The population argument for a young Earth

[MSBS]

If the availability of food and shelter was a factor in limiting population growth I wonder why that does not transpose to life today in some african states.

Are you really under the impression that there haven't been any famines in Africa in modern times? Really? Umm... maybe you ought to check here:

http://www.wfp.org/

 

[Smidlee]

I've meaning to write this for awhile, because this really keeps depressing me. It's the population argument for a young Earth. Specifically, it's the argument that if the world's population is 6 billion, it can't be more than a few thousand years old. Why? Because if people were around longer, there should be lots more people.

You can find this argument on various creationist sites.

This argument is so trivial that it can be refuted with some simple logic and a basic understanding of ecology. Every population has an upper limit imposed on it by limitations of available resources. Living organisms need resources (i.e. food, water) to survive, and if there isn't enough to go around, the population can't grow. In some cases, the population will swing up and down, depending on conditions in the environment.

So clearly there are limitations on the growth of the human population that prevents this all-out growth some creationists insist would have happened. This is simple common sense. Mind you, there is no doubt the human population has experienced rapid growth over the last few hundred years. But this is explained by increasing the available resources through industrialization, as well as improving health and survival via medicine.

Amazingly these human advancements came out of thin air which is one of the creationist points. Civilizations suddenly came to existance with great knowledge. I've read even evolutionists admit this is a problem especially since they believe modern man started 150,000 years ago which begs to question why did it take 145,000 years for him to get his PHD.
So there a lot more to this then just the fact there are now 6 billion people on Earth. Man is very resourceful in surviving in almost any kind of environment.

If someone believe modern man been here for 150,000 years then it would seem you have to believe that man was as dumb as an ox for atleast 140,000 of those years why then beg the question where did this super knowledge suddenly came from. Maybe a man was struck by lighting huh? Or maybe aliens are involved as in Stargate?

 

[Hydra009]

If someone believe modern man been here for 150,000 years then it would seem you have to believe that man was as dumb as an ox for atleast 140,000 of those years why then beg the question where did this super knowledge suddenly came from.

I agree, Ug et al were stupid not to be building skyscrapers while they were struggling to survive.

That's twice I've seen this kind of thinking from creationists: Why did mankind sit on its fanny for thousands of years before doing X? It's kind of like asking why mankind waited so long before building nukes or landing on the moon. The assumptions are that modern scientific developments were obvious to extremely ancient peoples and the prerequisite knowledge and resources were readily available. Wrong.

 

[A4C]

Are you really under the impression that there haven't been any famines in Africa in modern times? Really? Umm... maybe you ought to check here:

http://www.wfp.org/

No that is not my point at all
As there are high populations and poverty in undeveloped areas today this cannot be a reason for low poulation world wide in milleniums before

 

[Smidlee]

I agree, Ug et al were stupid not to be building skyscrappers while they were struggling to survive.

That's twice I've seen this kind of thinking from creationists: Why did mankind sit on its fanny for thousands of years before doing X? It's kind of like asking why mankind waited so long before building nukes or landing on the moon. The assumption is that modern scientific developments were obvious to extremely ancient peoples and the prerequisite knowledge and resources were readily availible.

Just because we have more knowledge than humans in the past doesn't mean we are smarter. Of course it took time to build up. The game of Chess is a good example of knowledge build up. Again all this began with a amazing jump in civilization a few thousands year ago which now can can go to the moon,etc.
By the way they did build skyscrappers (just not out of steel) and many other amazing building which shows these people had a lot of time on their hands besides just surviving as an animal.

 

[alerj123]

Amazingly these human advancements came out of thin air which is one of the creationist points. Civilizations suddenly came to existance with great knowledge. I've read even evolutionists admit this is a problem especially since they believe modern man started 150,000 years ago which begs to question why did it take 145,000 years for him to get his PHD.
So there a lot more to this then just the fact there are now 6 billion people on Earth. Man is very resourceful in surviving in almost any kind of environment.

If someone believe modern man been here for 150,000 years then it would seem you have to believe that man was as dumb as an ox for atleast 140,000 of those years why then beg the question where did this super knowledge suddenly came from. Maybe a man was struck by lighting huh? Or maybe aliens are involved as in Stargate?

They didn't come "out of think air" But different circomstances allowed humans to utilize some of there more creative capaciaties. Think about it, whats the difference between you, and humans 50 thousand years ago? The difference is that your basic needs are all take care of. You don't hunt for food, you don't worry about shelter, or where your going to sleep, and you are very confortable. Early human's couldnt do this, they had to worry about eating, sleeping, everything that you get easily, they had to spend all there time doing. In modern days, we can spend all, or most of our time doing OTHER THINGS. This is what has allowed us to advance.

Also, every single invention, from the computer your using, to the lightbulb above you, had to be invented by people spending there WHOLE lives trying to find new things. And each one of these inventions took a multitude of inventions before it for man to even BEGIN to figure out the modern inventions.

We are just as smart as early human, or just as stupid, however you want to look at it. The only two differences are that we have a wealth of knowlage to start with, and we don't need to worry about basic requierments for survival.

 

[alerj123]

If the availability of food and shelter was a factor in limiting population growth I wonder why that does not transpose to life today in some african states.
May I propose that children are bought into this earth -not because there is food here for them but because people have a natural urge to procreate
I dont really care what you heard in primary school

So your saying that the avalibility of food and shelter is not a factor in limiting population growth?? If thats what your saying, have you ever heard of BACTERIA. If not for food, resources, etc...what is limiting there population growth and how is this in ANY way different then human's?

 

[alerj123]

Just because we have more knowledge than humans in the past doesn't mean we are smarter.

We're not smarter then early humans, we just have more KNOWLAGE. big difference, if you don't understand, ask and ill explain.

By the way they did build skyscrappers (just not out of steel) and many other amazing building which shows these people had a lot of time on their hands besides just surviving as an animal.

Im pretty sure he's talking about early humans, the ones who didn't build pyrimids and buildings, but were just trying to survive. The ones 50 thousand years ago. But your right, "these people" did have a lot of time on there hands. Early humans however, did not. This is why "these people" could advance so much while the early humans could not.

 

[A4C]

So your saying that the avalibility of food and shelter is not a factor in limiting population growth?? If thats what your saying, have you ever heard of BACTERIA. If not for food, resources, etc...what is limiting there population growth and how is this in ANY way different then human's?

So you are saying there has been a reduction of bacteria in undeveloped areas are you?

 

[Hydra009]

Just because we have more knowledge than humans in the past doesn't mean we are smarter. Of course it took time to build up.

Of course not. I never argued to that effect. That little number is just a strawman of your own devising: you said that if you believe mankind existed 150,000 years ago, then you must believe they were stupid for not inventing the technological marvels that people have developed much more recent history. No one believes that.

Again all this began with a amazing jump in civilization a few thousands year ago which now can can go to the moon,etc.

Pinpoint the date and exactly what this "amazing jump in civilization" is that you vaguely refer to but, suspiciously, have not fleshed out.

By the way they did build skyscrappers (just not out of steel) and many other amazing building which shows these people had a lot of time on their hands besides just surviving as an animal.

I'm talking Middle Paleolithic era here. 150,000 years ago is just a tad prior to the developments of agriculture and citydwelling. I don't doubt, nor did I say that I doubted, that ancient peoples thousands of years ago built many wonderous buidings, like the pyramids.

 

[Loudmouth]

So you are saying there has been a reduction of bacteria in undeveloped areas are you?

No, the question is with a 30 minute generation time, why aren't we all swimming in a sea of bacteria miles deep?

 

[A4C]

No, the question is with a 30 minute generation time, why aren't we all swimming in a sea of bacteria miles deep?

eh? I dont get your line of reasoning
Sure I am YEC but why should I support MORE bacteria Actually I actually think there was less and where my questioning was leading.

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

well, according to the bacteria population argument, the world can only be 54 hours old

 

[MartinM]

No, the question is with a 30 minute generation time, why aren't we all swimming in a sea of bacteria miles deep?

Global floods every six hours to keep the population down.

 

[alerj123]

eh? I dont get your line of reasoning
Sure I am YEC but why should I support MORE bacteria Actually I actually think there was less and where my questioning was leading.

Your saying that food and resources don't prevent population growth, is that right? You were comparing and supporting this statement to the fact that in african states, despite the food shortage, there is still a large population, is that right?

We are trying to compare this with bacteria. Your saying that food and resources don't prevent population growth, now if this is true, then bacteria, due to there short generations, should by now, cover the earth entirely.

 

[A4C]

Your saying that food and resources don't prevent population growth, is that right? You were comparing and supporting this statement to the fact that in african states, despite the food shortage, there is still a large population, is that right?

We are trying to compare this with bacteria. Your saying that food and resources don't prevent population growth, now if this is true, then bacteria, due to there short generations, should by now, cover the earth entirely.

Are you deriding bacteria by suggesting they act like humans or vice versa ?

 

[Split Rock]

Amazingly these human advancements came out of thin air which is one of the creationist points. Civilizations suddenly came to existance with great knowledge. I've read even evolutionists admit this is a problem especially since they believe modern man started 150,000 years ago which begs to question why did it take 145,000 years for him to get his PHD.
So there a lot more to this then just the fact there are now 6 billion people on Earth. Man is very resourceful in surviving in almost any kind of environment.

If someone believe modern man been here for 150,000 years then it would seem you have to believe that man was as dumb as an ox for atleast 140,000 of those years why then beg the question where did this super knowledge suddenly came from. Maybe a man was struck by lighting huh? Or maybe aliens are involved as in Stargate?

Before civilization, mankind was restricted to relatively small Hunter-gather groups. Study of such remaining groups in modern times has shown that they tend to remain at a fairly constant population level and do not increase in size exponentially, like we have seen in civilized populations.

 

[z3ro]

Amazingly these human advancements came out of thin air which is one of the creationist points. Civilizations suddenly came to existance with great knowledge. I've read even evolutionists admit this is a problem especially since they believe modern man started 150,000 years ago which begs to question why did it take 145,000 years for him to get his PHD.
So there a lot more to this then just the fact there are now 6 billion people on Earth. Man is very resourceful in surviving in almost any kind of environment.

If someone believe modern man been here for 150,000 years then it would seem you have to believe that man was as dumb as an ox for atleast 140,000 of those years why then beg the question where did this super knowledge suddenly came from. Maybe a man was struck by lighting huh? Or maybe aliens are involved as in Stargate?

Simple question; why did we get significantly more technologically advanced in the last 50 years? These past decades have seen more growth than millenia before them. Same thing as asking why people 200 years ago didn't have cell phones. Our knowledge over time grows, and occasionally jumps forward.

 

[Loudmouth]

eh? I dont get your line of reasoning
Sure I am YEC but why should I support MORE bacteria Actually I actually think there was less and where my questioning was leading.

Bacteria, on average, can double every 30 minutes. In the lab, I can easily grow 1 gram of bacteria (wet weight) in about 4 hours. That means the mass of bacteria will double 6 times every day. Starting with a gram of bacteria, it should only take about 15 days to grow the equivalent weight of the earth in bacteria (earth's mass = 5.98x10^27 grams). So, why doesn't this happen? Or is the world younger than 15 days?

 

[alerj123]

Are you deriding bacteria by suggesting they act like humans or vice versa ?

When it comes to population growth, then yes, they act like humans. So does every single population of any species, for that manner.