Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the lowest multiplication rate for Humans ?
goldenlightArchangel
Member (Idle past 1153 days)
Posts: 583
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 46 of 144 (703103)
07-15-2013 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Percy
07-04-2013 9:59 PM


Re: The Standard Response Frequently Posted
-
I agree, there was a problem whose solution required the proper usage of words,
E.g., 'Evolutionists' point of view about the origin-of-life'
'Evolutionary theory' rather than 'evolution theory'
quote:
the Life energy and Existence never had a beginning or origin in the continuous sequence of a second after another.
But a theory of the Evolutionists, Abiogenesis, is fundamentally based on the belief that it would have been possible.
The evolutionists do see the origin of life in a Transcendental vision, that is 'The origin of life would have started occasionally somewhere in the past and then it would have evolved from that point’.
The origin-of-life as the Evolutionists see it is not a teaching based on perception of the reality since the results were not demonstrated. Man is not able to create a beginning of life outside of what is already living.
-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Percy, posted 07-04-2013 9:59 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Percy, posted 07-16-2013 9:10 AM goldenlightArchangel has replied
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 07-24-2013 8:18 AM goldenlightArchangel has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 47 of 144 (703163)
07-16-2013 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by goldenlightArchangel
07-15-2013 4:55 PM


Re: The Standard Response Frequently Posted
Hi CrazyDiamond7,
Just to let you know, in these anonymous quotes you keep issuing, I assume you're quoting yourself.
CrazyDiamond7 writes:
But a theory of the Evolutionists, Abiogenesis, is fundamentally based on the belief that it would have been possible.
Yes, whenever there is evidence for something then science does believe its origin must have been possible, and further, that its origin must have been natural. Observing an asteroid traveling through space, science believes its origin possible and natural. Observing life on Earth, science believes its origin possible and natural.
The origin-of-life as the Evolutionists see it is not a teaching based on perception of the reality since the results were not demonstrated.
Science does not assert more for the origin of life than the evidence allows. Everything that has ever happened in the history of the universe for which we have evidence has happened naturally, and so science believes that the origin of life occurred naturally. Other than that science has only hypotheses about abiogenesis and no firm theories.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 07-15-2013 4:55 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 07-23-2013 5:12 PM Percy has replied

  
goldenlightArchangel
Member (Idle past 1153 days)
Posts: 583
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 48 of 144 (703508)
07-23-2013 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Percy
07-16-2013 9:10 AM


Life in movement does not always happens naturally
-
quote:
Everything that has ever happened in the history of the universe for which we have evidence has happened naturally, and so science believes that the origin of life occurred naturally. Other than that science has only hypotheses about abiogenesis and no firm theories.
It might take some time for one to bring up a sign ( or perhaps an evidence ) that 'the origin of life ( or the movement in which life is generated ) does not occur naturally
since 'All things are possible to him that investigate .. .. some new possibilities ..'
-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Percy, posted 07-16-2013 9:10 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 07-24-2013 7:46 AM goldenlightArchangel has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 49 of 144 (703528)
07-24-2013 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by goldenlightArchangel
07-23-2013 5:12 PM


Re: Life in movement does not always happens naturally
CrazyDiamond7 writes:
It might take some time for one to bring up a sign ( or perhaps an evidence ) that 'the origin of life ( or the movement in which life is generated ) does not occur naturally
since 'All things are possible to him that investigate .. .. some new possibilities ..'
You've got it backwards. The idea of the supernatural is as old as mankind. There's been plenty of time to uncover supernatural evidence, none has surfaced. Studying the natural world using the scientific method is the new possibility.
All you're doing here is taking the long way of saying, "I have no evidence."
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Fix typo.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 07-23-2013 5:12 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 12-15-2014 7:03 PM Percy has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 50 of 144 (703529)
07-24-2013 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by goldenlightArchangel
07-15-2013 4:55 PM


