Should evolution be taught in high school?

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope. I followed the ACTUAL population growth formula, not your bastardization of it. Using the ACTUAL formula, and your numbers, you end up with a quantity so high it involves over 100 zeroes. You screwed up the equation. I didn't. But, perhaps polymath or another number nerd would be able to weigh in on this issue, if you won't take the word of a lowly English major.
Anybody with a degree in something math-driven: whose calculations and whose version of the population growth formula were correct?

I did use the actual population growth formula. I don't expect you fully understand why but at least look at the WIki article and the section on the Basic Formula:

"Thus the law of exponential growth can be written in different but mathematically equivalent forms, by using a different base. The most common forms are the following:"

x(t)= x(0)* e^kt is exactly what I calculated. Not only did I calculate it, I presented a proof of my calculations. You can take it to the bank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_grow...

Let's see how many posts the evolutionist children devote to their ignorances in population growth, as they have nothing of their own.

How many days will this consume all their time? Lol

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
I gave you formula with step by step solutions and then even proved it backwards and forwards and solved the exponential equation for each of the variables. What the hell else is there to do?

SHOW THAT THE DATA MATCHES REALITY.

Get it? The only population data you even ATTEMPTED to account for is start number (which you got wrong) and end number (were you were off by nearly a billion). STILL, if we accept your start and end numbers we do NOT find a match with population over time.

HOW MUCH MORE CLEAR CAN WE BE?

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
That statement alone indicates that you are a lying sack of dog doo.

That statement alone indicates that you will make up any lie to feel better about yourself.

Mugwump wrote:

<quoted text>
Reconcile the fact that the growth to get from Noah to 27m in 348 years also gives a number that has about 15 too many zeros a 1000 years on?
Sorry I thought asking you the same question 10 times may clarify what is required - obviously not

That's because it's an idiotic question. Get a clue.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
I did use the actual population growth formula. I don't expect you fully understand why but at least look at the WIki article and the section on the Basic Formula:
"Thus the law of exponential growth can be written in different but mathematically equivalent forms, by using a different base. The most common forms are the following:"
x(t)= x(0)* e^kt is exactly what I calculated. Not only did I calculate it, I presented a proof of my calculations. You can take it to the bank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_grow...

All you solved for was the required growth from a hypothetical starting population to near the present population.

Anyone could do that for any two numbers!!!!

You have not shown that anything besides your ending population reflects any sort of reality.

Is this really to hard to understand or to respond to?

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
That's because it's an idiotic question. Get a clue.

We all know that this means you can't answer.

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>
All you solved for was the required growth from a hypothetical starting population to near the present population.
Anyone could do that for any two numbers!!!!
You have not shown that anything besides your ending population reflects any sort of reality.
Is this really to hard to understand or to respond to?

You have zero understanding of what I did. Ask an informed, intelligent question, and I will answer it. But you don't even have the slightest clue.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
I gave you formula with step by step solutions and then even proved it backwards and forwards and solved the exponential equation for each of the variables. What the hell else is there to do?

You refuse to admit your solution is swill. Something is very wrong with you.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
You have zero understanding of what I did. Ask an informed, intelligent question, and I will answer it. But you don't even have the slightest clue.

Here's a question. Why does your formula fit two data points, Biblical or otherwise, but not three?

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
You have zero understanding of what I did. Ask an informed, intelligent question, and I will answer it. But you don't even have the slightest clue.

I know you are a two data point wonder.

That makes it no wonder that no on takes you seriously.

You mathematically drew a curve between two data points. Whoop de do.

3 semesters of graduate level statistics is all I got and that is enough to know you have just plugged two numbers into a formula and come up with a curve that does not match historical reality.

If i wanted an answer to an intelligent question, you are the last person I would ask.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
I did use the actual population growth formula. I don't expect you fully understand why but at least look at the WIki article and the section on the Basic Formula:
"Thus the law of exponential growth can be written in different but mathematically equivalent forms, by using a different base. The most common forms are the following:"
x(t)= x(0)* e^kt is exactly what I calculated. Not only did I calculate it, I presented a proof of my calculations. You can take it to the bank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_grow...

Wiki shows the formula I used, not your screwed up version. That version yields results many times greater than seven billion. Your incompetence is not my shortcoming. Shitty CPA.

LowellGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
Wiki shows the formula I used, not your screwed up version. That version yields results many times greater than seven billion. Your incompetence is not my shortcoming. Shitty CPA.

Dude, I just showed it to you with a link! What the hell is wrong with you?

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's a question. Why does your formula fit two data points, Biblical or otherwise, but not three?

Now I doubt you have an engineering degree, because if you really did, you would know that it is an exponential function that is a continuous curve.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
Now I doubt you have an engineering degree, because if you really did, you would know that it is an exponential function that is a continuous curve.

You are almost home.

The issue is that, in real life, human population growth has NOT been a continuous curve. Not even using your cherry picked data.

You have continuously refused to see this to protect your own ego. Good luck with that.

Get it yet, or will you continue to ignore it?

All you have done is to take two points (one real and one imaginary) and draw a curve between them. So what? My autistic son can do that.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
I did use the actual population growth formula. I don't expect you fully understand why but at least look at the WIki article and the section on the Basic Formula:
"Thus the law of exponential growth can be written in different but mathematically equivalent forms, by using a different base. The most common forms are the following:"
x(t)= x(0)* e^kt is exactly what I calculated. Not only did I calculate it, I presented a proof of my calculations. You can take it to the bank.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_grow...

How come you always miss this bit out when you post the wiki link ?

Exponential growth models of physical phenomena only apply within limited regions, as unbounded growth is not physically realistic. Although growth may initially be exponential, the modelled phenomena will eventually enter a region in which previously ignored negative feedback factors become significant (leading to a logistic growth model) or other underlying assumptions of the exponential growth model, such as continuity or instantaneous feedback, break down.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
That's because it's an idiotic question. Get a clue.

No. You give an idiotic answer. Your equation doesn't work. You failed.

Urban Cowboy wrote:

<quoted text>
You have zero understanding of what I did. Ask an informed, intelligent question, and I will answer it. But you don't even have the slightest clue.

Such a question has been asked. You reply with insults. Who is the clueless one? Look in a mirror.

The evolutionist children here are stuck in an endless loop, that they are unable of getting out of.

Europe is the oldest know area for any kind of census and that is very incomplete and that's without the rest of the world.

The moronic children of evolution are so sure in their stupidity, that hey feel the need to call others names for days and post after post.

Lol, stupid children of stupid teachers.

Psychology wrote:

Europe is the oldest know area for any kind of census

This will no doubt come as a great surprise to anyone aware of the censuses conducted in Egypt prior to 3000 BCE.