AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › ancient man
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

ancient man

post #1 of 42
4/8/11 at 12:04am
Thread Starter 
This thread is to discuss how long man has been roaming the planet.

What are your estimations? What is your basis for this estimation?

How far back does one have to go (how many years ago) before we get to a point before man hit the scene?

I am not so sure it is more than merely thousands of years ago.

What do you think?

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #2 of 42
4/8/11 at 12:19am
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Men started walking the Earth after God Created Adam in 3987 BC.

Adam was made from dust before the plants and animals. Eve was made from Adam's rib. (Genesis 2:5-23)

Adam and Eve also were made together in God's image at the same time after all the plants and animals were created. (Genesis 1:11-27)

The point is, man first walked the Earth in 3987 BC. And man will cease walking the Earth on October 21, 2011. Good men will cease walking the earth a bit before that on May 21, 2011.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #3 of 42
4/8/11 at 12:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

This thread is to discuss how long man has been roaming the planet.

What are your estimations? What is your basis for this estimation?

How far back does one have to go (how many years ago) before we get to a point before man hit the scene?

I am not so sure it is more than merely thousands of years ago.

What do you think?

Fellows

According to this guy.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #4 of 42
4/8/11 at 4:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Men started walking the Earth after God Created Adam in 3987 BC.

Adam was made from dust before the plants and animals. Eve was made from Adam's rib. (Genesis 2:5-23)

Adam and Eve also were made together in God's image at the same time after all the plants and animals were created. (Genesis 1:11-27)

The point is, man first walked the Earth in 3987 BC. And man will cease walking the Earth on October 21, 2011. Good men will cease walking the earth a bit before that on May 21, 2011.


I believe this sign like Obama is white.This is total insanity to believe this nonsense.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 42
4/8/11 at 5:24pm
Since the beginning of time- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear....html?image=16

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #6 of 42
4/8/11 at 6:04pm
Well.. we can be pretty sure Fellowship is just trying to stir the pot here... because the fossil record gives relatively precise ages of various stages of evolution. And the information is easy to find.

The Fossil record (you know... tangible, physical evidence) shows us that fully developed humans (homo sapiens)... in other words, physically identical to us, existed nearly 200,000 years ago. That's not to say they were socially similar though. Fossil evidence of language, communities, and "culture" are present 50,000 years ago.

So what is it that you are asking? I mean... this really isn't even THEORY... it is physically provable to within several thousand years! (Carbon dating is fact, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.)
Now... you can certainly get more creative... Genetic dating places Neanderthals on the scene half a million years ago... This, however, is more theoretical, and margins of error are much larger... so I'm comfortable calling that speculation still.

In any case... your own estimation of "mere thousands" of years has been proven wrong many times by many different people.
Do some homework... actually learn how stuff works. You don't have to take ANYone's word for this stuff... any local college science lab has access to the tools to prove this stuff! There are undergraduate students dating these things for practice every day.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #7 of 42
4/9/11 at 3:50pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
I'm glad that my brief foray into fundamentalist Christianity is over. To help you out, Fellows, here's a comprehensive list of all the evidence that proves evolution is a hoax.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #8 of 42
4/9/11 at 7:20pm
So, just where is the evidence of cross-species evolution?
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 42
4/9/11 at 8:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mystic View Post

So, just where is the evidence of cross-species evolution?

In YOUR genes. As well as mine... And that of every other animal on earth.
Time for you to hit the books.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #10 of 42
4/9/11 at 9:40pm
For your listening pleasure Fellowship.
The politics of charisma is so Third World. Americans were never going to buy into it for long. - Foudad Ajami
Reply
The politics of charisma is so Third World. Americans were never going to buy into it for long. - Foudad Ajami
Reply
post #11 of 42
4/9/11 at 10:23pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
That album is actually really good. All the music videos are up on youtube. Here's one of my favorites:
Meet the Elements.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #12 of 42
4/10/11 at 12:01am
Fellowship is feebly trying to bait us into citing one of a few particular discoveries that turned out to be a hoax so that he can call the entire evolutionary history a hoax based on a few questionable examples. This is the same illogical framework climate change deniers use.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 42
4/10/11 at 6:47am
OK Fellowship... you obviously believe in the Biblical account of creation and that the earth is roughly 6000 years old. At the very least, that that's all the longer humans have been here. (You ALMOST said so in the OP, you just don't seem to have the conviction to come out and say it.)


So tell us this: on what do YOU base that estimation? What is the evidence to support YOUR idea?
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #14 of 42
4/10/11 at 7:54am
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingOfSomewhereHot View Post

In YOUR genes. As well as mine... And that of every other animal on earth.
Time for you to hit the books.

