Evidence of Homo Sapiens on earth

[DavidFirth]

How is it different"? Sanzbir answered Ted's questions about early humans, and your response was that he can't accurately answer those questions because he wasn't there. How is that any different than a jury deciding that since none of them were there when a crime was committed, they can't accurately reach a verdict?

This is what Sanzir said that I had replied to:

↑
Simply put, before people figured out agriculture there simply wasn't enough time to do much thinking or inventing. People were too busy struggling to get food.

Compare to how RAPIDLY technology began advancing after the recent agricultural revolution, to how slower (comparatively) human progress was before that point.

Basically the more technology progresses, the less time we have to spend gathering resources, which gives us more and more time to progress technology, which gives us more technological progress, which frees up more time, etc. etc.

Then I said:

Not bad guesses. But you weren't there so the truth is that you cannot accurately answer the question.



Sanzir was simply guessing. He couldn't have known any of that as fact unless he was there and saw it for himself. I didn't see any links or stats or anything, just several guesses.

Scientists do this all the time. Sometimes they throw in some stats and numbers but they speak like Sanzir did, as if it were fact like they had seen it for themselves.

They haven't. It isn't fact. At all.

 

[Jose Fly]

Sanzir was simply guessing. He couldn't have known any of that as fact unless he was there and saw it for himself.

How is that different than a jury not being able to reach an accurate verdict if they didn't see the crime for themselves?

 

[DavidFirth]

How is that different than a jury not being able to reach an accurate verdict if they didn't see the crime for themselves?

Well, you're trying to compare two different things. Juries don't normally say things that supposedly happened millions of years ago and make statements about it as if they were there watching it happen.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, you're trying to compare two different things. Juries don't normally say things that supposedly happened millions of years ago and make statements about it as if they were there watching it happen.

I don't recall Sanzbir saying anything like "I know this because I was there". Where did he do that?

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, you're trying to compare two different things. Juries don't normally say things that supposedly happened millions of years ago and make statements about it as if they were there watching it happen.

Actually, if we can both agree that "not being there" does not preclude us from reaching accurate conclusions about something, I'm satisfied.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

There are claims of humans being on earth for as long as 2 – 7 million years. The oldest known man-made structures seem to be in the 4k to 8k range. How did humans manage to survive for millions of years without leaving any evidence of their intelligent existence? Does it not seem ironic that Judeo-Christian Scriptures seem to set a date of 10k years or less and that seems to be the oldest record of intelligent human activity?


Is there anything constructed by Homo sapiens that approaches the complexity of the great pyramids which some date at approximately 2k BC? Is there any documented proof that it required millions of years for Homo sapiens to develop enough intelligence to build structures such as the great pyramids? Notice this is not a request for what may have been, or what is believed to be, or what could have happened, only what can be documented.

Edited to bold part of this to bring attention, obviously, many do not bother to read or, perhaps they just prefer to ignore. BTW, for you "authorities", your word, in my view, is nothing more than your opinions.

Yes, there is plenty of evidence. No offense intended, but the fact of the matter is that if you had paid attention in your high school science courses, you would not need to be asking these questions. There are many ways that we have confirmed the age of the universe, age of the earth, as well as the fact of evolution. I recommend you study up on these concepts before asking your questions on ReligiousForums.com that have already been answered thoroughly by thousands of well-qualified scientists who have dedicated their lives to painstaking work and research to confirm these facts.

 

[Polymath257]

Simply put, before people figured out agriculture there simply wasn't enough time to do much thinking or inventing. People were too busy struggling to get food.

This is one of those things that *sounds* likely, but actual evidence for this is tricky. For example, studies of the time required in hunter-gatherer societies to find and process food suggests that they spend *less* time than a typical person in a modern society. Now, this depends heavily on the type of food resources around. For example, in areas with large amounts of native grains or a high density of large animals, the time spent in food gathering might be quite small. But it seems that the time aspect isn't quite as significant as the social aspect of having specialization of activities and a large enough society to provide positive feedback loops on initiative.

Compare to how RAPIDLY technology began advancing after the recent agricultural revolution, to how slower (comparatively) human progress was before that point.
.

And how much of that acceleration was due to time aspects as opposed to, say, having a larger society that allowed for each person to specialize in those areas where they had aptitude?

Just a thought.

 

[DavidFirth]

I don't recall Sanzbir saying anything like "I know this because I was there". Where did he do that?

