Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 8:51 AM
22 online now:
AZPaul3, Percy (Admin), RAZD (3 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,804 Year: 8,840/19,786 Month: 1,262/2,119 Week: 22/576 Day: 22/50 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
567Next
Author Topic:   Return to Immortality -- There is no death by natural causes
celestialGyoud
Member
Posts: 559
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 46 of 100 (561241)
05-19-2010 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Huntard
05-19-2010 10:25 AM


Why it is impossible to abstain from routine food
-

....when you've got something useful to say.

-

Of course the Initial instruction of Genesis will not be useful to some, and how could it be, to whomever has already decided beforehand that he will become dust of the ground in exchange for temporarily knowing the food again

and for ignoring the possibility of proceeding at least a 49-days verification experience.

quote:

From the dust The nutrients of the routine food come from the dust of the ground. You become what you eat. After 49 years old the aging process accelerates because it is not possible to profit from eating the nutrient properties which the regular food is made of since the Human body was made of the same properties from the dust of the ground.

From the solid tree Nutrients of the compatible fruits do not come from the dust of the ground. They are filtered essences produced by the tree. The extension of her trunk is made up of millions of little bitty tubes that do filter and separate the nutrients out. On this, the fruit of the solid tree is a property given exclusively by the tree.


-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Huntard, posted 05-19-2010 10:25 AM Huntard has not yet responded

  
celestialGyoud
Member
Posts: 559
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 47 of 100 (561585)
05-21-2010 2:07 PM


Why the natural selection theory becomes obsolete
-

Because it is very easy for a scientist or creator of that theory to tell you that the size of your brain is a product of natural selection since all he has to do is tell you that it depended on a million or hundreds of thousand years to evolve, based on the presentation of a skeleton that is not a Human genetic combination,

However, if you asked the following question to those who tell the natural selection story to the children, then many scientists have the habit of keeping silent and reserving the right to not answer,

-

What are the probabilities that the population would have reached 6 billion persons
during each of the seasons of 14,000 years that precede the recent 7,000 years?

-


Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Blue Jay, posted 05-21-2010 4:24 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded
 Message 49 by subbie, posted 05-21-2010 4:41 PM celestialGyoud has responded
 Message 50 by Hyroglyphx, posted 05-21-2010 10:48 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 860 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 48 of 100 (561589)
05-21-2010 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by celestialGyoud
05-21-2010 2:07 PM


Re: Why the natural selection theory becomes obsolete
Hi, Diamond.

CrazyDiamond7 writes:

However, if you asked the following question to those who tell the natural selection story to the children, then many scientists have the habit of keeping silent and reserving the right to not answer,

-

What are the probabilities that the population would have reached 6 billion persons
during each of the seasons of 14,000 years that precede the recent 7,000 years?

So, is it your position that an unwillingness to answer an unintelligible question is a weakness?


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by celestialGyoud, posted 05-21-2010 2:07 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

subbie
Member
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 49 of 100 (561590)
05-21-2010 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by celestialGyoud
05-21-2010 2:07 PM


Re: Why the natural selection theory becomes obsolete
However, if you asked the following question to those who tell the natural selection story to the children, then many scientists have the habit of keeping silent and reserving the right to not answer,

-

What are the probabilities that the population would have reached 6 billion persons
during each of the seasons of 14,000 years that precede the recent 7,000 years?

They would probably look at you like you were nuts, then say that the probability was 0, since the world population didn't reach 6 billion until the 20th century.

Out of curiosity, what point do you imagine you are going to make from this response?

Also, on what do you base your claim that "many scientists have the habit of keeping silent and reserving the right not to answer?"


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by celestialGyoud, posted 05-21-2010 2:07 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by celestialGyoud, posted 05-24-2010 4:37 PM subbie has not yet responded

Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5655
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006


Message 50 of 100 (561621)
05-21-2010 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by celestialGyoud
05-21-2010 2:07 PM


Re: Why the natural selection theory becomes obsolete
Because it is very easy for a scientist or creator of that theory to tell you that the size of your brain is a product of natural selection since all he has to do is tell you that it depended on a million or hundreds of thousand years to evolve, based on the presentation of a skeleton that is not a Human genetic combination

It's even easier to say *poof*, God did it. But that would be vacuous and it would castrate science, no? What's less easy, but more compelling, is to show clear evidence. I'm not even sure what you are arguing about. Even creationists give regard to natural selection. It's not rocket science, it's common sense.

Natural selection does not encapsulate the whole of evolution either. All it does is ensure viability within a species. The weaker stock falls by the wayside while the stronger genes reproduce more successfully. That's merely one tier in evolution.

There's also artificial selection which succinctly highlights how natural selection works. Aside from something as simple as dog breeding, which intentionally selects traits, take for example a crab in Asian waters that was selected unintentionally by humans. Samurai crabs have a distinct feature where their backs that look very similar to a Kabuki Samurai face. Japanese fishermen would pull them up, saw what looked like a human face, and due to their beliefs about reincarnated ancestors, threw the crabs back because they didn't want to disturb their warrior ancestors spirits.

Now because the few prototypes of Samurai crab were not eaten, more crabs with funny looking shells populate. The trait then becomes fixed and, viola, artificial selection. It's all natural in the sense that this would happen naturally, except in this case humans unwittingly demonstrate the natural selection process; albeit, artificially.


"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." Blaise Pascal
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by celestialGyoud, posted 05-21-2010 2:07 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

  
celestialGyoud
Member
Posts: 559
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 51 of 100 (561946)
05-24-2010 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by subbie
05-21-2010 4:41 PM


Any educational directives that have not been camouflaged
-

That is, one chooses for the children, a directive that has not been camouflaged.

-

That there were no Humans living on the Earth 50 thousand years ago is evident once one verifies and ascertains the facts from real life experiences, that all things the Humans have done with regards to multiplying and filling the Earth within a single cluster of 7 thousand years, they would have done anyway during any of the three seasons of 14 thousand years prior to the chronology of Genesis.

And if you separate the recent 49 thousand years dividing it into three separated sequences of 14 thousand years, immediately prior to the last 7 thousand years, and then inquire what is the probability that the population would have reached 6 billion persons in each of the three seasons of 14 thousand years immediately prior to the last 7 thousand years,

and even so the question you ask is deemed to be a tough or non comprehensible one, then there is 100% of probability that youre discovering a rank of the row that matters more, causing many to not answer because of the perception that to answer it is producing proof against a theory on which rely I. many jobs, II. educational directives, III. sponsorships, IV. books and V. teachings about the origin of the Human body.

-

subbie writes:

.what point .you are going to make from this response?

.Also, on what do you base .that many scientists have the habit of keeping silent and reserving the right not to answer

-

Even having science--verification ascertained-- of the facts to see that there is a disconnection of time and place, many do not see the disconnection between the consequence of having Humans on the Earth for a time no longer than 7 thousand years and the time proposed for their multiplication by the natural selection theory that places the Humans to live on the land 50 thousand years ago. Because it is verified by experiences of real life that all things the Humans have done to the place called Earth during the short cluster of 7 thousand years, they would have done anyway in each of the three rows of 14 thousand years that immediately precede the Genesis chronology.

However, it doesnt matter because the many jobs and the reputation of many Universities come first in the rank of the row that matters more, whether that reputation has been camouflaged or not, followed by the books and other things that produce a financial comfort, and only then in the last place comes the attention given to what is it thats been told to man that should be taught to the children.

And wherever there is a tendency to give priority to credibility rather than to what is it that is being credited, (because to give credit is giving financial resources), then every reputation is a camouflage.

-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by subbie, posted 05-21-2010 4:41 PM subbie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Phage0070, posted 05-24-2010 5:32 PM celestialGyoud has responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 100 (561953)
05-24-2010 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by celestialGyoud
05-24-2010 4:37 PM


Re: Any educational directives that have not been camouflaged
CrazyDiamond7 writes:

"what is the probability that the population would have reached 6 billion persons in each of the three seasons of 14 thousand years prior to the last 7 thousand years"
...so the question you ask is deemed to be a tough or non comprehensible one...causing many to not answer because of the perception that to answer it is producing proof against a theory...

It appears that your argument is that if people are unwilling to answer the quoted question for reasons like:

Modern-looking humans have been on earth for around 200,000 years, not 50,000.

Why are 14,000 year clusters at all relevant to statistical studies? Are you suggesting human population would need to start over between them, and if so why?

Given that humans have been around for 4 times longer than you think, and don't have to start over every 14 thousand years, assigning probabilities for population in the context of that question is pointless. Also, given that the world population only crossed 6 billion people within the last few years, we already know the probability. Probabilities are assigned to events in the future; past events don't have probabilities, they happened or they didn't.

...If any of those reasons prevents a meaningful response to the question, you seem to be claiming that it constitutes evidence against some unspecified theory, which presumably you will again misinterpret as evidence in favor of your own theory.

Allow me to provide an alternate hypothesis: If a meaningful answer is unable to be provided for your question, it may be because it is a nearly incomprehensible stream of babble seemingly stemming from mental illness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by celestialGyoud, posted 05-24-2010 4:37 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by celestialGyoud, posted 05-25-2010 5:52 PM Phage0070 has responded

celestialGyoud
Member
Posts: 559
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 53 of 100 (562095)
05-25-2010 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Phage0070
05-24-2010 5:32 PM


Re: Any educational directives that have not been camouflaged
-

Phage0070 writes:

past events don't have probabilities

-

The question that initiates the discovery that the natural selection theory for the origin of the Human body becomes obsolete, is not asking for one to bring up any probability from past events but from what Humans are according to their nature, and what they are is proved from what they have done and do with regards to generating a child, and from what they have done and do to the Earth when building a home for a loved one.

-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Phage0070, posted 05-24-2010 5:32 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Phage0070, posted 05-25-2010 6:48 PM celestialGyoud has responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 100 (562105)
05-25-2010 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by celestialGyoud
05-25-2010 5:52 PM


Re: Any educational directives that have not been camouflaged
CrazyDiamond7 writes:

The question that initiates the discovery...blah blah..., is not asking for one to bring up any probability from past events but from what Humans are according to their nature,...blah blah

So what you are saying is your question "asks/brings up the probability from what humans are according to their nature."

That isn't a question or concept that makes sense. It is literally nonsense.

Is English a second language, or is there some other impediment to your conveyance of a cogent idea?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by celestialGyoud, posted 05-25-2010 5:52 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by celestialGyoud, posted 05-26-2010 2:27 PM Phage0070 has responded

celestialGyoud
Member
Posts: 559
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 55 of 100 (562194)
05-26-2010 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Phage0070
05-25-2010 6:48 PM


Any educational directives that have not been camouflaged
-

Phage0070 writes:

.It is literally nonsense

-

According to Datasegment online the synonym of bring up is mention.
Therefore, in English language,
the question is not asking for you to mention any probability from past events;

Instead, the question asks for you to bring up (or mention) the probability based on what the Humans intrinsically are,
(intrinsically; adv 1: with respect to its inherent nature -- Internally; in its nature; essentially; 1913 Webster),

and what they are is proved from what they have done and do with regards to generating a child, and from what they have done and do to the Earth when building a home for a loved one.

-

Phage0070 writes:

.isnt a question or concept that makes sense

-

---- When the concept of probability for population growth is applied to kangaroos; and when the Australian government says that a kangaroo population can increase fourfold in five years if it has continuous access to plentiful food and water, then nobody says it is not a concept that makes sense.

But if it's applied to Human population growth, with total risk of damage to the reputation of the natural selection theory for the origin of the Human body,
then is that not too much coincidence that all of a sudden it doesn't make sense?

-

On the days that the following quotation isnt deemed to be comprehensible,
one has the option of decrypt it by the path of neither led, neither unledded perception,
then the message in it becomes understood over the hills and far away,
for it has the info one needs, maybe more than enough.

Mellow is the man who admits his theory has been put in check mate,
while many many men can't see that the road is open to a better job
How many directives have been camouflaged, one really ought to know.

-

quote:
That there were no Humans living on the Earth 50 thousand years ago is evident once one verifies and ascertains the facts from real life experiences, that all things the Humans have done with regards to multiplying and filling the Earth within a single cluster of 7 thousand years, they would have done anyway during any of the three seasons of 14 thousand years prior to the chronology of Genesis.

