Let someone answer which is the first record of medicine, separating this faculty from the occult, and also introducing the concept of infectious virus, contagious bacteria, quarantine, treatment and ID of malignancies. This will show how ignorant creationists are, right? Have a go!
If Australian aboriginals are 60K years old, their popilation would be at least 5 trillion.
If you base your rejection of 60,000 years on the ridiculousness of the population size of 5 trillion, then you should also reconsider, based on the population if mice, an age of 6000 years for the earth. With a current world population of about 4 billion mice it is obvious that the world could not have been created before August 27, 2009.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
That's bunk and bogus, based on the age of the cave - not the painting. Colour was not invented in writings till 5,500 years ago, and it came from India. Check the population and mental prowess grads of your cave painters again. If Australian aboriginals are 60K years old, their popilation would be at least 5 trillion. Bite the bullet - your dates have no proof nor any graduating imprints; the Hebrew bible has, wth no vacuous gaps.
I can show that IamJoseph is a Eurocentric racist. He does not tell the truth.
Just have a look at San Paintings . Twenty six thousand years old. In colour. The paintings, not the cave.
I know that it doesn’t help to engage in a rational conversation with him, but I can show other people that he is not telling the truth.
Edited by Pressie, : I called IamJoseph just Joseph. Changed that.
Population is based on the time factor, and 60K years would give a population greater than the world by a ratio of ten with compounding increments. The claim is bogus.
quote:I can show that IamJoseph is a Eurocentric racist. He does not tell the truth. Just have a look at San Paintings . Twenty six thousand years old. In colour. The paintings, not the cave.
I know that it doesn’t help to engage in a rational conversation with him, but I can show other people that he is not telling the truth.
A rational mind would ask rational questions. If a human 'painted' a ddrawing of what appears a man made item 30,000 years ago, the following rational factors apply:
1. That humans had previous to this time developed speech, language, agriculture and technical know how of color usage [remember the painting has a red domesticated bison]. Maybe 20K years previously. We have no imprints of any of those factors throughout that period of 20K years.
2. The same issue as above is also seen from the 30K point upto the present time: no graduated or any other kind of imprints in 30K years [discounting the last 6000 years which are recorded as history].
3. The last 6000 years says imprints are continuous of a graduating humanity in advancement and population. But we find a great anomoly with a painting falsely promoted as 30K years old - without a shred of rational surrounding evidence.
Which part do you have rational answers to justify - 1 or 2, or both? When did the next silimar color painting occur - 5000 years ago?
Population is based on the time factor, and 60K years would give a population greater than the world by a ratio of ten with compounding increments.
What I am trying to tell you is that your own argument, when applied to the population of mice, rules out a world older than two years.
What you fail to see is that simplistic calculations can be grossly misleading.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
quote:What I am trying to tell you is that your own argument, when applied to the population of mice, rules out a world older than two years.
That does not sound like clean math. Mice and virus multiply at different rates. But we have only one yard stick for human population, and this is the past 6000 years which are recorded and evidenced, factoring all deaths by natural courses and un-natural ones. Further, population growth or de-growth, fast or slow, both leave graduated imprints. These are the factors which anti-creationists do not like at all, resorting to novel fantasies presented as science - its all dolled up like another theology.
I base my statement on the fact the Pyramids were once colored with red paintings, which was imported from India. This says this technology was not in the middle-east, which was then far more advanced than Europe was. Rocket science applies.
Population is based on the time factor, and 60K years would give a population greater than the world by a ratio of ten with compounding increments. The claim is bogus.
The rate of change in population over time is the result of the ratio of how many people are being born and how many people are dying. If more people are being born than are dying, then the population will increase. If more people are dying than are being born, then the population will decrease. You seem to believe this ratio must be fixed, since you claim a population must increase by a particular set amount over a set time period. A little bit of thought will see that this can't be the case.
Imagine we have a population with a particular birth/death ratio. Suddenly, a new disease appears, which causes approximately 1,000 extra deaths a year. The ratio between births and deaths is thus changed, and the rate of change in population size will also change. Conversely, if somebody invented a cure for a disease that was a common cause of death, the death rate would decrease and the ratio would again change, once more changing the rate of population change.
Given that death rates and birth rates can be contingent on all sorts of different factors, there cannot be one set rate of increase which will apply to all times and all situations.
If the argument doesn't convince you, just look at the actual world around you. According to the estimates used by the CIA World Factbook, the rate of population change (including migration) ranges from an increase of 3.69% per year in Burundi and the UAE, to a decrease of 7.08% per year in the Northern Mariana Islands.
There is clearly no standard rate of change - we can only look at the specifics of a situation to figure out how quickly (and in what direction), we'd expect population to be changing. Australia, without the benefit of modern agriculture and imports from abroad, lacked the resources in food and water to support more than a couple of million people. It doesn't matter how quickly people were born, since they'd just starve to death.
Perhaps the last sentence in this quote will impact:
quote:
The 30,000-Year-Old Cave That Descends Into Hell There's a cave in France where no humans have been in 26,000 years. The walls are full of fantastic, perfectly-preserved paintings of animals, ending in a chamber full of monsters 1312-feet underground, where CO2 and radon gas concentrations provoke hallucinations.
It's called the the Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc Cave, a really weird and mysterious place. The walls contain hundreds of animals—like the typical Paleolithic horses and bisons—but some of them are not supposed to be there, like lions, panthers, rhinos and hyenas.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)
(1)