|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1180 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: When Earth’s population was 10,000 persons | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 1180 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
Taq writes:
So how did they innoculate their children against diptheria? - If diphtheria had caused a big problem in those days then at least 90% percent of the Ethnic groups in Europe would have disappeared; however that is not what reality tells us.
Up to the present time no evidence demonstrated from real facts was presented on why it would have been impossible for Humans to have reached a population of 1 million persons in less than 20 thousand years, when the population was 10,000 - Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
however that is not what reality tells us.
Since when have any of your statements been grounded in reality? Every one of your posts is made up from whole cloth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 1180 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
Taq writes: however that is not what reality tells us.
Every one of your posts is made up from whole cloth. - That is another reason why you should come up with something better. Especially because whoever brings up a theory (that places human beings living on the Earth 70 thousand years ago) should be able to explain it regardless of other persons words -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Especially because whoever brings up a theory (that places human beings living on the Earth 70 thousand years ago) should be able to explain it regardless of other persons words The fact that we find modern human skeletons that are 70,000 years old indicates that there were modern humans around 70,000 years ago. We tend to call this "evidence", something which you seem unfamiliar with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
CrazyDiamond7,
In the OP you stated: "The real fact is that regardless of disease, natural disasters, wars and famine, human population has never stopped growing." You have not demonstrated this fact. It is made up out of whole cloth. If this is your theory then you should be able to cite the evidence that supports it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 1180 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
Taq writes:
You have not demonstrated this fact.
- In regards to the Ethnic groups in Europe, if their population would have ever stopped growing then it could also be true that their growth is very dependent on technological advances; However, there is a huge flaw that many don't want to see; Consider that most of our current technological advances have ocurred within the last 200 years, one could even go back to the last 1,000 years and it would still prove that the natural selection theory (in regards to the origin of this most recent version of Human beings) is incorrect. -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
However, there is a huge flaw that many don't want to see; Consider that most of our current technological advances have ocurred within the last 200 years, one could even go back to the last 1,000 years and it would still prove that the natural selection theory (in regards to the origin of this most recent version of Human beings) is incorrect. How is one related to the other? If I took a modern human baby and transported it to an island where it never came into contact with modern technology or any knowledge garnered over the last 5,000 years would that child be able to rediscover quantum mechanics in it's lifetime? At the same time, if that baby grew up in modern society with access to modern knowledge could that baby grow up to be a scientist who studies quantum mechanics? Obviously, this has nothing to do with natural selection directly. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Consider that most of our current technological advances have ocurred within the last 200 years But some of the most important ones occurred much earlier:
(Click on the image to enlarge; those Acheulean handaxes were hot stuff for tens of thousands of years!) Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 1180 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
Coyote writes: Consider that most of our current technological advances have ocurred within the last 200 years But some of the most important ones occurred much earlier
- That is another reason why the technology subject is now obsolete to offer any answer of value to the O.P., knowing that the left behind prototypes has nothing to do with ancestry -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
knowing that the left behind prototypes has nothing to do with ancestry
How do we know that? Evidence please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 1180 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
Taq writes: knowing that the left behind prototypes has nothing to do with ancestry
How do we know that? - That a skeleton of left behind prototypes, dated at 30,000 years, has nothing to do with ancestry is evident; Were they placed on the Earth to constitute families, there would be found bodies of at least 2 families in a certain place, because humans tend to gather the dead bodies of their parents or children not too far from one another. The search engine does often bring up cemeteries dated at about 4,000 or 5,000, but not at 30 or 40,000 -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
That a skeleton of left behind prototypes, dated at 30,000 years, has nothing to do with ancestry is evident; Were they placed on the Earth to constitute families, there would be found bodies of at least 2 families in a certain place, How do you determine if two bodies are from two families? What evidence are you using?
because humans tend to gather the dead bodies of their parents or children not too far from one another. What about nomadic people who migrate large distances in a single year? How did you determine that all of our ancestors followed the same practices as we do? Evidence please.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 1180 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
Taq writes: That a skeleton of left behind prototypes, dated at 30,000 years, has nothing to do with ancestry is evident; Were they placed on the Earth to constitute families, there would be found bodies of at least 2 families in a certain place, How do you determine if two bodies are from two families? - The rest of the sentence clears up that it's a tendency;not a determined thing. -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The rest of the sentence clears up that it's a tendency; not a determined thing. Then all we have is your unevidenced assertion that 30,000 year old humans are not our ancestors. However, DNA can tell us if these 30,000 year old humans were our ancestors. Guess what? That work has been done.
quote: So I have evidence that 30,000 year old modern humans in Europe have descendants in Europe today. What evidence do you have to the contrary?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
because humans tend to gather the dead bodies of their parents or children not too far from one another. Really? And you know this for *most* cultures of 20,000 years ago how, exactly? Is that why the Parsis of India let vultures eat their dead? Individually?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024