Re: Talk.)rigins banned subject: 20k
From: Mark (nospam_at_nspam.com)
Date: 09/01/04
- Next message: Mad Scientist: "Re: Talk.)rigins banned subject: 20k"
- Previous message: Bob Keeter: "Re: How laughing becomes pain"
- In reply to: Mad Scientist: "Re: Talk.)rigins banned subject: 20k"
- Next in thread: Mad Scientist: "Re: Talk.)rigins banned subject: 20k"
- Reply: Mad Scientist: "Re: Talk.)rigins banned subject: 20k"
- Reply: Jabriol: "Re: Talk.origins banned subject: 20k"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:31:35 GMT
Mad Scientist wrote:
>
>
> Mark wrote:
>
>> Mad Scientist wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mark wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mad Scientist wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jabriol wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> wbarwell <wbarwell@munnnged.mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:<41343da6$0$168$811e409b@news.mylinuxisp.com>...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jabriol wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ----------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> http://home.yawl.com.br/hp/sedycias/civiliz04a.htm
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> this is a good article that provides instances of man in the
>>>>>>>>>> americas over 20,000 years ago.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If Man was around for 20K. why do archeologist do not find
>>>>>>>>> hints of
>>>>>>>>> civilization older
>>>>>>>>> than 7,000-10,000 yr's?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They do. The oldest walled cities date to 10,000 - 9,000
>>>>>>>> BCE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cave art shows man was creating art at 40,000 BCE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and yet they could not build a city.... sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Art requires creativity whereas building a city requires
>>>>>> considerable technology. There is no reason to assume these
>>>>>> requirements would develop at the same time. Both are useful
>>>>>> measures of the progress of a society.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Prove it. Prove that human beings existed without
>>>>> technology...guess what you cant!
>>>>>
>>>> We are talking about the technology necessary to construct cities
>>>> that leave long-lasting evidence of their existence. Not all
>>>> technology would fall into this category. But, if you insist on this
>>>> line, perhaps the fossil remains of humans that predate evidence of
>>>> city-building technology is a good start.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah and which 'remains' would that be? I don't have to ask if you
>>> are aware of how many times civilization has been wiped out by
>>> catastrophes of one sort or another.
>>>
>>>
>>> And, to circularize the discussion, evidence
>>>
>>>> of human activity (such as very old cave art) is also useful. Before
>>>> you say it, no, this is not proof that "human beings existed without
>>>> technology". But it is evidence for human existence before lasting
>>>> cities were built.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Oh now we are talking about 'lasting' cities. I get it, change the
>>> rules of the game to suit your pet theory about the rise and fall of
>>> civlizations.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can also turn the question back to you - prove
>>>
>>>> than man did not exist without technology.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Straw man argument and decidely circular reasoning as well. 3 Stars
>>> for you.
>>>
>> This was not an argument about the rise and fall of civilization. You
>> are clearly doing what you accuse me of - changing things to suit your
>> own agenda. The original question asked why no trace of civilization
>> could be found that is older than 7-10 thousand years, but man is
>> claimed to have existed for longer (original post said 20k years). I
>> congratulate you on your ability to wade in, without even knowing what
>> the discussion is about.
>
>
> There are footprints which have been found which date back millions of
> years.
>
>
>>
>> Of course we must talk about cities that leave lasting evidence. It is
>> impossible to look for those that don't. Don't need to be too bright
>> to see that, do we??
>
>
>
> Depends on where your head is at these days. Some see evidence where
> none exists, and others see evidence of civilizations remains which are
> alot older than 7-10000 years.
>
>
> I don't give a damn about theories on the rise and
>
>> fall of civilization. What I said was that there is evidence for human
>> existance which is older than the evidence for cities. I think if you
>> actually take the trouble to read something you can quickly find that
>> human remains older than 10k years have been found. Cave art is older
>> than the ruins of cities too.
>>
>> Finally, saying something is a strawman does not make it one. I didn't
>> set up a strawman scenario to break it down. I provided some thoughts
>> to address your question, then asked a question back. And I am waiting
>> for an actual attempt from you to support your position, which seems
>> to be that humans must have technology to exist. At least that is what
>> you suggest when you ask for proof to the contrary.
>>
>>
>
>
> No, you are the one claiming that cities and mankind didn't always go
> hand in hand. Not me.
>
That's right. So, can you show me evidence to the contrary?
Conventional wisdom includes cave-dwelling as part of human
history. Maybe this is not the case. Can you point to ideas that
would suggest humans and cities do go hand-in-hand, which would
reduce the importance of the idea of cave-dwelling?
- Next message: Mad Scientist: "Re: Talk.)rigins banned subject: 20k"
- Previous message: Bob Keeter: "Re: How laughing becomes pain"
- In reply to: Mad Scientist: "Re: Talk.)rigins banned subject: 20k"
- Next in thread: Mad Scientist: "Re: Talk.)rigins banned subject: 20k"
- Reply: Mad Scientist: "Re: Talk.)rigins banned subject: 20k"
- Reply: Jabriol: "Re: Talk.origins banned subject: 20k"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
