Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 157 (8161 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-24-2014 7:06 AM
67 online now:
AZPaul3, Colbard, dwise1, NoNukes, Percy (Admin), Theodoric (6 members, 61 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: NAME OF THE ROSE
Post Volume:
Total: 741,761 Year: 27,602/28,606 Month: 2,659/2,244 Week: 63/710 Day: 6/57 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45678
9
Author Topic:   Glenn Morton hypothesis: The Flood could ONLY have happened 5 million+ years ago
petrophysics1
Member
Posts: 277
From: Boulder, Wy
Joined: 04-05-2006


Message 121 of 130 (392863)
04-02-2007 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by grmorton
04-02-2007 7:22 AM


It would appear the Mediterranean basin didn't flood all at once.
Glen,

I wonder if you have seen this.

http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2007/02325/EGU2007-J-02325.pdf?PHPSESSID=e...

“In the Mediterranean region, the early Pliocene marks the restoration of open marine
conditions after the severe and prolonged Messinian salinity crisis. Recently, using
well-known variations in the relative abundance of Globigerinoides spp. and the succession
of early Pliocene bio-events recorded in several land sections in northern Italy,
it was possible to establish a new stratigraphic framework for the late Miocene - early
Pliocene. The obtained stratigraphy indicates that the re-establishment of marine conditions
after the Messinian crisis was not synchronous over the Mediterranean basin
and that the Lago-Mare environment continued to persist in some areas during the
earliest Pliocene.”

“Based on these events, it was possible to identify 2 different flooding stages in the
early Pliocene history of the Mediterranean region: during the first stage (5.33 to 5.15
Ma), right after a global sea level rise (TG5, 5.33 Ma), open marine conditions were
re-established in the deepest areas of the basin but not all locations were reached
by marine waters”

This might create some problems for your theory. BTW what was your filing of this basin in only one year based on?

Also I don't get this having to make the bible historically accurate. It has zip effect on a moral or spiritual point being made. Do you believe only factual accounts can be divinely inspired.
What about JC's parables? Is the table of contents inspired? The guys who picked the books to include all believed in transubstantiation. Do you? If not, how do you figure they got that so wrong, but got the books right.(other than the 5 pitched by protestants)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by grmorton, posted 04-02-2007 7:22 AM grmorton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by grmorton, posted 04-02-2007 8:44 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

    
grmorton
Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 44
From: Houston, TX USA
Joined: 03-25-2007


Message 122 of 130 (392902)
04-02-2007 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by petrophysics1
04-02-2007 6:31 PM


Re: It would appear the Mediterranean basin didn't flood all at once.
This might create some problems for your theory. BTW what was your filing of this basin in only one year based on?

No, I hadn't seen this, but I thank you for it. As to problems, I don't see them because of the way I have always envisioned the collapse. I expect that there was a waterfall in the Gibraltar end of the Med, and like the one at Niagara, it would eat its way back under the lip, eroding the falls from beneath. YOu can see this diagramatically at http://www.niagaraparks.com/images2/geology_map.gif

The initial waterfall would have been eroding into the lip and when the dam finally got thin enough, the deep collapse occurred. But the ocean water, which was flowing into the deep basin, would have been collected in the deeper parts of the western Med--i.e. the Tyrrhennian sea ODP site. The article says:

Based on these events, it was possible to identify 2 different flooding stages in the early Pliocene history of the Mediterranean region: during the first stage (5.33 to 5.15 Ma), right after a global sea level rise (TG5, 5.33 Ma), open marine conditions were re-established in the deepest areas of the basin but not all locations were reached by marine waters (i.e., sections in northern Italy). Stable oxygen isotopes indicate a trend towards warmer surface waters. The second stage, which is marked by a major flooding (T7 - T5, 5.15 - 5.1 Ma) and by the appearance of deep Atlantic benthic foraminifers, possibly represents the initiation of the 2-way communication between the Mediterranean basin and the Atlantic Ocean through the strait of Gibraltar, 230,000 years after the initial flooding at the Miocene/Pliocene boundary. As suggested by the oxygen and carbon isotope records, events of strong stratification of the water column became more frequent during this second stage.

