Earth's Population Refutes Evolution

[Spiritual Warrior]

Grant R. Jeffery writes in The Signature of God: "The evolutionary scientists who believe that man existed for over a million years have an almost insurmountable problem. Using the assumption of forty-three years for an average human generation, the population growth for over a million years would produce twenty three thousand two hundred and fifty six consecutive generations. We calculate the expected population by starting with one couple one million years ago and use the same assumptions of a forty three year generation and 2.5 children per family.....the evolutionary theory of a million years would produce trillions x trillions x triollions x trillions of people that should be alive today on our planet. To put this in perspective, this number is vastly greater than the total number of atoms in our vast universe. If mankind had lived on earth for a million years, we would all be standing on enormously high mountains of bones from trillions of skeletons of those who had died in past generations. However despite the tremendous archeological and scientific investigation in the last two centuries, the scientists have not found a fraction of the trillions of skeletons predicted by the theory of evolutionary scientists."

[truseek]

Grant R. Jeffery writes in The Signature of God: "The evolutionary scientists who believe that man existed for over a million years have an almost insurmountable problem.  Using the assumption of forty-three years for an average human generation, the population growth for over a million years would produce twenty three thousand two hundred and fifty six consecutive generations.  We calculate the expected population by starting with one couple one million years ago and use the same assumptions of a forty three year generation and 2.5 children per family.....the evolutionary theory of a million years would produce trillions x trillions x triollions x trillions of people that should be alive today on our planet.  To put this in perspective, this number is vastly greater than the total number of atoms in our vast universe.  If mankind had lived on earth for a million years, we would all be standing on enormously high mountains of bones from trillions of skeletons of those who had died in past generations. However despite the tremendous archeological and scientific investigation in the last two centuries, the scientists have not found a fraction of the trillions of skeletons predicted by the theory of evolutionary scientists."

He forgot to account for natural disaster and war, not to mention any other fallacies in that passage.

In Christ

Truseek

[Spiritual Warrior]

Natural disaster and war would not make bones disappear.

[Bread_of_Life]

Oh dear.

And what would these x trillions of people have eaten? And where would they have lived? And what do these questions tell us:

Very simple. They tell us that assumed a rate of 2.5 successful children per family for any length of time before present is obviously wrong. Anyone silly enough to think that the population has been growing this fast for a million years, even though the amount of food and space on earth could not support it, and that it would be a field day for predators, and that there have been several ice ages, have really and honestly checked their brains in at the door of their religion. Grant R Jeffrey clearly has.

Also, anyone who writes such a passage, without even checking what happens to skeletons post-mortem - without even finding out that skeletons waste away, are eaten and worn down by scavengers, and eventually disintegrate - shouldn't be published by any publisher, or on any website.

[BobTriez]

Oh dear.

And what would these x trillions of people have eaten? And where would they have lived? And what do these questions tell us:

Very simple. They tell us that assumed a rate of 2.5 successful children per family for any length of time before present is obviously wrong. Anyone silly enough to think that the population has been growing this fast for a million years, even though the amount of food and space on earth could not support it, and that it would be a field day for predators, and that there have been several ice ages, have really and honestly checked their brains in at the door of their religion. Grant R Jeffrey clearly has.

Also, anyone who writes such a passage, without even checking what happens to skeletons post-mortem - without even finding out that skeletons waste away, are eaten and worn down by scavengers, and eventually disintegrate - shouldn't be published by any publisher, or on any website.

Do you have a peer review to support this view of your's Nik ?

Seriously.....you won't take a Christian's claims without one - I hold you to the same standard.....looks like pure conjecture to me; unless of course, you have a peer review on it.....

God bless,

Bob

[BobTriez]

Oh dear.

And what would these x trillions of people have eaten? And where would they have lived? And what do these questions tell us:

Very simple. They tell us that assumed a rate of 2.5 successful children per family for any length of time before present is obviously wrong. Anyone silly enough to think that the population has been growing this fast for a million years, even though the amount of food and space on earth could not support it, and that it would be a field day for predators, and that there have been several ice ages, have really and honestly checked their brains in at the door of their religion. Grant R Jeffrey clearly has.

Also, anyone who writes such a passage, without even checking what happens to skeletons post-mortem - without even finding out that skeletons waste away, are eaten and worn down by scavengers, and eventually disintegrate - shouldn't be published by any publisher, or on any website.

Do you have a peer review to support this view of your's Nik ?

Seriously.....you won't take a Christian's claims without one - I hold you to the same standard.....looks like pure conjecture to me; unless of course, you have a peer review on it.....

God bless,

Bob

Before ya go technical on me here, let it be known I'm partially takin' a mickey on ya Nik Keepin' the mood light ( or trying to at least )

But seriously, you stated ( I assume you view as fact ? ) -

Very simple. They tell us that assumed a rate of 2.5 successful children per family for any length of time before present is obviously wrong.

If it's obviously wrong, where/what are your sources ? That's all I meant.....

God bless,

Bob

[Bread_of_Life]

Bob,

My claims (about populations) are not based on significant or new scientific evidence - they're based on a priori reasoning.

Premise 1: There is insufficient space and resources to feed trillions of people on earth

Conclusion 1: The population could never grow to trillions of people, as space and resources would run out before this time, and the population would stop growing.

Premise 2: The current growth rate of the human population implies, if run over a period of millions of years, a current population of trillions and trillions currently.

Conclusions 2: Given conclusion 1, the current population growth rate cannot have been sustained for a very long time.

As for the stuff on the decomposition of bones, that does require specialist scientific evidence that is not immediately available to anyone thinking and with a brain. You can find this here:

http://www.sgm.ac.uk/pubs/micro_today/pdf/110108.pdf

This is a paper on human decomposition, and you will find notes on the decomposition of bones on the second page. The paper contains graphic photographs of cadavers, in case you are sensitive to that.

Also, try reading:

Grupe, G., Dreses-Werringloer U., and Parsche F., (1993), Initial Stages of Bone Decomposition: Causes and Consequences, in: Lambert, J. B. and Grupe, G., Prehistoric Human Bone, Archaeology at the Molecular Level, 257-274.

or

Nielsen-Marsh, C.M., Gernaey, A.M., Turner-Walker, G., Hedges, R.E.M., Pike, A.G., and Collins, M. J. (2000) The chemical degradation of bone In: Osteology Current Practice and Future Prospects. (e.d. Cox, M & Mays S.) Greenwich Medical Media, London, pp. 439-454.

for a more in depth analysis.

[Spiritual Warrior]

Just a question:

Isn't one of the theories of thermodynamics, (layman's terms) That if something is left alone that it will decay? Ex. If you leave a buick out in a field for a period of time, it will eventually rot away. Same with anything else. If that is true then all of the Earth should be rotting away not evolving. Especially over millions of years.

[Bread_of_Life]

Spiritual Warrior,

I believe you are referring to the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics introduces a variable called "entropy", which is a measure of the ammount of useful work a system can do. It can also be views, at an atomic level, as a measure of the order of a system.

One of the consequences of the second law is that, when you have a closed system (a system that recieves and loses no energy from and to the outside) that entropy will always increase or stay the same, it cannot decrease. An increase in entropy, roughly speaking, is a decrease in order, or a decrease in the ammount of useful work as system can do.

In other words, a closed system can't get more ordered overall. The universe is a closed system, therefore the universe, overall, will tend towards disorder. That means that if you add up the ammount of order in all the different systems in the universe, that number can never decrease, it will only increase. However, that does not mean that one part of the universe cannot get more ordered - it just means that, if one part does get more ordered, there has to be as big if not bigger an increase in disorder elsewhere to make up for it.

Life on earth represents a small increase in order in a local area in the universe. However, our sun that supplies the energy with which we do useful things is experiencing a much larger increase in disorder to balance this out. Therefore, life does not contravene the second law of thermodynamics.

[Spiritual Warrior]

that's interesting thanks for clearing that up.

Did you know that the Bible states in Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." that means that we don't have to have evidence to believe, if we have evidence it wouldn't be faith. How else could God decide on who would follow him by being who he is (revealed to us through the scriptures). And it is by grace through faith that we are saved. A girl named Lea from Chi Alpha recently stated "I thought Christianity was about rejecting reality in order to psychologically prepare oneself for death. But now I know I was wrong."

"But the natural Man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerened" - I Corinthians 2:14