What is the lowest multiplication rate for Humans ?

So now it's Pascal's Wager too? Even though I would assume that Blaise was sincere when he had come up with it, it's turned into the second biggest religious confidence game that promises you the certainty of winning while it takes everything away from you.Read my page on "Afterlife Insurance" at http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/wager.html for more details on why Pascal's Wager is being used.Edited by dwise1, : Subtitle

-Hi Ringo,They are equals because both options equate to a certainty,and at the same time both options equate to a possibility.-E.g.: If a person does choose the 'nothing to lose' option, it's a 100 % Certainty that (s)he will be losing the moments of knowing the foods once more.-

quote:

---

A knowledge of good and evil consequences

​

The fruit of the olive tree is a fruit from a solid tree, however it is also cooking oil. The flavor of the olive oil was not made to match with fruits from compatible solid trees. The olives were made to be cooking oil and go well with the desire to know the food again since that knowledge does not endure. To work for a food that perishes and leads to annihilation is paying with one's life for a knowledge that does not remain: It doesn't endure more than a moment when knowing the food once more.

​

On a time when the meaning of the word death was not expressed by the use of one specific word, and the term to die was not known yet by the first hearers, the ancient term to return to the dust of the ground was utilized to describe a literal fall of man, as in the original sense of the word pecare: to precipitate literally, having nothing to do with fall in the sense of spiritual or moral fall. It was only later that the real meaning of pecare was synthesized in mixed versions to include the alleged ( moral or spiritual ) fall of ( the ) man.

​

The sense of spiritual or moral fall was added to the versions that were made for religion, containing the belief that all the rest of the people should consider themselves fallen and punished because of the choices made by another person. And then to the word pecare another meaning was added: to sin. However, in countries that speak Latin languages, the original sense of the word pecare ( to precipitate ) is still used, when fruits still small do precipitate falling from a tree all by themselves, people call them pecados ( precipitated ones ).

​

People make the choice of paying a price for food and bread and no one calls it punishment. Even so the hidden words of Genesis as originally written, spoken to the ones who ate incompatible food, do refer to a price to be paid in case one keeps on choosing that option. There was never an alleged original sin but an initial choice: Regardless of whoever first did or whoever continues making that same choice until the day that is called Today.

​

The ultimate cause that originates a gradual precipitation and literal fall of return to the dust of the ground is choosing what is incompatible for the body. But in mixed versions the truth was synthesized for making believe that the words from the Initial Time are not eternal. That instruction would not be valid any more because after the alleged ( moral or spiritual ) fall of ( the ) man, even those who were not born yet should consider themselves fallen. People were taught that the option of staying free from a death that could be avoided pertains to the past.

​

The instruction about eating solely what is compatible for the body would allegedly not be valid anymore, as highlighted in paraphrases which quote the hidden words of Genesis as originally written,

​

And they counted not on a recompense of justice nor discern the innocent souls' reward. Neither did they know the hidden words of the books of the ancients: For I AM formed man to be imperishable; the likeness of I AM own nature (s)he made him. But for [ free choice in the ] *despise of the evil, death was left [as an option] for the world, and they who choose the evil experience it.

​

* despise of what is evil — The term despise of the evil was substituted with 'envy of the devil' in the translations that were left to belong to the ministry of the eighth kingdom.

​

They who said among themselves, thinking not aright: "Brief and troubled is our lifetime; neither is there any remedy for man's dying; For our lifetime is the passing of a shadow; and our dying cannot be deferred because it is fixed with a seal. Let us condemn [a man] to *a death that does not dignify.

​

* a death that could be avoided by nourishing the Human body solely with fruits, the ones from compatible solid trees, does not dignify. The death by old age can be avoided when one abstains from digesting incompatible foods.

​

* The condemnation is not seeing nor hearing what is truth but believing in spirits of men by not verifying for consistency of versions of scripture that were left to the doctrines of faiths of the earth.