Now, having open marine conditions is not the same as having deep marine conditions, nor is it the same as having the entire Mediterranean basin full, or even approaching full. Only in the second filling, did the deep benthonics appear,and that means that the dam collapsed to a very deep level to allow these animals to come into the Med. This second event is the one which catastrophically filled up the basin.

Also I don't get this having to make the bible historically accurate. It has zip effect on a moral or spiritual point being made.

It has everything to do with the moral and spiritual points. Why are you not a scientologist or a Raelian? I would suggest it is because you beleive the stories they tell their followers are false. And thus, the morality they advocate, based upon these false stories, is not something you feel compelled to obey. William James says it well in his essay on The Will to Believe.

“Let us give the name of hypothesis to anything that may be proposed to our belief; and just as the electricians speak of live and dead wires, let us speak of any hypothesis as either live or dead. A live hypothesis is one which appeals as a real possibility to him to whom it is proposed. If I ask you to believe in the Mahdi, the notion makes no electric connection with your nature-it refuses to scintillate with any credibility at all. As a hypothesis it is completely dead. To an Arab, however (even if he be not one of the Mahdi's followers), the hypothesis is among the mind's possibilities: it is alive. This shows that deadness and liveness in a hypothesis are not intrinsic properties, but relations to the individual thinker. They are measured by his willingness to act. The maximum of liveness in a hypothesis means willingness to act irrevocably. Practically that means belief; but there is some believing tendency wherever there is willingness to act at all.” William James, “The Will To Believe,” in Robert M. Hutchins, Mortimer J. Adler, and Clifton Fadiman, eds., Gateway to the Great Books, Vol. 10, (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1963), p. 40

So, when it comes to the Bible, teaching us morality, it matters whether or not what it teaches is true. We can not test the morality for truth or falsity, but we can test the observational statements the Bible makes.

Do you believe only factual accounts can be divinely inspired.

Do you believe it is good policy to believe that the morality found in utterly false stories is something that should be followed? I bet if one counted the religions with false stories, and mutually incompatible morality, we would find it hard to tell what morality should be followed.

What about JC's parables? Is the table of contents inspired? The guys who picked the books to include all believed in transubstantiation. Do you? If not, how do you figure they got that so wrong, but got the books right.(other than the 5 pitched by protestants)

Well, we aren't talking about those books, we are talking about Genesis, and Genesis has some propositional statements which are either true or false.

Tell me, is it true or false when the Bible says "In beginning, God created the heavens and the earth?"

Is that a parable; something that isn't true?

If it is, why do we worship the God who is NOT the creator of this universe? Wouldn't it be better to find the real creator and worship him/her/or that?

If Jehovah isn't the real creator, why would we listen to his morality? His theology? [please answer this question, most people I ask this of refuse to answer it]

I would also point out that the only way to know that Jehovah IS the creator is that he tells those whom he inspires the truth about how creation happened. Without that, there is no way to know if Jehovah is the creator or not.

You might think that is a good thing to trust the morality and theology of the non-creator, but I don't. I would think it really dumb.

So, is "In beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" a true or false statement? [please answer this question, most people I ask this of refuse to answer it]

Edited by grmorton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by petrophysics1, posted 04-02-2007 6:31 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 04-02-2007 9:02 PM grmorton has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 24946
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 123 of 130 (392911)
04-02-2007 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by grmorton
04-02-2007 8:44 PM


Re: It would appear the Mediterranean basin didn't flood all at once.
So, is "In beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth" a true or false statement? [please answer this question, most people I ask this of refuse to answer it]

Is it that they refuse to answer it or simply cannot answer it?

For example, while I believe that GOD created the heavens and the earth, I also must in all honesty admit that I might be wrong.

If Jehovah isn't the real creator, why would we listen to his morality?

