Posted on 08/20/2004 9:10:09 AM PDT by blam
Why not? It had to have happened sooner or later; it just happened to have happened later.
You do realize, of course, that there are people living in South America who never discovered agriculture until contacted by explorers?
Channeling Sam Kennison?
No, it happened sooner. The start point just wasn't 300,000 years ago.
You have a reference? That's pretty hard to believe given the ancient empires of South America. It is easier to believe that a jungle people might choose not to use much agriculture, simply because the Jungle provides sufficiently. But to not even be aware of it, I think is suspect.
Hell, in Africa, we have the bushmen of the Kalahari who still lead a stone-age hunter/gatherer existence despite having frequent contact with their more civilized neighbors. IIRC, there are still tribes of pygmies in the central parts of Africa that haven't made the leap from the stone age yet either.
In the latter example, that's a choice. They choose to live a hunter\gatherer lifestyle.
I suspect that is the case in the former example too. I doubt seriously they had never had contact with the outside world. They chose to minimize it.
And, your point?
It's human nature to have one group not adopt certain advances, i.e. the Menonites with Electricity.
But it is also human nature to explore and expand, even to the point of leaving the tribe to do your own thing.
That a tribe chooses not to embrace certain cultural advances, is far different, from assuming that in 300,000 years ALL men would reject such obvious advances.
They got 15,000 from the 'style' and theme' of some engravings? yeah right... Might as well throw a dart at a timeline posted on the wall.
Yes, with a plus-or-minus 5,000 years error bar.
Thinking it over, I'll go for ten thousand.
LOL, yeah, me too.
Now, I'm inclined to think domestication of farm animals came first before agriculture. Herders are a lot like their hunter forebearers in that they typically move around from seasonal camp to seasonal camp (c.f., the Mongols of central Asia). I read of one anthropologist who believes people did not equate sex to childbearing until after the domestication of animals, making the connection through years of observation. After that, it might have occured to them that plants did something similar.
Even after agriculture was discovered, it wouldn't have been terribly attractive. Raising crops is time consuming for the amount of nutrition garnered. Hunter/gatherers can typically acquire their daily requirement in calories in just a few short hours (two to four, according to some anthropologists). Farmers work from sun up to sun down -- and even after harvesting most crops require additional work (threshing) to be made edible. Skeletons of farming folk in Europe from about 9000 B.C. show their lives were typically short and extremely painful, especially among the females whose skeletons show evidence of long periods kneeling (probably while grinding grain).
Agriculture would not have been attractive, and was probably taken up when population pressures depleted ready supplies and forced people to begin to grow their own food or starve.
I once read an interesting interpretation of the Fall in Genesis, in which it was an allegory for the transition from the hunter/gatherer existence (food readily available, not really much to worry about) to farming with all its commensurate drudgery.
Agriculture would have started just as soon as someone ran out of something like watermelon that they wanted more of.
Besides, how long would it have taken for population pressures to mount? Assuming the population doubles every 100 years, in 2000 years (50 generations) you have 2 million people. In 4000 years (100 generations) you have 2 trillion.
Historical Estimates of World Population
Google is our friend.
Based on what records? They are guessing based on an old earth mentality. "It had to be slower because everyone knows man has been around 300,000 years."
Reality is there have been periods where the population decreased. After the first 2000 years, there was this huge flood that decreased the population to 8.
Plagues, wars and famine have slowed down the growth periodically.
Even if the population only doubled every 1000 years, that still only leaves you about 100,000 years before you are in astronomical populations.
It had to be slower because hunter-gatherer technology takes a lot more real estate to support a few people than does agriculture. It basically won't support cities at all.
Only a creationist would make an argument like yours. Most people have more pride.
If it won't support them then the pressure is on to start agriculture.
What? People are going to stop having babies? I don't think so. They might start wars over resources and that might keep the population down. But then that sounds kind of familiar....
Genesis 6:13 - And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
The pressure is on us to start interstellar space travel. We don't know how to do it. Hello?
What? People are going to stop having babies? I don't think so. They might start wars over resources and that might keep the population down. But then that sounds kind of familiar....
War, disease, famine. The population will stay down to the level supported by the food supply. The food provided by a plot of land depends upon how you are using it. If you don't have much technology, you won't get much food. That means you won't have that many people. Slowly, as your technology improves, your food supply improves and your population density can rise. You can have cities, specialists, schools, and even more technology. Success generates more success after a while, but it takes a lot of groundwork before you get a real visible liftoff.
I shake my head at how you support creation, Dan.
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.