Can Someone Explain to Me Our Population History?

[image error]I feel like I am well educated. I made good grades through school, graduated college, received post collegiate certifications. I feel I am well rounded in my knowledge in various topics. But if I question scientists theories on some issues, I’m labeled a moron or a simpleton or naive.

One question I have is based on history and our population.

Here are some scientific facts and beliefs

Current world population is 7.8 billion as of May 2020

The world population reached the first billion in 1804

There were approximately 170 million people on the earth at 1 AD

Humans evolved in Modern day Africa 200,000 years ago and then started migrating around the world

The population didn’t start growing until after 10,000 BC and started to show real growth 5,000 BC. The population remained less than 1 million until this time due to lack of education in agriculture

American Museum of Natural History

Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History

https://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/humans-change-world

I have attached these websites and videos if you are interested.

I have a hard time believing that humans were on the planet for almost 200,000 years before they started populating. Sciences defense is a theory that the early humans didn’t know how to grow crops well, and so they never lived very long and if they had children, their children didn’t live for very long. Thus causing the population to never expand. Until dramatically around 5,000 BC.

I have a hard time understanding how a clay pot they find in Africa can be dated 150,000 BC. I understand the concept of carbon dating, but carbon dating doesn’t give detailed dates. It gives a broad range that even science says isn’t fully reliable (see below). I know I was born in 1981, the Eiffel Tower was built in 1889, and Michelangelo’s masterpiece, the Sistine Chapel, was painted in 1512. There are definitive dates for these items, but science uses 100,000 to millions of years in their dating. And in the fine print, many times it states theory.

So, let’s say they find a clay pot in Africa. Scientist say that civilizations didn’t start to understand agriculture until 5,000 BC. I’m not trying to sound facetious, but whose to say they mastered pottery in 100,000 BC? A clay pot preserved enough to stand the test of time for 100,000 years. They might have been killed off because they didn’t understand cultivation, but they knew how to make a lasting piece of Tupperware? I’m really not trying to poke fun. I’m just looking at it from a different perspective.

Also, I do not mean to sound degrading at this next comment, but there are many tribal communities in Africa and throughout the world that still live like they did thousands of years ago. They make clay pots, they build huts out of straw, they whittle weapons out of sticks. Their products are old age looking. What if the clay pot someone finds is actually just a few years old that got buried by a windstorm? What if the findings are from a family that died from a storm 50 years ago and not 50,000 years?

I’m just saying, what if? What if the complexities of carbon dating are not totally accurate because we can’t ask someone to verify that this piece of pottery is 55,000 years old. All we have is a theory with proven tests. I’m not saying science is manipulating us. I do not think that anyone is doing anything fraudulently. I’m just asking, what if it’s not right?

Time and time again I find reports that say carbon dating isn’t perfect.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/archaeology/radiocarbon-dating-explained/#close

People may think my faith is leaning me. But I’m here to say that as I went to school, I believed in evolution and the timeline of the earth stated by scientists. It probably wasn’t until the last 10 years that I started heavily questioning the reliability of these large estimated timelines and theories. I thought in school, they must be right. I’m just a student and they are much, much smarter than me. But the more I researched, the more I found the word theory in their thesis or published papers.

A theory is not always right. But if you can’t disprove it, then it may be possible.

Scientists go through grueling tests to prove their findings. And if no one can disprove it, it becomes truth.

I do not claim to understand everything. I am someone who asks questions and search for answers. Just because someone tells me the rose is yellow, I usually don’t believe it unless I see the rose. The same with theories. I sometimes have a cynical mind until I find conclusive proof.

Something that I find interesting is that in all my research the Middle East (Mesopotamia) is one of the first areas to always create civilization and it always begins between 10,000 BC to 5,000 BC. If humans evolved on this planet 200,000 years ago why isn’t there civilizations before this. And it’s interesting how these dates coincide with Biblical accounts of history. And the first book in the Bible, Genesis, states the first humans were in the Mesopotamia area.

When the writer of Genesis didn’t know that scientist were going to say that the first civilization was in the Middle East. The writer wrote what happened. The Bible also have detailed accounts of lineage. But they also have segments where they say, and they had other children and do not list each of their names. I feel like the writers would have put something in the Bible that said, “There were other people before Adam and Eve,” or “This does not account for all the people in the lineage.” But it never does, it gives specific names and sometimes ages. I often think, what person would spend a day writing fake names for a book that isn’t true just so they would have a fake lineage? There are multiple places in the Bible that all it is are names and names and more names. Very boring to read…but what if this is to prove this book has some factual importance.

The writers of the Bible didn’t think that people would be dissecting the text for historical relevance. No. They only wrote what they knew.

Many scientists have tried to debunk the Bible’s historical accuracy, only to find out that kings or cities that were unknown by them were later discovered in archeological digs. I’m not going to get into the authentication of the Bible being true as a religious work, but it’s been proven true many times in the historical aspect within its pages. Also, many scientists use religious texts in research and analysis.

So my question goes out.

How can science say that humans have been on the planet for 200,000 years when the only conclusive findings they have occur after 10,000 BC?

I have found documents that show how the biblical account of Genesis gets to our current population.

https://creation.com/biblical-human-population-growth-model

People may call me foolish, but I at least try to look at both sides of the argument.

If anyone has any good resources or thoughts, please let me know. This has always interested me.

Peace