CreateDebate


Debate Info

59
67
Yes It's proven to be an error Not proved wrong yet.
Debate Score:126
Arguments:106
Total Votes:151
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes It's proven to be an error (49)
 
 Not proved wrong yet. (52)

Debate Creator

celestial(47) pic



Is the Evolutionary theory mathematically proven to be a fraud?

The purpose of this debate is to let you know why the teachers on Human Origins are not able to provide a simple list of numbers for a possible multiplication average,

or a population growth model, that could mathematically back up their statements whenever they state that there would have been families of Humans multiplying on Europe from 30,000 years ago, allegedly.
Where are the numbers representing a possible multiplication average?

Those numbers do not exist because the average of multiplication that the Evolutionary theory had proposed for Humans to grow and multiply from 30,000 years ago is proven to be mathematically impossible.  

The Evolutionary theory, in regards to the origin of the Human body, is a fraud. It will be seen that all things the Humans have done to the place called Earth during a single season of 7,000 years; they would have done the same thing anyway during any of three seasons of 14,000 years.

It's only with a completely surrealist Chronological model like the one proposed by the Evolutionary theory to populations growth: that equates to 4,750 years without multiplying per every 5,000 years, that it could 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, during twenty thousand years
then there's the option of stop drifting on numbers as if man is a beast, and as if everything that happens in life is a disgrace.


On the other hand the presence of skeletons of mammal specimens that became extinct does not prove that they evolved. Observation shows that whenever mammal specimens disappear they cease from existing for becoming extinct.

The Evolution theory, in regards to the origin of the Human body, looks really bad because its proposal to populations growth is proven to be an extremely serious error.

 

Yes It's proven to be an error

Side Score: 59
VS.

Not proved wrong yet.

Side Score: 67

Yes... It think so... If it takes them this long to prove it, i think somewhere it went wrong

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error

Write for the sake of writing.,.................................................................

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error

writewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewrite

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error

writewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewrite

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error

writewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewritewrite

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
1 point

Is the Evolutionary theory mathematically proven to be a fraud?

Yes. It is proven to be an error.

Because it is definitely not possible that 2,000 people in Europe would have taken more than 25 thousand years to reach 1 million.

*

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

If the population grew so much faster, where did all the people go? In 25,000 years, you say there would have been way more than a million, what happened to them?

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
1 point

If you agree with evolution then you should be able to bring up a list of numbers to explain to us how many people did grow and multiply on Europe 30,000 years ago.

And when you have figured out the correct numbers ( provided by the teachers on Human origins ) then you have the option of placing those numbers in the following list,

by replacing the interrogation marks:

55 thousand years ago: ? x 10 = ? - 90 % = ? people

50 thousand years ago: ? x 10 = ? - 90 % = ? p

45 thousand years ago: ? x 10 = ? - 90 % = ? p

40 thousand years ago: ? x 10 = ? - 90 % = ? p

35 thousand years ago: ? x 10 = ? - 90 % = ? p

*

And then tell how many people were living in Europe 35 thousand years ago if indeed you have knowledge of the truth.

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

The points at the top don't matter. I already responded to this exact post and you have nothing to say. If you have to cheat to get the higher score did you really accomplish anything?

The great thing is that you are arguing against yourself. You are claiming either that there were more people than evolution says and you have no answer for where those people disappeared to, or you are claiming that humans weren't around back then, which goes against physical evidence. You make no sense.

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
Nomoturtle(856) Disputed
1 point

i don't suppose you've ever tried finding the function of something like a complex sound wave? im not sure why you think population growth is something so linear

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
1 point

If there were Humans multiplying on Europe 30,000 ago, they would certainly have built advanced structures. Humans would have been just as smart and creative as people today since even evolutionists admit that 50,000 years is not enough time for significant changes to have evolved. Of course, mankind did not come into existence through evolution as proven above.

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
1 point

"If there were humans around 6,000 years ago, they should have been building cars"

I am sorry, but your comment doesn't make sense. Technological progression is a thing, and it is something that took a long time.

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
1 point

"If there were humans around 6,000 years ago, they should have been building cars"

I am sorry, but your comment doesn't make sense. Technological progression is a thing, and it is something that took a long time.

Edit: Glitched double post, please ignore this.

