Man's Millions-of-years Mathematical Myth debunked

http://absoluteprimacyofchrist.org/?p=1436#APC05 ^ | Feb. 19th, 2013 | Maximilian

[koinonia]

Seems so clear, and yet everyone ignores it. The human race is relatively young. Before this section he talks about how time by its very nature must have a beginning and about the historicity of the flood. He's just scratching the service, to be sure. But enlightening and the links are excellent.

[beef]

We need the facepalm guy.

[muawiyah]

If you simply ignore the appetites of the tetse fly, tigers, lions and angered aurochs, you can screw around with statistics just about anyway you want.

I'm putting my money on there having been many instances of higher death rates than birthrates ~

[FreedomPoster]

Here, I'll offer the one without any text. We all know what it says.

[cartan]

What other species have exponential growth rates? What makes you think humans always had?

[Tolkien]

Does Hugh Ross agree?

[Moonman62]

Making Christianity look bad one post at a time.

[M Kehoe]

I don't see wars and communism in that equation.

5.56mm

[machman]

I think its double face palm worthy...

[R. Scott]

Or plagues, high infant mortality, low life expediency …

[machman]

Or the plague or tidal waves or earth quakes or volcanoes or.......

[RadiationRomeo]

So what would the population be at the time of the flood with that math model?

[patton]

Black plague, anyone?

[WinMod70]

Here I always thought the Nika Revolt of 532 AD was a big deal. According to this brilliant mathmateer there must have been less the 10 people involved in this riot.

[Pollster1]

I would argue that human population is logistic, not exponential. In that case, math cannot answer this question. God can though - it’s a question of faith, as God intended.

[koinonia]

He doesn’t deny that possibility that there were years of stagnancy or higher death rates. But the fact is that from 1900 to the present, even with World Wars, abortion, etc. the growth rate has always been consistently over 1% and we can presume that that has generally been the case even before the 1900’s.

His point is to be reckoned with: you simply can’t say that man dates back hundreds of thousands of years if, in general, population is simply growing.

[koinonia]

This post is not about Christianity. It’s about common sense. His equation is no different than what an investor would use for an interesting bearing investment. Each year it bears interest and that interest bears interest. Start with $8 and with a 0.5% yield of interest annually you arrive at $7 billion after 1481 years. Plug and chug.

[koinonia]

If you read the post, he acknowledges DEATH in all of its forms - there is a deathrate. But the statistics are clear: the birthrate of man has consistently been higher, even in the years of war. Where's the proof that man existed for hundreds of thousands of years?

[Fish Speaker]

Unfortunately, this equation assumes that the original 8 people are still alive after 1481 years and that all eight of them, as well as every other human born, is having more babies every year they’re alive. I don’t think that’s the case.

[dirtboy]

But the statistics are clear: the birthrate of man has consistently been higher, even in the years of war.

Not true. Human populations were lowered during the Black Death, for example.