Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinism, intelligent design, and popular culture: The 10,000 year talking point

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Yeah, the show’s back in town. And with most of the original cast, too.

I mean the poll, recently reported by USA Today, that shows that 66% of Americans think that the statement, “Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years” is definitely or probably true.

This is wonderful poll question for people who believe that Uncle Sam’s alter ego is Santa Claus. I wonder how much public money Darwin lobbies in high science will screw out of US taxpayers in order to try to change their minds – with about as much success as they have had in the past – zilch.

As I pointed out in By Design or by Chance?, the human history that most people would recognize is certainly less than 10,000 years old. Ur of the Chaldees, the city Abraham left in order to wander in the desert, is about 6500 years old. The Great Pyramid is only about 4500 years old. Apart from wordless outliers like the Willendorf Venus and the Cave of Lascaux, we have only the empty speculations of “evolutionary psychology” for the vast stretches of time before then. So real history is relatively recent.

And that is a significant fact. Something happened to human beings relatively recently (less than ten thousand years ago) that did not happen to lemurs, toads, or ants. And it is a mark of the enormously heavy investment that the American materialist elite has made in materialism that it is at such pains to try to convince everyone else of its peculiar delusion that nothing really happened.

To see what is at stake here, consider the following three propositions:

1. Five million years ago, your ancestors were lemur-like creatures screaming in the trees.

2. You are about 60% water.

3. Your DNA is 98% identical to that of a chimpanzee.

All sensible humans who are not materialists will respond to any one of these propositions, “So?”

Now, any one of them may happen not to be true. For example, because I am a woman, I am more likely to be about 50% water (because fat binds less water than muscle does, and women store proportionately more fat).

But either way, half of me is the same stuff as Lake Ontario. But what does that mean? It means you can replicate that half by pouring yourself a glass of water. So that’s the half you don’t need to bother about.

Similarly, the fact that our ancestors may have screamed in the trees millions of years ago is actually of vastly less significance than the events of the last ten thousand years. Just as the similarities of our DNA with that of chimpanzees mainly tells you that most of what you need to know about a human being is not in the DNA.

The real reason that most Americans simply don’t go along with elite opinion about the origin of human beings is that they are relatively freer than other peoples to dissent from their elite, and they know – as any sensible person who thinks about the matter must know – that the materialist view of human beings is nonsense. And they rightly reject everything connected with it.

Something did happen less than ten thousand years ago that forever separated us from Lake Ontario and from whatever screams in the trees. And I think the solid 66% on the poll question are trying to say that, even though they are forced to fund the propagandists of the elite through their taxes.

Comments
angryoldfatman I think what great_ape was referring to was the fact that we could not keep many of our university science programs going without the influx of foreign students filling those programs. This is not simply a result of inadequate science programs in our schools. The problem is also a cultural one where a career in science for many reasons does not appeal to the youth of America.jmcd
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
"Incorrect." --angryoldfatman Thanks for the relevant info, but please note that the article you referenced does not contradict my statement about the fraction of scientists that are home-trained vs. those that have been "imported." When asked why so many foreign nationals are being brought in, the universal reply is: "we can't find enough qualified Americans for graduate school and postdoctoral studies."great_ape
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
A straight-forward interpretation of the anthropic hypothesis is simple in its proposition. It proposes the entire universe, in all its grandeur, was purposely created by an infinitely powerful Creator, specifically, with human beings in mind as the end result. Genesis 1:26-27 Then God said, "Let us make man in Our image, according to Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion ..." So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Therefore a strict interpretation of the anthropic hypothesis would propose that each level of the universe's development towards man may reflect the handiwork of a infinitely powerful Creator. The investigative tool for the hypothesis is this: all the universe's "links of chain" to the appearance of man may be deduced as "intelligently designed" with what is termed "irreducible complexity”. The following are some basic questions that need to be answered, to find if either the anthropic hypothesis or some other naturalistic hypothesis is correct. I. What evidence is found for the universe's ability to support life? Extreme Fine tuning of numerous universal constants that have an unchanging nature since the universes inception II. What evidence is found for the earths ability to support life? Privileged Planet by Gonzalez and Rare Earth by Brownlee both point to a earth that is extremely unique in its ability to support life. III. What evidence is found for the appearance of the first life on earth? Photosynthetic Life appeared in oldest sedimentary rocks on earth (Sarah Simpson :Scientific American 2003) First life shown to mysteriously start preparing for future life by producing oxygen. IV. What evidence is found for the appearance of all species of life on earth, and is man the last species to appear on earth? Fossil record is characterized by suddeness and stability. Cambrian explosion has more phyla present than currently present V. What evidence is found for God's personal involvement with man? The Bible is the only book in the world to have the supernatural watermark of hundreds of precisely fulfilled prophecies in it that can be verified by a variety of sources. Shroud of Turin defies natural explanation and testifies to Bible's validity and also powerfully testifies to Transcendant Creator's personal commitment and relationship to man.bornagain77
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
great_ape wrote: In case you didn’t know, we (the US) are now shipping over half of scientific/technological brainpower in from overseas, where they have received more adequate training during their primary education. Very sad. Incorrect. If science literacy was strictly a function of being atheistic (as you seem to imply), then the U.S. public would be more ignorant than its overseas counterparts, which I'm happy to say it's not. Education is no foil to goofy beliefs.angryoldfatman
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
,,,concerning the birth of human civilizationjmcd
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
jared They certainly are not, but my point was that there are many cogent arguments and supporting evidence that fill volumes concerning. To ignore or dismiss all the scholarly work that has been done without offering cogent arguments that counters existing arguments is, in my view, irresponsible for a journalist. I know the word magic was never used, but all the non magical avenues have been explored for some time now and a general consensus given existing data has been reached. If one does not effectively argue against this consensus and does not offer a supportable argument with novel interpretations of the existing or new data then what options are we left with? Saying that "something" happened in the last ten thousand years in support of beliefs that human beings were created in the last 10,000 years does imply something outside the bounds of what we are capable oif percieving as reality happenned. I would consider such a thing magic.jmcd
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
I don't know about anyone else, but when I hear the phrases "either intellectually lazy or intellectually dishonest," "magical," "major arguments have been settled," "interesting questions remain," and "beyond the pale," I wish I had the power to ban. Indignation and moral outrage are NOT cogent arguments.jaredl
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
"Something happened to human beings relatively recently (less than ten thousand years ago) that did not happen to lemurs, toads, or ants." Setting aside the issue of timescales, this statement fascinates me. I am trying to think a bit about the thing that happened. (This is not intended to be flippant or aggressive - just food for thought) Things happened to lemurs, toads and ants that did not happen to humans in the same period e.g. some species went extinct, others moved, there almost certainly some small evolutionary changes, probably some species changed their behaviour. And things keep on happening to human beings. In the last 1000 years what most of us are able to do has expanded in a fashion no one could have predicted. This is partly through technology, but also through education and training. We have learned to use the number zero, use perspective and write sonatas. So what were the special attributes of the thing that happened? I guess it was something that altered the nature of humanity. Did it happen to all humans or just some? Is it hereditable or does it have to be inserted in each person (at conception?)i.e. it keeps on happening. If hereditable, is it a function of our genes? If not, how does it get passed down? Did it happen to all humans simultaneously? Suddenly or gradually? Are there some humans still around for which it hasn't happened? How would we know? Perhaps I am one and that's why I can't understand the claim!markf
