Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Youwerecreated & Little Nipper,
If Noah's ark took place just 4000 years ago and only eight people were on the ark, how could there be 7 billion people now?
I posted the population growth argument it explains it in detail.
The human population of the world supports a young earth.
World Population Since Creation
NOVA | World in the Balance | Human Numbers Through Time | PBS
How did noah gets the animals from australia to his boat in the middle east?
Youwerecreated & Little Nipper,
If Noah's ark took place just 4000 years ago and only eight people were on the ark, how could there be 7 billion people now?
I posted the population growth argument it explains it in detail.
The human population of the world supports a young earth.
World Population Since Creation
NOVA | World in the Balance | Human Numbers Through Time | PBS
As we see, the flood tale that describes your angry, mass murdering gawds destroying most of humanity because they were a disappoint to him is one version of a flood tale that the writers of the bibles modified, embellished and revised to suit their book of tales and fables.
Flood Stories from Around the World
I have.I posted the population growth argument it explains it in detail.
The human population of the world supports a young earth.
World Population Since Creation
NOVA | World in the Balance | Human Numbers Through Time | PBS
As we see, the flood tale that describes your angry, mass murdering gawds destroying most of humanity because they were a disappoint to him is one version of a flood tale that the writers of the bibles modified, embellished and revised to suit their book of tales and fables.
Flood Stories from Around the World
Ask yourself why so many cultures have flood legends ?
The belief that the world is 6,000 years old is simply astounding. If the world really were 6000 years old there wouldn't be enough humans born up to now to make up a population of 7 billion.
This has been throughly refuted and the population growth rate better supports the worlds current population with the timeline and the people that came off the ark than it supports evolutionists millions of years story.
Population Statistics and a Young Earth
by
Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
Both sides of the creation/evolution debate are locked in a heated battle over the truth about human origins, the age of the Universe, and the ultimate Cause of all things. Interestingly, while this debate rages and arguments are flying from both sides of the issue, there is reasonable evidence available which sidesteps much of the seeming complexity of this conflict and helps to illuminate the truth on the matter of human origins. This evidence comes from the realm of population statistics. What is the reasonable conclusion that should be drawn from the evidence in this area?
There is no question that both viewpointsbiblical and evolutionaryrequire a commencement point for mankind to begin propagation of the species. The biblical (i.e., Flood) model asserts that God started the process, creating both Adam and Eveone male and one femaleapproximately 6,000 years ago. From them, the human race was established and ultimately exterminated in the global Flood of Noahs day (Genesis 6-9), with the exception of Noah and his family. After the Flood, Noahs three sons and their wives commenced the repopulation of the human species (Genesis 9:19).
The evolutionary model claims that the first man of the genus Homo emerged around two to three million years ago (cf. Corballis, 2002, p. 183; Johanson, 2001; The Emergence , 2011; University of Utah, 2005; Walker, 2002). It has always been intriguing that the evolutionary side of the aisle appears to be quiet about the fact that at the commencement of the human species, both male and female human beings had to evolve simultaneously, in the same geographic area, and while both were alive, in order for the human species to propagate itselfnot just one male or one female, and not two males or two females. Further, these male and female human bodies also had to contain the fully functional reproductive components that would be necessary to replicate humanity. In The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality, Graham Bell discusses this quandary, stating that:
Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing its obscurity by its very isolation (1982, p. 19).
Evolutionist Philip Kitcher admitted, Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians, there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction (1982, p. 54). Evolutionist Mark Ridley noted that ex is a puzzle that has not yet been solved; no one knows why it exists (2001, p. 111). Julie Schecter said that sex remains a mystery to researchers, to say nothing of the rest of the population. Why sex? (1984, 34:680). [See Thompson and Harrub, 2002 for an in depth discussion on the origin of genders and sexuality.]
Besides the problem raised for evolutionists by the origin of sexual reproduction, more problems exist that evolutionists appear to be quite reticent about. For instance, the patriarch and matriarch of the human race, having miraculously emerged in the same time period of history with each other, also had to be able to find each other on planet Earth without first starving, without being eaten by the ferocious animals that evolutionary images of early man portray, and without getting too old to replicate. And still further, just because there is another human being near you, does that mean you will be attracted to him/her? The male and female had to decide that they liked each other and do something about it before dying. And even further, the baby and mother had to survive the ordeal of child birth in those allegedly primitive circumstances. If the emergence of one human being from a non-human being seems ludicrous due to its contradiction of the Law of Biogenesis, surely this realization makes the evolutionary proposition beyond preposterous.
