Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Camaban · 01-30-2003, 04:15 AM

a millennia in a slightly cooler part of hell for the person that can see what's wrong with the math in this post (or what's blatantly dishonest about it)

http://forum.jcsm.org/jcsmforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=849

Quote:

Thomas R.Malthus,a population expert,has devised a formula that supports the theory of the relatively recent event of mankind.

Human populations tend to increase geometrically,says Malthus.doubling at equal increments of time.

If the time for the population to double is referred to as "T," then,starting with an initial population of two people,after T years there would be four people,after two times T years the earth would hold eight people,and so on.

This geometric doubling can be validated by the following known population figures:

1.At the time of Christ,the world population was around 300 million.
2.In A.D.1650 it was 600 million.
3.In 1850 it was 1.2 billion.
4.In 1950 it was 2.4 billion.
5.In 1990 it was 4.8 billion.

Assuming the average life span to be seventy years and the average
generation length to be thirty-five years,"wrote Harold Willmington,
then starting with one family,the present world population would
result in about thirty doublings.These doublings would carry us back
in history from today to about 3500 B.C.This date is suggested by
several creation scientist to mark the time of Noah`s Flood!"
The Bible is fact and not fiction especially when recording the
creation of mankind that God created.

Here is a interesting site:
http://anchorstone.com/jericho.html

In Defense of the Faith.
Brother Miller.

VonEvilstein · 01-30-2003, 04:52 AM

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and suggest that he has totally overlooked the role advances in many fields of knowledge and technology have played, in allowing a far greater human population than could have been supported without...

Before this boom-like growth, there was a long steady state. Sufficient advances in agriculture pushed us out of equilibrium.

Population expert? Doubtful.
Historical insight? Non-existant.

simian · 01-30-2003, 06:06 AM

Malthus, if I am not mistaken, raised the flag on the possibility of humanity outstripping possible food production. This was approximately the 1890s. Barring increases in food production (which there were), starvation for a large portion of the human population was a given.

Simian

Godless Dave · 01-30-2003, 06:23 AM

The math is fine but the assumptions are faulty. Malthus's formula only works with an agricultural society. Humans were hunter-gatherers for almost a million years and I imagine population growth was essentially flat until agriculture was developed and spread to most of the human population. Even after that there were mass die-offs due to plague, drought, etc.

Basically this population argument makes about as much sense as the decaying magnetic field nonsense.

butswana · 01-30-2003, 07:45 AM

Anchorstone. Ron Wyatt. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

Claudia · 01-30-2003, 07:51 AM

Quote:

doubling at equal increments of time

Quote:

1.At the time of Christ,the world population was around 300 million.
2.In A.D.1650 it was 600 million.
3.In 1850 it was 1.2 billion.
4.In 1950 it was 2.4 billion.
5.In 1990 it was 4.8 billion.

And he calls that equal increments of time?:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Increments of time are: 1650 years, 200 years, 100 years, 50 years

Silent Acorns · 01-30-2003, 11:22 AM

Most obvious problem: it doesn't work!

If we had 8 people in 3500 BC (Noah, his 3 sons and their wives) and 4.8 billion people in 1990 (actually there were about 5.2 billion in 1990) then we get 29.2 doublings at 188.27 years per doubling. If we plug these numbers back in and calculate what the population of the earth would be at the years mentioned we get:

year _______ bible est. pop ______ "actual" pop
3500 BC ________ 8 _______________ NA
0 ___________ 3.2 million ________ 300 million
1650 AD _____ 1.4 billion _________ 600 million
1850 ________ 2.9 billion _________ 1.2 billion
1950 ________ 4.1 billion _________ 2.4 billion
1990 ________ 4.8 billion _________ 4.8 billion

Note how poorly these numbers match up. The fact of the matter is that, as VonEvilstein said, the population doubling time changes with technology, environmental conditions, social norms, etc.

Another problem, if you actually read the bible the flood was around 2500 BC and that the time span from the flood to Abraham is only 10 generations (see here) and the story of Abraham requires the presense of many great empires spread over thousands of miles. Quite a stretch to say the least.

SinEater · 01-30-2003, 12:50 PM

There is a devastating and easy-to-understand refutation of this specious argument here:Noah's Bunnies

The rest of this H.S. Teacher's Anticreationist resources are excellent, especially "Things Creationists Hate".

