Re: Talk.)rigins banned subject: 20k

From: Kermit (unrestrained_hand_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/02/04 

Date: 2 Sep 2004 09:31:45 -0700

Mad Scientist <alice@in.wonderland> wrote in message news:<dRlZc.242$hbk.74@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
> 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.
>

Yes, but they're not modern human. Modern humans go back perhaps
250,000 years. Almost humans 1,000,000-5,000,000 years, depending on
your definition of "human".

>
> >
> > 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.
>

Cites?

>
> 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 what the evidence shows, and that's what makes common sense.

When the European invaders found the Tasmanians, they had no clothing
and no fire. Their population was too low and isolated to maintain
these secrets. Once they had lost this knowledge, years ago, they
could not easily recreate it. Their cousins on the mainland had not
lost this ability - if a tribe or isolated family forgot (i.e. a
plague kills the older folks), then they syurvivors would have learned
from their neighbors.

There is no reason to believe that our ancestors were any different
when they were a few small, isolated tribes in (Southern?) Africa
200,000 years ago. We have the *capacity for building cites. That
doesn't mean we are born with the knowledge.

*You are the one making a claim which is counter-intuitive and
non-mainstream. Do you have at least suggestive evidence to support
this?

Kermit

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Talk.)rigins banned subject: 20k
    ... >> This was not an argument about the rise and fall of civilization. ... >> Of course we must talk about cities that leave lasting evidence. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Talk.)rigins banned subject: 20k
    ... > This was not an argument about the rise and fall of civilization. ... > Of course we must talk about cities that leave lasting evidence. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Talk.)rigins banned subject: 20k
    ... >> This was not an argument about the rise and fall of civilization. ... they just aren't footprints of humans :-). ... >> Of course we must talk about cities that leave lasting evidence. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Talk.)rigins banned subject: 20k
    ... > And, to circularize the discussion, evidence ... >> cities were built. ... >> than man did not exist without technology. ... This was not an argument about the rise and fall of civilization. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: ~Yet MORE Evidence of The Noah Flood~
    ... claim of 'numerous underwater cities'. ... strictest defination of acceptable evidence. ... For science not to consider how their findings line up with ancient ... texts then pieces of the puzzle ...
    (talk.origins)