Your out done. You cannot admit absolute hard copy proof of the first recording of life form groups, while you leap elsewhere with similar nonsense. The French 30K year claims have been blasted as a forgery. It has red color - a dead giveaway since even te Egyptians never had red dye 5000 years ago - the colors which were on the pyramids were got it from India.
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!
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?
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.
Perhaps the last sentence in this quote will impact:
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.
Even if one gives your own figures benefit of the doubt, we have a vacuum for some 30 to 50K years. Nor do you any proof whatsoever the world's population today is not represented by 'historical research and recorded evidence'.
You have not admitted it, but your question itself affirms by default where the first recording of life form groupings comes from. Nor has the issue been accepted the category of terrain and habitat is the most fundamental segregation factor within life form groupings.
Anti-creationism is becoming like a theological system with sacred pillars and an old man with a white beard called 'evolution'. I am being treated as a non-believer and should be sent to hell, right?
quote:Do you need more time to show where you plucked the sentence: "A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND" from? Are you quoting the bible?
I paraphrased it. But as you can see, Genesis says it much better, even expanding the process, which includes the transmitted attribute of the offspring to emulate the host parent via the seed factor. It is very excellently phrased from both a literary and technical POV; also note the order of earth sprouting grass and earth hugging herbs, which contain and issue out [yield] the seed [a core essence of data for a specific life form contained within a combined sperm and egg], then the raised trees:
'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.'
quote:The specific figures don't matter. All you need to do is accept the point that birth/death ratios can change, and thus there is no steady rate of growth which we should always expect to apply.
The change cannot impact here - it is generic to all periods and thus neutralized. Nor can the change variance be so large for the entire period.
The fact that Australia, before the coming of agriculture, couldn't supply enough food or water to support 5 trillion people is surely obvious.
This is a myth. Australia is surrounded by H20 and has more water than the middle-east, which is also half desert. Sparse population still cannot justify no evidences at all for 60K years.
quote: What do you mean by 'a vacuum of some 30 to 50k years'?
I refer to the lack of evidential imprints of humans for 30K years measurable every 100 or every 1000 years. No past imprints can be seen either, thus the estimated period of 50K. One cave painting in France or Australia and nothing else, is like saying a myramid existed in Egypt 30K years ago - and nothing else whatsoever.
Nor do you any proof whatsoever the world's population today is not represented by 'historical research and recorded evidence'.
No idea what to make of that sentence. Where are you quoting 'historical research and recorded evidence' from? I didn't write that, nor did anybody else so far in this thread.
We have recorded, measurable and traceable accounts of the human population the last 6000 years. I say this is the only correct yardstick for measuring population growth; the rest being fantasy and conjecture.