human population growth - Page 1

Today there are 7.1 billion people on the face of the earth, and in 1964 there were three billion people on earth, how far back does human population go?? When you calculated out?? Also in the late 19^th century or early 20^th century there were fewer than 1.5 billion people. Main question whoever believes in evolution theory it would be irrational to say you can go as far as few 100,000 thousand years back. From what I learned about evolution theory, people evolved three million years ago and so how would you reconcile current population since with 3 million years of humanity being on earth?? So some evolutionist would speculate it goes few hundred thousand years back. So I do see serious scientific problems here….I think human population in 7.1 billion today - instead of expeditionary more is just a problem for evolutionist, rationally to explain it. It would be hard time to reconciling: why are there ONLY 7.1 billion people on the planet if man-kind evolved 3 million years ago. If man-kind being here for 3 million years, human population should have reached seven billion where we at today in 21^st century 2.9 million years ago if it only takes 100,000 thousand years, so why do we only have seven billion people on the planet today. This is legitimate scientific and mathematical question. The evolution worldview cannot account for our population only being at seven billion today instead of exponentially more! According to the evolution theory, man evolved three million years ago. If you took the current population growth, currently 1.7% annually, and extrapolated that out for 3 million years, you would be sitting on a population of people that would be astronomical! On the other hand, if we were to take the Biblical account of Creation and the Flood, we would see that the human population of 8 people 4400 years ago could easily produce 7.1 billion people at a growth rate of only .43%. Truly the Human Population is evidence that confirms God’s word as true. And the atheist and evolutionist have no answer but they have opportunity to offer evidence and when it given an opportunity to offer evidence, they cannot do so because they simply do not have that evidence. Dr. Henry Morris wrote a great article about the population growth. http://www.icr.org/article/67/

No, truly the human population growth is proof of the intensity of the innate sex drive of the human animal, coupled with our species' rise to the status of top predator in the food chain and the advancements in medicine, nutrition and civilization in general, will trump other obstacles to that growth.

Also, keep in mind that the acceptance of the evidence that supports evolution can readily co-exist with a belief in a supreme being as the creator of life on this plant; to date, I know of no scientist who has ever claimed that all matter just spontaneously appeared out of thin air, and even string theory doesn't supplant the concept of a supernatural or divine entity being involved in bringing this universe into existence. And belief in such an entity doesn't require one worship it--it merely indicates that one acknowledges said creator.
 

Talk Origins Archive

Claim CB620:

A reasonable assumption of population growth rate (0.5 percent) fits with a population that began with two people about 4000 years ago, not with a human history of millions of years.

Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 167-169.

Response:

1. This claim assumes that the population growth rate was always constant, which is a false assumption. Wars and plagues would have caused populations to drop from time to time. In particular, population sizes before agriculture would have been severely limited and would have had an average population growth of zero for any number of years. 
    
2. There is no particular reason to choose a population growth rate of 0.5 percent for the calculation. The population growth from 1000 to 1800 has been closer to 0.1227 percent per year (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1984). At that rate, the population would have grown to its present size from the eight Flood survivors in 16,660 years. 
    
3. The population growth rate proposed by the claim would imply unreasonable populations early in history. We will be more generous in our calculations and start with eight people in 2350 B.C.E. (a traditional date for the Flood). Then, assuming a growth rate of 0.5 percent per year, the population after N years is given by 
   
   P(N) = 8 × (1.005)^N 
   
   The Pyramids of Giza were constructed before 2490 B.C.E., even before the proposed Flood date. Even if we assume they were built 100 years after the flood, then the world population for their construction was 13 people. In 1446 B.C.E., when Moses was said to be leading 600,000 men (plus women and children) on the Exodus, this model of population growth gives 726 people in the world. In 481 B.C.E., Xerxes gathered an army of 2,641,000 (according to Herodotus) when the world population, according to the model, was 89,425. Even allowing for exaggerated numbers, the population model makes no sense.