Well, Jehovah is NOT GOD but rather a sum of the characterizations of the Gods that are found in the Bible. Jehovah is a human construct, an attempt at representing the reality in terms that a human can relate to. We listen to the morality of the lessons if when tested against reality, they work.

Do you believe it is good policy to believe that the morality found in utterly false stories is something that should be followed?

Absolutely.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by grmorton, posted 04-02-2007 8:44 PM grmorton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by grmorton, posted 04-02-2007 10:08 PM jar has responded

  
grmorton
Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 44
From: Houston, TX USA
Joined: 03-25-2007


Message 124 of 130 (392931)
04-02-2007 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by jar
04-02-2007 9:02 PM


Re: It would appear the Mediterranean basin didn't flood all at once.
Is it that they refuse to answer it or simply cannot answer it?

For example, while I believe that GOD created the heavens and the earth, I also must in all honesty admit that I might be wrong.

What you gave is an answer. To which, I would ask, upon what basis do you beleive such, mere fideism, or is there some rational basis for your belief?

I would illustrate this by my favorite religion. If I say Oogaboogah created the world, and you say Jehovah created the world how would you go about determining the truth of which God created. Oogaboohah, I will tell you is a greedy god who wants you to send all your money to his high priest--me. In return he will give you a blessing. Jehovah, of course has different traits.

So, how do you go about testing competing claims by competing gods?

Well, Jehovah is NOT GOD but rather a sum of the characterizations of the Gods that are found in the Bible. Jehovah is a human construct, an attempt at representing the reality in terms that a human can relate to. We listen to the morality of the lessons if when tested against reality, they work.

And you made this concept up, exactly when?

At least you answered the question about if it is good policy to believe the morality found in utterly false stories. I can't take your theology very seriously after you answered in the affirmative, because, to answer that in the afirmative, displays immense gullibility to any falsehood at all.


The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm
This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 04-02-2007 9:02 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 04-02-2007 10:32 PM grmorton has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 24946
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 125 of 130 (392939)
04-02-2007 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by grmorton
04-02-2007 10:08 PM


Re: It would appear the Mediterranean basin didn't flood all at once.
So, how do you go about testing competing claims by competing gods?

Well any Gods are just a human construct, an attempt to represent something that really can't be represented in terms that humans so far can understand. You test such claims through reason, evidence and logic.

And you made this concept up, exactly when?

Again, I cannot claim that it is something I made up, but rather the sum of many discussions with many people over many years. I'd say it became pretty much fully developed during sacred studies classes back in the late 50s.

At least you answered the question about if it is good policy to believe the morality found in utterly false stories. I can't take your theology very seriously after you answered in the affirmative, because, to answer that in the afirmative, displays immense gullibility to any falsehood at all.

How so? If I read the story of the Pied Piper, can I not learn a moral lesson from it even though it is totally false and made up?

When Jesus spoke about getting his ass in a crack on the sabbath, is the lesson lessened if it did not really happen?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by grmorton, posted 04-02-2007 10:08 PM grmorton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by grmorton, posted 04-03-2007 6:55 AM jar has responded

  
grmorton
Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 44
From: Houston, TX USA
Joined: 03-25-2007


Message 126 of 130 (393004)
04-03-2007 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by jar
04-02-2007 10:32 PM


Re: It would appear the Mediterranean basin didn't flood all at once.
Jar wrote:

Well any Gods are just a human construct, an attempt to represent something that really can't be represented in terms that humans so far can understand. You test such claims through reason, evidence and logic.

If that is the case, then religion is not real and not worth even claiming to be a Christian, Buddhist, Taoist etc.

As to testing this, exactly what experiment can one possibly advance to prove that god is just a human construct? Logically speaking, that is certainly a possibility and may be correct, but evidence???? I can think of none.

Again, I cannot claim that it is something I made up, but rather the sum of many discussions with many people over many years. I'd say it became pretty much fully developed during sacred studies classes back in the late 50s.