POPULATION STATISTICS AND THE EVOLUTIONARY MODEL
However, for the sake of argument, let us grant the atheistic evolutionist several miraculous featstwo living, opposite-sex human beings, with the necessary sexual components to propagate the species, in the same region on Earth, safe guarded from their primitive environment, with a desire for each other, and young enough to replicate. Even granting all of these significant but unrealistic assumptions, the evolutionist is left with statistical obstacles. Consider the mathematics for this argument.
Let us suppose that couples throughout history have had an average of (2 × c) children (i.e., c boys plus c girls). Starting with two humans, this would make the population after the first generation, Pn = 2+2 ∙ c. Then, the children, marrying each other, had another (2 ∙ c) children per couple. As illustrated in Scientific Studies in Special Creation (Lammerts, 1971), continuing this progression results in the following equation, where n is the number of generations for which the calculation is done.
After multiplying both sides of Equation (1) by c, subtracting the resulting equation from Equation (1), grouping, and dividing both sides by (c - 1), the following equation results:
This gives the total population after n generations, without any deaths. Assuming each person lives an average of d generations, the number of deceased people by the final generation (i.e., the (n - d)th generation) can be calculated using Equation (3):
Therefore, the total population after n generations, accounting for death, can be calculated by subtracting the population of the (n - d)th generation from the population calculated in Equation (2), resulting in the following:
If each couple has only two children (i.e., c = 1), the population will remain constant, and if each couple has fewer than two children on average (i.e., c < 1), the population will decrease (Lammerts, pp. 198-205). [See also Morris and Morris, 1996 and Wysong, 1976 for more information on the derivation of the above equations.]
The actual value of the constants (c, d, and n) are unknown, since the worlds population has not been known with any certainty until the last few hundred years. They also would almost certainly have fluctuated at different times in history based on the state of technology, lifespans (especially considering the long lifespans in the generations immediately following the Flood and the shorter lifespans preceding the current state of medical knowledge), and fluctuating offspring production rates. However, this approach allows for the use of long-term averages to get a rough estimate of what the worlds population should look like over time.
Being very conservative, accounting for periods of famine, disease, war, natural calamity, etc., let us assume that c = 1.2. Thus, each couple throughout history has had, on average, at least two children, and many times three or more children were born. Also, let us assume that each person has lived, on average, one and a third generations (i.e., d = 1.3). This means that each person died having seen some, though not all, of their grandchildren. Again, this estimate is likely very conservative, especially since effective birth control methods are a relatively recent innovation. However, these conservative estimates certainly take into account the long periods of time in history when people lived shorter lives and had fewer children. Let us further assign a reasonable estimate of a generation to be 38 years. This means that each couple has had all of their children by age 38. All of these numbers could easily and fairly be increased, but doing so would do even further damage to the evolutionists case.
Using these conservative estimates, if human beings have been on the planet producing offspring for one million years, over 26,000 generations have passed. There are currently about seven billion people on earth6.9x109 (U.S. & World Population , 2011). However, according to Equation (4), there should be over 102,000 people on the Earth today if propagation commenced one million years ago. That is a one, followed by 2,000 zeros. In order to try to fathom that number, consider the following analogy. The known Universe is thought to be 28 billion light years in diameter (Powell, 2006; Tully, 2000). That is the equivalent of over 1070 cubic miles of volume. If tiny, three foot humans, modeled as cylinders with five inch radii (i.e., very narrow shoulders), were crammed into the Universe like sardines, 1082 people might fit (if they have not eaten in awhile). That leaves more than 101,918 additional people! And whats worse, if c, d, or n are increased, as they legitimately could be, the problem is further amplified. Consider also that these numbers are based on a starting point of one million years ago. Evolutionists claim that humans have been on the Earth for two to three million years. To make their plight even worse, the evolutionary community digs its own grave significantly deeper by speculating that the original Adam and Eve were actually Adam, Eve, and about 10,000 other people (Hawks, et al., 2000). Even if 10,000 such miracles were accomplished in the same period of time in human history, one can easily imagine how many more people would result in a given period of time if 5,000 couples initially began bearing children instead of one couple. Where, pray tell, are all of the imaginary people that should be in existence if evolution is the true history of humanity?
