Simple Population Math Supports Recent Creation

As you probably know, biblical creationists believe the Bible indicates that Earth is only a few thousand years old. This is contrary to the atheistic naturalism narrative of 4-1/2 billion years. Radiometric dating cannot support that number without unwarranted assumptions, and evolutionary population genetics is even more ridiculous.

Darwin's disciples have to play fast and loose with observed data to make it appear like their presuppositions are valid. Storytelling has its rewards because people obtain phony-baloney jobs — unlike having a degree in, say, history of art.

Credit: RGBStock / Sanja Gjenero

Anyone making a hypothesis or model works from presuppositions, then attempts to see if data and testing bear them out. Creationists and evolutionists make assumptions. Using very conservative assumptions about population growth, it is easy to reach a figure consistent with today's population. For evolutionary views that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, the figure is outrageously large. Also, where are all the bodies? Instead, we have a few bones and fossils; the world should be littered. Asking for a friend.

Creationists are often asked, “How is it possible for the earth’s population to reach billions of people if the world is only about 6,000 years old and if there were just two humans in the beginning?” Here is what a little bit of simple arithmetic shows us.

You can finish this first article at "Billions of People in Thousands of Years?" Be sure to come back for the next part.

One of the phony-baloney jobs open to evolutionists is population genetics. In this area, storytelling based on assumptions still manages to get papers peer-reviewed. We just saw that one of the weasel assumptions made population isolation. False.  Ancient people got around quite a bit. But they have to prop up the evolutionary narrative, no matter how ridiculous they sound.

Overheard remark about population genetics (PopGen): “I’ve totally soured on population genetics.  It’s meaningless mathematical theatrics decoupled from reality.” This came from a grad student who spent months trying to help two scientists disentangle the mathematical and philosophical assumptions in one of the most famous theorems in population genetics: the “fundamental theorem of natural selection” published in 1930 by Ronald Fisher (1892-1962), the founding father of population genetics (see 22 Dec 2017).

Was that an isolated reaction, or do the problems in PopGen go deep and wide? There aren’t many population geneticists, because the math is obscure. But does mathematical rigor necessarily indicate correspondence with reality? Can the solid surface of an object conceal mush inside?

To see more of how evolutionary beliefs just don't add up, click on "Weasel Goes the PopGen".