So how do genes prove one species changed into another species?

There are Large holes in the theory of evolution. Here are some of them:

How fast do organisms change? We don't know.
Is there enough time for an organism to change from a single cell organism into a lion (for example)? Is 4 billion years long enough? We don't know
Why do some organisms Not change? (there are still single cell organisms around) We don't know why.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 42
4/10/11 at 8:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

That album is actually really good. All the music videos are up on youtube. Here's one of my favorites:
Meet the Elements.


Bloodmibile for me. That and "Why does the sun really shine".

Quote:
The sun is a miasma
Of incandescent plasma
The sun's not simply made out of gas
No, no, no

...

(Plasma!)
Forget that song
(Plasma!)
They got it wrong
That thesis has been rendered invalid
The politics of charisma is so Third World. Americans were never going to buy into it for long. - Foudad Ajami
Reply
The politics of charisma is so Third World. Americans were never going to buy into it for long. - Foudad Ajami
Reply
post #16 of 42
4/12/11 at 6:43am
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance


Now this is a god I could get behind. Alas, I feel like it's too good to be true.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #17 of 42
4/12/11 at 9:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post


Now this is a god I could get behind. Alas, I feel like it's too good to be true.

Just make sure it's behind and not in front ... bent over.
The politics of charisma is so Third World. Americans were never going to buy into it for long. - Foudad Ajami
Reply
The politics of charisma is so Third World. Americans were never going to buy into it for long. - Foudad Ajami
Reply
post #18 of 42
4/13/11 at 1:38pm
Modern man? About 200,00 years. Before that there were many hominids competing for what would eventually become us. They probably interbred which is why you don't find a single missing link.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #19 of 42
4/14/11 at 1:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post



Now this is a god I could get behind. Alas, I feel like it's too good to be true.

Looks like something out of HP Lovecraft.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #20 of 42
4/14/11 at 2:25pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Haha, Cockthulu.

Anyway, back to the thread's original topic. Fellows, you know I like you and you seem to be a genuinely caring person. However, your ignorance in some areas is just mind-blowingly astounding. I may as well have started a thread like this:

Quote:
Title: The Earth

Body:

This thread is to discuss the shape of the Earth.

What are your estimations? What is the basis for them?

I'm not sure that it is more than merely flat.

What do you think?

When man a couple thousand years ago thought the Earth was flat, it was reasonable based on his very limited knowledge. To claim it is flat now would be to ignore mountains of evidence and to look just plain silly in the process.

You're doing the equivalent with evolution. It's sad seeing this kind of ignorance embraced as a virtue in evangelist Christian culture.

Maybe I'll make a thread about it later, but denying the observations of the universe around us really makes your god rather puny. You diminish your creator by limiting the scope of his creation. We are literally stardust forged in the furnaces of supernovae billions of years ago. That's fucking impressive. That's much more worthy of a deity than some nonsense about making man from the clay of the earth 6,000 years ago.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #21 of 42
4/14/11 at 9:19pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post


Anyway, back to the thread's original topic. Fellows, you know I like you and you seem to be a genuinely caring person. However, your ignorance in some areas is just mind-blowingly astounding.

I love you too BR you know that. But I never thought the Earth was flat. Science clearly points to the fact that we live on a ball.

But I will show you the following because for the life of me this presents a problem for me intellectually.

IF, as evolutionists claim, the earth is billions of years old, and mankind has evolved from a lower and simpler form of life, then why has mankind gone from writing upon stones to laser printers in just the past 3,500 years? When God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, they were written upon stone. It is abundantly clear that the Egyptians carved messages into stone (hieroglyphics). So why is it that mankind has only discovered better inventions in the past few thousand years? If mankind had evolved, as evolutionists claim, then why didn't man discover ink a million years ago? Think about it. This is an astonishing thought--There were NO planes, cars, computers, refrigerators, electricity, lights, gas, powered-equipment, telephones, recording devices, CD players, MP3 players, electric razors, televisions, record players, movie cameras, or a million other modern technological inventions--just a mere 170 years ago. Civilization has advanced from utter primitiveness to incredible mind-boggling achievements in just a little over 100 years. So why didn't mankind discover any of this stuff 100,000,000 years ago, or 100,000 years ago for that matter?

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #22 of 42
4/14/11 at 9:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Haha, Cockthulu.

Anyway, back to the thread's original topic. Fellows, you know I like you and you seem to be a genuinely caring person. However, your ignorance in some areas is just mind-blowingly astounding. I may as well have started a thread like this:



When man a couple thousand years ago thought the Earth was flat, it was reasonable based on his very limited knowledge. To claim it is flat now would be to ignore mountains of evidence and to look just plain silly in the process.

You're doing the equivalent with evolution. It's sad seeing this kind of ignorance embraced as a virtue in evangelist Christian culture.

Maybe I'll make a thread about it later, but denying the observations of the universe around us really makes your god rather puny. You diminish your creator by limiting the scope of his creation. We are literally stardust forged in the furnaces of supernovae billions of years ago. That's fucking impressive. That's much more worthy of a deity than some nonsense about making man from the clay of the earth 6,000 years ago.


Too be fair I like Fellows also so I'll offer this for what it's worth. As far as creation goes there's nothing that says the modern knowledge and the limited understanding of the time when the bible was written couldn't coincide somehow ( a good portion of the bible is written in metaphor anyway ). It's just no literal old man with a flowing white beard in the sky ( like in some Monty Python movies ) and the earth has been around for a lot longer than 6,000 years.

The star stuff is impressive. And there's a lot we still have only scratched surface with. So that leaves a lot of room for many possibilities we haven't even thought of beyond all that. Like what happened before the big bang? If universes are made up of membranes ( which is the current theory ) what's between? Why is the universe expanding? And so on. So who's to say in the end religion and science aren't just two ways of seeing the same thing?
It's just obvious that some things in the bible weren't meant to be taken literally because of the common understanding of the time.

All religions in the world start out as a way of man attempting to explain how things came to be. Science is much the same only from a different take. It works from observation and theory. Which we had really not much of a way of doing when the bible was written. They don't always have to be at odds unless you insist on literal interpretation. The only thing to remember with science is always be prepared for things to be adjusted or replaced with additional knowledge. And two don't ever make the assumption that we know everything there is to know. I'm guessing that existence is big enough that will never happen.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #23 of 42
4/14/11 at 9:59pm
Uh... I don't know... maybe because mankind evolved the intelligence to make these kinds of advances just recently? It would seem that you're arguing for the other team here, fellows. Surely if God made man in our evolved state, we would have known all about laser printers (or had the ability to invent them) at that time, wouldn't we have?
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 42
4/14/11 at 10:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

I love you too BR you know that. But I never thought the Earth was flat. Science clearly points to the fact that we live on a ball.

But I will show you the following because for the life of me this presents a problem for me intellectually.

IF, as evolutionists claim, the earth is billions of years old, and mankind has evolved from a lower and simpler form of life, then why has mankind gone from writing upon stones to laser printers in just the past 3,500 years? When God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, they were written upon stone. It is abundantly clear that the Egyptians carved messages into stone (hieroglyphics). So why is it that mankind has only discovered better inventions in the past few thousand years? If mankind had evolved, as evolutionists claim, then why didn't man discover ink a million years ago? Think about it. This is an astonishing thought--There were NO planes, cars, computers, refrigerators, electricity, lights, gas, powered-equipment, telephones, recording devices, CD players, MP3 players, electric razors, televisions, record players, movie cameras, or a million other modern technological inventions--just a mere 170 years ago. Civilization has advanced from utter primitiveness to incredible mind-boggling achievements in just a little over 100 years. So why didn't mankind discover any of this stuff 100,000,000 years ago, or 100,000 years ago for that matter?

Fellows

Because to be fair we haven't been around that long. And if there were knowledgable civilizations long before that their knowledge has been lost. Also even now we are on an ever tightening curve of increasing knowledge faster and faster. Some would like to blame that on alien influence but it's probably much simpler. That's just the way our brains work. The more you know the more you'll know in general. Knowledge in one area always affects other areas. It's exponential. What we know now will seem quaint in another 200 years because we will have advanced much faster than we did in the last 200.

Also a lot of this fast paced knowledge coincided with the invention of agriculture and industry. Once we didn't spend all day just hunting and chopping wood so we could survive we could follow loftier pursuits. You have to admit without all that modern machinery and a more sure food supply just surviving took up most of existence.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #25 of 42
4/14/11 at 10:07pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Uh... I don't know... maybe because mankind evolved the intelligence to make these kinds of advances just recently? It would seem that you're arguing for the other team here, fellows. Surely if God made man in our evolved state, we would have known all about laser printers (or had the ability to invent them) at that time, wouldn't we have?

I am certainly not arguing for the "other" team.

I would expect mankind to advance as it has over the last single digit thousands of years.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #26 of 42
4/14/11 at 10:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

I am certainly not arguing for the "other" team.

I would expect mankind to advance as it has over the last single digit thousands of years.

Fellows

I know you're replying to Tonton ( sorry Tonton ) but given what I've just said why would you expect the rate of advancement to remain static?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #27 of 42
4/14/11 at 11:09pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Too be fair I like Fellows also so I'll offer this for what it's worth. As far as creation goes there's nothing that says the modern knowledge and the limited understanding of the time when the bible was written couldn't coincide somehow ( a good portion of the bible is written in metaphor anyway ). It's just no literal old man with a flowing white beard in the sky ( like in some Monty Python movies ) and the earth has been around for a lot longer than 6,000 years.

The star stuff is impressive. And there's a lot we still have only scratched surface with. So that leaves a lot of room for many possibilities we haven't even thought of beyond all that. Like what happened before the big bang? If universes are made up of membranes ( which is the current theory ) what's between? Why is the universe expanding? And so on. So who's to say in the end religion and science aren't just two ways of seeing the same thing?
It's just obvious that some things in the bible weren't meant to be taken literally because of the common understanding of the time.

All religions in the world start out as a way of man attempting to explain how things came to be. Science is much the same only from a different take. It works from observation and theory. Which we had really not much of a way of doing when the bible was written. They don't always have to be at odds unless you insist on literal interpretation. The only thing to remember with science is always be prepared for things to be adjusted or replaced with additional knowledge. And two don't ever make the assumption that we know everything there is to know. I'm guessing that existence is big enough that will never happen.

Religion is designed to be static and to embrace mystery. The phrase "well, god works in mysterious ways" just sickens me when I hear someone say it. When science explains how something works, religion tends to fight back, unable to adjust to the new paradigms. Just look at what happened to Galileo. It took the Catholic church 400 years to apologize for his treatment.

Religion and science don't try to do the same thing. Here's the appropriate Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comic.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #28 of 42
4/14/11 at 11:13pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Uh... I don't know... maybe because mankind evolved the intelligence to make these kinds of advances just recently? It would seem that you're arguing for the other team here, fellows. Surely if God made man in our evolved state, we would have known all about laser printers (or had the ability to invent them) at that time, wouldn't we have?

Fellows, there are libraries written about the evolution of humans, all based on plenty of archaeological evidence. Just because you personally can't fathom or understand it doesn't make it any less true. Here's some basic articles to get you started. The first couple explain the general evolution of modern man. The other talks a little bit about why technological change happens exponentially rather than linearly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change

I think part of the problem you have with evolution comes from reading very biased religious sources with clear agendas. At some point you (and many, MANY other Americans, sadly) need to realize that science has no agenda other than furthering the understanding of the universe.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #29 of 42
4/14/11 at 11:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Religion is designed to be static and to embrace mystery. The phrase "well, god works in mysterious ways" just sickens me when I hear someone say it. When science explains how something works, religion tends to fight back, unable to adjust to the new paradigms. Just look at what happened to Galileo. It took the Catholic church 400 years to apologize for his treatment.

Religion and science don't try to do the same thing. Here's the appropriate Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comic.


Quote:
Religion and science don't try to do the same thing.

Well I was talking about their original intentions. Maybe you have me there when you're talking about modern christianity. They do tend to like thir ducks in a row. However almost every religion has it's own version of the creation myth. I think it was just their way ( back then ) to try and sort things out as best as they could. And yes history is full of religions ( especially christian ) repressing knowledge out of fear of loss of control due to change.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #30 of 42
4/15/11 at 12:48am
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Religion, however, once it has its creation myth set, refuses to change it when new evidence comes to light. It's not a myth to them. It's absolute truth. Anything contradicting it has to be false because what they know comes from GOD. There is no altering religious belief without a lot of resistance (and often bloodshed).

With science, sure, there is some resistance to change as well. But that depends on how much evidence exists in favor of the current theorum* and how much new evidence is being presented. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Evolution has mountains of evidence for its general framework and much of its specifics. However, when new evidence does come to light, parts of the theorum are refined and improved.


* http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Theorum

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #31 of 42
4/15/11 at 5:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

This thread is to discuss how long man has been roaming the planet.

What are your estimations? What is your basis for this estimation?

How far back does one have to go (how many years ago) before we get to a point before man hit the scene?

I am not so sure it is more than merely thousands of years ago.

What do you think?

Fellows

Before BC
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 42
4/15/11 at 7:37am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Fellows, there are libraries written about the evolution of humans, all based on plenty of archaeological evidence. Just because you personally can't fathom or understand it doesn't make it any less true. Here's some basic articles to get you started. The first couple explain the general evolution of modern man. The other talks a little bit about why technological change happens exponentially rather than linearly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_modernity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change

BR I completely understand the exponentially growing rate of technological change but if mankind has been around for the length of time evolutionists suggest I am not so sure they would not have remained so "stuck in neutral" without any progress for sooooooooooo many years.

Now what we have seen over the last single digit thousands of years I can fully understand and expect for mankind to advance like it has. But for the length of time evolutionists say man has been roaming the planet. I don't think mankind would remain unable to advance for such a long expanse of time.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #33 of 42
4/15/11 at 10:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

BR I completely understand the exponentially growing rate of technological change but if mankind has been around for the length of time evolutionists suggest I am not so sure they would not have remained so "stuck in neutral" without any progress for sooooooooooo many years.

Now what we have seen over the last single digit thousands of years I can fully understand and expect for mankind to advance like it has. But for the length of time evolutionists say man has been roaming the planet. I don't think mankind would remain unable to advance for such a long expanse of time.

Fellows

Quote:
I am not so sure they would not have remained so "stuck in neutral" without any progress for sooooooooooo many years.

Read my posts covering this again. There real, practical reasons why this wouldn't be the case. So if you understand the exponential growth and how that works ( the more you know about things the more you'll know about anything related to them ) you should understand not spending all day just devoted to survival ( or running for your life ) would leave you a lot of extra time for other pursuits.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #34 of 42
4/15/11 at 10:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

BR I completely understand the exponentially growing rate of technological change but if mankind has been around for the length of time evolutionists suggest I am not so sure they would not have remained so "stuck in neutral" without any progress for sooooooooooo many years.

Now what we have seen over the last single digit thousands of years I can fully understand and expect for mankind to advance like it has. But for the length of time evolutionists say man has been roaming the planet. I don't think mankind would remain unable to advance for such a long expanse of time.

Fellows

This may help. Obtaining a complex language spurred the creation and sharing of complex abstract ideas. Man developed rapidly after that.

The Mother of All Languages
The politics of charisma is so Third World. Americans were never going to buy into it for long. - Foudad Ajami
Reply
The politics of charisma is so Third World. Americans were never going to buy into it for long. - Foudad Ajami
Reply
post #35 of 42
4/15/11 at 10:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

This may help. Obtaining a complex language spurred the creation and sharing of complex abstract ideas. Man developed rapidly after that.

The Mother of All Languages

Very good point! Writing also was a big help ( the ability to record many peoples thoughts and ideas for others to see ) with this exchange.

About the origin of language here's some more food for thought about the same study : http://io9.com/#!5791731/african-origin-of-language
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #36 of 42
4/15/11 at 11:17am
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

BR I completely understand the exponentially growing rate of technological change but if mankind has been around for the length of time evolutionists suggest I am not so sure they would not have remained so "stuck in neutral" without any progress for sooooooooooo many years.

Now what we have seen over the last single digit thousands of years I can fully understand and expect for mankind to advance like it has. But for the length of time evolutionists say man has been roaming the planet. I don't think mankind would remain unable to advance for such a long expanse of time.

Fellows

Again, with all due respect, who the hell are you? Have you spent decades studying this? Have you spent even a few years actually studying this (reading and listening to creationist propaganda doesn't count)?

There are some really counterintuitive things in physics. For instance, the viscosity of an ideal gas increases with temperature. My students always get thrown for a loop with that one because it behaves opposite to what they expect and to what they have seen with liquids. My students don't get to change the laws of nature because they say "yeah, well, I'm just not so sure that the viscosity will increase with temperature because it seems to me that with more space between the molecules there should be less." They just don't have the full picture. It's my job to dispel that false notion.

You've put all your trust into a system that stifles science and change. It's no wonder you fight so hard against accepting certain scientific facts and theorums. But neither your resistance nor your layman incredulity actually affects the laws of nature.

And yes, good point about the language Floorjack.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #37 of 42
4/15/11 at 11:52am
So Fellows there were lots of factors that caused the speed up. Now we're just on the fast track and it doesn't show any signs of slowing down. Now if we could complete that Grand unified theory that Eiinstein couldn't.........
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #38 of 42
4/15/11 at 1:03pm


This pretty much explains why it has taken us so long since we evolved as a species to achieve something.

There just has not been enough of us throughout most our history to amount to anything other than basic survival. Its the passing of a critical mass that produces surplus peoples not engaged in basic survival that have allowed us to achieve properity.

The scientists, artists, poets and philosophers...
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 42
4/15/11 at 1:07pm
heres a typical bacteria growth plot



Best not waste ones life arguing the small shit over at AppleOutsider, might not be around much longer...
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 42
4/15/11 at 3:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcUK View Post

heres a typical bacteria growth plot

Best not waste ones life arguing the small shit over at AppleOutsider, might not be around much longer...

Thanks, I needed that!
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › ancient man