Creation - Evolution – Science - Religion discussion

[Alan Clarke]

Creation - Evolution – Science - Religion

Welcome to the discussion forum! This thread is open for discussing all aspects, pros and cons, of creation or evolution models using scientific and/or religious arguments. Scientific evidence, human origins, sarcasm, humor, Powerbasic program modeling, heated debate, Bible doctrine, Atheism, etc. are all welcome. Adhere to or abandon political correctness. The choice is yours, but try to refrain from ad hominem attacks.

Example topics worthy of consideration:
1. Does fossil evidence support either model?
2. How old is the universe?
3. Is the origin of matter and energy relevant to Darwinism?
4. Is the Bible a collection of tales?
5. How do you get to Heaven or Nirvana?
6. Is one’s interpretation of science affected by being religious or non-religious?
7. Is it possible to be truly objective?
8. What does the latest study of mitochondrial DNA reveal?
9. Is global warming primarily man-made?
10. My belief system has caused suicidal thoughts. Is there help for me?

This discussion was birthed from the following thread:
Charles Darwin to receive apology from the Church of England for rejecting evolution

[Mel Bishop]

Evolution does not explain creation (One of Rush Limbaugh's undeniable truths of life).

Creation happened -- Evolution started.

[Joe Byrne]

Alan,

I see you're relatively new here so you probably don't know much history in the forum. One piece of advice I'd give you, is to forget this topic here. Its been beaten to death and nobody ever changes their belief, nor gains anything from it. In fact, the closest we've ever come to having people call for the closing of the Café as come from this topic.

Its really pretty simple though. If you believe in (a) God or god, then creationism is a reasonable idea. If you don't, then creationism couldn't possibly have happened. Simple, easy, painless.

Now, lets get back to something that can be debated

[Dave Stanton]

Joe,
Well said.

[Alan Clarke]

Originally Posted by Rodney Hicks

Alan, So you want to have some fun, do ya? Where did I say that I thought that evolution was a mechanism? I was impressed that you finally asked a question, surprised even though you misunderstood my post. That you can ask questions bodes well for you. I notice that you quote all sorts of people that say the same thing as you, do you only read those that don't disagree with you? Do you ever read something that doesn't sound quite right and question it? For example:

Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

Do you even see what is wrong with that statement?

Rodney, your questions are valid and important. I have built my entire creation model on information I received from the Bible. Therefore, the Bible is definitely fair-game for being examined as to its voracity, credibility, integrity, and historicity. The only reason I haven’t answered questions as fast as you would like is because I am only one person, not because your questions are unimportant to my “mission”. Actually, my “mission” connects right to your front door, so here I am. Before I begin, be aware of the following: Contradictions don’t prove falsity, nor do the lack of contradictions prove truth.

1. He must love his son because he confiscated his car keys.
2. He must love his son because he bought him a new car.

A misconception of the meaning of “love” can change one’s perception of both statements. So don’t put all of your eggs in one basket after judging my argument, unless of course your logic is flawless.

I like to develop my answers slowly so that I’m not forced to retract my statements should errors in my logic be discovered. Already, I had to withdraw my argument for a young Moon using recession calculations because someone pointed out that the math didn’t support my argument. Actually, I trusted in someone else’s math, but the Bible clearly states that the Moon was created no more than 3 days after the Earth was created. One can deduce the age of the Earth by adding the ages given for the ancestors of Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11 which is about 2000. From there we add 4000 years which is supported by the Bible and secular history giving us a total of 6000 years. Whether creationist or evolutionist, assumptions are made in the interpretation of the evidence. Setting aside the false equilibrium assumption of Willard Libby (inventor of C14 radiometric dating), we can show scientifically, the Earth’s age is closer to the Bible’s account.

When making references to scripture text, I will use the 1611 King James Version of the Bible unless otherwise stated. Personally, I think it is the best English text available, but I won’t elaborate on this now. So let's proceed. . .

Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

You didn’t state what your problem was with this verse, so I’m assuming you have trouble understanding where Cain got his wife, and I’ll answer thus: Cain married his sister or niece. The next question is, "Where could his sister or niece have come from?"

