On Apr 30, 12:26 am, Awais Nazir <waqas.fah...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Humans came on earth about ten-thousand years ago.
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. I have heard of
"Mitochondrial Eve", the common female ancestor to all living humans.
She lived around 70 thousand years ago.
> I recommend to keepoff the high-school education bias, and then read
on.
I recommend to keep off _all_ biases.
> Earth is about 4.5-billion years old, as uranium-dating proves.
No, it doesn't; several radioactive mineral decay dating methods
give ages of that magnitude within reasonable error limits though, so
it's acceptable to me for argument's sake.
> Reason 1: Humans are clever, they don't take tens of thousands of
> years to develop scientifically/population-wise.
How do you know that? There are entire subcontinents that reject
various scientific/technological "advances" for all sorts of reasons.
Many simply refuse to abandon "traditional" ways just because they
want to keep their traditions.
> Reason 2: a simple human intelligence can produce pottery, they should
> have been well a few hundred thousand years ago.
How do you know that?
> But we do not find
> Pottery before ten-thousand years ago. Pottery came "suddenly" in
> archeologist records.
On different continents at different times, yes. So what?
> Reason 3: Archeology record suggests agriculture to come into scene
> "suddenly" about ten-thousand years, (Is human as dumb that for tens
> of thousands of years they were just hunting?).
Who says "just hunting" was "dumb"? In a hand-to-mouth society, the
time and manpower needed to get crops to harvest simply can't be
invested; too many will starve to death.
> Intuition says that if
> there would be a first society, then it would be both hunters/farmers.
Nope. Somebody had to be the first to "invent" farming by noticing
that seeds grew into mature plants which yielded edible parts and were
worth harvesting (mitigate this by several generations arguing about
"spirits", "like from like" and so on). Then there had to be "surplus"
manpower available to stay with the crops and tend them (keep away the
rats etc.) rather than follow the game animals.
> If Archeology says that agriculture started about ten-thousand years
> ago, then humanity should have come about ten-thousand years ago, on
> Earth.
Why should we have went to all the trouble? Humans are not
particularly well adapted to eat plant matter. That's why we cook or
ferment the grains that we raise as food.
We can eat many fruits and some vegetables raw but they have limited
seasonal availability. You never do get around to the invention of the
technologies of food preservation and storage. Those took a fairly
long time (and are still under development).
> Reason 4: Archeologists find that organised housing "suddenly"
> appeared about ten thousand years ago, (Are humans dumb enough, that
> they lived for tens of thousands of years just roaming the earth,
> without proper place to settle).
Why would we have bothered without a good reason _to_ settle?
Until very recently nomadic cultures on more than one continent
maintained a fairly high level of culture on horseback.
> Reason 5: First chinese writing came in about 1500 BC, and that first
> American writing came in about 800 BC by the Zapotec people, first
> Egypt writing came in about 3100 BC, (Are humans that dumb, that they
> never wrote the previous socalled many tens of thousands of years).
Above you should have written "The first *known* Chinese [etc.]
writing..." because that's the case. Those are the earliest we _know
about_.
Besides, what did nomads have to write about, and why would they
burden themselves with tons of inedible written materials? Ever heard
of "Oral Tradition"?
> These dates show that, the first humans should come about 10-thousand
> years ago, so that they gain enough population/experience to
> effectively run the commerce/government through writing.
There you are; no commerce, no government, no need to lumber*
themselves with writing.
> Reason 6: GENETICISTS HAD MATHEMATICALLY PROVED THAT, THE HUMAN GENE
> IS STABLE FOR 20-MILLION YEARS INTO FUTURE!WITH CURRENT MUTATION
> RATES.
Please provide cites for the claim (and what "current mutation
rates" means, and the justification for assuming it will remain
constant in the future.
Also please stop YELLING.
