# Population Math

These dates were compiled by James Ussher in His Annals of the World (James is a famous historian born in 1581 – college at 13, masters at 18 and Dr at 26).
Disclaimer: NOT everyone agrees with his research/dates… (however many creation scientists do)… but don’t consider these truth with a capital T… Call them good estimates :)

Some high points from Genesis & Exodus:

4004 BC Fall of Man
2348 BC Flood over
2242 BC Tower of Babel
1996 BC Abram born
1897 BC Sodom destroyed
1896 BC Isaac born
1760 BC Isaac blesses Jacob
1728 BC Joseph sold into slavery
1706 BC Joseph’s family moves to Egypt
1635 BC Joseph dies
1571 BC Moses born
1491 BC Burning bush & Exodus
1490 BC Tabernacle completed

Now I will admit that even I – a young earth creation scientist – was a little shocked at the closeness of the flood! I mean 8 people to 6 Billion in 4357 years seemed -uhm- optimistic. So I did what I’ve been trained to do – look into it myself and do the math (shout out to Dan!)… Here’s what I found:

World Population Clock estimate for Today:
6,764,177,125

The current world population doubles every 40-50 years (depending on whom you ask). Now I know you’re saying – recent medicine advances, nutrition, etc. but just stay with me.

Best Case: Doubling the world population ever 40 years from 8 in 2348 BC after the flood (Noah + 3 kids + 4 wives) the current world population would be:
4,929,266,112,286,160,000,000,000,000,000,000 !!!

That’s too big a number to name so let’s try doubling every 50 years:
1,364,092,462,437,050,000,000,000,000
or
1,364,092,462,437,050 TRILLION!

So population growth from 8 to Billions in a few millennia is definitely mathematically possible (especially when you consider that most of the world hasn’t enjoyed most of our medical advances until quite recently and the fact that the birth rate for “developed” countries actually goes down not up). Now you throw in some plagues and such and slow the average growth to 1/3rd it’s current levels and you get a number that’s just about right:
Doubling ever 146 years: 7,701,358,198
Doubling ever 147 years: 6,690,448,509

Flip Side

What about looking at it from the other angle?  What population growth is expected from an old earth view?

Evolutionists believe that Homo Sapiens first evolved between 400,000 & 250,000 years ago.  We’ll be conservative and use the 250k figure. We will also assume that just 2 Homo Sapiens existed at that point instead of delving into simultaneous evolution in multiple places.

Starting at population of 2 doubling every 500 years (1/10th our current levels) you get a 3 with 150 zeros after it!

Let’s try doubling every 1000 years:
1,809,251,394,333,070,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Finally at every 5000 years (1/100th our current growth levels) we achieve a comprehend able number:
1,125,899,906,842,620
It would only take 166,450 planet’s of our population to hold that many people.

To explain the current world population size from 2 humans 250,000 years ago you need to restrict the population growth to approximately 1/200th of it’s current levels.  Which is fine if it took humanity 245,000 years to figure out a fraction of what we learned in the last 5,000.  But it presents a bigger problem. If population growth was so slow and we know that “less developed” humans (even today) have many more babies (for survival reasons) –  Where are all the bones from all the dead?  If 99.5% of the human population growth was being killed off – where are all the literal piles of bones that we should find from their remains???

# Science Searches For Life In Martian Ice

The Phoenix successfully landed on Mars last night. Assuming there are no technical difficulties with the solar arrays, camera, and robotic arm – the search for ice can begin in earnest. Ice, or rather water, is important because it is necessary to sustain life. While scientists are “pretty confident” that water exists on mars… they haven’t actually found it yet. No, just evidence of water – ie markings in the surface that sure look like water made them.

There are also the ice caps on Mars – but we don’t know they’re made of ice. I know this is a tad confusing with way that many PhDs talk about space, but the truth is the most powerful telescope in the world can only give scant information about even our own planetary brothers and sisters. We can quickly learn so much more by actually being there – or at least getting a surrogate there for us. (The reasons many can speak with such with such certainty is that since no one else in the world has been there – who can tell them that they are wrong?)

Assuming that ice can be discovered in vast the 1/2 meter drilling reach of the robotic arm – 10 years of scientific conjecture will be vindicated. But that’s not the real mission of the Phoenix. The ice is also hoped to contain organic molecules (containing carbon, oxygen, hydrogen) as the cu de gra for proof of life on Mars.

Now I know I’ve lost a few people there: How does a trace bit of carbon in ice prove life roamed around on Mars? Because science holds that life was created out of a primordial soup (water, amino acids & such + energy) finding anything loosely resembling this soup elsewhere would

1. prove life existed on Mars since evolution is inevitable given the right building blocks and enough time.
2. prove life evolved on Earth since life existed on two planets in the same solar system which statistically means that life evolved on thousands (if not millions) of planets beyond Earth. Meaning life here is not special or unique as implied by the biblical account of creation.