Links:

Elsberry, Wesley R., 1998. Population size and time of creation or Flood. http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/argresp/populate.html

References:

1. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1984, Population. Encyclopaedia Britannica vol. 14: 816.

Shtal,
your still at it, trying to pull a rabbit from a hat.

Face facts shtal,
you have no faith or you wouldn't struggle so trying to prove it real.
It's like a small piece of bone in a box is it not?



 

.........Shtal...ever heard of population control?....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

here is something to chew on....

GSDtravels, Talk Origins is a website with a deliberate and open bias. When you read their front page, you realize that their whole existence is predicated on naysaying creation.

Hexe, On what your saying?... the math is pretty clear, that there is a bottleneck at the time of the flood. Your argument that this is to do with evolution makes no sense. I have shown that it is not necessary to believe in evolution to understand the population growth issue. Therefore the creationist explanation is superior and should be accepted by reference to Occam's Razor. Moreover, your view that belief in a supreme being is possible while believing in evolution is irrelevant. It is possible to believe in God while believing in Santa, but that doesn't make Santa real! And what sort of God are we talking about? I am not concerned with arguing for the existence of some sort of supreme being. I am interested in telling people about the actual true God, who really does exist, and who told us Himself how He made the universe.

GSDtravels, Talk Origins is a website with a deliberate and open bias. When you read their front page, you realize that their whole existence is predicated on naysaying creation.

ROFL!!! I'm sure you're correct shtal, this just sounds funny coming from you. 

Shtal, I never said anything about "believing in" evolution--as far as I'm concerned, the evidence supports evolution as being a FACT, just as it's a FACT that if you thrust your bare hand into a pot of boiling water you will suffer a serious burn, and the only variable in that scenario is to what degree that burn will be as it will be dependant on how long you leave your bare hand cooking in that pot.  One doesn't "believe" in facts, one either accepts them or they don't. Two plus two equals four, and if you don't accept that, you need to provide strong evidence to support your position that the solution to that equation is not, in fact, four.

I have no issue with your believing in what you consider to be "...the actual true God...".  Where I do take issue is your efforts to force what YOU believe is such on others who are quite satisfied with their own deity--I consider that behavior to be ignorant and intolerable.  It is PRECISELY that sort of dehumanization of others who don't have the same beliefs that opened my eyes to the hypocrisy of far too many "Christians" and eventually, when I was of age to make my own choices, laid out my path away from organized religions and naming whoever or whatever was responsible for how the universes came to exist.  Your 'actual true God' is no less, but also no MORE, of a deity or supreme being than the God of the Jewish people, nor the Muslim's Allah, a Buddhist's Enlightened One, a Wiccan's Goddess, or the Hopi's Tawa. I'll even go a step further--that they are all the SAME entity, or more correctly, ENERGY, and only the names are changed.

Funny thing.  The term "Christian" connotes one who is a follower of the Christ, and who seeks to emulate that individual. Yet nowhere in the New Testament do we find Jesus of Nazareth going to the homes of people who had not invited him; yet that is precisely what you and gouda do here, you enter uninvited in order to insult the deities of others, either through outright verbal attacks on those 'nonbelievers', or at the very least by insisting that THEIR deity is a false one and only YOUR God is authentic. It's one thing to discuss various religions and their belief systems from a philosophic viewpoint, and quite another to prosthelytize to people who came here wishing to converse about dogs and general topics of common interest. Attempts to convert or 'save' others belongs in a forum created specifically for such purposes, not in the Off Topic forum of a dog-centric web site.

"you realize that their whole existence is predicated on naysaying creation."

Yes Shtal, it's a site run by scientists, specifically to answer creationist claims.  There is no bias, they only deal in facts.

Shtal, please do the math.  Don't take anything that was said from TalkOrigins, use your own calculations for the given events.  Get back to me with your answers.

Hexe, excellent post!