Is Global Population Evidence For Noahic Flood?

According to Crazy Diamond, natural disasters, etc have never stopped the growth of global population. It has been calculated that from the time of the Noahic flood to the present that the population of the world would be about right.
I have quoted myself from Message 16 since it was deemed off topic in that thread. Edited by Buzsaw, : Add links and sub title

---

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

Jar, this thread is about whether population data is more supportive to the Genesis flood or to Evolution. That's what I want to focus on. Other aspects of the flood should be taken to the appropriate thread.

---

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

Here's a factor that neither Morris or anyone that I'm aware of have considered.According to the Biblical record, living things, including humans lived considerably longer before the flood when there was a totally different atmosphere and climate.Noah lived close to 900 years, if I recall correctly. His sons lived four & five hundred plus. Their descendants lives gradually shorter lives all the way down to Moses who lived 120 years etc.During these years each man, some, if not most, had multiple wives, bearing large relatively long living families, according to the Biblical record. The net effect on population would be a trickling down of the averages from higher to lower.Then too, it was not uncommon for 20,000 to 40,000 men dying in one battle or one siege later on down in time.At some point in time, likely the averages bottomed out to beginning to rise up to the present time.Now let's consider the evolutionist bunny blunder.
It should be assumed that any creature capable of reproduction has a sexual drive toward reproduction. This drive is a necessary component of reproduction. Otherwise, t'aint agona happen.Therefore the 1,000,000ers are blundering their way into the low calculations. Realistically, if there's reproduction, there's gotta be the sex drive. You can't just blindly alleged that it took hundreds of thousands of years for the early to relatively early populations to double. In fact, likely they more or less functioned more like a rabbitry than an ordered family as it has been historically so long as records have been kept.We know how fast rabbitries propagate, hopping about from bunny to bunny, impregnating or being impregnated. (it reminds me of the depravity we are experiencing in these end times and how the age old family unit is disintegrating.Bottom line: In spite of the discrepancies and unknowns to each hypothesis, the Biblical model is by far the more logical and likely the more realistic model.

---

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

When ever I cite evidence I get this same kind of reaction from the skeptics. This thread is whether the population factor is more supportive to the thousand year hypothesis than the million year one. Which and why is what we're here to debate.I see this as evidence. I don't agree with all of Morris's points but I do agree with him that the population factor is no way compatible with the million year population time frame.

---

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

Though I don't agree with all of Morris's points I do agree with and debate on the basis of some of them. He and I both consider the population evidence as supportive to the Biblical record, though I've pointed out some factors which perhaps he had neglected to consider.I'm sure he's aware of the length of lives before and after the flood. Some of the responders have critiqued his calculations. After some thought, the long lifespan came to mind as to why, perhaps, Morris's calculations may need some revising.By and large, Morris and I would make the same argument with you folks, that the population factor is significantly more supportive to the Genesis record than the evolutionist POV.I prefer to let the thread run for a while, but, of course that is your call. There's plenty more on my plate here in other threads for me to address with the limited time I have to participate in if you choose to close the thread.I haven't had the time to respond to some of the messages, being out of town some today and will be most of tomorrow. My understanding is that there's no rush as to how hot the threads get. I like to take my time and weigh in whenever I'm not doing other things in my busy life.

I would like to get less meanspirited substanceless messages frpm the skeptics and get some sensible responses to my points in Message 14, for example . What about this need for the sex drive being needful to population porpagation. Why is that not a reason that any populations capable of reproduction should increase faster than merely doubling in the timeframe of hundreds of thousands of years as evolutionsts are alleging? I see this as the evolutionist's way of cooking the books so as to accomodate their beliefs.

---

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

Where did you get that I believed him? He didn't factor in the flood reducing the population to eight. That's why I cited the flood as the point to begin the calculating time frame. And I said as much in addressing Morris's calculations, that the earlier increases may have waned as lifespans waned and to increase again in time. The averages, however should come out far more supportive to the Biblical thousands of years time frame than the evolutionist million year time frame.

---

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

This from my OP:Crazy Diamond said: "The real fact is that regardless of disease, natural disasters, wars and famine, human population has never stopped growing. .Buz said: "That is assuming there was no Biblical Noaic flood."Go figure. I drew the information from the Biblical record. I've, over time here, cited evidences supportive to the credibility of the Biblical record, whether you choose to believe it or not.This thread pertaining to whether population evidence is more supportive to the Biblical model or the evolutionist model is about making that determination.I hesitate to speculate on specific mathematical data as you people and Morris do. We don't have enough solid information to do that. My method is to assess the data and look at the current population which we know by the censuses etc. From there I determine that the thousand yr model is significantly more doable than the million year mode.Imo, more evidence of a global flood has been cited in past threads than the evidence of the million year alleged human history. I believe the population is just one more nail in the evolutionist coffin.

---

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

It appears that I should edit my OP. Morris is turning out to be more problematic than helpful for where I'm going.

We have the data from the Biblical record, and attested to by the evidence which has been cited in archived threads supportive to that record.According to the Biblical record we have the genealogy from Adam, the first man to Noah to Jesus being roughly 2500 years. Noted and reputable historian Josephus attests to this as does Ussher.We have the length of lives of the genealogical line of descendents showing a gradual diminishing of the length of lives from the time of the flood to Moses. As I have stated, though we don't have actual numbers, we know from the record that many had multiple wives bearing children, the men living around 500 years on down. That would result in a rapidly multiplying population. This would be offset somewhat by wars and famines etc on down the line more so on down the line from Noah, due to the increase in the established nations, etc. Thus the increase would wane low at some point, after which it would increase to where.Likely the waning stage would level off relatively with a lengthy time of ups and downs before the rapid increase which was to come.I've deduced this from the Biblical record and the later time in history when censuses and records began to be kept.Though neither camp has an accurate record of the respective starting points, the creationist Biblical model (which has the most recorded data) would be by far the most doable.Even though we don't have specific numbers, we can be sure that in 4500 years (from the flood) there would be a minuscule time frame of a few thousand years for the population to grow compared to the evolutionist million year model which should produce an extremely greater population than what we have today. To other members: We don't need to prove the flood to show how ludicrous the evolutionist position is. Their utter lack of evidence for their million yr argument and the ludicrous assumption that it would take hundreds of thousands of years for a sex driven population to double, leaves the floodist model the most logical and doable.

---

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

Hi Zen. Welcome to the thread. What you're asking for has been answered on page one. I suggest you read up to familiarize yourself on what has been debated.

---

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

Again, Coyote, this thread is to debate the population factor. The evidence cited has been debated. Whether or one believes it's been falsified is not for us to determine here.The population factor is to be debated on the assumption that the flood happened 4500 yrs ago as per the Biblical record, for the creationist and on the assumption that a million years ago was when the first man began to populate the earth.Which one is the more likely and doable and why?

---

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

You tell me. I'm not the mathematician. I'm saying what ever it is, 4500 years would produce an extremely more accurate population observable today than 1,000,000 years would. Imo, that's a no brainer.What's your argument for the million time frame. How do you respond to the sex drive point which I made to debunk the hundreds of thousands of years for a sex driven small population to double and double again and again? Let's see it. Give it your best shot. Perhaps your evolutionist friends can help you out.

---

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