• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Darwinists teach the abrupt appearance of humans on earth

Right Divider

Body part


Feeble opinion.

Feeble opinion.

Feeble opinion.
Darwin cheerleaders teach that, for as long as there have been ANY humans on earth, there has been a number of humans on earth no less than several thousands. By teaching so, it is necessarily the case that Darwin cheerleaders are teaching that, within a period of time of less than one second* after the advent of humans on earth, there was already a number of humans on earth no less than several thousands. Think about that very carefully: Darwin cheerleaders are therein telling you that, within less than a second's time, it went from there being 0 humans on earth to there being several thousands of humans on earth!

I address the following question to Arthur Brain, Stuu, chair, The Barbarian, Alate_One, Jonahdog, annabenedetti, expos4ever (and any other TOL Darwin cheerleaders of whom I'm not aware, or whom I have forgotten):

At the point in time occurring, say, 10 minutes after there ceased being 0 humans on earth, how many humans were already on earth?

Have fun stonewalling against this question, and lying through your teeth about it, Darwin cheerleaders. Nota bene: it will never amount to a hill of beans for you to protest, "I never said that the appearance of humans on earth was abrupt! I clearly said that it was not! In fact, I rather say that it was gradual!" It matters not a whit that you have never, in so many words, forthrightly come out and said something like, "The appearance of humans on earth was abrupt." For, by the necessary entailment of what you do, flat out state, you are, whether you like it or not, teaching the abrupt appearance of humans on earth--of thousands of humans on earth, at that.

*and at least twice the attention span of all the Darwin cheerleaders I've encountered
Genesis appeared “abruptly” a short time ago. It was debunked around the same time Christians stoped setting people on fire fir challenging YEC.


Staff member
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
The earth itself evolved to its present size over billions of years. The creation of primitive life forms from which all life evolved would have been 550 million years ago. Humans are very recent so I’m not sure where one gets the idea that after 10 minutes humans appeared???

Scientists cant even figure out how dust evolved, let alone massive planets...

“The origin of dust in galaxies is still a mystery.”
“(I)t is unclear how and where dust grains condense and grow, and how they avoid destruction in the harsh environments of star-forming galaxies.”
“The large amounts of dust detected in sub-millimeter galaxies and quasars at high redshift pose a challenge to galaxy formation models and theories of cosmic dust formation.”
“This increase in the dust content of massive galaxies at high redshift is difficult to explain using standard dust evolution models and requires a rapid gas consumption time-scale together with either a more top-heavy initial mass function (IMF), efficient mantle growth, less dust destruction or combinations of all three.”
Gall, C. and 8 others, Rapid formation of large dust grains in the luminous supernova 2010jl, Nature 511:326–329, 2014.
Gall, C. and 2 others Production of dust by massive stars at high redshift, Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 19:43, 2011.
Dunne, L. and 39 others, Herschel-ATLAS: rapid evolution of dust in galaxies over the last 5 billion years, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 417:1510–1533, 2011.

See more origin problems at https://rsr.org/atheism#no-secular-origins-theory-even-exists
Last edited:


Well-known member
The evolution of life on earth (following the initial creation event) was characterized by mutations. Humans are roughly 1,000,000 years old.
Bad students of science have adopted bad speculations about the age of life forms on earth which are neither scientific nor accurate. Devotees to bad science promote the debunked narrative, for example, that dinosaurs mysteriously died off 65 million years ago. Modern scientific evidence show dinosaur remains are no older than mammoth remains.


This space intentionally left blank
Citation please - who made such a claim?

Like I said, Darwin cheerleaders make that claim:

the current scientific consensus is humans never got below a population of about 10,000 individuals.

Which is an astoundingly ridiculous thing to claim, since, were it true that the human population on earth was never less than about 10,000, then at no time would the human population have ever been 0. (You know, because 0 < about 10,000, right?) But the human population on earth was, at one time*, 0, and therefore, this "scientific" consensus** that the human population on earth was never less than about 10,000, is false.

* for a five-day period, and less than about 10,000 years ago
** Bear in mind that, by "scientific consensus," all Darwin cheerleaders mean is consensus amongst Darwin cheerleaders—which is worth nothing to rationally-thinking people.
Last edited:


This space intentionally left blank
Oh, yeah, I guess he could have just read the post...

It's interesting that he seems hostile and resistant to believing that Darwinists claim what I said they claim, as though he's not on board with them in that claim, yet does not want to think of himself as being at odds with them.
Last edited:

Mary Contrary 999

Active member
First, ask them to scientifically document that number. i.e., making vague and unverifiable claims is meaningless.
Okay. I can attack the percentage as being pulled out of thin air but they point to fossils and list many, many forms. Maybe the fossils are degraded versions of existing kinds?