<<You know good Glenn-bait when you see it.>>
I sure do, Tex. It's one of my few vices.
<<Let me suggest that there are people on earth today whose technology is no
more advanced than that of the pre-farming peoples of 30,000 years ago. They
still live in the stone age, do not engage in farming, have shown no
creativity technologically from their ancient ancestors. I guess by your
standard they are not true humans either. Stagnation for the past 30,000 years
is surely evidence of their lack of humanity.>>
This is the tribe/species error I've pointed out to already. Refer to my
previous posting on this. Your scare tactics on this one won't work.
<<I am going to say something that applies to all old earth anti-evolutionists
who believe that spiritual mankind was created around 30-35000 years ago.
With the advent of new data over the past 20 years, that position has moved
from one which was defensible to one which, in my opinion, is indefensible for
entirely unexpected reasons. Twenty years ago, it was believed that
anatomically modern man did not appear on earth until around 35,000 years ago.
Christians built up their apologetic based upon that number.>>
That has never been my contention. Trying to affix a definitive date to the
nearest thousand is fruitless in this field. All we can do is look at rough
periods. You deal with the data and interpret it. It is unquestionable that an
explosion took place recently, and marched ever upward, unlike the million
years before it.
<<anatomically modern man appeared 120,000
years ago. He looked almost like you and I. His brain was big. He engaged in
unimproved stone-age technology for the next 50,000 years. His stone tools
were just like Neanderthal's (which were the most complex tools ever made by
ancient man), but they didn't alter them for the first 50,000 years of their
existence.>>
Utilizing one of your favorite forms of reasoning, isn't it unreasonable to
expect a new species to leave widespread evidence until it has sufficient time
to populate the earth?
And you fail to mention on very real fact: The archeological record in Western
Europe is far richer than Africa. "For every archeological site of this era in
Africa, there are about two hundred such sites in Western Europe. The
disparity reflects a difference in the intensity of scientific exploration in
the two continents, not the reality of prehistory." [Leakey, p. 94] This
little datum alone deals with your objection sufficiently.
Besides, you're factually wrong. Technologies based on narrow blades begin to
appear in Africa around 100,000 years ago.
<<The problems my view has are miniscule compared to those of a 35k Adam.>>
No. Pushing back the appearance of modern man rules out Neanderthals as
ancestors. Aren't you aware that sites like the Border Cave and Klasies River
Mouth are touted by the Out-of-Africa folks? If cite that evidence, then you
have to live with its consequences.
It also strengthens the theory that any innovative-looking Neanderthal
evidence was an attempt to copy modern man, or was modern man's trade. This is
strengthened even MORE now by the pushing back of stone tools. Neanderthal
never advanced the industry. It is, well, inhuman.
Modern man, whenever he appeared, was a quantum leap beyond anything that came
before.
Jim