Did Homo Erectus build the Tower of Babel?

The way you used that model is fundamentally flawed. No animal population has unlimited exponential growth.One major factor missing from that model: knowledge and technology.Two examples: the bow and arrow, or the atlatl, facilitate hunting among hunter-gatherers. This allows a readjustment of the population to a new, higher, level. Population will stabilize around this increased level until some new innovation allows a higher level (or some detrimental change mandates a lower level).Agriculture is necessary for the population levels we have today; without agriculture perhaps 95% of the population would starve in short order.Your model does not take these types of factors into consideration. For what you intend, it is useless, and does not serve to support the point you are trying to make.

---

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

Right you are Coyote, once a limit is reached the population begins to decline.Just like the flies, foxes and rabbits, but not like the humans. Nothing stops us humans, nothing save the Almighty.Like I said, you can tinker at the edges but it's still exponential growth.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
Pascal

Nonsense! Name one biological organism that experiences exponential growth for any sustained time.Pick any time period in human history prior to the development of agriculture and show me exponential population growth.The only way human will be able to get something resembling exponential growth is developing somewhat efficient interstellar travel. (See, growth is related to technology again!) And even then we might just run into something bigger and badder than ourselves out there. (Reminds me of the science fiction story, "To Serve Man.")You really should give up on creation "science" and try studying real science for a change.

---

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

If you want to discuss this further, open a new topic.

Steady on! Remember, you're not supposed to be in disagreement with the evolution of Erectus into H. Sapiens Neanderthal, H. Sapiens Sapiens, and H. Floresiensis. That's Kurt Wise's view, which you said you were in general agreement with.Of the creationists, you are the only one who's come out in agreement with Wise's view, although Beretta may well agree too, when he's had time to think about it.As I said earlier, it would be nice to have a timeline. Wise is going for a pattern of relationship between the later hominids (the definite uprights) which is pretty much the same as the old earth "evolutionist's" one. The main difference is the time scale, of course.So do you think you can give us a timeline? It need only be tentative. Like evolutionists, you need more information to come up with a clear explanation, but Wise, to his credit, recognises that creation science has to address what evidence is there.The main thing is, IMO, that you need H. Sapiens to evolve very quickly after Babel, because you've got to squeeze what we see as layer upon layer (and thousands of years) of prehistoric H. Sapiens civilizations into the short time between Babel and the first written datable historical evidence.Anyone else, Creo or Evo, got any opinions on the question in the thread title? I think this is an important departure for creationism. Kurt Wise has decided, because H. Erectus is the only hominid found for a period in what he sees as post flood deposits, and because the fossils are widely distributed on three continents, that H. Erectus must be the Mankind of the flood and the Babel tower building.Edited by bluegenes, : missing word

We're dealing in rubber band years here, typical of creation "science."The majority opinion of Biblical scholars is that the flood occurred about 4,350 years ago, yet we see creation "scientists" attributing the Cambrian deposits to the flood. That's off by over 500 million years, but with creation "science" that's no problem.Coming back to Babel, and the immediate topic--one creationist sees it built by Homo erectus, which then evolves into modern humans in something like 1,000-2,000 years.But other creationists, for example Lubenow and Woodmorappe, see modern man as being created in the form of Adam and Eve, and the differentiation to Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis as racial variants of modern man-all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel. This is especially funny, as the very evolution that creationists deny we now see a couple of them proposing, except several hundred times faster and in reverse!Isn't creation "science" wonderful? You can make anything you want out of it with no need for that messy data and all that troublesome fact checking and research. And some folks actually believe this stuff!

---

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