Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Sunday, March 28 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1366
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 11:02:22 -0600
From: "Cummins" <cummins@dialnet.net>
Subject: RE: invention of writing vs. tools (was: Evolution's Imperative)
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Rich Daniel
> Modern Homo sapiens sapiens is about 120,000 years old. But if
> you believe
> that man is only 6000 years old, then you believe that we went
> without the
> invention of writing for 1000 years. Why is it reasonable to believe this
> but not reasonable to believe we went without it for 115,000 years?
A thousand years without writing isn't comparable to 115,000 without
writing.
And, I don't believe that man went even a 1000 without writing. Even 5,000
years ago, there appears to have been a number of virtually unrelated and
very complex written languages. Maybe it took a thousand years before the
mass of writing became large enough for us to start noticing. Maybe there
was a big flood that destroyed most writing before 5,000 years ago. But,
the
problem is really not mine because I don't have to explain 115,000 without
writing, and then explain the relatively recent and sudden explosion of
writing
in different areas of the globe.
> If I remember correctly, the oldest examples of writing we know about are
> inventories, either for taxes or military purposes. In either case, we
> didn't need writing until we had fairly large cities. Lots of other
> inventions had to come first, like agriculture, for instance, which is
> not something that even a genius could develop quickly.
There is always a need for writing among people who have even a small desire
to
be civilized. They would want to record who their leaders are. They would
want to
send word, without depending on a messenger's memory. There are countless
reasons
why even a low technology people would want to put their language in
writing. And,
in any society (minus those societies were smart people get speared), there
will be
people with less practical reasons for wanting to write -- history, poetry,
etc.
> That's pretty close to what I believe, with the caveat that *learning* to
> write and create art does not take nearly as much intelligence as
> *inventing*
Do you have any reason to believe that homo sapiens of 100,000 years ago
(or even 10,000) were significantly less intelligent than modern man (other
than their inability to create historical evidence of their existence).
> See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html.
Aw, I'm reminded of Nebraska Man, which showed that some Evolutionists don't
know the difference between an apeman and a pig's tooth. Or, Piltdown man
which proved that most of the Evolutionist community has no clue what a
modern human skull and a modern ape jaw look like! As for the
fossils which some creationitss call both human and ape, given the poor
condition and limited material of some of them, it may be difficult to
determine exactly to what species they belong.
Evolutionists are funny creatures. A researcher could dig up a thousand
fossils, 999 of them would document the static nature of the fossil record,
and one fragment in such ondition that it can't be recognized and the
Evolutionist will jump up and down "HA, you can't recognize it because it's
transitional, Evolution must be true." Someone might see a ridge on an eye
socket of skull cap and jump to the conclusion that the fossil belongs to an
ape. That doesn't make it an ape or an apeman. Evolutionists might find
what vaguely looks like a needle in a haystack and declare that it's a
needlestack.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 11:33:34 -0600
From: "Cummins" <cummins@dialnet.net>
Subject: RE: invention of writing vs. tools (was: Evolution's Imperative)
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Susan Brassfield
>
> and don't forget that there are modern human cultures, the
> members of which are fully as intelligent as we are, that to this
> day have never invented writing.
Even in ancient Africa, there is history -- if only in numerous carvings and
rock paintings, but not writing. And, it is because of their culture, not
their intelligence, that they didn't have writing. Are you suggesting that
no regional or local population of people (fully as intelligent as we are)
had a culture that would permit writing for over a 100,000 years? Then one
day, all the planets aligned and thus diverse (although, not all) groups of
people starting writing?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 12:47:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Bodester <jbode77@calvin.edu>
Subject: Re: Evolution's Imperative
>There are lots of things we do not yet understand about gravity or
>lightning or tornadoes or cancer or....etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
>Should we therefore state that these too cannot be considered fact? The
>problem is that you miss one of the most basic points about science:
>first you recognize the phenomenon, then you try to explain it.
>Evolution, even so-called "macroevolution", is a readily observable
>phenomenon. Any observable phenomenon can be considered to be a fact;
>hence evolution is a fact.
Except that I disagree that macro evolution is a phenomenon and observable
as you say. I understand that basic point about science. I disagree with
your connection between it and evolution.(macro) And if it's so readily
observable, again, start posting pictures of transitions that have been
found. I'm not aware there are any, correct me (with proof) if I'm wrong.
>Except that any perusal of the archive of this listserv, plus the
>scientific literature, would prove them {creationists} wrong.
I disagree with that as well. Both sides are able to claim that the other
twists evidence to fit with their respective hypotheses. I think if you
look through many discussions of this topic, some observations are used by
both sides against the other, depending on interpretations of what the
observation could imply.
>Cute thing about that, though......
Actually, I would say that's a good example of creationists being
scientific and changing their views, whether or not they publicly admit to
incorrect conceptions in the past is a different issue IMHO.
Just some thoughts.
Jason
- -------------------------
Jason Bode
jbode77@calvin.edu
http://www.calvin.edu/~jbode77/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 12:25:42 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Where's the Evolution?