The only way he could possibly know the things he said is if he were there and he saw it happen.

He should have led with:

We think that...
Scientists think that...

Instead of saying it like that, he spoke about it like it actually happened. And the only way he could know it actually happened that way is if he had seen it happen.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, you're trying to compare two different things. Juries don't normally say things that supposedly happened millions of years ago and make statements about it as if they were there watching it happen.

And how different is it to look at the same type of evidence, only from 20,000 years ago, to reach conclusions?

 

[Polymath257]

The only way he could possibly know the things he said is if he were there and he saw it happen.

He should have led with:

We think that...
Scientists think that...

Instead of saying it like that, he spoke about it like it actually happened. And the only way he could know it actually happened that way is if he had seen it happen.

How about: the evidence shows that.....

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes, there is plenty of evidence. No offense intended, but the fact of the matter is that if you had paid attention in your high school science courses, you would not need to be asking these questions. There are many ways that we have confirmed the age of the universe, age of the earth, as well as the fact of evolution. I recommend you study up on these concepts before asking your questions on ReligiousForums.com that have already been answered thoroughly by thousands of well-qualified scientists who have dedicated their lives to painstaking work and research to confirm these facts.

You can't assume that Christian creationists like Ted are asking their questions because they're interested in the answers. Ted's threads are transparent (and weak) attempts to utilize the God of the Gaps fallacy to then draw a false equivalency between scientific explanations and his religious beliefs.

The funny thing is, he wouldn't do all that if he was secure in his beliefs.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

You can't assume that Christian creationists like Ted are asking their questions because they're interested in the answers. Ted's threads are transparent (and weak) attempts to utilize the God of the Gaps fallacy then draw a false equivalency between scientific explanations and his religious beliefs.

The funny thing is, he wouldn't do all that if he was secure in his beliefs.

Believe me, I know he's not interested in the answers. If he were, he would not be a creationist at all.

 

[Jose Fly]

The only way he could possibly know the things he said is if he were there and he saw it happen.

He should have led with:

We think that...
Scientists think that...

Instead of saying it like that, he spoke about it like it actually happened. And the only way he could know it actually happened that way is if he had seen it happen.

So basically you're saying no one can know anything about events, unless they were actually there.

 

[McBell]

Hmm, that sounds like eyewitness testimony. How old are you?

I have always been fascinated by creationists who bring up "eye witness" testimony......

 

[Jose Fly]

Believe me, I know he's not interested in the answers. If he were, he would not be a creationist at all.

BINGO!!!

 

[DavidFirth]

I have always been fascinated by creationists who bring up "eye witness" testimony......

Yeah, millions of years kind of means you can't do that so I understand where you're coming from. You have zero eyewitness testimony for macroevolution. Well, you've got your Ph.D.'s and all of their writings so I guess you shouldn't concern yourself about who actually saw what.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Yeah, millions of years kind of means you can't do that so I understand where you're coming from. You have zero eyewitness testimony for macroevolution. Well, you've got your Ph.D.'s and all of their writings so I guess you shouldn't concern yourself about who actually saw what.

So what? Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable anyway, much more unreliable than the scientific method.

 

[DavidFirth]

So what? Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable anyway, much more unreliable than the scientific method.

Yeah, we don't need any eyewitnesses at all since we have all of this technology.

Might as well rewrite all of the investigation books, we can simply throw all eyewitness testimony out since it is all so unreliable.

 

[sayak83]

The truth is, as Ted has shown you, is that scientists aren't sure and do not agree on the dates. You've done some cherry picking just as Ted has also shown you.

No he has not shown anything of the kind whatsoever. I would like you to demonstrate your claim.

 

[sayak83]

Hold on. Are we talking taxonomic speciation (as in cannot interbreed) or are we talking subspecies (for example, geographically isolated races)? There is some Neanderthal genetic material in people living today even though interbreeding with them is not thought to have occurred at an appreciable level... Does this fall under the part scientists do not "agree" about?

It could be a problem if every new skeleton discovered becomes it's own species.

A species designation is given to animal or plant population that are sufficiently behaviorally and anatomically distinct OR reproductively isolated. In the wild 10% of all species are observed to hybridize with other species creating fertile offspring. Thus absolute reproductive isolation is not necessary to call two populations as different species.

Hybrids May Thrive Where Parent Species Fear to Tread

Waterfowl Hybrids