I can't possibly reply to all your long post but I will choose a couple of
items. I will respond where I think you made factual errors. Unfortunately,I
found most of your comments to be of a non-factual nature merely designed to
try to disagree with anything I said.
You wrote:
>Firstly, "the bone flute" and "bone whistles" are one and the same.
>
No they are not. The whistles are made from reindeer phanges, the flutes are
made from leg bones of bird and bear. The phalange whistles have one hole
drilled through a solid bone. The flutes have a hole drilled through one side
of a HOLLOW bone. The whistle makes a single pitched sound. The multi-holed
flutes make many notes. Some unbroken ones have been found and played.
[big snip]
>These more recent finds, well within the "young-Adam" range, sound
>more like true musical instruments, as opposed to the earlier
>whistles.
>
The earliest musical instrument is a multi-hole flute from Haua Fteah Lybia
dating from 80-100 thousand years ago IT IS NOT A WHISTLE.
>GM>Of the Isturitz find, the original report, written in French,
>>describes it thusly,
>
>[...]
>
>GM>"At last, I uncovered in 1921 a piece which is without doubt,
>>unique, a big bird bone, unfortunately broken at the ends, but
>>because still carried three holes, like that of some sort of flute.
>>It is without doubt the most ancient musical instrument found."
>>[trans. by David Morton]
>
>Unless it could be played, it could have been something else. Holes
>in a piece of broken bone could mean anything. For example, it could
>have been an ornament with holes to thread cord through.
>
Anything to avoid having to agree that the anthropological experts might know
what they are talking about when they identify these as flutes, eh Steve? But
you forget something here. The Isturitz flute broken as it is, was found with
modern man with whome unbroken flutes are also found. So, if a flute is
broken we can't recognize it as a flute as we would be totally unable to
recognize a broken saxophone if we found one of those in an attic.
[snip]
>GM>NEANDERTHAL MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
>>
>>Up to this point all musical instruments have been younger than
>>30,000 years B.P. I wanted to establish above what instruments
>>have been preserved which were made by modern man between 15,000
>>and 30,000 years ago. There are two kinds of instruments, phalange
>>whistles and flutes. Amazingly, these same instruments are found
>>at Neanderthal sites but in spite of this, statements continue to
>>be made that the oldest flute is 30,000 years old made by modern
>>man. These statments are simply not true.
>
>
>Glenn doesn't know that. Caves can be used by many occupants. It is
>possible that H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis occupied the
>same cave at different times "between 15,000 and 30,000 years". It
>is possible that *all* these "musical instruments" were made and
>used by H. sapiens and not by H. neanderthalensis.
>
Stephen, this shows how little you know about anthropology. The youngest
neanderthal is dated around 28,000 years ago from Spain. If you have evidence
of a later Neanderthal you can become famous. The earliest actual skeletal
remains of modern man in Europe comes from 30,000 years ago. Prior to that
the Aurignacian stone industry is believed to be made by modern man, but no
actual fossils have been found. Some anthropologists have begun to wonder if
Neanderthal made the earliest Aurignacian tools.
>GM>Examples of these kinds of statements are,
>>
>>Bowers:"Music assumed an important role; the first known instrument, a
>>bone flute found in France, dates to around 30,000 years ago."(14)
>
>It all depends on what one means by "known instrument". Some of the
>earlier, claimed "instruments" may have been decorations. Unless
>they can be demonstrated to be capable of generating music, they
>cannot be claimed to be "known instruments". And a bird decoy
>whistle is not a musical instrument, at least in the sense that
>Glenn is using the term.
>
Stephen, how many times must I point out that the Haua Fteah flute is not a
whistle but is capable of making many notes?
[snip]
>As stated previously, while I agree with Ross' "young-Adam" basic
>thrust, I see no need to claim that "these hominids..were not
>humans". They were not *fully human*, but I daresay it H.
>erectus and H. neanderthalensis were alive today, they would be
>recognised as human, albeit not fully human.
This is precisely how Europeans justified the slave trade.
>It is worth noting that Glenn believes is an "Old Adam", ie. that
>Adam was a Homo habilis/erectus dating back 5.5 *million years*.
>There is of course no evidence of *civilisation* existing that far
>back. All the evidence points to an emerging language, art, cuture,
>and technology, which had its full flowering betwenn 50-100 thousand
>years ago.