Genesis 5:4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters. (emphasis mine)

Perhaps your confusion arose from the fact that the source for Cain’s “wife material” was mentioned after, rather than before Genesis 4:17. Be aware that although Genesis is written chronologically, there are some exceptions that divert from the “chronologicalness”. Look at Genesis 2:5 for example: “And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.” (emphasis mine) Man is created in Genesis 1 but this verse states man is not created yet. This is a common literary device in which the author “backtracks” in order to explain something more fully.

Your next question is probably, “Were these daughters of marriageable age at the time Cain took his wife?” We can approximate or infer Cain’s age at the time he took his wife by looking at the age of others near that time when their children were born.



From the chart, we can see that men were getting married “late in life”. Seth was 105 years old when Enos was born. Enos was 90 years old when Cainan was born, etc. If we allow for the possibility that these men waited awhile before having their first child, we can subtract, let’s say, 10 years, to arrive at their actual marriage age. Perhaps the offspring listed aren’t the “first born” but rather 2nd born or 3rd born. We’ll subtract another 10 years. So, if the average age at the time of these men’s lives was 98 when their children were born, we will subtract 20 years to determine their average marriage age which is 78 years old. 78 years is ample time for Adam to have had more daughters and possibly granddaughters for Cain to marry.

Your next question may be, “Isn’t marrying one’s sister incest and wouldn’t this increase the chance for birth defects? You must remember that Adam was created perfectly, and the ill effect of “genetic load” (more info: 1, 2) had not taken its accumulative negative effect on the human genome in the earlier generations. There is no mention of close family marriages being “sinful” until Levitucus 18. History supports this fact as we observe close family marriages being more common the more we go back in time. Take for example Abraham marrying his half sister or the English royal family. The fact that each generation experiences an accumulation of genetic mutations makes for a very interesting study and provides strong evidence that mankind cannot be 200,000 years old.

Originally Posted by Rodney Hicks

Another example: Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us,…

What does 'the man is become as one of us' mean? How many different things could it possibly mean?

Rodney, one of the beautiful aspects of the Bible is its built-in self-interpretative ability. This ability is similar to how humans interpret themselves by evaluating attributes that are in close proximity to one another or attributes that evoke similar responses, emotions, etc. “Why do I get angry at people? I frequently become angry when I’m misunderstood.” See the connection and order of thought processes? In answering your question, we will use the “close proximity” method of evaluation. Strange as it may seem, the answer lies in “close proximity” to the remaining portion of the verse that you unfortunately truncated. Read the verse in its entirety and you’ll see the answer to your question:

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

So, “to become as one of us” means, “to know good and evil”. God knows more about “good and evil” than anyone else. When a person sins, they take on this God-like attribute which is “awareness of good and evil.” Just look at how much you are aware of it:

1. Where did I say that I thought that evolution was a mechanism?
2. …do you only read those that don't disagree with you?
3. Do you ever read something that doesn't sound quite right and question it?
4. Do you ever wonder if you are failing your God…
5. Do you really think people should be punished…

Every single one of your questions has an implied standard of what you consider “moral” and you are questioning another’s performance of your standard.
1. Don’t unjustly accuse people.
2. Have consideration for others.
3. Seek truth.
4. Love the LORD thy God with all thine heart…
5. People shouldn’t be punished for someone else’s sin.

Whether you realize it or not, you have the 10 Commandments written in your heart. Just as it said in Genesis, you would become knowledgeable of “good and evil” when you sinned. An innocent child can’t grasp any of this because they have not sinned. It is only when we become adult that we become acutely aware of our sin. In our prisons, child-molesters are frequently murdered by other inmates. The more hideous one’s crime, the more likely they will be a target for another’s “judgment”. Jeffrey Dahmer was bludgeoned to death in the prison gym. His fellow inmates knew acutely well from their own sin that his sin was intolerable.

