More Recent Comments

Monday, August 31, 2009

Proof of Special Creation

I'm sure many of you were troubled by the argument of Rev. William A. Williams who wrote The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved. As I explained in a previous posting, Rev. Williams has proved by mathematics that evolution cannot account for the current population of the Earth. There should be 2 × 10373 people if evolution is true [The Evolution of Man Scientifically Disproved].

We take comfort in the fact that this disproof is not widely known. But that's about to change. A reader1 alerted me to a YouTube video where a renowned Mathematics Professor explains the disproof in a manner that any creationist idiot can understand.

Now that it's on YouTube, everyone's going to know about it. Evolution is in big trouble.

1. Thank-you.


  1. Someone who teaches at a high school and perhaps part time at a junior college a "renown mathematician"?

    oh dear.

    Well, I am a molecular chemist because I once made a baking soda and lemon juice rocket!

  2. Come to think of it, some in Texas are thinking of seceding from the United States.

    If they do, perhaps they have found the head of their "national" science foundation? :-)

  3. This is actually a fairly common creationist argument. For example, it appears on Kent Hovind's web site.
    (Kent's son, Eric Hovind, is currently holding down the fort due to the Sr. Hovind's current state of incarceration for tax fraud.)

  4. I don't see why we need this further proof when it's been known for years that the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution.

    Also, if we evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?

    And how do you explain PYGMIES and DWARFS?

    Plus, it's just a 'THEORY'! It's even got THEORY in the title rotfl11!1! morans

  5. Frankly all of this talk of population doesn't matter as I can mathematically prove that the entire population of the world could fit - if necessary - into the back of a 1967 Ford F350...

  6. He is of course 100% right in his calculation of the birth rate, he just made the (ignorably small) error of forgetting to subtract the death rate from the result.

  7. I listened to all 11 minutes of it wondering when we would get to the point where they admitted that it was all a joke. But it never came, apparently they really believe it.

  8. Now I have listened to it again, Harriet you are right, he is no mathematician.

    He has based his retro-active population growth calculations on a linear scale, it should have been logarithmic.

    Maybe Kilgar's education system should fire him.

  9. Normally I would dismiss this sort of simplistic calculations out of hand, however because Richard Dawkins was mean about religion it now all makes complete sense.
    That reminds me, I started a culture of Ecoli growing last night for an experiment today. At its current growth rate I reckon the rest of you have about a couple of weeks at best before the entire planet is consumed - so you should best plan accordingly!

  10. He is of course 100% right in his calculation of the birth rate...

    Well, there's the extra little complication that modern birth rates do not apply to pre-modern times in which the human lifespan and infant mortality rates were dominated by disease.

  11. I'm not sure why you would state that this is based on a linear scale... ? It seems to me that it's certainly not.

  12. Math professor at...Kilgore High school?

  13. I'm 4 minutes in. He's 1) claimed to know the numbers of electrons in the universe 2) used the term "light years" wrong.
    I'm dreading the rest of it.

  14. Really more sad than anything else.
    These people WANT to be fuckwits when they ought to have got themselves out of the intelligence-erasing vacuum chamber called religion.
    Sad for them that they waste their lives on becoming steadily more stupid!

  15. Their mistake is obvious. They pick some kind of average growth rate for some era and apply it over evolutionary time. That is just silly. They should realize that the resources (land, food, etc.) available at any time during a particular cultural (technological, linguistic, ...) stage of the human species only supported a certain density of people. The growth in population is a result of cultural advancement (and of course geographic expansion). Hunting and gathering will only support a very sparse population, agriculture will support much denser population and so on.