The evolutionary community certainly has trouble adjusting the numbers to allow for this preposterous scenario. However, they must be able to come up with a reasonable explanation in order to maintain their position. If evolution is true, it must be assumed that there were times when the human population remained constant for very long periods of time or decreased to the point of extinction at different times in history (cf. Weiss, 1984; Hawks, et al., 2000). Such speculation is a leap into the dark without sufficient, verifiable evidence. [NOTE: Incidentally, such speculation is in contradiction with uniformitarian principles, which are fundamental to evolutionary dating techniques. If the Earth has not progressed in a constant, uniform fashion as macroevolution suggests, then old ages based on those uniformitarian assumptions cannot be assigned to the Earth. It seems that the evolutionary community wants to have their cake and eat it, too.] History grants us no world population estimates based on censuss until the last 200 years. Before that, according to population statisticians estimates, the average annual population growth was estimated to be relatively constant, ranging between 0.03-0.15% from 1750 A.D. to 10,000 B.C. (Historical Estimates of World Population, 2010) [NOTE: World populations are estimated at this later date based on the assumption that the theory of evolution is true. Such a time frame would be pre-Creation, according to the Bible, and is rejected by the author.] Likely due to medical breakthroughs and technological advancement, the annual population growth has since jumped to about 2%. Note that even the irreligious community recognizes the likelihood of significant population growth on average over time throughout history and makes its estimates accordingly. The evolutionary position, in order to exist at all, must stand in contradiction to this fact. The evidence, as well as common sense, cannot be denied. If growth is the norm as the evidence indicates, evolution is impossible. The evidence conveyed by population statistics simply does not support the evolutionary model.
POPULATION STATISTICS AND THE CREATION MODEL
What about the creation model? Is it supported by the evidence from population statistics? The biblical position asserts that after the Flood, repopulation of the Earth commenced, starting with six people (i.e., Shem, Ham, Japheth, and their wives), instead of two (or 10,000). Using the aforementioned procedure, the following equation can be derived for calculation of the projected population for any given time, starting with six people:
If we assume, based on biblical genealogies, that the Flood took place roughly 4,300 years ago (cf. Bass, 2003), using the same c andd as above, as well as a generation of 38 years, then 113 generations have passed since the global Flood of Noahs day. Based on these numbers, the approximate projected population for today can be calculated. According to the calculations, there should be approximately seven billion people on Earth6.7x109. This is strikingly close to the current population as recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau6.9x109.
CONCLUSION
What does the evidence indicate? Is the evolutionary model a plausible explanation for mans existence? The evidence from the field of population statistics says, Certainly not. Even granting very conservative numbers in the calculation of projected populations, it is the biblical model that is in keeping with the numerical evidence provided by the worlds population. The evidence supports a young age for the Earth and mankind. One would have to be dishonest to examine such concrete evidence and dismiss it out of hand. Yet, this attitude pervades much of the scientific community today. The same people who proclaim that they, unlike theists, are the ones who examine the evidence without bias, only drawing those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence, are the very ones who turn against the evidence when it does not suit their purpose and agenda. Philosopher David Hume once said that no man turns against reason until reason turns against him (as quoted in Warren, 1982, p. 4). That certainly sums up the mentality of many in the scientific community. Why not choose to go with the reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence? The Earth is young. Evolution cannot explain human existence. The biblical model can and does.
Apologetics Press - Population Statistics and a Young Earth
The belief that the world is 6,000 years old is simply astounding. If the world really were 6000 years old there wouldn't be enough humans born up to now to make up a population of 7 billion.
This has been throughly refuted and the population growth rate better supports the worlds current population with the timeline and the people that came off the ark than it supports evolutionists millions of years story.
Population Statistics and a Young Earth
by
Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
Both sides of the creation/evolution debate are locked in a heated battle over the truth about human origins, the age of the Universe, and the ultimate Cause of all things. Interestingly, while this debate rages and arguments are flying from both sides of the issue, there is reasonable evidence available which sidesteps much of the seeming complexity of this conflict and helps to illuminate the truth on the matter of human origins. This evidence comes from the realm of population statistics. What is the reasonable conclusion that should be drawn from the evidence in this area?
There is no question that both viewpointsbiblical and evolutionaryrequire a commencement point for mankind to begin propagation of the species. The biblical (i.e., Flood) model asserts that God started the process, creating both Adam and Eveone male and one femaleapproximately 6,000 years ago. From them, the human race was established and ultimately exterminated in the global Flood of Noahs day (Genesis 6-9), with the exception of Noah and his family. After the Flood, Noahs three sons and their wives commenced the repopulation of the human species (Genesis 9:19).
The evolutionary model claims that the first man of the genus Homo emerged around two to three million years ago (cf. Corballis, 2002, p. 183; Johanson, 2001; The Emergence , 2011; University of Utah, 2005; Walker, 2002). It has always been intriguing that the evolutionary side of the aisle appears to be quiet about the fact that at the commencement of the human species, both male and female human beings had to evolve simultaneously, in the same geographic area, and while both were alive, in order for the human species to propagate itselfnot just one male or one female, and not two males or two females. Further, these male and female human bodies also had to contain the fully functional reproductive components that would be necessary to replicate humanity. In The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality, Graham Bell discusses this quandary, stating that:
Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing its obscurity by its very isolation (1982, p. 19).
Evolutionist Philip Kitcher admitted, Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians, there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction (1982, p. 54). Evolutionist Mark Ridley noted that ex is a puzzle that has not yet been solved; no one knows why it exists (2001, p. 111). Julie Schecter said that sex remains a mystery to researchers, to say nothing of the rest of the population. Why sex? (1984, 34:680). [See Thompson and Harrub, 2002 for an in depth discussion on the origin of genders and sexuality.]
Besides the problem raised for evolutionists by the origin of sexual reproduction, more problems exist that evolutionists appear to be quite reticent about. For instance, the patriarch and matriarch of the human race, having miraculously emerged in the same time period of history with each other, also had to be able to find each other on planet Earth without first starving, without being eaten by the ferocious animals that evolutionary images of early man portray, and without getting too old to replicate. And still further, just because there is another human being near you, does that mean you will be attracted to him/her? The male and female had to decide that they liked each other and do something about it before dying. And even further, the baby and mother had to survive the ordeal of child birth in those allegedly primitive circumstances. If the emergence of one human being from a non-human being seems ludicrous due to its contradiction of the Law of Biogenesis, surely this realization makes the evolutionary proposition beyond preposterous.
POPULATION STATISTICS AND THE EVOLUTIONARY MODEL
However, for the sake of argument, let us grant the atheistic evolutionist several miraculous featstwo living, opposite-sex human beings, with the necessary sexual components to propagate the species, in the same region on Earth, safe guarded from their primitive environment, with a desire for each other, and young enough to replicate. Even granting all of these significant but unrealistic assumptions, the evolutionist is left with statistical obstacles. Consider the mathematics for this argument.
Let us suppose that couples throughout history have had an average of (2 × c) children (i.e., c boys plus c girls). Starting with two humans, this would make the population after the first generation, Pn = 2+2 ∙ c. Then, the children, marrying each other, had another (2 ∙ c) children per couple. As illustrated in Scientific Studies in Special Creation (Lammerts, 1971), continuing this progression results in the following equation, where n is the number of generations for which the calculation is done.
After multiplying both sides of Equation (1) by c, subtracting the resulting equation from Equation (1), grouping, and dividing both sides by (c - 1), the following equation results:
This gives the total population after n generations, without any deaths. Assuming each person lives an average of d generations, the number of deceased people by the final generation (i.e., the (n - d)th generation) can be calculated using Equation (3):
Therefore, the total population after n generations, accounting for death, can be calculated by subtracting the population of the (n - d)th generation from the population calculated in Equation (2), resulting in the following:
If each couple has only two children (i.e., c = 1), the population will remain constant, and if each couple has fewer than two children on average (i.e., c < 1), the population will decrease (Lammerts, pp. 198-205). [See also Morris and Morris, 1996 and Wysong, 1976 for more information on the derivation of the above equations.]