So Rodney, what are you going to do? You know all about sin. You know how I don’t live up to your “standard”. You know that you can’t live up to your own standard. You are in an “endless DO LOOP” of sin. You get all types of advice on evolution and how it works. You are told that God doesn’t exist and that we got here randomly by some miraculous chance. Isn’t the last statement just another on the endless list of sins? What could be more contrary to the first and most important commandment than to say God doesn’t exist? The drone of your evolutionary advisor’s voices goes on and on. They will never be able to help you because they are caught in sin as well. As I said before, they will plead with you not to jump ship because they can’t bear living alone with their own misery. One day, they won’t be able to console themselves with other’s company because they’ll be singled out for eternal separation. If there is any reason left within you, then consider this as the answer to your dilemma.

Originally Posted by Rodney Hicks

What significance is the following: Song of Solomon 7:4 ...thy nose is as the tower of Lebanon which looketh toward Damascus.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The Bible covers it all. Life, death, greed, bliss, past, present, future, poetry, human sexuality… Nothing is left out. Man is the most complex assembly of order in the universe. His creation of the stars on the fourth day was just an over thought: "...he made the stars also." Notice how the sentence ends in “also”. The universe is not given much importance. But on the sixth day, God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...” Man is complex because God is complex. Oh…, and he made “woman” also.

[Nick Luick]

Starting at Genesis 11:10

Shem at 100 had Arphaxad two years after flood and Shem lived to be 600 years.

Flood + 2 + Arphaxad +35 > Salah +30 > Eber +34 > Peleg +30 > Reu + 32 > Serug + 30 > Nahor + 29 > Terah + 70 > Abram + Nahor + Haron

Now Abram left for Egypt because of famine at 75, so Egypt and the Pharaoh existed and was doing quite well 367 years after the flood. In fact Shem lived another 133 years after Abram left for Egypt and long enough to see least 9 generations of grand children.

My questions are:

1) Where did the Egyptians come from and how was the Egyptian empire created only 367 years after great flood ?

2) What was the purpose of flood again ?

[Alan Clarke]

Originally Posted by Joe Byrne

Alan, I see you're relatively new here so you probably don't know much history in the forum. One piece of advice I'd give you, is to forget this topic here...)

Joe, thanks for the warning, but I'm not dissuaded. I started this forum at the request of other's who where interested in continuing the original Darwin / Church of England thread, but under a more appropriate name. If you look at the old thread, you'll notice that by no means it came to a dead end. I feel that "dead ends" occur when no one knows which way to go. But believe me, I am far from that. Also, I've promised some individuals, (Gary Barnes included) that I would answer some questions and this is where it will happen. This forum is not all about "me". I'm a creationist but in the last month, I learned loads of new stuff about evolutionary theory. I think it's a dead end, but that's my opinion.

[Rodney Hicks]

No Alan, that is not what I see wrong with that particular verse. That incest is supported by the Bible has no bearing on my post.

[Alan Clarke]

Originally Posted by Nick Luick

1) Where did the Egyptians come from and how was the Egyptian empire created only 367 years after great flood ?

2) What was the purpose of flood again ?

http://ldolphin.org/alanm/abrexo.html

[Nick Luick]

Alan thats not the answer to my questions? Those are a different source of numbers distorted by other numbers. The Bible is very clear and actually takes those verses to address Shem's lineage.

So please again:

1) Where did the Egyptians come from and in such numbers 367 years after flood ?

2) And what was the purpose of flood ?

[Erik Christensen]

Alan

I agree with Joe that your subject has been discussed ad infinitum in numerous previous threads, so a new discussion will in my judgement lead to the same as the previous discussions, i.e. no-where. Everybody has a fixed worldview dependent on upbringing and situation early in life.

Just one issue to illustrate the wide gap in the understanding: the age of the earth:

First the scientific view (which I support):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

Modern geologists and geophysicists consider the age of Earth to be around 4.54 billion years. This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

Then the creationists' view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth

A creation myth is a supernatural mytho-religious story or explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe (cosmogony), usually as a deliberate act of "creation" by one or more deities.
Many creation myths share broadly similar themes. Common motifs include the fractionation of the things of the world from a primordial chaos; the separation of the mother and father gods; land emerging from an infinite and timeless ocean; or creation ex nihilo (out of nothing).

According to the Bible the age of the earth is about 6000 years.

As you can see in the link there are many creationist "schools". They are all different as are religions.

My view is that they all are myths based on impressions and some superficial observation. They did not have the faintest idea of the workings of nature. To still believe in them is for me incomprehensible. But so be it.

Best regards

Erik

[Nick Luick]

Alan, as per Genesis:
10:22 > Shem has Arphaxad
10:24 >Arphaxad has Salah > Salah has son Eber
10:25 >Eber has son Peleg
11:04 >Noah's desecendents build city of brick (Babel)
11:06 > All of Noah's descendents speak one language
11:07 > God says let us go down (Who is us? ) and confound (confuse) language
11:09 > Scatter abound and many languages are now spoken

By Bible time line the Egyptian language would not be spoken until at least the birth of Shem's son Peleg, or 101 years after the great flood.

When Abram journeyed into Egypt 367 years after flood the Egyptian language was spoken. We have to assume the Egyptians were early descendents of Noah, Shem, Ham, or Japheth, and they had a major language change 101+ years after flood, or their they migrated to land of Egypt after their language was changed, in which case the Egyptian's (Noah's descendents) built their empire starting 101 years after great flood.

Alan here are a few more questions.

1) If Noah's early descendents journeyed into land of Egypt and became Egyptians we have to assume they built their empire using their own labor and resources. How many generations to you think it took to have a society of at least 10,000 people ?

2) If the Nile region was so fertile to support the Egyptian empire, and Noah and his descendents knew of this area, why would Noah not settle this area after the flood ?

[Alan Clarke]

Eric, thanks so much for your insight and contribution to the forum.

Originally Posted by Erik Christensen

Everybody has a fixed worldview dependent on upbringing and situation early in life.

This “fixed” worldview that you speak of may not be so “fixed”. I personally was “fixed” with this view until I reached about 24 years of age. I was overwhelmed with evidence to the contrary of my evolutionary upbringing. And I say this in all sincerity, because when I became “unfixed”, I wasn’t in a church or some similar religious indoctrination organization. I was simply listening to a list of physically observable evidences (massive worldwide coal and oil deposits, massive fossil “graveyards” of extinct mammals and dinosaurs, extinct fully-intact wooly mammoths preserved in permafrost, entire fossilized forests, worldwide presence of fossilized sea creatures on mountains, etc.) that either a creationist or evolutionist would evaluate before coming to a subjective opinion. I literally changed my former opinion before the speaker completed his list of evidences. Some persons were perhaps “fixed” from the beginning as you say, but this doesn’t prove their position to be incorrect any more than the holder of a winning lottery ticket is disqualified because he owned the ticket the before the winner was announced. There are numerous intelligent people that have concluded evolution theory is not believable. How many is “numerous”? In a previous post I offered this revealing piece of information:


Above source from here.

So, when I hear evolutionists say things like, “the overwhelming majority…”, I believe they are ignorant of actual data that shows the contrary. I’m sure you’ll counter my argument by pointing out that 53% of people on this polling are not scientists or have little to no education. But this is where your logic fails again. Click here for a list of “educated” people that do not fit into your “overwhelming majority of scientists…”

As a matter of fact Eric, I would like for you to produce a list of people that have contributed to the advancement of human knowledge more so than my list. Are you going to put Charles Darwin on the top? What kind of drugs do we have today that are attributable to his contributions? What kind of laws do we have today (like F=MA) that are attributable to Darwin? The law of abiogenesis? No one has ever reproduced this “law” but we can reproduce Newton’s law in a physics lab repeatedly. All of our early Biology textbooks and many current, tell us of a law, which to this day has never been disproven: biogenesis All living things must come from living things. Pasteur demonstrated this law. So which law is true? Shouldn’t we be more inclined to believe the one that has been observed rather than the one that has never been observed? Doesn’t the word “science” (Latin from “knowledge” or “knowing”) imply biogenesis is more “scientific” than a hypothesis that has never been observed? Aligning a set of bones on a table and reasoning that one simple bone was the father of all subsequent more-complex bones by virtue of its similar shape or size is the “mother” of all follies. See link. The same holds true for DNA sequencing.

