Discussing the evidence that support creationism

Well let's see, to get from two to 6 billion in 10,000 years requires inputting 0.00218 into the growth rate field. That means the population after 1,000 years after creation was 17. After 2,000 years it was 155. After 3,000 years it was 1,377. As we get to about 6,000 years ago we have a population of about 12,000. 5k years ago it was about 100k. 4,000 years ago it was a million. That figure becomes 8million by 3,000 years ago, it was at 73million by Jesus' day. 1000 years ago we're at 650million. In 1200 AD we managed to hit the first billion. It's 2billion by 1500. In about 1700AD there were 3billion. In 1850 there were 4 billion people.Most 'secular' authorities would have you believe that we didn't reach 3billion until the 1960s or so. Fools, didn't they assume a constant average growth?

Not according to anyone who knows anything - only using your weird maths. Most sources would estimate it around 300 million in 1200. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the world's population was 3 - 4 times larger in 1200 and we didn't notice? How do you account for the fact that experts in the field would say that we didn't hit 1 billion until the 1800s? The calculator you provided gives a number of 1850. How did they get it so very wrong? Actually now we have to change our number to 0.00462This means we hit 1billion in the 1600sDuring Jesus' time the population now has gone to about 600,000 and 1,000BC sees the population of the world at a massive 6,000. I like the fact that in 500BC you seem to think the world's population was 60,000!If the Exodus was somewhere in the region of 1500BC, then I make the population of the world at that time to be about 600. Erm...so how many people were in the Exodus? 6? Egypt wasn't so much a powerful empire as it was a small hamlet. Kind of gives a different impression of Biblical history really, doesn't it?No Buz, the numbers are nonsense unless you plan to provide some...evidence that they are true?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Where is the problem? The growth was low for a long time, it started to increase and it peaked in the 1960s, it is now slowing. We can expect that to continue slowing and quite possibly going backwards depending on future advances in science (disease control and other health issues, energy issues, food production etc). How does the flood model explain how the world population tripled between 1200 and 1800? How does it explain that this number quickly doubled up after that? How does the flood model account for the numbers before 1200, given they were in lower numbers? Might I ask you give us some idea of what the population was each 1000 years since the flood?Here is the normal model, give or take:-8000 : 5,000,000 (disputed)
-1000 50,000,000
-500 100,000,000
1 200,000,000+
1000 310,000,000
1750 791,000,000
1800 978,000,000
1850 1,262,000,000
1965 3,334,874,000
2000 6,070,581,000(wiki)If you want an average growth rate for all of humanity that'd give you 0.00071 for the start and end poitns but that wouldn't reproduce these figures at all (unless we propose 1 billion was reached by 500BC) so obviously we can agree that growth rates have changed throughout history. Does the flood model give us any information on when these growth rates change and why?Where would you fit flood related data into that to make an improvement, and more to the point of the thread - is there any evidence that flood model predicts these figures? Does the flood model give any clues into why China or India has the population it does?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

OK, so from -2500 to -1000 the population growth rate between -2500 to -1000 was about 0.01049 Then the population growth rate for the next 500 years then plummeted considerably to 0.0015. The next 500 years had a similar rate, and the next 1,000 years it dropped again to 0.0004. For the period of 1000 - 1750 you have a growth rate that shoots up to 0.0012 - nearly matching earlier growth rates. Between 1750 and 1800 the growth rate massively jumps up to 0.004. 1800-1850 it slightly rises to about 0.0045, 1850-1965 it jumps yet again to about 0.009 and the final leap is to 0.0175!!!As I said, you accept that growth rates have changed. You seem to think that being able to live to a bit longer means they their population increased quickly, but how is it we are matching them despite our short child producing span (35 years at best), and comparably short life span?More importantly, where is your evidence that supports these growth rates or population figures? Why? What evidence? I don't see your point or how this leads to the conclusion that "the Biblical flood model better suits the population data." How does it? It assumes a population growth rate comparable to today's that gets absolutely slashed in size very suddenly at some unspecified moment. At what point did our life expectancy drop to a level so that growth rate suddenly slowed down?Why do the growth rates change after that? Look at 1 - 1000...what caused this stagnation period after such proposed growth? Did we have a second un-longevity curse placed upon us?How is the increase from 5,000,000 less startling than increasing from 8? How is starting from 8 a 'better fit'? You can't just tell me what your conclusion is, you need to explain the steps that got you there.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.