Creationists: can you explain post-Flood repopulation?

[lasthero]

How do you explain the following:

Evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. This number is so big that not even the Texans have a word for it! To try to put this number of people in context, say each individual is given ‘standing room only’ of about one square metre per person. However, the land surface area of the whole Earth is ‘only’ 1.5 x 1014 square metres. If every one of those square metres were made into a world just like this one, all these worlds put together would still ‘only’ have a surface area able to fit 1028 people in this way. This is only a tiny fraction of 1043 (1029 is 10 times as much as 1028, 1030 is 100 times, and so on). Those who adhere to the evolutionary story argue that disease, famine and war kept the numbers almost constant for most of this period, which means that mankind was on the brink of extinction for most of this supposed history.10 This stretches credulity to the limits.

The above was taken from the the following article which also shows growth rates support the food, not deny it.

Where are all the people? - creation.com

And here's the rebuttal to that claim.

CB620: Population growth

Seriously, carrying capacity. There's a reason that organisms like bacteria, which multiply thousands of times faster than humans do, don't completely overcrowd the earth.

 

[justlookinla]

I could use a smaller picture, but that one is so impressive. Ark believers cannot explain the formation. It can only be explained by the standard model of biology. In other words, it took millions of years for that particular valley to form.

Not really, I merely stated that creationists can't explain it since almost all creationists also believe in the ark story.

I'm sure you misspoke, we all do that at times, but you did claim that the formation can only be explained by the "standard model of biology".

 

[sfs]

Yes, but there is more to it than that. Genetics plays a huge role. Ask sfs, he knows far more about this than I do.

I didn't know overall dog diversity offhand -- but I probably do know more dog geneticists than you do. It turns out that genetic diversity across all breeds is similar to total human genetic diversity. (Genetic diversity within breeds, of course, is very low.) The breeds look very different because there has been intense selection by humans for extreme traits, mostly acting on variation that was already present in the dog population.

 

[Queller]

So it takes two people 150 years to have four kids?
If you have the right group, you can do it in two years; less if there are any twins. Jack and Mary have two kids. Now there's four of them. Population doubled. Jack and Mary have two more kids before they die. Each of their children do the same. Population just doubled again.

And when does the population doubling stop and why? If it doesn't then in 4500 years you have more people living on earth than there is room for.

No offense intended, but saying that 6 people could only reach a population of 24 in 300 years is probably the silliest thing I've ever read.

No offense intended? Are you serious?

You really need to look at the entire problem with population rates being high in the beginning before you start talking about other people being silly.

 

[Queller]

Disease epidemics generally.

Please cite your Biblical source referring to diseases, epidemics, and their effect on population control.

 

[Queller]

Can we agree that evidence, while convincing to some, is not proof.

Of course, but then again, people who understand science and evidence don't talk about proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm sure you misspoke, we all do that at times, but you did claim that the formation can only be explained by the "standard model of biology".

You are correct. I made an error. I did mean standard geology.

Hey, look how easy that was! I made a mistake. I owned up to it. It no longer matters.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't know overall dog diversity offhand -- but I probably do know more dog geneticists than you do. It turns out that genetic diversity across all breeds is similar to total human genetic diversity. (Genetic diversity within breeds, of course, is very low.) The breeds look very different because there has been intense selection by humans for extreme traits, mostly acting on variation that was already present in the dog population.

I am sure that you know far more than I do. And thank you for your opinion, on this subject I know your opinion far outweighs mine.

 

[justlookinla]

Of course, but then again, people who understand science and evidence don't talk about proof.

Do they talk about truth?

 

[Queller]

The evidence is too incomplete. Show me the rest of the fossils, the ones that didn't make the cut.

What makes you think there are fossils that "didn't make the cut"? Every fossil we have (millions of them) "made the cut".

 

[crjmurray]

You are correct. I made an error. I did mean standard geology.

Hey, look how easy that was! I made a mistake. I owned up to it. It no longer matters.

Wait you're not going to deny your mistake and backpedal for 15 pages and completely derail the thread?

 

[Subduction Zone]

And let's try this again, once more with the smaller image:

I have yet to see a believer in Noah's Ark that can explain this image. Any takers?

I have only seen this adequately explained with standard geology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wait you're not going to deny your mistake and backpedal for 15 pages and completely derail the thread?

Maybe next time. I have not quite picked up that technique from our opposition here yet.

 

[Queller]

Not so. If I saw positive evidence for evolution I would, in all honesty, have to accept it (but even then it would be God-directed). Complete organisms that show no evidence of changing indicate creation, not evolution. Somewhere in the fossil record there must be evidence of organisms in the midst of change, else special creation is the only logical interpretation.

Describe what a fossil would look like that was in the midst of change.

 

[KWCrazy]

And when does the population doubling stop and why? If it doesn't then in 4500 years you have more people living on earth than there is room for.

That was the premise of The Population Bomb. It was wrong of course. The examples given show that it doesn't take anywhere near 150 years for a population to double, it can happen quickly. That eliminates the population argument that flood deniers put forth.

Other factors in population growth include the pressure to reproduce. In agrarian societies, large families are needed to help till the soil. When nations are besieged, they need a high birth rate to produce warriors for defense. As societies became more mechanized and infant mortality rates began to decline, so did the population growth. You didn't have to have extra children to make up for the ones that will likely die.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That was the premise of The Population Bomb. It was wrong of course. The examples given show that it doesn't take anywhere near 150 years for a population to double, it can happen quickly. That eliminates the population argument that flood deniers put forth.

Other factors in population growth include the pressure to reproduce. In agrarian societies, large families are needed to help till the soil. When nations are besieged, they need a high birth rate to produce warriors for defense. As societies became more mechanized and infant mortality rates began to decline, so did the population growth. You didn't have to have extra children to make up for the ones that will likely die.

Wrong, it debunks the claims of flood supporters. All you have shown is that population growth is not constant, nor is it always positive. Population growth can be both positive or negative. You just shot yourself in the foot.

Also there is no such thing as a Flood denier, there are those that have shown that there was no flood. No "denial" needed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your side lost over 200 years ago.

I don't think so.

And even if so, you can't keep a good doctrine (Truth) down.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think so.

And even if so, you can't keep a good doctrine (Truth) down.

It hardly matters what you think. You won't even try to defend your faulty beliefs. And yes, you are right. The truth has triumphed. Thank you.

 

[AV1611VET]

You won't even try to defend your faulty beliefs.

I have 318 times more posts than you, and you say this?

Care to back it up?

 

[Queller]

I did another population growth calculation using the Israelites in Egypt, the 400 years of captivity, and a growth rate of three children per couple, with a reproductive period of thirty years (three children born per couple in the ten year reproductive period between ages 20 and 30).

Not counting Joseph there were 11 couples to start with.

Years

1- 22 people (if the Israelites didn't bring any children from Canaan)
30- 33
60- 99
90- 297
120-891
150-2,673
180-8,019
210-24,057
240-72,171
270-216,513
300-649,539 I'm guessing it was about this time the Egyptians began to get nervous.
330-1,948,617
360-5,845,851
390-17,537,553

Based on how many came out of Egypt even this number is way too high, but demonstrates that even a modest reproductive rate adds up over time to a lot of people.

The bible states that 600,000 adult men along with their families came out, therefore, 600,000 adult men+600,000 wives+1,800,000 children=3,000,000 total. Many believe that Israel numbered between 3 and 5 million at the time of the exodus, which is a very reasonable number given the entire circumstance of their sojourn in Egypt and the fertile land of Goshen (where they actually lived and prospered).

And after 1,000 years at that birth rate, the world population would be 1,584,002,692,730,700, almost 217,000 times what it is today. You simply cannot devise a model that both gives you the numbers you need and that agrees with reality as it exists today.