Originally Posted by Erik Christensen

Just one issue to illustrate the wide gap in the understanding: the age of the earth:

First the scientific view (which I support):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
Quote:
Modern geologists and geophysicists consider the age of Earth to be around 4.54 billion years. This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

Eric, don’t you see that your boasting of the “scientific view” is purely subjective? I don’t doubt that you are sincere, but I believe you are sincerely wrong. First of all, you have already fallen prey to the idea that “Modern geologists and geophysicists consider…” to be some sort of irrefutable evidence of a “majority” view. Just because it’s posted on Wikipedia doesn’t make it true. Every day something posted on Wikipedia has to be yanked because it was found to be false. Believing heavy objects fall faster than lighter was believed by the “majority” until Galileo demonstrated otherwise. So far I have seen nothing from you but reference links to people that share your opinion. The profound difference between you and I is this: I realize and admit my bias and subjectivity, whereas you seem to think that you are incapable of anything but pure objectivity. In your evolutionary model, where does matter and energy come from? Do you know for certain? You have taken a blind leap of faith no differently than any creationist to form your highly subjective opinion that matter and/or energy is “eternal”. Whereas I would state, “I believe in God.”, you would state, “I believe in rocks”, or, “I believe in the eternal Force”, or, “I believe in an infinitesimal but infinitely massive particle that exploded via the big bang through eternal energy which produced infinite complexity.” The latter sounds impressive but if you analyze it, it’s just more of the same, “I’ve never seen it but I believe it.”

Originally Posted by Erik Christensen

Then the creationists' view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
Quote:
A creation myth is a supernatural mytho-religious story or explanation that describes the beginnings of humanity, earth, life, and the universe (cosmogony), usually as a deliberate act of "creation" by one or more deities.
Many creation myths share broadly similar themes. Common motifs include the fractionation of the things of the world from a primordial chaos; the separation of the mother and father gods; land emerging from an infinite and timeless ocean; or creation ex nihilo (out of nothing).

Eric, do you see your error in this or are you totally disingenuous? You have pre-supposed the answer by the wording of your question. You did a search on “Creation Myth” and have given me your results. To be completely “objective”, you must do a search on “Creationism” and give me the results. Your method of logic could yield disastrous results in a pharmaceutical lab that was testing for drug reactions on rabbits. If you don’t perform a “double-blind” test, you will get nowhere. So it is not surprising that you are indeed, “nowhere”. I’m not saying this to be antagonistic, but to show you that Alan Clarke could be your best asset in subjecting your theory to “peer review”. You are in search of “truth”, correct? I really hope you understand this. Please do a Google search on “O.J. guilty” and “O.J. innocent” then let me know if he is guilty or not. One famous philosopher said, “All of our reasoning ends in surrender to feeling.”

Originally Posted by Erik Christensen

As you can see in the link there are many creationist "schools". They are all different as are religions.

Eric, again, you must be aware that any true science will have disputations and disagreements on how data is interpreted. Bohr’s model for the atom was challenged by Arthur Erich Haas. Numerous challenges/disputations/refutations on atomic modeling existed before the time of Christ. (see: ancient atomic modeling) Disagreements and contradictions do not equate to falsity. Contradiction is not a sign of falsity, nor the lack of contradiction a sign of truth. If I were to repeat your logic, I would say evolution is not true because Darwinists, neo-Darwinists, theistic neo-Darwinists, and atheist neo-Darwinists do not agree on the origin of matter and energy. How can we discern a false science? An endeavor of knowledge that disqualifies any idea or belief that opposes its founding suppositions and postulates is not a science. Thus, the mantras, “evolution is a fact”, “all scientists…”, “true science...”, “religious people are disqualified”, etc., has long given discerning people an impression that evolution is nothing but a pyramid scheme with a few people on top and lesser indoctrinees on the bottom soliciting schools and universities for converts. Follow the money trail.

Originally Posted by Erik Christensen

My view is that they all are myths based on impressions and some superficial observation. They did not have the faintest idea of the workings of nature. To still believe in them is for me incomprehensible.