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Pim van Meurs
> Ah so you really have no evidence against evolution but consider
> lack of people addressing your example to your satisfaction to be
> example of such ? Please explain "indefinity increase of
> complexity" as it applies to evolution. Explain why there is a
> need for indefinite increase in complexity, define complexity in
> a way that can be measured and explain why evolution is a closed =
system.
> It seems to me that you are unable to argue the vaste amounts of
> evidence supporting evolution.
Cummins: You Evolutionists avoid real debate better than anyone else =
under the sun.
Why don't you just use your best judgment and if you're being obtuse, =
I'll
let you know.
It's obvious once again that Cummins is unable to live up to the minimum =
requirements for a scientific argument. Which is explaining his =
argument. Despite his assertions that I "avoid real debates", I am =
actually interested in one. But Cummins fails to deliver.
Cummins: Okay, I'll get you started. Do you consider a human to be more =
complex than
an ameba? If so/not, why? Do you think there's something fundamentally
different about the limits of change that allow a snowflake to form from =
water vs.
allowing amebas to mutate into humans? If so/not, why?
Please back up YOUR argument that an ameba (sic) is less complex than a =
human. Please show how evolution requires complexity to increase. As far =
as your last question, no there is no apparatant limit.
SO perhaps it is time now for you to make an attempt to formulate a =
convincing argument ?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 12:28:42 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Evolution's Imperative
> [mailto:evolution-owner@udomo3.calvin.edu]On Behalf Of Pim van Meurs
> Cummins: What kind of physical head trauma did you suffer that
> caused enough damage for you to be able to think that a "few
> years" is 95,000 years? And, if 95,000 years is a "few years"
> how many years is 5,000? A "year or two"? Were you born yesterday?
>
> Thanks CUmmins for showing once again that you cannot deal with
> arguments and have to resort to ad hominems. Is the foundation of
> your arguments so weak that this is all you can come up with ?
CumminsL So, you don't think that someone who refers to 95% (vs. 5%) of =
homo sapien
existence on Earth as a "few years" deserves an ad hominem reply? Isn't =
really the
person who resorts to such silliness the one that can't deal with my =
arguments?
Poor argument dear Cummins. Noone deserves an ad hominem reply. Your use =
of such shows that you are the one unable to deal with the argument and =
has to use personal attacks.
> Assuming he could write, how long do you think his writings would
> survive ? But your argument that if he can manufacture tools he
> can write is based upon an illogical presumption that writing is
> a simple process.
Cummins: Simple for me, maybe not for you. One need not be Shakespeare =
to use a few
symbols, or to draw a few pictures.
Once again Cummins is drawing from his own experiences. But similarly to =
riding a bike being natural to some and a complex task to others, one =
should not look at the task with a 20/20 hindvision. Developing a =
written language is quite a complex task since it involves agreement =
among the group, a language. SO perhaps it is time for Cummins to do =
some research?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 12:33:45 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: invention of writing vs. tools (was: Evolution's Imperative)
Cummins: A thousand years without writing isn't comparable to 115,000 =
without
writing. And, I don't believe that man went even a 1000 without writing. =
=20
But what YOU believe and what is reality could be quite different.
Even 5,000 years ago, there appears to have been a number of virtually =
unrelated and
very complex written languages. Maybe it took a thousand years before =
the
mass of writing became large enough for us to start noticing. Maybe =
there
was a big flood that destroyed most writing before 5,000 years ago. =20
Unlikely given the lack of evidence supporting such a flood.
Cummins: But, the problem is really not mine because I don't have to =
explain 115,000 without
writing, and then explain the relatively recent and sudden explosion of
writing in different areas of the globe.
What is so hard to understand about this ?
CumminsL There is always a need for writing among people who have even a =
small desire
to be civilized.
That is a very unsupported remark, as usual Cummins makes assertions he =
is unable to support.
He is arguing from his point of view rather than from reality.
> See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html.
Cummins: Aw, I'm reminded of Nebraska Man, which showed that some =
Evolutionists don't
know the difference between an apeman and a pig's tooth. Or, Piltdown =
man
which proved that most of the Evolutionist community has no clue what a
modern human skull and a modern ape jaw look like! =20
Of course both were also exposed by the same "clueless evolutionists". =
It is interesting how Cummins somehow has forgotten these details.
Cummins: Evolutionists are funny creatures. A researcher could dig up a =
thousand
fossils, 999 of them would document the static nature of the fossil =
record,
and one fragment in such ondition that it can't be recognized and the
Evolutionist will jump up and down "HA, you can't recognize it because =
it's
transitional, Evolution must be true.
Nice strawman argument Cummins. Is this because you are afraid or unable =
to address what evolutionists really do. Are you that afraid? I'm truely =
sorry.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 12:35:02 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: invention of writing vs. tools (was: Evolution's Imperative)
Even in ancient Africa, there is history -- if only in numerous carvings =
and
rock paintings, but not writing. And, it is because of their culture, =
not
their intelligence, that they didn't have writing. Are you suggesting =
that
no regional or local population of people (fully as intelligent as we =
are)
had a culture that would permit writing for over a 100,000 years? Then =
one
day, all the planets aligned and thus diverse (although, not all) groups =
of
people starting writing?
