Summations Only

- Is there any evidence or demonstration with ascertained truth of the facts on why it would have been impossible for Humans to have reached a population of 1 million persons in less than 20 thousand years, when the population was 10,000?

​

-

​

70 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,000 inhabitants
50 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 million inhabitants
40 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?
35 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?

​

-

​

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? -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.

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.

---

-Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : updateEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Did away with "royal blue" text color in quote box.

Thread copied here from the When Earth’s population was 10,000 persons thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.OK, let's give this one a go.1) On CD's scale of things, this one seems pretty coherent.2) This actually seems to be a fresh, not beaten to death topic.AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Add post-promotion comments.

This handsome fellow is dated at 30,000 years. But the (unattributed) quote you included claims 14,000 years is the maximum.How do you account for this discrepancy? And for this evidence that fully modern humans were around 30,000 years ago?

---

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

Humans have shown that they are able to land on the moon, so why didn't we see people in the 1700's landing on the moon?What you ignore is the development of technology that is required for modern human population growth. This development starts quite slow, and is dependent on random inventions along the way to keep things moving. On top of that, you need a stable society that requires thousands of years of developing cultivars capable of sustaining a static population. You need enough food that people can devote their life to not growing food, and instead focusing on increasing our knowledge.

And your demonstration of this "real fact" is?---Humans, like other animals, cannot outgrow their food supply. For the population to expand, we had to develop methods to increase our supply of food --- either colonization of new lands such as Australia, or better methods of hunting and fishing, or agriculture, or pest control, or ... etc.Long periods of cultural stasis would have corresponded to long periods of stasis in population.

Mmm, but Coyote, what about the all knowing math that you folks keep touting? Which trumps; the dating or the math?

---

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

Shhhhh!I'm waiting for a response to my question.Don't tell, but we have fully human fossils going back well over 100,000 years. I want to lure the previous poster into an unfounded answer.But seeing as he's a creationist, that will probably happen no matter what I post, eh?

---

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

What math Buz?

---

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

As a mathematician, I am of course the earthly representative of the All-Knowing Math (praise be unto it) and I can tell you that the All-Knowing Math says that creationists are talking crap on this as on every other issue.All hail the All-Knowing Math! Now shut your pie-hole or it'll smite you with a plague of logarithms.

Ok, so the flood happened around 4300 bc. Do you agree with this? If so, the population at around 6k years ago was 10. Do you want me to go on or do you want to continue for me where I want to go with this? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

...and you seem to be dragging a YECism into the topic (red herring?).I don't see a C. 4300 BC "great flood" as being relevant to this topic, and have declared your message to be "off-topic".No replies to this message at this topic. If you feel you must, go to The Whine List topic.Adminnemooseus

Ok, if I can't talk about your alternative theory on this (that the human population started out with 10 people 6 thousand years ago), let's talk about why steady human population growth only started happening in the last 10 thousand years or so. The reason is so simple that I'm surprised no one has mentioned it yet.Farming! Hunting and gathering ain't enough to support a large population in any one place. It was only recently, around 10,000 years or so, that early civilizations began to farm on a scale capable of supporting more than a few dozen people in any area. And even then, it took thousands of years for farming techniques to develop to a level that could support major population growths.

From Wiki:

The Toba supereruption (Youngest Toba Tuff or simply YTT[1]) occurred between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago at Lake Toba (Sumatra, Indonesia), and it is recognized as one of the earth's largest known eruptions. The related catastrophe theory holds that this supervolcanic event plunged the planet into a 6-to-10-year volcanic winter, which resulted in the world's human population being reduced to 10,000 or even a mere 1,000 breeding pairs, creating a bottleneck in human evolution. Some researchers argue that the Toba eruption produced not only a catastrophic volcanic winter but also an additional 1,000-year cooling episode.

​

Toba catastrophe theory - Wikipedia

---

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

Coyote, I don't understand why you keep bringing up evidence that require current conventional dating methods. I think it is already well established (according to the OP at least) that scientists are dumbasses and that dating methods are wrong.Use another approach.

While message 1 is far from the desired clearly laid out topic starter we like to see, I don't see either YECim/floodism or the above quoted as being there stated. If you wish to argue this, please quote the relevant portion of message 1 and explain your perceptions of the quoted.In general, you're presenting non-topic snark - The sort of thing for which I've several times suspended Dr. Adequate.AdminnemooseusAdded by edit: My compliments to the content of message 13.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.