Honest Science Proves Evolution Impossible (Page 3): This calculation does not address the age of the earth just the population of humans...

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

silver wrote:

So which is it? Is the world only 6,000 years old or is your 50,000 figure correct or maybe the earth is 1.000,000 years old or a billion or 5 billion? If man walked with dinosaurs then how about all the people that dinosaurs ate? I am sure that quite a few dinosaurs were meat eaters so how many people did they eat? Would this affect your numbers?

This calculation does not address the age of the earth just the population of humans

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

[quote=Racmanaz][quote=user47602]but Noah had a wife and 3 sons with wives in their prime childbearing years :roll:[/quotypo on
Yes, they calculated it for 2 people for the 200,000 years and 8 people afyer the flood, sorry I missed typoed on that Thinking Adam and Eve.[/quote]

So according to you the world is only 6,000 years old?

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

silver wrote:

Honest science, HAHAHAHAHA

Like I said, do your own sides math and see how the calculations come out

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

silver wrote:

So according to you the world is only 6,000 years old?

Remember, evolutionists estimated the population 200,000 years ago started with no less than 10,000. We let you all start with just 2 to make it favor your sides theory.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

silver wrote:

So according to you the world is only 6,000 years old?

I have no idea how old it is, this is not addressed.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

silver wrote:

So according to you the world is only 6,000 years old?

I have no idea how old it is, this is not addressed.

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

Racmanaz wrote:

Remember, evolutionists estimated the population 200,000 years ago started with no less than 10,000. We let you all start with just 2 to make it favor your sides theory.

I personally have never heard this anywhere, seems kind of silly to even consider. How about all of the pre Homo sapiens and the Neanderthals, are they included?

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

Racmanaz wrote:

I have no idea how old it is, this is not addressed.

You are always claiming that the earth is 6,000 years old, you say that a supposed flood was 5,000 years ago and you claim that dinosaurs were only a few thousand years ago so what do you really believe or are you just throwing out ideas of which you have no true knowledge of? You seem confused about your "facts".

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

Racmanaz wrote:

Remember, evolutionists estimated the population 200,000 years ago started with no less than 10,000. We let you all start with just 2 to make it favor your sides theory.

Who said this, where?

OldDoc Loc: New York

Johnny Carson used to say "buy the premise, buy the joke". If you buy the premise that homo sapiens arose from 2 individuals, then you buy the joke. If you believe the evidence that our species arose gradually over time, then the premise is broken, and the joke is on you.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

OldDoc wrote:

Johnny Carson used to say "buy the premise, buy the joke". If you buy the premise that homo sapiens arose from 2 individuals, then you buy the joke. If you believe the evidence that our species arose gradually over time, then the premise is broken, and the joke is on you.

You are confusing scientific mathematics with a philosophical argument. They are taking the Atheistic/Evolutionist theory of time and population among other probabilities and assigning a generous population number to make it fair. Even with a population of just 2 humans from 200,000 years of homo sapien "history", it still fails miserably for it to be a probability of only 7.2 billion homo-sapiens in todays world population. The numbers are just not favorable for the theory of evolution, take it or not it's very damning to that theory.

OldDoc Loc: New York

Racmanaz wrote:

You are confusing scientific mathematics with a ph... (show quote)

If you want to see how real mathematicians treat population growth, look at this: http://www.sol.duke.edu/cunningham/Phylogeography/Readings/RogersHarp.1992.pdf. This paper describes how actual populations row in waves, not in idealized exponential curves. What this means is that the "scientific" posting of yours is nonsense.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

OldDoc wrote:

If you want to see how real mathematicians treat population growth, look at this: http://www.sol.duke.edu/cunningham/Phylogeography/Readings/RogersHarp.1992.pdf. This paper describes how actual populations row in waves, not in idealized exponential curves. What this means is that the "scientific" posting of yours is nonsense.

Naww, that's just nonsense, talk about multitudes of assumptions just to confuse the reader enough to believe it regardless of it's nonense. It's not that hard, even a complete moron can figure out that the population would be in the trillion trillions even if we started off with just 2 people from 200,000 years ago. Sorry your math does not add up to the correct numbers, thanks for playing but no go.

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

Racmanaz wrote:

You are confusing scientific mathematics with a ph... (show quote)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA just more of your nonsense.

silver Loc: Santa Monica Ca.

Racmanaz wrote:

Naww, that's just nonsense, talk about multitudes of assumptions just to confuse the reader enough to believe it regardless of it's nonense. It's not that hard, even a complete moron can figure out that the population would be in the trillion trillions even if we started off with just 2 people from 200,000 years ago. Sorry your math does not add up to the correct numbers, thanks for playing but no go.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA just silly assumptions.