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
Yes something did happen around ten thousand years ago. The recession of the last ice age that allowed for agriculture in the areas of the planet where the most nutritious grains could be found. Agriculture began independently in Mesopotamia, China and in the Americas and is more than 10,000 years old by every estimation that I have ever come across. With surplus food comes the ability to divide labor. Eventually societies become more complex and are developed to the point where they develop systems of writing. The earliest uses of proto writing are around 9,000 years old and again emerge independently in the same areas that agriculture first emerged. There is honestly an astounding amount of evidence available to us for the birth and development of early civilization and the theories about the development of early civilization are sound. To ignore all that and write it off as some sort of elitist hand waving to make atheists out of us all would be either intellectually lazy or intellectually dishonest. There is no good reason to insist or even imply there was something magical that happened less than ten thousand years ago. It really is not much of a mystery why recorded history started and did not exist throughout human existence. Now it would be magical if we did not have a start date for recorded history. If Denyse or anyone else can make a better argument for the development of civilization than what is already out there I would be very impressed. Many, many very bright people have been studying that question for their entire professional lives. As more and more evidence has been found over the generations the major arguments have largely been settled. There are many interesting questions and mysteries that remain to be sure, but to say that "something" happened and pretend that we do not have a very good idea about what that something is is a bit beyond the pale as far as I am concerned.jmcd
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
OK, the earlies writing systems are about 4,0000 BC, with proto-writing systems being about 3,000 years older. It's not unfair to ask why that would be the case if man were 150,000 years old. Now we have the Aprhodite (28,000-25,000 BC) and Cave of Lascaux (13,000-15,000 BC) being cited as counter-examples that whatever profund thing happened to man happened more than 10,000 years ago. First it should be noted that both are much closer to the 10,000 year mark than the 150,000 year mark. Second, why only two counter-examples? One would expect much, much more.tribune7
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
Meanwhile our populace remains ignorant of basic scientific knowledge. Hardcore secularists have been running this country's education system for the last 40-plus years. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.tribune7
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
great_ape wrote,
These basic facts about human ancestry are not fanciful abstractions, but based on decades of documented research, both anthropological and genetic.
Sure. But the research was conducted within the NDE paradigm and therefore it has to fit the paradigm. Your earlier remark about Australian aborigines being in the country for 50-60 thousand years reminded me of research that made front page news back in 96. Some rock art in the Northern Territory was dated (using optical luminescence) at between 58 and 75 thousand years and that was big news because, prior to that, Aborigines were only believed to have been in the country for ~ 40,000 years. Eventually (see here) the research date was accepted as being incorrect. The art was consigned to the Holocene (less than 12,000 years). But that news wasn't as sensational so didn't get as much publicity. And then there are people who have a political stake in maintaining a popular belief that Aborigines have occupied the country for a very, very long time indeed. Not all of them are Aborigines. On the same page linked to above you will find some discussion of the Bradshaw rock art and its postulated age according to optical luminescence (> 17,000 years). In the 2nd last paragraph the author writes, "It is to be hoped that these exciting claims from the Kimberley in Australia will withstand falsification attempts successfully...". Ask yourself, why would the author hope that? Now consider that the optical luminescence tests were done on sand grains found within a "fossilised" wasps' nest that was covering a portion of one of the paintings. At this site (which seems to have its own odd agenda - but ignore that for now) you will see that radiocarbon dating of the wasps' nest gave an age of a mere 1,450 to 3,900 years. Because that age is so young various reasons are offered for why it is incorrect. (I ask myself why I never heard any such reasons put forward for why the radiocarbon date of the Shroud of Turin might have been incorrect. In case you're wondering, I'm not a Catholic.) Now, in relation to the age of the earth, ask yourself why old is good but young is bad. Here's a hint. It's the same reason why Granville Sewell is unlikely ever to get his latest article published in any mainstream publication. You will find it expressed very clearly in the last line of this post. You appear to think that everyone who thinks the earth could be less than 10,000 years old must be uneducated. I feel like I should tell you what my qualifications are so that you will not regard me as uneducated but, at the same time, I don't think that would be convincing, especially if you don't want to be convinced. There are plenty of educated fools and I could be one of them. Nevertheless I will say that I think that people who appeal to authority to support the idea that the earth is very, very old are merely appealing to authority. Maybe that's because they haven't had enough spare time to read around on the matter for themselves. Or maybe it's because, for whatever reason, they prefer to believe that the earth is very old. I can understand that, but I don't agree with it.Janice
June 11, 2007
June
06
Jun
11
11
2007
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT
Apollos writes: "As to the school science curriculum, I personally favor better evolution education: teach the controversy." I agree. My wife and I, both Christians, will soon begin home schooling our children, and we have agreed to teach evolution and creationism side by side, and now I guess ID also! Christian apologist Norman Geisler, in his book "Origin Science" holds a similar view.gleaner63
June 10, 2007
June
06
Jun
10
10
2007
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT
O'Leary, The recent book "Supernatural", by Graham Hancock, takes an in-depth look at the possible meanings of the cave art. Very interesting is how the interpretation of that data has changed over the years.gleaner63
June 10, 2007
June
06
Jun
10
10
2007
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT
great_ape said:
Meanwhile our populace remains ignorant of basic scientific knowledge. And some seem to delight in this.
I'm not sure who the "some" are in your reference here. Maybe you could elucidate. I think we can agree about the failing education system in this country, but I want to be sure that I understand your reasoning. Is it poor education that produces the old earth and evolution deniers? Perhaps better eduction would change the minds of Paul Nelson, Salvador Cordova, and Marcus Ross? I am certainly not of their caliber, not even close (I'm the guy who thought horizontal gene transfer was a euphemism) but since some of the "smart folk" aren't 100% convinced about the earth's multi-billion-year history, I think we can look at reasons besides the cliche, "lack of education" for this to be the case. Please forgive my impulsive and intrepid venture into the world of science, but doesn't current DNA evidence suggest a most recent common ancestor from only 3,000 to 5,000 years? As for importing brain power, let's get 'em where we can get 'em. This country has a knack for importing talent. To all those from abroad with the brain power: welcome to America. As to school science curriculum, I personally favor better evolution education: teach the controversy.Apollos
June 10, 2007
June
06
Jun
10
10
2007
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT
"GA, I’d be interested to hear your “remedy,” and the reason for the urgency of that remedy as suggested." --Apollos The remedy? Show people the truth. These basic facts about human ancestry are not fanciful abstractions, but based on decades of documented research, both anthropological and genetic. Our educational system is failing on several levels. In case you didn't know, we (the US) are now shipping over half of scientific/technological brainpower in from overseas, where they have received more adequate training during their primary education. Very sad. Meanwhile our populace remains ignorant of basic scientific knowledge. And some seem to delight in this. So yes, I think urgency is warranted.great_ape
June 10, 2007
June
06
Jun
10
10
2007
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT
Karen, I call the great art works of the ice age "wordless outliers" because that is what they are. In the absence of written language (wordless), we have only clashing interpretations as to what they are intended to portray. (Is the figure in the animal suit a shaman or a stalker? Is the Willendorf Venus a portrait of a portly chief's wife or a goddess? The only sensible answer is, who knows? These were the works of intelligent beings, to be sure, but they do not interpret themselves. Within the 10 000 year window, we increasingly come across material that can be interpreted. If there were many more examples of Ice Age art, we might have a better chance.) I think you are right, that the great divide certainly began earlier than 10,000 years ago, but no reasonable person should fail to notice it within that window. Hence the suspicion of so many people that the 10 000 year figure is right for the purposes represented by the poll. (Remember, respondents were not given a range of figures to pick - it was either 10 000 years or a gradualist "apes 'r' us" notion that obviously doesn't really work. Put that way, I would go with 10 000 years myself, and I am in no sense whatever a special creationist.) Thanks for providing evidence of responsible commentary from some mainstream sources. I hope the fad catches on.O'Leary
June 10, 2007
June
06
Jun
10
10
2007
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT
great_ape, I live in Australia. Unfortunately I've heard people questioning whether the Aborigines were fully human myself. I once had someone (despicably) argue to me that "the Abbos" had an impoverished material culture and no real history, unlike "us whites", and so were less human in whatever sense.Patrick Caldon
June 10, 2007
June
06
Jun
10
10
2007
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT
Skipping over all the commnents, let me say that I'm really puzzled by the point here O'Leary is trying to get at hear. She certainly isn't arguing that the earth is 10,000 years old - she's not a YEC. The story of what happened in the last 12,000 years or so is laid out in many history books: the domestication of crops led to people setlling down rather than being nomadic, this led to a division or labor, specialization and commerce, writing was invented, etc. It's fascinating history, but no more "materialistic" than subsequent histories of other time periods. Now many people believe that God entered into a special spiritual relationship with a certain subset of human beings in the Middle East during this time: these people are obviously not materialists nor are they YEC's. Maybe O'Leary is saying that God specially gave them these new ideas or embued them with new thoughts, but civilizations arose at different all over the world at multiple places, so I don't think such a religious explanation is necessary. As always, the view that God guides all histories through pervasive presence in the world makes explanations of special acts such as O'Leary might be hinting at here unnecessary.Jack Krebs
June 10, 2007
June
06
Jun
10
10
2007
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT
Ape:
According to you’re reasoning, if I’m following you, it’s okay to let people believe patently false things about human ancestry as long as doing so keeps them that much further from embracing evolution. I don’t think one should ever sanction ignorance.
That which is not worth embracing is materialism/naturalism/nilism/athiesim. The scientific community has some information, some facts. However the scientific community is now claiming that it has sufficient facts to suggest that society abandon its moral compas. I fully believe that the earth, and humanity, is way old. However, I also believe that if current scientific teaching is accepted this small truth is going to be consumed along with a whole lot of sh** -- not just any sh**, but society destrying sh**. I believe that ignorance on this issue is far better than the error that is currently bonded to this tidbit of truth.bFast
June 10, 2007
June
06
Jun
10
10
2007
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
Apart from wordless outliers like the Willendorf Venus and the Cave of Lascaux, we have only the empty speculations of “evolutionary psychology” for the vast stretches of time before then. So real history is relatively recent. Apart from wordless outliers like the Willendorf Venus and the Cave of Lascaux, we have only the empty speculations of “evolutionary psychology” for the vast stretches of time before then. So real history is relatively recent. Denyse, why would ancient cave paintings be considered wordless outliers? Does the lack of a written language make a people group somehow less than human? As others here have clearly pointed out, the beautiful, ancient cave paintings, some going back 35,000 years, clearly show that humans back then were capable of symbolic, abstract thought. And is this not real history? I don't think it matters that we don't understand what it all means. Something happened to human beings relatively recently (less than ten thousand years ago) that did not happen to lemurs, toads, or ants. And it is a mark of the enormously heavy investment that the American materialist elite has made in materialism that it is at such pains to try to convince everyone else of its peculiar delusion that nothing really happened. From what I've seen, it is actually the mainstream scientists who have communicated to the public the fact that something profound happened to the human mind-- only it was 50,000 years ago, not 10,000. Some examples: 1) About 20 years ago, at the American Museum of Natural History in NYC, there was a special exhibit called Dark Caves, Bright Visions: Life in Ice-Age Europe. It was about that important period of time when humans first produced art-- jewelry, paintings, carvings on implements of ivory and wood, etc. They had many wonderful artifacts in the exhibit, and it was fascinating. 2) In the PBS series on evolution, there was an entire segment called "The Mind's Big Bang." It was pretty much about the profound changes in our brains that gave us the modern human mind, capable of abstract thought, language, and all those other good things. A very good episode! 3) In the AMNH's new Hall of Human Origins (which I enjoyed very much) I will simply quote them: All species on Earth, including humans, are unique. Yet our intelligence and creativity go well beyond those of any other animal. Humans have long communicated through language, created and appreciated art and music, and invented complex tools that have enabled our species to survive and thrive, though often at the expense of other species. We owe our creative success to the human brain and its capacity to think symbolically. While some other species can solve problems and communicate with each other, only humans use symbols to re-create the world mentally and dream up endless new realities. Although humans have not lost their selfish motivations, symbolic thought has opened our minds to spirituality and a shared sense of empathy and morality.Karen
June 10, 2007
June
06
Jun
10
10
2007
07:29 PM
7
07
29
PM
PDT
great_ape said:
Whichever way you slice it, these folks have a warped view of reality that needs to be remedied.
GA, I'd be interested to hear your "remedy," and the reason for the urgency of that remedy as suggested. And I would ask you to consider, what would your reaction be to the statement above if it was made by a Biblical fundamentalist in regard to those of an atheist persuasion?
...they deny the obvious implication of a creator. Forsaking all common sense, and the clues provided by a universe right in front of their nose, they bond their psyche to a modern mythology: that the universe and life are the result of mindless, blind, and undirected processes. They even deny the concept of absolute right and wrong, lending every thought and action to subtle justification. Whichever way you slice it, these folks have a warped view of reality that needs to be remedied.
Sounds rather sinister, and dare I say, intolerant. What would you suggest that could accomplish that which 50 years of indoctrination in the public school system has failed to bring about? Here's my short list of suggestions: 1) ban the Bible 2) demonize parents to their children in the public education system, so that kids are less likely to assimilate views given by their parents that run contrary to "science." 3) deny tenure to any scientists who do not genuflect to Darwin. 4) mock and ridicule any who do not subscribe to the popular scientific reasoning. 5) outlaw home schooling I'll now graciously depart from my soap box.Apollos
June 10, 2007
June
06
Jun
10
10
2007
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT
Denyse, Back in my atheist days, shortly after my first daughter was born, I attended a Catholic church service at the behest of a family who lived near us. I was completely lost in the Catholic ritual, but I remember to this day the theme of the sermon. The theme was a question, Are you an epiphany person? I'm embarrassed to say that I had to go home and look up the word "epiphany." But I got the basic message. The fossil record does not support Darwinian gradualism, but saltation -- biological epiphany. The nature of biochemical information-processing does not support Darwinian gradualism, but biochemical/information-processing epiphany. And the origin of humanity does not support Darwinian gradualism, but the most profound saltation of all, the ultimate epiphany, which I believe has an analog in our personal lives, once we recognize the absurdity, on so many levels, of materialistic philosophy.GilDodgen
June 10, 2007
June
06
Jun
10
10
2007
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
"The anthropologists see the first signs of symbolic thought, art, religious practices..." --magnan This does appears to be true of Europe 35,000-40k years ago. But art and symbolism have been dated on the African continent to circa 100,000 years. Also recall that the aboriginal Australians made it to australia approximately 50-60 thousand years ago. In doing so, it is believed that had to build boats and navigate several miles of open ocean. Pretty incredible achievement given the time period. I don't think anyone, since the 19th century at least, has questioned whether these peoples are fully human.great_ape
June 10, 2007
June
06
Jun
10
10
2007
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
"Ape, when is it going to dawn on you that you also, and I, have a warped view of reality." --bFast I have no doubt my view of reality is warped. I am, however, comfortable saying that it is decidely less warped than that of someone who claims humanity, as we understand it, began circa 10k yrs ago. According to you're reasoning, if I'm following you, it's okay to let people believe patently false things about human ancestry as long as doing so keeps them that much further from embracing evolution. I don't think one should ever sanction ignorance.great_ape
June 10, 2007
June
06
Jun
10
10
2007
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT
The debate over the timing of Humans aquisition of profound knowledge is really besides the point. The main point that matters is "Was Man created or did he evolve?" I think an unbiased examination of the fossil record shows, as Richard Leaky has stated "An abrupt arrival of Man in the fossil record rather than the gradual process of evolving." As well the principle of genetic entropy has sealed the fate of the RM/NS scenario. So in answer to the question of Man's origins we can say, with a high level of scientific integrity that the fossil record and primary principles of molecular biology, that all empirical evidence not weighted with suggestive presumptions point to the sudden creation of Man as predicted by the Theistic philosophy.bornagain77
June 10, 2007
June
06
Jun
10
10
2007
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
great_ape, "Whichever way you slice it, these folks have a warped view of reality that needs to be remedied." Ape, when is it going to dawn on you that you also, and I, have a warped view of reality. (If you don't realize that yet, then this lack of realization is your greatest single warp in your view of reality.) As all of those who wish to correct the ignorant about the age of mankind want to replace this knowledge with an increasingly warped view of reality, why must it be corrected?bFast
June 10, 2007
June
06
Jun
10
10
2007
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT
I agree generally, except I think the extraordinary transformation event happened about 35,000 years ago. According to research so far most of the uniquely human (as opposed to prehominid) technological and other characteristics appeared at about that time, after Homo Sapiens had already existed for at least 60,000 years. For a long time human artifacts show little advance over Homo Erectus technology. Then, during the upper paleolithic period (35,000 to 12,000 years ago) stone technology took a big leap to specialized, fine cutting edge tools and weapons. The anthropologists see the first signs of symbolic thought, art, religious practices. The famous Cro-Magnon cave art. This indicates more progress in a few thousand years than in the previous million. The leading hypothesis to attempt to explain this is the development of language. I think this is very plausible.magnan
June 10, 2007
June
06
Jun
10
10
2007
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
"You woke me up to the fact that all the weight of historical evidence points to the fact that something profound happened within the last 10,000 years..." I echo markf above, I think there are well-documented and significant milestones of human intellectual achievement--at least hallmarks that show profound advancement from apes--that stretch back at least 100,000 years (art, jewelry, etc). Much longer if you consider the mastery of fire. Agriculture and writing, which admittedly are huge advancements, date back to roughly the timeframe you suggest (10-12k yrs), but human cultural milestones stretch back much further. Material culture is culture. So while you try to make the best possible interpretation of the ignorance of the general American populace about these matters, I find it profoundly troubling that so many people remain this misinformed. Whichever way you slice it, these folks have a warped view of reality that needs to be remedied. Even if mankind received a boost from on-high, it happened far earlier than 10,000 years.great_ape
June 10, 2007
June
06
Jun
10
10
2007
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
Markf, I pointed out that these are outliers and, moreover, wordless. While they can certainly be accepted as civilization, we may be forever in doubt as to their meaning. I did not use the word "created". I said that "Something did happen less than ten thousand years ago that forever separated us from Lake Ontario and from whatever screams in the trees." It happened to some outliers earlier, but it certainly happened. It is one big fat horseshoe in the middle of the current project to create a seamless unity between humans and other species.O'Leary
June 10, 2007
June
06
Jun
10
10
2007
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply