Kalamata:
"No, those are fake graphs using imaginary timelines.
There is no evidence that civilization is more than 5,000 years old." There's tons, mountains, of evidence all of which your lying mind refuses to see.
Regardless, even if, as you claim, we begin at 3,000 BC, your overall calculation is still bogus to the max because, from 3,000 BC to roughly 1700 AD human populations, overall, changed very little.
Then, beginning with the Age of Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution around 1700, populations "exploded" at a much higher rate.
Kalamata: "“I know nothing”, says the dumb man.
If you knew of evidence for “millions of years ago”, you would be splattering it all over this thread.
But you know nothing except atheist talking points, which interprets to, “You know nothing!”"
Evidence is "splattered" all over this thread, but your lying mind refuses to see it.
You've chosen to blind yourself to evidence, to facts, to reason, to truth itself if it doesn't fit in your religious doctrines.
You've also chosen to lie without shame, suggesting whatever religious views you have never sank very deep into you, FRiend. ![]()
>>There’s tons, mountains, of evidence all of which your lying mind refuses to see.
Show us some of that evidence. Make certain it is observable scientific evidence. No story-telling, please. If one must believe evolution to be true to see the evidence, then it is not evidence, but conjecture based on faith.
***************************************
>>Regardless, even if, as you claim, we begin at 3,000 BC, your overall calculation is still bogus to the max because, from 3,000 BC to roughly 1700 AD human populations, overall, changed very little.
Then, beginning with the Age of Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution around 1700, populations “exploded” at a much higher rate.
You don’t understand the math. It doesn’t matter what happened in between. The calculation is from time1 to time2.
***************************************
>>Evidence is “splattered” all over this thread, but your lying mind refuses to see it. You’ve chosen to blind yourself to evidence, to facts, to reason, to truth itself if it doesn’t fit in your religious doctrines.
You obviously don’t understand the meaning of the words “scientific evidence”. I’ll make it easy on you. Show us evidence for the cornerstone of Darwinism, which is “common descent.” The evidence must be observable whether we believe evolution to be true, or not. Fair enough?
***************************************
>>You’ve also chosen to lie without shame, suggesting whatever religious views you have never sank very deep into you, FRiend.
You may think I am lying, but it is only because you are scientifically-challenged.
Mr. Kalamata