If you make a super-conservative model of population growth considering war, famine, plagues, etc.., you will find that it's impossible mankind existed over 10,000 years otheriwse the population would be way beyond the current 6 billion. Evolution just doesn't make sense if you keep an open mind, but I can understand an Atheist's urge to believe in ANYTHING other than the alternative theistic philosphy.
39 comments
Ummm... If you take a super-conservative model, she or he will be mostly covered by clothing, and ergo, rather uninteresting.
Of course, because there wasn't any war, plague, famine, childbearing and illness at the time, NO SIR!
@DinDC you beat me to it, hey do I see ankle? And she can't be THAT conservative she is working.
Besides your entire post being wrong here you show you understand nothing "but I can understand an Atheist's urge to believe in ANYTHING other than the.." FSM. Atheist believe in nothing, they have no urge to believe in anything. But if you were to offer proof for any of your claims; conservative models, population growth, a 6000 year old Earth, etc someone would listen.
What a stupid argument. You are not considering war, famine, infant mortality, et al, nor are you taking into account the industrial revolution. In short, you fail.
The Black Death is estimated to have killed between one-third and two-thirds of the population of Europe in the 14C, and regular waves thereafter until 18C.
That would account for a BIG population hit (as well as bringing about the end of feudalism in England and elsewhere!)
And if zigzagzoo takes his model and works out how many people would have been around at, say, the time of the pyramids?
If you apply any consistant rate of population growth to today's population you end up with either too many people 200 years ago, or too few 2000 years ago. Conclusion, the human ROPG has changed over time.
ZZZ12: Without being presented with your particular "super-conservative" model, it is difficult to understand where you have gone so utterly wrong. Nonetheless, one of the most basic tenets of ecology is that populations expand until the environment cannot sustain more expansion, at which point the population reaches equilibrium. Thomas Malthus demonstrated this in demographic studies of human populations in the 19th century, and this understanding gave Darwin insight into how natural selection works.
Think about it for a second. Consider an orchid which may produce more than one million dust-like seeds in every fruit. Will every one of those seeds give rise to an adult, reproductively capable orchid? Of course not. If an initial population of orchids contained a single, one-flowered member, in the next generation there would be one million and one. In the generation after that you would have 10^12 orchids (fyi zz12; a one followed by 12 zeros). In the generation after that you would have 10^24, etc. By your logic, any species of orchids that doesn't number at least one million must have been created less than an orchid generation ago (1-5 years). It doesn't really make sense, does it?
@John
If growth of a single cell were unchecked, how quickly could a culture of E. coli reach the volume of the planet?
Hallelujah! I was here when the earth was created. If only I had been paying attention.
Sorry to tell you but science (that thing you loathe so much) with the ability to increase food supplies and decrease the infant mortality rate as well as increase the average life span of people is the reason population has increased so dramatically.
It's amazing what you learn when you're not a complete idiot.
But 16th cenutry Chinese censuses show some 150 million chinese, and they only increased to about 350 million by the beginning of the 20th century. The Roman Empire peaked at 90 million, while 16th century Europe only had aroud 100. Population growth was much slower before industry and modern medicine.
Let me introduce you to Early Man. Early man did not live in today's world, hence "Early". He lived in nature, picking fruit from bushes and running away from predators. When he got a disease, he had to hope it wouldn't kill him, as he couldn't run down to the pharmacy or doctor. He also faced the threat of death while trying to secure a mate, because as terrible as courtship is nowadays, then it was probably worse.
Also, if creationism is true, humanity would be inbred. There aren't any words to describe how inbred, because it would be more inbred than anything. Starting out with one pair, then suffering a bottleneck down the line that lead to only four pairs? The common cold would have destroyed us ages ago if that were the case.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
