Saying that Modern Man Developed About 500,000 Years Ago Is A Painfully Impractical and Unworkable Claim Thrust On Us By 'God Denier' Scientists. Here's Why!
If you look up the question of how old modern man (our make and model) is supposed to be you may get the rough number of 500,000 years. I did. And now we have 7 Billion plus people on Earth. OK, here's some math to consider: If you start with 2 people that are 'modern', who magically evolved and turned 'modern' at the same place on Earth and at the same time so that they could meet each other and start our modern family like an Adam and Eve, you have to double that population about 33 times to get to the 7 Billion people on Earth right now. So, what was the average time to double the population? A simplistic method: divide 500,000 years by 33 doublings will get you an answer. That answer is a silly 15,150 some years to double the population. Each time the population doubled again, another 15,150 years passed, on average, all things taken into account. "All things taken into account" means famines, plagues, wars, droughts, genetic bottle necks, you name it.
Can you imagine waiting 15,000 years to see your family line go from 4 people to 8 people? Not that anyone lived to be 15,000 years old so that those parents could bounce those 8 children on their knee, right? So 4 people had to only lead to 4 other people for hundreds of generations. About 600 generations at 25 years per generation can fit into just one of those 15,000 year periods. Think of how ridiculous this is!!! It takes 600 tries...600 generations...to go from 4 people to 8? It takes 600 more tries...600 generations...in the next 15,000 years to get that group of 8 modern humans to turn into 16 modern humans? It they took out a 3" circle of my skull, pounded in a hand grenade with a rubber mallet, pulled the pin and ran off to a safe distance, I believe that after it exploded I would still have enough remaining neurons to laugh at the thought of so ridiculous and untenable a theory. Yet these are the type of utterly ridiculous explanations of how we humans came to be here that we are given by those who study 'human evolution'. They will go through any struggle, trial, or embarrassment to try to keep the scientifically treasured Theory of Evolution on life support.
Then finally some lucky generation snuck one past the reaper and made it to 32 people? Obviously this is all too stupid and ridiculous to even begin to consider as a possibility, yet science - slavishly devoted to keeping 'Evolution' and the 'ancient Earth' craziness alive by any means, no matter how fantastical - is asking us to believe it happened about 33 times in succession (on average). They are so out to lunch that they cannot invent enough bottlenecks and near extinction events to begin to explain such a fairy tale. And yet they are so unwilling to admit it. Their model does not work at all...not even a little. It does not match the observed expansion of the human race in our latest centuries. Granted, the formula for population growth is more complex. Only the last 3 generations are alive in our own present day, so you would subtract all but the most recent three generations of humans to produce the number of presently living humans at any given point along the way. And there are other factors you can throw into the population growth equation. But it doesn't end up mattering enough to worry about it much. You still end up with a clownishly ridiculous amount of time between each doubling of the extremely adaptive human population. Many thousands of years to accomplish a doubling that actually takes around 100 years in all the centuries where we have some idea of the time that was actually required. How many world wide disasters that nearly wiped out the planet can science dream up? What else could explain such unsuccessful expansion of our human numbers? Science's solution is to talk about it as little as possible, and when you do, to invent a formula that is ludicrous enough to explain it so that you don't have to abandon your untenable scientific theories. How about this theory: God actually means it when His word tells us that we are around 6,000 years old as a planet and a species.
If you do all of the same figuring beginning with Noah and his wife and their 3 married sons around 4,350 years ago and then use the RECENTLY OBSERVED time for the human population to double (around 100 years, but some sites say 150, but sometimes it has been less than 100 in very recent centuries. You can look it up. The answers vary, but they're nowhere even slightly close to 15,000 years!!!) you end up with our present world population in a very reasonable time frame that is respectably close to the time we Christians believe the Great Flood occurred. Let's say 31 doublings occurred in the 4,350 years the Bible roughly gives since the Great Flood. After all, they started with 3 breeding couples after the flood, not just 1, as in to say Adam and Eve. So how long between doublings in this Biblical model? About 140 years between doublings. 140 years is definitely in the ballpark of what we've seen in recent times.
People respect science that says 'Let's see what makes this thing tick!" People despise science that says, "Let's make up a ridiculous scenario about how things came to be and then see if we can get people to buy into it so we can stand in the place of God as the ultimate authority of the people." Scientists, if your theory maths out as hogwash then please withdraw it from consideration and try again. Why mislead people away from God and toward you? Can you save a soul? Were you there to see things created? As historians you are deranged loose cannons, acting in defiance of your stated methodology. How many souls will you steer into Hell? And don't say you are men and women of reason, experimentation and validation of data...how can you say that in light of such farces as this population doubling thing? And this population anomaly is by no means the only gaping hole in your God-free explanations of how the universe was formed, of how life came to be, etc. You have to pridefully and deceitfully gloss over many problems like this in order to keep pumping your mindless modern-day fables into the brains of poor trusting children. If you apply actual scientific inquiry to your pontifications and pronouncements on origins and history your constructs crumble. Why accept that? Be scientists for God, not His adversary. Be fearlessly investigative about these theories that don't hold water when investigated closely. Where there's no proof...end the spoof! Just say "We're gathering evidence and we'll report where the evidence leads. But if it leads to God as creator of it all, or at least a creative intelligence to start with, we won't act like the world is going to end."