World population (fwd)
don <dsmcdona.ld@see.sig.below>
--
don s mcdonald | loto adviser + maths |
wellington2, new zealand | +64 4 389 6820.
hiNT R.eply-to: dsmcdona<AT>actrix.gen.nz (replace <AT> by @ )
formerly don.mc...@welcom.gen.nz n.b. suppress ".ld".
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1998 07:25:53 +1200 (NZST)
From: "don <dsmcd...@see.sig.below>" <dsmc...@mail.actrix.gen.nz>
To: Brian Tozer <bria...@ihug.co.nz>
Subject: Re: World population
Brian,
Suppose 1K = 1024 = 2^10 = = approx. 1000.
Then 1M = 1048576 = approx 1E6.
1G = approx 1E9.
Population from Noah to 1998 may have increased 6 - 5E9.
= 2^(30) = 2^ 29.6.
Ln (5e9 / 6 ) / ln 2 = 29.6. natural logarithm.
Doubling every 135 years. = 4,000/ 29.6.
--
don s mcdonald | loto adviser + maths |
wellington2, new zealand | +64 4 389 6820.
hiNT R.eply-to: dsmcdona<AT>actrix.gen.nz (replace <AT> by @ )
formerly don.mc...@welcom.gen.nz n.b. suppress ".ld".
On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, Brian Tozer wrote:
> Sourced with mods from talk.origins.
>
> We have all the information needed to determine the implications of the
> creationist population model.
> Consider: We know current population; call it 5*10^9. We know the starting
> population (after the flood) of 6 (Noah's 3 sons and their wives). We know
> that the flood was 4000 years ago (close enough). Plug these into the
> equation
> P(t) = P(0) * e^(kt),
> i.e. 5*10^9 = 6 * e^(k*4000), and solve for k, the rate of increase.
> Then plug your value for k back into the equation for various values of t,
> like 1000 (building of the pyramids) and 2000 (nice average date for the
> Roman Empire).
Rembrandt Kuipers
Wed, 8 Apr 1998 07:46:47 +1200,
<Pine.BSI.3.95.980408...@mail.actrix.gen.nz>
"don <dsmcd...@see.sig.below>" <dsmc...@mail.actrix.gen.nz>:
> Brian,
> Suppose 1K = 1024 = 2^10 = = approx. 1000.
> Then 1M = 1048576 = approx 1E6.
> 1G = approx 1E9.
Hang on, why are we using these versions of K, M, G, which are usually only
used within the computer industry? Normally 1k = 1E3, 1M = 1E6, and 1G =
1E9. Exactly, not approximately.
This seems to be an silly approximation just to avoid doing the trivial
mathematics to work out the period of time in which the population doubles.
> Population from Noah to 1998 may have increased 6 - 5E9.
> = 2^(30) = 2^ 29.6.
2^30 = 2^29.6? :)
Well, taking our current population to be 6E9, the figures are:
P(t) = P(0) * e^(kt) -> ln(P(t)) = ln(P(0)) + kt
k = (ln(P(t)) - ln(P(0))/t = (ln(6E9) - (ln(6))/4000 = 0.005181 (4 sf)
Time population doubles is when P(t)/P(0) = 2:
P(t)/P(0) = e^(kt) -> 2 = e^(0.005181t) -> ln(2) = 0.005181t
t = ln(2)/0.005181 = 133.8 years (4 sf).
Also, lets say we want some useful figures, say at 500 year intervals:
e^(500*0.005181) = 13.34 (4 sf), so:
P( 0) = 6 * 13.34^0 = 6 (2 sf)
P( 500) = 6 * 13.34^1 = 80 (2 sf)
P(1000) = 6 * 13.34^2 = 1,100 (2 sf)
P(1500) = 6 * 13.34^3 = 14,000 (2 sf)
P(2000) = 6 * 13.34^4 = 190,000 (2 sf)
P(2500) = 6 * 13.34^5 = 2,500,000 (2 sf)
P(3000) = 6 * 13.34^6 = 34,000,000 (2 sf)
P(3500) = 6 * 13.34^7 = 450,000,000 (2 sf)
P(4000) = 6 * 13.34^8 = 6,000,000,000 (2 sf)
> don s mcdonald | loto adviser + maths |
Lotto advisor? The only sensible Lotto advice is "don't play". Do people
pay for that? :)
> On Thu, 19 Mar 1998, Brian Tozer wrote:
>> Sourced with mods from talk.origins.
>> We have all the information needed to determine the implications of the
>> creationist population model.
>> Consider: We know current population; call it 5*10^9. We know the starting
>> population (after the flood) of 6 (Noah's 3 sons and their wives). We know
>> that the flood was 4000 years ago (close enough). Plug these into the
>> equation
>> P(t) = P(0) * e^(kt),
>> i.e. 5*10^9 = 6 * e^(k*4000), and solve for k, the rate of increase.
>> Then plug your value for k back into the equation for various values of t,
>> like 1000 (building of the pyramids) and 2000 (nice average date for the
>> Roman Empire).
I don't think it is an appropriate assumption to make the population growth
rate is constant.
If you want to make this sort of analysis, take the figures of when Moses
was going across the desert, they present far more difficulties for the
"literal" Bible" brigade. :)
Rem
Brian Tozer
Rembrandt Kuipers wrote in message
>"don <dsmcd...@see.sig.below>" <dsmc...@mail.actrix.gen.nz>:
If you can make any sense out of any of Don's incomprehensible posts you are
a better man than any one else so far!
>If you want to make this sort of analysis, take the figures of when Moses
>was going across the desert, they present far more difficulties for the
>"literal" Bible" brigade. :)
You mean approx. two million for 40 years with 2 midwives and leaving
absolutely no archaeological evidence of their residence there, or any
linguistic evidence in either the Hebrew or Egyptian language of their
sojourn in Egypt?
The story was obviously written in approx. Ezra's time.
The story of Moses in the Bulrushes was lifted from an earlier pagan myth.
Brian Tozer
Patrick Dunford
Verily, verily "Brian Tozer" <bria...@ihug.co.nz> didst write on Wed,
8 Apr 1998 17:44:41 +1200 in
nz.soc.religion:<6gf33b$q7p$3...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>...
>Rembrandt Kuipers wrote in message
>>"don <dsmcd...@see.sig.below>" <dsmc...@mail.actrix.gen.nz>:
>
>If you can make any sense out of any of Don's incomprehensible posts you are
>a better man than any one else so far!
'nuf said :)
---
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
Home Page: http://www.caverock.net.nz/~pdunford/
Messages: http://www.caverock.net.nz/~pdunford/message.htm
Rembrandt Kuipers
Wed, 8 Apr 1998 17:44:41 +1200, <6gf33b$q7p$3...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
"Brian Tozer" <bria...@ihug.co.nz>:
> If you can make any sense out of any of Don's incomprehensible posts you are
> a better man than any one else so far!
I just thought he was Christian. :)
>> If you want to make this sort of analysis, take the figures of when Moses
>> was going across the desert, they present far more difficulties for the
>> "literal" Bible" brigade. :)
> You mean approx. two million for 40 years with 2 midwives and leaving
> absolutely no archaeological evidence of their residence there, or any
> linguistic evidence in either the Hebrew or Egyptian language of their
> sojourn in Egypt?
That is part of it. Also the population growth figures implied. (I can't
remember the details now, and can't be bothered looking them up.)
Also I should mention the population growth formula is far more useful if
you take it from to the earliest recorded human population figures and show
an unrealistically quick growth rate, than if you try and make it equal
between the flood and now.
If it rose from 6 people to 12 million people in 2000 years, that would
mean the population doubled in 96 years. Is that realistic is the real
question. Well it is certainly possible, so shows nothing.
I don't think reliable population estimates go back far enough to make use
of this sort of calculation. What are our earliest population figures? Even
a population of 1 million after 500 years gives 26 years to double the
population. Rather fast growth, but not impossible.
Rem
"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers
that may never be questioned."
Brian Tozer
Rembrandt Kuipers wrote in message
>I don't think reliable population estimates go back far enough to make use
>of this sort of calculation. What are our earliest population figures? Even
>a population of 1 million after 500 years gives 26 years to double the
>population. Rather fast growth, but not impossible.
I agree that I don't think that they are of any use at all.
I thought that the original argument looked interesting, but soon regretted
quoting it.
Brian Tozer
Rembrandt Kuipers
Wed, 8 Apr 1998 22:46:00 +1200, <6gfkpo$csl$2...@newsource.ihug.co.nz>
"Brian Tozer" <bria...@ihug.co.nz>:
> I agree that I don't think that they are of any use at all.
> I thought that the original argument looked interesting, but soon regretted
> quoting it.
Isn't it empowering though to have the liberty to change your views when
the evidence indicates you were mistaken! I know I have found this liberty
very useful on numerous occasions. :)
Rem