Population doubling; a challenge to the Darwinist

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Do you need me to google that for you? Leave to an evolutionist to not know the argument. The reason for the bottle neck is because the model for population does not work.

Done:

http://bfy.tw/6XKD

AMR

 

[Crucible]

The Darwinist believes that the population about 4,000 years ago was something like 7 million.

Today's population doubling period is thought to be 60 years.

Assuming the accuracy of those numbers over all history, there would be 2.93x10³³ people on planet Earth.

The Earth is estimated to weigh about 6x10²⁵ kilograms, or about the equivalent of 6x10²³ sizable people.

On top of the fact that we have birth control, abortion, have children at an older age on average. People aren't obligated to birth as many either, as they used to in archaic times.

However, we have had an increasing success rate in infants actually surviving- centuries ago, people lived nearly as long now- until you insert the infant death rates. Then the average drops to 40.

I'm not a Darwinist, but there are factors to consider as far as the population detail.

 

[Stripe]

There are factors to consider as far as the population detail.

Obvously. The Darwinist cannot live with the doubling period suggested by OP's numbers, therefore he has to change them. They do not seem to disagree with the 7 million and they can't argue with the time that has passed, that leaves only the doubling period, which they are avoiding like the plague. :chuckle:

 

[6days]

On top of the fact that we have birth control, abortion, have children at an older age on average. People aren't obligated to birth as many either, as they used to in archaic times.

However, we have had an increasing success rate in infants actually surviving- centuries ago, people lived nearly as long now- until you insert the infant death rates. Then the average drops to 40.

I'm not a Darwinist, but there are factors to consider as far as the population detail.

As Christians, we should also consider that early humans would have long lives and large families. The earths current population is consistent with God's Word, creation and the flood.

 

[Jonahdog]

Do you need me to google that for you? Leave to an evolutionist to not know the argument. The reason for the bottle neck is because the model for population does not work.

No, Nick, you are the one that brought up the idea of population bottlenecks on this thread. If you had the information to back up your statement the simple, and honest, thing to do would be to provide the background information.
Perhaps you cannot, in which case, who cares what your claim is.

 

[Jonahdog]

The earths current population is consistent with God's Word, creation and the flood.

Wrong.

 

[Stripe]

No, Nick, you are the one that brought up the idea of population bottlenecks on this thread. If you had the information to back up your statement the simple, and honest, thing to do would be to provide the background information.Perhaps you cannot, in which case, who cares what your claim is.

Darwinists hate links.

 

[Jose Fly]

Evolutionists claim the reason the population does not match the model is bottle neck catastrophic events. Several in fact. Just not with a flood.

I love how creationists have effectively ceded every field of science to "evolutionists". :thumb:

 

[Stuu]

Obvously. The Darwinist cannot live with the doubling period suggested by OP's numbers, therefore he has to change them.

What is a 'doubling period', and what relevance does it have?

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

What is a 'doubling period', and what relevance does it have?

:darwinsm:

:mock: Darwinists.

 

[Stripe]