Posted on 03/21/2015 6:02:42 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
A. It is evident from land subduction earthquakes that massive amounts of water traveling at hundreds of miles per hour will scour land down to bedrock; further, all material would be swept into the oceans - now burred beneath who knows how many feet of deposits. So yes nothing would remain. See here (1720 foot high tsunami): http://geology.com/records/biggest-tsunami.shtml. Do you imagine that melting glacial lakes and busted ice-dams on glaciers up to 2 kilometers high produced nothing similar?
If anything did remain and was sufficiently different, would it be recognized as an artifact or just laid aside because it is assumed to be something else, something natural or even ignored?
B. I said “circumstantial” which implies what you said. Science is never boring nor settled. Anything is always possible until proven to the contrary (even then that might be wrong).
C. Who said intelligent creatures have to breath oxygen?
All evidence for the earliest pre-human apes comes from warmer climates not subject to glaciation.
And that evidence is all consistent with basic evolution theory -- gradually increasing complexity of life on Earth, no evidence confirmed for "advanced civilizations" grossly different from their expected time & place.
Of course, anybody can hypothesize anything, and have a very enjoyable time fantasizing about aliens, or pagan gods, or whatever.
But it's not science.
PIF: "Who said intelligent creatures have to breath oxygen?"
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight!
To me that is proof.
But it seems more in cases like this it is more, "this sounds like something that would be right". It may even be right but it is not proof.
The problems is that chimps are omnivores even occasionally cannibalistic and might have been back then. So their supposition does not hold up to science.
As physical anthropologists are learning that human evolution is not a straight line. And what they thought was a hominid ancestor turns out not to be, while some unknown hominid creeps in and is a hominid ancestor.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
You are certainly correct about chimpanzees, and evidence suggests that also applies to early pre-humans.
Therefore, the scientific questions would be: what percentage of their diets was meat amongst chimpanzees and early pre-humans, as compared to meat eaten by more recent human ancestors and modern human beings?
Evidence is that wild chimpanzees eat mostly, if not entirely, plants with only occasional meat products, and this doubtless also reflects diets of early pre-humans.
It also suggests that pre-humans gradually became more predatory, consuming more meat, and this is thought to have helped with increased brain functions.
Of course, it's "just theory", but confirmed by much evidence and falsified by none, so pretty reasonable given what we know today.
That's science.
You're correct -- it's certainly true that we cannot say for certain which pre-human remains were our direct ancestors (i.e., Cro-Magnon Man) and which were just distant cousins (i.e., Neanderthals).
But recent DNA analysis suggests that even some of our "distant cousins" were, ahem, kissin' cousins, and so we are more closely related to them than was previously suspected.
In other words, just because a certain pre-human was not our direct ancestor, doesn't mean they weren't in the mix, somewhere.
> Who’s “they”? No one is talking about dinosaurs, so knock it off.
We’re talking about the .”scientific” method used to tabulate the supposed age of the alleged animal residue found on the tools puttingbthem at 1/2 million year old. I have issue with the accuracy of said system. Its all connected...
> Some 2.5 million years ago, early humans survived on a paltry diet of plants. As the human brain expanded, however, it required more substantial nourishment - namely fat and meat - to sustain it. This drove prehistoric man, who lacked the requisite claws and sharp teeth of carnivores, to develop the skills and tools necessary to hunt animals and butcher fat and meat from large carcasses.
The author makes a claim right off the bat that sounds like the same verbiage you’d hear coming from Matt Moneymaker from Hunting Bigfoot. I guess he has a time machine to confirm this information, right?
There's no evidence to suggest that earliest pre-humans ate more meat than today's chimpanzees, or that their brains were any more developed.
What evidence does suggest is that hunting and brain sizes increased roughly simultaneously.
So this hypothesis merely posits that hunting and increased brain size supported each other.
That sounds like simple common sense to me, since the alternative is pure coincidence, which seems unlikely for such a long-term trend.
So, what exactly is your problem with it?
Because the author states something as though it is fact assuming what he is saying to be truth when there is no way that he could know if it were true or not. 2.5 million years, really? It sort of sounds like liberals with the “global warming” (oh no now climate change) being caused by man mantra being preached as the gospel today. Its the same if I said I know you are a white person just because you’re a registered member on this board. I could be right but I could also be entirely wrong assuming something as fact just because it is more common. I deal with truth, facts, and accuracy on a daily basis at my job so when someone makes statements like the author does as fact I weigh them. I also am familiar with the way the MSM tries to use science (and authors) to create doubt or destroy the credibility of Christianity and its beliefs. You have to look at the broader picture to see what they are doing which is a methodical and incremental assault on the beliefs of Christianity right now.
> I guess he has a time machine to confirm this information, right?
No, apparently you claim to. Or perhaps because you weren’t there to see it, you’ll continue to claim it didn’t happen that way. That puts you in the same milieu as Moon Landing Deniers, i.e., not to be taken seriously. But do continue to run your mouth, most of the rest of us would enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself.
> We’re talking about the “scientific” method used to tabulate the supposed age of the alleged animal residue...
No, we were talking about the scientific (no quote) estimate of the age, while you were talking about dinosaurs. All you’ve managed to do is self-identify as someone who thinks dinosaurs were around in the time of humans. They weren’t.
“You will find me at The Elephant.” — Twelfth Night
> > I guess he has a time machine to confirm this information, right?
No, apparently you claim to. Or perhaps because you weren’t there to see it, you’ll continue to claim it didn’t happen that way. That puts you in the same milieu as Moon Landing Deniers, i.e., not to be taken seriously. But do continue to run your mouth, most of the rest of us would enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself.
No one knows. Neither you or myself. End of story.
Instead of Home Depot they had Stone Depot.
End of story? End of YOUR story you mean.
Sounds perfect to me.
Meanwhile those interested in science will enjoy this topic even more.
"no way to know"?
Of course there are "ways", many ways, scientific ways, some ways used for more than 100 years, other ways as recent as the latest technology.
All those ways point to a consistent (though highly incomplete) picture of how our ancestors changed & grew over many hundreds of thousands of generations.
This picture itself is not a fact, but it is based on many facts.
So it's a confirmed hypothesis, making it a scientific theory, which generally goes by the name of "evolution".
But I'll concede this much to you: this particular article is a popular science report intended for non-scientists.
As such it eliminates all the big-words, all the references, caveats & uncertainties you'd see in a real peer-reviewed scientific paper.
It skips over all that, and jumps straight to the latest news report.
Jsanders2001: "Its the same if I said I know you are a white person just because you’re a registered member on this board.
I could be right but I could also be entirely wrong assuming something as fact just because it is more common."
If you've read some of my posts, you know more than that about me, you'd know that my ancestors in this country go back to the early 1700s Pennsylvania Dutch, they served this country's wars and settled it's frontier, back when "frontier" meant central Pennsylvania.
Yes, some of my ancestors were a bit more swarthy than others, but they were all Europeans.
Jsanders2001: "I also am familiar with the way the MSM tries to use science (and authors) to create doubt or destroy the credibility of Christianity and its beliefs.
You have to look at the broader picture to see what they are doing which is a methodical and incremental assault on the beliefs of Christianity right now."
I'd say your problem is, you don't understand what the word "science" means, in the context of western civilization.
Today's word "science" is short for our Founding Fathers' term "natural-science", meaning the search for natural explanations of natural processes, period.
Science is intended to research only the physical, material or natural realm, and to exclude all explanations which include super-natural or miraculous actions.
That's by definition of what is, or is not, "science".
By definition, science takes no notice of, has no opinion on, and indeed does not even deny, supernatural or miraculous events.
But they are beyond the realm of science, and cannot be referred to as "science".
So, if you believe in supernatural, miraculous or theodic events, then you cannot, must not, look to science to validate or justify your beliefs.
For that, you must seek out a place of worship, of which there are many, and they will all be more than happy to explain everything it to you...
You don’t work do you? If this bends you out if shape so much I’ll just say you’re right and we’ll leave it at that, okay?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.