​

For if [ regular ] food was made for the stomach then the stomach would have been made for food and it would not be brought to naught.

​

In the New Living Translation, the original words are found eclipsed and a parenthesis exposes a section that was not there: You say, ‘Food was made for the stomach, and the stomach for food.' ( This is true, though someday ). English Standard Version substitutes the parenthesis with a dash.

​

The fruits of a tree were made to be extensions of what is living. e.g.: Morinda citrifolia, avocado, orange, peach, persimmon; And when a person eats continuously what is not living then the nervous system becomes incompatible; because the sequence of time in it is too continuous and not permanent. E.g.: the grains of rice or beans are not living anymore when a person eats them.

​

Mean old levee; taught me to weep and moan

​

When the levee breaks or when a person dies by old age, there is the procedure of weeping and moaning according to the habits of the old levees who teach: that one must make a seventh day mass and pray for the dead. However, every prayer ritual and the practice of praying for the dead are teachings not found in the book of life of the lamb. On this, if your levee will break because of giving credit, the guarantee that comes from who believes that your body will have to become dust of the ground anyway; On that day, cryin’ won’t help you. Prayer won’t do you no good.

​

It's got what it takes to make a mountain man leave his home

​

A man who is like a mountain doesn't have the habit of going anywhere nor can be convinced beforehand to leave his body that is home and tabernacle made for the light, unless an old levee of souls has got what it takes to cause him to precipitate believing that he was made to die or that he would have to leave his home, tabernacle of his body:

​

Seeing a doctrinal image of the eighth kingdom ( State of Vatican )
built upon the scribes’ perspective of the open sepulcher

​

For fifteen centuries a mixed cup overflowed. Another version for the book of Genesis and all the rest of the books of scriptures was built for the usage of who ever identifies himself with religion, who ever is told what to do by the man, and for those who take advantage from a circumstance of gloom for a need of giving credit, so that they might say that, believing, they are creditors of merit to salvation.

​

The image and semblance of the doctrine of scribes from the doctorates on Hebrew is a sequence of camouflages made for visualization of their open sepulchers, empty awaiting for them.

​

To camouflage the hidden words of Genesis is making believe that the Human body was formed to have as design and plan: to become dust of the ground since the words from the Initial Time, about eating solely what is compatible for the body to stay free from death, would not be valid anymore. The first words spoken to man after the Human body was formed would have ceased from being eternal words in these days.

​

To camouflage the design and plan of the Human body is making believe that after the alleged ( moral or spiritual ) fall of ( the ) man, all the rest of the people should consider themselves fallen and consequently punished because of the choices made by a corruptible man. Scribes and Hebraists from the doctorates on Modern Hebrew, having the keys of the books of the ancients, hid them: nor did they enter, and those who desired to enter, they permitted them not. When seeing versions of scripture that were left for the religions, one needs to be prudent as [ when dealing with ] serpents and, at the same time, innocent as doves.

​

Dove's eyes do focus on images with a sharper vision.

​

-

---

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : updateEdited by CrazyDiamond7, : updateEdited by CrazyDiamond7, : 100% CertaintyEdited by CrazyDiamond7, : 3rd. Paragraph

So all we have are empty assertions as to why abiogenesis is impossible.Even more, we have already shown that your own math requires the Earth to be just a few weeks old given the population of bacteria. How do you explain this?

That isn't true, though. You said:

quote:

---

Exchange a certainty of death ( in case you keep eating incompatible foods ) for a possibility of life and happiness.

---

There is no certainty of happiness.You also said:

quote:

---

Exchange a system in which you have nothing to win, for a system in which you have nothing to lose.

---

If I chose not to go into the casino, I have nothing to win and nothing to lose. If I chose to go into the casino, I have something to win but everything to lose.There's nothing equal in your "equations".

Hi CrazyDiamond7 A theory is obsolete when it has been proven false or it is superseded by a new theory that explains the known information in a more complete or simpler manner. Evolution has not been proven wrong, and it's reality is observable in the world around you -- both (1) and (2) have been observed to occur, and thus are based on fact as opposed to theory.There is no documented incidence where (1) and (2) are incapable of explaining the diversity of life as we see it.The original theory (of descent with modification via natural selection) has actually been improved by identifying additional mechanisms, including the underlying genetic mechanisms that are the basis of inheritance of genetic traits. Curiously, mathematics is hopelessly incapable of proving reality wrong, so if your mathematical results do not match the reality around you, then you have made a mistake in the math. Your mathematical model is wrong.Mathematics can only model reality, and any discrepancy between model and reality is in the failure of the model to be a complete explanation.For instance, Newton's Law of Gravity: This explained observed data fairly well, but there were a couple of anomalies (orbit of Mercury is one). These anomalies did not prove the theory to be invalid or obsolete, just that it was incomplete in its ability to explain all the data. Then we got relativity: and even this does not explain all the data completely, hence the invocation of dark matter and energy to balance the equations ...BUT the thing to note here is that Newton's Law of Gravity is not invalidated -- first because Einsteins Relativity equations devolve into Newton's law in most everyday situations, and as a result it was used to calculate the Mars rocket trajectories (the unknowns in the the calculations causing greater difference\error than the equations). Rather the use of the formula is restricted to those cases where relativity devolves into Newton.Similarly any new theory that would make evolution obsolete will not invalidate the application of the theory, but add to it, as it adds to our base of information and understanding of life, the universe, and everything (D.N.Adams).The mathematics of population dynamics is much more complicated than your simplistic system. I suggest reading Robert Fischer on this topic.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clarityEdited by RAZD, : ...

-Ringo,For many people it's better to die than live without their regular foods ( which are their happiness and at the same time 100% certainty that they will die ).and for many, the money they lose in the casino is worth the pleasure and happiness of participating in the casino once more.And if you tell them what the real happiness is
then they would tell you: that happiness ( without regular foods ) is not a Certainty but just a possibility.-

-Hi RAZD,What becomes obsolete are specifically 2 concepts: Origin of life and Human Origins.1st concept - the fundamental basis of the evolution theory = the origin of life starting occasionally somewhere in the past, and having a beginning outside of what is already living.Up to the present, the evolution theory ( in regards to the origin of life ) is not a teaching based on perception of the reality or ascertained truth of the facts.-2nd concept - that the size of the Human brain would be product of natural selection. This concept becomes obsolete by Four different means,‘Math proof of the Population Growth Models’, 'Evidence of Simultaneity - Previous Non-miscegenation of the European population', 'Impossibility of creating a beginning of life outside of what is already living' and ‘Physical proof that results from Genesis Experiment’.-Therefore, a theory becomes obsolete not only when it has been proven false but also when 2 or more concepts are not a teaching based on perception of the reality or real science ( ascertained truth of the facts ).-And what about the Evidence of Simultaneity,Did the Humans spread to Europe during the time proposed for their multiplication by the natural selection theory ?-

quote:

---

Observation shows that when Humans spread to a territory all by themselves, this fact does not originate groups of different languages and ethnies. To the contrary, it brings miscegenation and then causes some languages and ethnies to disappear.

​

Evidence of Simultaneity consists in the fact that families of Humans did not spread to Europe during the time proposed for their multiplication by the Evolution theory.

​

According to the simultaneity of Echoes in the words ‘No one called us to the land’ the coming of these sets of groups to Europe occurred simultaneously, all at one time. They were previously selected and settled in their respective lands otherwise Europe would be one miscegenated people even before they could become 42 different linguistic and ethnic groups.