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Awesome. You proved you are wrong and that you don't even believe in your own argument. We have physical evidence humans existed 30,000 years ago. You have to explain how that stuff got there. Claiming it isn't advanced enough doesn't explain what put it there.

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
Nomoturtle(856) Disputed
1 point

Humans would have been just as smart and creative as people today

probably

If there were Humans multiplying on Europe 30,000 ago, they would certainly have built advanced structures.

your argument takes technology for granted. the structures built today are only possible on top of accumulated knowledge.

additionally there wasn't as much time for producing such developments in a less efficient lifestyle where such developments were not present. then you have the fact that for a very long time humans were nomadic, and only started settling down with agriculture something like 12000 years ago.

atop this is communication. conjunctional work is impossible without communication, but is undeniably faster. communication was far more difficult due to distances/speeds, size of social pools, political issues etc.

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
1 point

When you choose 'not proved wrong yet', you are not bringing up argument to justify your point.

You do not even make a point to validate the Evolutionary proposal for population growth.

That is why the side score became just an expression of your preferences.

The side score does not reflect or express that you win the debate for having a valid point since you know that Humans could not stop growing and multiplying during 95 % of a timeline.

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
Cuaroc(8826) Disputed
1 point

The side score does not reflect or express that you win the debate for having a valid point

Yes it does.

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

The only side with fake posting is your side.

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
1 point

It was all going to be awesome if you could bring numbers of a population growth model to validate your point.

Could you provide just a sample of your vision? How many Humans were multiplying on the Earth 30,000 years ago?

55 thousand years ago: ? x 10 = ? - 90 % = ? people

50 thousand years ago: ? x 10 = ? - 90 % = ? p

45 thousand years ago: ? x 10 = ? - 90 % = ? p

40 thousand years ago: ? x 10 = ? - 90 % = ? p

35 thousand years ago: ? x 10 = ? - 90 % = ? p

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

The 10 and the 90% are the variables. Go fuck yourself.

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
1 point

Cartman writes: You have not presented the growth model that evolution describes.

Thank you for admitting that Evolution theory does actually describe a population growth model.

Could you bring those numbers to the front ?

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Twice wasn't good enough. Hopefully, third time is a charm.

A .014% annual growth rate.

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
1 point

Cuaroc writes: ... Hmm how about events that cause mass loss of life? Or how about conditions that don't allow humans to multiply?

Population x 15 - 80 % per every thousand years is the lowest rate of population increase. 4 from every 5 inhabitants do not multiply. It's a model that reproduces the chaos, a state of miser and very bad conditions to population increase. Eighty percent of Humans were terminated or died because of wars, famines, diseases and other events and they've left no descendants.

Even when only the Fifth part survives you get 9,565,938,000 people in less than 14 thousand years.

Population growth Model: Thin Red Line

Multiplication rate: 1 to 15 people - 80 % per every thousand years.

2nd cluster of 14 thousand years – From 35,000 years ago

European population: 2,000 people ( according to the Evolutionary theory )

1 thousand years |........ 2,000 x 15 = 30,000 - 80 %= 6,000 people

2 thousand years |........ 6,000 x 15 = 90,000 - 80 %= 18,000 p

3 thousand years |....... 18,000 x 15 = 270,000 - 80 %= 54,000 p

4 thousand years |....... 54,000 x 15 = 810,000 - 80 %= 162,000 p

5 thousand years |...... 162,000 x 15 = 2,430,000 - 80 %= 486,000 p

6 thousand years |...... 486,000 x 15 = 7,290,000 - 80 %= 1,458,000 p

7 thousand years |.... 1,458,000 x 15 = 21,870,000 - 80 %= 4,374,000 p

8 thousand years |.... 4,374,000 x 15 = 65,610,000 - 80 %= 13,122,000 p

9 thousand years |... 13,122,000 x 15 = 196,830,000 - 80 %= 39,366,000 p

10 thousand years |.. 39,366,000 x 15 = 590,490,000 - 80 %= 118,098,000 p

11 thousand years |. 118,098,000 x 15 = 1,771,470,000 - 80 %= 354,294,000 p

12 thousand years | 354,294,000 x 15 = 5,314,410,000 - 80 %= 1,062,882,000 p

13 thousand years | 1,062,882,000 x 15 = 15,943,230,000 - 80 %= 3,188,646,000

14 thousand years | 3,188,646,000 x 15 = 47,829,690,000 - 80 %= 9,565,938,000

*

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Where did all those people go? You have proposed an even crazier population growth and we don't see that many people. What happened to all the people?

