Population growth (year zero) models?

[mannysee]

Ages ago I read somewhere about a creation (flood?) argument discussing the population we have today and tracing it back (using various models) to an approximate date for year zero.
I suppose that the post-earth flood period (Noah and family) would have been the year zero used.

For those familiar with this growth model, is it a sound argument, or has it been thoroughly debunked?

Any links to this theory and the discussion of it?

Thanks.

 

[Papias]

mannysee wrote:

For those familiar with this growth model, is it a sound argument, or has it been thoroughly debunked?

Any links to this theory and the discussion of it?

It has been thoroughly debunked, but I still see it being used on a regular basis.

The models used vary a bit, but they all use recent growth to extrapolate into the past, ignoring evidence of what what world population actually was at those times (people have researched that, after all).

Worse, they almost always contradict one's Bible as well.

All that is easy to check yourself. Take the whatever model is being used. They are usually very simple, like "the population doubles very 145 years". Then, plug the formula into excel (in this example, that's just subracting 145 from today's year in one column, down to, say, 4500 years ago, while putting the world population of 6 billion inthe next column, and cutting it in half at each cell as you go down). Graph the result, and compare the graph to the historical world population found at any of a number of sources, such as this one:

Historical demography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, look on what your creationist model, based on your calculations on excel, predicts for the years of the exodus, around 1500 BC. Compare that to what it says in Exodus, and it'll probably be way different. These simplified creationists models attack a literal reading of one's Bible as well as the actual research that has been done.

For full disclosure, I need to point out that I'm a TE, but here I am not arguing against creationism, but rather against an talking point that even some creationists say not to use (for the reasons I've stated). Mod's, delete this post if you don't see it as being in accord with the rules of this forum.


Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

mannysee wrote:



It has been thoroughly debunked, but I still see it being used on a regular basis.

Why do you guys do this is my question. God as an explanation in not dedunckable, that is mindless from a Christian perspective.

The models used vary a bit, but they all use recent growth to extrapolate into the past, ignoring evidence of what what world population actually was at those times (people have researched that, after all).

Worse, they almost always contradict one's Bible as well.

All that is easy to check yourself. Take the whatever model is being used. They are usually very simple, like "the population doubles very 145 years". Then, plug the formula into excel (in this example, that's just subracting 145 from today's year in one column, down to, say, 4500 years ago, while putting the world population of 6 billion inthe next column, and cutting it in half at each cell as you go down). Graph the result, and compare the graph to the historical world population found at any of a number of sources, such as this one:

Historical demography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, look on what your creationist model, based on your calculations on excel, predicts for the years of the exodus, around 1500 BC. Compare that to what it says in Exodus, and it'll probably be way different. These simplified creationists models attack a literal reading of one's Bible as well as the actual research that has been done.

The Creationist model is based on the Bible, you can't have it both ways.

For full disclosure, I need to point out that I'm a TE, but here I am not arguing against creationism, but rather against an talking point that even some creationists say not to use (for the reasons I've stated). Mod's, delete this post if you don't see it as being in accord with the rules of this forum.


Papias

Your not welcome coming in here an making these kinds of statements, nevertheless, I accept you as a guest. TEs are rude, that is a given, the moderators won't censor your comments in here because you are tolerated by creationists.

Speak your mind but you would do well to remember you are a guest.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[rcorlew]

The problems with models is it is impossible to account for a negative population growth as in the case of plagues and catastrophes. The also require a person to know the actual growth rate at all times, whether positive or negative or 0. This kind of predictive model is usually best left to the anthropologist/paleontologist who would have the most accurate data available.

 

[juvenissun]

Ages ago I read somewhere about a creation (flood?) argument discussing the population we have today and tracing it back (using various models) to an approximate date for year zero.
I suppose that the post-earth flood period (Noah and family) would have been the year zero used.

For those familiar with this growth model, is it a sound argument, or has it been thoroughly debunked?

Any links to this theory and the discussion of it?

Thanks.

To make a population model is never an easy work. With all factors known, we still have trouble to predict the future population. Needless to say tracking population thousands of years back.

Also, as I can see, most of the population models are using parameters based on European history. Major plagues or wars were hardly a global feature.