Human Population and time

[brokentines]

One Topic I brought up a few years ago is the thought on Human population growth when comparing Evolution theory to YEC theory.
In short Evolution theory IMO has a serious problem trying to explain the fact that "modern man" which they would say has existed somewhere between 100,000 years to 1,000,000 years ago, maintained a zero growth rate until the last few thousand years.

In short the YEC theory when taking 8 people (survivors of the flood) 4,400 years ago to present age there are no problems with the population growth.

In other words, if we were to look at population growth from any secular studies I believe the evolution theory of man has a real problem.

Here is a population calculator to play around with. I'm not endorsing the web site, just a fun tool to mess around with.
http://www.metamorphosisalpha.com/ias/population.php

[Canuckster1127]

Here's an article from the main page addressing this argument. In short, it relies upon faulty data and invalid assumptions. I'd be interested in hearing what specific information you might have that contradicts this and if so, what the source is.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/population.html

blessings,

bart

[brokentines]

Well to use the author's own words

This is a completely ridiculous argument, based upon faulty assumptions and faulty data.

Lets examine the data he presents:

The assumption is that the average family size has always been the same and that the population growth rate has always been 2%.

It is actually less than 1.6% at present.

So what was it 100,000 years ago, if it is less today could it have been more in the past? China had to pass laws for people to only have one child obviously in the past China's growth rate was way higher.

The increase in family size and longevity has occurred only within the last century.

And what data do we have to support this. Sure man in living longer in the last century then some of the previous centuries but can the author prove that man didn't live longer say 20,000 years ago? There is no data to back this up is there. Isn't he assuming many things?
How many kids did a family 20,000years ago have? Is there any data that tells us this? It could have been 30 or more, it could have been less than 1. Evolution doesn't tell us it has to be inferred for the theory to work.

Before the turn of the 20th century, the average life expectancy was 40 years.

What was it in the first century? What was it when evolution says modern man came on the scene? Isn't he also guilty of assuming, by saying that before the turn of the 20th century people did not live long, therefore man never lived longer than 40 years before that?

The advent of modern medicine has radically increased the population growth rate for the last 60-80 years.

Is there more disease today than say 10,000 years ago. It seems like every year there are more and more strains of the flu. Does evolution know how many disease and illness the first "modern man" had to deal with. Do they know if he has any natural remedies to fix what ailed him? Could it be there are more disease and viruses today than there have ever been from the beginning.
From a creationist point of view I would say that originally the first created world had no disease. It would have been only after the "fall" that disease began.

In fact, from 2000 B.C. to 1 A.D., the world's population rose from 108 million to 138 million (only 0.01% growth rate/year).2

First of all I would like to know what world wide census was taken in 2,000 b.c. Sure even in the Bible we know that the Romans took census, but not of the whole world. But in any case this point matters not. The argument is not what the population has done since recorded time, it is how can a population that includes "modern man" living here for even 100,000 years remain at a stand still. You would have to have the same number of people die each day that are born each day. You really have to reach to come up with an answer and understand that you only have theory because"modern man" also saw no need to keep any records for 100,000 years either. But that is another topic.

and the Bible claims at least 1000 generations (~40,000 years).3 In addition, the Bible says that limits to population growth prior to the flood were due to extreme violence and rampant murder (Genesis 6).4

I'm really having a hard time figuring out what side of the fence this guy is arguing from. The argument is against evolutionary theory saying that modern man has been around for 100,000 years. Why is he referring to the Bible for data?

I have yet to hear an argument that can explain how "modern man" could have remained on this planet with no population growth for 100,000 years. Now keep in mind I am only arguing against what evolution would call "modern man" not his entire ancestry.
Henry Morris was being kind IMO by giving the statistics he did. He used a lower growth rate .o5 and 2.5 children per family. This is a modest estimation. He does use a 1,000,000 year time which is fine if you look at what evolution is teaching about the history of mankind. I was being even more generous with starting with what evolution would call "modern man" at 100,000 years.

[Canuckster1127]

Brokentines,

The articles is pretty well foot-noted and many of your responses seem to me to be argumentative without examining the support you've been presented. I don't have the time or the inclination to go point by point with you but I'll note theses elements.

So what was it 100,000 years ago, if it is less today could it have been more in the past? China had to pass laws for people to only have one child obviously in the past China's growth rate was way higher.

This is a specious argument. It's less relevant what it was 100,000 years ago when compared to the last 100 years than what it was in the centuries immediately prior. We do have much of that data. It's easy to see that from that the rate was slower due to elements such as a higher mortality rate in birth, a shorter life span, a more limited food supply and the impact of diseases with less understanding and means to control those elements. That is enough to eliminate the validity of an argument extrapolating straight-line population growth back to the past.

You make several references to evolution, which are also specious. Rich Deem is not an evolutionist. He is an Old Earth Creationist and we're simply discussing time spans relative to population and how well they match the time frames argued by Young Earth Creationists at 6,000 years.

