If The Age of The Earth is Billions of Years ...

[roli]

Just a thought ,if the world's population has increased 3 times in just the last 100 yrs and that there has been more growth in the past 100 yrs than all time together.
Than Logic makes me ask this simple question, that if the world is 43 billion years old,with the population growth just in the past 100 yrs increased as it has,
.....what should the population be if this world is 43 billion yrs old ?????

Would the earth even be inhabitable , foood ,and water wise.
I mean if there is such a scarcity of food around the world now and more so in the last 500 yrs and the world is billions of yrs old , by rights should we not be extinct,how do evolutionists defend this issue.

I understand the disease and the lack of knowledge in medicine was factor that effected the life span of people 100, 200 ,200 yrs ago, by all intents and purposes should'nt we have found cures about a million years ago.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

trillions of people?

 

[Random]

What was the question again?!

 

[eudaimonia]

Just a thought ,if the world's population has increased 3 times in just the last 100 yrs and that there has been more growth in the past 100 yrs than all time together.
Than Logic makes me ask this simple question, that if the world is 43 billion years old,with the population growth just in the past 100 yrs increased as it has,
.....what should the population be if this world is 43 billion yrs old ?????

1) The Earth is not 43 billion years old. I think you meant 4.3 billion.

2) Human beings have not been around for 43 or 4.3 billion years. Maybe just a hundred thousand or a few hundred thousand. I forget the accepted estimate.

3) The rate of population growth is most certainly not constant. Advances in food production, medical care, hygene, etc have made it possible for the increases in Earth's human population in the past few centuries, though families in wealthy, educated nations tend to be small, so the Earth might actually have a declining population once the rest of the Earth modernizes. Several thousand years ago, the increase of the human population was very slow.

I understand the disease and the lack of knowledge in medicine was factor that effected the life span of people 100, 200 ,200 yrs ago, by all intents and purposes should'nt we have found cures about a million years ago.

I don't think that homo sapiens was in existence one million years ago, but even if it were, it would have been in a very primitive state technologically.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ChristineES]

According to what I heard in my physical Anthropology class, Homo sapiens appeared about 700,000 years ago.

 

[Willamena]

Just a thought ,if the world's population has increased 3 times in just the last 100 yrs and that there has been more growth in the past 100 yrs than all time together.

Right. The reasons are largely due to advancements in technology and medicine.

Than Logic makes me ask this simple question, that if the world is 43 billion years old,with the population growth just in the past 100 yrs increased as it has,
.....what should the population be if this world is 43 billion yrs old ?????

The population growth (rate of increase) isn't extrapolatable into the past. That would be like aging backwards if it could do that --which would be cool, but somehow not.

Would the earth even be inhabitable , foood ,and water wise.
I mean if there is such a scarcity of food around the world now and more so in the last 500 yrs and the world is billions of yrs old , by rights should we not be extinct,how do evolutionists defend this issue.

If we were to extrapolate the current rate of increase backwards, man would only have been around for a few thousand years, so until then there'd be loads of food for everyone, and beyond that there'd be no need for "food."

I understand the disease and the lack of knowledge in medicine was factor that effected the life span of people 100, 200 ,200 yrs ago, by all intents and purposes should'nt we have found cures about a million years ago.

If we'd been around.

Population rate of increase (growth) is kind of like the interest at the bank --it's not the same everyday. In fact, it's not the same every time a baby is born. That it's bigger now means that more babies are being born today per capita than at any time previously in history. That it's 3 times today what it was 100 years ago means that 3 times as many babies are born today per capita (per person).

 

[gnomon]

Geologic history of earth

Timeline of evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://members.iinet.com.au/~drage/

Some links on evolutionary history and the history of Earth. The last link is pretty good.

As well,
Understanding Evolution

3) The rate of population growth is most certainly not constant. Advances in food production, medical care, hygene, etc have made it possible for the increases in Earth's human population in the past few centuries, though families in wealthy, educated nations tend to be small, so the Earth might actually have a declining population once the rest of the Earth modernizes. Several thousand years ago, the increase of the human population was very slow.

Or, just read eudomania's concise but excellent description.

 

[Random]

Yah yah, the Earth is around 13 billion years old, humans been here about 3 million of those in present form, hyuk-hyuk, who cares?!

We still haven't got our superpowers back, so evolution needs to be hurried up! Otherwise, its' BO-RING!

 

[Willamena]

Yah yah, the Earth is around 13 billion years old, humans been here about 3 million of those in present form, hyuk-hyuk, who cares?!

We still haven't got our superpowers back, so evolution needs to be hurried up! Otherwise, its' BO-RING!

What's your superpower?

 

[Random]

What's your superpower?

Telekinesis.

>Sniff< I miss it.

I can bend spoons with a lot of concentration and some light rubbing between my forefinger and thumb, but that's about it.

Ah, the glory days...will we ever see men fly again?

What's you superpower, Patty?

 

[Willamena]

I can ______ with a lot of concentration and some light rubbing between my forefinger and thumb, but that's about it.

Oh my gosh.

What's you superpower, Patty?

Apparently it's to make cats die, nothing I'm proud of.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Just a thought ,if the world's population has increased 3 times in just the last 100 yrs and that there has been more growth in the past 100 yrs than all time together.
Than Logic makes me ask this simple question, that if the world is 43 billion years old,with the population growth just in the past 100 yrs increased as it has,
.....what should the population be if this world is 43 billion yrs old ?????

Would the earth even be inhabitable , foood ,and water wise.
I mean if there is such a scarcity of food around the world now and more so in the last 500 yrs and the world is billions of yrs old , by rights should we not be extinct,how do evolutionists defend this issue.

I understand the disease and the lack of knowledge in medicine was factor that effected the life span of people 100, 200 ,200 yrs ago, by all intents and purposes should'nt we have found cures about a million years ago.

It is clear from this that you understand neither science nor mathematics.
I suggest you stick to questions of faith.

 

[Fluffy]

Heya roli,
Firstly, the earth is roughly 4.54 billion years old, not 43 billion years old.

Secondly, humans have not been living on the planet since it formed. This is theory is supported by creationists, not evolutionists. Evolutionists claim that homo sapiens began to exist about 250,000 years ago. This means humans have existed for 0.005% of Earth's existence or, alternatively, for 0.995% of those 4.54 billion years, humans were not around.

Hopefully, these two facts should be sufficient to show you why your model for human population growth is inaccurate.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... Than Logic makes me ask this simple question, that if the world is 43 billion years old,with the population growth just in the past 100 yrs increased as it has,
.....what should the population be if this world is 43 billion yrs old ?????

The mind-numbing ignorance that permits this question strikes me as pathetically sad.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

I thought humans appeared 2.7 million years ago, in Africa.

 

[Random]

I thought humans appeared 2.7 million years ago, in Africa.

The figure is generalized and there is no absolute consensus amongst those in-the-know as to when humans in their present form first appeared. All we can agree upon is that it happened not later than @ least 2 and a half million years ago.

I personally place it about 3 million BCE, but then I accept a wider array of sources than most in the scientific community would.

 

[Willamena]

The figure is generalized and there is no absolute consensus amongst those in-the-know as to when humans in their present form first appeared. All we can agree upon is that it happened not later than @ least 2 and a half million years ago.

I personally place it about 3 million BCE, but then I accept a wider array of sources than most in the scientific community would.

I suppose a lot, too, would depend on what you consider a human. If you look at physical structures the date would differ from if you look at socio-cultural structures.

Go multicullular lifeforms!

 

[Random]

I suppose a lot, too, would depend on what you consider a human. If you look at physical structures the date would differ from if you look at socio-cultural structures.

Go multicullular lifeforms!

Emphasis added.

Yes, you're quite right: but consider, the discrepency you mentioned could be accounted for if details of prehistoric civilizations were commonly known.

And yo, lemme chorus: GO MULTICELULAR LIFEFORMS! :angel2: You rock!

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Go Lifeforms!

 

[Fluffy]

I thought humans appeared 2.7 million years ago, in Africa.

Homo habilis began to exist from 2.4 million years ago at the very earliest.

What we are (homo sapiens) only began to exist 250,000 years ago.

However, even if we were to take the 2.4 million years figure (which would provide even more obvious distortions in the growth model being proposed) this is still clearly much much less than 4.3 billion years.