Posted on 02/22/2013 4:36:45 AM PST by koinonia
“You are using false assumptions, so you get obviously false results. You are for some reson blind to the false assumptions, which are so blindingly obvious to others.”
Excuse me? What assumptions have I made or what results have I stated? Maybe you have me confused with the original poster?
Again, I think you have me confused with the original poster, since you don’t seem to be responding to anything I actually posted about.
Please provide proof of what the population growth rate was 50,000 years ago...
Applying the population rates for the modern era produced by vast improvements in adaptive technologies to prehistoric and ancient cultures who did not possess such adaptive technologies nor such populations and population growth rates produces nonsensical results that actually contradict the possibility of such a “young” population origin. You are actually proving the opposite of what you claim.
Try answering the earlier questions in the illustrative example.
You just pointed out his two main problems:
1 - he based his permanent growth rate on relatively modern times with all the transportation and medicine that implies
2 - his math is built under the assumption that in general population simply grows
Through out history population didn’t simply grow. There are long stretches of no growth and negative growth, whole civilizations that just evaporated. Even in periods of general growth the rate was often much slower than in modern times. You can tell the flaw in his “logic” just by the fact that his 8 to current timeline doesn’t even get us back to the Roman Empire. Once his math worked out to 8 people after 500AD he should have seen his deep flaw and walked away from the hypothesis, known recorded history shows his math doesn’t work.
Throughout most of history the population rapidly hits the maximum levels the land can handle with years of starvation when things get a little rough. The drought of 2012 would have resulted in great starvation this winter if we were at the maximum level farms could sustain. Fortunately we have a surplus so we didn't have to face millions dead, but that is the normal fate humanity from prehistory to the 19th century.
“The argument I always get and still cant come up with an answer (I know its there) is since the Bible only mentions Adam and Eve and Cain and Able where did the other people come from. Ive answered that its the story of Cain and Able that was important not the family members of Adam and Eve. Secondly, maybe genetics were different then and intermarrying was not and issue. Then of course theres Noah which brought up the same questions. But then Noahs sons hadnt intermarried with their sisters. Its all totally confusing and I wished I could come up with better answers. Yes I researched on the web.”
We are told in Genesis that Adam and Eve had sons AND DAUGHTERS. There was no need for other people. Incest would not have been an issue for quite a while until sin had had time to have major degenerative effects at which point certain close relationships were forbidden.
“The argument about contractions fails to take into account that, when you assume a large age, like 100,000 years, then the few years of negative growth become even more insignificant when looking at the aggregate growth rate. If we were only 5,000 years old, then the periods you cite are significant, but at 100,000 years old, a century or two of negative growth is negligible.”
Low population growth, virtually no population growth, and negative population growth for tens of thousands of years results in a poplulation of less than 1 million people aft some 250,000 years. So, the admonition that you are using false assumptions about the population growth rates and the significance of populaton declines is directly relvant to waht you posted above. You cannot just wave a hand in dismissal of the factors which had negative effects upon the rate of human populatio growth. Those negative factors had a profound impact upon the limitation of human population growth until the time came when technologies made it possible for much higher population growth rates and averages to offset the lack of such population growth rates in the earlier millenia.
36 posted on Friday, February 22, 2013 9:08:24 AM by Boogieman
“Notice how they flatten the rate at 4000BC for no apparent reason.”
It is not flattened for no apparent reason. The flattening is only an artifact of the graph using a variable scale on the vertical axis. It’s kind of like how Greenland appears huge on a Mercator projection, because the vertical scale distorts as you approach the boundaries.
“Low population growth, virtually no population growth, and negative population growth for tens of thousands of years results in a poplulation of less than 1 million people aft some 250,000 years. So, the admonition that you are using false assumptions about the population growth rates and the significance of populaton declines is directly relvant to waht you posted above.”
The poster I was responding to was not talking about tens of thousands of year periods, but periods of centuries, which is what the topic of my reply was. You want to move the goalposts and talk about thousands of year contractions, which basically proves my point. A few centuries IS insignificant, if you posit a 100,000 year plus time scale, unless those contractions were extraordinarily severe.
Modern man is a few tns of thousands of years old, but that’s about all. Hominids and Cro Magnons were real enough but we’re not related to hominids at all and the Cro Magnons had largely died out in catastrophes prior to Adam and Eve arriving here.
The Earth IS young, but the universe is eternal.
You're source is:
http://absoluteprimacyofchrist.org/?p=1436#APC05 ^
You're making Christianity look bad.
Its about common sense.
It's a perfect example of the misuse of mathematics based on a flawed model.
Thanks - I should have known that. I feel like an idiot. Oh, well, it’s late here and I should have been in bed hours ago.
R/J
Maybe pick up a book by Francis Collins.
Actually a couple of centuries of population decline still matter even if the overall timeline is 100,000 or more years. If you’re positing at 1% annual growth then 1 year of -1% growth (decline) is taking 2 years out of your graph, the year of decline and the year to make it back. If your decline gets larger the effect on your graph gets worse. 1 century of 2% decline just cost your graph 300 years. That doesn’t even get into things like known sharp contractions like the Black Death, that chopped off 1/4 of the world’s population in 2 years. One or two of those will tear your graph to pieces, and there have been dozens.
“You’re making Christianity look bad.”~ says you...
Jesus read and affirmed the Old Testament as the inspired Word of God. So where exactly does this inspired text start being true for you, christian?
There is a concept called carrying capacity. A hunter-gatherer culture needs a lot of land per person in order to hunt/gather enough food. Once you reach the carrying capacity, the death rate from starvation rises to matches the birth rate.
When agriculture was invented, you could grow food for more people on a given amount of land. Innovations like irrigation, fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, etc increased the amount of usable food you could get from a given acre of land, and thus increased the carrying capacity.
The human race is relatively young - 100,000 years makes us a very young species - as species go. We are a very homogenous population in DNA, despite the obvious superficial differences between human populations in skin color and other evolutionary adaptations.
From my prior link re: age of the universe:
88. The observed rapid rate of change in stars contradicts the vast ages assigned to stellar evolution. For example, Sakurais Object in Sagittarius: in 1994, this star was most likely a white dwarf in the centre of a planetary nebula; by 1997 it had grown to a bright yellow giant, about 80 times wider than the sun (Astronomy & Astrophysics 321:L17, 1997). In 1998, it had expanded even further, to a red supergiant 150 times wider than the sun. But then it shrank just as quickly; by 2002 the star itself was invisible even to the most powerful optical telescopes, although it is detectable in the infrared, which shines through the dust (Muir, H., 2003, Back from the dead, New Scientist 177(2384):2831).
92. Speedy stars are consistent with a young age for the universe. For example, many stars in the dwarf galaxies in the Local Group are moving away from each other at speeds estimated at to 1012 km/s. At these speeds, the stars should have dispersed in 100 Ma, which, compared with the supposed 14,000 Ma age of the universe, is a short time. See Fast stars challenge big bang origin for dwarf galaxies.
Not too mention also cosmic background radiation supports a young Universe - certainly not anything approaching the order of billions of years - modern secular science also claims 3 to 4.5 billion years for the age of Earth and our Solar System.
Then there is also the fairly recent research and accurate predictions from Russell Humphreys expanding upon the ideas of Albert Einstein.
Starlight and Time by Russell Humpheys
The key to the starlight and age of the universe is ‘gravitational time dilation’.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.