Re: The Standard Response Frequently Posted
I agree, there was a problem whose solution required the proper usage of words
There still is:
E.g., 'Evolutionists' point of view about the origin-of-life'
Lose the 'quotes' ... and lose the confused\confusing terminology. I expect that what you are trying to say is:
E.g., Scientific point of view about the origin-of-life (OOL)
'Evolutionary theory' rather than 'evolution theory'
again I suspect that you are really trying to say:
Scientific theory rather than evolution theory
If you restrict\use the words evolution, evolutionary, evolutionist (and any other variations) to apply only within the biological life science of existing life, as scientists do, then you will not be as confused\confusing.
Evolution is not synonym for science:
quote:
Synonyms: change, enlargement, evolvement, expansion, flowering, growth, increase, maturation, natural process, progression, transformation, unfolding, working out
Evolutionists are scientists but not all scientists are evolutionists.
Geologists are scientists but not all scientists are geoplogists.
quote:
But a theory of the Evolutionists, Abiogenesis, is fundamentally based on the belief that it would have been possible.
We know that when the earth formed there was no life as we know it.
We know that there is life (as we know it) on earth now ...
THEREFORE it began at some point. OOL occurred.
We can even narrow that "point" down to being somewhere between 4.55 billion years ago and 3.5 billion years ago.
quote:
The origin-of-life as the Evolutionists see it is not a teaching based on perception of the reality since the results were not demonstrated. Man is not able to create a beginning of life outside of what is already living.
Yet we do know that life (as we know it) on earth did not exist before 4.55 billion years ago, and we do know that life (as we know it) has existed on earth since 3.5 billion years ago.
That IS a perception of the reality, based as it is on the objective evidence currently available, and THAT makes it teachable in science classes.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 07-15-2013 4:55 PM goldenlightArchangel has not replied

  
goldenlightArchangel
Member (Idle past 1153 days)
Posts: 583
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 51 of 144 (744791)
12-15-2014 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Percy
07-24-2013 7:46 AM


Emanation of Life Energy is what best explains. - Creationism leads to Crazyness
-
Percy, the light emanates of itself, so the life energy emanates of itself. The visible light was not created. Life was not created.
Every person is a different reality, every person is a Primary life energy that is living not in a fragmentary way, Human life is emanating an independent realm, an alternate reality, because the light, or life energy in electrical form does not depend from being created. The light rises and appears in our Human form, otherwise the Light returns to the source.
-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 07-24-2013 7:46 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-15-2014 7:45 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 12-16-2014 8:01 AM goldenlightArchangel has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 52 of 144 (744792)
12-15-2014 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by goldenlightArchangel
12-15-2014 7:03 PM


Re: Emanation of Life Energy is what best explains. - Creationism leads to Crazyness
The light rises and appears in our Human form, otherwise the Light returns to the source.
I can emit infrared laser beams from my eyes, but the are invisible to humans. How did you find out about it?

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 12-15-2014 7:03 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 12-15-2014 8:33 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
goldenlightArchangel
Member (Idle past 1153 days)
Posts: 583
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 53 of 144 (744793)
12-15-2014 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
07-02-2013 2:57 PM


Inconsistency of data causes Evolutionary theory to go into extinction
-
RAZD, Evolutionary theory (in regards to the origin of the Human body) has been proven inconsistent.
The proof of Inconsistency in the Evolutionary theory has been provided by a List of numbers proposed by many men or representatives from their archeological institutes.
quote:
The Surrealist Intervals’ anomaly
The following was based on numbers proposed by the Evolutionary theory:
55 thousand years ago: 2,000 x 10 = 20,000 - 90 % = 2,000 people
50 thousand years ago: 1,700 x 10 = 17,000 - 90 % = 1,700 p
45 thousand years ago: 2,500 x 10 = 25,000 - 90 % = 2,500 p
40 thousand years ago: 3,500 x 10 = 35,000 - 90 % = 3,500 p
35 thousand years ago: 5,000 x 10 = 50,000 - 90 % = 5,000 p
The finals ( the totals ) can be changed and they still indicate global termination occurring from a thousand years to another. ♯ ♯ ♯ — Anomaly has been found — Every 5,000 years the number of children would be the same from the beginning to the end of every 4,750 years interval. Another anomaly is not seeing it.
During the 5,000 years intervals, from 55 to 35 thousand years ago, the time that the population would multiply on a regular basis equates to 250 years.
Average of years without multiplying: 4,750 years per every 5,000 years.
See through this point of view:
________________________________ 5,000 years interval ______________________________
|___________ p x 10 - 90 % ________|_______ multiplication rate _____________|
|_______________ 4,750 years ___________|_______ regular basis: 250 years __________|
That is why the problem is not about a constant decrease allegedly caused by a variety of factors which do not explain the lack of consistency in the Evolutionary theory. The anomaly is the impossibility that their population reductions could have happened in a measure that corresponds to 4,750 years without multiplying, per every 5,000 years. Because Human beings do multiply according to a regular basis which was not taken into consideration when the time proposed for their multiplication had been given by the Evolutionary theory.
Brief Summarized Signature
Real life Vs too pessimistic archeological surrealism
As certain as Die Hard, a pet kangaroo rat, has always an ace in the sleeve, ( whether the kangaroo rat bluffs or not ), it's only with a chronological basis that equates to 4,750 years without multiplying per every 5,000 years, that it would be possible for people in Europe to have taken 25 thousand years to reach 1 million.
If the number of children would be the same from the beginning to the end of every 4,750 years interval within the rows of 5,000 years from 55 to 35,000 years ago then there's still the option of stop drifting on numbers as if man is a beast, and as if everything that happens in life is a disgrace. That kind of chronological basis surpasses far beyond Hardy Har Har, a depressed, gloomy pessimistic hyena, always saying, 'I just know it's all going to go wrong'.
In Human Origins the ascertained truth of the facts has been constantly synthesized to an excessive and over exaggerated dependence on farming activity since it wasn't a fundamental condition for Humans to grow and multiply but just one of the options they chose. Let’s not talk about farming and agricultural technology as if 55,000 families of European fishermen, who never chose to do anything different, would depend so much on changing their fishing into agricultural activities so that they continued to grow and multiply.
For this reason many graphs that are made as alleged evidence of accuracy of the Evolutionary theory for Human origins do not show numbers of fishermen as they do with farming since fishermen in Europe could increase from 1,000 to 50,000 people in the least per every thousand years. Time for seeing beyond the spoon: The more children a farmer had, the more labor force was available for them to increase the production of the farm. Given the lack of technology in those days, the population growth was a solution and not a problem.
Observation shows that when Humans spread to a territory, 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. That the sets of groups did not spread to Europe during the time proposed for their multiplication by the Evolutionary theory, is that which is ascertained by elimination.
According to Echoes in the words ‘No one called us to the land’, the appearance of these sets of groups in Europe occurred simultaneously. There is still the open road to new discoveries: That 42 different Linguistic Ethnic groups were previously selected by intelligent designer is the only possibility that was not proved wrong. That is why, by elimination, you ascertain they were brought to the land all at one time, otherwise Europe would be one miscegenated people.
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
British people Gaelic Lithuanians Swiss
Bulgarians Georgians Macedonian Turks
Celts German people Netherlands Ukrainians
Cossacks Polish
Source: Wikipedia, European Ethnic group Templates
Europe isn't so large that it could originate so much different languages and ethnies through the miscegenation, the mixing involved in the Evolutionary theory. All of non-Russian Europe fits into the map of Brazil where the language became one. Evolutionary theory implies that the miscegenation in Europe would have taken place for a time longer than 25,000 years. Turning back to real European life, people take a walk and in awhile they are spread all over the hills and far away.
-
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 07-02-2013 2:57 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Coyote, posted 12-15-2014 8:28 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied
 Message 57 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2014 9:51 PM goldenlightArchangel has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 54 of 144 (744797)
12-15-2014 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by goldenlightArchangel
12-15-2014 7:48 PM


Re: Inconsistency of data causes Evolutionary theory to go into extinction
You've posted that nonsense before.
It didn't fly then, what makes you think it'll fly now?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 12-15-2014 7:48 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 12-15-2014 9:00 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 65 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 03-13-2015 4:50 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
goldenlightArchangel
Member (Idle past 1153 days)
Posts: 583
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 55 of 144 (744799)
12-15-2014 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Tanypteryx
12-15-2014 7:45 PM


Re: Emanation of Life Energy is what best explains. - Creationism leads to Crazyness
You know, it is not emition of light. It's emanation of light. Anyway, good job!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-15-2014 7:45 PM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
goldenlightArchangel
Member (Idle past 1153 days)
Posts: 583
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 56 of 144 (744800)
12-15-2014 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Coyote
12-15-2014 8:28 PM