The actual value of the constants (c, d, and n) are unknown, since the worlds population has not been known with any certainty until the last few hundred years. They also would almost certainly have fluctuated at different times in history based on the state of technology, lifespans (especially considering the long lifespans in the generations immediately following the Flood and the shorter lifespans preceding the current state of medical knowledge), and fluctuating offspring production rates. However, this approach allows for the use of long-term averages to get a rough estimate of what the worlds population should look like over time.
Being very conservative, accounting for periods of famine, disease, war, natural calamity, etc., let us assume that c = 1.2. Thus, each couple throughout history has had, on average, at least two children, and many times three or more children were born. Also, let us assume that each person has lived, on average, one and a third generations (i.e., d = 1.3). This means that each person died having seen some, though not all, of their grandchildren. Again, this estimate is likely very conservative, especially since effective birth control methods are a relatively recent innovation. However, these conservative estimates certainly take into account the long periods of time in history when people lived shorter lives and had fewer children. Let us further assign a reasonable estimate of a generation to be 38 years. This means that each couple has had all of their children by age 38. All of these numbers could easily and fairly be increased, but doing so would do even further damage to the evolutionists case.
Using these conservative estimates, if human beings have been on the planet producing offspring for one million years, over 26,000 generations have passed. There are currently about seven billion people on earth6.9x109 (U.S. & World Population , 2011). However, according to Equation (4), there should be over 102,000 people on the Earth today if propagation commenced one million years ago. That is a one, followed by 2,000 zeros. In order to try to fathom that number, consider the following analogy. The known Universe is thought to be 28 billion light years in diameter (Powell, 2006; Tully, 2000). That is the equivalent of over 1070 cubic miles of volume. If tiny, three foot humans, modeled as cylinders with five inch radii (i.e., very narrow shoulders), were crammed into the Universe like sardines, 1082 people might fit (if they have not eaten in awhile). That leaves more than 101,918 additional people! And whats worse, if c, d, or n are increased, as they legitimately could be, the problem is further amplified. Consider also that these numbers are based on a starting point of one million years ago. Evolutionists claim that humans have been on the Earth for two to three million years. To make their plight even worse, the evolutionary community digs its own grave significantly deeper by speculating that the original Adam and Eve were actually Adam, Eve, and about 10,000 other people (Hawks, et al., 2000). Even if 10,000 such miracles were accomplished in the same period of time in human history, one can easily imagine how many more people would result in a given period of time if 5,000 couples initially began bearing children instead of one couple. Where, pray tell, are all of the imaginary people that should be in existence if evolution is the true history of humanity?
The evolutionary community certainly has trouble adjusting the numbers to allow for this preposterous scenario. However, they must be able to come up with a reasonable explanation in order to maintain their position. If evolution is true, it must be assumed that there were times when the human population remained constant for very long periods of time or decreased to the point of extinction at different times in history (cf. Weiss, 1984; Hawks, et al., 2000). Such speculation is a leap into the dark without sufficient, verifiable evidence. [NOTE: Incidentally, such speculation is in contradiction with uniformitarian principles, which are fundamental to evolutionary dating techniques. If the Earth has not progressed in a constant, uniform fashion as macroevolution suggests, then old ages based on those uniformitarian assumptions cannot be assigned to the Earth. It seems that the evolutionary community wants to have their cake and eat it, too.] History grants us no world population estimates based on censuss until the last 200 years. Before that, according to population statisticians estimates, the average annual population growth was estimated to be relatively constant, ranging between 0.03-0.15% from 1750 A.D. to 10,000 B.C. (Historical Estimates of World Population, 2010) [NOTE: World populations are estimated at this later date based on the assumption that the theory of evolution is true. Such a time frame would be pre-Creation, according to the Bible, and is rejected by the author.] Likely due to medical breakthroughs and technological advancement, the annual population growth has since jumped to about 2%. Note that even the irreligious community recognizes the likelihood of significant population growth on average over time throughout history and makes its estimates accordingly. The evolutionary position, in order to exist at all, must stand in contradiction to this fact. The evidence, as well as common sense, cannot be denied. If growth is the norm as the evidence indicates, evolution is impossible. The evidence conveyed by population statistics simply does not support the evolutionary model.
