Except during plagues and natural disasters of course.
We know that the Black Death killed off about half the population of Europe and that it took over 200 years for the population to recover because we do have records from back then. It had a similar effect in Asia as well.
That's not really what you said in your post, you said that past ones teens average life expectancy would be about the same as today, in fact it would still be lower for most of history due to the modern reduction in adult mortality, which was a significant factor.
What scientists are these then? No reputable scientist has ever claimed that human populations have doubled every 125 years over history or even that the rate has been steady because we actually have population figures from the last thousand years they show show that the rate did not double...
No you are not aware. Ice can show layers for tens of thousands of years of snowfall and the layers are not estimated, that are observed based on the physical properties of snow and ice.
An Actuary would laugh his *** off at that theory, because Actuaries do have an understanding to how to calculate factors affecting human life expectancies. But the most important fact is that were we do have data from the last 2,000 years it clearly shows that your calculations are horse pucky...
The trouble with the figures on the wiki page is that it is very broad brush. But it shows that average life expectancies were significantly lower in the past than now. The longer life expectancies shown are again for he exceptions to the rule, minority social classes that occupied privileged...
Yes, all still felines, just as they are all still Carnivora and Mammals because that is how the human classification system works. So 40 extant species evolved from the "Cat Kind" that have been claimed to be taken on the ark. The proposed "Wild Cat" kind has evolved into 34 different species...
I don't think that is correct, it may be close to modern values if we take a global average but its definitely not the case for industrialised nations. Even for adults the probability of reaching old age was greatly reduced due to the potential severity of any illness or injury. The potential...
And adult mortality. Any injury could be potentially life threatening as could any infection, even those we consider minor today (just take a look at the potential issues with medical care if we end up with no more effective antibiotics).
But I think that excluding 2 of the major causes of...
Less than that, after all we have records from 2-3 thousand years ago that show that there were already multiple species of felines ranging in size from the housecat to the lion present near the fertile crescent.
So you claim that its just hyper-evolution rather than super-hyper-evolution...
I didn't say nothing was decaying.
Thanks for confirming that you know absolutely nothing about radiometric dating other than the lies that you copy from creationist websites.
And its not as if we don't have good records going close to one thousand years or so that show that not only were populations pretty stable for some periods of time there were instances where populations shrank markedly, such as after the Black Death which we know killed half the inhabitants of...
And perhaps just as important... Piltdown Man had absolutetly zero influence on Darwin and his work. Mainly because Darwin died 30 years before Piltdown Man was "discovered".
But that is the organism rather than the isotope. Which is the point I was making, the circumstances that give us the "reset" of the clock generally differ for the different isotopes.
I disagree, none of the examples you give encompass "starting decaying" or "starting clocking".
Decay is an inherent characteristic of certain isotopes, its not something that starts or stops it is an ongoing process. In the same way clocking does not start or stop, its another ongoing process...
If I were to be so arrogant as to assume that the only reason for the existence of the Universe was to produce me then your argument might make some sense, however since neither you or I are special to the Universe all you are doing is showing your ignorance of statistics.
Not really, if anyone does the math (I have) then, taking the rate of recession as a constant, the moon was about half its current distance from the earth at just over 4 billion years ago. Creationists have to lie about the maths (as they do on so many other things).
Found a link to someone...
Nothing "started clocking or decaying", radioactive decay is a result of the fundamental nature of matter itself and the only things that can alter those decay rates (and only some types of decay in any case) involve forces never found on our planet.
Its really not worth anyone's effort trying...
Lets open by pointing out that the first article that JM2C seems to think I am "contradicting" was dated 1982, the change in time frames that can be determined is for no reason other than the improved sensitivity of the equipment used. None of the underlying principles have changed and back in...