And if you separate the last 49 thousand years dividing it into three separated sequences of 14 thousand years, immediately prior to the last 7 thousand years, and then inquire what is the probability that the population would have reached 6 billion persons in each of the three seasons of 14 thousand years immediately prior to the last 7 thousand years,

and even so the question you ask is deemed to be a tough or non comprehensible one, then there is 100% of probability that youre discovering a rank of the row that matters more, causing many to not answer because of the perception that to answer it is producing proof against a theory on which rely I. many jobs, II. educational directives, III. sponsorships, IV. books and V. teachings about the origin of the Human body.


-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Phage0070, posted 05-25-2010 6:48 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Phage0070, posted 05-26-2010 5:18 PM celestialGyoud has responded
 Message 57 by Modulous, posted 05-26-2010 8:06 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 100 (562206)
05-26-2010 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by celestialGyoud
05-26-2010 2:27 PM


Re: Any educational directives that have not been camouflaged
CrazyDiamond7 writes:

---- When the concept of probability for population growth is applied to kangaroos; and when the Australian government says that a kangaroo population can increase fourfold in five years if it has continuous access to plentiful food and water, then nobody says it is not a concept that makes sense.

Then it is the word "probability" that is the trouble; you seem to mean rate or speed of population growth, not probability.

Humans can double their population in a span of 40 years. This was demonstrated from 1950 to 1990 where the world population went from 2.5 to 5 billion people. The rate of population growth wasn't always that high of course; were it that rapid it would be possible to go from two mating humans to more than 8 billion people in 1,240 years.

CrazyDiamond7 writes:

what is the probability that the population would have reached 6 billion persons in each of the three seasons of 14 thousand years immediately prior to the last 7 thousand years,

The likelihood that the population would reach 6 billion more than 7 thousand years ago is zero; it never happened. If you mean probability in the sense of plausibility, then the answer is still nearing zero. If you said "probability" and mean something completely different, then you need to examine your international dictionary more closely.

Given the appropriate conditions the speed of human breeding is certainly capable of attaining 6 billion people within any arbitrary 14 thousand year period. It would of course be aided by access to an appropriate breeding stock larger than two people, otherwise we would end up with a genetic variability problem like the cheetah. (This is incidentally more evidence for the scientific view of human population growth rather than theistic.) I am still not clear on why 12 thousand year periods are important; why the focus on those lengths of time, or the 50 thousand year period?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by celestialGyoud, posted 05-26-2010 2:27 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by celestialGyoud, posted 05-27-2010 5:57 PM Phage0070 has responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 266 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 57 of 100 (562215)
05-26-2010 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by celestialGyoud
05-26-2010 2:27 PM


Malthusian musings of Modulous
When the concept of probability for population growth is applied to kangaroos; and when the Australian government says that a kangaroo population can increase fourfold in five years if it has continuous access to plentiful food and water, then nobody says it is not a concept that makes sense.

That's because it is conditional upon sufficient access to plentiful food and water.

In order for 6billion humans to survive, they need to acquire about 12-18billion litres of water per day. Maybe a third of this will be in food. So 8-12billion litres of actual water needs to be drawn.

So, without crossing an ocean (since ocean crossing technology is a long way off being invented yet) from Africa we need to find a way to fit all those people. And then we need to worry about other water related issues: Sanitation. Without sewer systems we have a major disease problem to overcome if we're going to hit the 6 billion mark.

And then comes food. At say 3,000 calories a day, we're going to need a system that can support acquiring 18,000,000,000,000 calories every day.

We'll need a system of logistics to transport the water and the food, unless it's every man for himself in which case we'll have a constant source of tension and war as people fight for the optimum locations to acquire those resources. Again, this is going to significantly dent our numbers until cooperation kicks in, and then we've got the logistics problem again.

And it's not just sanitation, other diseases need to be taken into consideration. A black death like plague carried by fleas or flies with 6 billion people with no concept of what's going on is going to lose billions within years.

And all this assumes that humans don't engage in massive amounts of lethal combat for sexual prizes. Which the Bible clearly shows they do. As do other archaeological and sociological studies. Some people think that the 20th Century has been surprising in the small number of war related deaths there were. Compared with hunter-gatherer dynamics it was orders of magnitudes more peaceful.

