Population doubling; a challenge to the Darwinist

[Stripe]

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.

 

[Epoisses]

I know the traffic where I live doubles every year. The aliens will be coming soon to thin out the heard. I'm getting my bunker ready. My Archie Bunker reruns for when they send me to the prison camps.

 

[Jonahdog]

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, there would be 2.93x10³³ people on planet Earth.

The Earth is estimated to weigh about 6x10²⁵ kilograms, or about the equivalent of 6x10²⁷ sizable people.

Does today mean 2016?

 

[Jose Fly]

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, there would be 2.93x10³³ people on planet Earth.

The Earth is estimated to weigh about 6x10²⁵ kilograms, or about the equivalent of 6x10²⁷ sizable people.

You've posted some really stupid things before Stripe, but this is by far your best work.

Well done. :thumb:

 

[Silent Hunter]

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

 

[Stripe]

And the Darwinists have no answer again...

 

[Silent Hunter]

And the Darwinists have no answer again...

And Stripe, once again, IGNORES the answer in the post immediately proceeding his own as if it doesn't exist.

Come on Stripe, answer the question, why isn't the Earth covered in rabbits?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

And Stripe, once again, IGNORES the answer in the post immediately proceeding his own as if it doesn't exist.

Come on Stripe, answer the question, why isn't the Earth covered in rabbits?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Darwinists hate a challenge.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Darwinists hate a challenge.

If the "challenge" is expecting you to ever defend your asertions by answering a few questions then, yes.

You're a loser Stripe.
You always were.
You are now.
And if history is any judge, you always will be.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

If the "challenge" is expecting you to ever defend your asertions by answering a few questions then, yes.

You're a loser Stripe.
You always were.
You are now.
And if history is any judge, you always will be.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

Darwinists are forever resorting to insults; anything to dodge the challenge.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Darwinists are forever resorting to insults;

... said the pot to the kettle.

anything to dodge the challenge.

Your nonsense was addressed. You're pathetic.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[Stripe]

... said the pot to the kettle.

Perhaps you'll be able to show where I have insulted you. :idunno:

I can show where you have insulted me.

Your nonsense was addressed.

Oh, really? Were my data wrong? Was my math incorrect? What did you address — someone else's argument?

That's far from rational.

You're pathetic.

"That's a bingo."

 

[Silent Hunter]

Perhaps you'll be able to show where I have insulted you.

I can show where you have insulted me.

:yawn:

Oh, really? Were my data wrong? Was my math incorrect? What did you address — someone else's argument?

Yes. Yes. And, yes. I "addressed" you directly. You've never been one to admit when you've been proven wrong. Why should now be the exception?

That's far from rational.

Then we share something in common... NOT!

"That's a bingo."

Are you finally admitting what everyone else has known for years? It's about time! :chuckle:

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

Then we share something in common... NOT!

What you do share in common with Stripe is a family tree that traces back to Adam and Eve. You also share in common a sin nature since we all are descendants of first Adam.

What you do not share in common yet, is that Stripe has placed his trust in the 'last Adam'... Christ Jesus.

Also what you do not share in common is Stripes correct belief that all humanity... all 6 billion of us, arose from just a few couples that got off the ark about 4400 years ago. (Even some evolutionists come close to admitting a small population / bottleneck about 5000 years ago. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/steve-jones/3685402/View-from-the-lab-Incest.html)

 

[Stripe]

Were my data wrong?

Yes.

OK. Here they are:
"The Darwinist believes that the population about 4,000 years ago was something like 7 million."
Is that wrong?

"Today's population doubling period is thought to be 60 years."
Is that wrong?

Is my math incorrect?

Yes.

Here it is:

"Assuming the accuracy of those numbers, there would be 2.93x10³³ people on planet Earth."
Is that wrong?

"The Earth is estimated to weigh about 6x10²⁵ kilograms, or about the equivalent of 6x10²³ sizable people."
Is that wrong?

I "addressed" you directly.

Nope. You started rabbiting on about nonsense and got ignored. That's what happens around here when you insist on being a troll. :troll:

You've never been one to admit when you've been proven wrong.

Demonstrably false.

Why should now be the exception?

It shouldn't be. Show where my data or math are wrong and I'll happily correct it and thank you for your contribution to the conversation. :up:

 

[6days]

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

Some Darwinists believe that. But they are often willing to believe almost anything in order to escape the truth of God's Word. Other Darwinists have essentially conceded the Biblical timeline that humanity was all very closely related just a few thousand years ago. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/steve-jones/3685402/View-from-the-lab-Incest.html

 

[6days]

Nope. You started rabbiting on....

Classic example of bunny trails?

 

[Stripe]

Some Darwinists believe that. But they are often willing to believe almost anything in order to escape the truth of God's Word. Other Darwinists have essentially conceded the Biblical timeline that humanity was all very closely related just a few thousand years ago. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/steve-jones/3685402/View-from-the-lab-Incest.html

Does it say anything about the population 5,000 years ago?

 

[6days]

Were my data wrong?
OK. Here they are:
"The Darwinist believes that the population about 4,000 years ago was something like 7 million."
Is that wrong?

Stripe..... Funny thing how the evolutionists avoid admitting you are correct.
Another funny thing about population growth.... Evolutionists think humans have been on the earth for about 3 million years. They also think 'early humans' were not as highly developed as us. And we know that cultures we consider to be less highly developed have a much higher birth rate. We KNOW that the evolutionist numbers don't jive with reality so they rely on speculation to try shoehorn data to fit their 'religion'.

 

[chair]

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, 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.

Interesting.
Have you tried calculating what the population of Earth should be according to creationists? Use the same thinking. There were 2 people about 5,700 years ago. Population doubles every 60 years... what do you get?