>> Jim Foley writes:
>> << Why is a naturalistic explanation
>> for this transition "unreasonable"? Modern cultures have arisen in far
>> less time.>>
>> Because you have once again mixed apples and oranges. As I've
>> explained before, the appearance of "culture" is one thing. The
>> actual appearance of man is another ("culture" is what this new man
>> created).
For pity's sake, I've been trying to separate these concepts from the
start.
At the risk of boring everyone else, I'm going to go over it one more
time, real s---l---o---w. Jim Bell got the ball rolling with:
>> On this basis, one can correlate the beginning of man in the full
>> biblical sense with the evidence of a great cultural outburst about
>> 30,000 to 40,000 years ago.
Jim is talking about the appearance of the Cro-Magnon culture. He
interpreted this a design feature of God. I pointed out that there are
many other cultural episodes that have been equally dramatic and
revolutionary (e.g. the Renaissance, the Industrial evolution) which I
think most people agree were not a result of supernatural intervention.
I said:
>> I meant that the Cro-Magnon cultural burst occurred roughly between
>> 40 and 30 thousand years ago. We don't know the exact timing, but
>> it's reasonable to assume it may have taken some thousands of years
>> (not necessarily 10000 yrs).
Jim replied:
>> I guess that's where we differ. It is NOT reasonable to assume this,
>> in my view.
I asked why my view was unreasonable, twice:
>> Why is my view unreasonable?
>> Jim, you said earlier that you thought my claim that this transition
>> probably took 1000's of years was "unreasonable". Why? I agree we
>> can't *prove* that it was naturalistic, but we similarly can't prove
>> that it wasn't.
Jim Bell replied to my second request:
>> See Stephen Jones's posts in this regard. One good quote from Eisley was:
>> "Each one of these major points demanded a multitude of minor
>> biological adjustments, yet all of this-change of growth rate,
>> lengthened age, increased blood supply to the head, moved apparently
>> with rapidity. It is a dizzying spectacle with which we have nothing
>> to compare."
I replied:
>> Totally irrelevant. Eiseley was talking about evolution from apes or
>> australopithecines to modern humans, over millions of years. We were
>> talking about the sudden appearance of the Cro-Magnon culture over a
>> period of perhaps a few thousand years (see below).
Note that I am trying to drag the topic back to it's point of origin.
It was Jim Bell who raised the irrelevant topic of the totality of human
evolution, as he admits in the following post:
>> [JF] Exactly my point. The "Cro-Magnon explosion", for want of a
>> better term, was a cultural event, powered by human intelligence (in
>> my interpretation).>>
>> [JB] But you're missing my point. I'm not talking about the
>> development of culture. I'm talking about the actual appearance of
>> modern man. I think you got hung up on your Industrial Revolution
>> analogy. The "explosion" I'm talking about is sudden apperance on the
>> scene of a creature that cannot be explained by any natural means.
Any third parties interested in providing a neutral opinion? In my
view, it was Jim Bell who has been comparing apples and oranges. So I
found it hard to stay calm when I see him accusing me of doing it.
OK, third time lucky. Why is it unreasonable to assume that the
appearance of the Cro-Magnon culture was a naturalistic event, possibly
occurring over thousands of years???
-- Jim Foley Symbios Logic, Fort CollinsJim.Foley@symbios.com (303) 223-5100 x9765* 1st 1.11 #4955 * "I am Homer of Borg! Prepare to be...OOooooo! Donuts!!!"
P.S.: my apologies to list members if I seem overly curt. I did waitfor a day or two so that I had calmed down somewhat before responding,but tell me if you think I should have waited longer!