Is this sufficient to prove that evolution theory is nonsense?

Question

In year 1750 the world population was 791 million. In year 1000 it was 310 million. This gives an average growth rate of 0.12% per year. This average takes into account all the effects of war, plagues, natural catastrophes, and negative growth periods. It also avoids recent technology and medicine. It is much less than the 0.8% growth rate over the past 250 years in primitive Africa. (en.wikipedia.org)

At this conservative rate, if we start with 2 people 20,000 years ago, the world population would grow to 52 billions. If we start 40,000 years ago, the world population would grow to 1*10**21. That's a density of 850,000 people per square foot of earth land area! If we start 1 million years ago, the world population would grow to 1*10**521.

Even science-fiction writers couldn't dream of such a large number. Yet, "evolution scientists" firmly believe in their 1-3 million years theory.

Answer 1

im sure the guy who wrote that in wikipedia is a christian -.-

Answer 2

The growth rate hasn't even been close to constant.

I don't know what "1-3 million years theory" is, but if you don't accept the age of the earth to be in the billions, then you are ignorant.

Answer 3

No

Population growth is computed using Log e.

Actually, I once computed a 6,000 year world from Adam and Eve and came up with 20 billion on the Earth.

That's considerably more than we have.

That's using log e, but not taking war, plague and other aspects into account.

Do you know how many people there would be if man was 500,000 years old.

Well over 200 billion.

Do you know how many elephants, frogs and sharks there would be!

Elephants live over 100 years.

Do you know what the Elephant population would be if elephants had been around for even 200,000 years!

Do the math.

Answer 4

Yes if you add this to the time....
It is estimated that 40 million mutation events would be required to produce 125 million differences in the DNA sequences to make humans. There’s not enough time in the evolutionary explanation for this to happen (Haldane’s Dilemma), and no new information is generated in these types of mutations anyway. Evolutionists have falsely claimed that chimp and human DNA is up to 99% similar. These studies only looked at gene coding regions, which are a tiny fraction of the actual 3 billion base pairs in the human genome.

Answer 5

Uh ... because it is so plausible to take the growth within 250 years as a fixed number to calculate the growth within 20.000 years ...
Yes, I can see where that makes sense.

Of course, you just conveniently forgot that homo sapiens sapiens hasn't been around all the time either, right?

Answer 6

B.S.

This simplistic hack at math fails to take into account environmental factors, varying lifespans in different periods, and a wide number of other factors.

Comic-book science does not apply to the real world.

Answer 7

What does this have to do with evolution? You are only talking about one species - humans. Their rate of reproduction over the many centuries since they appeared on earth has nothing to do with evolution.

Answer 8

... what does this have to do with evolution? I think you're just trying to make you MYTHOLOGY look more plausible, even though the thought of dirt going "poof" and becoming a man is ridiculous already.

Answer 9

Your numbers failed to account for the discovery of agriculture. Prior to that, humans barely sustained their populations.

Yours is the type of rigor we've come to expect from creationists.

Answer 10

The fact that they don't have one single shred of hard evidence to support their theory makes it nonsense. The rest is just icing on the cake!

Answer 11

No, it is not even remotely close to being in the same realm as "enough" to disprove evolution.

It's so bad it's not even wrong.