Creationists: can you explain post-Flood repopulation?

[crjmurray]

Why stop there?

Let's see...

Year 320... 292,968,750
Year 350...1,464,843,750
Year 380...7,324,218,750
Year 410...36,621,093,750

Now, we do like you did and the population of the last generation, and...

The human population 410 years after the flood, according to your method, was 43,945,312,500, which is way more than the population now and probably more than this planet is capable of sustaining. Right.

Why stop there? Because after there it makes no sense. Duh.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You do need a calculator for this.

Three couples; Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their wives each produce one child per year for 10 years. When the youngest reaches the marriageable age of 20, a full breeding cycle of 30 years begins. At end of the first 30 years the population is 30, a multiple of 5x the original number of people.

Year 1= 6 people.
Year 30....30 people, or 5x growth each 30 year cycle. This multiplier remains constant for each breeding cycle thereafter, so,

Year 60=150 people
Year 90=750
Year110=3750
Year140=18750
Year 170=93750
Year 200=468,750
Year 230=2,343,750
Year 260=11,187,750
Year 290=58,593,750
and so on.

These numbers are also cumulative as the preceding three generations would still be alive if 90 years was the average age of death. So in my calculations the actual population 290 years after the flood would be,

2,343,750
11,187,750
58,593,750
72,125,250


Problem solved.

You forgot about how old people have to be in order to reproduce, and 90 years wouldn't have been the average age at death in the bible for that; it would have been higher. Regardless, doesn't change the fact that you assume an absurd rate of reproduction and neglect of death in childbirth. Is there a single woman in the bible that had 10 children or more that had all of them survive to reproduce?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Why stop there? Because after there it makes no sense. Duh.

Actually, it raises an interesting problem that might even deserve it's own thread:

What if Adam and Eve didn't eat the apple?

No death of Animals or Humans, people living 900 years, we would be knee deep in humans and animals after a thousand years.

God needed Adam and Eve to eat the apple or his creation wouldn't have worked.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Illogical, if human diversity only began that recently, we would be about as diverse as cheetahs. And they lack diversity to such an extent that pretty much any cheetah qualifies as a tissue donor to any other cheetah.

So let's also talk about cheetahs. Was there a genetic bottleneck recently? Mmmmmm.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You forgot about how old people have to be in order to reproduce, and 90 years wouldn't have been the average age at death in the bible for that; it would have been higher. Regardless, doesn't change the fact that you assume an absurd rate of reproduction and neglect of death in childbirth. Is there a single woman in the bible that had 10 children or more that had all of them survive to reproduce?

In my example people would start reproducing at age 20 and stop with 10 kids at age 30. We don't know how long they lived. I'm assuming a lifestyle free from want, disease, and war, as the earth would have been pristine and productive for at least a few centuries.

My absurd rate of reproduction anticipated your argument, thus, with a reproduction rate of one-half of that in my example the population would still have grown to 36 million people in 300 years after the flood.

The whole point of my post is to demonstrate that the earth could indeed be repopulated to vast numbers in a relatively short period of time. I invite you to do you own math using reasonable birthrates and longevity numbers of your own choosing. I believe that if you are honest you will come to the same conclusion.

 

[crjmurray]

In my example people would start reproducing at age 20 and stop with 10 kids at age 30. We don't know how long they lived. I'm assuming a lifestyle free from want, disease, and war, as the earth would have been pristine and productive for at least a few centuries.

My absurd rate of reproduction anticipated your argument, thus, with a reproduction rate of one-half of that in my example the population would still have grown to 36 million people in 300 years after the flood.

The whole point of my post is to demonstrate that the earth could indeed be repopulated to vast numbers in a relatively short period of time. I invite you to do you own math using reasonable birthrates and longevity numbers of your own choosing. I assure you, that if you are honest, you will come to the same conclusion.

Doesn't that raise quite a few questions about the diverse number of cultures in the world?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Why stop there?

Let's see...

Year 320... 292,968,750
Year 350...1,464,843,750
Year 380...7,324,218,750
Year 410...36,621,093,750

Now, we do like you did and the population of the last generation, and...

The human population 410 years after the flood, according to your method, was 43,945,312,500, which is way more than the population now and probably more than this planet is capable of sustaining. Right.

My example was only for the purpose of showing that populations could indeed recover quickly and substantially. At some point population controls like displacement, war, famine, and disease would kick in.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Doesn't that raise quite a few questions about the diverse number of cultures in the world?

Not really. God scattered man and diversified their language at the tower of Babel incident. We see the reverse happening today. Not a good omen.

 

[crjmurray]

My example was only for the purpose of showing that populations could indeed recover quickly and substantially. At some point population controls like displacement, war, famine, and disease would kick in.

Any actual evidence that the population increased at this rate with seemingly no physical threats to life? And then evidence for when physical threats started back up again?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Any actual evidence that the population increased at this rate with seemingly no physical threats to life? And then evidence for when physical threats started back up again?

The subject is, can population recover to substantial levels in the time alluded to in bible history? Construct a reasonable model for yourself and see what happens.

 

[SteveB28]

My example was only for the purpose of showing that populations could indeed recover quickly and substantially. At some point population controls like displacement, war, famine, and disease would kick in.

You can manipulate numbers to your heart's content - you can adjust the exponentiality of population increase until you get any number you please.

But, what you cannot tweak is the evidence provided by recent research into the human genome. And that evidence takes your 'post-flood population recovery' claim and gives it a good slap in the face!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You can manipulate numbers to your heart's content - you can adjust the exponentiality of population increase until you get any number you please.

But, what you cannot tweak is the evidence provided by recent research into the human genome. And that evidence takes your 'post-flood population recovery' claim and gives it a good slap in the face!

Does that evidence show that people couldn't reproduce at that rate, or didn't reproduce at that rate?

 

[lasthero]

My example was only for the purpose of showing that populations could indeed recover quickly and substantially.

Except they CAN'T. Humans being do not reproduce that way. Period. You're completely ignoring carrying capacity.

At some point population controls like displacement, war, famine, and disease would kick in.

What point would that be, exactly? And why do these things only factor into your equation at the point where it becomes ridiculous?

 

[crjmurray]

The subject is, can population recover to substantial levels in the time alluded to in bible history? Construct a reasonable model for yourself and see what happens.

Fine. My model is that God miracled the population numbers up. Somebody else can work out the details. It's just as valid as your model.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Except they CAN'T. Humans being do not reproduce that way. Period. You're completely ignoring carrying capacity.




What point would that be, exactly? And why do these things only factor into your equation at the point where it becomes ridiculous?

Make your own example using numbers you are comfortable with. Post them so I can have a look.

 

[MerlinJ]

Does that evidence show that people couldn't reproduce at that rate, or didn't reproduce at that rate?

Couldn't. Humanity's growth rate has been largely controlled by our ability to feed ourselves, which is why it has only recently begun to skyrocket with the advent of modern industrial farming in the last few hundred years.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Fine. My model is that God miracled the population numbers up. Somebody else can work out the details. It's just as valid as your model.

Dude, why the hostility?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Couldn't. Humanity's growth rate has been largely controlled by our ability to feed ourselves, which is why it has only recently begun to skyrocket with the advent of modern industrial farming in the last few hundred years.

I'm pretty sure a newly pristine earth, free from disease, could feed a fast growing population. There was no scarcity of land for grazing animals or cultivating crops.

 

[crjmurray]

Dude, why the hostility?

My jovial demeanor doesn't always translate well through the interwebz. Mea culpa.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

My jovial demeanor doesn't always translate well through the interwebz. Mea culpa.

No problem.