So far, the cr/evo struggle in the subthread has remained pretty quiet. But that could change in a single post.
GGG Ping.
I’m one of them close minded Bible thumpers who reject the ascension from monkeys, but that’s just me. And a much shorter time line.
If man became a settled being so much earlier than was thought, it is disturbing that it took so long for him to invent the internet. I guess it just wasn’t possible until Al Gore was born.
btt
The biggest problem I have with the idea that man has existed in essentially his present form for hundreds of thousands of years is that, if so, we should have developed our civilized society long ago.
Look how far we advanced in the couple thousands years of modern recorded history, and the signs of great societies even before that time. The idea that mankind could exist with intelligence for a hundred thousand years without developing language, culture, and technology seems add odds with what we observe of man today.
Why.. just means we evolved a hell of a lot slower then we thought...
YEC INTREP
I don't think so.
Where are all the cities?
Where is the archaeological evidence!?
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
It’s also not unrealistic to imagine that there were a few places around that were near ideal for long term habitation, if not settlement. It can reasonably be assumed that much migration happens only when resources run out in an area.
So if a group found a sheltered valley, with lots of game animals and fresh water fish, easy to catch by hand in shallows, in a temperate area, they might occupy the place for several years until the bounty ran out.
The difference between that and a settlement would be the remains, or lack thereof, of them trying to create sustainability in the place. Some way of replenishing what they needed to remain.
I think I saw that guy downtown the other day.
Evolution and Communism
Another interesting facet of history is the connection between evolution and communism. With communism the struggle of “race” is replaced by the struggle of “class” as history is viewed as an evolutionary struggle.
Both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were evolutionists before they encountered Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” - (Dec 12, 1859) Engels wrote to Marx: “Darwin who I am now reading, is splendid” (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Zirkle). Like Darwin, “Marx thought he had discovered the law of development. He saw history in stages, as the Darwinists saw geological strata and successive forms of life... In keeping with the feelings of the age, both Marx and Darwin made struggle the means of development” (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Borzin). “There was truth in Engel’s eulogy on Marx: ‘Just as Darwin had discovered the law of evolution in organic nature so Marx discovered the law of evolution in human history’” (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Himmelfarb).
“It is commonplace that Marx felt his own work to be the exact parallel of Darwin’s. He even wished to dedicate a portion of Das Kapital to the author of The Origin of Species” (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Barzum). Indeed, Marx wished to dedicate parts of his famous book to Darwin but “Darwin ‘declined the honor’ because, he wrote to Marx, he did not know the work, he did not believe that direct attacks on religion advanced the cause of free thought, and finally because he did not want to upset ‘some members of my family’” (Morris 1989, 83 quoting Jorafsky).
Other Soviet Communist leaders are evolutionists as well. Lenin, Trostsky, and Stalin were all atheistic evolutionists. A soviet think tank founded in 1963 developed a one-semester course in “Scientific Atheism” which was introduced in 1964. Also, a case can be made that Darwinism was influential in propagating communism in China.
Interestingly, according to Morris, Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University, the co-founder of the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution is a Marxist in philosophy, along with other distinguished Harvard evolutionary scientists and university professors across the country. One has to ask - could a person espouse the Marxist view and tolerate creationism?
References:
Morris 1989, 82-92
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/hscom.htm
So far, the cr/evo struggle in the subthread has remained pretty quiet. But that could change in a single post.
I think there were two one before the great worldwide catastrophe around 12,000 to 10,000 years ago (some places a flood and earthquakes and volcanoes in other places) and the other after the catastrophe. All mankind did not settle, the best estimate is four or five sets of people started civilization after the catastrophe in the Middle East, Egypt, India, China and South America. These civilizations were far ahead of anyone else on the planet. Could be help from the ABs.
6,000 years, baby!
...there, fixed it.
My take on this is that I don't think evidence of settlement is inconsistent with a hunter-gatherer culture. Why not settle down for a while if the hunting and growing food are plentiful?
