Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Kruelgor, Feb 19, 2011.
The universe curves back on itself so occupies a finite amount of space is one possibility.
So, you don't believe in the Bible, but you will happily parrot a graph that could be made to mean anything and which happens to exactly square with the Biblical account?
God I wish you people would stop calling it maths.
I wish you people would stop leaving out all your Us, Os and other letters that differentiate British and American English. (Not very helpful, is it?)
"In pre-industrial society, death rates and birth rates were both high and fluctuated rapidly according to natural events, such as drought and disease, to produce a relatively constant and young population. Family planning and contraception were virtually nonexistent; therefore, birth rates were essentially only limited by the ability of women to bear children. Emigration depressed death rates in some special cases (for example, Europe and particularly the Eastern United States during the 19th century), but, overall, death rates tended to match birth rates, often exceeding 40 per 1000 per year. Children contributed to the economy of the household from an early age by carrying water, firewood, and messages, caring for younger siblings, sweeping, washing dishes, preparing food, and working in the fields. Raising a child cost little more than feeding him; there were no education or entertainment expenses and, in equatorial Africa, there were no clothing expenses either. Thus, the total cost of raising children barely exceeded their contribution to the household. In addition, as they became adults they become a major input to the family business, mainly farming, and were the primary form of insurance for adults in old age. In India, an adult son was all that prevented a widow from falling into destitution. While death rates remained high there was no question as to the need for children, even if the means to prevent them had existed.
During this stage, the society evolves in accordance with Malthusian paradigm, with population essentially determined by the food supply. Any fluctuations in food supply (either positive, for example, due to technology improvements, or negative, due to droughts and pest invasions) tend to translate directly into population fluctuations. Famines resulting in significant mortality are frequent. Overall, the population dynamics during stage one is highly reminiscent of that commonly observed in animals."
Couldn't have put it better myself.
To be honest, I was a little surprised to see a creationist argument on a civ forum. Not that the game overtly pushes the idea of evolution, but because (to me, anyway) it seems to have an aura of history, science and education, both in its content and among its players.
I feel a little qualified to comment on Kruelgor's original post, as I have studied demographics at the postgrad level. But I won't bore you or me with descriptions of demographic transition or how the study of osteology can impact our understanding of generation cohort mortality in medieval Britain. Simple commonsense can tell us what is wrong with the OP's graph: all its assumptions are wrong. Doesn't matter how many children women are having or not having. If the number of births equals the number of deaths, then the population will be stable. In pre-industrial society the birth rate tended to be high (much higher than 3, Kruelgor), but so was infant mortality and mortality in general.
The truth is, relying on pure mathematics does not tell us that the population 6,000 years ago was 2, or 200,000, or 6.5 billion, or 20 trillion for that matter. Population extrapolations into the past require all-important assumptions about past birth and death rates. And if you want to assume that the global population has doubled every 100 years for the last 6,000 years (a massive and extraordinary falsehood) then you must provide massive evidence for this.
By the way a global population of 2 in 4,000 BC must have come as quite a surprise to the citizens of the Sumerian civilization, who were living in established cities of tens of thousands each, and had well-developed trade, writing, and religion. The ancient Egyptians might also have been surprised by the claim made by Adam and Eve to be the first humans on Earth, as they had been living in the valley of the Nile in well developed large communities for 1500 years, with copper-working, agriculture and animal husbandry.
Incidentally, as part of my master's thesis I was involved in paleodemographic modelling of the aboriginal population of Australia, in an attempt to estimate the population before European contact. Suffice it to say it is an extremely difficult thing to do, and pretty much impossible if you want to come up with an accurate population figure. The smallest variation in inititial assumptions can result in huge outcome differences. Did the 1836 smallpox plague result in 34 or 42 % casualty rate? This can make a difference of tens of thousands of people, and that is just in 1788, when contact with Europeans was first made.
The truth is that the OP is a serious Christian struggling with evolution. That's fine, but you just have to find your own way to make it work. Most other Christians are able to do it.
If you stick around you'll find they're quite common.
There were a couple of mega-threads talking about the evidence (or rather absence of) for creation. Search for Creationism in thread titles and be amazed.
Excellent post by the way.
I'll apologise for wasting everyone's time with those threads. They got us nowhere, except proving that many creationists, surprisingly like conspiracy theorists, just don't like to answer questions set to them.
They were fun while they lasted
EDIT: I must apologise again for posting a video with a Coldplay soundtrack in one of those threads.
I really, really disagree with the premise that there are two original humans.
Funny, I don't have your skills, yet can match that insight.
Exactly, so the rule that matter cannot be created from nothing only exists as long as the universe that contains it does.
Before the universe, no rules, therefore nothing to stop the universe coming into being.
Birth rate does not equal population growth rate. Why? Because a hell of a lot of kids / mothers died in childbirth / near afterwards.
Further, there were not 3 billion people in 1800, like this is silly line says. It is not a model, its a pathetic attempt at a one point trend.
Population doubling is a very accurate way to model population growth. It accounts for why, right now, the earth is covered in a layer of bacteria approximately 200 parsecs deep.
edit: I did the maths, giving bacteria an average generation of 1 day (quite generous, imho) and have come to the conclusion that the layer of bacteria covering the earth is not 200 parsecs deep. It's actually larger than the known universe.
Unfortunately, there are now more bacteria than atoms in the universe, so something strange is clearly happening. Divine intervention perhaps?
Maths have always been a good way to prove your point.
I'm confused, are Neanderthals, Denisovans and other archaic humans descended from the first two peoples or not?
Also, according to math, we are all clones of one another. See, if you start with two humans and double, nothing is added to the gene pool. Thus math explains why humans are all identical to one another.
Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleodemography
I for one think it's cute when creationists try to use math and science... It's almost like they think the're adults
On the other hand if you want to fit the number of humans to an exponential curve say N(t)=A(b)^t and claim this is a perfect model then you are stuck with uncomfortable reality that as t approaches negative infinity N(t) asymptotically approaches 0 but never reaches it. So no matter how far back in time you go the human population will have always been nonzero and positive
God is Aleph-null though.
EDIT: Aleph-one pwns Aleph-null though.
Separate names with a comma.