>Sorry. It was 4:22. Contradicts your theory.
>
No it doesn't. Jim, in theory construction, you have to distinguish between
evidence which is lacking and contradictory evidence. These two issues have
different roles to play in a theory. Contradictory evidence for my view
would be the discovery of a new way for the salt at the bottom of the
Mediterranean was actually deposited UNDERWATER and not when the
Mediterranean dried up.
Such a discovery would seriously damage my view.
On the other hand, absence of a piece of evidence becomes, not contradictory
but predictive. The role of the missing evidence is to suggest places and
things to look for in order to verify the hypothesis. Thus, the lack of
iron objects from long long ago, is not contradictory to my views, IF iron
objects were produced by Adam and his descendants in the basinal
Mediterranean prior to the flood 5.5 million years ago.
Consider this, if you, your wife and 3 of your lawyer friends and their
wives were the sole survivors on the earth, do you know how to make iron? Do
you know where to find coal? Do you know where to find iron ore? Do you know
what it looks like? Do you know how to build a kiln? Do you know what more
you need besides all of the above? Merely having iron, coal and a kiln will
not produce iron.
If you know where iron ore can be found, do you have the means to transport
it from there to the coal? Can you make a pickaxe with which to remove the
iron ore? Do you know how HARD iron ore is?
How are you and your 7 friends to feed themselves when they are working in
the mines all the time? Get real Jim.
><<Wait a minute. You are grossly mis-representing the anthropological
>record.
> NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE disputes that Homo Erectus was on the line to
>modern humans. NO ONE absolutely NO ONE disputes that archaic Homo sapiens
>
>is on the line to modern humans. The only dispute is about Neanderthal.
>The Sima people are archic Homo sapiens or Homo erectus. The same can be
>said of the Bilzingsleben people who scratched the image of a quadruped on
>a
>bone. You can not find anyone who says that Homo erectus or archaic Homo
>sapiens were not on the line leading to modern man!!!!>>
>
>Now YOU wait a minute. Multiple exclamation points and ALL CAP eruptions
>are not going to put me off the issue, to which you have not responded.
>This is all fluff and distraction. Let me ask you again:
Nice dodge. You said:
>But now, going back a mere 300,000 years, you don't have any of that. You
>point to indicators you say evidences humanity, but the futher back you go
>the weaker they are, which is why all the experts you happily quote argue
>over whether they are in the line of modern man or not.
You are wrong. Cite one expert that says that Homo erectus is not on the
direct line of human evolution? Come on, Jim, just one. Even the YECs say
that erectus is us.
>
>You are still left with people that had sophisiticated language, spiritual
>and mental abilities--the sort of things modern man has. So what happened
>to lose all that? Was there a regression? Your only rejoinder was this:
No my rejoinder, which you ignored was to cite you art and religious objects
from Neanderthal and Homo erectus sites. The quadruped drawn by Homo
erectus at Bilzingsleben was from 300-400,000 years ago. I also didn't
mention the phonolite pebble found at Olduvai gorge dated 1.6 million years
ago, which was an intentionally made piece of art and you say you would
accept the humanity of erectus if there was evidence of art and religion.
But when I give it to you you simply don't pay any attention to it.
>
><<Were the Dark Ages after the fall of the western Roman empire a
>regression
>that took the Europeans out of humanity? Of course not.>>
>
>Glenn, Glenn....you can't be serious with this. How long did the Dark Ages
>last before another explosion of artistic, literary and techonological
>advance?
About 5 million years of living like primitives.
>And did the people become smaller, ape-like bipeds for a few
>centuries, then spring back to modern physiology?
Who in the world ever said that Adam had modern anatomy? Certainly not I.
That is your assumption and you seem to think everybody else must accept
your assumptions. Where in the Bible does it say that? Please cite the verse.
>Did they lose their language?
NO.
>Did they lose all evidence of communicative ability?
No.
>Artistic ability?
NO. What he lost was the leisure time needed to produce such art. He was
too busy trying to survive to create the Mona Lisa.
>
>Really.
>
>So answer my question: How come fully spiritual, complex, God worshipping,
>fully lingual man 5 million years ago completely disappeared for almost 4.5
>million years?
My, My, how you misrepresent things to your advantage. I have never said he
disappeared. That is what you say.
>
>You continue on lines like this:
>
><< I do not disagree with
>the expert on Sima de los Huesos, who believes that this was evidence of
>ritual.>>
>
>"Evidence" of ritual...nothing like what Cain and Abel did, or Noah. What
>happened to man's mind and spirit for 4.5 million years? 4.5 million years
>without human innovation, human communication, any signs of modern humanity
>at all. Let's grant the technical dark age, but you're stuck with a gaping
>spiritual and innovative hole that cannot be explained under your theory.
>
OK. It is time for you to answer the questin I have been trying to get you
to answer for about 8 months. You say that there are these non-innovative
animals, who looked like us but were not spiritual--their lack of innovation
was proof of their lack of spirituality. So tell me Jim, do any of them
still live? Are the technologically primitive peoples on earth today, those
people who show so little innovation, their descendants? Which tribes of
these non-innovative people are really animals? These are the tribes we
should withdraw the Wycliffe translators from. After all, animals can't be
saved and don't need the Bible. Are there any descendants of these people
still on earth today? If so who?
I know, you will ignore this like you have for the past several months.
>Modern, spiritual man was a relatively recent, explosive arrival on the
>scene. He didn't sit around for 5 million years wondering what to do with
>himself or his dead cousins.
So what about the Yanomamo of Venezuela? Are they human?
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm