Free Republic Browse · Search General/Chat Topics · Post Article

Man's Millions-of-years Mathematical Myth debunked
http://absoluteprimacyofchrist.org/?p=1436#APC05 ^ | Feb. 19th, 2013 | Maximilian

Posted on 02/22/2013 4:36:45 AM PST by koinonia

This is from a blog from a priest which I found original and convincing regarding the age of the human race:

Man's Millions-of-years Mathematical Myth debunked: p*b y = x

Let me propose an argument, rather simple, but which should convincingly indicate that the human race - whether through evolution or as an intact race - cannot date tens or hundreds of thousands of years back (let alone millions and zillions!). The argument is based on population growth and the 7 billion people on earth as of 2012. Seven BILLION people is a LOT of people and so one can readily imagine that it took tens of thousands of years to reach this point. And yet 7 billion is a very finite number...

According to sociological studies (frequently quoted and well documented by those who want to "save" the earth and reduce the human population by 90-95%, if you think I'm kidding take a glance at the "Georgia guidestones" and listen/read what Ted Turner has been saying like a broken record: 350 million ideal number for the entire world population and international 1 child per family policy), the rough average of population growth in the early 1900's (before contraception, legalized abortion, etc.) was 1.4%. We are told that Noah entered the ark with his three sons and their wives; when they exited the ark the world population was eight. Now population growth presumes that the number of births is greater than the number of deaths. God blessed mankind twice with the words: "Increase and multiply" (Gen 1:28; 7:17), the second time was after Noah and his family left the ark.

My dad was an actuary, by the way, so this type of story problem is write up my alley :-) First, let's do the math based on a 1.4% annual increase of the population starting with eight persons and see how many years it would take to arrive at 7 billion. The math would look like this:

p*b y = x p = the starting population, so 8 b = rate of annual growth, we'll start with 1.4% (which means 1.014) y = the years, since the growth would be exponential x = the final population, in our case 7 billion

Drumroll please... yes, eight people with a 1.4% annual growth rate would surpass 7 billion people in a whopping 1481 years. Take a look at the math:

8 people * (1.014 annual growth) 1481 years = 7,003,277,544

That is an eyeopener, is it not? Well, since the human race has obviously been around longer than 1481 years, let's work our way backwards to see what the median growth rate would have had to be for eight persons to arrive at 7 billion over a period of 4600 years (what Scripture scholars tell us would have been the time of the flood).

p*b y = x 8 people*(? growth rate) 4600 years = 7 billion today

And the answer is that for eight people to surpass 7 billion over a period of 4600 years the annual growth rate would only have to be 0.45% (yes, less than half a percent annual growth rate). 4600 years is realistic, then, for arriving at 7 billion people from 4 married couples.

My point here is that to argue that man dates back tens of thousands or more years ago would go completely against all the statistics. Annually there are always more births than deaths, and this even now with world wars, abortions, sterilization, contraception - in a word, in a culture of death. In fact a growth rate of 0.45% from 2 people over a twenty thousand year period comes out to be "infinity" on the exponents calculator (just put 1.0045 in the number slot and 20,000 in the exponent slot and see what happens). I don't deny that there could have been some unlikely years of decrease or stagnancy, but the consistent trend of all creatures has always been growth and increase and this indicates (if not outright proves) that the human race is relatively young compared to the outlandish theories that are proported (dare I say dogmatically) in classrooms today around the globe. Add to that that if we evolved from apes, we probably would not have started from just 4 married couples off of Noah's ark, but be popping out of the jungle in an ever larger numbers and then multiplying from these creatures, etc.

TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Conspiracy; Education; Religion
KEYWORDS: bigbang; creation; evolution; flood
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-139 next last
Seems so clear, and yet everyone ignores it. The human race is relatively young. Before this section he talks about how time by its very nature must have a beginning and about the historicity of the flood. He's just scratching the service, to be sure. But enlightening and the links are excellent.
1 posted on 02/22/2013 4:37:00 AM PST by koinonia

To: koinonia

We need the facepalm guy.

2 posted on 02/22/2013 4:41:11 AM PST by beef (Who Killed Kennewick Man?)

To: koinonia
If you simply ignore the appetites of the tetse fly, tigers, lions and angered aurochs, you can screw around with statistics just about anyway you want.

I'm putting my money on there having been many instances of higher death rates than birthrates ~

3 posted on 02/22/2013 4:46:27 AM PST by muawiyah

To: beef
Here, I'll offer the one without any text. We all know what it says.

4 posted on 02/22/2013 4:46:58 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)

To: koinonia

What other species have exponential growth rates? What makes you think humans always had?

5 posted on 02/22/2013 4:47:01 AM PST by cartan

To: koinonia

Does Hugh Ross agree?

6 posted on 02/22/2013 4:47:25 AM PST by Tolkien (Grace is the Essence of the Gospel; Gratitude is the Essence of Ethics.)

To: koinonia

Making Christianity look bad one post at a time.

7 posted on 02/22/2013 4:50:16 AM PST by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)

To: koinonia
I don't see wars and communism in that equation.

5.56mm

8 posted on 02/22/2013 4:50:38 AM PST by M Kehoe

To: beef
I think its double face palm worthy...

9 posted on 02/22/2013 4:54:02 AM PST by machman

To: M Kehoe

Or plagues, high infant mortality, low life expediency …

10 posted on 02/22/2013 4:55:54 AM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)

To: M Kehoe

Or the plague or tidal waves or earth quakes or volcanoes or.......

11 posted on 02/22/2013 4:57:17 AM PST by machman

To: koinonia

So what would the population be at the time of the flood with that math model?

12 posted on 02/22/2013 5:13:00 AM PST by RadiationRomeo (Step into my mind and glimpse the madness that is me)

To: muawiyah

Black plague, anyone?

13 posted on 02/22/2013 5:20:16 AM PST by patton (Tinker toys, watches, and shiny things - we all sell rocks for a living.)

To: koinonia

Here I always thought the Nika Revolt of 532 AD was a big deal. According to this brilliant mathmateer there must have been less the 10 people involved in this riot.

14 posted on 02/22/2013 5:34:31 AM PST by WinMod70

To: koinonia

I would argue that human population is logistic, not exponential. In that case, math cannot answer this question. God can though - it’s a question of faith, as God intended.

15 posted on 02/22/2013 5:34:31 AM PST by Pollster1

To: muawiyah

He doesn’t deny that possibility that there were years of stagnancy or higher death rates. But the fact is that from 1900 to the present, even with World Wars, abortion, etc. the growth rate has always been consistently over 1% and we can presume that that has generally been the case even before the 1900’s.

His point is to be reckoned with: you simply can’t say that man dates back hundreds of thousands of years if, in general, population is simply growing.

16 posted on 02/22/2013 5:37:23 AM PST by koinonia

To: Moonman62

This post is not about Christianity. It’s about common sense. His equation is no different than what an investor would use for an interesting bearing investment. Each year it bears interest and that interest bears interest. Start with \$8 and with a 0.5% yield of interest annually you arrive at \$7 billion after 1481 years. Plug and chug.

17 posted on 02/22/2013 5:41:34 AM PST by koinonia

To: koinonia; All
If you read the post, he acknowledges DEATH in all of its forms - there is a deathrate. But the statistics are clear: the birthrate of man has consistently been higher, even in the years of war. Where's the proof that man existed for hundreds of thousands of years?
18 posted on 02/22/2013 5:46:57 AM PST by koinonia

To: koinonia

Unfortunately, this equation assumes that the original 8 people are still alive after 1481 years and that all eight of them, as well as every other human born, is having more babies every year they’re alive. I don’t think that’s the case.

19 posted on 02/22/2013 5:52:57 AM PST by Fish Speaker (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)

To: koinonia
But the statistics are clear: the birthrate of man has consistently been higher, even in the years of war.

Not true. Human populations were lowered during the Black Death, for example.

20 posted on 02/22/2013 5:53:41 AM PST by dirtboy