POPULATION STATISTICS AND THE CREATION MODEL
What about the creation model? Is it supported by the evidence from population statistics? The biblical position asserts that after the Flood, repopulation of the Earth commenced, starting with six people (i.e., Shem, Ham, Japheth, and their wives), instead of two (or 10,000). Using the aforementioned procedure, the following equation can be derived for calculation of the projected population for any given time, starting with six people:
If we assume, based on biblical genealogies, that the Flood took place roughly 4,300 years ago (cf. Bass, 2003), using the same c andd as above, as well as a generation of 38 years, then 113 generations have passed since the global Flood of Noahs day. Based on these numbers, the approximate projected population for today can be calculated. According to the calculations, there should be approximately seven billion people on Earth6.7x109. This is strikingly close to the current population as recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau6.9x109.
CONCLUSION
What does the evidence indicate? Is the evolutionary model a plausible explanation for mans existence? The evidence from the field of population statistics says, Certainly not. Even granting very conservative numbers in the calculation of projected populations, it is the biblical model that is in keeping with the numerical evidence provided by the worlds population. The evidence supports a young age for the Earth and mankind. One would have to be dishonest to examine such concrete evidence and dismiss it out of hand. Yet, this attitude pervades much of the scientific community today. The same people who proclaim that they, unlike theists, are the ones who examine the evidence without bias, only drawing those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence, are the very ones who turn against the evidence when it does not suit their purpose and agenda. Philosopher David Hume once said that no man turns against reason until reason turns against him (as quoted in Warren, 1982, p. 4). That certainly sums up the mentality of many in the scientific community. Why not choose to go with the reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence? The Earth is young. Evolution cannot explain human existence. The biblical model can and does.
Apologetics Press - Population Statistics and a Young Earth
We do know why sex exists. It offers greater survival advantage to species because the genetic information is more diversified, so in case of disease, not everyone will get wiped out. In asexual species, everyone is nearly identical, so what will kill one animal will easily kill the next. By having a relatively greater diversity of genetic information across individuals, it confers an advantage for the entire species.
I learned this when I was in middle school, fifteen years ago.
Boilerplate christian apologetics. It's been thoroughly refuted as nonsense.
Youwerecreated & Little Nipper,
If Noah's ark took place just 4000 years ago and only eight people were on the ark, how could there be 7 billion people now?
Boilerplate christian apologetics. It's been thoroughly refuted as nonsense.
How?
Youwerecreated & Little Nipper,
If Noah's ark took place just 4000 years ago and only eight people were on the ark, how could there be 7 billion people now?
I believe the actual event was closer to 5000 years ago. More like 4900
I have.As we see, the flood tale that describes your angry, mass murdering gawds destroying most of humanity because they were a disappoint to him is one version of a flood tale that the writers of the bibles modified, embellished and revised to suit their book of tales and fables.
Flood Stories from Around the World
Ask yourself why so many cultures have flood legends ?
Ask yourself why the flood tale in the bibles is similar to flood tales that preceded the one in the bibles.
I posted the population growth argument it explains it in detail.
The human population of the world supports a young earth.
World Population Since Creation
NOVA | World in the Balance | Human Numbers Through Time | PBS
As we see, the flood tale that describes your angry, mass murdering gawds destroying most of humanity because they were a disappoint to him is one version of a flood tale that the writers of the bibles modified, embellished and revised to suit their book of tales and fables.
Flood Stories from Around the World
Ask yourself why so many cultures have flood legends ?
I think the problem here is that our epistemologies are different. The science crowd considers knowledge of the universe to be something that is only possible with evidence. I belong in this camp. ....
Then I guess evolutionists like you don't belong to the science crowd.
Specific Arguments - Population Growth
Young-earth "proof" #25: The current population of Earth (5.5 billion) could easily be generated from 8 people in less than 4000 years. If the earth were really billions of years old, the human population would have gone through the roof!
Yes, given unlimited living space, an inexhaustible supply of food, a good deal of luck in the early stages, and a high motivation to travel while having more kids than is practical, eight people could probably populate the earth in a few thousand years. Eight germs could do it in less than a week. Eight bunny rabbits would fall somewhere in between. Eight cats would give us yet another figure. What do any of these figures have to do with the age of the earth? Nothing! What do these figures have to do with actual growth rates? Absolutely nothing!
The human exponential growth rate of the last few hundred years is possible only because of technology. When our ability to stay one jump ahead of starvation and disease fails, when our resources give out, then you'll see a dramatic change in that growth rate! It will no longer be exponential; it will be disastrous!
