Posted on 02/22/2013 4:36:45 AM PST by koinonia
This is from a blog from a priest which I found original and convincing regarding the age of the human race:
Man's Millions-of-years Mathematical Myth debunked: p*b y = x
Let me propose an argument, rather simple, but which should convincingly indicate that the human race - whether through evolution or as an intact race - cannot date tens or hundreds of thousands of years back (let alone millions and zillions!). The argument is based on population growth and the 7 billion people on earth as of 2012. Seven BILLION people is a LOT of people and so one can readily imagine that it took tens of thousands of years to reach this point. And yet 7 billion is a very finite number...
According to sociological studies (frequently quoted and well documented by those who want to "save" the earth and reduce the human population by 90-95%, if you think I'm kidding take a glance at the "Georgia guidestones" and listen/read what Ted Turner has been saying like a broken record: 350 million ideal number for the entire world population and international 1 child per family policy), the rough average of population growth in the early 1900's (before contraception, legalized abortion, etc.) was 1.4%. We are told that Noah entered the ark with his three sons and their wives; when they exited the ark the world population was eight. Now population growth presumes that the number of births is greater than the number of deaths. God blessed mankind twice with the words: "Increase and multiply" (Gen 1:28; 7:17), the second time was after Noah and his family left the ark.
My dad was an actuary, by the way, so this type of story problem is write up my alley :-) First, let's do the math based on a 1.4% annual increase of the population starting with eight persons and see how many years it would take to arrive at 7 billion. The math would look like this:
p*b y = x p = the starting population, so 8 b = rate of annual growth, we'll start with 1.4% (which means 1.014) y = the years, since the growth would be exponential x = the final population, in our case 7 billion
Drumroll please... yes, eight people with a 1.4% annual growth rate would surpass 7 billion people in a whopping 1481 years. Take a look at the math:
8 people * (1.014 annual growth) 1481 years = 7,003,277,544
That is an eyeopener, is it not? Well, since the human race has obviously been around longer than 1481 years, let's work our way backwards to see what the median growth rate would have had to be for eight persons to arrive at 7 billion over a period of 4600 years (what Scripture scholars tell us would have been the time of the flood).
p*b y = x 8 people*(? growth rate) 4600 years = 7 billion today
And the answer is that for eight people to surpass 7 billion over a period of 4600 years the annual growth rate would only have to be 0.45% (yes, less than half a percent annual growth rate). 4600 years is realistic, then, for arriving at 7 billion people from 4 married couples.
My point here is that to argue that man dates back tens of thousands or more years ago would go completely against all the statistics. Annually there are always more births than deaths, and this even now with world wars, abortions, sterilization, contraception - in a word, in a culture of death. In fact a growth rate of 0.45% from 2 people over a twenty thousand year period comes out to be "infinity" on the exponents calculator (just put 1.0045 in the number slot and 20,000 in the exponent slot and see what happens). I don't deny that there could have been some unlikely years of decrease or stagnancy, but the consistent trend of all creatures has always been growth and increase and this indicates (if not outright proves) that the human race is relatively young compared to the outlandish theories that are proported (dare I say dogmatically) in classrooms today around the globe. Add to that that if we evolved from apes, we probably would not have started from just 4 married couples off of Noah's ark, but be popping out of the jungle in an ever larger numbers and then multiplying from these creatures, etc.
Always? Really? What about the year Noah & his family entered the ark?
“But they build the estimates on facts. You take the existing data, facts, and extrapolate them to estimates.”
If you don’t think there are any assumptions built in to that process, well, I’ll just let you go on thinking that, if it makes you happy.
There are assumptions built into everything, but the problem here is that you are assuming that assumptions are their sole source. That’s just silly. The concept is simple: take known facts from the period, take known facts about general trends (there’s the big assumption, that other trends apply), build estimates from there. The starting point is still always FACTS not assumptions. But you go ahead and keep assuming if it makes you happy.
You are the facepalm guy.
They shot your mug right after telling you your IQ.
>> “What other species have exponential growth rates?” <<
.
All of them. - That’s where the food comes from.
>> “So what would the population be at the time of the flood with that math model?” <<
.
About 6 billion, which fits the inundated cities that have been found quite well.
>> “I would argue that human population is logistic, not exponential.” <<
.
Its both.
Logistics frames the episodes, while exponential growth explains the recoveries.
You didn’t have to tell us that you flunked math, but thanks anyway.
>> “Human populations were lowered during the Black Death, for example” <<
.
Very localized.
You call something that wiped out 30-60 percent of Europe’s population localized?
“the problem here is that you are assuming that assumptions are their sole source”
No, I’m really not.
Assumptions are not evidence.
Epidemics of frequently fatal disease are self limiting, in that the illness effectively truncates travel through death of the traveler.
True. When the carrying capacity is much greater than the current population, growth will look nearly exponential. This occurs after a catastrophic die off, such as a new disease, or after a major increase in food availability such as a new strain of wheat with a higher yield or new farming techniques.
It’s been 700 years since the Black Death, where the world population was 350 million. So...
(370,000,000*0.0045)^700=an exceedingly large number, much, much larger than 7 billion.
This demonstrates conclusively the equation in the OP is faulty.
Spare me. It was horrific and it dropped regional populations precipitously across most of Eurpoe and into Asia.
>> “What about the year Noah & his family entered the ark?” <<
.
You can see that point clearly on the graph. Basically, you just proved his point.
Sorry, I didn’t realize that it was such a personal experience for you.
Yeah, it’s personal. I am allergic to deliberate ignorance of the kind you are displaying here.
Actuarial skills on the part of the author...NOT!
Your post is spot on regarding the compounding equation. Thanks.
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.