In 1999, the human population passed six billion. In 1985, it passed five billion. In 1962, it passed three billion. In 1800, it passed one billion. In 1 AD, the world's population, according to the censuses taken by the governments of that time, was only 250 million. At the current human population growth rate, considering wars and famines and all such variables, it would take approximately 5,000 years to get the current population from two original people.
Are there any other reasonable thought out evidence that proves this false and concludes humans have been around sugnificantly longer than this, using poplution as the variable? If so please present it! Or what is your personal opinion?
David
2006-12-27 08:22:44 · 12 answers · asked by David T 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The idea that humanity started with two original people is ludicrous.
Why, oh why are biblical texts STILL read as 'literal' when by now even the village idiot must know better?
The same literal biblical reading, alas, is co-responsible for the ever-growing population amongst otherwise intelligent and educated people. Religion has preached against birth control long enough and caused enough misery in people's lives, all based on some out-dated and not even literally meant text.
Please STOP checking your brain at the door of Churches like a coat.
The best reference I've read lately about Bible texts taken too literally and abused for centuries to control people and rape the earth is:
Sins of Scripture by Shelby Spong. (The terrible texts in the Bible).
Read it for a refreshing and well-researched insight into biblical texts that isn't usually taught from a pulpit.
2006-12-27 09:00:54 · answer #1 · answered by flywho 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The world's population varies significantly over time. Food shortages, plagues, childhood death from simply cured diseases etc wiped out millions at a time - or at least, they used to. I also wouldn't trust a census from 1 AD - there was still quite a bit of land they didn't know about at that point.
The point is, we can't just simply trace back populations this way. It doesn't work - there are way too many variables. Plus, we have evidence of people living long before 6,000 years ago - look at Egypt and Sumatra alone. They had invented glue by that time.
2006-12-27 16:32:20 · answer #2 · answered by eri 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
David,
Extrapolating population figures backwards to come to the conclusion that man has only been on earth for 6000 years is BAD SCIENCE - and worse yet, it is false science...
You cannot extrapolate population statistics when birth and death rates change constantly, war and disease (which killed off half the population of Europe in 50 years with the Black Plague...) ravages humanity, and using CURRENT rates of growth. These things do not stay constant and are thus useless in computations. In the early 19th century, millions of people died from the flu...how many people today die from the flu? Small Pox? Measles? Rubella? All of these diseases have been eradicated from earth - how can you extrapolate without taking into account these diseases?
2006-12-27 16:32:49 · answer #3 · answered by YDoncha_Blowme 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Wars, famine and disease have kept the human population from exploding. Now, we use all means possible to make sure that every human life is saved. While this sounds good, it also means that genetic defects are being passed on to subsequent generations, therefore creating people in this world that should not be here. This practice has also created mutated diseases that will one day get the best of us, then the problem will resolve itself once more.
2006-12-27 16:29:25 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You must remember that for hundreds of thousands of years humans were hunter/gatherers.
Agriculture to support larger populations has only been around for about 5000-10000 years.
Look at pre-colonial Australian populations, about Half a Million for an entire continent to see sustainable hunter/gatherer populations.
2006-12-27 16:48:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dear Lord,
Please inspire your servant David to actually read an introductory text on the subjects of Biology and Demography. I don't ordinarily talk to you, but you seem to hold a lot of sway with him. It's a long shot, I know, but just this once, I'd really appreciate it.
Love,
Lazarus
2006-12-27 16:34:21 · answer #6 · answered by The Man Comes Around 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What assumptions are you making here? How many children per couple? What about the impact of plagues in human history and other natural disasters? You can make out to be what ever you want.
2006-12-27 16:28:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
1-A lack of natural predators (other than our own species).
2-Modern medicine, fighting off natural population controlling disease.
3- It is not yet the time of the end.
.
2006-12-27 16:45:42 · answer #8 · answered by Jimmy Dean 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A bunch of statistics errors and idiotic ignorance.
1-it seems like you're trying to fit a line to curved data.
2-the human population has risen as technology advanced.
3-5000 years ago-we have evidence of humans existing in every continent except (duh) antarctica.
4-50000 years ago-we have fossil evidence of humans/early humans in all continents except Antarctica.
2006-12-27 16:38:35 · answer #9 · answered by Sparkiplasma 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Man, that is the most far out, ridiculous, juvenile question I have ever read on this site. Did you ever hear about and read about Lucy?
2006-12-27 16:30:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