When an idea is 'fully developed' one can usually shower arguments and evidence to support the concept. Short, non-explanatory posts do not, in my mind, constitute 'fully developed'.

How so? If I read the story of the Pied Piper, can I not learn a moral lesson from it even though it is totally false and made up?

Well, one can draw all sorts of morality from made up fables. Here is one that tells us to drown liars--courtesy of Aesop.

A SAILOR, bound on a long voyage, took with him a Monkey to amuse
him while on shipboard. As he sailed off the coast of Greece, a
violent tempest arose in which the ship was wrecked and he, his
Monkey, and all the crew were obliged to swim for their lives. A
Dolphin saw the Monkey contending with the waves, and supposing
him to be a man (whom he is always said to befriend), came and
placed himself under him, to convey him on his back in safety to
the shore. When the Dolphin arrived with his burden in sight of
land not far from Athens, he asked the Monkey if he were an
Athenian. The latter replied that he was, and that he was
descended from one of the most noble families in that city. The
Dolphin then inquired if he knew the Piraeus (the famous harbor
of Athens). Supposing that a man was meant, the Monkey answered
that he knew him very well and that he was an intimate friend.
The Dolphin, indignant at these falsehoods, dipped the Monkey
under the water and drowned him. http://www.greektexts.com/library/Aesop/Aesop's_Fables/eng/42.html

So, should we go around and drown liars? This made up story says we should.

When Jesus spoke about getting his ass in a crack on the sabbath, is the lesson lessened if it did not really happen?

You must use a different translation than I. I don't recall 'ass in a crack' in my Bible. Can you point me to where that phrase shows up?

Given that this discussion is wandering a bit far from evidence for a flood, I will let you have the last word on this topic and maybe we can go back to geology and how to interpret the creation/flood stories.


The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm
This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 04-02-2007 10:32 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by jar, posted 04-03-2007 10:29 AM grmorton has not yet responded
 Message 128 by grmorton, posted 04-04-2007 7:30 PM grmorton has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 24946
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 127 of 130 (393036)
04-03-2007 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by grmorton
04-03-2007 6:55 AM


Re: It would appear the Mediterranean basin didn't flood all at once.
If that is the case, then religion is not real and not worth even claiming to be a Christian, Buddhist, Taoist etc.

Of course religions are real, just as a Map is real. But Religions and the Gods found in those religions are just the Map, not the Territory. The Christian God is not GOD, but rather only a flawed representation created by man of the Reality.

As to testing this, exactly what experiment can one possibly advance to prove that god is just a human construct? Logically speaking, that is certainly a possibility and may be correct, but evidence???? I can think of none.

I said Gods, not GOD. Frankly Glenn, all that humans can know are human constructs. The Gods that are in the Bible are not GOD, but just human created cartoons.

When an idea is 'fully developed' one can usually shower arguments and evidence to support the concept. Short, non-explanatory posts do not, in my mind, constitute 'fully developed'.

Okay. Your problem. Not mine.

And on your Aesop Tale. Of course we should earn from the story, and learn morality. Unfortunately you show that just as with the Bible and with Christianity, you failed to understand and instead grabbed the worst possible interpretation.

I'm glad that you brought it up though because it is a great example of how morality lessons can be misused.

The lesson that should be learned from the story is that lying carries consequences and that one should tell the truth.

Thanks for including it.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by grmorton, posted 04-03-2007 6:55 AM grmorton has not yet responded

  
grmorton
Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 44
From: Houston, TX USA
Joined: 03-25-2007


Message 128 of 130 (393388)
04-04-2007 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by grmorton
04-03-2007 6:55 AM


The Technology Problem
I am going to present another reason that the anthropologically universal flood must be much earlier than people have heretofore claimed. This is a technological reason. People think humans are highly inventive—we aren’t. Ask yourself this, how many inventions have you submitted to the patent office? Most will say none. Now, one thing people dealing with an anthropologically universal flood implicitly assume is that civilization would arise almost immediately.