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
celestial(47) Disputed
1 point

It is just a population growth model based on the Evolutionary proposal that there would have been 2,000 people growing and multiplying from 35 thousand years ago.

Those people did not go anywhere since there were no families of Humans growing and multiplying during the time proposed by Evolution.

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
celestial(47) Disputed
1 point

You don't see that many people because you do not consider that Humans do multiply according to a regular basis. People do not stay frozen without growing and multiplying.

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
1 point

Cartman writes: ... Twice I have given you the population growth rate and twice you have conveniently ignored it.

Dear Cartman, if you already provided a population growth model then it would be easier for us to figure out what is the multiplication rate that the Humans did grow and multiply from 30 thousand years ago.

So where did you post your list of numbers ?

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

That is clearly a lie. I gave you the population growth number and you couldn't find it.

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
1 point

Cartman writes: So, you know that evolution doesn't claim that humans don't multiply on a regular basis, so why do you keep saying that it does make that claim?

*

Humans do multiply regardless of any claim. That is why Evolution does not need to make a claim.

All that Evolution needs to do is explain what is population growth rate, and that is all that is being asked from you, regardless of making any claim.

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

You are asking evolution to explain a growth rate that evolution does claim is happening.

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
1 point

Cartman writes: ... The 10 and the 90% are the variables ...

*

Okay. If you apply these variables to population growth from 30,000 years,

that is the same as to say that the Human population had a reduction of 90 %

Like I said earlier the minimum rate of reduction is 80 %.

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

10 and 80%

55,000 years ago 15,000 x 10= 150,000 - 80% = 30,000

50,000 years ago 30,000 x 10= 300,000 - 80% = 60,000

45,000 years ago 60,000 x 10= 600,000 - 80% = 120,000

40,000 years ago 120,000 x 10=1,200,000 - 80% = 240,000

35,000 years ago 240,000 x 10=2,400,000 - 80% = 480,000

30,000 years ago 480,000 x 10=4,800,000 - 80% = 960,000

There. Happy now? Those are the numbers you requested. Now what?

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
0 points

That there were no families of Humans multiplying on the Earth 25,000 years ago is evident, due to the fact that all things the Humans have done to the place called Earth during a single cluster of 7 thousand years, they would have done the same thing anyway during any of three sequences of 14 thousand years that immediately precede the recent 7,000 years.

SIGN OF ANOMALY

Year | World Population in Millions

70,000 BC | <0.015

10,000 BC | 1

Often when a chronological basis is omitted with a jump, jumping from 70 directly to 10 then a debt with the truth can be seen, unfinished business that needs to be answered in response for a lack of consistency in the Evolutionary theory and the statement that the size of your brain is product of natural selection. When a theory states that it would have taken a time longer than 25,000 years to reach 1 million people, it implies that the number of children would remain the same from the beginning to the end of every 4,750 years per every 5,000 years interval.

Many, many men can’t see the open road to new possibilities of the real science ( ascertained truth of the facts ). When providing you meaningless numbers, or when giving you any number that has to do with many, that is the same as to say that ’25 thousand years ago you would find many people living in Europe’. And many is a word that only leaves you guessing about a thing you really ought to know. One really ought not to lie or drift on numbers as if man is a beast, and as if everything that happens in life is a disgrace.

DIAGNOSING THE PROBLEM – 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. ( According to the multiplication rate proposed by the Evolutionary theory )

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, in regards to the origin of the Human body.

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.

Quotes from How to Entangle a Juridical Panthera

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

due to the fact that all things the Humans have done to the place called Earth during a single cluster of 7 thousand years

This isn't accurate at all. There are human made tools that are over 100,000 years old. Humans have been changing the Earth for way more than 7,000 years.

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
celestial(47) Disputed
0 points

Cartman writes: There are human made tools that are over 100,000 years old. Humans have been changing the Earth for way more than 7,000 years.

Dear Cartman, it is necessary that you provide a simple list of numbers with a possible multiplication rate from 30,000 years ago,

You should be able to mathematically back up the presence of families of Humans from 30,000 years ago, by the presentation of a sample of population growth model,

because that is the only way you could disprove what is mathematically proven: The multiplication rate proposed by the Evolutionary theory is a very serious error because the average of years without multiplying corresponds to 4,750 years per every 5,000 years.

If you are not able to disprove what is being said ( that there is no possible multiplication average for Human multiplication from 30,000 years ago ) then there is no reason for us to talk about Human multiplication from 100,000 years ago.

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
0 points

1st cluster of 14,000 years – from 49 to 36,000 years ago

2nd cluster of 14,000 years – from 35 to 22,000 years ago: p x 15 - 80 %

3rd cluster of 14,000 years – from 21 to 7,000 years ago

The following sample of population growth model desmonstrates the incompatibility between the consequences of having Humans on Europe for a time no longer than 14 thousand years, and the time proposed for their multiplication by the Evolutionary theory:

2nd cluster of 14 thousand years – From 35,000 years ago

European population: 2,000 people ( according to the Evolutionary theory )

1 thousand years | . . . . . . . . 2,000 x 15 = 30,000 - 80 % = 6,000 people

2 thousand years | . . . . . . . . 6,000 x 15 = 90,000 - 80 % = 18,000 p

3 thousand years | . . . . . . . 18,000 x 15 = 270,000 - 80 % = 54,000 p

4 thousand years | . . . . . . . 54,000 x 15 = 810,000 - 80 % = 162,000 p

5 thousand years | . . . . . . 162,000 x 15 = 2,430,000 - 80 % = 486,000 p

6 thousand years | . . . . . . 486,000 x 15 = 7,290,000 - 80 % = 1,458,000 p

7 thousand years | . . . . 1,458,000 x 15 = 21,870,000 - 80 % = 4,374,000 p

8 thousand years | . . . . 4,374,000 x 15 = 65,610,000 - 80 % = 13,122,000 p

9 thousand years | . . . 13,122,000 x 15 = 196,830,000 - 80 % = 39,366,000 p

10 thousand years | . . 39,366,000 x 15 = 590,490,000 - 80 % = 118,098,000 p

11 thousand years | . 118,098,000 x 15 = 1,771,470,000 - 80 % = 354,294,000 p

12 thousand years | 354,294,000 x 15 = 5,314,410,000 - 80 % = 1,062,882,000 p

13 thousand years | 1,062,882,000 x 15 = 15,943,230,000 - 80 % = 3,188,646,000

14 thousand years | 3,188,646,000 x 15 = 47,829,690,000 - 80 % = 9,565,938,000

Evolutionary theory implies that the miscegenation in Europe would have started when they were 2,000 people. However, 2,000 people in Europe do not become 42 different linguistic ethnic groups through the means of miscegenation.

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.

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
0 points

Cartman writes: Are you actually arguing that the human population hasn't grown fast enough for evolution?

That is not what I'm arguing. Read the first paragraph please, because this is what I'm arguing, and it is plain to see:

why the teachers on Human Origins are not able to provide a simple list of numbers for a possible multiplication average,

or a population growth model, that could mathematically back up their statements whenever they state that there would have been families of Humans multiplying on Europe from 30,000 years ago, allegedly.

Where are the numbers representing a possible multiplication average?

PhxDemocrat writes: ... no one was there to have witnessed.

You were not there but you were given perception and power of intelligent mind to see and understand what science is: the ascertained truth of the facts; that which you are able to demonstrate by the means of experience.

The real science: the ascertained truth of the facts by the means of Real life experiences have proved the Evolutionary theory to be an error, with regards to the origin of the Human body,

because Human beings do multiply according to a regular basis; a regular average of multiplication which corresponds to a very basic population growth model, which was not taken into consideration when the time proposed for their multiplication had been given by the Evolutionary theory.

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

That is not what I'm arguing. Read the first paragraph please, because this is what I'm arguing, and it is plain to see:

No, it isn't clear at all. That's why Cartman asked.

why the teachers on Human Origins are not able to provide a simple list of numbers for a possible multiplication average,

This can go either way.

or a population growth model, that could mathematically back up their statements whenever they state that there would have been families of Humans multiplying on Europe from 30,000 years ago, allegedly.

Can go either way.

Where are the numbers representing a possible multiplication average?

Still not demonstrating any flaws.

because Human beings do multiply according to a regular basis; a regular average of multiplication which corresponds to a very basic population growth model, which was not taken into consideration when the time proposed for their multiplication had been given by the Evolutionary theory.

You can figure out the average based on the population that evolution describes. So, if you want to disprove evolution you calculate the average then show how that calculated value is ridiculous.

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
celestial(47) Clarified
1 point

Cartman writes: You can figure out the average based on the population that evolution describes. So, if you want to disprove evolution you calculate the average then show how that calculated value is ...

Of course, everyone can figure out the average based on numbers that the Evolutionary theory had proposed for Humans to grow and multiply.

That is how a person and everyone can figure out that the teachers on Human origins are not able to disprove that the average or multiplication rate proposed by the Evolutionary theory is mathematically impossible: because the average of years without multiplying corresponds to 4,750 years per every 5,000 years, during two rows of 14,000 years from 49 to 21 thousand years ago.

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
skyfish(276) Disputed
1 point

this is what I'm arguing, and it is plain to see:

.

not really.

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
celestial(47) Clarified
1 point

It is not proper to state 'not really' and then not ask for clarification nor explain with logic and reason what is it that is not clearly plain to see.

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
0 points

If you apply logic and reason then you would be fair with the truth

Up to the present many go against the evidence, trying to deny the truth,

and many simply refuse to see,

But it is plain to see that the following numbers of multiplication rate, proposed by the Evolutionary theory, are impossible,

Definition of impossible at Datasegment online dictionary:

adj 1: not capable of occurring or being accomplished or dealt with; "an impossible dream"; "an impossible situation"

2: totally unlikely [syn: impossible, inconceivable, out of the question, unimaginable]

In order for many to state that the Evolutionary theory is accurate, instead of an error, with regards to the origin of the Human body,

they ( the teachers on Human Origins ) should be able to demonstrate the alleged accuracy by explaining to you how the following multiplication rate, from the list of numbers proposed by the Evolutionary theory, would be accurate, possible and true.

Quote from How to Entangle a Juridical Panthera:

DIAGNOSING THE PROBLEM – 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.

*

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

The following was based on numbers proposed by the Evolutionary theory

These are not numbers proposed by the theory of evolution.

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
celestial(47) Disputed
0 points

Cartman writes: These are not numbers proposed by the theory of evolution.

You can check with members of evc forums that these numbers are often provided by them from their archeological institutes; the same list of numbers are often proposed by evolutionists to back up the Evolutionary theory for the origin of the Human body.

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
0 points

You can see that there is no argument you could bring up to explain why Humans would have taken more than 25 thousand years to reach 1 million.

But you know there is a rank of what matters more, regardless of an error in progress; specific reasons for not seeing 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.

Quotes from How to Entangle a Juridical Panthera

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

Sorry, a claim of conspiracy is not proof something is wrong.

Here are better reasons:

A) No alternative

B) It matches physical evidence

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
celestial(47) Disputed
0 points

Of course not. There is no claim of conspiracy that could prove anything.

The point is that you keep saying that it is possible for Humans to stop multiplying during 4,750 years per every 5,000 years interval,

when you know there is mathematical evidence and the real life experiences indicating that it isn't.

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
0 points

Evolutionary theory implies that the miscegenation in Europe would have started when they were 2,000 people. However, 2,000 people in Europe do not become 42 different linguistic ethnic groups through the means of miscegenation.

Quotes from: Population growth over the hills and far away

50 thousand years ago . . . . 2,000 people . . Many is a word

49 thousand years ago . . . . ? . . . . . . . . that only leaves you guessin’

43 thousand years ago . . . . ? . . . . . Guessin’ bout a thing

35 thousand years ago . . . 2,000 people . . . one really ought not to lie

25 thousand years ago . . . ? . . . . . You really ought to know

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

Bosniaks French Latvians Swedes

British people Gaelic Lithuanians Swiss

Bulgarians Georgians Macedonian Turks

Celts German people Netherlands Ukrainians

Cossacks Polish

European Ethnic group Templates

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
2 points

Are you actually arguing that the human population hasn't grown fast enough for evolution? That wouldn't disprove anything. In order to disprove it you would have to show it grew too fast.

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
Harvard(666) Disputed
2 points

It's obvious that you're not too mathematically literate...

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
2 points

It is always nice to have you tell me I am wrong, since you are so unsuccessful when you do. I hope you aren't as mathematically literate as you are literate. It would be nice for you to be good at something.

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
celestial(47) Disputed
1 point

Where are the numbers representing a possible multiplication average, or a possible rate of population growth model for the alleged multiplication of Humans from 30,000 years ?

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
celestial(47) Disputed
1 point

Harvard,

I agree.

If the Evolutionary point is true then let him answer the question,

Where are the numbers representing a possible multiplication average, or a possible rate of population growth model for the alleged multiplication of Humans from 30,000 years ?

And if there is no answer, that is because the Evolutionary proposal to populations growth is proven to be an extremely serious error.

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
celestial(47) Disputed
1 point

That is not what I'm arguing.

The point is,

Did you ever wonder ... why do the teachers on Human Origins not provide a simple list of numbers for a possible multiplication average,

or ... why do they not provide a population growth model, that could mathematically back up their statements whenever they state that there would have been families of Humans multiplying on Europe from 30,000 years ago ?

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

That is not what I'm arguing.

Your only argument is that since it isn't taught in schools it is fake.

Did you ever wonder ... why do the teachers on Human Origins not provide a simple list of numbers for a possible multiplication average,

No, it would be a waste of time to learn that stuff. We don't know what kind of conditions early man had to go through and any numbers can't be verified.

or ... why do they not provide a population growth model, that could mathematically back up their statements whenever they state that there would have been families of Humans multiplying on Europe from 30,000 years ago ?

No, it doesn't help to learn anything by having a population growth model. It would be pure speculation and not definitive. It is also completely unnecessary for teaching the aspects of evolution.

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
1 point

are you stuck on the idea that the Earth is only 6-7 thousand years old?

.

that seems to be the basis of all your "reasoning".

.

it's a faulty premise.

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
celestial(47) Disputed
0 points

My Dear Skyfish,

The basis of my reasoning is not creationism. It is emanation of Living light.

The argument that was brought up in the beginning provides a vision from 55 thousand years ago, which is very different from stucking on the idea that the Earth is only 6-7 years old

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

Quotes from How to Entangle a Juridical Panthera

According to Echoes in the words ‘No one called us to the land’, the appearance of 42 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.

Quote from How to Entangle a Juridical Panthera:

EVOLUTION VERSUS EMANATION OF LIVING LIGHT

The Life energy and Existence never had a beginning or origin outside of what is already living.

Because there is no beginning of time, or beginning of life, in the continuous sequence of a second after another.

If they should say to you: 'From whence have you come?' say to them: 'We have come from the Light, from the place where the light emanates of itself, arises and appears in our image.' If someone says to you: 'Who are you?' say: 'We are first-fruits of the living Light.' If they should ask you: 'What sign of living Light is in you?' tell them: 'It is a movement and yet motionless.' In the living word ( glittering with lightning through the density of the clouds ) was the life, and the life was the light of man. The life energy was the light of the Human body.

By Relativity of Simultaneity it is ascertained the existence of another sequence of time which is time in simultaneous sequence.

There is a time other than the continuous sequence of a second after another. The duration of a time interval between two events is not equal for all observers. It’s equal for inertial observers only.

Physical evidence that the Human body is product of Emanation of Living Energy is the presence of simultaneity of that same Light or energy which moves as in a fading effect, in the Human brain, also described as 'a movement and yet motionless'. The permanence of that movement is a simultaneous sequence, which has nothing to do with continuous sequence of a second after another.

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error

I'm still skeptical about any theory. Evolution is still up in the air. After all, no one was there to have witnessed when the world was created.

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
Cuaroc(8826) Disputed
3 points

useless argument as usual.

Side: Yes It's proven to be an error
Troy8(2431) Disputed
0 points

Let's see, what was your argument?

"Nope."

Side: Not proved wrong yet.
0 points

Nope.

Side: Not proved wrong yet.