RE: [asa] AIG gets it wrong again

Granted the last sentence does not follow from all the preceding statements.
But does anyone have any comments as to the facts or the inferred
significance of this discovery?

I can see some problems with it, such as: saying this is the "earliest sign
of humans in Europe" may be completely unfactual; or it may be a temporary
conclusion, pending new discoveries of earlier sites; or it may represent
the fact that Neandertals came into this area from somewhere else with
already-developed technological skills, which negates the YEC-presumed
significance of the find.

It was left unstated how "Such language skill and technological know-how
doesn't fit with evolutionary ideas about Neandertals". That is a very
broad assertion which isn't explained. Do the archaeologists or
anthropologists themselves acknowledge this as a piece of data which
contradicts previously held ideas? Or is this statement simply wishful
thinking?

Jon Tandy

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of burgytwo@juno.com
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 2:49 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: [asa] AIG gets it wrong again

AIG's weekly message to the naive follows:

Q: How could Neandertal Man be too advanced for evolution?

A: In southern France, they found evidence of human habitation
hundreds of feet deep within a cave. What makes this find so important
is that it was dated as the earliest sign of humans in Europe. Only
the Neandertals were thought to have inhabited Europe at that time.

What they found in the cave was astonishing for such "primitive"
people. They found a "complex quadrilateral artificial structure
consisting of specially arranged pieces of stalactite and stalagmite."
They also found a piece of burned bear bone.

But here's the problem: the items were so deep in the cave, that the
people would've had to have some kind of artificial light, such as a
fire, torch or lamp. Also, the structure they found was so complex, it
would have required the builders to be able to communicate with each
other.

Such language skill and technological know-how doesn't fit with
evolutionary ideas about Neandertals. However, it does fit with the
creationist understanding-they were descended from Noah after the
Flood.

Note: This last statement just does not follow, of course.

jb

(recent book reviews are now on www.burgy.50megs.com/recent.htm)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Aug 8 07:41:38 2006