Steven Pinker on the myth of violence

As Mr Pinker argues: if the number of deaths due to warfare in the 20th Century were to accurately reflect hunter-gatherer rates of warfare deaths, we'd be looking at 2billion dying in the whole of the 20th Century!!

So really, until agriculture it was highly improbable that humanity could begin to increase its numbers faster than it was losing them. And even then the maximum sustainable population even with optimum politics and logistics was lower than it is today. We still needed the Agricultural revolution, the Industrial Revolution and the Green Revolution to occur before we could reasonably anticipate with any degree of likeliness, to reach 6 billion population size.

So, as the Australian government notes: First kangaroos need access to sufficient resources THEN they can increase in their numbers.

That occurs in human populations. They grow to their maximum possible size until an increased access to sufficient resources occurs whereby the maximum sustainable population size increases, and the population very quickly chases up to that size.

But this process is slow (See: the evidence), so even though there are 'rapid bursts', like the hare vs the tortoise - it can still be slow overall.

what is the probability that the population would have reached 6 billion persons in each of the three seasons of 14 thousand years immediately prior to the last 7 thousand years,

At the start of each season you can take a look at the population. How large is it? How widespread? Does writing exist? What kind of tools are being employed? And make some reasonable guesses about how much progress is needed. Now you could pick a sufficiently large number so that making such a prediction is impossible - could anyone have anticipated based on the evidence we presently have that 50,000 years ago we would have invented GM food and vaccines?

Not really. And I wouldn't be surprised if at that scale it was impossible to tell the difference between the chances of it occurring 50,000 years ago and the chances of it occurring within 50,000 years, 100,000 years ago.

But if you are just trying to make that point, by finding a suitably large number...then it's going to fail.
When we get to 7 thousand years ago and we see intensive agriculture starting, monocrops, irrigation, dedicated labour classes and so on. We see a occasional bits of proto-writing and as a result we see our first example of cities.

And with writing came the preservation of ideas. And this is possibly why the Near Eastern religions put the age of the world approximately here. They took the beginning of 'civilization' as the beginning of time. An easy mistake to make under the circumstances.

But if it's applied to Human population growth, with total risk of damage to the reputation of the natural selection theory for the origin of the Human body,
then is that not too much coincidence that all of a sudden it doesn't make sense?

You didn't say the same thing as the Australian government purportedly did. I think you assumed that scattered hunter gatherers were just as likely to discover genetics within 10,000 years as agricultural city dwellers are.

But as we can see from present day hunter-gatherer tribes...they are still in very early infancy as far as population size goes. And this is because the earth simply cannot support 50,000,000 hunter gatherer tribes.

But if our hunter gatherer tribes were to have continuous access plentiful food and water THEN we might predict a massive population boom to get the world population to whatever number we care to dictate.

But they don't have continuous access to such resources. So asking what the probability of a group of people without continuous access to plentiful food and water reaching 6billion is not comparable to what the Australian Government said.

Having said it in a multitude of different ways I'm hoping it sunk in?

No?

Have you ever researched how Darwin came up with Natural Selection? Ever hear about a guy called Malthus?

You should, he said what I just said 200 years ago.

quote:
"Must it not then be acknowledged by an attentive examiner of the histories of mankind, that in every age and in every State in which man has existed, or does now exist
That the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence,
That population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase, and,
That the superior power of population it repressed, and the actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery and vice"

And it is this 'repression' as it occurs over long periods of time, to all living organisms - is what Darwin called Natural Selection. Whatever traits assist organisms in overcoming the repression better than their rivals will increase in frequency.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Edited by Modulous, : TED embeds are subtle and quick to anger.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by celestialGyoud, posted 05-26-2010 2:27 PM celestialGyoud has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by AZPaul3, posted 05-26-2010 8:30 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4081
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 58 of 100 (562219)
05-26-2010 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Modulous
05-26-2010 8:06 PM


Re: Malthusian musings of Modulous
Modulous,

Much enjoyed your post, but, the TED link is not working.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Modulous, posted 05-26-2010 8:06 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

celestialGyoud
Member
Posts: 559
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 59 of 100 (562291)
05-27-2010 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Phage0070
05-26-2010 5:18 PM


Answering the six billion diamond question
-

If one separates the last 49 thousand years dividing it into three separated sequences of 14 thousand years, immediately prior to the last seven thousand years,

What are the probabilities that the population would have reached 6 billion persons in each of the three seasons of 14 thousand years immediately prior to the last 7 thousand years?

