/ Forside / Interesser / Andre interesser / Religion / Nyhedsindlæg
Login
Glemt dit kodeord?
Brugernavn

Kodeord


Reklame
Top 10 brugere
Religion
#NavnPoint
mblm 1770
summer 1170
ans 1142
JanneP 1010
e.p. 880
Rellom 850
Teil 728
refi 645
o.v.n. 630
10  molokyle 587
UN: 7 mia den 31 okt.
Fra : KL


Dato : 29-10-11 08:57


http://www.icr.org/article/6425/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+icrscienceupdate+%28Science+Update+from+ICR%29

The world's population will reach seven billion on October 31, 2011, according to
the United Nations, and media outlets are heralding the issue of overcrowding on
the planet. How long did it take for this many humans to be born?

The evolutionary version of human population growth presents a fantastic scenario
to answer that question. In this imaginary long-ages history, the population did
not grow at all for millions of years before suddenly taking off only a few
thousand years ago. In the July 29, 2011, issue of Science, demographic
anthropology expert Jean-Pierre Bocquet-Appel wrote:
"After the members of the genus Homo had been living as foragers for at least 2.4
million years, agriculture began to emerge in seven or eight regions across the
world, almost simultaneously at the beginning of the Holocene."


 
 
KL (29-10-2011)
Kommentar
Fra : KL


Dato : 29-10-11 12:29

x-postet



Martin Andersen (29-10-2011)
Kommentar
Fra : Martin Andersen


Dato : 29-10-11 12:39

On 29-10-2011 09:57, KL wrote:
>
> http://www.icr.org/article/6425/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+icrscienceupdate+%28Science+Update+from+ICR%29
>
>
> The world's population will reach seven billion on October 31, 2011,
> according to the United Nations, and media outlets are heralding the
> issue of overcrowding on the planet. How long did it take for this many
> humans to be born?
>
En livstid.

Friar Broccoli (29-10-2011)
Kommentar
Fra : Friar Broccoli


Dato : 29-10-11 06:29

On Oct 29, 3:57 am, "KL" <bfod...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.icr.org/article/6425/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=ema....
>
> The world's population will reach seven billion on October 31, 2011, according to
> the United Nations, and media outlets are heralding the issue of overcrowding on
> the planet. How long did it take for this many humans to be born?
>
> The evolutionary version of human population growth presents a fantastic scenario
> to answer that question. In this imaginary long-ages history, the population did
> not grow at all for millions of years before suddenly taking off only a few
> thousand years ago. In the July 29, 2011, issue of Science, demographic
> anthropology expert Jean-Pierre Bocquet-Appel wrote:
> "After the members of the genus Homo had been living as foragers for at least 2.4
> million years, agriculture began to emerge in seven or eight regions across the
> world, almost simultaneously at the beginning of the Holocene."

Since this is a creationist message (posted in English on a German
discussion group?) I hope you won't mind if I point out that I did
reply to your request for summary information on biological
(Darwinist) evolution here:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/97c56cc08d09da62

KL (29-10-2011)
Kommentar
Fra : KL


Dato : 29-10-11 14:58



"Friar Broccoli" <eliasrk@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e909bb35-5ac2-44c0-a5e7-53f67090ef55@v15g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 29, 3:57 am, "KL" <bfod...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> http://www.icr.org/article/6425/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=ema...
>>
>> The world's population will reach seven billion on October 31, 2011, according
>> to
>> the United Nations, and media outlets are heralding the issue of overcrowding
>> on
>> the planet. How long did it take for this many humans to be born?
>>
>> The evolutionary version of human population growth presents a fantastic
>> scenario
>> to answer that question. In this imaginary long-ages history, the population
>> did
>> not grow at all for millions of years before suddenly taking off only a few
>> thousand years ago. In the July 29, 2011, issue of Science, demographic
>> anthropology expert Jean-Pierre Bocquet-Appel wrote:
>> "After the members of the genus Homo had been living as foragers for at least
>> 2.4
>> million years, agriculture began to emerge in seven or eight regions across
>> the
>> world, almost simultaneously at the beginning of the Holocene."
>
> Since this is a creationist message (posted in English on a German
> discussion group?) I hope you won't mind if I point out that I did
> reply to your request for summary information on biological
> (Darwinist) evolution here:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/97c56cc08d09da62
>
Friar, I will respond to your reply shortly, over there.



Dieter Britz (29-10-2011)
Kommentar
Fra : Dieter Britz


Dato : 29-10-11 13:45

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 09:57:21 +0200, KL wrote:

> http://www.icr.org/article/6425/?
utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A
+icrscienceupdate+%28Science+Update+from+ICR%29
>
> The world's population will reach seven billion on October 31, 2011,
> according to the United Nations, and media outlets are heralding the
> issue of overcrowding on the planet. How long did it take for this many
> humans to be born?
>
> The evolutionary version of human population growth presents a fantastic
> scenario to answer that question. In this imaginary long-ages history,
> the population did not grow at all for millions of years before suddenly
> taking off only a few thousand years ago. In the July 29, 2011, issue of
> Science, demographic anthropology expert Jean-Pierre Bocquet-Appel
> wrote: "After the members of the genus Homo had been living as foragers
> for at least 2.4 million years, agriculture began to emerge in seven or
> eight regions across the world, almost simultaneously at the beginning
> of the Holocene."

Man er fristet til at spørge "The point being?". Men hvis du hentyder
at der har ikke været tid nok til en lille gruppe mennesker at blive
til 7 milliarder, så tager du fejl. Lad os være generøse og giv dem
blot 1 million år, og lad de 7 være 10 milliarder. Vi starter med et
enkelt menneske for 1 million år eller 30000 generationer siden. Hvis
de formerer sig med en faktor 1.001 (meget konservativ)
så når de op til de 10 milliarder. Vi kan af praktiske årsager dog ikke
starte med kun et, men, fx, 1000, og så er faktoren, der skal til, endnu
tættere på 1. Eksponential vækst tager forbavsende hurtig til. Faktisk
må man spørge sig, hvorfor vi ikke blev så mange længe før?

--
Dieter Britz

KL (29-10-2011)
Kommentar
Fra : KL


Dato : 29-10-11 14:59



"Dieter Britz" <dieterhansbritz@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:j8gsff$skj$1@dont-email.me...
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 09:57:21 +0200, KL wrote:
>
>> http://www.icr.org/article/6425/?
> utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A
> +icrscienceupdate+%28Science+Update+from+ICR%29
>>
>> The world's population will reach seven billion on October 31, 2011,
>> according to the United Nations, and media outlets are heralding the
>> issue of overcrowding on the planet. How long did it take for this many
>> humans to be born?
>>
>> The evolutionary version of human population growth presents a fantastic
>> scenario to answer that question. In this imaginary long-ages history,
>> the population did not grow at all for millions of years before suddenly
>> taking off only a few thousand years ago. In the July 29, 2011, issue of
>> Science, demographic anthropology expert Jean-Pierre Bocquet-Appel
>> wrote: "After the members of the genus Homo had been living as foragers
>> for at least 2.4 million years, agriculture began to emerge in seven or
>> eight regions across the world, almost simultaneously at the beginning
>> of the Holocene."
>
> Man er fristet til at spørge "The point being?". Men hvis du hentyder
> at der har ikke været tid nok til en lille gruppe mennesker at blive
> til 7 milliarder, så tager du fejl. Lad os være generøse og giv dem
> blot 1 million år, og lad de 7 være 10 milliarder. Vi starter med et
> enkelt menneske for 1 million år eller 30000 generationer siden. Hvis
> de formerer sig med en faktor 1.001 (meget konservativ)
> så når de op til de 10 milliarder. Vi kan af praktiske årsager dog ikke
> starte med kun et, men, fx, 1000, og så er faktoren, der skal til, endnu
> tættere på 1. Eksponential vækst tager forbavsende hurtig til. Faktisk
> må man spørge sig, hvorfor vi ikke blev så mange længe før?
>
Prøv at læse artiklen.


Dieter Britz (29-10-2011)
Kommentar
Fra : Dieter Britz


Dato : 29-10-11 16:34

On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 15:59:29 +0200, KL wrote:

> "Dieter Britz" <dieterhansbritz@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:j8gsff$skj$1@dont-email.me...
>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 09:57:21 +0200, KL wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.icr.org/article/6425/?
>> utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A
>> +icrscienceupdate+%28Science+Update+from+ICR%29
>>>
>>> The world's population will reach seven billion on October 31, 2011,
>>> according to the United Nations, and media outlets are heralding the
>>> issue of overcrowding on the planet. How long did it take for this
>>> many humans to be born?
>>>
>>> The evolutionary version of human population growth presents a
>>> fantastic scenario to answer that question. In this imaginary
>>> long-ages history, the population did not grow at all for millions of
>>> years before suddenly taking off only a few thousand years ago. In the
>>> July 29, 2011, issue of Science, demographic anthropology expert
>>> Jean-Pierre Bocquet-Appel wrote: "After the members of the genus Homo
>>> had been living as foragers for at least 2.4 million years,
>>> agriculture began to emerge in seven or eight regions across the
>>> world, almost simultaneously at the beginning of the Holocene."
>>
>> Man er fristet til at spørge "The point being?". Men hvis du hentyder
>> at der har ikke været tid nok til en lille gruppe mennesker at blive
>> til 7 milliarder, så tager du fejl. Lad os være generøse og giv dem
>> blot 1 million år, og lad de 7 være 10 milliarder. Vi starter med et
>> enkelt menneske for 1 million år eller 30000 generationer siden. Hvis
>> de formerer sig med en faktor 1.001 (meget konservativ) så når de op
>> til de 10 milliarder. Vi kan af praktiske årsager dog ikke starte med
>> kun et, men, fx, 1000, og så er faktoren, der skal til, endnu tættere
>> på 1. Eksponential vækst tager forbavsende hurtig til. Faktisk må man
>> spørge sig, hvorfor vi ikke blev så mange længe før?
>>
> Prøv at læse artiklen.

Mere vrøvl. Intet sted som jeg har kunnet finde står der i biblen at
det hele gik i gang 4500 år siden. Resten er talmassage for at få det
til at passe. Disse forsøg på, at det vage der står i biblen beviser det
ene eller andet helt akkurat, er patetiske.



--
Dieter Britz

Martin Andersen (29-10-2011)
Kommentar
Fra : Martin Andersen


Dato : 29-10-11 21:36

On 29-10-2011 17:34, Dieter Britz wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 15:59:29 +0200, KL wrote:
>
>> "Dieter Britz"<dieterhansbritz@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:j8gsff$skj$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 09:57:21 +0200, KL wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.icr.org/article/6425/?
>>> utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A
>>> +icrscienceupdate+%28Science+Update+from+ICR%29
>>>>
>>>> The world's population will reach seven billion on October 31, 2011,
>>>> according to the United Nations, and media outlets are heralding the
>>>> issue of overcrowding on the planet. How long did it take for this
>>>> many humans to be born?
>>>>
>>>> The evolutionary version of human population growth presents a
>>>> fantastic scenario to answer that question. In this imaginary
>>>> long-ages history, the population did not grow at all for millions of
>>>> years before suddenly taking off only a few thousand years ago. In the
>>>> July 29, 2011, issue of Science, demographic anthropology expert
>>>> Jean-Pierre Bocquet-Appel wrote: "After the members of the genus Homo
>>>> had been living as foragers for at least 2.4 million years,
>>>> agriculture began to emerge in seven or eight regions across the
>>>> world, almost simultaneously at the beginning of the Holocene."
>>>
>>> Man er fristet til at spørge "The point being?". Men hvis du hentyder
>>> at der har ikke været tid nok til en lille gruppe mennesker at blive
>>> til 7 milliarder, så tager du fejl. Lad os være generøse og giv dem
>>> blot 1 million år, og lad de 7 være 10 milliarder. Vi starter med et
>>> enkelt menneske for 1 million år eller 30000 generationer siden. Hvis
>>> de formerer sig med en faktor 1.001 (meget konservativ) så når de op
>>> til de 10 milliarder. Vi kan af praktiske årsager dog ikke starte med
>>> kun et, men, fx, 1000, og så er faktoren, der skal til, endnu tættere
>>> på 1. Eksponential vækst tager forbavsende hurtig til. Faktisk må man
>>> spørge sig, hvorfor vi ikke blev så mange længe før?
>>>
>> Prøv at læse artiklen.
>
> Mere vrøvl. Intet sted som jeg har kunnet finde står der i biblen at
> det hele gik i gang 4500 år siden. Resten er talmassage for at få det
> til at passe. Disse forsøg på, at det vage der står i biblen beviser det
> ene eller andet helt akkurat, er patetiske.
>
Og mennesket tæmmede ulven, fremavlede majs og fremstillede værktøj for
længere tid siden end kreationister siger jorden har eksisteret.