​

Albanians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crimean Tatars . . . . . Germanic people . . . . Portuguese
Armenians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Croats . . . . . . . . . . . . Greeks . . . . . . . . . . . Romanians
Aromanians . . . . . . . . . . . . . Czech . . . . . . . . . . . . Hungarians . . . . . . . . Russian
Basques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dutch . . . . . . . . . . . . Igbo people . . . . . . . . Scottish
Belarusians . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estonian . . . . . . . . . . Irish people . . . . . . . . Slovenes
Ethnic groups in Belgium . . . . Finnish . . . . . . . . . . . Italians . . . . . . . . . . . Spanish people
Bosniaks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . French . . . . . . . . . . . Latvians . . . . . . . . . . Swedes
Brittish people . . . . . . . . . . . . Gaelic . . . . . . . . . . . . Lithuaneans . . . . . . . Swiss
Bulgarians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Georgians . . . . . . . . . Macedonian . . . . . . . Turks
Celts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . German people . . . . . Netherlands . . . . . . . Ukrainians
Cossacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Polish

​

-

​

Europe isn't so large that it could originate so much different languages and ethnies through a system of miscegenation which is the precise mixing implied in the natural selection theory for the origin of the Human body. All of non-Russian Europe fits into the map of Brazil where the language became One. Evolution theory implies that the miscegenation in Europe would have taken place for a time longer than 55 thousand years. Turning back to real European life, people take a walk and in awhile they are spread all over the hills and far away.

​

-

---

Hi CrazyDiamond7 Sadly, for you, the origin of life is abiogenesis, not evolution theory per se. Misunderstanding this is indicative of using misunderstanding and incomplete knowledge. The science of abiogenesis is relatively new, and there are exciting studies being done in the field, but none of them involve evolution per se. See again what the process of evolution involves Message 35:

quote:

---

(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.

---

Note that it is rather impossible to have this process work without a living breeding population to start with -- biological evolution starts after breeding populations have developed, ...Note further that it is rather impossible to have divergent speciation without first having a living breeding population to diverge from, Message 35 again: ... and finally, please note that when you are talking about the Theory of Evolution, then you are necessarily talking about biological evolution, again Message 35:

quote:

---

(3) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of evolution over generations, and the process of divergent speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

---

Now if you want to discuss where we are in the study of abiogenesis, I can recommend you start with two other threads -- see:

1. Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I), and
2. Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II)

Actually, we have several observed facts involving abiogenesis:

1. the earth apparently formed 4.55 billion years ago, from star dust, ...
2. before 3.7 billion years there is no evidence of life on earth, ...
3. after 3.7 billion years, the oldest rocks that show fossils, show fossils of fully developed life (breeding populations), ...
4. prebiotic molecules exist in space (see link A above), ... and
5. self-replicating molecules can form spontaneously by chemical means (see link B above).

Based on these observations, it would appear possible that life formed from self-replicating molecules somewhere between 4.55 billion and 3.7 billion years ago, and this would appear to be an hypothesis worthy of additional study and investigation in order to expand our knowledge of the natural history of life on earth. The size of the human brain is likely due to run-away sexual selection, a process that occurs much faster than natural selection based on individual survival. See 2nd concept - that the size of the Human brain would be product of natural selection. This concept becomes obsolete by Four different means,‘Math proof of the Population Growth Models’, 'Evidence of Simultaneity - Previous Non-miscegenation of the European population', 'Impossibility of creating a beginning of life outside of what is already living' and ‘Physical proof that results from Genesis Experiment’. [/qs]Again your ‘Math proof of the Population Growth Models’ only proves that your math is faulty or incomplete, not that the information\data\observations are wrong. Math is a way to model reality, and the validity of the model is related to how well it represents the information\data\observations. This is only valid as an observation if you list all the pre-colonial languages of the indigenous people, rather than Portuguese, else you are comparing apples to oranges. ... which has not happened ... ... which has not been demonstrated ... Curiously, science is not about "ascertained truth" - rather it is about determining what is probably the best explanation for the information\data\observations available -- so the best science can hope to do is approximate truth through testing and invalidation of false concepts (eliminating false ideas). ... so therefore your proposed "system of miscegenation" does not explain the evidence and most like is what is in error: the model does not match the information\data\observations.Curiously, DNA patterns for populations appears to match language patterns, thus demonstrating that the inheritable traits of the breeding population -- in genes and memes⁽¹⁾ -- generally match and tend to validate the evolutionary model for the spread of humans on earth.Enjoy.⁽¹⁾ - memes are culturally conveyed concepts\behavior rather than genetic traits, taught to members of a culture and thus passed from generation to generation in much the way genes are, and this would include languages.

This and the rest of your stuff is just plain nuts.We have a great place to test disprove your idea (above). And we find just the opposite occurs!California was settled by 15-12,000 years ago by a very small number of groups. When it was "discovered" by the Spanish there were many different languages. From wiki:

North America is notable for its linguistic diversity, especially in California. California alone has 18 families consisting of 74 languages (compared to the mere 3 families in all of Europe: Basque, Indo-European, and Uralic).

Note: this does not even include dialects! And all this divergence occurred in a mere 12-15,000 years.Your ideas: Do not pass "Go." Do not collect $200.

Yes, for some people.It is a certainty that somebody will get cancer but cancer isn't a certainty for everybody. Similarly, "happiness" is not a certainty for everybody. Your "equations" don't add up.

-RAZD,If the evolution theory is not fundamentally based on a specific conception of abiogenesis ( or origin-of-life outside of what is already living ),how do you know that life only arose once or occasionally?-Knowing that the evolution theory is based on the concept that organisms evolved from creatures similar from themselves ( Or, more specifically, from organisms in the cambrian explosion ) and all sharing a common ancestor,It is plain to see that the alleged separation between evolution and origin of life ( or abiogenesis ) is what best covers up camouflaging the impossibility of life having had an origin ( or beginning ) outside of what is living.

quote:

---

When Intelligent Design advocates talk to evolutionists concerning the origin-of-life,
the standard response is almost always something like "Evolutionary theory says nothing about the origin of life .. .. evolution is an entirely different subject than abiogenesis".

​

So, the question is, why is it that Darwinists are so adamant about the separation between abiogenesis and evolution?

​

1.Common worldview the set of assumptions that lead to thinking that Darwinism is true might be the same set of assumptions that lead to thinking of the Darwinian view of abiogenesis. Thus, you keep it as a working conception. The idea that they are unlinked stems from the fact that, from Darwinian assumptions, the constraints of abiogenesis mean that it must fall within the Darwinian concept, even if the details are sketchy. The idea that other forms of origin-of-life might affect all of this never enters the thinking on the basis that people who believe those things are nutty and only need to be placated (oh yes, evolution does not rule out that God was the originator of life now move along and don’t ask any questions about the nature of that origin or how it might affect the rest of evolution), not treated rationally.

​

2.Embarrassment it could be that many Darwinists know that studies of abiogenesis have been woeful at best. Despite the fact that Darwinism is rooted on assumptions that include abiogenesis, they are worried that the failure of abiogenesis studies will reflect poorly on evolutionary theory. Therefore, the disconnecting of abiogenesis with Darwinism is a means of life-preservation to simply cut off from discussion the more abysmal findings about the theory. Of course the problems with abiogenesis are basically the same as with RM+NS evolution how does information arise on its own? It’s just a more pronounced problem with abiogenesis and not as easy to wish away.

​

3.Tradition the notions of universal common ancestry, RM+NS, and abiogenesis are so thoroughly embedded in evolutionary tradition, that practitioners have difficulty separating out the received wisdom from the empirical data. Therefore, even though they know that evolutionary theory _should_ be separate from abiogenesis, they have too much institutional baggage to deal with the issue on a broad scale, and noting the implications it could have across the board. Those who attempt to do so in one area are shot down by others more entrenched in evolutionary tradition.

​

(if you think of others, please post them in the comments)

​

The biggest problem I have is not as much with Darwinists having this concept of abiogenesis or with them basing their theory on it. All ID-based theories likewise have their own conceptions of the origin-of-life that their theories come from, some of which include common ancestry. The problem is the deceptive tactics of pretending that their theory is separable from abiogenesis. That is simply not intellectually honest.

​

-

​

So, my take is, Darwin publicly made the separation, but privately knew the connection. Haeckel tried to tie the two together. But when Haeckel’s idea was disproven, evolutionary theory conveniently reverted to Darwin’s public demarcation to avoid the embarrassment. Had spontaneous generation succeeded, no doubt there would not be any demarcation. Likewise, today, if abiogensis succeeds (which it will not), then how quickly would the Darwinist redefine their theory to include abiogenesis?

​

-

​

Quoted from the subtitle 'Pretending that Evolutionary Theory is Separable from Abiogenesis'

​

---

-Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : updateEdited by CrazyDiamond7, : paragraph 2Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : concept that organisms

Evolution is a theory about how species come about, not how life came about. It is consistent with multiple "conceptions of abiogenesis." It doesn't matter if life on Earth was seeded from outer space or arose here from scratch or was created by God or Zeus.Darwin's book was titled Origin of Species, not Origin of Life.--Percy

We don't know for sure, but the observed facts of genetics strongly suggest that it did.

Hi CrazyDiamond7 We don't ... nor do we NEED to know in order to study the evolution of life on earth.Your quote is full of arguments based on false or misleading information. Garbage in = garbage out. There is no such thing. Abiogenesis and Evolution are different aspect of life sciences.People that use the term Dawinism and similar (Darwinian) when they are purportedly addressing evolution are intentionally misrepresenting evolutionary science. Darwin's work is a part of the science of evolution, and does not involve elements of evolution not known or conceived of in his time -- like genetics. Because it absolutely does not affect the application of evolutionary biology science and to study the diversity of life on this planet. Evolution happens, it has been observed, therefore it is capable of being studied via scientific principles. Ah yes, the victim card ...People that think there needs to be a link are underinformed or misinformed or both.We do not need to KNOW the origin of species "A" to study it's subsequent evolution and observe if the breeding population divides into two or more daughter populations (speciation - see Message 35) and to document the change in species from one generation to the next (evolution - see Message 35) LOL. The study of abiogenesis is one of the most exciting fields of science today, see links provided in Message 38 for just a summary view of the amount of investigation taking place. Logical fallacy of using the conclusion as evidence for the conclusion ... rather sad argument. LOL.Just as we are worried that the studies of gravity will reflect poorly on evolutionary theory ... that is to say not at all.The studies of abiogenesis have, and will continue, to reflect well on the process of science in expanding out knowledge of the universe and life.Once you understand that they are not linked then you can understand that no matter what abiogenesis discovers regarding the beginning of life on earth, the study of the evolution of life of earth will still be based on evolution and the scientific process -- we will still observe evolution and speciation and alterations in the diversity of life by these processes. ROFLOL. Trying to cast scientific study as the rote learning of beliefs (how religions are taught) demonstrates abject failure to understand science and scientific processes.Science advances by showing previous concepts to be wrong, faulty, or incomplete. Science lives to overturn traditional thought not wallow in it. What you need to understand is that there is a difference between linked and dependent. All science is linked into understanding "Life, the Universe, and oh Everything" (Douglas Adams), but each field is independently studied.The study of geology is linked to the study of how planets formed, and the study of how planets formed is linked to the study of gravity, and the study of gravity is linked to the study of how the universe began ... but each can be studied independently.Geology does not become inseparable from Astronomy or Physics, it isn't dependent on KNOWING how the earth formed: the earth is here, we can touch it, we can feel it, we can study how it has changed over time and try to understand the forces and processes that cause those changes.Life is here, we can touch it, we can feel it, we can study how it has changed over time and try to understand the forces and processes that cause those changes. That study is the science of biological evolution.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : (oops) correction per StragglerEdited by RAZD, : coding

You mean astronomy rather than astrology.Typo aside - Good post.