>This is the tribe/species error I've pointed out to already. Refer to my
>previous posting on this. Your scare tactics on this one won't work.
Thanks to Brian for finding this. It would help Jim, if you would give a date
for references like the above. It is hard to find sometimes.
The tribe/species error.
Sounds like you're mixing apples and oranges by confusing tribe with species.
(This mistake would get you an F on an anthropology exam.) Are the Azilians a
people, or a distinct species? First tell me who and when and where about
them. Are you saying they are or are not homo sapien? --JB
The Azilians were homo sapiens. They lived about 12,000 years ago. Are they
spiritual? They left NO SHAMAN ART.
The Klasies River Mouth Cave people were HOMO SAPIENS. Are they spiritual?
They lived 120,000 years ago or so. They also left no shaman art.
Same species, same lack of art, yet other Homo sapiens made art.
This is not a hard concept Jim.
If spiritual man did not appear until 35kyr and modern
looking human-like, nonspiritual beings were walking around 100 kyr ago, then
I think you have a proablem that seriously needs to be dealt with.
>
><<I am going to say something that applies to all old earth
> anti-evolutionists who believe that spiritual mankind was created around
>30-35000 years ago. With the advent of new data over the past 20 years, that
>position has moved from one which was defensible to one which, in my opinion,
>is indefensible for entirely unexpected reasons. Twenty years ago, it was
>believed that anatomically modern man did not appear on earth until around
>35,000 years ago. Christians built up their apologetic based upon that
>number.>>
>
>That has never been my contention. Trying to affix a definitive date to the
>nearest thousand is fruitless in this field. All we can do is look at rough
>periods. You deal with the data and interpret it.
OK lets loosen up on the dating a bit. Modern man was here long before the
Upper Paleolithic. Were these modern-looking humans, spiritual?
>It is unquestionable that
> an explosion took place recently, and marched ever upward, unlike the
million years before it.
No it is not unquestionable. You never answered my question about the
Azilians. You haven't ever responded. They left no shaman art. WERE THEY
HUMAN? This should be a simple question to answer given your theory that
shaman art is the mark of humanity. It is ok to answer these questions because
it is not a court of law where if you give the wrong answer they haul you off
to give you the lethal injection.
>
><<anatomically modern man appeared 120,000
>years ago. He looked almost like you and I. His brain was big. He engaged
> in unimproved stone-age technology for the next 50,000 years. His stone
>tools were just like Neanderthal's (which were the most complex tools ever
>made by ancient man), but they didn't alter them for the first 50,000 years
>of their existence.>>
>
>Utilizing one of your favorite forms of reasoning, isn't it unreasonable to
>expect a new species to leave widespread evidence until it has sufficient
> time to populate the earth?
OK, then maybe modern humans were here 200,000 years ago. Some authors have
suggested exactly this for the reason you cite me as having mentioned. So if
modern humans were here 200,000 years ago, were they spiritual? Was Adam
their progenitor? These humans 200-100 kyr ago didn't leave shaman art so are
they not human?
>
>And you fail to mention on very real fact: The archeological record in
> Western Europe is far richer than Africa. "For every archeological site of
>this era in Africa, there are about two hundred such sites in Western
>Europe. The disparity reflects a difference in the intensity of scientific
>exploration in the two continents, not the reality of prehistory." [Leakey,
>p. 94] This little datum alone deals with your objection sufficiently.
>
>Besides, you're factually wrong. Technologies based on narrow blades begin to
>appear in Africa around 100,000 years ago.
No Jim, you are very wrong. Blades were first made 250,000 years ago.
"The tools engendering this controversy come from the Kapthurin
formation, near Kenya's Lake Baringo. The formation, a 125-meter-thick stack
of sediments, is interleaved with volcanic deposits, or tuffs. These tuffs
have been dated with potassium/argon dating, a well-established and reliable
method, and the tuff that caps the formation is about 250,000 years old.
McBrearty's artifacts came from just below it."~JoAnn Gutin,"Do Kenya tools
Root Birth of Modern Thought in Africa?" Science 270 Nov. 17, 1995, p. 1118.
But we don't know what form of hominid made them. The only human fossils
found with them are too fragmentary for identification. So far the only
fossils found in that age are those known as archaic homo sapiens. They are
transitional from Homo erectus to modern man whose earliest fossils are found
at 120,000 at Klasies River Mouth.
However, in the middle east, where modern humans first appear at 90-100,000
years ago, they were making neanderthal type tools. It would not matter if
far to the south modern humans were making blades because THESE modern humans
weren't. So are these middle eastern modern men spiritual?
>
><<The problems my view has are miniscule compared to those of a 35k Adam.>>
>
>No. Pushing back the appearance of modern man rules out Neanderthals as
>ancestors. Aren't you aware that sites like the Border Cave and Klasies
> River Mouth are touted by the Out-of-Africa folks? If cite that evidence,
then you have to live with its consequences.
I have not said that Neanderthal was modern man's ancestor. I have said that
there is evidence for interbreeding with him in European populations just as
there is evidence for interbreeding with Homo erectus in the Far East.
Jim, In all of this you totally avoided the real issue which is are these
people from that distant age spiritual humans subject to atonement? Are you
ashamed of the logical consequences of your view? I asked a simple question,
are the Azilians spiritual humans, are the earliest anatomically modern men
spiritually human. This is a simple yes or no answer. Either they are or
they aren't. Which is it, Jim? I predict that you will ask for clarification
or simply not answer this simple question.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm