No Negroes

[NapoleonXIV]

The Creationist ace is population statistics. Even with a minimal growth rate, if human races have been on Earth for 1 million years as claimed by the theory of Evolution, then there should be AT LEAST several trillion people today. Whereas the statisics instead confirm the YEC Creationist model which shows a perfect exponential groth rate starting from 8 individuals (Noah & his sons) 4500 years ago. to the current 6 billion
http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html

..uh...doesn't this work both ways? I have two parents, and four grandparents, 8great grands, 16 great great grands etc,. By generation 50, (about 500 AD) I have 9,007,199,254,740,992 ancestors, yes? Well, obviously no, but how do you explain that?

 

[Flocculencio]

Simple- incest at great removes.

Which, of course, doesn't count as incest.

 

[robertp6165]

..uh...doesn't this work both ways? I have two parents, and four grandparents, 8great grands, 16 great great grands etc,. By generation 50, (about 500 AD) I have 9,007,199,254,740,992 ancestors, yes? Well, obviously no, but how do you explain that?

Because of several factors. A lot of people never marry. Many women (and men) are not fertile, so even if they do marry, there is no issue. Many children die before adulthood...indeed, high child mortality was probably the biggest factor limiting the growth of human population prior to the 20th Century. There have also been many historical disasters (plagues, famines, especially destructive wars) which have affected population growth. So historically, population doesn't double every generation...far from it.

 

[The Lurker]

The Creationist ace is population statistics. Even with a minimal growth rate, if human races have been on Earth for 1 million years as claimed by the theory of Evolution, then there should be AT LEAST several trillion people today. Whereas the statisics instead confirm the YEC Creationist model which shows a perfect exponential groth rate starting from 8 individuals (Noah & his sons) 4500 years ago. to the current 6 billion
http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html

yeah, but that's without accurately factoring for wars, plagues, famines, the fact that humanity was not/never has been evenly distributed across the globe and some areas can't support populations-- comes down to people living more in balance with their environment than is realized. Wth all that going on, it's higly unlikely that a perfectly exponential growth rate would have happened at all. For example, three bad harvests in Finland right about the time my ancestors came over here in the 1800s, and voila-- a third of the population there dies off.

Without 'negroes,' I am sad to say that western civilization would be much the poorer-- we would have no funk, soul, reggae, blues.....

As for what would have happened in the Americas, lack of negros as a labor source would have severely affected the course of history. For the English, at least, they had one potential source of grunt manpower close to hand-- the Irish and, to a lesser extent, the Scots. After the English Civil War and Cromwell's campaigns in Ireland and Scotland, the Protectorate and Restoration gov'ts made fairly extensive use of Scottish colonists --the Ulster sScots or Scots-Irish-- to garrison and tie down chunks of Ireland, partly because the Scots were Protestant and therefore slightly more trustworthy while remaining expendable. Same deal with Georgia-- originally settled by paid-of for deported Scotsmen as a military border between the Carolinas and Spanish Florida. They could well have done the same thing on a larger scale-- though still small relative to OTL-- with the Irish.


By the way, the Middle East was importing African slaves long before there was a 'europe' to emulate them. 5 million between 1500 and 1900 alone, in addition to whites and others. Slavery was only banned in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Oman in the 1960s.

 

[Leo Caesius]

By the way, the Middle East was importing African slaves long before there was a 'europe' to emulate them. 5 million between 1500 and 1900 alone, in addition to whites and others. Slavery was only banned in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Oman in the 1960s.

Once again -

• The Arabs were not the first to import African slaves - the Greeks and the Romans also had African slaves (see Snowden's Blacks in Antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience);
• Many of the blacks enslaved by the Arabs were destined for European markets. This was the case until the Portuguese circumvented the trans-saharan slave trade by sea, effectively cutting the Arab middlemen out. After the Portuguese rounded Africa, the trans-saharan slave trade eventually (but slowly) fizzled out.

 

[Dave Howery]

Once again -

• The Arabs were not the first to import African slaves - the Greeks and the Romans also had African slaves (see Snowden's Blacks in Antiquity: Ethiopians in the Greco-Roman Experience);
  

to be fair though, in those days, slavery was equal opportunity... whites were enslaved right alongside blacks in vast numbers. It wasn't until the Renaissance or thereabouts that slavery began to move towards 'black only'....