Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
so what doubling rate do you need when you start with 8 people about 4000 years ago? Seems to me if you start with 8 people as opposed to 7 million you need a much greater doubling rate to get to where we are today.
perhaps you can explain otherwise.
Try using the link :up:
Here's a hint: It's far shorter than what you need; within what would be considered reasonable going by what we see today.
It helps if we use precise terminology: The doubling "rate" is rightly a "period" (my mistake), so it wouldn't be "greater," it would be "shorter."
I don't think you've thought this through at all.
Rosenritter
New member
You are forgetting something obvious. We aren't dealing with doubling of modern populations. When someone lives several hundred years and has twenty children and no shortage of land to travel through the gains would be much higher. Look at the recorded life spans after the flood and they start decreasing from the earlier 900 plus years over a while before they reach today's ranges.
Longer life spans and more children equals faster population growth.
I am not assuming your earlier report was one hundred percent accurate either... Just explaining the methods of what you need to fairly consider evidences.
Jose Fly
New member
Does that mean you think dendrochronology is a valid science?
How'd they get up there?
We don't face a problem of needing faster population growth. With the flood about 5,000 years ago, a starting population of eight people and today's doubling period of 60 years, the population would be astronomical.
It's not much of a stretch to lengthen the doubling period to about 200 years to account for today's population, but the Darwinist has to go out to more than 500 years, which is just plain silly.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Typically, you didn't bother to think.I don't think you've thought this through at all.
https://ncse.com/cej/4/4/creationists-population-growth-bunnies-great-pyramid
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Typically, you didn't bother to think.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
I wonder why the Earth isn't overrun by rabbits? Perhaps Stripe can explain why not?
https://ncse.com/cej/4/4/creationists-population-growth-bunnies-great-pyramid
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Rosenritter
New member
The humanist Darwinist doesn't have a good explanation but I have a theory.
See, I know oysters live in water and that they don't have legs. With me so far?
So I think that mountain used to be under water. And the reason the oysters died with their shells open shows that they died super fast from a catastrophe... Like the fountains of the deep breaking open.
And after that the ocean floor raised and the flood water receded.
Unless you think they all walked up there, opened up their shells and died from the high atmosphere?
Rosenritter
New member
Because bunnies are dumb and food for every thing. Humans, on the other hand, expand to fill up their environment and form tribes, cities, and nations. Bunnies get eaten by dragons. Men band together to kill the dragons and drain the swamps.
My wife loves bunnies so I know all about this.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Isotope decay rates and the speed of light aren't constants but the.human population rate never changes? Did you even bother to read the article or were the words too big for you?
:chuckle: Then she's as nuts as you are.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Rosenritter
New member
Didn't bother with your article yet. My cell phone screen is too small for giving justice to large PDF files. I said I was on vacation this week without computer access.
Regardless of whatever your article might say, human nature has not changed in the past 4400 years, and men still band together and dominate their environment. But men are not bunnies, so your comparison wasn't valid. Prey animals like bunnies haven't taken over the world because they get eaten.
Last edited:
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
You'd be better off avoiding the conversation for the time being and doing a little research on the subject rather than show the world your ignorance. Avoid creationist sites, you will find no useful information therein.
Yeah, so? You'll need to explain how this obvious non sequitur applies to other factors that affect population growth/decline.
And you know this because of your extensive knowledge? All populations follow the same characteristic/variable growth rates regardless of species. You'll have to show why the creationist constant growth rate only applies to humans and no other species in spite of the known science.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Rosenritter
New member
Silent Hunter, I am not phased by your ad hominem attacks. I am well enough learned without needing your one specific PDF. Your suggestion to limit data to only that which is reported by sites agreeing with your world view is funny, however.
May I offer a suggestion that would help your argument? Refrain from straw man argumentative flaws such as assigning a "constant growth rate" claim which I certainly cannot recall stating. Show the courtesy of responding to the statements rather than creating weird arguments that seem easier to attack.
Again, amusing how controversial it is with you when I state that men are not bunnies. Or was it the prey vs hunter comparison that shocked you? Can't say because you haven't exactly been responding to what I say.
You asked about humans. You seriously haven't noticed that they behave differently from other species?
Dear Silent Hunter,
I believe a sincere apology is in order here. Stripe is NOT a bobblehead. I've found him to be right most all of the time, so I don't know where you are coming from. You don't know him that well, evidently. So I don't know why you post so negatively. People die too. Now, it's past 4 a.m. here, so I don't have time to post anymore. 2morrow, I'll discuss it further.
Michael
:rotfl:
- Status