Re: Inconsistency of data causes Evolutionary theory to go into extinction
Dear Coyote, people finally see by observing real life that it’s impossible that 2,000 people in Europe would have taken a time longer than ten thousand years to reach 1 million.
Of course it is impossible. Would you perhaps state otherwise?
So why not see that the Evolutionary theory (in regards to the origin of the human body) has been stating that 'it would have taken over 55 thousand years for Humans to increase from 2,000 to 1 million'?
Can anyone see that many men are telling lies here?
And why they are telling lies,
Because you know there is a rank of what matters more, regardless of a mistake on progress.
quote:
Specific reasons why not see when a theory becomes archaic and obsolete:
1st Sponsorships and financial support to Universities ought not to be lost. 2nd The Institutes’ reputation ought not to be damaged. 3rd The sales of many books must continue without damages. 4th As teacher on Human origins you must keep your job.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Coyote, posted 12-15-2014 8:28 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Coyote, posted 12-15-2014 11:07 PM goldenlightArchangel has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 57 of 144 (744805)
12-15-2014 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by goldenlightArchangel
12-15-2014 7:48 PM


False Inconsistency of data cause no Evolutionary theory problems
The proof of Inconsistency in the Evolutionary theory has been provided by a List of numbers proposed by many men or representatives from their archeological institutes.
What you have is a mathematical model by which you try to show that objective empirical evidence is wrong. What is wrong is your model.
Long cut and paste with no reference is not evidence of your argument.
The evidence of evolution is around you every day.
The process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis have been observed.
The theory of evolution is that these two processes 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.
This has not been invalidated by objective empirical evidence and certainly not by incomplete mathematical models that don't reflect reality.
There is no demand that population growth follows your paradigm, especially when your parameters are incomplete and do not take into effect well known ecological interactions.
In any contest between math and reality, it is reality that wins, handily.
Sorry, but you are still wrong.
Enjoy.;

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 12-15-2014 7:48 PM goldenlightArchangel has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 58 of 144 (744808)
12-15-2014 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by goldenlightArchangel
12-15-2014 9:00 PM


Re: Inconsistency of data causes Evolutionary theory to go into extinction
Dear Coyote, people finally see by observing real life that it’s impossible that 2,000 people in Europe would have taken a time longer than ten thousand years to reach 1 million.
This is incorrect, as has been pointed out to you. Why do you persist in a delusion that you have been shown is incorrect?
Of course it is impossible. Would you perhaps state otherwise?
Sure. Just look back at previous posts.
Can anyone see that many men are telling lies here?
To use a seasonal allusion, yes, we can see who's been naughty and who's been nice.
Creationists and other deluded folks have been eager to accept old tribal myths and other old wives' tales, but reject ideas and theories that have solid evidence behind them.
That's not something to be proud of.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 12-15-2014 9:00 PM goldenlightArchangel has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 59 of 144 (744817)
12-16-2014 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by goldenlightArchangel
12-15-2014 7:03 PM


Re: Emanation of Life Energy is what best explains. - Creationism leads to Crazyness
CrazyDiamond7 writes:
Percy, the light emanates of itself, so the life energy emanates of itself. The visible light was not created. Life was not created.
There are two problems with this. First, I'm not sure what it even means. Second, you still have no evidence.
Every person is a different reality, every person is a Primary life energy that is living not in a fragmentary way, Human life is emanating an independent realm, an alternate reality, because the light, or life energy in electrical form does not depend from being created. The light rises and appears in our Human form, otherwise the Light returns to the source.
This has the same two problems: it's unclear what it means, and you describe no evidence. For example, what evidence led you to conclude that there's such a thing as "life energy"? How did you discover that every person is "Primary life energy"? Why could it not have been "Secondary life energy" or something else altogether (like normal matter, which is what the evidence tells us)?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 12-15-2014 7:03 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 12-20-2014 12:35 AM Percy has replied

  
goldenlightArchangel
Member (Idle past 1153 days)
Posts: 583
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 60 of 144 (745210)
12-20-2014 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Percy
12-16-2014 8:01 AM


Re: Emanation of Life Energy is what best explains. - Creationism leads to Crazyness
The term Primary Energy implies that the energy is a extension from one Primary source,
There is no second source nor second genealogical root.
Primary is an entire sequence, an extension from one root, or a Primary genealogical tree: the energy of life in every person is an extension of the same energy of life through which that person was generated.
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 12-16-2014 8:01 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 12-20-2014 1:12 AM goldenlightArchangel has replied
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 12-20-2014 7:46 AM goldenlightArchangel has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024