> NOW THE QUESTION IS: HOW CAN A SOCALLED SERIES OF EVOLUTION
> FROM LAST COUPLE OF HUNDRED OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS, FROM APE TO MAN
> HALT ABRUPTLY FOR THE NEXT 20-MILLION YEARS? (MONKEY TO MAN IS A GREAT
> SOCALLED LEAP FORWARD IN GENES. GENES ARE SO SO SO STABLE THAT WE CAN
> FIND EVEN TODAY THE SPECIES WHICH ALSO EXISTED BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD
> IN FOSSIL RECORDS; WE ARE MAKING A VERY BIG STATEMENT WHEN WE SAY THAT
> MONKEY GENE BECAME HUMAN GENE IN A COUPLE OF TENS OF THOUSANDS OF
> YEARS.).
Need cites before discussion.
> Reason 7: The mesopotamian scientific trend occurred about twenty-
> seventh century BC, of Greece about third century BC, of Muslim about
> tenth century AD, of European about Sixteenth Century BC. What rule
> joins them? Every next trend occurred after a previous one, nearly
> after half the time period between previous two trends. For example,
> Meso-Greece period in 25 centuries, Greece-Muslim period is twelve and
> half centuries, muslim-european period is about six centuries, and so
> next trend should occur at about three centuries latter from sixteenth
> centures, ie ninteenth century (which is the American Science Period).
Sounds like a restatement of Moore's Law.
> If I call the first Science Period as Adamic, then Adamic SP should
> occur about 7700 BC (approx. 8000 BC), i.e. about ten-thousand years
> ago. Conclusion: The first Science Period was Adamic and it occurred
> about 8000 BC. (Anthropologists suggest that the current humans, i.e.
> homo-sapians, were existant on earth for atleast 200 thousand years,
> according to their calculations; thus, the intelligence which humans
> currently possess, was with humans for atleast 200 thousand years.
Intelligence is a tool. Unless you know what raw materials to apply
a tool to, it by definition will not produce results.
> But, humanity would be colonizing other galaxies, had it been of the
> age of 200 thousand years.). Humans are not dumb that they take many
> tens of thousands of years to develop population/scientifically.
How do you know this? There are still many populations that reject
science in favor of superstition.
> Reason 8: Summerian and Egyptian Civilizations started about 3500 BC;
> Indus and Minoan and Akkadian and Andes Cvilisations started about
> 2500 BC; Chinese Civilization started about 2200 BC; doesn't it all
> hint: if it took 5000-years for human to develop from past Egyptian
> civilization to the development that is now, then about 5000-thousand
> years should have took from a first human pair to develop into
> Egyptian civilization, totalling 10-thousand years of human existence
> on earth, (It is as evident as is sun).
No, it is not "as evident as sun". You make an assumption, then
order "evidence" to sup****t your conclusion.
> Reason 9: Now, Pyramids as in Egypt/Amerindian can exist for many ten-
> thousands of years. If humanity has an age of more than ten-thousand
> years, then it can safely be argued that there should exist similar
> more societies like Egyptian/Amerindian, and thus a multitude of
> pyramids covering the earth, each showing its history; but we can't
> find such sustaining structures as pyramids preceding the time about
> 3-4 thousand years ago. This all shows that, no bias: Egyptian/
> Amerindian were the first to make Pyramids, if humanity was more than
> ten-thousand years in age then similar pyramids should have been found
> but there exist none, thus humanity can't be more than ten-thousand
> years in age; no bias: God is needed to create the intelligent
> creature as a human. (It is not that Stone structures before 10-
> thousand years decayed, because stone/bone/fossils can date millions/
> billions of years).
Pyramids are a lot of work to construct and require large, non-
mobile populations to build (unless you're willing to wait for crews
to converge every summer or whatever). So, no agriculture, no
pyramids.
> It may be argued that ice-age thawed about ten-thousand years ago, and
> that's why one saw agriculture/etc thriving after it, (but equator
> never faced the bitter of ice, so civilization should have continued
> at equator, nullifying the previous argument).
Why do you assume that? Civilization is more than what people have
in their minds; the more complex it is, the more material
(technological) sup****t it needs. How much such technology could be
carried before advancing glaciers in the middle of climate change that
makes the current flap look like a calm autumn day?
> God modified the mamal gene to make human.
Your assumption is untestable and does not belong in a discussion in
the sci hierarchy.
> Proof? Appendix has no work
> in humans, but still exists, but is required in many other mammals.
That sounds like an accusation of incompetency on the part of the
engineering committee.
> Also, sea-plant is almost 85% human gene.
So? Humans and chimps also share most of our genome, hence chimps
and your "sea-plant" have the same similarity. Did your god modify sea-
plants into chimps as a test case?
> THE SKELATONS WE FIND TODAY OF SO-CALLED PREHUMANS ARE ACTUALLY
> MONKEYS.
No. Monkeys have tails, apes, us, and whatever Lucy was do not.
> THERE ARE MANY KIND OF MONKEYS, SOME ARE SMALL, SOME ARE
MORE
> MAN-LIKE E.G. GORILLAS IN PHYSIQUE/INTELLIGENCE; AND LUCY/ETC ARE JUST
> ONE OF THE SPECTRUM OF THE VARIED KINDS OF MONKEYS (IF ANYONE IS HURT
> BY THE PREVIOUS SENTENCE, I APOLOGIZE FOR IT.).
Apologizing for ignorance is pointless. Simply remedy it and stop
making fictitious arguments.
And STOP YELLING!
> The rate of the human population growth has not been constant, the
> rate is much higher now because of advanced medical facilities. So, if
> we take this rate as constant, then this is not the right approach.
>
> Now, there are two things, wars and famines. Which of them puts an
> upper limit to the human population? Inconclusively, it is famine, not
> war. Reason: war was almost common throughout the world, but famine
> was more widespread in places where there is less vegetation; So,
> India/China are majors in population not because they faced less wars
> in past, but that they had less famines, compared to other
> countries.Conclusion: wars don't diminish the human population, if it
> does then it is immediately healed, but that food limits the human
> population. So, we can't say that it were cannibals in past that is
> why it took humanity many tens of thousands of years to develop
> population/scientifically.
Cannibalism spreads wasting prion diseases among its practitioners
and is thus self-limiting.
> If ***** continues of 8 generations, then the people becomes
> different from eachother, as if they belong to different races. I will
> not say *****, but that different places shut people off from
> eachother, and they became different after some generations. The Black
> in Africa, and Blond is Sweden, occurred, because a Blond in Africa
> died an early death due to ultra-violet sun ray harm, and same for the
> Balck in Sweden where it died of lack of Vitamin-D.
This is essentially correct and is the basis of the concept of
"nation". Anyone versed in Animal Husbandry already knows it.
> Anti-thesis: human beings can't be from this earth, because about ten-
> thousand years ago, sudden intelligence came on the surface of Earth.
That is your assumption. Where's your sup****ting evidence?
> So, what if Aliens came to earth about ten-thousand years ago, now
> called as humans? It is very less probable, because why aliens came
> not in the 4-billion history of earth and only in last ten-thousand
> years? Also, Aliens most probably had to die because they are not
> immune to earthly bectarias/etc.
Why would alien biochemistry be compatible with that of the
established Earthly lifeforms? Why would thet even have DNA much less
share so much of it with chimpanzees? WHy would they even be
vulnerable to bacteria?
> Despite the fact that I had proved the landing of Adam on Earth,
No, you have not.
ten-
> thousand years ago, current mindset has difficulty accepting it,
> because, it then has to accept the existance of God.
Well, which is it, space aliens, or goddidit?
> Atheists say that this world is by chance; Well, what if, god intended
> this world to appear as such, for some reason?
Such baseless speculation does not belong in the sci hierarchy.
> Conclusion: Above argument only proves that God exists, (because God
> is required to create the first man, about 10-thousand years ago).
Genetically, you're about 60-thousand years late.
But
> is that God really interested in us? Yes, God is indeed interested in
> us through Messenger****p (www.awais-nazir.biz).
Any god so little interested in its creations deserves to be
ignored.
* Anybody get that reference?
Mark L. Fergerson
|
