It is reasonable to say that Humans have not been around for 200,000 years

This debate should be impossible to accept. Please comment in the comments section if you wish to debate me on this subject. Debate Format: Round One: Debaters present opening arguments. No Rebuttals. Rounds Two-Three: Rebuttals Definitions: Earth-the planet on which we live (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Reasonable-fair and sensible (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Unreasonable-not guided by or based on good sense (https://www.google.com...). Young-Being in an early period of life, development, or growth (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...). Basically I am arguing that it is reasonable to say that the earth is thousands of years old instead of millions of years old. Burden of Proof: Pro must show that it is reasonable to believe that humans have recently begun to exist (about 6,000 years ago). Con must show that it is unreasonable to believe in the recent existence of humans. My Argument: 1. Human Population Growth According to evolutionists, humans (in our current state) started existing 200,000 year ago (http://anthro.palomar.edu...). Now let us look at how the human population has doubled in the last few centuries. From the 19th century to the 20th century, the world population "growth has noticeably increased with 15-20" annually, although there have been some oscillations" (http://www.desenvolupamentsostenible.org...). That said, this would require the entire human population to double around every 45 years. If humans did actually double like this 200,000 years ago, the number of humans would be impossibly high. I mean, there literally couldn't be that many humans. But if we were to double the amount of humans very 75 years instead of 45 years, the population would be "would be 8.5 x 10 to the 37 power. One trillion is 1"10 to the 12th power, or a one with 12 zeros after it. So we would now have a population of over 85 trillion trillion trillion, still not close to reality" (http://evoillusion.org...). Then we get to even more interesting matters. If the population were to double every 2,000 yrs....the numbers still wouldn't add up. The "result would be more than 2.5 x10 to the 30th power. Or a 25 with 29 zeros after it, or 2.5 million trillion trillion. Still not a number that would make any sense in reality" (http://evoillusion.org...). So as you see, saying that humans existed 200,000 years ago doesn't make sense when considering how the population has increased in the past. In fact, in order for the humans existence to have began 200,000 years ago, the population would have had to double every 6,250 years which is not possible. 6,250 years "approximates the time from the beginning of the Egyptian civilization until now. So 193,750 years ago there would be 4 people. And in 187,500 years ago there would be 8 people. Of course I am talking about averages, and I am starting with two initial humans for simplicity, two being a highly unlikely starting point" (http://evoillusion.org...). But now we get to the fun part. If the world were only 6,000 years old, and there were in fact only two people at the time humans started existing...the number of humans would add up to around what we have now. From "two people, created around 6,000 years ago, and then the eight people, preserved on the Ark about 4,500 years ago, the world"s population could have grown to the extent we now see it"over 6.5 billion" (https://answersingenesis.org...). So if the earth is around 6,000 years old, like the Bible seems (many Christians disagree) to indicate, it would make sense considering the growth of the human population. Therefore it is reasonable to say that humans haven't been around for 200,000 years (like evolution indicates).