|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1180 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is the lowest multiplication rate for Humans ? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 1180 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
-
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: -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 1180 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
-
quote: 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 ..' -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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: Evolutionists are scientists but not all scientists are evolutionists.Geologists are scientists but not all scientists are geoplogists. quote: 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: 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.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 1180 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
-
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. -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4443 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 1180 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
-
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: - Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 1180 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
You know, it is not emition of light. It's emanation of light. Anyway, good job!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 1180 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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.;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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 1180 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024