SinEater

JonF · 01-30-2003, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Camaban
a millennia in a slightly cooler part of hell for the person that can see what's wrong with the math in this post (or what's blatantly dishonest about it)

Assuming constatn growth rate is just silly.

The so-called "model" is refuted by the fact that its perdictions are way off for points at which we know something about the world's population. For example, the Romans knew how many citizens they had .. the "model" predicts fewer people on the entire Earth at that time.

See http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/...es/lie019.html and http://tinyurl.com/547x.

Doubting Didymus · 01-30-2003, 03:28 PM

First obvious thing I noticed, before the fact that the numbers were wrong and the time intevals were not equal, was that he assumes a non fluctuating birth and death rate. I have never seen a death rate plotted on a graph that did not fluctuate like a tide.

Thats why he doesn't think of the possibility of a previously constant population, which is of course, what ALWAYS happens in populations. (even without medical technology of food improvements): a looong period of stasis with a small population followed by a truly massive spike, which often drops back off just as quickly.

01-30-2003, 12:50 PM	#8
SinEater Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: La Crosse, WI USA Posts: 52	Noah's Bunnies There is a devastating and easy-to-understand refutation of this specious argument here:Noah's Bunnies The rest of this H.S. Teacher's Anticreationist resources are excellent, especially "Things Creationists Hate". SinEater

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-30-2003, 04:52 AM	#2
VonEvilstein Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: .nl Posts: 822	I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and suggest that he has totally overlooked the role advances in many fields of knowledge and technology have played, in allowing a far greater human population than could have been supported without... Before this boom-like growth, there was a long steady state. Sufficient advances in agriculture pushed us out of equilibrium. Population expert? Doubtful. Historical insight? Non-existant.

01-30-2003, 06:06 AM	#3
simian Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: St. Louis, MO area Posts: 1,924	Malthus, if I am not mistaken, raised the flag on the possibility of humanity outstripping possible food production. This was approximately the 1890s. Barring increases in food production (which there were), starvation for a large portion of the human population was a given. Simian

01-30-2003, 06:23 AM	#4
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	The math is fine but the assumptions are faulty. Malthus's formula only works with an agricultural society. Humans were hunter-gatherers for almost a million years and I imagine population growth was essentially flat until agriculture was developed and spread to most of the human population. Even after that there were mass die-offs due to plague, drought, etc. Basically this population argument makes about as much sense as the decaying magnetic field nonsense.

01-30-2003, 07:45 AM	#5
butswana Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 1,804	Anchorstone. Ron Wyatt. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

01-30-2003, 11:22 AM	#7
Silent Acorns Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: SW 31 52 24W4 Posts: 1,508	Most obvious problem: it doesn't work! If we had 8 people in 3500 BC (Noah, his 3 sons and their wives) and 4.8 billion people in 1990 (actually there were about 5.2 billion in 1990) then we get 29.2 doublings at 188.27 years per doubling. If we plug these numbers back in and calculate what the population of the earth would be at the years mentioned we get: year _______ bible est. pop ______ "actual" pop 3500 BC ________ 8 _______________ NA 0 ___________ 3.2 million ________ 300 million 1650 AD _____ 1.4 billion _________ 600 million 1850 ________ 2.9 billion _________ 1.2 billion 1950 ________ 4.1 billion _________ 2.4 billion 1990 ________ 4.8 billion _________ 4.8 billion Note how poorly these numbers match up. The fact of the matter is that, as VonEvilstein said, the population doubling time changes with technology, environmental conditions, social norms, etc. Another problem, if you actually read the bible the flood was around 2500 BC and that the time span from the flood to Abraham is only 10 generations (see here) and the story of Abraham requires the presense of many great empires spread over thousands of miles. Quite a stretch to say the least.

01-30-2003, 03:28 PM	#10
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	First obvious thing I noticed, before the fact that the numbers were wrong and the time intevals were not equal, was that he assumes a non fluctuating birth and death rate. I have never seen a death rate plotted on a graph that did not fluctuate like a tide. Thats why he doesn't think of the possibility of a previously constant population, which is of course, what ALWAYS happens in populations. (even without medical technology of food improvements): a looong period of stasis with a small population followed by a truly massive spike, which often drops back off just as quickly.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.