I went to the site below to do some population calculations.

http://metamorphosisalpha.com/ias/population.php

According to many the date of the flood was around 2304 BC.
From then to now was 4311 years.

I plugged in the following numbers:
Starting year 0000
Ending year 4311 (total time from flood)
Starting population of 6
Growth rate of 0.00484
Note: The growth rate was adjusted to allow for a population close to todays present population of 6,630,000,000 as a starting reference.

Note:
This site tells us the current population.
http://www.onlineconversion.com/world_population.htm

Those numbers from above produced a population of 6,575,838,439 in 4311 years. (close to todays numbers.)

I then did a calculation for 2 people (Adam and Eve) and used 6,000 years.
The results were:
Population in 6000 years = 762,990,355,115

So I did all that to do this....if man actuallly evolved, and we were to go back just 1 MY's ago using the numbers from above...the population would have been????????? Well you get the picture.
Evolution seems to have another flaw.

Problem 1. 1.2% growth is far higher than it has been for most of history. Modern agriculture and medical practices are the main reasons the earth's population has been able to grow so much.

Problem 2. Depending on the timeline you use, you wind up with absurdly low population totals for historical events.

With 6 people ~4000 years ago the great pyramid in egypt (~3800 years old) would be build with only a handful of people on earth.

Even if we use answers in genesis's own timeline AIG timeline

Population using AIG timeline and 1.2% growth
Global Flood
2348 BC - 6 people on earth

Tower Babel
2242 BC - 21 people on earth

Egypt began
After 2242 BC but prior to Abraham going to Egypt (Genesis 12)
21-966 people on earth

Call of Abraham
1922 BC - 966 people on earth

Obviously these numbers are absurd which means either the dates are wrong or your assumptions about population are wrong.

Basically, it is naive to assume a linear growth of populations. Populations don't ever grow in an arithmetic fashion. They grow according to the possibilities in their habitat. We can see this all around us. If the population of flies grew arithmetically, the planet would soon be covered in a mile-thick layer of flies.

The reason that the human population appears to have grown in a linear fashion during the last century or so, is that we have been able to extend out possibilities. As we see demonstrated in the most tragical way, this doesn't work out everywhere. In some areas, famines and wars work to severely limit the population.

Hans

Then how would you explain the growth rates exceeding 3% in some of the most impoverished countries in the world? Those figures suggest that modern technology and medicine aren't as big of factors as you claim. Nonetheless, a slower growth rate at certain points in history would not have presented a problem. All you would need is an average, not a constant, growth rate of 0.5% based on a biblical timeline. (See the link below)


You end up with absurdly low population totals because of the assumptions in your math. If you read Genesis 10 and 11 you would find that the population grew rapidly in the years immediately after the flood.

data from the Bible (Genesis 10,11) shows that the population grew quite quickly in the years immediately after the Flood. Shem had five sons, Ham had four, and Japheth had seven. If we assume that they had the same number of daughters, then they averaged 10.7 children per couple. In the next generation, Shem had 14 grandsons, Ham, 28 and Japheth, 23, or 130 children in total. That is an average of 8.1 per couple. These figures are consisent with God’s command to ‘be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth’ (Genesis 9:1).

Let us take the average of all births in the first two post-Flood generations as 8.53 children per couple. The average age at which the first son was born in the seven post-Flood generations in Shem’s line ranged from 35 to 29 years (Genesis 11:10–24), with an average of 31 years,7 so a generation time of 40 years is reasonable. Hence, just four generations after the Flood would see a total population of over 3,000 people (remembering that the longevity of people was such that Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, etc., were still alive at that time).8 This represents a population growth rate of 3.7% per year, or a doubling time of about 19 years.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/393/#f9

I assume you know that archaeologists have a few events going on then.

So according to such equations, how many people were in Egypt and China and the Americas in the century that followed? When did the line of Pharaoh's begin according to the creationist timeline? Did the Pharoah's survive the flood? Was the Great Pyramid (around 2550 BC) built before or after the flood? If after, who was around to build it? If before, can you find evidence that it has ever been in a flood?
Thanks...

here are a few dates of interest.

* 2217–2193 BC — Nomadic invasions of Akkad.
* 2200 BC — Sixth dynasty of Egypt ended.
* c. 2190 BC — Caused by a severe drought, Old Kingdom finished in Ancient Egypt. Start of First Intermediate Period. 7th–10th Dynasties.
* 2181 BC — Egypt: Pharaoh Nitocris died. End of Sixth Dynasty, start of Seventh Dynasty. Pharaoh Neferkara I started to reign.
* 2180 BC — Old Kingdom ends in Ancient Egypt. First Intermediate Period of Egypt starts.
* c. 2180 BC — Akkadian Empire fell under attack by the Guti (Mesopotamia), a mountain people from the northeast.
* 2173 BC — Egypt: End of Seventh Dynasty, start of Eighth Dynasty.
* 2160 BC — Egypt: Pharaoh Neferirkara died. End of Eighth Dynasty, start of Ninth Dynasty. Pharaoh Neferkare started to reign.
* c. 2160 BC — Beginning of Middle Minoan period in Crete.
* c. 2150–2030 BC — Gilgamesh epic was written.
* c. 2150 BC — Lagash.
* c. 2144 BC — Gudea, the ruler (ensi) of the city of Lagash, started to reign.
* 2138 BC — Babylon: A solar eclipse on 9 May and a lunar eclipse on 24 May occurred and are believed to be the double eclipse that took place 23 years after the ascension of king Shulgi of Babylon by those holding to the long chronology.
* 2130 BC — Egypt: End of Ninth Dynasty, start of Tenth Dynasty. Ninth Dynasty wars in Egypt started.
* c. 2125 BC–2055 BC BC — "Model of a house and garden, from Thebes". Eleventh dynasty of Egypt. It is now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
* 2124 BC — Gudea, the ruler (ensi) of the city of Lagash, died.
* c. 2120 BC — Votive statue of Gudea, from Lagash (modern Telloh, Iraq) was made. It is now in Musee du Louvre, Paris.
* 2119–2113 BC — (middle chronology), Utu-hegal, first king of the third dynasty of Ur.
* 2116–2110 BC — Uruk-Gutian war.
* 2112 BC–2095 BC — Sumerian campaigns of Ur-Nammu.
* 2104–2103 BC — Date of the Biblical flood according to the Hebrew Calendar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22nd_century_BC

take a look at the link. you can go to earlier and later centuries as well
# 2100 BC — Beginning of the Xia Dynasty, the first dynasty and government system in China.
# c. 2100–2050 BC — Nanna Ziggurat, Ur (modern Muqaiyir, Iraq) is built.
# 2091 BC — Beginning of the mythological Patriarchal Age is traditionally set in this year.
# 2080 BC — Ninth Dynasty wars in Egypt.
# 2080 BC — First Intermediate Period of Egypt ends. Middle Kingdom starts in Ancient Egypt.
# 2071 BC — Magh Ithe, first recorded battle in Ireland myths.
# 2070 BC (disputable) — Yu the Great set up the Xia Dynasty,which isn't verified by archeological findings, some propose the Erlitou culture.
# 2064–1986 BC — Twin Dynasty wars in Egypt.
# c. 2055 BC — End of First Intermediate Period of Egypt (another date is 2040 BC).
# c. 2055 BC — Middle Kingdom starts in Ancient Egypt (other date is 2040 BC).
# c. 2055 BC — Prince Mentuhotep II from Thebes manages to reunite Ancient Egypt (other date is 2040 BC).
# c. 2055 BC — Pharaoh Mentuhotep II starts to rule in Ancient Egypt
# 2049 BC — Oak trees for Seahenge felled.

and earlier
# c. 2300 BC–2184 BC — Disk of Enheduanna, from Ur, (modern Muqaiyir, Iraq) is made. It is now in University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
# c. 2300 BC–2200 BC — Head of a man from Nineveh (modern Kuyunjik, Iraq) is made. It is now in Iraq Museum, Baghdad.
# c. 2300 BC — Canal Bahr Yusuf (current name) is created when the waterway from the Nile to the natural lake (now Lake Karun) is widened and deepened to create a canal.
# c. 2289 BC — Pepi II Neferkare, the longest reigning monarch of all time, dies at the age of 100 after 94 years of rule.
# c. 2288 BC–2224/2194 BC — Pepy II and his mother, Queen Merye-ankhnes, Sixth dynasty of Egypt, is made. It is now at The Brooklyn Museum of Art, New York.
# c. 2285 BC — Enheduanna, high priestess of the moon god Nanna in Ur, was born.
# c. 2254 BC–2218 BC — Stela of Naram-Sin, probably from Sippar, discovered in Susa (modern Shush, Iran), is made. It is now in Musée du Louvre, Paris.
# c. 2278 BC — Pharaoh Pepi II starts to rule (other date is 2383 BC).
# c. 2215 BC — A Guti army swept down from the Zagros Mountains and defeated the demoralized Akkadian army. They took Agade, the capital of Akkad, and destroyed it thoroughly.
# c. 2300 BC — Metals started to be used in Northern Europe.

# c. 2340 BC–2180 BC — Akkadian Empire.
# c. 2334 BC–2279 BC — Semitic chieftain Sargon I of Akkad's conquest of Sumer and Mesopotamia.
# c. 2333 BCE- The state of Gojoseon (Modern-day Korea) founded by Dangun Wanggeom during the reign of the Chinese Emperor Yao.
# 2500 BC — Scribal schools flourish throughout Sumer.
# c. 2500 BC — Cylinder seal from Sumer and its impression are made. It is now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
# c. 2500 BC — Excavation and development of the Hypogeum of Ħal-Saflieni at Paola, Malta, a subterranean templex complex subsequently used as a necropolis.
# c. 2500 BC — Valley Temple of Khafra, Giza, is built.
# c. 2500 BC - People in Peru relies on fish and mussels for food.
# c. 2494 BC — End of Fourth Dynasty, start of Fifth Dynasty in Egypt. The Pyramids begin construction.
# c. 2494 BC – 2345 BC: "Sculptors at work", relief from Saqqara, Fifth Dynasty. It is now at Egyptian Museum, Cairo, Egypt.
# c. 2494 BC – 2345 BC: "Seated Scribe" from tomb of vizier Kai, Saqqara, sculpture, Fifth dynasty of Egypt is made. It is now in Musée du Louvre, Paris.
# c. 2900 BC–2334 BC — Mesopotamian wars of the Early Dynastic period continue.
# c. 2600 BC — The Harappan civilization rises to become a powerful civilization.
# c. 2600 BC — Pre-Palace Period, phase I, in Crete (Mellersh 1970)
# c. 2600 BC–2500 BC — Wild horses still provide hunting feasts in Denmark. (Clutton-Brock)
# c. 2589 BC — Pharaoh Khufu starts to rule (other date is 2601 BC).
# c. 2578 BC — Khufu died.
# c. 2575 BC — Old Kingdom in Egypt 4th Dynasty Snofru is Pharaoh. (Atlas of Egypt 1989)
# c. 2570 BC — Khafra started to rule in Ancient Egypt.
# c. 2566 BC — Pharaoh Khufu dies (other date is 2578 BC).
# c. 2558 BC — Pharaoh Khafra starts to rule (other date is 2570 BC).
# c. 2550 BC — Estimated date of completion of the Great Pyramid of Giza.

Significant persons
* c. 2601 BC–2578 BC — reign of Pharaoh Khufu of Egypt's Fourth Dynasty
* 2599 — Huni is Pharaoh. (Atlas of Egypt 1989)
* 2575 — Old Kingdom in Egypt; 4th Dynasty; Snofru is Pharaoh. (Atlas of Egypt 1989)
* 2528 — Ra'djedef is Pharaoh. (Atlas of Egypt 1989)
* 2520 — Khep-heren (Ra'kha'ef) is Pharaoh. (Atlas of Egypt 1989)
* 2490 — Menkaura is Pharaoh. (Atlas of Egypt 1989)
* 2475 — Shepseskaf is Pharaoh. (Atlas of Egypt 1989)
* 2465 — Fifth dynasty of Egypt; Userkaf is Pharaoh (Atlas of Egypt 1989)
* 2458 — Sahure is Pharaoh (Atlas of Egypt 1989)
* 2446 — Neferirkare Kakai is Pharaoh (Atlas of Egypt 1989)
* 2426 — Shepseskare Isi is Pharaoh (Atlas of Egypt 1989)
* c. 2425 — Death of Eannatum of Lagash; succeeded by his nephew, Entemena, whose ally, Lugal-kinishe-dudu, unites Uruk and Ur (Roux 1980)
* 2419 — Ra'neferef is Pharaoh (Atlas of Egypt 1989)
* 2416 — Nyuserre Ini is Pharaoh (Atlas of Egypt 1989)

Most third world countries receive food and monetary aid from first world countries. Modern technology and medicine sent from other countries is a significant reason those populations are able to grow as fast as they are.