Nope, writing probably started in a few limited areas and spread as the =
languages spread as well. I suggest you do some research into =
linguistics. You'd be surprised what a few facts can do for one's =
argument.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 12:37:00 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: invention of writing vs. tools (was: Evolution's Imperative)
>That's pretty close to what I believe, with the caveat that *learning* to
>write and create art does not take nearly as much intelligence as *inventing*
>them. What precisely is wrong with this view? Why would anyone think
>that every human activity requires the same amount of intelligence as every
>other human activity?
Susan: and don't forget that there are modern human cultures, the members of
which
are fully as intelligent as we are, that to this day have never invented
writing.
Indeed, the ideas of Cummin that somehow cultures strive towards a writen
language is plain silly.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 14:12:11 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Evolution's Imperative (was Def'n of Science)
>
>(b) It actively attacks the foundations of the Judaeo-Christian
>scriptures - its proponents behaving with evangelistic zeal in this
>regard.
>
Kevin: The Bible only claims to be inspired by God, not created by Him. =
The
universe is God's creation; Christ is His Word. The Bible was written =
by
men under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but these men were not human =
word
processors, writing under a compulsion they could not control. God in =
turn
gave the Bible the breath of life just as He did mankind, but the Bible =
is
not a fourth member of the Trinity. The Bible is meant to inspire and
instruct us, but it is the Holy Spirit that has the authority to save or
condemn us.
Indeed, and if God is showing us through his Creation how he achieved =
it, then why should we be denying his evidence ?
Similarly, since Christ is God's Word and not the Bible, the veracity of =
the
literal word of Genesis has no influence on the legitimacy of Christ's
ministry.
>
>(c) Its 'fruit' is invariably bad - something which can't be said of =
any
>other scientific theory.
>
Kevin: New comments: On the contrary, the germ theory of disease has =
led to
biological weapons, chemistry has led to gunpowder and other explosives =
plus
chamical weapons, nuclear physics has led to atomic and thermonuclear
weapons, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Evolution has allowed us to
produce new breeds of domestic animals and plants, it explains how =
bacteria
become resistent to antibiotics and why in the absence of antibiotics =
they
do not revert back to a non-resistent state, and it is leading to the
development of unique new protein-based therapeutics. I am surprised at =
how
naive you are about this.
Especially since Vernon abuses these false premises to conclude what an =
unbiased mind should conclude. But if the premises are false then how =
can the conclusion be unbiased ?
>
>(d) Its validation is based purely on the interpretation of historical
>data - for which a 'common designer' explanation is equally valid. =
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 14:08:24 -0800
From: Pim van Meurs <entheta@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: Evolution's Imperative (was Def'n of Science)
Vernon: It occurs to me that our exchanges to date need to be placed in =
a
broader context. You may remember that in an earlier response to Kevin I
suggested that evolution (as defined there) was something unique to the
world of science. For example,
(a) It provides an essential basis for all atheistic philosophies. [as
far as I'm aware, no other theory claiming to be 'scientific' intrudes
thus into the area of 'belief'.
I would like to see an explanation why evolution "provides an essential =
basis for all atheistic philosophies". And I would also like to see how =
evolution introdes into the area of belief (other than in some creation =
"science" approaches which deny evolution based upon their =
interpretation of faith.)
(b) It actively attacks the foundations of the Judaeo-Christian
scriptures - its proponents behaving with evangelistic zeal in this
regard.
Once again that requires some additional data especially since there are =
many people who are Christian and accept evolution. Nor does evolution =
"actively" attack scriptures.
(c) Its 'fruit' is invariably bad - something which can't be said of any
other scientific theory.
Once again that is an erroneous assertion.
(d) Its validation is based purely on the interpretation of historical
data - for which a 'common designer' explanation is equally valid. There
is no concrete evidence that proves the alleged process to be ongoing
or, indeed, that it has ever occurred.
A common designer explanation is only valid because it has no =
explanatory or predictive power. Therefor it has no real use. But =
evolution is not based on historical data alone, on the contrary.
Vernon: Faced with these considerations, the unbiased mind would surely =
infer
that this must be some unsavoury religious doctrine, fiercely opposed to
the gospel of Christ.=20
But it was not an unbiased mind who came up with these considerations, =
therefor your conclusion is based on false premises.
Verno: I believe this to be the truth of the matter, and something that =
defies a naturalistic explanation. The answer is to be found not in the =
laboratory, but in the Bible. Accordingly, I believe
'evolution' and 'evolutionism' to be one and the same.
Your belief, however erroneous, has little relevance if you are =
interested in an unbiased assessment.
Vernon: I am obliged to you for the examples of theories which might be =
amended
to make them unfalsifiable. However, as I have shown above, there is
more to evolution than immediately meets the eye; it is a special case,
and needs to be treated accordingly.
I am glad that you realize that there is more to evolution than meets =
your eye. Why are you then not searching for that which you do not =
understand ?
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1366
********************************