Excellent! I really like how you preface your statement with “My view is”. I don’t know why you changed your modus operandi at the end, but this indicates to me you sometimes depart from your Ericcentric view of the universe.

The discussion thus far has been largely philosophical which is fine but I am a down-to-earth, nuts-and-bolts, rubber-meets-the-road, the-buck-stops-here type of person. So let’s address the age of the Earth. Are you aware that radioactive isotopes are a good indication that the Earth is young? Rather than re-create the entire argument, please view this slide show link and let me know of holes in the presentation’s logic so I can revise my model if necessary. And please don’t form a premature opinion because you don’t like Mike Riddle’s ethnic Irish roots or his hair color. I don’t care if Jack the Ripper discovered gravity. As long as I can use a discovery to keep my feet on the ground, I’ll gladly accept it.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

[Alan Clarke]

Originally Posted by Nick Luick

1) Where did the Egyptians come from and how was the Egyptian empire created only 367 years after great flood ?

Nick,
Thanks for you excellent post which poses some very good questions and forces one to think critically. I sent you a link on what I hoped to be an answer to your question, but evidently you weren’t satisfied. I'm punished every time I get lazy and rely on someone else! I performed my own calculations which you can review below. If you have some problem with my approach let me know. I’m getting excited about this new forum since it is a mechanism to force me (and others) to do independent research. I told my wife that I haven’t learned as much in two years as I have in the last month!

Click here for human population growth calculator. For comparison purposes, United Arab Emirates growth rate is 0.038.

Here’s what I plugged in:
starting year: 0
ending year: 367
starting population: 2
growth rate: 0.039
TOTAL POPULATION: 2,505,739

When Israel exited Egypt, the number of men according to Exd 12:37 was 0.6M. The total with women & children could be 2M. Pharaoh complained that he was outnumbered by the Hebrew people in Exd 1:9, so an Egyptian population of around 2M is reasonable. The calculator overshot the Egyptian population by about 0.5M, so you can lower the growth rate to get something more reasonable.

You wanted to know where the Egyptians came from. Well, it had to be from a pair on that ark of 8 persons for sure. Whether it was from Shem, Ham, or Japheth, I'm not sure. Is it important?

Here is what provided me the impetus and "faith" to carry out this calculation:

1. The book of Genesis has a lot of credibility since Jesus Christ quoted from it no less than 25 times. Jesus seems to be the most “credible” person that ever lived (let’s take a poll) so I’m putting my money on him. The historicity of Jesus is extremely credible.

2. The historic information in Genesis is more detailed and complete than any other historical document of that time period. For example, the Epic of Gilgamesh speaks of a global flood, but the details are not nearly as complete or “concentrated” as Genesis 6, 7, and 8. Genesis speaks in no uncertain terms of the flood’s duration, crew members, people’s ages, rain intensity, subterrestrial water sources, water heights, water recession timeline, boat height, width, length, construction materials, water proofing, ventilation, animal types, food provision, boat evacuation strategy, etc. If you tried to compress as much detailed information in as little space as Genesis 6, 7, and 8, my guess is you would fail. So, the Bible’s account of Noah’s flood is very “literal”. When you add to this the fact that every continent on the Earth shows water erosion in a horizontal plane at heights well above sea level, then the question is not, “Was there a global flood?”, but “How did people survive?”



Thanks again for the good brain food.

[Alan Clarke]

Originally Posted by Nick Luick

1) If Noah's early descendents journeyed into land of Egypt and became Egyptians we have to assume they built their empire using their own labor and resources. How many generations to you think it took to have a society of at least 10,000 people ?

Nick,
I just noticed something very strange. When using the population growth rate calculator, I seem to get some impossibly high figures if I plug in the following:

Considering man has been on the Earth for 200,000 years:

Starting year: 0
Ending year: 200,000
Starting population: 2
Growth rate: 0.0002
TOTAL POPULATION: 46,889,146,272,500,000

Perhaps the calculator is not working. Any ideas? I cranked the growth rate down to an impossibly low 0.02% but I’m still off the chart. I don't want to waste time calculating for 10,000 people if this calculator is no good. Is there some other calculator perhaps?