-

Due to the perspective that there would have been Humans living on the Earth 70 thousand years ago, the probability of reaching 6 billion persons in each of the three seasons of 14 thousand years is above 100% because of the fact that when the population of the Earth was 1 million persons it took much less than 7 thousand years to reach 1 billion.

-

70 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Minimum extreme limit: . . . . . . . . . 10,000 inhabitants
50 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basic extreme limit: . . . . . . . . 1 million inhabitants

49 thousand years ago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The beginning of the three seasons of 14 thousand years

-

Making the distinction between ascertained probability (verified) and credited probability (when reason is applied to presume),

The probability that is ascertained does offer the possibility of one verifying that the probability is real because it is firmed into the foundation of real facts.

The probability that is credited or presumed does take something other than knowledge of the facts as a reason to presume that the fact could or could not have happened. Whenever it is stated that past events dont have probabilities it is stated in reference to a type of probability that is credited or presumed. And whenever a reason is established to presume that a real fact could or could not have taken place, that proceeding is similar to the type of probability that the natural selection theory for the origin of the Human body has had the habit to offer to the inhabitants of the land.

-

When answering that the probability of having reached 6 billion persons in each of the three seasons of 14 thousand years is: 0, since they didnt and zero; it never happened,

Does that point of view not fit with the parable of the diamonds robbed, where a man inside the bank states to the detective: Since the vault containing the diamonds that were evaluated at six billion, was robbed at 7:00 p.m., then it is the proof left for us that 49 days ago (prior to it being robbed) the probability of the vault being robbed at 1:14 a.m., or at 2:14 a.m, or at 3:14 a.m. is Zero.

-

Phage0070 writes:

Then it is the word probability that is the trouble

-

Sure. *cause you know sometimes words have two meanings.
In this, one has the option to make the distinction ---- When it is the right type of probability then instruction and knowledge of the facts are given not for one to presume or take as truth the things that can not be known (verified and ascertained) by taking it as [if it was] true,

and the term 'take as ....', which means 'likewise'; also means that a comparison is made to a truth that is not known since it is by believing,

then whomever does not want to be sure for having a need to give credit so that he can say that, believing, he is a creditor of salvation and merit; or that he is a saved (special) one, and is not like all the other persons; he has credit by having fides that is credited (warranted) by the spirits of men (potentates from down);

and fides quae creditur coincides with the system of the dragonthe father of the beliefs whose true name is Legion (Heb. Ravbwhich means to be many) who was made to be a specialist on camouflages, because it is not possible to deceive except by making believe. And all that is camouflage does coincide with that system.

-

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Phage0070, posted 05-26-2010 5:18 PM Phage0070 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Phage0070, posted 05-27-2010 6:22 PM celestialGyoud has responded

  
Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 100 (562292)
05-27-2010 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by celestialGyoud
05-27-2010 5:57 PM


Re: Answering the six billion diamond question
CrazyDiamond7 writes:

Due to the perspective that there would have been Humans living on the Earth 70 thousand years ago, the probability of reaching 6 billion persons in each of the three seasons of 14 thousand years is above 100% because of the fact that when the population of the Earth was 1 million persons it took much less than 7 thousand years to reach 1 billion.

This is simply wrong, because you seem to be forgetting that population growth depends on factors other than time. People require food, shelter, not being killed, and other similarly important things to increase their population. Growth will be slower, stop, or even backtrack depending on conditions.

Simply saying that because something is possible in the correct conditions does not at all imply that it must occur in other, completely different conditions.

The rest of your post appears to be in the style of: "Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?" Which is of course to say unparsable gibberish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by celestialGyoud, posted 05-27-2010 5:57 PM celestialGyoud has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by celestialGyoud, posted 05-27-2010 6:51 PM Phage0070 has responded

Prev123
4
567Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019