I continued watching this one, still with Paulogia:
Eric Hovind vs Bill Nye - The Lost Debate - Population destroys Evolution
Paulogia : 31 May 2017
Here is where it gets interesting, as in something to argue about:
- 9:29 "how fast it takes for the population to double"
Well, actually, there is no set speed.
It does not depend on human reproduction only, but on how many couples form and how they have occasions to make children - which is also socially conditioned. You conquer uncharted territory, your teens can marry as soon as they are physically ready. At least if they can farm, hunt, or provide farmers and hunters with other useful things.
You live in a population which has been in place for some time?
Well, crowding, competition about work (both making enterprises and getting employed in them involves some, usually), jealousies and meannesses you can't get away from etc : I am nearly fifty and still not married.
Ergo, you can't project one speed to all situations.
No, mathematics is not the correct disipline for studying this problem.
Bill Nye is wrong.
2 to 10 is 1024
2 to 20 is 1 048 576
2 to 30 is 1 073 741 824
2 to 32 is 4 294 967 296
2 to 33 is 8 589 934 592
In other words, if exponentiality as such were the only relevant thing, we would be just a bit more than 32 but a bit less than 33 generations from one couple.
In other words, here is a non-mathematical problem.
Medium of one population is actually sth like 33 years, and 33 generations back would be, therefore 1089 years back.
- 13:55 Here is one YEC idea which needs revising. Growth rates of human population are not standardised.
Some of them would have Masoretic timelines only, over LXX ones. This places birth of Peleg at 101 after Flood.
And some of them would have Tower of Babel begin in time for the solution to occur by dispersion of nations about that time.
Taking a minimum of 1 week for mankind to be ready for that venture, if really huddling together, mankind minus Noah, minus Sem and Sem's children down to Peleg, that is, there would have been reather few people around to start such a thing.
I wonder how many of them would argue the event was ridiculously small, but that is where fixed population rates would lead them.
OK, they know growth rates are not standardised, and recall it whenever they need to argue over Babel.
But they could give atheists the credit of admitting, theoretically, physical misery could have held population rather low for rather long. I don't think that is the case, but it can't be excluded on purely mathematical grounds.
14:49 - yes, indeed, Creationists do tend to recall growth rates of human populations are not fixed when they speak of Babel and Exodus.
Btw, Babel (while not given a liturgic mention) is even so relatable to Flood if related to Birth of Peleg.
Masoretic : 101 after Flood.
Standard LXX : 529 after Flood (presumable for Byzantine)
LXX without second Cainan (as per certain manuscripts, also of Luke 3, and presumable for Roman) : 401 after Flood.
- 14:33 Earliest estimate for Flood 2750 BC?
Hmmmm ... no.
Two LXX based timelines have been used in liturgy and the liturgy of Christmas involves stating how many years after Creation, Flood, birth of Abraham etc including founding of Rome Christ was born.
Roman liturgy : Flood 2957 BC.
Byzantine liturgy : Flood 3366 BC.
This may have no bearing on the population argument, but I think these two are safer when it comes to modelling a carbon rise without the model involving supra-Chernobyl radiation doses at ground level.
Speaking of which, Usoskin is somewhat shy of so to speak test my theory, even if he could:
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Other Check on Carbon Buildup
17:11 No, I am not presuming half life must have changed.
I am not presuming U-Pb is wrong because half life changed (supposing it was correctly measured even, I am doubtful such a slow half life can be measured in 50 years of lab tests or even 100 years), though it could in for instance hardmelts or nuke wars, I am presuming U-Pb is wrong due to excess lead.
Etc for most other radiometric methods. Which are therefore worthless for actual age. If at Laetoli lower lava really systematically dates older than higher, I venture it is due to excess argon being more trapped in lower lava during Flood. And NOT due to changing half lives (even if there too, half lives are too long for me to get a realistic clue of how they could be confidently measured).
In C14 one is uniquely not comparing parent element to daughter element. One is comparing it to a presumed constant rate in atmosphere. One can test combination of constant C14 in atmosphere X half life as opposed either to non-constant C14 level OR other half life, and even against both combined, for last 2500 or so years, namely by comparing to known history. We know how far back El Alamein, Ghettisburg, or Belisarius beating Persians at Dara was ago, and can date organic material accordingly - seeing that C14 dates match historic dates.
Once you go beyond the history in which you are confident of historic dates, you are on less safe ground with C14 too, since dating Göbekli Tepe to 9600 BC through 8600 BC presumes the atmosphere at the events was roughly similar in C14 content.
This means, presuming C14 decay rate constant as today, I can model a carbon rise:
Generality, in polemics against the current CMI position:
Creation vs. Evolution : Why CMI in Public Ignores Me (One Probable Reason)
Specifics as to Babel = Göbekli Tepe:
Creation vs. Evolution : How Fast was Carbon 14 Forming During Babel Event?
Carbon rise during Göbekli Tepe = 40 years of Babel project:
42.626 pmc in 2551 BC "9600 BC"
47.875 pmc in 2511 BC "8600 BC"
Yes, I definitely did chose the parameters I wanted, but to show I could be right, not to show they are the only possible ones so everyone else must be wrong on them.
Obviously I do think uniformitarians taking "9600 BC" as some year near 9600 BC and somewhere near 100 pmc in atmosphere, and I equally believe they are wrong in taking "8600 BC" as a year near 8600 BC and with c. 100 pmc in atmosphere.
This is excluded on Biblical grounds, for those of us who, as we should, believe the Bible.
I cannot exclude it for an atheist.
But I can point to some technology restarting quicker after Flood and population density being somewhat denser than the very low you are calculating for back then, if certain sites have a shorter span than 1000 years, and a span closer to 40 - 45 years. Same with recovery of agriculture at Abu Hureyra and similar:
Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Letter A of ex oriente - III - explanation and results
- 17:47 Obviously, I think you are wrong on mankind having been hunter gatherers for most of the past.
Cro Magnon type late Palaeolithic finds would be from between Flood and Babel (carbon dates ranging between 35 000 BC and 10 000 BC). It's about recovering agriculture after Flood, somewhat slowly, since ground started out a bit too muddy for full scale agriculture.
Neanderthals would have been living that kind of lifestyle before Flood, but I presume that if for carbon dates 40 000 BC and further back (no, not equal to "no measurable carbon"!*) we have no cities like Henoch in Nod**, it is because the Neanderthals were less targetted by God's wrath than the Nodians and even most Sethites.
This means, population had room to be bigger than you presume.
* "This sample is too small and beyond the limits of present accuracy (55000 to 60000 years)"
See carbon calculator, type in a zero in lower:
For 60 000 in upper, I get, first a warning, then 0.07 pmc.
** My best tip for Henoch in Nod : look under Himalaya or Hindukush, if ever you dig a tunnel there!
- 18:38 "all the objective data available"
Er, not the raw data.
Göbekli Tepe having 24.58 pmc for lowest and 27.741 pmc for highest layer carbon dated is of course compatible with Göbekli Tepe being from 11600 to 10600 years ago.
It is also compatible with it being from 4568 to 4528 years ago, and involving a rise of carbon level in atmosphere back then from 42.626 pmc to 47.875 pmc.
Neither my own interpretation, nor yours, is a raw datum. On my interpretation this raw datum matches Biblical history very well.
Note, neither interpretation even remotely involves a changing decay rate or halflife for carbon 14.