Technology requires people, lots of people. I find oil for your cars, you all do other things indirectly for me. I specialize in my technology, you in yours. The farmer grows food for both of us. If we were reduced to only a few people then our technological knowledge would die. Consider the effects of such a population bottleneck. It would take a long, long time before their children re-invented the technology. What would ensue is a long dark age. And what my view would say about the past is that it was the re-development of technology.

The Tasmanians provide a wonderful example of how badly small populations are at maintaining technology. The Tasmanian aborigines were cut off from the Australian aborigines when the sea levels rose 8,000 years ago. They numbered 4,000 people with several different languages and over time, even with 4000 people they were not able to maintain their technology. 7000 years ago they made bone and stone tools and were not different from the mainland aborigines, but about 3500 years ago, they ceased making bone tools. And in spite of excellent fishing around the island, they lost the ability to fish. Their huts were reduced to about what Neanderthals built. They apparently lost the ability to make boats and when they re-invented the boat several thousand years later, they were so poor that they couldn't last more than about 8 hours in the water before sinking.
( see Josephine Flood, "The Archeology of the Dreamtime, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 173-187)

The Tasmanians lost the ability or knowledge of using bone to manufacture tools. They used to have this knowledge but over time it disappeared.

"Bone tools were also present at Rocky cape. Seven thousand
years ago people here were using a considerable number and
variety of bone artefacts: large, rounded tipped points or awls
made from macropod shin bones, small, sharp needle-like points
(without an eye), broad spatulae, and an assortment of split
slivers of bone fashioned ot a point at one end. The people
were using one bone tool to every two or three stone ones.
""A remarkable change took place over the next four thousand
years: bone tools dropped out of use. By 4000 years ago only one
bone tool was being used for every fifteen stone ones, and by
3500 years ago they had disappeared from the Tasmanian toolkit
altogether. This disappearance of bone tools in Tasmania about
3000 years ago has been confirmed by the evidence of several
other sites in both the north-west and east of the island."" ~
Josephine Flood, ""The Archeology of the Dreamtime, (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1989), p. 176-177

And with fish all around them, they lost the knowledge and ability to fish.

"Even more surprising is the incontrovertible evidence that
after eating fish for many thousands of years the Tasmanians
dropped fish from the diet about 3500 years ago. Early explorers
were amazed that the Tasmanians did not eat scale fish and did
not even seem to regard it as human food. Those who could bring
themselves to believe this astonishing fact ascribed it to the
extreme primitiveness of Tasmanian culture. Certainly the
Tasmanians had no nets or fish-hooks, so it seemd logical to some
scholars, steeped in Darwinian evolutionary theory, that these
most primitive representatives of the human race should be unable
even to catch fish, one of the basic foods of mankind.
"This concept of a people too far down on the evolutionary
ladder to have learnt how to catch fish was not seriously
challenged until fish bones were found in the middens of Rocky
Cape. Yet fish bones were not at the top, but at the base, of
the middens. The Tasmanians had once eaten fish but later gave
up this excellent source of food.”

"In rocky Cape South Cave there were 3196 fish bones in the
lower half of the midden, dated to between 3800 and 8000 years
ago, and only one fish bone in the younger, upper half."" ~
Josephine Flood, ""The Archeology of the Dreamtime, (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1989), p. 179

"No other surviving human society has ever been isolated so
long or so completely as were Tasmanian Aborigines over the last
8000 years. (the land bridge was gradually inundated between
12000 and 8000 BP-....)"~ Josephine Flood, ""The Archeology of
the Dreamtime, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 173

"That the simplest material culture should be found among
the people who experienced the longest isolation in the world is
significant. Rhys Jones sees analogies with the reduction in the
number of faunal species on islands that become separated from
their parent continents. He considers the 4000 people isolated
on Tasmania and divided into several different language groups
were too few to maintain indefinitely their Pleistocene culture,
and that they were therefore, doomed--'doomed to a slow
strangulation of the mind.'

