I absolutely agree that I do not match the common view of the flood as
being in Mesopotamia and the implications that that view entails. But then
you seem to think that I should accept that view, when it is contradicted
by all the geologic evidence in Iraq!!!! No one yet has been able to point
to a sedimentary layer and say, "There, that is the flood sediment!"
Floods leave records of themselves, yet strangely (and conveniently), the
mesopotamian flood didn't. Suggestions have been made that it all eroded
away, but there is no great erosional event in the Tigris Euphrates valley
over the past 5,000 years. Such a suggestion, is nothing more than ad hoc.
(I know you haven't made that suggestion but others on this list have)
>
>
>
>So let's continue these lines of thought:
>
>
>First, could the names of Tigris and Euphrates rivers be applied to
>rivers flowing about 6 My ago into the dry Mediterranean basin? I
>say no - first - because no one at the time could name them the
>Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Also, I say no because we have always
>historically related the T and E rivers to drainage to the Persian Gulf.
That is a nice job of assuming my views out of existence. Prove that no
one could have named them! You can believe that no one could name them,
but you have no actual data to that effect any more than I can point to the
H. erectus on the Mediterranean sea floor. Secondly, God could easily have
revealed this information to Moses (or do you think revelation is out of
the question?).
You are correct that historically the T&E have drained into the Persian
Gulf--at least recent history. In recent history the Mississippi has flowed
past New Orleans. But about 5,000 years ago, it was somewhere near Lake
Charles Louisiana. Was it not the Mississippi River at that time? Today
the Yellow River drains into the Bo Hai bay north of the Shan Dong
Peninsula, but 300 years ago, it was about 500 miles to the south emptying
into the East China Sea. Was it not the Yellow river at that time? My
point is that rivers do change course and change often. And if the river
changed long ago then it was still the T & E and I would contend that even
if there was no oral communication, God could still reveal that to Moses.
>
>Glenn said:
>
>>Having discussed some of these things with Dean, she is NOT arguing for
>language capacity with no language. She is arguing that they did have some
>form of language. You are wrong here.
>
>My comment:
>
>There is no 'capacity for language' without some 'format of language'.
>However, that format may not have been speech - as we know it -
>as would be required to name the two rivers entering the dry Mediterranean
>basin from the east.
Language uses words and nouns in particular. If they had a language 2
million years ago, they could have named things. And if I am correct that
mankind lived on earth long before their fossil record (as is the case with
all other animals as I documented) then language might be much older.
I would also point out that Terrence Deacon in The Symbolic Species claimed
that habilis developed the broca's area BECAUSE AUSTRALOPITHECUS COULD
SPEAK!!!! He took a Baldwinian view of the evolution of speech and its
equipment.
The enlargement of the Broca area is evidence
>for a 'capacity of language' not a 'format of language'. I concur with
>Armstrong, Stokoe and Wilcox that the 'format of language' responsible
>for our 'capacity for language' was manual brachial gesture.
Obviously I don't have a tape recording of erecti speech, so I can't
disprove that view. However, given that chimps also have some verbal
communication, it seems unlikely that habilis with broca's area would only
have gestural speech. And it seems unlikely that H. erectus could have
created the altar at Bilzingsleben or the Schoningene spear 400,000 years
ago if they only had gestures.
>Next issue, how did H. erectus differ from H. sapiens? Can H. erectus
>be called 'the intention of man'?:
>
> I said:
>
>>Steven Mithen's Prehistory of the Mind gives a good example of what is
>>going through the heads of many evolutionary anthropologists today. He
argues
>>that with H. erectus, knowledge was context dependent. However, with
>>humans, knowledge started to 'flow' across contexts. In sum, we don't
>>think like H. erectus.
>
> Glenn's reply:
>
>>Mithen does not represent what is going on in the heads of anthropologists
>today. He totally ignores any data that contradicts his thesis with nary a
>mention of it. See my review of Mithen's book PSCF Dec 1997 p. 273. Mithen
>claims that man never worked in bone until the upper paleolithic--wrong(
>ivory spear points are found 400 kyr in Spain), claims that there are no
>grave goods in any paleolithic burial---wrong. He claims that the oldest
>art is 33,000 years old--wrong (Ignores the 70+/- kyr Tata plaque from
>Hungary), claims that early man could not make multicomponent tools--wrong
>(at Schoningen Germany around 400 kyr ago they made multicomponent tools
>i.e. handles for their stone tools)
>
>Mithen's book is rarely referenced in later books.
>
>My comment:
>
>It seems to me that Mithen is fairly well respected. I agree that his
>book is too speculative for other anthropologist to reference. But he
>is addressing an issue that is critical for understanding the human
>evolutionary record: How do you account for the lack of change in
>artifacts prior to the Upper Paleolithic?
First off, it simply isn't true that the hand-axe remained constant. This
claim is often made but in fact a comparison of the first and last
Acheulean hand axes clearly shows much improvement. I will post the two at:
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/lateax.jpg
and
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/oldestax.jpg
Clearly they are not the same.
Secondly, during this time of supposed cultural stasis, Homo erectus was
inventing boats and crossing the ocean! (didn't know that Homo erectus
invented boats did you). They did as I documented a couple of posts ago.
But here is more:
"In summary, our work has yielded unambigouos and relatively
precise dates for the arrival of H. erectus on Flores by
840,000 years BP. Stone artefacts do not seem to occur in
deposits slightly older." M. J. Morwood et al,
"Archaeological and Palaeontological Research in Central
Flores, East Indonesia: results of Fieldwork 1997-1998,"
Antiquity, 73(1999):273-286, p. 284
Flores was never connected to Asia and so H. erectus could not have walked
there!
During this time of supposed cultural stasis, the Homo erecti invented the
wooden javelin!
During this time of supposed cultural stasis, the Homo erecti invented
woodworking, tanning hides, working with bone, the use of fire, bedding,
mineral collecting and the boomerang! References available upon request.
H. erectus was anything but an idiot. How many inventions do you have
after your name? I have none!
Lack of preservation?
No, stone tools are always preserved.
>Or a fundamentally different way of thinking?
None of the above. There was much invention during that time.
>You cannot deny that high levels of carbon dioxide imply a strong
>greenhouse effect. A strong greenhouse effect 1. raises atmospheric
>temperatures and 2. increases cloud cover (on Earth). Did I claim
>that the Earth ever had sulfuric acid clouds as does Venus? Read
>what I said again. Carbon dioxide is responsible for the strong
>greenhouse effect on Venus.
If you place Day 4 in the early precambrian >3.5 billion years ago, then I
probably don't have a problem with that view other than it was before the
advent of life on earth. If you try to place it late in the precambrian or
in the early phanerozoic (400 myr-2 billion years ago) then I have major
problems with the view. IN the late precambrian the earth was so cold that
the earth nearly froze over. There was another widespread glaciation in
the Ordovician which was quite severe. The late precambrian and Ordovician
were not hot--quite the opposite. Documentation:
"In North America, massive tillites and dropstone laminates extend from
Wyoming to Quebec, a distance of 3,000 km, suggesting glaciation on a
continental scale. " ~ M. B. Edwards, "Glacial Environments", H. G.
Reading, editor, Sedimentary Environments and Facies, (New York: Elsevier,
1978), p. 433.
ON the same page he discusses glacial deposits of this age found in
Greenland, Scotland and Norway.
Then a geologist from the southern hemisphere writes:
"The most important phenomena of its sedimentation are scattered vestiges
of glaciation extending 1,200 km from central Bahia to northeastern Parana
(Ribeira series). The greatest area is at the head waters of the
Jequitinhonha and Jequintaia rivers, northern Minas Gerais. It is not yet
known whether these vestiges are the result of alpine or continental glaciers.
There seems to be a correlation between this Brazilian glaciation and
those noted in the Congo, Angola, West Griqualand, Transvaal, Southern
Rhodesia, India, China, Southern Australia, Finland, Norway, Greenland,
Canada, the United States of America etc., which are placed by some in the
Algonkian by others in the Eocambrian." ~ Avelino Ignacio de Oliveira,
"Brazil" in William F. Jenks, editor, Handbook of South American Geology,
(New York: Geological Society of America, 1956), p. 20.
The world was glaciated in the late precambrian. I have another reference
in my database for Mauritania being glaciated at this time.
>
>I think that the clouds or haze would have cleared prior to the Precambrian
>as carbon burial resulted in an atmosphere rich in O2 (which would
>have reacted with compounds producing photochemical haze).
I think you mean, prior to the Cambrian. Prior to the Precambrian is prior
to the formation of the earth! So the other day when you said,
>For example, the perception
>that the sky was a solid dome would have made incomprehensible
>the loss of cloud cover in the epoch following day 3. The
>appearance of which WOULD HAVE BEEN PERCIEVED AS THE 'CREATION'
>OF THE SUN, MOON AND STARS. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.
>
Does this mean that the clouds were lost in day 4? and if Day 4 was prior
to the Cambrian where is the evidence of LAND plants with seeds of which
the 'vision' speaks (Genesis 1:11)? There were no land plants with seeds in
the Precambrian. In what way does this fit the observational data?
>
>I also think that the issue is not 'who is the observer' so much as:
>Do the descriptions of 'what the sun, moon and stars do' convey the
>importance of this epoch to humanity? A passage from total cloud
>cover to partial cloud cover would be experienced as the appearance
>- or creation - of the sun, moon and stars from the perspective of
>someone on the Earth's surface. I think that this conveys
>the importance of this epoch in a way that a Neolithic would
>comprehend.
I am past the Neolithic but I don't comprehend this. DAy 4 is now in the
precambrian prior to the land plants and prior to seeds, but somehow it is
believed to convey the idea that clouds were lifted from the earth without
so much as a mention of clouds. Are you not forced to produce an out of
order reading of Genesis as I do?
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
