Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9072 total)
629 online now:
AZPaul3, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 625 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,121 Year: 4,233/6,534 Month: 447/900 Week: 153/150 Day: 7/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   When Earth’s population was 10,000 persons
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 194 (602120)
01-26-2011 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by goldenlightArchangel
01-24-2011 1:48 PM


Sources & Research
quote:
That there were no Humans living on the Earth 70 thousand years ago is evident because of the fact that all things the Humans have done to the place called Earth during a single cluster of 7 thousand years, or when the population of the Earth was 1 million persons, they would have done the same thing anyway during any of the three seasons of 14 thousand years that immediately precede the recent 7 thousand years.

Disconnection of time and place can be seen from the incompatibility between the consequences of having Humans on the Earth for a time no longer than 14 thousand years and the time proposed for their multiplication by the natural selection theory for the origin of the Human body.


May I ask from where you quoted this?

If Humans lived on Earth 100 thousand years ago then which factors would have impeded the population to grow from 10,000 to 1 million inhabitants during a single season of 20 thousand years?

You'll find this question largely answered in the pages of any introductory Anthropology text book. After looking there, you should come back and tell us what you find and why you may disagree with it.

Jon


Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 01-24-2011 1:48 PM goldenlightArchangel has taken no action

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 194 (602183)
01-26-2011 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by goldenlightArchangel
01-26-2011 3:35 PM


Re: Distinction between human prototypes and ancestor
Older versions of Prototypes are always made first and evaluated for a time
before a new product of advanced technology can be produced in pairs.

If you had the advanced technology for the production of a different kind of Human beings,

Would not the first pairs produced be prototypes designed and
made for temporary evaluation until you come up with the more perfect ones ?

quote:

From the writing entitled Population growth over the hills and far away,

If you are a designer who worked on the branch of engineering for the production of a new kind of Humans,
After so long a time a more perfect kind of Humans will find skeletons of the older versions,
and some of them will come up with a theory; that a skeleton of the older version of Human prototypes, which you had designed and made a long ago for temporary evaluation, would definitely be their ancestor!


Were this the case, however, wouldn't the resulting situation of left-behind prototypes be a situation indistinguishable from what would result from ancestry?

Jon

Edited by Jon, : wording


Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 01-26-2011 3:35 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 01-27-2011 3:43 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 194 (602381)
01-27-2011 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by goldenlightArchangel
01-27-2011 3:43 PM


Re: Distinction between human prototypes and ancestor
Jon writes:

Were this the case, however, wouldn't the resulting situation of left-behind prototypes be a situation indistinguishable from what would result from ancestry?

-

Of course, they would (be indistinguishable)

Then what have you to offer other than an alternative explanation of the same evidence? What has been left that should make us favor your model over the other one?

There’s a way one ascertain and know that a human skeleton dated from 30,000 years ago pertained to a human prototype and has nothing to do with ancestry,

One ascertains this knowledge from the existence of permanent and total lack of miscegenation on the Earth during the precise time when each distinct ethnic group came to exist;

1. The fact that every distinct pattern of ethnic group corresponds to a precise area and to a defined land from all over the lands and regions of the Earth,
2. clears up that the ethnic groups living in their respective land did not come to exist on the Earth all by themselves,
3. that is, they were settled to live in their land, (a fact that was highlighted twice in the books of the Ancients);
4. because, under other circumstances,

55 distinct patterns of ethnic groups of Europe would not come to exist; there would be miscegenation even before they could become ethnic groups.

All of non-Russian Europe fits into the map of Brazil where miscegenation occurs.

Your list of chantings makes little sense to anyone. How about evidence we can actually understand.

Jon


Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 01-27-2011 3:43 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 01-28-2011 10:47 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 194 (602425)
01-28-2011 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by goldenlightArchangel
01-28-2011 10:47 AM


Re: Distinction between human prototypes and ancestor
if the ancient people, in Europe, were all by themselves as the natural selection theory has proposed

What makes you think the theory of natural selection proposes any such thing?

It's understandable and it's clear now, the only possibility that the 55 ethnic groups in Europe came into existence, as linguistic ethnic groups, is that they were previously selected and settled in their respective land, (in their respective area in Europe)

What is a 'linguistic ethnic group'?

Now it's clear that if the 55 distinct ethnic groups had not been previously selected and settled in the land
and if their selection would have taken place all by themselves,

there wouldn't be ethnic groups in Europe; they would be one miscegenated people.

In fact, you still haven't made this clear—at all.

What makes you think there are only 55 ethnic groups in Europe? What makes you think these groups represent some pristine set of groups that has neither mixed nor changed since the dawn of time?

Jon


Check out Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 01-28-2011 10:47 AM goldenlightArchangel has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022