Pretty important couple of molecules, eh?

# Fox News: Fair-ly Stupid?

John Kasich, a guest host for O’Reilley, proved himself to be a blithering idiot while holding down the fort yesterday. Here’s the setup: A new creation museum opened on Monday and “Fair & Balanced” Fox wanted to show both sides. So they got Ken Ham head of the museum and Lawrence Krauss an evolutionary scientist against the museum to “debate”.

Each man opened with their positions basically: a 4.5 Billion year old Earth & Genesis is a just a story verses a 6 Thousand year old Earth & the Bible account is literally true. It could have been a good debate, unfortunately John Kasich didn’t like either position and set out to bring BOTH men over to HIS view.

Now while most school children could point out how these two men held diametrically opposed views, Kasich asked Ham “Why is it not acceptable that evolution and creationism can be compatible?” Ham responded that while many people held Kasich’s theistic evolution view, “Evolution and a literal Genesis are not compatible…”

Kasich then interrupts and says “But maybe a literal Genesis is not the deal here.” I have to stress here that John is saying this to the man that just opened a 27 million dollar museum dedicated to the view that scientific evidence supports a literal six day creation. I mean, does John Kasich have ANY knowledge of the people he’s interviewing?

Kasich goes on “If you (Ham) put a man standing next to a dinosaur, I mean, why can’t you say that it both works, that God makes a great thing happen but at the same time, you know, evolution is not such a bad thing…” I should note here that Evolutionists would say man and dinos co-existing is impossible, so I’m not sure what point John was trying to make with that comment to bring the two sides together.

John Kasich then continued his monologue regarding the merits of his stradle the fence philosophy. When both men being “interviewed” attempted to respond to his points, he dismissed them saying “We’re out of time guys”

He then ended the segment by saying “I think reasonable guys like you can get together and agree.” I’m not joking – he actually said that.

I would normally at this point define the words ‘debate’ and ‘interview’ for John – but I’m pretty sure he’s too much of a simpleton to grasp the concepts. Luckily he’s a journalist, so he probably won’t concern himself with either.

# Creation Museum Pre-Grand Opening

I got a chance to get a sneak peak at the Creation Museum opening outside Cincinnati yesterday and it was AWESOME. Expect to here some press about this on Monday when it opens to the general public. Though some groups are already clamoring against it. I liked Ken Ham’s point about these critics:

Ham [AIG President] says the critics haven’t seen the Creation Museum yet, and he marvels that in a nation full of museums that teach evolution, they seem frightened of just one museum that doesn’t.

Below are some of my pics and some of the press. I’ll give a more indepth review of the museum when I get a chance.

# Dark Matter Still MIA

Nature.com, PhysicsWeb, and the BBC all report on the latest results from the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search. ‘The most powerful search yet for the Universe’s missing matter has come up empty handed, contradicting an earlier study that claimed to have seen new particles.’ ‘A favoured theory is that the dark matter consists of Wimps (weakly interacting massive particles) about a thousand times more massive than a proton, one of the particles found in an atom’s nucleus… on the rare occasions a Wimp strikes an ordinary atom, the effect should be noticeable.’ ‘Writing in the Physical Review Letters, the team says that while a detection has yet to occur, there is now a better idea of how much dark matter must exist.’ They ‘hope to improve the sensitivity of the experiment by another factor of 20 over the next few years.'” — timothy (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/05/2039206&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=134)

“The theory of dark matter is based on the assumption that the basic properties of the Universe have never changed over time. If the intrinsic properties of space itself HAVE changed significantly, then there is no need to postulate such a thing as dark matter. Scientists are very reluctant to accept new data that shakes their preconceived pet ideas to their foundations. It took over 200 years after Roemer first measured a finite light speed, for the majority of scientists to accept the fact that light did not get instantaneously from point A to point B, as was the belief for centuries. In the same way, the majority of scientists today refuse to even consider the idea that some very fundamental “constants” may have changed dramatically since the beginning of time. For example, the cause for the “Red Shift” of distant star light is traditionally attributed to the Doppler effect, and in light of that INTERPRETATION of the cause for an observed fact, (the shifted light) all sorts of cosmological observations are very difficult to explain. Humans (including scientists) like to assume that certain things stay the same for all time, but that is a fervently desired wish based on faith, not observed fact. It seems that in the physical universe, there is nothing as constant as change! AAW” — arminw Arminw, You point out the huge assumption whenever historical facts are attempted to be gleened from current data which is called Uniformitarianism. (Uniformitarianism, is the belief in the Uniformity Principal which states: that everything observed today is uniform with the past and therefore experiments done in the present can give answer to the past.)I believe that another fundamental assumption has been overlooked with regards to Dark Matter and that is: the Big Bang.