>
I notice that the date you cite is getting older. You used to never allow
anything earlier than 50,000 years. We are making progress. Consider the
village made by H. erectus found at Bilzingsleben Germany. It had pavement!
Let me point out that emerging can still be applied to us. Our technology is
still emerging. Thus maybe the Romans were not fully human because they didn't
have all the technology we do. What the anthropological record shows is
nothing more than a development of technology.
>GM>(So what are Christians to think when they find out that
>>Neanderthals 80,000 years ago were composing music and making
>>musical instruments 90-100,000 years ago?)
>
>The is no conclusive evidence that "Neanderthals 80,000 years ago
>were composing music", let alone that they were "making musical
>instruments".
>
Yes there is, it is in the form of a flute made from a bird bone.
[snip]
>GM>David Keys writes,
>>
>>"Deep inside a cave in Slovenia, in the north of former Yugoslavia,
>>archaeologists have unearthed the world's oldest true musical
>>instrument - a flute which appears to have been made by
>>Neanderthals around 45,000 years ago."(18)
>
>Note: "*appears* to have been made by Neanderthals! It could
>equally have been made by H. sapiens. The acid test would be if a
>"musical instrument" was found *before* H. sapiens appeared on the
>scene.
>
The flute was found before H. sapiens is found in Europe. The Berekhat Ram
Venus figurine was made prior to the advent of modern man on earth. The
earliest subterranean mining occurred prior to the advent of modern man on
earth. The first wooden planck made by man occurred prior to the advent of
modern man on earth.
[snip]
>GM>The oldest flute I have been able to find is a from Haua Fteah in
>>Libya. It is had at least two perforations and thus was much more
>>complex than the first flute I mentioned above, the Le Placard Eagle
>>bone flute.
>
>A whole *two* "perforations" makes it "much more complex"? :-) My
>daughter's flute has *sixteen* "perforations" - now that *is*
>"complex"!
It is merely an extension of what the Neanderthal, not modern man, invented!
But your statement above is incredible when compared to what you say in your
next post.
>Glenn has produced "evidence that" *whistles* "extend back to at"
>*most* "70,000 years ago"! :-) I imagine that few, if any, "current
>apologetical schemes" would be unable "to handle" this "observational
>evidence".
I beg to differ. You obviously are aware that I produced evidence of a flute
from 80-100 thousand years ago and now you want to ignore it.
>>Music and art are found together at least as long ago as 100,000
>>years ago, was carried out by Neanderthals and archaic homo sapiens.
>
>No. *Whistles* are found *70,000* years ago. And the work may have
>been carried out by Neanderthals and archaic homo sapiens. Glenn
>follows the evolutionist technique, pioneered by Darwin, of
>converting possibilities into probabilities, and probabilities into
>certainties:
There is none so blind as those who will not see.
[snip]
>GM>But all of this does not take into account the evidence that Homo
>>erectus was a carpenter, a manufacturer of water receptacles, a builder
>>of pavement and huts, a maker of clothing (which is characteristic of
>>fallen man)
>
>This is another fallacy. Just because Adam and Eve were "naked" (Gn
>2:25) and then after the Fall wore clothes (Gn 3:7,21), does mean
>that if Adam and Eve had not fallen, that they or their descendants
>would not have worn clothes as they spread out into cooler parts of
>the world.
So you would suggest that maybe H. erectus was unfallen man? Interesting
thought. I know of no animal, fallen or unfallen, that tans hides.
[snip]
>Glenn first defines "spirituality" as blowing whistles and body
>painting and then claims that "morphologically archaic" hominids were
>spiritual (in the fullest sense of the word).
Stephen you are using the word whistle over and over without acknowledging
that a wind instrument with many holes is a flute. You are not fairly
characterizing the evidence that is there.
[snip]
of flute making
>It only shows how simple it is and how little brain-power
>(or spitituality) was required. It is therefore not a good
>diagnostic of full humanity.
Neither is rocket building diagnostic of full humanity. Under your use of
this term, nothing at all would be evidence for humanity, not even farming.
[snip]
>We can be absolutely certain, that if he were alive today, Bernard
>Ramm would reject Glenn's "harmonization".
I am glad you can speak with such authority for him. You two must have been
good friends.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm