noguru
Well-known member
I thought you did not trust math. :think: Or is that only when it is done by people who do not believe what you believe?
Population Growth Rates.
- Thread starter bob b
- Start date
I thought you did not trust math. :think: Or is that only when it is done by people who do not believe what you believe?
I trust math.
I do not trust mathematical models that have not been checked against reality.
Of course I love to speculate as much as the next person.
noguru
Well-known member
Please correct me if I am wrong, but is not the "reality" you speak of here your interpretation of Genesis?
What part of "In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth" do you not understand?
(And will you please stop cluttering up my threads with off topic posts?)
Okay my 11 year old daughter was in the top 20 at the state math meet this year so she knows math. She used the formula I gave you and for generation one the answer is 24, generation two is 72, generation three is 168, etc…… Guess what, that’s exactly the same numbers you came up with using your enumeration of your “feasibility study”. You just did it the hard way.
This is why I know you are not an engineer. You don’t understand simple algebra.
If they had died in your “study”, you would have had to subtracted them out at some point. There is nowhere you did that.
You made the statement. I just used your numbers.
You state at the top of your “feasibility study” that you are “assuming four children per couple”. So which is it, 4 or 8?
You get funnier every time you say something. Up until about 60 years ago there was no birth control and the fertility age of a woman was about 14 to 45. That’s about 30 years. You want people to believe the normal size of a family was 30. LOL
No I was using data from the countries you gave as countries with the highest population growth rates. I’m using your numbers, and you are now saying I’m not looking at the correct data.
No era has ever had zero infant mortality.
Well if it doesn’t happen, why are you using it as evidence?
The Bible gives no such population growth. In fact it gives the opposite. Noah didn’t even have children till he was 500 years old. And then he had only 3 sons in 150 years. It appears he either had an appalling lack of interest in sex or the age of the ancients in the Bible are somewhat embellished. If he had the same amount of daughters which you would expect and if his family was typical, that would have been 6 children over 900 years or a growth rate of 0.15%. Based on that growth rate, there would have only been 12 people to build the tower of Babel even after 240 years. Maybe they were just more efficient at building in those days. lol
I gave three different enumeration examples, 12, 8 and 4.
It is nice that your daughter can use a formula. Some people can't, so I used example that everyone could understand.
I gave three different enumeration examples, 12, 8 and 4.
It is nice that your daughter can use a formula. Some people can't, so I used enumeration examples that everyone could understand.
The Bible does not mention other sons and daughters of Noah, but this is common in the geneologies that precede him, where only the sons that are discussed later are mentioned. Unlike you, I assume that Noah had children other than Shem, Ham and Japheth, but only these three and their wives are specifically mentioned as being on the Ark with Noah and his wife.
If you wish to be absurd then do so. It's a free country (although it's getting less so with the passage of time and more laws).
And I used a formula which you said I should get someone that knows math to check my work. Why did someone need to check it unless you thought it was wrong? Basically you blew it and won't admit you're just doing a geometric progression which is exactly the same as any population equation whether a few people or millions of people. Except of course you want to use birth numbers instead of growth numbers.
The Bible specifically says Noah had children at 500 years old and that he took his whole house on the ark. You can assume anything you want to but there is no evidence for that.
You believe people were having children when they were 500 years old and you want to say I"M absurd. Now that's funny. But then you are a funny guy.
And I used the 4 children example to which you said "no I used 8, 4 of which were female". You have a hard time admitting you are wrong. I guess when you're in the upper 99% percentile that difficult. lol
Hank,
You seem to be terribly confused. I suggest you read my posts more carefully and respond to what I actually posted instead of what you think I posted.
The first example I gave was in post#5 of this thread. It assumed that the average number of children born to each couple was 12, six boys and six girls. The example was to show that the 12 sons could have, over 400 years, produced the number of Israelites stated in scripture, 600,000 men. In fact I started the example with 3 sons instead of 12 and did not include the wives and children which the Bible says they brought with them into Egypt. I also assumed that the average generation time was 30 years. In the sixth generation. 279,936. Finally I stated that : “The major parameter influencing the result is simply the average number of children born of each woman!”
Since only 180 years had passed in the example it should have been obvious that the statement in the Bible about Israelites growing to 600,000 men in 400 years was feasible and not a myth.
In post#12 it was stated: “Nice try, but Bob and I are referring to fertility rates across entire countries”. Of course that would be true of current statistics for entire countries, but only partially true for the example of Joseph and his brothers, especially since we started with low numbers and considering that the ages of people at death in those days was claimed by the Bible to be high compared to both today and after New Testament times.
In post#18 I presented the enumeration example of 8 children per couple and also reduced the time for each generation to 25 years. I also said (referring to the totals after only 175 years) : “If all adults died immediately after the birthing period the total would still be 385,216. This demonstrates the "magic" of compound interest. The Bible says that 400 years after the brothers moved to Egypt their descendants had grown to 600,000 men, not counting women and children.” Obviously this second example also falls into the category of “feasible”.
In post#20 I presented the enumeration example of 6 children per couple and also reduced the time for each generation to 22 years. I also said that : “Total population after 176 years and 8 generations = 236,184. If all adults died immediately after the birthing period the total would still be 157,464. This demonstrates the "magic" of compound interest.The Bible says that 400 years after the brothers moved to Egypt their descendants had grown to 600,000 men, not counting women and children. With 224 more years (10 more generations) to reach 600,000 men, I think it obvious that the Bible account is well within the range of feasibility, even if one assumes that the growth rate typically slows down as the population size increases.”
In post#34 I presented the enumeration example of 4 children per couple and also reduced the time for each generation to 20 years. I also said that : “Total population after 300 years and 15 generations = 1,564,840. If all adults died immediately after the birthing period the total would still be 786,432. This demonstrates the "magic" of compound interest. The Bible says that 400 years after the brothers moved to Egypt their descendants had grown to 600,000 men, not counting women and children.
In post #57 I erroneously agreed with when I shouldn’t have.
Hank Quote:
“The Bible records how many sons each person had. Where are you coming up with all these children? “
To which I answered (in error):
“Good point, but you need to remember that females are born too, although only rarely mentioned in the Bible.”
Gen 5:28And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: 29And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed. 30And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters: 31And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died. 32And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Gen 11:10These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: 11And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. 12And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah: 13And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. 14And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber: 15And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. 16And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg: 17And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters. 18And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu: 19And Peleg lived after he begat Reu two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and daughters. 20And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug: 21And Reu lived after he begat Serug two hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters. 22And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor: 23And Serug lived after he begat Nahor two hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.
BTW, when I suggested that someone should check your math I was referring to the fact that you had switched the subject from Joseph and his brothers growth rate to the growth rate after the Flood until the tower of Babel. In this case God specifically told them to multiply and refill the Earth. At that point the ages were still lengthly compared to the ages at the time of Joseph, meaning that the number of children born of each women could have been quite high, far beyond the numbers I had used for my example of Joseph and his brothers. Also note that the number of sons and daughters is not specified, only that they begat sons and daughters.
Also, regardless of what you may have seen on other websites, I showed using scripture that the time of Babel could have been as much as 239 years after the Flood. If the population had been small it would have been silly for scripture to talk about cities and nations. Obviously the populations were large, and considering the factors I have just mentioned there is no reason to doubt the validity of the scriptural accounts.
You seem to be terribly confused. I suggest you read my posts more carefully and respond to what I actually posted instead of what you think I posted.
The first example I gave was in post#5 of this thread. It assumed that the average number of children born to each couple was 12, six boys and six girls. The example was to show that the 12 sons could have, over 400 years, produced the number of Israelites stated in scripture, 600,000 men. In fact I started the example with 3 sons instead of 12 and did not include the wives and children which the Bible says they brought with them into Egypt. I also assumed that the average generation time was 30 years. In the sixth generation. 279,936. Finally I stated that : “The major parameter influencing the result is simply the average number of children born of each woman!”
Since only 180 years had passed in the example it should have been obvious that the statement in the Bible about Israelites growing to 600,000 men in 400 years was feasible and not a myth.
In post#12 it was stated: “Nice try, but Bob and I are referring to fertility rates across entire countries”. Of course that would be true of current statistics for entire countries, but only partially true for the example of Joseph and his brothers, especially since we started with low numbers and considering that the ages of people at death in those days was claimed by the Bible to be high compared to both today and after New Testament times.
In post#18 I presented the enumeration example of 8 children per couple and also reduced the time for each generation to 25 years. I also said (referring to the totals after only 175 years) : “If all adults died immediately after the birthing period the total would still be 385,216. This demonstrates the "magic" of compound interest. The Bible says that 400 years after the brothers moved to Egypt their descendants had grown to 600,000 men, not counting women and children.” Obviously this second example also falls into the category of “feasible”.
In post#20 I presented the enumeration example of 6 children per couple and also reduced the time for each generation to 22 years. I also said that : “Total population after 176 years and 8 generations = 236,184. If all adults died immediately after the birthing period the total would still be 157,464. This demonstrates the "magic" of compound interest.The Bible says that 400 years after the brothers moved to Egypt their descendants had grown to 600,000 men, not counting women and children. With 224 more years (10 more generations) to reach 600,000 men, I think it obvious that the Bible account is well within the range of feasibility, even if one assumes that the growth rate typically slows down as the population size increases.”
In post#34 I presented the enumeration example of 4 children per couple and also reduced the time for each generation to 20 years. I also said that : “Total population after 300 years and 15 generations = 1,564,840. If all adults died immediately after the birthing period the total would still be 786,432. This demonstrates the "magic" of compound interest. The Bible says that 400 years after the brothers moved to Egypt their descendants had grown to 600,000 men, not counting women and children.
In post #57 I erroneously agreed with when I shouldn’t have.
Hank Quote:
“The Bible records how many sons each person had. Where are you coming up with all these children? “
To which I answered (in error):
“Good point, but you need to remember that females are born too, although only rarely mentioned in the Bible.”
Gen 5:28And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son: 29And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed. 30And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters: 31And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died. 32And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
Gen 11:10These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: 11And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. 12And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah: 13And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. 14And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber: 15And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. 16And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg: 17And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters. 18And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu: 19And Peleg lived after he begat Reu two hundred and nine years, and begat sons and daughters. 20And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug: 21And Reu lived after he begat Serug two hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters. 22And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor: 23And Serug lived after he begat Nahor two hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.
BTW, when I suggested that someone should check your math I was referring to the fact that you had switched the subject from Joseph and his brothers growth rate to the growth rate after the Flood until the tower of Babel. In this case God specifically told them to multiply and refill the Earth. At that point the ages were still lengthly compared to the ages at the time of Joseph, meaning that the number of children born of each women could have been quite high, far beyond the numbers I had used for my example of Joseph and his brothers. Also note that the number of sons and daughters is not specified, only that they begat sons and daughters.
Also, regardless of what you may have seen on other websites, I showed using scripture that the time of Babel could have been as much as 239 years after the Flood. If the population had been small it would have been silly for scripture to talk about cities and nations. Obviously the populations were large, and considering the factors I have just mentioned there is no reason to doubt the validity of the scriptural accounts.
What part of that do you think I am confused about? The only confusion is your confusion that “the major parameter influencing the result is simply the average number of children born of each woman!”. Anyone with a sixth grade education understands that you have to subtract out the people that die to get a growth rate.
It doesn’t matter how old someone lived if they start having children late in life and only have a few which is what the Bible indicates.
Anyone with a fourth grade education understands that if you add in the sons for each generation and never take them out, that they are included in the total.
Anyone with a fourth grade education understands that if you add in the sons for each generation and never take them out, that they are included in the total.
Anyone with a fourth grade education understands that if you add in the sons for each generation and never take them out, that they are included in the total.
Why was that an error?
So?
You have consistently stated that you can not use the population growth formulas for small populations. Yet that is exactly what you are doing even though you don’t understand you are doing that. When someone says to check you math, they mean the calculations are wrong. If you were really an engineer, you would know that. You are just trying to wiggle out of a hole you have dug for yourself.
But in Chronicles, it does list the children and there are not that many. Besides, you are confused about the difference between the birth rate and the growth rate. Having children doesn’t mean all of them lived to have children.
The only thing you have shown is that if you use absurd numbers, you can get absurd answers. The Bible specifically says that Babel started with Nimrod, which was Noah’s great-grandson, not Peleg.
Here is a copy of one of my prior posts.
Joseph and his brothers – assume 8 children per son
As a check let us use the approach of enumeration.
Starting with the original 12 sons----------------------------------0
12 sons have 8 children each - 24+96 = 120------------------- 25
48 sons have 8 - 24+96+384 = 504------------------------------50
192 sons have 8 - 24+96+384+1536 = 2040--------------------75
768 sons have 8 - 24+96+384+1536+6144 = 8184------------100
3072 sons have 8 - 24+96+384+1536+6144+24576 = 32,760 --125
12288 sons have 8 -24+96+384+1536+6144+24576+98304 = 131,064--150
48152 sons have 8 -24+96+384+1536+6144+24576+98304+385216 = 516,280 -- 175
Total population after 175 years and 7 generations = 516,280
If all adults died immediately after the birthing period the total would still be 385,216"
Now I would like you to explain why you think I did not omit all prior generations (including sons) when I said in the last quoted sentence that: If all adults died immediately after the birthing period the total would still be 385,216".
Note carefully the number immediately prior to the = sign in each line above.
This should convince you that you have been in error in saying that I did not omit the adults (including men) in the 385,216 number.
This demonstrates the "magic" of compound interest.
The Bible says that 400 years after the brothers moved to Egypt their descendants had grown to 600,000 men, not counting women and children."
BTW, do you have any idea what the record is for the most children born to a woman? It's listed in the 1998 edition of The Guiness Book of World's Records.
Would you guess that it is less than 50 or greater than 50?
Joseph and his brothers – assume 8 children per son
As a check let us use the approach of enumeration.
Starting with the original 12 sons----------------------------------0
12 sons have 8 children each - 24+96 = 120------------------- 25
48 sons have 8 - 24+96+384 = 504------------------------------50
192 sons have 8 - 24+96+384+1536 = 2040--------------------75
768 sons have 8 - 24+96+384+1536+6144 = 8184------------100
3072 sons have 8 - 24+96+384+1536+6144+24576 = 32,760 --125
12288 sons have 8 -24+96+384+1536+6144+24576+98304 = 131,064--150
48152 sons have 8 -24+96+384+1536+6144+24576+98304+385216 = 516,280 -- 175
Total population after 175 years and 7 generations = 516,280
If all adults died immediately after the birthing period the total would still be 385,216"
Now I would like you to explain why you think I did not omit all prior generations (including sons) when I said in the last quoted sentence that: If all adults died immediately after the birthing period the total would still be 385,216".
Note carefully the number immediately prior to the = sign in each line above.
This should convince you that you have been in error in saying that I did not omit the adults (including men) in the 385,216 number.
This demonstrates the "magic" of compound interest.
The Bible says that 400 years after the brothers moved to Egypt their descendants had grown to 600,000 men, not counting women and children."
BTW, do you have any idea what the record is for the most children born to a woman? It's listed in the 1998 edition of The Guiness Book of World's Records.
Would you guess that it is less than 50 or greater than 50?
Last edited:
Maximum Fecundity
http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios101/humanlifehistory/tsld010.htm
Humans have a very low fecundity compared to many other animals.
The maximum number of offspring credited to a human female is 69, to a 18th century Russian woman that repeatedly produced twins. The Guinness Book of World Records cites a living Argentine woman who has given birth to 38 children.
http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios101/humanlifehistory/tsld010.htm
Humans have a very low fecundity compared to many other animals.
The maximum number of offspring credited to a human female is 69, to a 18th century Russian woman that repeatedly produced twins. The Guinness Book of World Records cites a living Argentine woman who has given birth to 38 children.
You all realize the black death killed off half of Europe? Anyone think it was the first epidemic.
Latest "Economist" has a story on population projection in Japan. In most civilized countries the birth rate in now less than that required to maintain population. The average age is rising. The problem will be sufficient working population to suport the old people.
Latest "Economist" has a story on population projection in Japan. In most civilized countries the birth rate in now less than that required to maintain population. The average age is rising. The problem will be sufficient working population to suport the old people.
By that time populations had spread throughout the globe. In addition there was less of a problem outside the cities, and most of the population of Europe lived in the cities. This is why those who had money moved outside the crowded cities. See Wikipedia.
True but irrelevent to the subject of whether there was sufficient time for Joseph and his brothers to grow a nation of 600,000 men in 400 years or even for the 8 human survivors of the Flood to grow a population large enough to start to build the Tower of Babel in as little as 239 years.
I have shown that both stories are feasible.
themuzicman
Well-known member
Today, 2/6s of the population lives in China/India.
Both nations favor families who produce an eldest male, and China, with its one child policy, exacerbates this problem.
Thus, what happens in both nations is that first baby females are frequently aborted.
Last I heard, there was a 30 million "woman of marrying age" shortage in China, and it was supposed to get worse by 1 million per year for the next generation.
Thus, not only is China cutting the portions of its population that it enforces this in half, but it's worse, because there are more men than women, and women are the defining factor in how many children may be produced in the following generation.
India will soon have similar issues.
And, last I checked, Spain, Italy and Japan had a 1.2 birth/woman rate (2.1 is needed to sustain), and Europe was hovering around 1.5 births/woman.
The US is around 1.9, but increases population through immigration.
Muz
Both nations favor families who produce an eldest male, and China, with its one child policy, exacerbates this problem.
Thus, what happens in both nations is that first baby females are frequently aborted.
Last I heard, there was a 30 million "woman of marrying age" shortage in China, and it was supposed to get worse by 1 million per year for the next generation.
Thus, not only is China cutting the portions of its population that it enforces this in half, but it's worse, because there are more men than women, and women are the defining factor in how many children may be produced in the following generation.
India will soon have similar issues.
And, last I checked, Spain, Italy and Japan had a 1.2 birth/woman rate (2.1 is needed to sustain), and Europe was hovering around 1.5 births/woman.
The US is around 1.9, but increases population through immigration.
Muz
All interesting, but irrelevent to the subject of whether there was sufficient time for Joseph and his brothers to grow a nation of 600,000 men in 400 years or even for the 8 human survivors of the Flood to grow a population large enough to start to build the Tower of Babel in as little as 239 years.
I have shown that both stories are feasible.
Which of course was why I started this thread in the first place.
I have shown that both stories are feasible.
Which of course was why I started this thread in the first place.
The only think you have shown is that if women had enough children and none of them died before having the same amount of children, then the numbers would be large. There is certainly no evidence of that ever happening in real life and common sense would tell anyone that many children die in infancy. You stated that “The most important factor is the number of children born by each female, which according to the UN is amazingly high in subSahara Africa.” and then don’t use the growth rates of the data you say is “amazingly high”. You show that you don’t understand what the population formula when you state “You don't seem to realize that an exponential curve is not appropriate until the population numbers grow higher.” when you are using an exponential curve to calculate birth rates with zero infant mortality. As well as the fact that you don’t have a clue as to why anyone would think Peleg built the tower of Babel.
I have shown in the case of Joseph and his brothers that 400 years is a quite suficient amount of time to reach a population of 600,000 men even if the fertility rate was as low as 4 children born to each women. Since we do not have accurate data on how many children die in backward countries before they reach adulthood I used the fertility rate of 4 (extremely conservative) to take this into account.
The case of the Flood survivors differs in that the lifespans were much longer before and after the Flood and only became reduced after hundreds of years.
Thus the fertility rate was undoubtedly much higher in first 100 or 200 years after the Flood.
God told Noah and the survivors to reproduce and fill the Earth, which they did.
I gave one illustration of many children could be born to one women: 69 in only 40 years (multiple births). Imagine how many could have been born if the lifespan after the Flood was 10 times longer !!!!
Since most Biblical historians believe Peleg was the instigator of the Tower project I used that in my example.