Thoughts on society.....

[Willow]

Coop: "Willow, correct me if I'm wrong but you already know who posted in the deleted replies. "

Thats right, I can see who posted. Thats what I thought I said in post # 652
"You can't see the author's name Jo but they were posts by Oneye."
should have read...
"You can see the author's name Joe, they were posts by Oneye."

Typo centralI'm afraid... but I did say it was Oneye.

"Do MSN close communities? "
I read about one particularly extreme site being closed - that was over a year ago.This suggest that it hardly ever happens.

I doubt if they even check up on most of the sites and onlyraise from their slumber following complaints.

 

[Marcus]

Just did a little statistic here with regards to the population of the human species:

No oneseems to really know when the human species first came about, but I think nearly all would agree that it had to start with a man and a women (couple)... so I did a rough statistical calculation.

To make this rough calculation seem accurate, I basically used very conservative figures to make it seem more believeable.

Some facts of a couple:
- lifespan of 50yrs
- 2.05 children


2 - Beginning

3 - After 1,000 yrs

286 - After 10,000 yrs

471,722 - After 25,000 yrs

108,547,356,867 - After 50,000 yrs

5,747,574,967,217,730,000,000 - After 100,000 yrs


Now considering the current world population sits at about 6.3 billion and that the birth rate for a couple over their lifespan is way more than 2.05 (I think Australia's is about 2.54 - and its a developed country)... its makes you wonder how old are we really.

 

[Willow]

Marcus: "To make this rough calculation seem accurate, I basically used very conservative figures to make it seem more believeable."
Hmmm.. believable to who?
These are indeed rough figures... as you put it.
No considerations for disease, famine, war, natural disasters... all of which have hada profound effect on human populations. Keep in mind that the world population has only really begun to soar in relatively recent times.

Additionally, you are assuming, or following your belief, that the human race began with two people.
It disregards the view that the human species developed along evolutionary branch lines with some branches surviving and others suffering extinction.

 

[Marcus]

Marcus: "To make this rough calculation seem accurate, I basically used very conservative figures to make it seem more believeable." Hmmm.. believable to who? - Willow

Like I said its conservative... people tend to believe the conservative view as its not over the top.


No considerations for disease, famine, war, natural disasters... all of which have hada profound effect on human populations. Keep in mind that the world population has only really begun to soar in relatively recent times. - Willow

Well I understood that there is war and other disasters which is quite hard to measure... so to overcome that I put the children to couples rate at 2.05 to compensate that - which is a very low figure.

Its quite interesting you say that the world population has soared immensely. I think if you were to you the bell-curve theory it could possibly give us a rough estimate of when we begun.


It disregards the view that the human species developed along evolutionary branch lines with some branches surviving and others suffering extinction. - Willow

You don't mind giving an example of what you mean by that?

Are you like saying in some way that if the human species became extinct... them another type of human people will come from us?

 

[Marcus]

What do you see?

 

[El Duque]

Mallrats suddenly springs to mind.

 

[Marcus]

The Lone Ranger and Tonto are camping in the desert, set up their tent, and are asleep. Some hours later, The Lone Ranger wakes his faithful friend.
"Tonto, look up and tell me what you see."
Tonto replies, "Me see millions of stars."
"What does that tell you?" asks The Lone Ranger.
Tonto ponders for a minute.
"Astronomically speaking, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets.
Astrologically, it tells me that Saturn is in Leo.
Time wise, it appears to be approximately a quarter past three.
Theologically, it's evident the Lord is all powerful and we are small and insignificant.
Meteorologically, it seems we will have a beautiful day tomorrow.
What it tell you, Kemo Sabi?"
The Lone Ranger is silent for a moment, then speaks.
"Tonto, you Dumb Hoss, someone has stolen our tent."

 

This message has been deleted by the manager or assistant manager.

 

[El Duque]

The Lone Rangeris riding across the plains of the old west, when he is captured by Indians. The tribe puts him on trial for crimes against the Indian Nation, and he is found guilty. "You have been sentenced to death," said the Chief, "but, as is our custom, you have three wishes to make as your last requests."
TheLone Rangerthought for a minute and said, "Well, for my first wish, I'll need my horse Silver." "Give him his horse," said the Chief. TheLone Rangerwhispered something intoSilver's ear, and thenSilver took off like a shot across the prairie. Twenty minutes later, thehorse returned with a beautiful blonde woman on it's back. TheLone Rangerlooked at this, shrugged his shoulders, and helped the young lady off the horse. He then took her into the woods and had his way with her.
"Second wish," said the Chief. "I'll need my horse Silveragain," said the The Lone Ranger. "Give him his horse," said the Chief. Once again,The Lone Rangerwhispered into the Silver's ear, and once again theSilver rode off over the prairie. Thirty minutes later, thehorse returned with a beautiful red-head on it's back. TheLone Rangerlooked up and shrugged, helped the young lady off the horse, and went into the woods; same as before.
"This is your last wish," said the Chief, " make it a good one." "I'll need my horse Silveragain." "Give him his horse," said the Chief. TheLone Rangergrabbed each side of the Silver's head, and put his face right up to Silver's.
"I SAID POSSE YOU DUMB HORSE!!!!!!!"

 

[Willow]

I could see where you were going and it was to try and manufacture a short world history. Track record speaks fo itself.

"people tend to believe the conservative view as its not over the top."
Not sure about that. We have a thread with at least few contributors believing in all sorts off theories with both sidesthinking the other has it wrong. Define conservative and we might be getting somewhere.

"I understood that there is war and other disasters which is quite hard to measure... so to overcome that I put the children to couples rate at 2.05 to compensate that - which is a very low figure."
Which formula or calculation did you use to reach this conclusion?

"Its quite interesting you say that the world population has soared immensely. I think if you were to you the bell-curve theory it could possibly give us a rough estimate of when we begun."
This is what I meant by soared:
Population estimates show the increase happening around 1700-1750 and with the industrial revolution, itthen takes off. It depends who you read but they have a rapid increase after this time.
eg 600mil in 1750 - 1,200mil by 1850 - 2,400mil by 1950 (give or take 50mil). Its about 6,000mil in 2000 so the jump has acelerated. It'll be about 8,000mil by 2020.

This compares to estimates of 1 million people wordwide in 10,000BC which increased to 150mil at year zero AD. But as I said, these estimates change a little depending on who you read but they generally stay in the same ball park. Plus the nature of the increases are pretty consistent across the board.

"It disregards the view that the human species developed along evolutionary branch lines with some branches surviving and others suffering extinction. - Willow
"You don't mind giving an example of what you mean by that? Are you like saying in some way that if the human species became extinct... them another type of human people will come from us?" - Marcus


This post started at the end and working back to beginning eh?
I'm sure I've already covered my view onthis detail. And I'm sure you've read it.
I'm merely showing that you havent taken the other view into calculation.
Are saying that Adam was born as a man and Eve came from his rib?

imo (and I'll abridge it to simplest terms - this post is long enough), Humans evolved from a branches of hominids, more than one. Some survived and for any number of reasons, some did not survive.
The ones who kicked on slowly migrated and after eons of interbreeding, we have what we have today.

btw, it looks likea bunch of showgirls dancing.... doing the Can-can.

 

[CanadianSteve]

No oneseems to really know when the human species first came about, but I think nearly all would agree that it had to start with a man and a women (couple) - Marcus

It disregards the view that the human species developed along evolutionary branch lines with some branches surviving and others suffering extinction. - Willow

Marcus's post has made me think of a question for the evolutionists. Those who doubt the creation of Adam and Eve like to ask, did they have navels. But how does evolution explain how man, or whatever supposedly came before, went from evolving from something else to reproducing by intercourse and giving birth. There must have been a first human, or "hominid", or ape, or horse, etc. born to a male and female parent. How did those 2 parents get there? It seems to me evolutionists cover this type of thing by saying, well it took millions of years. But I just can't picture how the first birth in a species took place with evolution.

I hope I have worded this question understandably.

 

This message has been deleted due to termination of membership.

 

[Willow]

CS: "Marcus's post has made me think of a question for the evolutionists."
With respect, Steve, thats hardly surprising. Whats interesting is that any alternative viewwill never raise a question for creationists.

"Those who doubt the creation of Adam and Eve like to ask, did they have navels."
Not me.

"But how does evolution explain how man, or whatever supposedly came before..."
Steve... if ten squillion posts on the subject hasn't given you an indication of an alternative opinion, that is, the theory of evolution, then I can't see how any further discussion on the subject will satisfy your curiosity.
Unless ofcourse you have only been reading the posts you want to read. In which case, I suggest you start 'from the beginning', so to speak.
But OK... lets see if we can dwelve back even further.

Needless to say, some evolutionists are of the view that life started in a pool of crap billions of years ago.Perhaps the notion that we evolved from algae or bacteria is what unsettles creationists the most.

Single celled organisms remained unchanged for eons and although organic in nature,they hadno lifecycle. It was only when they split into two cells that we a started seeing a life-cycle appear. Mortlality is actually a fairly new concept (relatively speaking) on Earth.
Single celled organisms splitting into two cells is a fact. Its high school biology at work.

Slightly more romantic is the view that prior to the 'puddle of life', thateverything was stardust. Depends how far you want to go back.

And then offcourse we have Eric Von Daneken and his Chariots of the Gods...

Somewhere down the bottom of these theories is the view that two human beings miraculousy appeared from nothing. Presumably we also had two of everything else being delivered by the 'creator' as about the same time. eg, two Girraffes, two kangaroos,two prawns, two mosquitoes etc....
...but probably only one singled celled organism, presumably wondering what the heck was going on...

 

This message has been deleted due to termination of membership.

 

[CanadianSteve]

Willow, if you don't want to, or can't answer mt question, that's fine. Maybe someone else can. I'm sorry if you think it's been answered already, I don't think it has. Marcus's post caused me to think about origins in a new way. Not new as in original, but a new way of phrasing it, for me at least. Leaving out the sarcasm in your response, here I think is the crux of your post.

Needless to say, some evolutionists are of the view that life started in a pool of crap billions of years ago.Perhaps the notion that we evolved from algae or bacteria is what unsettles creationists the most.

Single celled organisms remained unchanged for eons and although organic in nature,they hadno lifecycle. It was only when they split into two cells that we a started seeing a life-cycle appear. Mortlality is actually a fairly new concept (relatively speaking) on Earth.
Single celled organisms splitting into two cells is a fact. Its high school biology at work.

I don't see an answer to my question in there. Moving forward from the "pool of crap", I guess you're saying that single celled organisms split in two. (What caused them to go from a state without mortality to suddenly start splitting is another question.) How do you get from there to a creature that was say, a horse, and from there how did the first male and female horse mate and produce the first baby horse? I know you'll say there were millions of years in there, but doesn't there have to be a point where the first horse (or pick your animal) was born to 2 male and female parents? That's the point I have trouble picturing, and therefore have trouble believing in.

If horses aren't the species you prefer, feel free to use any other animals you wish.

 

This message has been deleted due to termination of membership.

 

This message has been deleted due to termination of membership.

 

This message has been deleted due to termination of membership.

 

This message has been deleted by the author.

 

[dubopov]

Can someone delete 75% of this Thread..reasons as outlined by Bronco...except Oneye is the only one-eyed person willing to admit his one-eyedness !!..Marcus and Canadian Steve..Eyes Wide Shut !!