"Certainly the evidence for the religious life of the
Tasmanians is very limited, which may indicate a limited
religious life. Compared with the richness of religious life on
the mainland, it was apparently largely confined to burial
ceremonies and dances depicting mythical and historical themes.
But by the time George Augustus Robinson made his record of
Aboriginal life, the population had been decimated and large
ceremonial gatherings would hardly have been possible." ~
Josephine Flood, ""The Archeology of the Dreamtime, (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1989), p. 185

"Bill McGrew, author of the most comprehensive study of
chimpanzee material culture, firmly believes that chimpanzee tool
use is of considerable complexity. Indeed, in an (in)famous
article written in 1987, he directly compared the toolkits of
chimpanzees to those of Tasmanian Aborigines and concluded that
they were at an equivalent level of complexity. For this
comparison McGrew chose to measure complexity by counting
'technounits', which is simply an individual component of a tool,
whatever material that component is made from and however it is
used. So a hoe used by, say, a peasant farmer, comprising a
shaft, a blade and a binding, has three technounits, while the
suite of computerized robots operated by a modern car worker has
perhaps three million technounits.

"When McGrew measured the technounits in the tools of the
Tasmanian Aborigines and those of the Tanzanian chimpanzees he
found that the mean number of technounits per tool was not
substantially different. All chimpanzee tools and most of the
Aboriginal tools were made from a single component. The most
complex Aboriginal tool, a baited hide, had only four
technounits."" ~ Steven Mithen, The Prehistory of the Mind, (New
York: Thames and Hudson, 1996), p. 75

This is from McGrew's article (A is an artifact, N is a natural object):


Subsistants of the Tasmanian Aborigines
Category Form Artifact/ Use Technounits
Naturfact

Instrument
simple stone N chop down Notch Bruise tree 1

chisel A Dislodge shellfish 1
stick N Dig up prey 1

Weapon
simple stone N Throw to knock down prey 1
Stick A Throw to knock down prey 1
Spear A Stab Prey 1

Facility

simple torch A Drive or smoke out prey 1
rope A Climb tree to prey 1

Grass tied A Trip up kangaroo 1
Basket A Carry Shell fish 1

Blind (wood+branches) A Conceal hunter 2
Blind baited A Conceal bird catcher 4
(pole + grass+ bait + stone)

Spears sunken A Stab prey on trail 1

W.C. McGrew, ""Tools to Get Food: the Subsistants of Tasmanian
Aborigines and Tanzanian Chimpanzees Compared,"" Journal of
Anthropological Research, 43(1987):3:247-258, p. 253

I ascribe the lack of Tasmanian material culture to the total isolation they had from the rest of the human race for 8000 years. There was no intellectual stimulation among the 4000 people, or at least not enough to matter which is why they lost there technological edge. Descendants of these people can become
nuclear scientists, but they have had the advantage of much intellectual stimulation in their formative years. Tells you that we are as we are because our environment as children challenged us. Even today, children sadly isolated by their abusive parents who are raised in basements etc, are intellectually stunted when they are freed.

Now, when it comes to the flood, if you and 7 of your best friends are isolated, ask yourself how quickly you could rebuild todays society, or even a 14th century society. Do you or 8 of your best friends know how to grow cotton, build a spindle and a loom to make cloth? You need a plow to grow cotton, so lets make an
iron plow. Do you know what iron ore looks like? Do you know where to
look? Do you know where to look for coal? Do you know how to mine it?
With dynamite? Ok, do you know how to make dynamite? Can you build a
wagon and haul it? If you can't make dynamite build wagons, tame
horses, and haul the stuff, to where the coal is (or vice versa) how do you make anything with iron? Assuming that you can do this, can you make iron? Do you know how to construct a kiln? Do you know what you need for iron manufacture besides coal, ore and a kiln? There is a very important item I have left out. If you don’t know what it is, you won’t be able to smelt iron. If you can't make iron, you can't make an iron plow and then can’t grow cotton for your clothing. So, without cotton, do you know what other plant material makes great clothing which can keep you warm? (I do).

So you want to make a wooden plow. Fine. How do you cut the tree? Do you know how to make stone tools? And while you are trying to re-
establish an agricultural society, what do you eat TODAY? Who gathers food while you wait on the crop to mature. Do you know how to keep pests from eating your crop before you eat it? A farmer spends most of his time shooing the bugs off his crop. But you need to eat NOW. You can’t wait 3 months to eat. So do you know how to make a bow and arrow? Do you know how to fletch an arrow? Do you even know what fletching is? Do you know how to straighten an arrow shaft? Once you have the arrow, do you know how to aim it? What are you going to use for the bow’s string? How are you going to process that material? Do you know how to stalk prey? Do you know what are the best sounds to use to signal fellow hunters? Do you know how to balance a spear so the point will strike first? Do you know which end of a sapling to use? Do you know what wood makes the best spears and arrows? Do you know how to harden the spear’s tip? If you kill an animal, do you know what parts of what animals you dare not eat? I know of one part of a carnivore you better not eat.

And while you are off hunting, who keeps the insects and birds from eating your crop. Speaking of which, are you aware that wheat, barley, corn and cotton, as we know these plants, don’t grow wild? One year without a harvest might be the end of them, especially in a post-apocalyptic world. How are you going to protect your cereal (assuming you can grow them) from fungus, moisture spoilage, rats, birds and insects who will gladly thank you for growing dinner for them? What kind of storage system will you devise?

Do you know what vegetables are poisonous? Do you know how to
remove the toxins? Consider this, yams are poisonous unless cooked. Uncooked yams are used by technologically primitive people to kill lice, immobilize monkeys and as an arrow poison—which by the way, did you know that before I told you? There was a sad story of Christopher McCandless who went wandering in the Alaskan wilderness and got lost and ran out of food. He kept a diary of his last days which recorded that he was happily eating the seeds of Hedysarum alpinum otherwise known as the Eskimo potato. What he didn’t know was that those seeds contain an alkyloid which prevents the absorption of glucose into the body. With a full belly, he starved to death. He didn’t know even what plants were safe to eat. And neither would you if you and 8 friends found yourself stranded, the sole survivors of some great apocalypse. Would you know to do the following with SOME plants?

"A special rattan basket was used in the processing of one
of the Dyirbals' staple foods. A very common riverine tree, the
black bean, sheds great numbers of heavy, brown pods containing
walnut-sized poisonous seeds. These were first softened by
lengthy steaming in an earth oven, then, after thorough dicing,
the Dyirbal filled the basket and suspended it in running water
for at least a day and a night to leach the bitter toxins out of
the seeds. The residue provided a tasteless bulk filler or dough
but it had the virtue of being storable. After cooking in ginger
leaves it could be wrapped, buried and eaten up to six month's
later." ~ Jonathan Kingdon, Self-made Man, (New York: John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.,1993), p. 176

How would you know to do this? How long would it take to learn this?

Cycads can kill if not soaked in water for a long time and acorns can make you quite sick also unless you eat them with something—do you know what that something is? There is an alternative way to remove the toxins. Do you know what that is? Do you like almonds? All it takes is to eat six native almonds to commit suicide! Do you know how to start a fire without a match? (you need sticks which have been modified.)

Do you know how to catch fish in a stream without having nets or hooks? Do you know what plants to use to make nets? Do you even know how to tan animal hides, assuming that you can catch one. How are you going to keep warm in the winter?

Say you need to cross a raging, but fordable river. Do you know how to do this without getting washed away? I do, but I have had about 10 years of anthropological study and without that, I wouldn’t know the answers to all the questions I have posed above (if anyone wants an answer to any of these, I will provide it).

Now, given a more primitive preflood society, they could have
maintained a hunting capability but not an agricultural one. What all this points to is that given a society who had only 8 survivors, they would lose all their technical knowledge and could not pass it on to their kids. It would take a long, long time before their children re-invented the technology. What I envision about the 'primitive' time of human evolution is that it is the re-development of technology. To refresh the prime example: the Tasmanians were isolated for 8,000 years from all other humans. They numbered 4,000 people and over time, even with 4000 people they were not able to maintain their technology. 7000 years ago they made bone and stone tools and were not different from the mainland aborigines, but about 3500 years ago, they ceased making bone tools. And in spite of excellent fishing around the island, they lost the ability to fish. Their huts were reduced to about what Neanderthals built. (see Josephine Flood, "The Archeology of the Dreamtime, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 173-178)

If you were among only a few survivors of a catastrophe, you and your
children would be quickly reduced to naked savagery. This is what I
think happened ultimately to Noah's descendants. The flood simply couldn't have happened even a few tens of thousands of years ago.

My point is that assuming the flood occurred 4000 years ago and wiped out all but 8 humans, we would not have the technological society we have today.


The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by grmorton, posted 04-03-2007 6:55 AM grmorton has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by b b, posted 04-05-2007 5:55 PM grmorton has responded

    
b b
Member (Idle past 2629 days)
Posts: 77
From: baton rouge, La, usa
Joined: 09-25-2005


Message 129 of 130 (393542)
04-05-2007 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by grmorton
04-04-2007 7:30 PM


Re: The Technology Problem
I DO agree with the technology/bottleneck concept; but I have to point out that they wouldn't have to start all the way over. Noah lived before the flood and after the flood. He would be able to teach the technologial ways of the old to his sons and their sons. There would be some things lost but they wouldn't start back with "does anybody remember how to make a wheel. Noah, however, wouldn't know how to do everything they did so some info would be lost but the memory about it would not be. I might not know how to make a car but if I had to start life over again I would remeber the concept of a car. I would probably see some version of the car being made before I died.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by grmorton, posted 04-04-2007 7:30 PM grmorton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by grmorton, posted 04-06-2007 2:53 PM b b has not yet responded

  
grmorton
Member (Idle past 2695 days)
Posts: 44
From: Houston, TX USA
Joined: 03-25-2007


Message 130 of 130 (393715)
04-06-2007 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by b b
04-05-2007 5:55 PM


Re: The Technology Problem
I DO agree with the technology/bottleneck concept; but I have to point out that they wouldn't have to start all the way over. Noah lived before the flood and after the flood. He would be able to teach the technologial ways of the old to his sons and their sons. There would be some things lost but they wouldn't start back with "does anybody remember how to make a wheel.

Interestingly, Native Americans didn't have the wheel except on some children's toys in one small area of the New World. I don't beleive that the Tasmanians had wheels either. So, having wheels is not the obvious thing that we moderns think it is.

Noah, however, wouldn't know how to do everything they did so some info would be lost but the memory about it would not be. I might not know how to make a car but if I had to start life over again I would remeber the concept of a car. I would probably see some version of the car being made before I died.

Once again, one must know that the reason societies lose technology is that all societies go through phases where this or that is thought to be bad. In large continents, when a society loses a technology, other groups don't and it is then re-transferred back into the first society. But with small numbers of people if they decide that eating fish is bad, then after a very short while no one knows how to catch fish anymore. Which is one explanation for what happened to the Tasmanians. Diamond says:

"The only interpretation that makes sense to me goes
as follows. All human societies go through fads in which
they temporarily either adopt practices of little use or
else abandon practices of considerable use. For example,
there are several instances of people on Pacific islands
suddenly deciding to taboo and kill off all of their pigs,
even though pigs are their only big edible land mammal!
Eventually, those Pacific islanders realize that pigs are
useful after all, and they import a new breeding stock from
another island." Jared Diamond, "The Evolution of Guns and
Germs," in Evolution: Society, Science and the Universe, ed
by A. C. Fabian, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1998), p. 60


The Pathway Papers http://home.entouch.net/dmd/path.htm
This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by b b, posted 04-05-2007 5:55 PM b b has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
45678
9
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014