Summations Only

CrazyDiamond7 writes: - The real fact is that regardless of disease, natural disasters, wars and famine, human population has never stopped growing. History proves that Humans are able to impede animal growth but never their own.

That is assuming there was no Biblical Noahic flood. Henry Morris , in his book, the Bible Has The Answer. cites why the world population is about right, assuming Josephus's and Ussher's Noahic flood timeline.

quote:

---

According to the Jewish historian Josephus, Irish archbishop and chronologist James Ussher, Bible historians and most conservative Christian scholars, the Flood of Noah's time occurred between 2500 BC and 2300 BC.

An interesting area of support for the biblical date comes from the study of population statistics. Dr. Henry Morris asked in his book The Bible Has the Answer whether it was more reasonable to think that the present world population came from the few people on Noah's Ark 4300 years ago, or the first “dawn man” a million or more years ago:

The present rate of population increase in the world is more than two per cent per year, and the population is now over four billion. [This figure was correct when Dr. Morris wrote this. The figure is now much higher. — Creation Tips editor.] However, the average rate would only have to be one half of one per cent per year to produce the present world population in 4,300 years.

........the supposed million-year history of man on the earth is completely absurd, whereas the Biblical chronology is perfectly reasonable.........

---

ABE: Assuming the Noahic flood, the world's population roughly 2500 years ago would have been eight.

NOTE: If I understand Adminemooseus's message correctly, I'm on topic. I hope so.

Edited by Buzsaw, : Add ABE

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

I really don't see CrazyDiamond7 having invoked any sort of C. 5000 years ago human population bottleneck. Thus I see anything "Great Flood" to be off-topic.

If you wish to discuss the worlds human population as having started from your post flood time and numbers, please propose a new topic.

Adminnemooseus

No, CrazyDiamond7 does not mention YEC nor the Flood nor uses the YEC timeframe. But he is still making the same fundamental mistake that Henry Morris made and that YECs who use the "Bunny Blunder" still make: assuming a pure-birth population growth model. Because of that, comparisons between CrazyDiamond's opening message and the YEC "Bunny Blunder" are inevitable.

Pure-birth is the simplest population growth model and assumes that there is nothing that will limit the population; eg, that there is an unlimited amount of food and unlimited space. It is therefore the least accurate model to try to apply to actual populations in the wild.

A better model would be the logistics model in which the population size is limited by the environment's carrying capacity, the maximum population size that it can support. Changes in human technology and society can change the carrying capacity, which is what we see as having happened. A population can be held at its limit indefinitely.

In addition, events such as famine and plagues can cause changes in a population's growth rate, even causing it to reverse itself. Pure birth does not take such events into account; neither does the logistics model.

The term "Bunny Blunder" refers to the exercise of applying Henry Morris' human population model to bunny rabbits, such that it can be shown that the current world population of rabbits had to have arisen from two bunnies 100 years ago. It has also been shown that applying Morris' model to certain dates in the ancient past has ridiculously small work forces available to have built the pyramids of Egypt (about 150 for the Great Pyramid, even fewer for the preceding ones built over the previous centuries), and that a world population of about 10, including women and children, had to rush madly between Crete and the Indus River Valley building and abandoning enough large cities, monuments, and major civil engineering structures to make it appear that there had been millions of people.

Morris' claims are examined and discussed in the article, Creationists, Population Growth, Bunnies, and the Great Pyramid (by David H. Milne, Creation/Evolution Journal Vol. 4, No. 4, Fall 1984, pp 1-5). I also researched several of Morris' developments of his model. He didn't know what he was talking about. As a hydraulic engineer, he could play with the math, but he was clueless about the right model to apply that math to.

Discussion of the "Bunny Blunder" in terms of the YEC claim would of course be off-topic. But I do not think that to be the case when it's regarding choosing the correct model(s) for human population growth.

Edited by dwise1, : added disclaimer

Many of us have been in this debate long enough to see the hidden implication of the OP. We're not stupid.

Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Many of us have been in this debate long enough to see the hidden implication of the OP. We're not stupid.

Argue the position, not the person.

And if hes not YEC, and doesn't care about the Flud, then yes you are stupid.

True. But having been in the fray so long, they all start to look the same to us. We tend to forget that there is indeed a fairly wide variety of creationism and that not all creationists are YECs. At the same time, though, even many of those non-YEC creationists will still read the YEC literature and try to use YEC claims, such as the Bunny Blunder. So addressing the claim should still be on-topic.

When I posted last night, I couldn't find my reference for population models; I still can't. However, I did reference it in a couple pages that were on my website before my webhost abruptly dropped out of the business. It is:
Michael Olnick, An Introduction to Mathematical Models in the Social and Life Sciences, 1978, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Here is what I wrote on population models on my old page on the Bunny Blunder, which I originally wrote for the library on CompuServe in 1991:

quote:

---

ON MODELING POPULATION GROWTH:

So where did Dr. Henry Morris go wrong with his Bunny Blunder? He did so because of the standard ICR practice of ignoring the facts (of course, his apparent ignorance of the most basic principles of mathematical modeling also contributed).

First, he falsely assumed constant rates and, second, his model is far too simplistic. In Chapter 3 of his introductory book on the subject, An Introduction to Mathematical Models in the Social and Life Sciences, Michael Olnick presents a similar model of exponential population growth/decay:

    from dP/dt = a * P0; where P is the population,
                          P0 is the initial population,
                          t is time, and
                          a is the constant rate of growth/decay
                              [i.e. the difference between the birth rate
                              and the death rate],

Olnick derived the formula: P = P₀ * e^{(a * t)} where e is the natural logrithm base [e = 2.71828 approx.]).

For small values of a, such as 1/3 of 1% (0.00333), this is virtually identical to Morris' formula. For values of a > 0, the model is called a "pure-birth" process and results in exponential growth. For values of a < 0, it is called a "pure-death" process and results in exponential decay. Remember, for both processes the rate, a, is assumed to be constant, as Morris assumed it to be.

In an example, Olnick showed that the pure-birth model accounts rather nicely for the U.S. population growth in the early to mid-19th century, but that extending that growth to the present shows that the population of the U.S. should be over 800 million! By Dr. Morris' logic, this means that the U.S. must be much younger than 200 years old. To Olnick, as to any scientist, this means that something is wrong with the model and that it needs to be refined.
{ABE: Dawn, are you listening here?}

The first and obvious refinement is to not assume the rate of growth/decay to be constant, but to allow it to vary, in other words:

        dP/dt = f(P), where f(P) is some function of the population, i.e. the
                       value of the function ,f, varies in response to
                       different values of the population size, P.

Olnick applies this in the Logistic Model, in which the rate of population growth depends on the size of the population and on the ability of the environment to support that population. The Logistic Model postulates a maximum population size that the environment can support, called its "carrying capacity," such that the exponential rate of population growth decreases (i.e. slows down) as the population approaches the carrying capacity of the environment, eventually leveling off to zero-growth at the carrying capacity. This is a much more realistic model and fits the U.S. population curve from 1790 to 1950 quite well.

Obviously, the rate of population growth/decay is not in the least bit constant. The current doubling-time (i.e. the time it takes for a population to double in size) of the human population is close to 35 years. In the first half of this century, it was 87 years. In the last century, it was 120 years, fifty years before that it was 160 years, and in the preceding century it was 240 years. If we extrapolate this trend back (as did E.S. Deevey Jr. in Scientific American, 1960, Vol.203, No.5, pp 194-204) then we will arrive at a far older starting date than Morris' 4000 BCE.

Of course, the real thing is not so simple. The Logistic Model does not take into account disasters such as plagues or wars. At the start of the Plague in Europe (mid-14th century), one quarter of the population died in a single year and the population continued to decline for the next two centuries, drastically so in the epidemic years. Also, the carrying capacity of the environment is variable due to several factors such as drought, good weather, and agricultural technology. In non-human animal populations, predator-prey interactions come into play, resulting in pronounced cycles. All of these factors will affect the rate of population growth/decay.

So the human population, like the rabbit population, can indeed be millions of years old and still be no larger than we find it at present; we need but acknowledge the effects of its environment's low carrying capacity for most of its history. Our population's explosive growth these past few centuries can be attributed to the sudden increase of the carrying capacity due mainly to applied technology, such as agriculture and, more recently, sanitation and medicine.

CONCLUSION:

Morris' population model is simplistic even by an introductory textbook's standards and is sadly typical of the ICR's "science." Like their probability arguments, it is based on false premises which are then used to reach false conclusions. Ironically, the Bunny Blunder's assumption of a constant rate of change is exactly what the ICR criticizes radiometric dating for, only here such an assumption is totally unwarranted.

---

We know with total certaintude that Buz' model is dead wrong, because he explicitly identifies it as H. Morris' model. We recognize CrazyDiamond's model as pure-birth, which we know to be far too simplistic to be able to model reality and hence is wrong.

quote: That there were no Humans living on the Earth 70 thousand years ago is evident because of the fact that all things the Humans have done to the place called Earth during a single cluster of 7 thousand years, or when the population of the Earth was 1 million persons, they would have done the same thing anyway during any of the three seasons of 14 thousand years that immediately precede the recent 7 thousand years. Disconnection of time and place can be seen from the incompatibility between the consequences of having Humans on the Earth for a time no longer than 14 thousand years and the time proposed for their multiplication by the natural selection theory for the origin of the Human body.

May I ask from where you quoted this?

If Humans lived on Earth 100 thousand years ago then which factors would have impeded the population to grow from 10,000 to 1 million inhabitants during a single season of 20 thousand years?

You'll find this question largely answered in the pages of any introductory Anthropology text book. After looking there, you should come back and tell us what you find and why you may disagree with it.

Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

-

Coyote writes: ... that fully modern humans were around 30,000

-

Older versions of Prototypes are always made first and evaluated for a time
before a new product of advanced technology can be produced in pairs.

If you had the advanced technology for the production of a different kind of Human beings,

Would not the first pairs produced be prototypes designed and
made for temporary evaluation until you come up with the more perfect ones ?

quote:

---

From the writing entitled Population growth over the hills and far away,

If you are a designer who worked on the branch of engineering for the production of a new kind of Humans,
After so long a time a more perfect kind of Humans will find skeletons of the older versions,
and some of them will come up with a theory; that a skeleton of the older version of Human prototypes, which you had designed and made a long ago for temporary evaluation, would definitely be their ancestor!

---

-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

---

Mellow is the man who knows the dreams he's been mislead from,

Many many men can't see the road is open to new insights

'Many' is a word (that is *name of whom) only leaves you guessin' - (* Legion; to be many)

Guessin’ bout a thing one really ought not to prejudge; you really ought to know.

Many teachings are a camouflaged word named theory; that only leaves you guessin'

Older versions of Prototypes are always made first and evaluated for a time before a new product of advanced technology can be produced in pairs. If you had the advanced technology for the production of a different kind of Human beings, Would not the first pairs produced be prototypes designed and made for temporary evaluation until you come up with the more perfect ones ? quote: From the writing entitled Population growth over the hills and far away, If you are a designer who worked on the branch of engineering for the production of a new kind of Humans, After so long a time a more perfect kind of Humans will find skeletons of the older versions, and some of them will come up with a theory; that a skeleton of the older version of Human prototypes, which you had designed and made a long ago for temporary evaluation, would definitely be their ancestor!

Were this the case, however, wouldn't the resulting situation of left-behind prototypes be a situation indistinguishable from what would result from ancestry?

Jon

Edited by Jon, : wording

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

-

Jon writes: Were this the case, however, wouldn't the resulting situation of left-behind prototypes be a situation indistinguishable from what would result from ancestry?

-

Of course, they would (be indistinguishable)

There’s a way one ascertain and know that a human skeleton dated from 30,000 years ago pertained to a human prototype and has nothing to do with ancestry,

One ascertains this knowledge from the existence of permanent non-miscegenation on the Earth during the precise time when each distinct ethnic group came to exist;

1. The fact that every distinct pattern of ethnic group corresponds to a precise area and to a defined land from all over the lands and regions of the Earth,
2. clears up that the ethnic groups living in their respective land did not come to exist on the Earth all by themselves,
3. that is, they were settled to live in their land, (a fact that was highlighted twice in the books of the Ancients);

because, under other circumstances 55 dispersions of ethnic groups in Europe would not come to exist; there would be miscegenation even before they could become ethnic groups.

All of non-Russian Europe fits into the map of Brazil where miscegenation occurs.

-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

---

Mellow is the man who knows the dreams he's been mislead from,

Many many men can't see the road is open to new insights

'Many' is a word (that is *name of whom) only leaves you guessin' - (* Legion; to be many)

Guessin’ bout a thing one really ought not to prejudge; you really ought to know.

Many teachings are a camouflaged word named theory; that only leaves you guessin'

Your ideas about races and their origins are in error.

The classical races are adaptations to the environment (first), and based on descent groups (second).

Doesn't matter what any ancient myths say.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Jon writes: Were this the case, however, wouldn't the resulting situation of left-behind prototypes be a situation indistinguishable from what would result from ancestry? - Of course, they would (be indistinguishable)

Then what have you to offer other than an alternative explanation of the same evidence? What has been left that should make us favor your model over the other one?

There’s a way one ascertain and know that a human skeleton dated from 30,000 years ago pertained to a human prototype and has nothing to do with ancestry, One ascertains this knowledge from the existence of permanent and total lack of miscegenation on the Earth during the precise time when each distinct ethnic group came to exist; 1. The fact that every distinct pattern of ethnic group corresponds to a precise area and to a defined land from all over the lands and regions of the Earth, 2. clears up that the ethnic groups living in their respective land did not come to exist on the Earth all by themselves, 3. that is, they were settled to live in their land, (a fact that was highlighted twice in the books of the Ancients); 4. because, under other circumstances, 55 distinct patterns of ethnic groups of Europe would not come to exist; there would be miscegenation even before they could become ethnic groups. All of non-Russian Europe fits into the map of Brazil where miscegenation occurs.

Your list of chantings makes little sense to anyone. How about evidence we can actually understand.

Jon

---

Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

55 distinct patterns of ethnic groups of Europe would not come to exist;

Where do you come up with 55 ethnic groups?

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Jon writes: ..evidence we can actually understand

-

It's understandable and it's clear now, the only possibility that the 55 dispersions of ethnic groups in Europe came into existence, as linguistic ethnic groups, is that they were previously selected and settled in their respective land, (in their respective area in Europe);

For, under other circumstances, a miscegenation would have taken place (if the ancient people, in Europe, were all by themselves as the natural selection theory has proposed),

And they would not have come to exist as different ethnic groups, not even as linguistic ethnic groups.

Now it's clear,
If the 55 dispersions of ethnic groups had not been previously selected and settled in the land
and if their selection would have taken place all by themselves,

there wouldn't be ethnic groups in Europe; they would be one miscegenated people.

-

Albanians
Armenians
Aromanians
Belarusians
Ethnic groups in Belgium
Bosnia and Herzegovina/Bosnian
Bosniaks
Bosniak diaspora
Lists of British people
Bulgarians
Bulgarian diaspora
Celts
Cossacks
Crimean Tatars
Croats
Croatian diaspora
Czech diaspora
Estonian diaspora
Finnish diaspora
French diaspora
Gaelic festivals
Georgians
German people
Germanic peoples
Expulsion of Germans
Greek diaspora
Greeks
Igbo people
Irish diaspora
Irish people
Italian ethnicity
Lists of Italians
Italian diaspora
Macedonian diaspora organisations
Macedonian Diaspora
Montenegrins
Dutch diaspora
Ethnic groups in the Netherlands
Polish diaspora
Polish American
Portuguese diaspora
Roma diaspora
Romanians
Russian diaspora
Scottish ethnicity
Serbs
Serbian diaspora
Serbs infobox
Slovenes
Spanish people
Lists of Swedes
Swiss diaspora
Turks
Ukrainians
Ukrainian diaspora

quote:

---

There’s a way one ascertain and know that a human skeleton dated from 30,000 years ago pertained to a human prototype and has nothing to do with ancestry,

One ascertains this knowledge from the existence of permanent non-miscegenation on the Earth during the precise time when each distinct ethnic group came to exist;

1. The fact that every ethnic group corresponds to a precise area and to a defined land from all over the lands and regions of the Earth,
2. clears up that the ethnic groups living in their respective land did not come to exist on the Earth all by themselves,
3. that is, they were settled to live in their land, (a fact that was highlighted twice in the books of the Ancients);

because, under other circumstances, 55 dispersions of ethnic groups in Europe would not come to exist; there would be miscegenation even before they could become ethnic groups.

All of non-Russian Europe fits into the map of Brazil where miscegenation occurs.

---

Europe is not so big; people take a walk and then they are spread all over the lands and far away

-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

---

Mellow is the man who knows the dreams he's been mislead from,

Many many men can't see the road is open to new insights

'Many' is a word (that is *name of whom) only leaves you guessin' - (* Legion; to be many)

Guessin’ bout a thing one really ought not to prejudge; you really ought to know.

Many teachings are a camouflaged word named theory; that only leaves you guessin'

How do you explain the several hundred different Native American languages in California?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.