Now, because we're all going to hell in a hand-basket, here's the almighty(sarcasm) Steve-beaten deciding to try his luck on the human population crisis.

http://evillusion.wordpress.com/the-population-paradox/

Although he doesn't believe in the 6000-year-old Earth idea, he still thinks that the human population started with just two individuals, a man and a woman, 200,000 years ago. He then throws in some stupid pointless math, and he takes a good chunk of the article trying to attack the people in the thread that his article is based on.

CADman2300 wrote:Now, because we're all going to hell in a hand-basket, here's the almighty(sarcasm) Steve-beaten deciding to try his luck on the human population crisis.

http://evillusion.wordpress.com/the-population-paradox/

Although he doesn't believe in the 6000-year-old Earth idea, he still thinks that the human population started with just two individuals, a man and a woman, 200,000 years ago. He then throws in some stupid pointless math, and he takes a good chunk of the article trying to attack the people in the thread that his article is based on.

I honestly can't be bothered submitting myself to the torture of trying to fathom in how many ways SteveBee fails to grasp observational reality.

So shockingly yet again, all discussion in that thread that led to something of an amicable agreement as to the genuine nature of human population growth is ignored while he runs off to claim he won the argument. I can't wait for some senior creationist to bitchslap him for severely undermining any argument the put forward with sheer fuck-witted decision making processes

I remember earlier in this thread him complaining about not being approached about duplicating his "work" here, I take it he asked permission of everyone he quoted out of context

Just posted this on the comments section of Stevebee's site any comments

For simplicities sake I can show you the correct maths to use here:

World population = WP
Yearly food requirement of 1 person equals = F
Totally yearly food yield of the earth = N

if WPxF > N the population starts to starve
if WPxF < N all is good.

A population quickly increases to the point where WPxF is just below N.
The only way to increase population after that is to increase N,
Which happened on when farming was invented and again when the industrial revolution happened
The concept of a population ever exceeding the point were WPxF < N is impossible.

I am not sure if a population can exceed your equation's equivalence point, but a population can exceed carrying capacity, however briefly.

Latest National Geo has a great article on whale evolution Steve! My four and six year olds could follow it. Can you?

For eddie and the gang: on indoctrination
(6) You refer me to another site, book, or video, made by someone who you worship and who you think knows all of the answers. They don't. And if you believe they are somehow super-intelligent and know all, far more than you do, you are indoctrinated. You have fallen, just like I did. If you think their stuff is so great, learn it and discuss the information with me yourself. I have read mountains of pro-evolution peer reviewed papers, pro-evolution books. I have viewed many pro-evolution shows on Discovery, PBS, and the Science Channel. I have viewed many of he "big" pro-evolution YouTube vids (CDK007, potholer54, on and on). Many of these items are reviewed, posted and playable, and reprinted on this blog. So please, don't rely on the thinking of others. Don't refer me to a Google "look up", or a YouTube video, or a book or paper that requires no effort on your part. If you do you have caved in to your indoctrination.

on population
To repeat again: The starting population is fixed at two by me FOR SIMPLICITY's sake because that is the minimum number needed, one m AND f. Make it more if you like, but 2 is the minimum of course. A larger number than 2 makes things worse; the average time for doublings will INCREASE quickly from 4671 years. The total time span for the existence of homo sapiens is fixed and given as 200,000 years; fixed by evolution science and the fossil record. The population at the end of the 200,000 year fixed span is 8 billion, fixed because that is what it be will in 2025. So the AVERAGE length of time between doublings is also fixed. The ACTUAL time span for doublings is NOT fixed, and will be all over the place depending on conditions already listed, but the ACTUAL must AVERAGE out at 4671 years for there to be a population of 8 billion in 2025 from 2 people 200,000 years ago. Want to do MORE than 200,000 years ago?
Just for the fun of playing with numbers, let's pretend that there were 1,000 homo sapiens 200,000 years ago and see what that would look like. To reach a population of 8 billion in 2025, the population would have to double only twenty-three times in 200,000 years. Which means the population doubling would occur every 8,695 years, just about longer than the entire history of modern man. So year one, 198,000 BCE, there would be 1,000 people. 8,695 years later, there would be 2,000 people. 17, 390 years later the population would be 4,000. Astounding. Possible? I would seem not since human generations are about 20 years in length and average doubling since 1800 is 75 years. It would seem that any population that could be so easily wiped out to coincide with these figures would never have survived. But, of course we did.

stevebee92653 wrote:For eddie and the gang: on indoctrination
(6) You refer me to another site, book, or video, made by someone who you worship and who you think knows all of the answers. They don't.

Nobody here thinks anyone knows all the answers, so you can stop pretending we do.
Science is all about attempting to explain the unknown. The origin of biodiversity on earth was an unknown, it's not any more. Evolution quite adequately explains how we all evolved from singe celled organisms, and your constant misrepresentation of evolutionary postulates do nothing to change this fact.

stevebee92653 wrote:And if you believe they are somehow super-intelligent and know all, far more than you do, you are indoctrinated.

Once again, you are just making shit up and misrepresenting the situation. We don't have personal superhereos who's every word we just gulp up like we were religious. Both among the members here, and indeed in the overall scientific community there is disagreement about many details. But whether or not life evolved by darwinian means isn't one of them.

Life evolved. Get over it.

stevebee92653 wrote:You have fallen, just like I did. If you think their stuff is so great, learn it and discuss the information with me yourself.

Fallen where, for what? I understand evolutionary postulates quite well, in fact so well, that I can consistently spot your ludicrous misrepresentations, all of which you have failed to answer for or correct in this thread.

There are 2 things I want to say on that note.

1. Your case is entirely emotional, you have no scientific evidence to support your postulates that evolution is somehow unfounded or impossible. None. Zip.
All you ever do, is read some small part of the extant litterature, and then proceed to attack it on no basis whatsoever other than personal feeling and personal incredulity. "It's too impropable". "I don't see how X could lead to Y" etc. etc.

2. You erect the "vast global science conspiracy" canard when you say things like "If you think their stuff is so great,.."
Here's a hint : There is no "their". There are only facts. Facts that don't go away just because you don't like them. You are essentially arguing that the millions of scientists all over the world who support evolution are all somehow indoctrinated. That's an INSANE postulate and we can only laugh at the level of idiocy one must suffer from to claim it.

stevebee92653 wrote:I have read mountains of pro-evolution peer reviewed papers, pro-evolution books.

I know you have Steve, I know you have because that is the only way you can so consistently lie and misrepresent evolutionary science in the way you do.

Almost every single question you ask on your blog is wrong in the way you ask it. You always ask a question by intentionally claiming that evolution says X, then how come Y? But I think you know in reality that evolution doesn't actually claim X, and that therefore asking how come Y? is a wrong question.

This is a special fallacy of argumentation, called poisoning the well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

This is exactly what you do on your blog, consistently in response to every paper or book you review. You intentionally lie about evolutionary claims in your questions, making the answers seem incredible or impossible. We have already dealt with your stupid, obfuscating questions and misrepresentations earlier in this thread, but you conveniently ducked out with an acute case of martyr-syndrome at the time.

stevebee92653 wrote:I have viewed many pro-evolution shows on Discovery, PBS, and the Science Channel. I have viewed many of he "big" pro-evolution YouTube vids (CDK007, potholer54, on and on).

Congratulations. You know, Steve... I think you even understood them. But as explained before, you intentionally misrepresent them when asking your questions.

stevebee92653 wrote: Many of these items are reviewed, posted and playable, and reprinted on this blog.

Your blog is a worthless puddle of oozing swine-cum. A giant, chaotic soup of intentional misrepresentations of real science and the hard work done by real scientists.

stevebee92653 wrote: So please, don't rely on the thinking of others. Don't refer me to a Google "look up", or a YouTube video, or a book or paper that requires no effort on your part.

What an incredibly fucking stupid thing to say.
You are actually fucking bitching that we refer you to real work done by real scientists? Why am I not surprised.

I hope everyone can see the difference between you and us. We are the one referring to OBSERVATIONAL REALITY, you are the one arguing out of your ass, doing no research of your own.
We have experimentally derived empirical data to refer to. All you can do is claim that you "need more". Your case is entirely based on your own personal emotional need to get some arbitrary need for evidence satisfied.

stevebee92653 wrote: If you do you have caved in to your indoctrination.

Ahh I see... what an excellent approach to argument : When the opposing side refers to real experiments done in the real world, call it indoctrination.
R O F L.

Pathetic Stevie... Pathetic.

stevebee92653 wrote:on population
To repeat again: The starting population is fixed at two by me FOR SIMPLICITY's sake because that is the minimum number needed, one m AND f. Make it more if you like, but 2 is the minimum of course. A larger number than 2 makes things worse; the average time for doublings will INCREASE quickly from 4671 years. The total time span for the existence of homo sapiens is fixed and given as 200,000 years; fixed by evolution science and the fossil record.

Please refer to this supposed "evolution science" and "fossil record" data that supports your assertion. We can't just take your word for it. We want proper citations please.

I can't be bothered dealing with the rest of that vortex of vacuum-brain you attempt to portray as "evidence" before you back your shit up with research.

And yes, your "indoctrination" canard or "global science conspiracy" fantasist claim is only going to get laughed at.

So we can conclude that stevebee, who looks at the same evidence WE look at, and comes to a different conclusion than WE do, is a terrible person.
His blog is "a worthless puddle of oozing swine-cum. A giant, chaotic soup of intentional misrepresentations of real science and the hard work done by real scientists."
Stevebee is a liar. He says he has patents. WE think he is lying. Maybe he isn't a dentist. He lies about evolution evidence. He is a liar. We are scientific. He is bad. We are good.
.

Martyr complex, get over it.

Well of course, if you're convinced you're right, why not try writing research papers with apposite citations and try getting them published in proper peer-reviewed journals? There are plenty of them, such as PLoS , Nature & Science, if your work is turned down for anything other than scientific errors you'll have a point, but otherwise your allegations of a global scientific conspiracy are actually libellous.

stevebee92653 wrote:So we can conclude that stevebee, who looks at the same evidence WE look at, and comes to a different conclusion than WE do, is a terrible person.
His blog is "a worthless puddle of oozing swine-cum. A giant, chaotic soup of intentional misrepresentations of real science and the hard work done by real scientists."
Stevebee is a liar. He says he has patents. WE think he is lying. Maybe he isn't a dentist. He lies about evolution evidence. He is a liar. We are scientific. He is bad. We are good.
.

I love the smell of melt-down in the morning

stevebee92653 wrote:So we can conclude that stevebee, who looks at the same evidence WE look at, and comes to a different conclusion than WE do, is a terrible person might be wrong.
His blog is "a worthless puddle of oozing swine-cum. A giant, chaotic soup of intentional (or maybe unintentional) misrepresentations of real science and the hard work done by real scientists."

This is what I feel.

stevebee92653 wrote:
on population
To repeat again: The starting population is fixed at two by me FOR SIMPLICITY's sake because that is the minimum number needed, one m AND f. Make it more if you like, but 2 is the minimum of course. A larger number than 2 makes things worse; the average time for doublings will INCREASE quickly from 4671 years. The total time span for the existence of homo sapiens is fixed and given as 200,000 years; fixed by evolution science and the fossil record. The population at the end of the 200,000 year fixed span is 8 billion, fixed because that is what it be will in 2025. So the AVERAGE length of time between doublings is also fixed. The ACTUAL time span for doublings is NOT fixed, and will be all over the place depending on conditions already listed, but the ACTUAL must AVERAGE out at 4671 years for there to be a population of 8 billion in 2025 from 2 people 200,000 years ago. Want to do MORE than 200,000 years ago?
Just for the fun of playing with numbers, let's pretend that there were 1,000 homo sapiens 200,000 years ago and see what that would look like. To reach a population of 8 billion in 2025, the population would have to double only twenty-three times in 200,000 years. Which means the population doubling would occur every 8,695 years, just about longer than the entire history of modern man. So year one, 198,000 BCE, there would be 1,000 people. 8,695 years later, there would be 2,000 people. 17, 390 years later the population would be 4,000. Astounding. Possible? I would seem not since human generations are about 20 years in length and average doubling since 1800 is 75 years. It would seem that any population that could be so easily wiped out to coincide with these figures would never have survived. But, of course we did.

This would be a good approach if only population were a lineair function. It's not.
I can see you like to present it that way to make a statement, but simplifying reality to make it fit your ideas is intellectually dishonest.

stevebee92653 wrote:For eddie and the gang: on indoctrination
(6) You refer me to another site, book, or video, made by someone who you worship and who you think knows all of the answers. They don't. And if you believe they are somehow super-intelligent and know all, far more than you do, you are indoctrinated. You have fallen, just like I did. If you think their stuff is so great, learn it and discuss the information with me yourself. I have read mountains of pro-evolution peer reviewed papers, pro-evolution books. I have viewed many pro-evolution shows on Discovery, PBS, and the Science Channel. I have viewed many of he "big" pro-evolution YouTube vids (CDK007, potholer54, on and on). Many of these items are reviewed, posted and playable, and reprinted on this blog. So please, don't rely on the thinking of others. Don't refer me to a Google "look up", or a YouTube video, or a book or paper that requires no effort on your part. If you do you have caved in to your indoctrination.

on population
To repeat again: The starting population is fixed at two by me FOR SIMPLICITY's sake because that is the minimum number needed, one m AND f. Make it more if you like, but 2 is the minimum of course. A larger number than 2 makes things worse; the average time for doublings will INCREASE quickly from 4671 years. The total time span for the existence of homo sapiens is fixed and given as 200,000 years; fixed by evolution science and the fossil record. The population at the end of the 200,000 year fixed span is 8 billion, fixed because that is what it be will in 2025. So the AVERAGE length of time between doublings is also fixed. The ACTUAL time span for doublings is NOT fixed, and will be all over the place depending on conditions already listed, but the ACTUAL must AVERAGE out at 4671 years for there to be a population of 8 billion in 2025 from 2 people 200,000 years ago. Want to do MORE than 200,000 years ago?
Just for the fun of playing with numbers, let's pretend that there were 1,000 homo sapiens 200,000 years ago and see what that would look like. To reach a population of 8 billion in 2025, the population would have to double only twenty-three times in 200,000 years. Which means the population doubling would occur every 8,695 years, just about longer than the entire history of modern man. So year one, 198,000 BCE, there would be 1,000 people. 8,695 years later, there would be 2,000 people. 17, 390 years later the population would be 4,000. Astounding. Possible? I would seem not since human generations are about 20 years in length and average doubling since 1800 is 75 years. It would seem that any population that could be so easily wiped out to coincide with these figures would never have survived. But, of course we did.

Question for you. If you were to lock 1000 people in a room with no food, and then count the population of the room after 500 years, how many people would you expect there to be?

stevebee92653 wrote:So we can conclude that stevebee, who looks at the same evidence WE look at, and comes to a different conclusion than WE do, is a terrible person.
His blog is "a worthless puddle of oozing swine-cum. A giant, chaotic soup of intentional misrepresentations of real science and the hard work done by real scientists."
Stevebee is a liar. He says he has patents. WE think he is lying. Maybe he isn't a dentist. He lies about evolution evidence. He is a liar. We are scientific. He is bad. We are good.
.

Oh my... did little Stevie get offended? Did I hurt his feelings by insulting his blog? Do you actually have a point to make? When ideas are idiotic they deserve to get called it. And your ideas are manifestly retarded on an astronomical scale.

Once again I notice you have nothing of substance to contribute, no hard facts to refer to, no research to support your claims.

Much of your bullshit has been explained and debunked in this very thread, but all you ever do is talk out of your ass and/or ignore or intentionally misrepresent valid rebuttals. "I don't see how Y is possible when evolution says X" - knowing full well that evolution doesn't say X. Intentional misrepresentation is dishonest, and on this site you will get called out on it and ridiculed for it. You can go cry on your blog about our "indoctrinations" and how victimized you feel now.

Arcanyn wrote:

stevebee92653 wrote:For eddie and the gang: on indoctrination
(6) You refer me to another site, book, or video, made by someone who you worship and who you think knows all of the answers. They don't. And if you believe they are somehow super-intelligent and know all, far more than you do, you are indoctrinated. You have fallen, just like I did. If you think their stuff is so great, learn it and discuss the information with me yourself. I have read mountains of pro-evolution peer reviewed papers, pro-evolution books. I have viewed many pro-evolution shows on Discovery, PBS, and the Science Channel. I have viewed many of he "big" pro-evolution YouTube vids (CDK007, potholer54, on and on). Many of these items are reviewed, posted and playable, and reprinted on this blog. So please, don't rely on the thinking of others. Don't refer me to a Google "look up", or a YouTube video, or a book or paper that requires no effort on your part. If you do you have caved in to your indoctrination.

on population
To repeat again: The starting population is fixed at two by me FOR SIMPLICITY's sake because that is the minimum number needed, one m AND f. Make it more if you like, but 2 is the minimum of course. A larger number than 2 makes things worse; the average time for doublings will INCREASE quickly from 4671 years. The total time span for the existence of homo sapiens is fixed and given as 200,000 years; fixed by evolution science and the fossil record. The population at the end of the 200,000 year fixed span is 8 billion, fixed because that is what it be will in 2025. So the AVERAGE length of time between doublings is also fixed. The ACTUAL time span for doublings is NOT fixed, and will be all over the place depending on conditions already listed, but the ACTUAL must AVERAGE out at 4671 years for there to be a population of 8 billion in 2025 from 2 people 200,000 years ago. Want to do MORE than 200,000 years ago?
Just for the fun of playing with numbers, let's pretend that there were 1,000 homo sapiens 200,000 years ago and see what that would look like. To reach a population of 8 billion in 2025, the population would have to double only twenty-three times in 200,000 years. Which means the population doubling would occur every 8,695 years, just about longer than the entire history of modern man. So year one, 198,000 BCE, there would be 1,000 people. 8,695 years later, there would be 2,000 people. 17, 390 years later the population would be 4,000. Astounding. Possible? I would seem not since human generations are about 20 years in length and average doubling since 1800 is 75 years. It would seem that any population that could be so easily wiped out to coincide with these figures would never have survived. But, of course we did.

Question for you. If you were to lock 1000 people in a room with no food, and then count the population of the room after 500 years, how many people would you expect there to be?

Well, since the population ALWAYS doubles every 25 years...

1,074,176,000 people in the room in 500 years.

Re:Oh my... did little Stevie get offended?
Sorry guys, I'm not offended in the least. I'm completely used to the ragging of course. Means nothing to me. That's the way you play the game. Intelligent discussion takes two, and your choice is not to discuss, which could be very interesting for both, but to continually rag on me. No melt down here. Sorry.You're wasting your effort.

Don't you get tired or writing the same stuff over and over? Since my last entry:
When ideas are idiotic they deserve to get called it.
all you ever do is talk out of your ass
Much of your bullshit has been explained and debunked in this very thread
your ideas is intellectually dishonest.
I love the smell of melt-down in the morning
Martyr complex, get over it.

I would get tired writing this kind of feedback. Why are you here. Why waste your time? I don't get it.

Take this to a math instructor. Forget about what have to say. It's simple math:
Given: 2 people, bulldozers, rocks, anything, at point A
8 billion bulldozers, rocks, people, anything at point B, 200,000 years later.
How many doublings occur, and what is the AVERAGE time span for each doubling of the quantity of people, bulldozers, rocks, anything.
Again, the number 2 is used for SIMPLICITY, which you have so much trouble with. Use a larger number if you like. 2 is best for YOU. You HAVE TO REACH 8 billion, so the food, disease, whatever doesn't matter. You MUST reach 8 billion. That is GIVEN.
Doesn't matter what the entities are. Everything is FIXED. I'm sure you won't spend a second getting a math answer. It goes against your belief system, and you have to play pretend and ignore the question. So, I really think your best ploy here is to demean some more. Don't do an honest search. I can't wait for the "answers".