Human Population

[Nostromo]

I almost wish there is a God, one that admonishes his followers for being so unfalteringly gullible.

 

[rockaction]

I can do both -- I can tell them it's God's judgment, and Adam's fault.

You, on the other hand ... well ... let's just say, you would need an education in basic doctrine.

If it's Adam's fault, why are they paying? Once again, it points to the cruelty of your God.

That was an attack?

Aren't you glad you weren't run over by that truck that passed you the other day?

(Did I just attack your driving habits?)

I, on the other hand, can easily answer that question.

Yes, I'm glad I wasn't aborted.

You're being passive-aggressive and you know it.

I really, honestly, truly, sincerely try not to think of infectious diseases.

My lifestyle doesn't really put me in contact with a lot of them -- does yours?

Being a medical student...yes...I see infectious disease quite a lot.

I doubt he sits and wonders how they were all on the Ark, either.

Here's a hint: he, like all Christians who approach rationality, doesn't believe in a literal Ark.

 

[AV1611VET]

If it's Adam's fault, why are they paying? Once again, it points to the cruelty of your God.

I don't expect you to understand, but for the sake of the lurkers, here's the answer:

Had God not made Adam the federal head of the human race, then every time a person sins, Jesus would have to come back to earth and die for that particular sin.

Note this passage:

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Even though YOU didn't eat of the forbidden fruit, Adam 'did it for you' -- in a manner of speaking.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Nope, i never made an estimate of 200, I did not give any figure at all, I made a specific statement that I couldnt count high enough cos i ran out of fingers. I guess you couldnt understand plain english again. I only asked what the population might be after 100 years, then 200. The second 100 years would be a huge increase over the first.

Originally Posted by marktheblake

Agreed, obviously a linear population growth modem does not stack up. Also assuming typical family sizes of 2.4 children it still does not stack up, so we need to consider what is the norm back then plus what Genesis itself says.

The major factor is the long ages- Noah 950, his son Shem 500, and from their declining gradually. This allows for having much larger families, a higher rate of population growth and greater accumulation of knowledge.
(though I would concede that would be very tough on the lady to have a large amount of kids)

Gen 9:1 "be fruitful and multiply", so i am sure they did. After all they had no Telly.

Gen 10 tells us that Noah had 16 grandsons. I am not confident that is precise, possibly its just a mention of the important ones (patriarchs of the relevent clans) but may we assume that there was 16 grandaughters also, and that would be about 50 years after the flood plus or minus 10. The population is now 40 people.

So if we consider that each couple has 10 children, what would the population be at 100 years post flood, then 200?
(sorry, i have run out of fingers). For sake of argument dont worry about attrition rates in this narrow window, we are all one happy family.

I'm simply postulating that there was a massive population boom early, (the same as pre flood) until a stage of critical mass was reached and then we had the ebbs and flows that we know about as we enter the times of recorded history.
​

According to Answers in Genesis the tower of Babel was built about 106 years after the flood.

That 200 above sure looks like an estimated number to me even if you did run out of fingers. Maybe you could use your toes. What do you do have to do to count to 21?

 

[AV1611VET]

What do you do have to do to count to 21?

Use your ten toes and eleven fingers; counting the thumbs.

(You do remember when I demonstrated each person has 11 fingers, don't you?)

 

[Nostromo]

What do you do have to do to count to 21?

I suppose you could get to a little over a million if you like binary.

 

[AV1611VET]

I suppose you could get to a little over a million if you like binary.

1

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I suppose you could get to a little over a million if you like binary.

There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary numbers and those who don't.

 

[ug333]

I don't expect you to understand, but for the sake of the lurkers, here's the answer:

Had God not made Adam the federal head of the human race, then every time a person sins, Jesus would have to come back to earth and die for that particular sin.

Note this passage:

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Even though YOU didn't eat of the forbidden fruit, Adam 'did it for you' -- in a manner of speaking.

..... but why would the all-powerful God NEED to do anything? Why couldn't he just choose to forgive you, even if Jesus didn't die. Or if he did, why not just count that forgiveness forward regardless of Adam's role. After all, it is HIS forgiveness you are seeking, right? He could give it as freely or not as he chooses.

He could have forgiven the whole fruit incident right up front. But instead, he decided that one error should result in billions of people being punished. If he is all-powerful, that was his choice.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Trouble is, these figures assume could = would. Not saying it might not have happened if flood is true, but were talking huge figures of population growth in a world without food, supplies, homes, source of food, economy. It probably take a hundred or so years just to recover, and during that time having dozens of kids isn't viable when your limited on resources. Drop humans on a new planet and you could have a massive population in years, but would they.

Post flood they be back to a preagriculture lifestyle, least untill they could get the resources and stuff, live stock couldn't be eaten for a while, among other things. Were looking at the base speed for humans in these growth figures ignoring everything that allows for that and limits that. People in that time had 10-20 kids, just to make sure most of them survived old enough to reproduce unless they were lucky enough to be in a safe area. Ignoring war and animals saying god kept that under control for a while you still have diseases and such.

I guess one has to look at the bigger picture. God destroyed an evil mankind with the flood. It follows that he was starting over with Noah's family, presenting them with a cleaned-up earth, all to themselves. Noah and his family would have all of the valuable accumulated knowledge of the past, as well as the tools and techniques needed not only to survive but to thrive. As evil was gone (at least for the short-term) there were no wars and probably no diseases that affected them. They had all the resources in the region all to themselves. God wouldn't have told them to 'vigorously reproduce' if He didn't provide the means of support needed to accomodate a rapidly increasing population. It's more reasonable to construct a scenario of peace and abundance than of hardship and deprivation post-flood.

 

[Delphiki]

Use your ten toes and eleven fingers; counting the thumbs.

