Tweet
A few days back I discovered this thread started by Pastor Billy-Bob Joe or Rueben or whatever his name is. Even at first glance I could tell something was very wrong. This is supposedly rock-solid mathematical proof that the world is 6,000 years old. The more I read it, the more obvious errors appeared. When I showed this to a biologist, we were both quick to conclude the good Pastor Billybob was totally full of it.
Bacteria undergo meiosis [It’s called mitosis. Meiosis produces gametes, or sex cells. Your post is muddled with small errors like this that betray your mask of expertise. As soon as I saw that, I knew I was in for something ridiculous.] every twenty minutes. This would mean that a given population of bacteria doubles every twenty minutes. Bacteria don't just double without bound, however. They die as well. Not counting new bacteria produced, the half-life of a population of bacteria is twenty minutes plus fifteen microseconds.
Here’s the first big indicator. The fifteen microseconds measure is way too precise, and no source is provided. No source is provided anywhere in the whole post. Also, bacteria don’t have an infallible rate at which they reproduce. There are millions of strains and none of them reproduce at the same rate all the time.
All of that is clearly wrong.
The growth rate of 100%/20 minutes minus the decay rate of 49.99997473%/20 minutes provides bacteria with an overall global growth rate of about 1.1762% annually.
No source again. You also assume that they all reproduce and die at the same rate, which they don’t. There are also the issues of environment and food. Bacteria can overfeed, starve, and die just like animals can, along with any number of other interferences. And where on earth id you get htat completely random and way too precise 49.99997473% figure?
There are roughly 5E+30, or 5 nonillian [Spelling errors betray you again. No source either, not to mention that is only a rough estimate.], bacteria on our planet today. If we work backwards from 5E+30 with a 1.1762% growth rate, compounded every twenty minutes, we find that the first bacterium appeared about 6000 years ago, just as Creation Science predicted.
Okay, that’s just plain ridiculous. This argument is set on false premises, and then you clearly worked backwards to reach a pre-ordained conclusion. Anyone who bothered to look further into it could tell it was fixed.
Try this on your financial calculator:
FV=5E+30
PV=1
Int=1.1762/(3*24*365.25)%
compute NPER=157935000 twenty minute intervals
158045000 / (3*24*365.25) = 6009.77 years.
Very nice work. I’ll admit you almost had me here. Your attempt to throw us off is not very cleverly disguised. Your advanced-looking math looks technical enough to be believable while just muddled enough to induce the confusion necessary to keep the simple-minded folk on Landover from understanding it, because if they did, the gaping holes in the theory would be obvious.
GLORY!
I don’t think Jesus would appreciate this at all.
There is some rounding going on in there.[There he admits it] I suspect the true number of bacteria on the planet is closer to 5.0004832E+30, [the fixed term to work backward from] which would mean the first bacteria appeared exactly 6010 years and three days ago, on the third day of creation, along with the other plants.
That gives you away again. Any calculation that precise is simply false. You leave no margin for error at all, which completely kills your theory.
However, if we assume as the evolutionists do, that the first bacterium appeared 3.5 billion years ago, we wind up with a ridiculously large number of bacteria, approximately 1E+26510000, or 1E+26509970 times the number of bacteria we actually have.
A single bacterium weighs 95 picograms. The number of bacteria that evolution predicts would weigh 9.5E+26509984 kilograms, a clearly ridiculous value. But our whole planet, including all of the bacteria on it, only weighs about 6E+24 kilograms.
Most bacteria actually way 1 picogram or less. The way you deliberately muddled your math and used inscrutable ways to describe numbers threw me off a lot. Please state your theory in a more straightforward fashion so it will be easier for me to smash it. In truth, scientists can't find out how many bacteria there really are, much less track their species' growth. This is just just another ridiculous theory, which, like many christian theories before you, can't hold up in real life for more than an hour.
That's the wacky world of evolution for you!
Pastor Billy-Reuben
I don't know... Even string theory sounds more plausible than this.
I would also like to thank the people on Yahoo answers for helping me with this.
Have a nice day!
Bacteria undergo meiosis [It’s called mitosis. Meiosis produces gametes, or sex cells. Your post is muddled with small errors like this that betray your mask of expertise. As soon as I saw that, I knew I was in for something ridiculous.] every twenty minutes. This would mean that a given population of bacteria doubles every twenty minutes. Bacteria don't just double without bound, however. They die as well. Not counting new bacteria produced, the half-life of a population of bacteria is twenty minutes plus fifteen microseconds.
Here’s the first big indicator. The fifteen microseconds measure is way too precise, and no source is provided. No source is provided anywhere in the whole post. Also, bacteria don’t have an infallible rate at which they reproduce. There are millions of strains and none of them reproduce at the same rate all the time.
All of that is clearly wrong.
The growth rate of 100%/20 minutes minus the decay rate of 49.99997473%/20 minutes provides bacteria with an overall global growth rate of about 1.1762% annually.
No source again. You also assume that they all reproduce and die at the same rate, which they don’t. There are also the issues of environment and food. Bacteria can overfeed, starve, and die just like animals can, along with any number of other interferences. And where on earth id you get htat completely random and way too precise 49.99997473% figure?
There are roughly 5E+30, or 5 nonillian [Spelling errors betray you again. No source either, not to mention that is only a rough estimate.], bacteria on our planet today. If we work backwards from 5E+30 with a 1.1762% growth rate, compounded every twenty minutes, we find that the first bacterium appeared about 6000 years ago, just as Creation Science predicted.
Okay, that’s just plain ridiculous. This argument is set on false premises, and then you clearly worked backwards to reach a pre-ordained conclusion. Anyone who bothered to look further into it could tell it was fixed.
Try this on your financial calculator:
FV=5E+30
PV=1
Int=1.1762/(3*24*365.25)%
compute NPER=157935000 twenty minute intervals
158045000 / (3*24*365.25) = 6009.77 years.
Very nice work. I’ll admit you almost had me here. Your attempt to throw us off is not very cleverly disguised. Your advanced-looking math looks technical enough to be believable while just muddled enough to induce the confusion necessary to keep the simple-minded folk on Landover from understanding it, because if they did, the gaping holes in the theory would be obvious.
GLORY!
I don’t think Jesus would appreciate this at all.
There is some rounding going on in there.[There he admits it] I suspect the true number of bacteria on the planet is closer to 5.0004832E+30, [the fixed term to work backward from] which would mean the first bacteria appeared exactly 6010 years and three days ago, on the third day of creation, along with the other plants.
That gives you away again. Any calculation that precise is simply false. You leave no margin for error at all, which completely kills your theory.
However, if we assume as the evolutionists do, that the first bacterium appeared 3.5 billion years ago, we wind up with a ridiculously large number of bacteria, approximately 1E+26510000, or 1E+26509970 times the number of bacteria we actually have.
A single bacterium weighs 95 picograms. The number of bacteria that evolution predicts would weigh 9.5E+26509984 kilograms, a clearly ridiculous value. But our whole planet, including all of the bacteria on it, only weighs about 6E+24 kilograms.
Most bacteria actually way 1 picogram or less. The way you deliberately muddled your math and used inscrutable ways to describe numbers threw me off a lot. Please state your theory in a more straightforward fashion so it will be easier for me to smash it. In truth, scientists can't find out how many bacteria there really are, much less track their species' growth. This is just just another ridiculous theory, which, like many christian theories before you, can't hold up in real life for more than an hour.
That's the wacky world of evolution for you!
Pastor Billy-Reuben
I don't know... Even string theory sounds more plausible than this.
I would also like to thank the people on Yahoo answers for helping me with this.
Have a nice day!
at Yahoo Answers. Which should we believe, and why?
Trump / Arpaio 2016 -- The Government We Deserve
Comment