quote:
According to the Biblical record, living things, including humans lived considerably longer before the flood when there was a totally different atmosphere and climate.
This is already false. The Bible does not say that non-human species lived longer, nor does it say that there was a different atmosphere and climate before the Flood.
There's a factual answer for you and nothing mean-spirited about it.
And in fact if we took these mythical figures as representative of fact we would see that the population should be growing more slowly on a per-year rather than per-generation basis.
Seth's first son is born when he is 105 years old. (Genesis 5:6) It takes 500 years for Noah to produce 3 sons (5:32) and so on. If you want a faster population increase per-year you will have to invent other factors because the same Bible that tells you that people lived longer also tells you that they were much slower to have children.
(And none of it matters if you use the Bible as your source, because however large you assume the pre-Flood population to be, it is reduced to 8 by the Flood)
quote:
Now let's consider the evolutionist bunny blunder.
It should be assumed that any creature capable of reproduction has a sexual drive toward reproduction. This drive is a necessary component of reproduction. Otherwise, t'aint agona happen.
Therefore the 1,000,000ers are blundering their way into the low calculations. Realistically, if there's reproduction, there's gotta be the sex drive. You can't just blindly alleged that it took hundreds of thousands of years for the early to relatively early populations to double. In fact, likely they more or less functioned more like a rabbitry than an ordered family as it has been historically so long as records have been kept.
Of course there is no blunder here. Rabbit populations in the wild are generally fairly stable (going up and down around a mean value). i.e. there are factors limiting growth that are more important than sex drive. Thus simply alleging that the existence of a sex drive mandates high population growth is clearly wrong. This objection, therefore, is hopelessly unrealistic.
Factual and not at all mean-spirited. Unlike the assertion that the actual models and population estimates are based on "blindly blundering" which is neither.
quote:
Bottom line: In spite of the discrepancies and unknowns to each hypothesis, the Biblical model is by far the more logical and likely the more realistic model.
The so-called "Biblical model", as we can see, is based on unrealistic and simplistic calculations which are simply fiddled with to produce the "Biblical" results. It is not at all "logical" or "realistic". The objection to scientific models is itself completely unrealistic and therefore cannot be considered a valid objection.
™ Version 4.2