KL (30-10-2011)
Kommentar
Fra : KL


Dato : 30-10-11 13:35



"Martin Andersen" <dur@ikke.nu> wrote in message
news:4eac63b1$0$287$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> On 29-10-2011 17:34, Dieter Britz wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 15:59:29 +0200, KL wrote:
>>
>>> "Dieter Britz"<dieterhansbritz@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:j8gsff$skj$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 09:57:21 +0200, KL wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.icr.org/article/6425/?
>>>> utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A
>>>> +icrscienceupdate+%28Science+Update+from+ICR%29
>>>>>
>>>>> The world's population will reach seven billion on October 31, 2011,
>>>>> according to the United Nations, and media outlets are heralding the
>>>>> issue of overcrowding on the planet. How long did it take for this
>>>>> many humans to be born?
>>>>>
>>>>> The evolutionary version of human population growth presents a
>>>>> fantastic scenario to answer that question. In this imaginary
>>>>> long-ages history, the population did not grow at all for millions of
>>>>> years before suddenly taking off only a few thousand years ago. In the
>>>>> July 29, 2011, issue of Science, demographic anthropology expert
>>>>> Jean-Pierre Bocquet-Appel wrote: "After the members of the genus Homo
>>>>> had been living as foragers for at least 2.4 million years,
>>>>> agriculture began to emerge in seven or eight regions across the
>>>>> world, almost simultaneously at the beginning of the Holocene."
>>>>
>>>> Man er fristet til at spørge "The point being?". Men hvis du hentyder
>>>> at der har ikke været tid nok til en lille gruppe mennesker at blive
>>>> til 7 milliarder, så tager du fejl. Lad os være generøse og giv dem
>>>> blot 1 million år, og lad de 7 være 10 milliarder. Vi starter med et
>>>> enkelt menneske for 1 million år eller 30000 generationer siden. Hvis
>>>> de formerer sig med en faktor 1.001 (meget konservativ) så når de op
>>>> til de 10 milliarder. Vi kan af praktiske årsager dog ikke starte med
>>>> kun et, men, fx, 1000, og så er faktoren, der skal til, endnu tættere
>>>> på 1. Eksponential vækst tager forbavsende hurtig til. Faktisk må man
>>>> spørge sig, hvorfor vi ikke blev så mange længe før?
>>>>
>>> Prøv at læse artiklen.
>>
>> Mere vrøvl. Intet sted som jeg har kunnet finde står der i biblen at
>> det hele gik i gang 4500 år siden. Resten er talmassage for at få det
>> til at passe. Disse forsøg på, at det vage der står i biblen beviser det
>> ene eller andet helt akkurat, er patetiske.
>>
> Og mennesket tæmmede ulven, fremavlede majs og fremstillede værktøj for længere
> tid siden end kreationister siger jorden har eksisteret.
>
Sådan siger man jo, hvilket altid vil være en påstand, farvet af ens
verdensbillede.


Rado (30-10-2011)
Kommentar
Fra : Rado


Dato : 30-10-11 17:52

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 13:35:19 +0100, "KL" <bfodsdy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>"Martin Andersen" <dur@ikke.nu> wrote in message
>news:4eac63b1$0$287$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>> On 29-10-2011 17:34, Dieter Britz wrote:
>>>
>>> Mere vrøvl. Intet sted som jeg har kunnet finde står der i biblen at
>>> det hele gik i gang 4500 år siden. Resten er talmassage for at få det
>>> til at passe. Disse forsøg på, at det vage der står i biblen beviser det
>>> ene eller andet helt akkurat, er patetiske.
>>>
>> Og mennesket tæmmede ulven, fremavlede majs og fremstillede værktøj for længere
>> tid siden end kreationister siger jorden har eksisteret.
>>
>Sådan siger man jo, hvilket altid vil være en påstand, farvet af ens
>verdensbillede.

Nu er jeg ikke bange for alternative teorier, og er da også helt med
på at det fysiske univers og naturen er skabt (ID). Men den med at det
hele skulle være startet for nogle få tusind år siden kan jeg ikke få
til at give mening i nogen som helst sammenhæng.

Mængden af evidens for dette synes jeg da også er temmelig ringe. Den
om saltmængden i havet f.ex. kunne let forklares via Kervran's
temmelig veldokumenterede teori om biologisk transmutation (lav-energi
transmutation), hvor stofskiftet hos dyr, planter og bakterier
tilsyneladende er i stand til at omdanne grundstoffer til andre
grundstoffer, og altså dermed ad den vej kunne rokere rundt på
indholdet af de forskellige mineraler efter behov. Citat:

"In France, Freundler, lecturer at the Sorbonne (Faculté des Sciences
de Paris) established in 1925 that iodine is created by algae
(laminaria) and not - as has always been believed and is still taught
today - by the algae fixing the iodine which is in the sea. A French
geologist, A. de Cailleux, has, in addition, written that there is not
a trace of iodine in the pre-Cambrian rocks which have remained
unimpaired in their place: that being so, where does the iodine which
is found in the earth later, come from? (Added to that, where do
the immense masses of calcium come from found in the secondary epoch,
if not, as in the primary, essentially from the siliceous
rocks?)

One could go on indefinitely quoting such observations which are
abnormal from the chemical point of view. Chemistry is only the
exchange between atoms of peripheral electrons. Why does nature make
no use of the rest of the atom, above all the nucleus, where
almost all the matter is found? No explanation of this was to be
found. Freundler came nearest to it. (Von Herzeele had not been able
to divine the mechanism, for at that time the nature of the atom was
unknown.) But the works of Freundler came rather too soon. The
neutron was not discovered until 1932, so that before then there was
inevitably an incoherent element in the explanations."

"Shell formation in crustacea was a mystery - in fact, several
mysteries. It was said, quite definitely, that the animal "fixed" the
lime in sea-water, always the same explanation without proof but
specialists who studied the phenomenon remained perplexed.

One day my young grandson brought me a crab which had cast off its
shell for it had just moulted. It was a soft mass, and to keep it
alive it was put in a basin of salt water. The following day it
already had a firmer shell which was completed a day later. In thirty
hours, a crab can form its shell which, if approximately 17 x 10 cm
will weigh about 350 g. This total weight of fresh shell includes
claws, partitions and water in joints. The amount of lime in sea-water
is quite low, on average 0.042% Ca. The crustacean renewing its shell
cannot obtain lime from other marine animals, in its vulnerable state
it hides and does not search for food. Analysis of the animal's body
has shown that only the hepatopancreas stores a little lime before the
moult, but its shell contains 40 times more lime than this organ -
Well then?

We have seen that magnesium (and potassium) present in sea-water (0.5%
magnesium and 0.05% potassium salts) can give calcium, and it is
essentially magnesium which is utilised by crustacea for making their
shells. (We neglect Si because sea water contains little: 0.0001 %).

At the Marine Biological Laboratory at Roscoff, a sea crayfish was
placed in a tank of sea-water from which all lime had been removed by
precipitation, and the animal formed its shell just the same.

The study of histological cuts from animals during shell secretion has
shown that lime is formed on the external surface of a membrane where
chemical analysis finds Ca. On the other, internal surface, the side
for entry of matter, there is no lime. This fact has puzzled
specialists."

http://miscfiles.net//temp/0001/BT-what_are.pdf
http://miscfiles.net//temp/0001/BT-ch5.pdf
http://miscfiles.net//temp/0001/BT-ch6.pdf



--
Rado

"Materialism is the philosophy of the subject that forgets
to take account of itself." - Arthur Schopenhauer

Martin Andersen (30-10-2011)
Kommentar
Fra : Martin Andersen


Dato : 30-10-11 23:35

On 30-10-2011 13:35, KL wrote:
[snip]
>>> Mere vrøvl. Intet sted som jeg har kunnet finde står der i biblen at
>>> det hele gik i gang 4500 år siden. Resten er talmassage for at få det
>>> til at passe. Disse forsøg på, at det vage der står i biblen beviser det
>>> ene eller andet helt akkurat, er patetiske.
>>>
>> Og mennesket tæmmede ulven, fremavlede majs og fremstillede værktøj
>> for længere tid siden end kreationister siger jorden har eksisteret.
>>
> Sådan siger man jo, hvilket altid vil være en påstand, farvet af ens
> verdensbillede.

Ok, KL.

Søg
Reklame
Statistik
Spørgsmål : 177552
Tips : 31968
Nyheder : 719565
Indlæg : 6408849
Brugere : 218887

Månedens bedste
Årets bedste
Sidste års bedste