How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Hovind's 'Proofs' (continued)
Those who imagine that eight people gave rise to everyone living today according to a simple exponential growth curve have demonstrated an inability to think things through. Let's look at the equation involved in these growth rate calculations.
P(n) = P(1 + r) n
P(n),called the function P of n,is the population generated after n years. (With the proper adjustment of r,n could be months or generations, etc. For our purposes, years will do nicely and r will be adjusted accordingly.) P (the multiplied factor on the right-hand side of the equation) is the initial population which, in our case, is eight. The growth rate is r which would be close to zero for humanity per year. A negative value would indicate a population decline. Henry Morris used a value for r of 0.0033 [0.33%] in a similar calculation which started with Adam and Eve. However, since the flood supposedly reduced the population to eight people 1656 years after creation, a figure Dr. Hovind gives based on patriarchal ages, we should start our exponential curve at the latter date. If we assume, for the sake of this argument, that the earth is 6000 years old, then we start our calculation with 8 people 4344 years ago. We must wind up with the present population of 5.5 billion people.
It turns out that if r = 0.0047 then after 4344 years we would wind up with about 5.6 billion people (1995), which is close enough. After substituting the values for P and r into the above equation we are at liberty to try out different values for n to obtain the population at different times. At the time the Israelites entered Canaan, for instance, we get a world population of 2024! By the time you divide that up between Egypt, Canaan, the rest of the world, and Israel, that leaves maybe 6 or 7 people for the Israeli army! If we go back to the time that the Hykos were expelled from Egypt, in 1560 BC, we get a world population of 325 people!
We can't calculate the population at the time the Great Pyramid of Cheops was built, around 2500 BC, because it was supposedly washed away by Noah's flood!! Being an antediluvian structure, many people might have been available to work on it. Odd, that the Great Pyramid of Cheops shows no water marks. Stranger still, that the Egyptians should be unaware of Noah's flood! I would think that Noah's flood, coming a mere century or thereabouts after the Great Pyramid of Cheops was built, would have found a prominent place in the Egyptian annals.
As you can see, an exponential growth curve leads to absurdity when we assume that 8 people generated today's population. Creationists, of course, could jack the r value way up at the start, jack it way down in the middle, and jack it up again for modern times, but the ad hoc nature of such an argument becomes a little too obvious. Regarding the foolishness of this whole enterprise, Dr. Alan Hayward had this to say:
Nobody who has ever studied the population explosion would make such an unwise extrapolation. It is well known that growth rates have increased enormously in recent centuries. Population expert Paul Ehrlich gives world average yearly growth rates of 0.9 per cent between 1850 and 1930, 0.3 per cent between 1650 and 1850, and a mere 0.07 per cent in the thousand years prior to 1650. And in the fourteenth century the population increase must have been very small indeed, and it may even have been turned into a big decrease,because of the Black Death. Ehrlich's figures are not just guesses; they are based on historical records. These facts show how misguided it is to extrapolate present population trends into the remote past.
spin much hollie ? average length of life was figured in hollie. Just think human population is still being increased with contraceptives and abortion.
For one the origins question. You needed chemical evolution to form a living cell. Then you needed abiogenesis to form living organisms all these are forms of evolution which they have no evidence for and have to plead ignorance on.
As do you, yet you know the answer? Argument from ignorance.
Seriously Dude, you are getting as bad as Hawly. The Meyer hypothesis has been presented to you numerous times and you still wrongly claim an "argument from ignorance" when Meyers proof is no such thing. It is based on a process currently in operation, i.e., the origin of information with specificity only having an intelligent agent as its source. How long are you going to keep repeating the same WRONG thing over and over again?
Boilerplate christian apologetics. It's been thoroughly refuted as nonsense.
How?
As we see, the flood tale that describes your angry, mass murdering gawds destroying most of humanity because they were a disappoint to him is one version of a flood tale that the writers of the bibles modified, embellished and revised to suit their book of tales and fables.
Flood Stories from Around the World
Ask yourself why so many cultures have flood legends ?
Because when the last ice age ended around twelve thousand years ago, and the glaciers receded, the ice melted causing massive flooding. This is why so many flood stories are found in and around Mesopotamia after that time, which is where civilization began, in the Fertile Crescent.
