Why Creationists' Willful Ignorance?

Even if one gives your own figures benefit of the doubt, we have a vacuum for some 30 to 50K years. Nor do you any proof whatsoever the world's population today is not represented by 'historical research and recorded evidence'.

Do you need more time to answer the question?Where do mosquitoes fit into your 'kinds'?
Are they land kind; are they water kind or are the airborne kind?{abe}
I think I will just focus on this very simple question.
I will continue to ask it until you answer it.
To give you a clue: the answer is either 'Land', 'Water' or 'Airborne'.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Do you need more time to show where you plucked the sentence: "A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND" from?
Are you quoting the bible?

How about 'winged creatures.'You have not admitted it, but your question itself affirms by default where the first recording of life form groupings comes from. Nor has the issue been accepted the category of terrain and habitat is the most fundamental segregation factor within life form groupings.Anti-creationism is becoming like a theological system with sacred pillars and an old man with a white beard called 'evolution'. I am being treated as a non-believer and should be sent to hell, right?

quote:

---

Do you need more time to show where you plucked the sentence: "A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND" from?
Are you quoting the bible?

---

I paraphrased it. But as you can see, Genesis says it much better, even expanding the process, which includes the transmitted attribute of the offspring to emulate the host parent via the seed factor. It is very excellently phrased from both a literary and technical POV; also note the order of earth sprouting grass and earth hugging herbs, which contain and issue out [yield] the seed [a core essence of data for a specific life form contained within a combined sperm and egg], then the raised trees:

quote:

---

'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.'

---

The specific figures don't matter. All you need to do is accept the point that birth/death ratios can change, and thus there is no steady rate of growth which we should always expect to apply.The fact that Australia, before the coming of agriculture, couldn't supply enough food or water to support 5 trillion people is surely obvious. It couldn't do so now. It doesn't matter how high a population's birth rate is; it doesn't matter if every fertile woman spends all her time pumping out babies as fast as she can manage; if there's not enough food or water for all these extra people, they will just die or starvation and thirst. The population will not increase.What do you mean by 'a vacuum of some 30 to 50k years'? No idea what to make of that sentence. Where are you quoting 'historical research and recorded evidence' from? I didn't write that, nor did anybody else so far in this thread.

Well, now we're getting somewhere. I show you where your own argument leads you and you come back with "that does not sound like clean math". Indeed, your argument is not based on "clean math", that's what I've been trying to get across.

This argument that the world was in black and white prior to the Great Flood is beyond retarded.Red ocher is and has been a staple for tribal groups going back well before the dawn of time.The leaps and bounds you would have to go through to disprove the cave paints are so absurdly ridiculous, it is beyond even your extreme capacity for fantasy.Seriously, you are mentally disturbed. You need PROFESSIONAL help. You are a danger to yourself and others.

quote:

---

The specific figures don't matter. All you need to do is accept the point that birth/death ratios can change, and thus there is no steady rate of growth which we should always expect to apply.

---

The change cannot impact here - it is generic to all periods and thus neutralized. Nor can the change variance be so large for the entire period.

quote:

---

The fact that Australia, before the coming of agriculture, couldn't supply enough food or water to support 5 trillion people is surely obvious.

---

This is a myth. Australia is surrounded by H20 and has more water than the middle-east, which is also half desert. Sparse population still cannot justify no evidences at all for 60K years.

quote:

---

What do you mean by 'a vacuum of some 30 to 50k years'?

---

I refer to the lack of evidential imprints of humans for 30K years measurable every 100 or every 1000 years. No past imprints can be seen either, thus the estimated period of 50K. One cave painting in France or Australia and nothing else, is like saying a myramid existed in Egypt 30K years ago - and nothing else whatsoever.

quote:

---

Nor do you any proof whatsoever the world's population today is not represented by 'historical research and recorded evidence'.

​

No idea what to make of that sentence. Where are you quoting 'historical research and recorded evidence' from? I didn't write that, nor did anybody else so far in this thread.

---

We have recorded, measurable and traceable accounts of the human population the last 6000 years. I say this is the only correct yardstick for measuring population growth; the rest being fantasy and conjecture.

This claim has already been utterly destroyed by simply directly quoting the Bible's "cures" for disease.Killing animals does not cure your disease.

Yes, but 26,000 years ago, they weren't in color. Everything back then was black and white until India (WTF?! They worship elephant Gods!) _INVENTED_ the idea of color.

And very few garments get Leprosy.

No. Population is based on availability of food. It always has been. It always will be.A population can not exceed it's available food source for any sustained period of time. End of story.There isn't enough food in pre-aggricultural Australia, to feed trillions, billions or even millions of people.In the words of the immortal Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
"This guy is a fucking moron!"

How would you know? Wrong on so many levels.
#1) NOT a bison. AND, ABSOLUTELY not a "domesticated" bison.
#2) No you do not need to develop agriculture to paint a picture of an animal
#3) We have PLENTY of evidence for speech prior to cave paintings, both implied through cultural context and physical remains which include the necessarily biological components.
#4) People have know how to "use color" FOREVER.
#5) Where are you getting the number "20k"? Why would someone have to have developed any one, let alone ALL, of these things 20k years prior to painting a picture of a bison. Also extremely wrong. We have painting WORLDWIDE demonstrating a wide range of dates.Hell, the French caves span 10,000+ years of artwork in and of themselves. Except for "reality", but yes, if you reject reality, it's easy to dismiss evidence.

Haha so you calim that people would just indefinitively reproduce and the population level would keep growing, whitout the food resources to feed the population, whitout the medical know how to reduce plagues in the population.......You really must be living in la la land