All I see happening here is a pretty circular and self-defeating argument. You argued in your opening post, without the specific information you're here nit-picking at in Rich's article that you could draw a conclusive argument based on extrapolating back a growth rate observed presently several thousand years. You were shown clearly why that is not reasonable or supportable. Then your response, instead of defending your original statement is to attempt to cast doubt on Rich's material which is far more thorough than anything you offered and apparently, you presume that that makes your original statement somehow more believable.

Do you have any specific refutation of the data you've been shown, that is validated and tested? Are you here to discuss the issue or are you hear to use debating techniques to promote a position you've already arrived at and have no interest in submitting to examination?

On the outside chance, that maybe you're confusing terms, do you know the difference between Young Earth Creationism and Old Earth Creationism? Do you understand that Old Earth Creationists are not evolutionists? Do you understand that it is not a given based upon Scripture that the earth is only 6000 years old?

bart

[brokentines]

It's less relevant what it was 100,000 years ago when compared to the last 100 years than what it was in the centuries immediately prior.

How so? I believe a span of 100,00 years is very important in my original post. I am not arguing the last 100 years.

a higher mortality rate in birth

This is a specious argument. (I had to look that one up ) If my wife and I want 10 children and we live in a time where there is a high infant mortality rate we may need to get pregnant 20 times to have the 10 children live we want. Infant mortality does nothing to stop a population growth.

a shorter life span

Once again we have no idea what a life span was even 5,000 years ago. What do OEC do with the bible talking about ages in the 900's?

more limited food supply

It is easy to say there is was a limited food supply 100,000 years but how do you prove it? This is also specious.

Rich Deem is not an evolutionist.

Glad to hear it, but he stands along side of the evolutionist if he believes man has been here for 100,000 years. I do not know however, what he believes in the age of man . How long does Rich believe man has been here?

You were shown clearly why that is not reasonable or supportable.

Where?
I was shown opinions, because there is no data past 5,000 years. Everything before this time is speculative.
I believe it is very reasonable and have not yet heard a good refutation.

Do you understand that it is not a given based upon Scripture that the earth is only 6000 years old?

Bart, I have seen debates between the creationist who believe each side on this subject. I have yet to see either side win this debate. It comes down to a "world view" in every case.
Salvation is far more important than the age of the earth. My original post, if you go back and read it, was against human evolution not OEC. I do however believe that OEC has the same problem IF the believe man has been around that long.

[brokentines]

This is the argument brought against me every time on this subject. It goes something like this:
Human populations did not grow because of .....

We do have much of that data. It's easy to see that from that the rate was slower due to elements such as a higher mortality rate in birth, a shorter life span, a more limited food supply and the impact of diseases with less understanding and means to control those elements.

When I see these arguments, all one has to do is think of a third world, or undeveloped country today. Many countries today are experiencing these very same struggles. You do not have to look very far to find articles on 3rd world countries and population growth to understand that these argument don't hold water. Here is one that I found the first time I "googled"
Notice in the articles how in most cases where people on the planet are struggling sometimes is where the population grows the most. http://www.overpopulation.org/culture.html

In rich areas of the world, the annual rate is 0.25%, while in poor areas it is 1.46% - six times faster.In the 49 countries where the world's poorest 670 million people lived in 2000, population increases 2.41%

Wouldn't we expect ,and Know that in the poorest countries: infant mortality is higher, people live shorter lives, there is a major shortage of food, and people are diseased? Then why do these populations increase faster?

[B. W.]

This is the argument brought against me every time on this subject. It goes something like this:
Human populations did not grow because of .....

We do have much of that data. It's easy to see that from that the rate was slower due to elements such as a higher mortality rate in birth, a shorter life span, a more limited food supply and the impact of diseases with less understanding and means to control those elements.

When I see these arguments, all one has to do is think of a third world, or undeveloped country today. Many countries today are experiencing these very same struggles. You do not have to look very far to find articles on 3rd world countries and population growth to understand that these argument don't hold water. Here is one that I found the first time I "googled"
Notice in the articles how in most cases where people on the planet are struggling sometimes is where the population grows the most. http://www.overpopulation.org/culture.html

In rich areas of the world, the annual rate is 0.25%, while in poor areas it is 1.46% - six times faster.In the 49 countries where the world's poorest 670 million people lived in 2000, population increases 2.41%

Wouldn't we expect ,and Know that in the poorest countries: infant mortality is higher, people live shorter lives, there is a major shortage of food, and people are diseased? Then why do these populations increase faster?

Sex...
-
-
-

[zoegirl]

If my wife and I want 10 children and we live in a time where there is a high infant mortality rate we may need to get pregnant 20 times to have the 10 children live we want. Infant mortality does nothing to stop a population growth.

That's assuming, of course, that you could successfully reproduce 20 times in order to compensate for the high infant mortality rate.

Don't forget as well that high mortality rate for people in general, not to mention women dying in childbirth.

Glad to hear it, but he stands along side of the evolutionist if he believes man has been here for 100,000 years. I do not know however, what he believes in the age of man . How long does Rich believe man has been here?

So are you claiming that to agree with evolutionists on anything thus means that we are somehow championing atheism????!?!?!

And yes, salvation is most important...we certainly agree there.