I couldn't find a date for babel on that site. If we use the data from this site and the timeline from AIG

Growth: .037 or 3.7%

Population using AIG timeline and 3.7% growth
Global Flood
2348 BC - 6 people on earth

Tower Babel
2242 BC - 282 people on earth

Still a problem for early biblical events unless you think 300 people built a pyramid-sized structure. Depending on when you think the growth rate dropped back down to a more realistic number the early population problem might remain for other events as well.


Here's the larger problem with the original posts argument. Link

The original post picks one point at -2000 (with questionable data involving only 3 reproducing couples on earth) and another point at +2000 and finds a growth rate that connects the two. Then complains that the growth rate doesn't fit other points beside -2000 and +2000. There's no reason why such a rate should fit. The +2000 data is so far from the historical norm that any equation including it is going to be very skewed. World population is simply not able to be modeled accurately with a single equation when you include obvious outliers like modern times.

If you look at actual data of global population you'll find that it's very close to 0% growth for most of recorded history (.08% not .5% for a 3000 year period from -2000 to +1000). That's as expected because a population can only increase when there's an excess of space or resources. That's why the idea that an old earth should result in a trillion human population is incorrect. Population should expand until starvation (lack of resources) or disease (lack of living space) interferes. The earth isn't covered by humans because starvation or disease killed people when they became too numerous. Same reason why the earth isn't covered by rabbits or bacteria or anything else.

If creationists have different historical population numbers please provide a link, I'd be interested in seeing how they differ for the middle dates between proposed flood date and modern times. If creationist have similar numbers then that's an acknowledgment that population growth was basically flat for most of history prior to modern times.

Ehr, why do I need to explain them? Are you suggesting they don't exist? However, they are the result of unchecked growth. When infant mortality is high, people have lots of children, in the hopes that some will survive. You know, in order to pass on their genes .




Yes, it represents a huge problem for the original argument. In the opening post, Trilobyte attempted to falsify evolution by pointing out that the present annual population growth, when extrapolated backwards, converged on zero (or more appropriately, on two ), a few thousand years ago.

Obviously, if we accept that the rate can be significantly different at any time, the argument falls.

Once we realize that population growth rates can change according to whatever demands (be those environmental or God's requests), we must also realize that the average rate of any particular period cannot be extrapolated outside that period.

Hans

If that were true then first world countries should be growing at an even greater rate since they are the source of medicine and technology. However, countries like the United States and Australia are growing at rates just a little less than 1%


I don't think were on the same page yet. We have 40 years as an average for a generation, 8.53 average of children per couple in the first two generations, and the everyone from the first two generations still alive (Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth, etc.) That means our population doubles every 19 years. There's no way to get such a low number when you consider these factors. Your population should be closer 3,000.

To my Danish friend;


Because they don't fit the idea that modern advancements are the primary factors behind population growth. It seems as though populations grow despite technology in many cases. My example of underdeveloped countries overproducing being one of them. That's significant because it means that the, 'financial and medical aid to the third world,' argument is not a good explanation for the growth that should have taken place over the last million years.


No source that makes this argument does that. It's always a calculated figure and not an extrapolated one. For example, Henry Morris's figure of 0.5% was a quarter of the modern population growth rate at that time. This was done to account for wars, plagues, famines, etc. Even still he was careful to specify that this was only an average and not a constant.

Listen folks: We can discuss demographics till the cows come home. Why do poor countries have a higher population growth than rich countries, what were the population growths throughout history, etc.

All good and interesting questions, most of which have goos answers. However, the fact remains that no population ever just grows arithmetically. And therefore you cannot infer anything about the age of the world by extrapolating populations.

I'll make it abundantly clear to you: Try to use that formula on humans, flies, rats, elephants, and giant turtles. You will get vastly different results, yet all live in the same world.

For the discussion of evolution and genesis, it is simply a non-issue.

Hans

No, first world countries should not be growing at a greater rate. Birth control usage is higher in first world countries than in third world countries.

Population growth requires 2 things.

1. Have kids
2. Keep those kids alive

First world countries do #2 very well but tend to make birth control decisions that lead to #1 not happening as often.

