Population studies suggest flood

[Jbuza]

gone

[SpaceCase]

Ok, so the population is in line with what we would expect after the flood...

Great, thats proves there was a flood, and it proves that everyone but a small number died in the flood.

How exactly does that extrapolate to a preflood population?

They all died... were it 1 million, or 1 thousand, only 1 family survived right? You can't extrapolate a preflood population wih the information you have.

Besides, is anyone suggesting that 'prehumans' were living 5000 years ago?

I don't think so.

[thereal]

Why does the decreasing size of the human population as one travels back through time suggest "zero humans" at the time you suggest a great flood occurs? This model of population growth appears to use mixtures of exponential and linear population growth to fit its predetermined conclusion. By looking at the predicted values of human population growth from 1500 on, we see that our population is increasing in a trend that is more exponential than linear. Exponential growth curves often exhibit a trend where a relatively small population persists for thousands of generations prior to a population explosion. However, the trend you show suggests that prior to the human population explosion, it exhibited linear growth and therefore had a time of "zero humans" or few humans coinciding with a global catatrophe. Maybe I'm missing something, but without the "extrapolation" (is this the author you cited that is doing the extrapolating?) prior to the year 1500, wouldn't a persistent small number of humans (say a few million worldwide) existing indefinitely into the past represent a plausible hypothesis for the obseved trends? For example, take cattle (genus Bos). Due to the agricultutral revolution, invention of railroads for transport, etc., the number of cattle has increased exponentially in the last 200 years. Based on an extrapolation method similar to the one you provide, the small number of cattle prior to this explosion might be suggested as evidence of a recent time prior to the explosion when no cattle existed. However, we know from fossil records that cattle have existed in relatively smaller numbers for millenia. Please help me understand your assertion that small initial population size suggests a previous catastrophic decline as opposed to persistent small populations.

[sandy_mcd]

I find these figures to be in close agreement with what one would expect from the biblical specification after the Flood in 2344 B.C. The assumed existence of thousands of millions of “prehumans” is both physically and scriptural unrealistic.

Note: The following argument does not address the merit of your claim, but only how you present the material.
Why is this what is expected from a Biblical Flood in 2344 BC ? I maybe can see why you like this, but why should anyone else pay any attention to it ? [I.e., it is not enough to be correct, you have to explain to other people why you are correct if you want them to believe.]

A1) What formula was used to fit the data from 1500 to 1997 ? Was it just some kind of best-fit or is some formula expected for population growth ?
A2) Extrapolation, especially when the fit is just to a general equation, is pretty dicey so far (3500 years) past your data points (500 years). What are the errors in your population numbers and how would they affect your extrapolation ? If the fit is to a formula, why would that formula be expected to be valid for so long in the past ?
A3) What adjustments were made for different effects on population; e.g., people live longer today, have smaller families, Black Death of years ago, etc ?
B1) Do the data make any sense ?
-2000 1
-1000 50
0 100
1000 250
1500 300
1650 550
1800 1000
1950 2500
1997 6000
Go to http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/3rdyearlab/ ... graph.html and cut and paste in the numbers you have provided, with a linear and then a log plot. What kind of smooth curve fits these data ? None that I can see.
B2) Do the data support your claim ? Looking at your data, the population doubles roughly every 100 to 600 years depending on the time period. Even so, how do you get from 8 people after the Flood in 2344 BC to 1 million in 2000 BC ?
Looking up your source at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/allan.asp provides absolutely no insight whatsoever. Please explain.

[Jbuza]

gone

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I'm sure there is no way I can convince you that evolution is false, but who knows perhaps you will decide their is osme plausibility to this and if it suggests the Bible could be true, then perhaps you will try to discover truth for yourself.

You all are quite correct these studies do not prove the flood happened, but as the forum title says they do suggest that it could have occoured, and since the populations studies are not the only evidence to suggest it, I find the body of evidence for the flood to be convincing.

Another link describing how population studies point to a flood and seem to indicate a far shorter hisotry of man than evolutionists like to suggest.

At our current rate of population increase of 2% per year two people could generate 3.5 billion people in only 1075 years. Since written records go back over 4,000 years, it is obvious that the average growth rate throughout past history has been considerably less than the present rate. Therefore, if the population increased at an average rate of only 1/2% you could generate the present world population in only 4000 years. It is obvious that at this slower rate of population increase of only one-fourth of the present rate of growth, if man have lived on the earth for over a million years our population should be at a minimum of 1 trillion 500 billion people. In addition, this figure is low because it does not take into account the exponential rate of growth of population.
http://www.calvaryag.org/apologetics/ap ... _flood.htm

Your reasoning is absurd. If I use the same line of reasoning than rabbits should have reached 1 trillion 500 billion individuals some time ago.

When one does population studies one must first consider what the factors are that govern population size.

These factors include but are not limited to, availability of food, space, and water, preponderance of disease, predation, and hostile conditions, and occational outbreaks of pandemics/epidemics, war and famine.

Given these variables one can quickly see that a complex problem arises. Given this information the accuracy of any prediction on population growth can only be rough at best. Therefore any extrapolation into the past, based on several hundred years of data, portrayed as evidence is laughable.

In short when one does analysis of any type one must always take into account negative factors as well.

It's like saying that at the current rates of increase gold will be value at $821 per troy ounce in the year 2040. Extrapolate that back and in 1000BC gold was absolutely worthless.

Population growth is not based on a constant mathematical formula. There are factors such as advances in medicine, war, advances in agriculture, and climate which obviously set limits on population size.

[Jbuza]

gone

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Yeah it's especially laughable when you beleive there are 1,000,000 years of history that it needs to be extrapolated to. The population conference showed 500 years of growth estimates. Geology is still based on unfirom processes of time, and your precious ages and epochs of evolution are also based on that vision of geology.

Geology is not based on a flat equation. The conclusion is reached by modeling processes. There are processes which create crustal material, and processes which destroy it. There are processes which build mountains and there are those which tear them down. A better understanding is reached after analyzing all of the available data.

I guess it's OK to accept the argument if it proves your position, but it must be rejected if it doesn't fit your theory.

Ar you admiting this is what you are doing? Or are you accusing me of doing this? I have not made any claims, only you have.

I don't care if you don't believe a flood happened.

I wasn't even asking about the flood.

ARe you scared that God may be real and you don't want to hear anything that reminds you of him. Perhaps you skipped reading what I posted for fear of being convinced. You will find that they try to account for these negative factors by rediculously lowering the possible number of people.

I don't follow you here.

Rabbits aren't the same as people. Gold has not changed in amount, although perhaps more has been mined than lost.

Can you show me then what determines the rate of human population growth?

I can assure you there would be more rabbits if they had no predators and lived to be 75-100.

Well of course but there are limiting factors. There are limiting factors to the human population as well.

[Jbuza]

gone

[sandy_mcd]

Earlier I posted several questions and got no answers. Here is one request.
Given the population data below (stipulated for the time being to be accurate), please fill in the populations for the other years, showing how the numbers for the earlier years were derived:

Year pop(millions)

1997 6000
1950 2500
1800 1000
1650 550
1500 300
------------------
1000
500
0
500 BC
1000 BC
1500 BC
2000 BC
2344 BC

[Jbuza]

gone

[Jbuza]

gone

[sandy_mcd]

I realize that James S. Allan came up with these numbers so it is a bit unfair to ask anyone else to justify them. But the population numbers were presented here and I would like to know how these numbers were generated (this is the "God and Science" forum after all). I can't find on the web any evidence of any paper or article that purports to show how the earlier population figures were arrived at. [Please omit references to evolution and geologic and other types of uniformitarianism unless relevant.]


Please fill in the blanks for the earlier years and show your work:
Year pop(millions)

1997 6000
1950 2500
1800 1000
1650 550
1500 300
------------------
1000
500
0
500 BC
1000 BC
1500 BC
2000 BC
2344 BC

[Jbuza]

gone

[Jbuza]

gone