The following chart shows current day assumptions about human population. The chart is flawed in that it assumes 12,000 years instead of 6,000. And doesn't account for the flood 4,000 years ago that reduce the population to 8.
The following chart shows current day assumptions about human population. The chart is flawed in that it assumes 12,000 years instead of 6,000. And doesn't account for the flood 4,000 years ago that reduce the population to 8.
that long ago, humans were prey to any number of predators and then there is disease and injury, starvation, death in childbirth, etc., etc.
Well 12,000 years ago we went through an ice age among other world wide catastrophes. Civilization never really began until the Old testament work first started 5K years ago.
You're assigning today's environment to that of 100,000 years ago. When you're not the highest predator on the food chain, bad things happen and the average age is significantly less. I have no doubt that early man existed and I think carbon dating proves it. Why growth was slow can probably be explained by environmental conditions, high infant mortality, and a bazillion other factors.
Your chart does not include any reference to the lowering of infant mortality rates in the last 200 years
The population has grown so fast the last few centuries because 5 out of 7 children no longer die before the age of 6.
“The chart is flawed in that it assumes 12,000 years instead of 6,000. And doesn’t account for the flood 4,000 years ago that reduce the population to 8...”
This is so sad. Shame on the enablers.
So THAT'S what happened at Chernobyl! Our understanding of this whole Carbon 14/nuclear half life thing was all wrong. Shouldn't you tell the NRC those reactors won't work and that fission is a myth?