Third world countries do #1 but without help from first world countries would have problems with #2.



I used the site presented in the OP to do the calculations. Lets do the math by hand using AIG's timeline and a population that doubles every 19 years. I'll show numbers for both a starting population of 6 (only noahs sons having kids) and 8 (noah+sons still having kids)

Global Flood... Population.....Population with noah still having kids
2348 BC...........6..................8
2329 BC...........12................16
2310 BC...........24................32
2291 BC...........48................64
2272 BC...........96................128
2253 BC...........192..............256
2242 BC <---- AIG says Babel occurred at this point
2234 BC...........384..............512
2215 BC...........768..............1024
2196 BC...........1536............2048
2177 BC...........3072............4096 <----- date acceptable to AIG for Egypt starting
2158 BC...........6144............8192

AIG timeline
Larry Pierce has pointed out that according to some ancient records, Egypt began in 2188 BC.2 This date is after the Babel dispersion and is logical in the biblical model.

Depending on when you think the population stopped doubling every 19 years the low poplulation problem extends to later events as well.




Explained above by the difference in birth control usage.


Did you see the chart showing historical population figures?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Population_curve.svg

.5% annual growth may be a quarter of modern growth, but it's 5 to 10 times higher than any pre-modern era. As an example, the period from year 0 to year 1500AD had a growth rate of ~.06%. 1000BC to 1500AD had a growth rate of ~.08%.

If creationists have their own estimates for population numbers please provide a link, I'd be very interested in how many people they think lived in the time period between 1000BC and 1500AD.

It's hard to overstate just how significant a difference modern agriculture techniques have made and how much that skews any attempt to merge growth rates between time periods.

Interesting. Does the calculator take into account mortality rates? The rates for infant and adult mortality were much higher back then.

Evolution is a fact it happens, the subject is not even under debate in scientific circles, putting figures into a calculator to try and get answers is not accurate at all so is irrelevant. Take the population of the Philippines for instance in 1890 the population was approx 3 million just 118 years later the population is 90 million get the picture there can be wild fluctuations you are grasping at straws if you think this will dent the truth of evolution.

it isnt a fact and it doesnt happen the way you think it does! there is maissive debate in scientific circles about it. havent you heard? they are talking about banning evolution from schools and teaching the kids about why the debate happened in the first place Christian scientists that are trying to uncover the truth out way tthe other secular ones in thier ivory towers

Alas, it does not work that way. It’s not like I can come up with a new hypothesis in science and get only around 1% of scientists who directly work in the field to consider it to be a theory and then proceed to overturn standard education. If I truly want to promote my hypothesis to theory I need to convince far more of them with research and publications. Also, my research has to be about my hypothesis not about problems with a competing theory. Once my hypothesis is promoted to a theory if its explanatory power is stronger than previously believed theories and it holds to scientific rigor then my theory becomes the most likely explanation and I get my name in a textbook until a better more robust theory or amendments to my theory come along. This is why String Theory or Loop Quantum Gravity is not taught alongside the Standard Model until graduate school for most physics students. Physicists are very sure that the Standard Model is a correct sub theory of a broader theory – however, whether or not Strings or Loops or something else describes this broader theory is not even close to being established.

It is easy to see that treating population growth as linear or exponential is incorrect. Consider two sets of data (1, 200) and (2005, 6453) of the form (t, P) where t is time in years and P is population in the millions. So in 1 A.D. there were roughly 200 million people on Earth and in 2005 there where 6.453 billion people on Earth. Treating these as points on a line that represents population levels versus year yields the value of world population for 1850 as nearly 6 billion. In 1850 the world population was around 1 billion so it clearly is not linear. What about exponentially? Again with the same two data points we get a population around 4.6 billion for 1850. Obviously population growth cannot be modeled as simple systems.

I would guess that a more appropriate model for population growth would involve an oscillating function that hugs some kind of increasing function like a positive hyperbolic sine curve or exponential curve or the like. The oscillating part of the function would be reversely damped until a certain period where it would become regularly damped. In this model the troughs of the function would symbolize global decrease in population but since the oscillating function is climbing along an increasing function the trough from a certain year might be higher than a peak from a previous year. I would guess that starting around 1750 the oscillation is nearly damped completely and our curve smoothes out to a linear fit.

You are wrong.It´s exactly the flawed points of a theory that make us searching for another one, and TOE is rich in flawed points.TOE is not discarded by scientific community because of its commitment with atheism.

The flawed points of a theory might motivate research towards a new hypothesis however those flaws are not a basis of support for any other hypothesis. So the flaws that you think you see with TOE do not support the hypothesis of intelligent design. If science worked that way we would have never gotten anywhere with it. In order for an idea to become a theory it must be able to stand on its own.

I am not sure which “commitment to atheism” you think the science community has. The science community I belong to is filled with religious people – in fact, they outnumber the atheists by a wide margin. In my experience this margin is typical among science communities. Maybe its different in biology communities but I doubt it.

are you denying that nearly all athiests are also evolutionists?

Of course almost all atheists accept the theory of evolution as the most viable explanation of the diversity of life on Earth. What other rational explanation is there? Typically atheists believe that the world is rational because so far all physical processes that have been explained have natural origins. Because of this appeal to rationalization an atheist will generally accept the consensus of mainstream science. However, if another naturalistic process was discovered that superseded evolution the atheist would be forced to accept this new rational explanation. An atheist believes that supernatural explanations appeal to the irrational and are therefore not valid solutions to practical problems.

In my previous post I said that not all scientists are atheist.

Creationism is just as rational an explantion, if not more, than evolution.



The laws of physics have no known origin, and most of what we deal with in science is derived from them.

Can you explain to origin of gravitational forces?

Terry

Even if creationism is true it is not rational because it appeals to the super natural – it is outside the methodology of science.

Let’s take a look at the laws of physics: Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic, and Gravity. We know that the weak force and the electromagnetic force have been unified into the electroweak force which is a powerful theory that makes extremely accurate predictions. There are powerful reasons to believe that all of the forces are just low energy approximations to a high energy force – or in other words at high energies the four forces exist as one force. So your question is really whether or not I know the origin of that one force right? However it is thought that this ultimate force came about at the big bang. So now the question is what caused the big bang – and on that I would say I have no idea. There is speculation but even if there is a natural explanation we can’t at this moment say anything concrete. For now we need get gravity unified with the standard model.

But not knowing the origin of something and claiming that it is god is an argument from incredulity and all through out history that argument has been continuously pushed to higher and higher levels as science has been able to explain more and more phenomenon. If we have now pushed it all the way back to the moment of the big bang I would say that we are doing pretty good.

You are confusing materialism with rationalism. Rationalism just means that it makes sense philosohpically. Rationalism is a system of perception and nothing more. All things rational are not based on materialism.

Information is something that's rational, and its definately not materialistic!




No one has any idea what the uncaused 1st cause was. No one.....

The laws of physics tell us that matter cannot be its own cause, therfore its a rational conclusion to allow the possibility that someone created the universe. Its not a materialistic conclusion but its is rational. Yes it is supernatural, but the cause of matter is best understood as such since the law of conservation of mass/energy tell us that the origin of the universe cannot be understood in a materialistic sense.



Science cannot explain the origin of the universe. Its irrational to claim that it can. Science can only tell us how the universe works today, and that's it. Everything else is just speculation.

Terry

Which laws of physics say this?

Of course information isn't materialistic anymore than mathematics is materialistic -however what meaning does either have outside the context of substance?

Rationalism is the philosophical position that the universe can be understood through logical reasoning. How can incredulity leading to belief in God be considered logical reasoning? It is more rational to simply say "I don't know" rather than "God did it".

The Law of conservation of mass and energy.



The living cell is an information processing system. Understanding the origin of information is the key to understanding the origin of life. Since information is not matter, it cannot have a materialistic origin.



This has nothing to do with incredulity, understanding how the universe works should lead to a belief in God. Unless you are just incredulous toward God.

Terry

Nobody said anything about violating the conservation of energy. Particles and their antiparticles pop into existence all of the time without violating energy conservation. It’s a byproduct of quantum mechanics. Processes like vacuum polarization have Lagrangians that are invariant under time translations so energy is still conserved.

What information are we talking about? A computer code for example has very low entropy when compared to any kind of information we find in nature such as a cell. This is because a good program utilizes all parts of its code to carry out a specific function. We don’t see that in DNA – only small parts of it has a function.

How does understanding how the universe works lead to a belief in God? So far every process we see in the universe has a natural explanation and a mountain of evidence to back it up. The initial cause of the Big Bang is for now outside the reach of our intellect and perhaps outside of the reach of science – who knows. However, using that as a basis for belief in God is belief from incredulity.

But that is beside the point – I am not trying to argue that there is no God because that is futile. I think we have successfully derailed this thread by the way – I forgot that this conversation was going on in a thread called “population flaw”. lol.

I don't think you can apply that. According to the laws pf physics we currently know, matter does not need a cause. It just exists. We can discuss the cause of the universe, but that is another matter.



I'm sorry, but that is demonstratable wrong. I can easily supply you with information that has a materialistic origin.




For a very wide definition of God, I would tend to agree.

Hans

Agreed, taken to a new thread.

Terry

Good idea. And on the original subject, can we all agree that since populations have never been observed to grow in a linear fashion for any considerable number of generations, no information about the age of Earth can be gleaned from extrapolating the present growth-rate of the human population?

Hans

1st world countries tend to have low population growth because of increased birth control measures due to cultural shifts and affluence.  When modern medicine can drastically improve the survivability of offspring it's not necessary to have a large number of children in order to get a few of them to survive.  Additionally, higher education rates of young girls tends to decrease population growth as they are less likely to get married at an extremely young age, more likely to be financially independent, and have fewer children later in life.  We also happen to live in relatively mild climates (US & Europe) that are not subject to the kind of widespread tropical diseases such as Malaria which ravage many third world equatorial nations.



This is quantifiably the most retarded argument I have ever heard, and having lived in third world countries for twelve years I can authoritatively say that your arguments have a degree of wrongness about them comparable to eating yellow snow. Please go to a third world country or just read a wiki article or pretty much ANY reputable publication on population growth in the third world to get a better handle on this.

Modern medicine has provided vaccines which have drastically reduced diseases such as polio throughout much of the world while at the same time severely reducing the mortality rates of diseases such as Malaria which is still the number on killer in Africa, for example. Technological advancements associated with the medical fields such as mosquito nets and those things we call hospitals, tend to improve the life spans of populations for some reason as well. Technological advancements associated with transportation and refrigeration allow for a shift in third world economies from sustanence farming to trading and allow people to have more free time to develop infrastructure and more effective civil governments. They also allow populations to get much needed calories from sources other than what is immediately available, this is especially important when a communities only source of meat is extremely labor-intensive hunting for dwindling wild game.

All these advancements have come at a historically break neck pace; where western culture developed these technologies somewhat slowly and had time to adjust culturally to low infant mortality rates - most third world countries have not. Thus third world cultures typically stress large families to the extreme and under value education for women. Combine this with relatively low infant mortality rates and you get a population explosion.

Seriously, I cannot stress enough how gonadical it is to infer that population growth occurs independent of technological and medical advancements. That's right, "gonadical", I had to make up a new word to express just how awful that point was.

Lurker,
I lurk because I care

It is true that popuation growth does fluctuate,for various and obvious reasons.We know it always stays between 1-3% per year,and thats taking into account different isolated populations.

If we start with only 2 people and take 2% as an average growth rate we would have a population of 6 billion people in just 1100 years.Lets be generous and reduce that to 1% per year,then we have 6 billion in 2200 years.Now lets border on the absurd,and imagine some fantastic and imaginary scenario that somehow reduces our average to .5% a year.That would put us back to the biblical account of noah's flood 4400 years ago.

The last genetic bottleneck that could have possibily happened is noah's flood and that is by stretching it.

Thanks.

What if people had been around for one million years?
Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. This number is so big that not even the Texans have a word for it! To try to put this number of people in context, say each individual is given ‘standing room only’ of about one square metre per person. However, the land surface area of the whole Earth is ‘only’ 1.5 x 1014 square metres. If every one of those square metres were made into a world just like this one, all these worlds put together would still ‘only’ have a surface area able to fit 1028 people in this way. This is only a tiny fraction of 1043 (1029 is 10 times as much as 1028, 1030 is 100 times, and so on). Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.10 This stretches credulity to the limits.

www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/people.asp - 39k -

Look up "carrying capacity" of the environment. It should become pretty clear why this argument is flawed.

If this argument was true, the bigger problem is we'd be drowning in bunnies.

Name one population of a life form that grows arithmetically over a longer period of time.

Just one.

Hans

Exactly.Thats why australia is being over run by bunnies.No natural predators to keep the numbers in check.Do you know of any natural predators that are now or ever have kept the human population in check.

Thanks.

Like I just said,look up rabbit population explosion in australia.Want me to name just one more?

Thanks.

I'm sure back in the hunter-gatherer days there were likely some (not mention other things like disease and what-not).

But more important are resources particularly food supply. That has the biggest cap on population growth. This is why, for example, predator-prey cycles exist.

The reason humans have seen such a population explosion is because we developed technology that opened up greater overall food supplies which allow us to sustain larger populations. This wasn't always the case.

Most of that is true,but it still does'nt change the average.40% of the European population was wiped out by the black plauge and the population still increaed.I'm sure it would have been difficult to survive an ice age to be honest with you,neanderthal bones do show evidence of cannibalism,but it may not of had much of any effect on populations further south.

After you also take into account Noah's sons had 10 sons each that makes the average go up in the past.The average family today only has 2.3 children(I hate that number,it implies they only have part of a kid)hehehe.

Thanks

Average population growth? It depends on your segment in time you look at. Population growth is not linear. It's dependent on technology to give access to resources (i.e. food) to support population size.

Apes moving out of the trees "where there is plenty of food" to roam around starving to death waiting for pizza hut to establish itself for at least a million years.

Why did'nt I think of that?

Seriously though,the starving people in africa are increasing.It is also a known fact that the food and meicine being sent there is being stolen by warlords to trade for drugs and weapons.The people are'nt getting any of it.

No. If the bunny population on Australia was growing arithmetically, Australia would now be mile-high in bunnies. Even without predators, there are limiting factors: Availability of food, climate, breeding success, etc.

Predators against humans? Surely you jest? Up til the dawn of civilization, there were plenty. Later there were diseases, famine, and the most dangerous predator on planet Earth: Man.

Hans

What has all this to do with the topic?

Does anybody here seriously want to claim that any population will increase arithmetically (which means exponentially) over any greater period of time, unhindered?

The mere fact that we are talking about an average growth debunks the idea: Unchecked, a population grows exponentially. The mere fact that we mostly see linear growths proves that there are outside forces at play.

Hans

Sure Hans.Does anybody here seriously want to claim the numbers support a "greater period of time"?

Hans, Have you read Isaac Asimovs' The Case against Man?

It was a great arguement, but the earth is getting overpopulated by humans, and is growing rather unhindered. Even though Asimov predicted that the world population would reach at least 8 billion by 2005, he really wasn't too far off.

Todays population is now 6.7 billion, and only about 1.3 billion more people to reach Asimovs assumption, and it is also estimated to reach 9 billion by the year 2042. So yes the human population is growing rather unhindered. The only thing that would seem to stop this would be a nuclear war, or some sort of unstoppable disease. Both of which I hope never happen, or again in case of an unstoppable disease.

Or availability of resources like food supply, water supply, etc. The reason we have experienced such population growth is because of technology that allows us to better match resources (i.e. food) to the population.

There are constraints on population growth, but because of technology we just haven't hit them yet.

Don't tell that to the British that ran head on into thousands of zulu warriors.

1)Either the Brithish are lying

2)Historians are lying about history

3)Populations are known to reach large numbers,unhindered,without modern technology.

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

Colony, 1880. Population. - 1828 est. 250000 ...

The zulu's were just the dominate tribe in southern africa and numbered 250,000 at that time.

thanks.

Of course populations can reach large numbers.

.....Seriously, are you joking or something?

The discussion here is whether a population can be extrapolated linearly, based on a current growth rate.

As for you Zulus, how many are there now?

Hans

All population census reports from a long time ago, before modern technology, all show an exponetial increase not linear.Where are you getting your numbers from except your imagination.

Heres the growth rates for British Guiana from 1851 to 1881 in ten year incriments.



The population more than doubled in just 30 years.

Thanks.

10,659,309 (2001 census)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulu - 68k -

Surely you realize that population dynamics do not follow simple functions. The above data is over an extremely short time scale. It is like looking at the GDP for a few years trying to fit it linearly or exponentially and proclaiming that you have discovered a function that models the GDP. Your function would of course be wrong because it doesn't include external influence. The same is true for population dynamics.

Thanks for making my point for me.Your the ones who claim the data fits the old earth model.

Enjoy.