>A few final points for Glenn.
>
>
>JB << Why do you confuse nose size with nasal sinus cavity size?
>
>
>GM << I am not confusing anything. These superficial differences are just
>that.
>
>I guess the National Academy of Science is the entity that's confused. The
>title to the paper was "Significance of..." nor "Superficiality of..." But
>you know those silly scientists, always disagreeing with you...
>
Let me explain something to you that your legal education would not have
covered. It is called the taxonomic system.
We are taxonomically called Homo sapiens sapiens. Neanderthal is called Homo
sapiens neaderthalensis.
Homo is the genus. We and Neanderthal are in the same genus.
The first sapiens in both names is the species. We and Neanderthal are in the
same species (Those silly taxonomists! Imagine them agreeeing with me!)
The second sapiens and the neanderthalensis is the variety name. We and
Neanderthal are m=taxonomically viewed merely as different varieties.
Just because Tattersall choses to go against the prevailing taxonomy is no
reason for me to do so.
>JB <<Why no mention of "shaman art," the only truly religous art, which is A
>T
>MOST only 27,000 years old?
>
>GM <<Sorry, Science News, Oct. 5, 1996, which you cited, says 33,000 years
>ago. You should read more carefully.
>
>I'll accept your admission that it is 33,000 years old. That recent enough
>for me. The appearance of truly human, religious art is no older than this.
>Fine
Jim, the isn't a court of law and the rules that apply there do not apply
here. I merely corrected your gross mis-reading of "33,000" as "27,000". I
think you need glasses.
>.
>Thank you. Hugh will be happy with this concession, too.
Hugh shouldn't be because you now cite my evidence for ancient art which
gives the lie to your assertion above that I am agreeing that art is only
33,000 years old. In fact it is much older. (re-read below. You must have
missed it the first time.
>
><<I, and others view the Golan Venus as the first evidence of religious
> art.>>
>
>I, and others, question whether this lump is even art, let alone religious
>art. Silly us.
The opinion of paleolithic art experts says that this is art and is man-made.
But the fact that these experts disagree with you and Mr. Jones is quite silly
of them. I have only seen one article critical of the object and lots
supporting it. Look below:
Against:
Andrew Pelcin, "A geological Explanation for the Berekhat Ram Figurine,"
Current Anthropology,Dec. 1994, 35:5, p. 674-675. He never actually examined
the object.
In favor see:
Alexander Marshack, "On the "Geological' Explanation of the Berekhat Ram
Figurine," Current Anthropology, 36:3, June, 1995, p. 495;
Desmond Morris, The Human Animal, (New York: Crown Publishing, 1994), p.
186-188;
L. A. Schepartz, "Language and Modern Human Origins," Yearbook of Physical
Anthropology, 36:91-126(1993), p. 117;
Robert G. Bednarik, "Art Origins", Anthropos, 89(1994):169-180, p. 170;
R.G. Bednarik, "Comments", Rock Art Research 5:2(1988): 91-107, p. 98;
>
>Shaman art is consistent with the view that covenant making, God worshipping
>
>man is a sudden, recent event. The idea that he existed 5 myr ago is
>completely at odds with the evidence which, even viewed most favorably,
>bespeaks only of incipient humanity.
>
><<Tell me what is wrong with my friends points about the lack of scorch
> marks
>around the flute holes. >>
>
>I'll tell you. When Ross's expert makes a point, you discount it by saying
>the guy is somone you never heard of, as if that takes care of the matter.
>Then you cite some unnamed friend of yours when it fits your purposes. I was
>just trying to show that it's a bit unfair of you to criticize Ross for the
very
>same thing. And it is.
>
>I, at least, admitted I think your friend made a good point.
>
Jim, If you want to dismiss what my friend says go ahead and do so. The first
point with Hugh's "expert" was that the paper the fellow wrote was given at a
Christian conference, NOT a scientific conference. If we cite this type of
'expert' then I know lots of 'expert' giving papers on the geocentricity of
the earth. A person needs to have done a certain level of study before he can
become an expert. This guy that Ross cites may have done it, but his name did
not ring a bell among the anthropologists or neural anatomists I have been
reading over the past couple of years.
Secondly, I hate to say this but it has been my experience that Christians
presenting 'scientific' papers at Christian conferences are too often woefully
wrong about the facts of the field. When I have gone to check the facts out,
I find that they are wrong about 99% of the time. I think it is because the
only way to be invited to give a paper at those things is if you tell people
what they want to hear. If you tell them what they need to hear, you won't be
invited. Christians want to hear that evolution is false and that geology and
anthropology supports their interpretation of the Bible. I wish this bias
were not so. But since it is, I don't trust that type of source without
hearing the line of reasoning and having references.
Christian apologists need to take a long hard look in the mirror.
Third, this Ross' guy was not talking about the flute. That 'expert' said
that fossil men had no Language.
Fourth, Ross gave none of that fellows' line of reasoning supporting such a
conclusion. So as far as I know the guy just made a statement with no
evidence. At least, my friend gave me, and I gave you the line of reasoning
backing up his assertion. Just saying there was no language in the hominids
requires me to trust Ross and this unknown guy AND go against the beliefs of
the vast majority of anthropologists. They almost all believe that there was
some level of language among Homo erectus and Neanderthal. (see Dean Falk,
"Comments", Current Anthropology 30:2, April 1989, p. 141)
The only thing my friend pointed out was that there are no scorch
marks. I had not realized that. Now, you can dismiss my friend as being a
non-expert, but I will now plagiarize his point and note that there are no
scorch marks on the flute. This does not take an expert. So, to conclude,
Hugh's alternative is at odds with the observational data and once again, when
I go to check out what a Christian apologist says, I find that it is false.
Why should this be the case? Shouldn't Christians strive to the highest
levels of excellence and get their facts straight?
><<The whole area of continuity vs replacement is something that is highly
>polarized.>>
>
>Another good admission. We have plenty of experts on both sides. So how fair
>is it to call Ross silly? Again, not very.
>
Ross is silly to call a being that manufactures musical instruments,
manufactures jewelry, engages in underground mining and built stone walls and
paved areas, AND left evidence of the worship of bears(like the Chippewa and
Ainu of recent times), a non-spiritual non-human. By this criteria, you
aren't human either. (You don't worsip bears do you?)
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm