Creationists and Population Growth

Response to this incredibly stupid creationist video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRGuSPYp7To

They claim to debunk evolution using "empirical math" which "proves" that the Earth would be vastly overpopulated if it were older than 6,000 years. Apparently, they don't understand the phrase, "Garbage in, garbage out."

Category:

Education

Tags:

• creation
• creationism
• world
• population
• math
• kent
• hovind
• carl
• baugh
• Evolution
• Debunked
• in
• empirical
• terms
• evidence
• of
• young
• earth

[OptimalElement]

so the conclution of the video is that creatuionists are wrong, earth is not 6000 years old, its less than 3 years old!

[shanedk]

@OptimalElement Exactly! And any people you may meet from time to time are really the products of a deranged imagination.

[Baerchenization]

err.. the flaw is that it didn't start with only TWO humans in the beginning !! There is no such thing as the "first two humans". So what's with the bacteria...

[shanedk]

@Baerchenization According to the Bible they did.

The point with the bacteria was to demonstrate the flaw in the model he was using.

[th30r3m]

Wow. I am a career math teacher myself. The only large numbers here are the number of errors in assumptions in that guys calculations. Actual population growth is NOT arithmetic. It is actually a rather complex series of differential equations last time I saw it.......

[Craigmw45]

Actually using the reproductive rate of bunnies, I calculated that in less then 2 years bunnies will reproduce to such a rate that they will be more massive then the earth.

All fear the bunny apocalypse.

[ericajjful]

really informative and interesting

[alexasmithy]

some sweet info here

[jayejayeee]

interesting video and very informative

[uvauva2]

@ferrel81

I'm trying to understand just how stupid you need to be not to understand this video... Could you please elucidate me?

As for your poor excuse of an argument that the rate "predicted" by the bible is "plausible", two questions:

1) how do you know? 2) how many other animal species did "creationist scientists" analyze for consistency?... I know it's a pet peeve of us who actually understand what evidence is, but we prefer having several data points to analyze instead of one.

[pythor2]

@ferrel81 You aren't capable of basic comprehension nice.

[ferrel81]

@pythor2 I have watched it. And yes, I did find it typical.