging into one internet being!
_random_ obviously is a man of great wit (but inferior posting speed ).
Right, half life of isotopes = you're wrong.
edit: side-note or we should perhaps split it off into a new thread, but I think the pirates chart Fuzz posted needs adjusting. As discussed in the debate over Japanese whaling the pirate numbers have probably gone up now that we're in the 2010s.
You forgot - the same image at the same time.
And I somehow switched the order too.
You didn't have to point out that part.
I don't know if it's been pointed out before but:
The starting end of that graph is hilarious. Case in point: The golden age of Sumer took place during around 2000 BCE. It's population swelled and modern urban civilization began to form. The city of Ur alone is guessed to have had about 60,000 people. That's kind of odd when your calculations show that the the entire world population (including not just Sumeria but also Egypt, India, and China) was roughly 2050 people.
According to the Bible, The Israelites at the time Moses took a census of them (beginning of the Book of Numbers) constituted 603,550 people. That's pretty impressive considering that the world population, according to your numbers, wasn't that high until sometime in the 8th century BCE. That's kind of a problem, because the Bible also makes it clear that David founded his kingdom in the 11th century BCE, and working backwards from that, the invasion of Canaan would have taken place in the 13th century BCE, back when the total world population was about 30,000 people (and again, the Israeli population alone was 20 times that, going by the Bible).
Dang, people really got busy in the last 800 years!
I cannot tell a lie.
Oh wait his birthday isn't for three more days.
I don't like quoting older posts, so I'll quote this one instead.
You mentioned that the axiom of choice is really easy to accept, yet the Banach-Tarski paradox is such a dramatic consequence of seemingly such an easy concept.
However, you explained the axiom of choice through the placing of balls in buckets. This is a really, really bad analogy. A finite number of buckets requires no axiom outside ZF. Even a countable number of buckets does not require the full of axiom of choice, but merely countable choice (which is equivalent to recursion, both of which are strictly stronger than induction).
That you can drop a ball into an uncountable number of buckets is much less easy to accept. I'm a operator algebraist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator_algebra ), so I really have no choice to accept it in order to not go insane. But that doesn't mean it's easy to accept!
I didn't specify whether there were countably infinite numbers of buckets or if there contents were well ordered
It's interesting to note that as recently as 1950, the world's population was 3 billion people. That's 60 years' difference, not that arbitrary 100-200 year doubling idea.
I think we have already established the model is total bollocks.
Well, of course, but the 1950 figure is actually a fact, rather than a hypothetical estimate.
There's a lot of meat here for a real debate about the truth regarding human creation.
What Kruelgor has done is something no one has done before: Attempt to use logic and reason to prove that were must have been created, coincidentally, at around the time described in Abrahamic religions. As evidence, he has given us a graph which shows the population of earth has been increasing exponentially.
His main point seems to be twofold:
1. Our mere existence means he's already won the debate. He wins automatically.
2. If you mock him, or attempt to use science, he also wins. Science is full of theories, he only deals with wild assumptions.
We had several threads dedicated to proof of Creationism and talking about evolution science, but they were all big fat wastes of time. This one ends the debate, conclusively.
I would like to add something to the graph which is missing, which can only further prove the existence of the one true deity, the Great Stick Man. (GSM) Praise be upon him.
Since it's on a graph, it must be true. The debate is over. Surely you all realize the error of your ways now.
I can sense some of you are still skeptical, but this should convince even the most reasonable of you. The Six Undeniable Facts.
FIRST FACT: There are stick men.
SECOND FACT: Stick men have not always existed, because the universe has a defined starting point.
THIRD FACT: There must have been a first stick man. He was the Great Stick Man.
FOURTH FACT: The next stick man was made to look like the first stick man, made in the Great Stick Man's image.
FIFTH FACT: Later, stick women came along. (They took longer to draw)
SIXTH FACT: The number of stick men/women have been increasing over time.
Therefore, the first stick man was the Great Stick Man. But who created the first, Great Stick Man? He must have always existed. If so, a thing can exist without being created. What if the Great Stick Man didn't always exist? Then he was created by someone else. If so, did the Creator always exist? If so, a thing can exist without being created. If not, then it must be Stick Men all the way down.
So, that must mean the fundamental proof of Creationism, our mere existence being proof that we were created by a God, is flawed reasoning.
That being said, I have a graph with a picture of the Great Stick Man on it. Therefore, your arguments are invalid.
The problem with all this is that Hebrew Geneaologies aren't the same as we know a Geneaology. The word for "Father" really just means ancestor and "Son means descendent. In theory, they could have skipped several generations in between every name.
Theoretically, the Bible writers thought every single name was important enough to write down, but this is probably not the case. Thus the "Traditionalist" 6,000 year date is probably wrong. That the Flood would have happened only 400 years before Abram is further evidence against this theory.
BTW: My post was from a Biblical perspective, not a Scientific one, so I would prefer no comments of "But Adam and Eve didn't really exist."
Technically, it's an hypothesis, rather than a theory. Either way, the original graph is clearly laughable and even a creationist should be able to see its obvious flaws.
The main point of faulty reasoning I saw was that Hebrew Geneaologies as I said sometimes skip generations. A second flaw I saw was that it assumes Uniformatarianism, and Creationist theory (Hypothesis, whatever you want to call it) depends upon this being false (Ironically, so does Evolution.)
Now, assuming stable population growth, his numbers may be right, I don't know how to check them. But obviously it didn't happen that way.
Separate names with a comma.