(You do remember when I demonstrated each person has 11 fingers, don't you?)

I think some people, including myself, were a bit hesitant to learn about what you thought might be an eleventh finger.

 

[AV1611VET]

..... but why would the all-powerful God NEED to do anything?

Because automatic forgiveness of sins is not the way to do things.

There has to be a repentance involved, or the sins will escalate in nature.

Would you want God automatically forgiving Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin?

 

[AV1611VET]

I think some people, including myself, were a bit hesitant to learn about what you thought might be an eleventh finger.

That's what separates those who really want to learn from those who are content to just observe.

Real learners ask questions, the rest just hesitate.

 

[Delphiki]

Because automatic forgiveness of sins is not the way to do things.

There has to be a repentance involved, or the sins will escalate in nature.

Would you want God automatically forgiving Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin?

So he doesn't do it that way because he doesn't do it that way. Such flawless logic.

So, about these repenting infants caught in the flood... how did that work again?

That's what separates those who really want to learn from those who are content to just observe.

Real learners ask questions, the rest just hesitate.

Well, that went way over your head.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I guess one has to look at the bigger picture. God destroyed an evil mankind with the flood. It follows that he was starting over with Noah's family, presenting them with a cleaned-up earth, all to themselves. Noah and his family would have all of the valuable accumulated knowledge of the past, as well as the tools and techniques needed not only to survive but to thrive. As evil was gone (at least for the short-term) there were no wars and probably no diseases that affected them. They had all the resources in the region all to themselves.

And what resources were those on a world that had be devastated by a year underwater, killing all trees, nearly all plants and most pollinating insects
http://www.christianforums.com/t7516331-7/#post56226017

God wouldn't have told them to 'vigorously reproduce' if He didn't provide the means of support needed to accomodate a rapidly increasing population. It's more reasonable to construct a scenario of peace and abundance than of hardship and deprivation post-flood.

Except that abundance makes no sense on a flood devastated earth.

 

[dad]

The basis for thinking that the laws of physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology and biology were the same in the past as they are today is that those laws, still operating today, can be used to explain the past, without any recourse to miracles or magic, or different "states".

You, dad, may be a very good person. But your opinions are irrational. They might be right, but no reasonable deity could fault me for giving them a very, very low probability of being correct.

The information that there even was a flood, and life before it, comes from the scriptures. It is anything but irrational to assume that the clear differences noted for the time included a mechanism to reproduce fast. Any other interpretation is a baseless doubt.

 

[Delphiki]

The information that there even was a flood, and life before it, comes from the scriptures. It is anything but irrational to assume that the clear differences noted for the time included a mechanism to reproduce fast. Any other interpretation is a baseless doubt.

Sure... If you assume that the scriptures are the ONLY information we have regarding the past, but it's not.

In fact, it's actually not even actually "evidence". All the evidence we have (ie: information not in the scriptures) shows that there was no global flood. ONLY the scriptures say this. Looking at strata, archeological artifacts, and anything else that is physical, observable evidence shows that there was no global flood.

If there was a global flood, and there is a God, then God made sure to create a very convincing physical case against his own actions, with the exception of what he told people to write in the bible.

If this doesn't seem in the slightest bit fishy to you, then you are a long way off from being a rational skeptic.

 

[dad]

Sure... If you assume that the scriptures are the ONLY information we have regarding the past, but it's not.

Will you admit that it is the prime source for info on the flood? When people, for example in this forum talk of a flood, it is understood that it means the flood of Noah, generally.

In fact, it's actually not even actually "evidence". All the evidence we have (ie: information not in the scriptures) shows that there was no global flood.

Not true in the least. It shows merely that you had no clue what to look for.

ONLY the scriptures say this. Looking at strata, archeological artifacts, and anything else that is physical, observable evidence shows that there was no global flood.

No. Strata, artifacts, and etc show nothing of the sort.

If there was a global flood, and there is a God, then God made sure to create a very convincing physical case against his own actions, with the exception of what he told people to write in the bible.

Nonsense. You just assumed that it was a uniform transition after the flood.

 

[Delphiki]

Will you admit that it is the prime source for info on the flood? When people, for example in this forum talk of a flood, it is understood that it means the flood of Noah, generally.

I will admit that it is the prime source for info on the flood... I would say only source, but there are the other fables (predating the bible) that Noah's flood was based on, of course.

Yes, the bible is the prime source of the biblical story we're talking about. In the same regard, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is the prime source of information on Cheshire Cat.

Not true in the least. It shows merely that you had no clue what to look for.

Ok.. Looked in the bible. I know what it says. Now what to look for? Please tell me. Seriously.

No. Strata, artifacts, and etc show nothing of the sort.

Yes they do. In fact, it does show there may have been a flood around 5600 B.C., but it's not global. The flood was limited to an area near the Black Sea. The same sedimentary layer found there doesn't exist anywhere else on earth. The hypothesis is that this flood may have been what inspired the stories that inspired the story of Noah's flood.

Black Sea deluge theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nonsense. You just assumed that it was a uniform transition after the flood.

I assumed that what was a uniform transition? The population change? The geological layering? The cultures? Don't you think a great flood would stand out in the evidence? Would it not show a near-extinction at some point? A resetting of culture uniform to the beliefs of Noah's family for at least a generation or two? Anything? Also, what does your accusation even have to do with my statement that you quoted?

Scripture says one thing: everything else says the opposite. Otherwise, logically speaking, the scripture would not be the prime source of information on the flood, correct?

Scripture = flood happened
Everything else in existence = flood did not happen

People aren't looking int he right place? Where else besides scripture do we look to begin pushing the scale in the other direction?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The bible account doesn't change, but geological and archeological discoveries very frequently force science to change. Watch and see.