Did Homo Erectus build the Tower of Babel?

Was H. erectus human, in your opinion?As a matter of interest, Lucy, when do you think humans first arrived on your continent?And on the topic, do you agree with Kurt Wise that we descended from H. erectus after the Babel dispersal?Wise also thinks that you, dear Lucy, were semi-erect, and that you spread out and speciated along with the other apes after the flood, before going extinct.

NO, an assumed rate, calculated over a long time. We use radio active decay to try simulate randomness, it's not constant, it is extremely difficult to predict. Just like the growth of human population, you don't know who is going to get pregnant next, but observed over time it seems constant.When the rabbit population increases the foxes get fat, get happy, have plenty of time to flirt with other foxes, one thing leads to another and the fox population increases, then they eat all the rabbits. The rabbit population dies out and so do the foxes. Then it all starts again.If the fly population increases the birds get fat, get horny, have more birds, eat more flies, flies die out, birds die out....Remember when that lunatic Mao Zedong had all the sparrows killed because they had eaten the grain that the farmers couldn't protect because they were too busy following orders collecting steel. What followed? A famine because the insects had nothing to eat them so they run a mock.Humans have SELF DETERMINATION we do what we want, and go where we want without constraint, excepting a social one, we are top of the chain.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
Pascal

Actually you can derive the decay rate from quantum mechanics and the probability of an alpha particle (or beta particle) to leave a nucleus.Yes, you cannot predict which one or which atom, just like you can't predict coin tosses, but you can predict overall trends.We can also look at evidence of the decay rate remaining constant, both in the stars (decay curves observed in nova explosions match curves on earth for the elements that are emitting light with the same wavelengths as they do here on earth) AND in uranium halos (alpha decay results in alpha particles having specific energies unique to the isotope that decays and that is related to the decay rate, and the alpha particles form rings around inclusions in crystal that show long age stability - hundreds of millions of years - in decay rates).Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

The decay constant is a statistical constant. There is no credible evidence to the contrary. There is no credible evidence that that rate has changed over time.The RATE Project spent over a million creationist dollars trying to undermine some of the assumptions underlying the conclusion that the earth is old. They failed.But, following the methods of creation "science," they refused to acknowledge that science was right all along.Here are a couple of analyses of their work: Assessing the RATE Project, by Randy IsaacDo the RATE Findings Negate Mainstream Science?, by Greg Moore

By Homo Erectus do you mean what was,”Discovered by Kamoya Kimeu in 1984 at Nariokotome near Lake Turkana in Kenya (Brown et al.1985; Leakey and Lewin, 1992; Walker and Leakey, 1993).”source ?Is it human? A skeleton constructed form a collection of bones selected from a lake over ten years? By Leaky? It's human alright, human creativity. I wasn't there, I'll leave the speculation up to the pseudo-scientists and speculators. Speculators aren't supposed to taken seriously, they're there for entertainment. Extinct! Am I? Oh no!
Semi erect? he would say that. Maths, creation science?      Oh, that's right, you guys have you own method of establishing patterns.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
Pascal

We also have "foxes", creatures that controlled our population in the past, and to an extent, now. Sometimes, half the population of a continent might disappear.Black Death - WikipediaBut on the topic. Do you, as a creationist, agree with Kurt Wise on his interpretation of the hominid fossil record? Did Homo Erectus build the tower of Babel?The article is here.Incidentally, in the article, Wise does not agree with your rapid expansion view of population, and points to the extinction of humans that were not us (H. Sapiens). Here:

quote:

---

The narrow differences among modern humans, in turn, suggest that whole people groups were wiped out after Babel, narrowing the variation within the human population. Was this extinction entirely due to the challenges of survival in an earth still recovering from the Flood? Or could it be that human violence is responsible for some of this extinction? Could greed, national wars, or even overt racism be responsible? At this point no one knows. But at the very least, we can say that neighboring people groups made no apparent effort to aid their fellow man when threatened with extinction.

​

Such cruelty would not be surprising. Scripture tells us that humans at Babel were rebellious against God. They were forced to fill the earth. Rather than caring for God’s animals and their human brothers, human families spreading out from Babel may have even hunted many of them down and driven them to extinction.

---

He's talking about Erectus, Neanderthal, and Floresiensis. He has to account for both the emergence and extinction of the latter two after the Babel event, as his view is that only Erectus exists in the bottleneck of the flood to Babel period.He's trying to explain the fossil record in a young earth scenario. AlphaOmegakid, one of our young-earthers, supports his general view Message 23. What about the rest of you? Is Wise taking Young Earth Creationism in the right direction, or is his only use in life making "evos" laugh.If there's going to be a creationist science and a creationist theory of origins, it's essential that the hominid fossil record is explained by YECs. Wise realises this, to his credit.Did Adam and Eve look like Homo Erectus, or like us? Adam? Did God give Adam and Eve skulls like this?

Ah! I didn't read this before posting above. So, we can count you as disagreeing with Wise, and agreeing with mainstream science that he shouldn't be taken seriously?Is this a divide in creationism? Would you like to debate the point for us with AlphaOmegakid?

Just curious bluegenes, you haven't responded to my reply to your question. Will You?

Message 29It was brief, but I asked you for a timeline. I think that Babel is usually put at about 4000 tears ago, but you should know more about the YEC view than I do.

Are you suggesting that Newton and Leibniz believed that this model could accurately predict human population growth? If so, they were wrong and it can easily be seen.If you want to model human population growth you need a much more complex model that includes variable survival rates, resources and so on. Humans don't continuously and perfectly reproduce, for a lot of recorded history many people that were born did not reproduce, they died before having the opportunity. If we use your model, with your assumptions, we get incorrect answers. That should tell you something is wrong with your models or your variables. Given that, since you attempted to use the model to demonstrate a point, I think your point thus remains unestablished.Using the models of human growth that are more realistic we tend to see long periods of stagnation as the current population tries to overcome the high infant mortality and general lack of resources, medicine and the like. In these models, humans would have no motivation to migrate all the way to China - they had enough to survive on within a few miles of where they were born and deciding to take a long dangerous trip to a place you don't know exists on the hope that it might be better there is just not common practice.More likely than not, humans moved rarely and gradually as local resources became too thin for even a small village to realistically exist. That this would happen happen often enough within a 1,000 years to reach China is highly unbelievable. Then, and only then, de we get to working hard to explain how China has 20,000 years of historical artifacts and how, despite Homo erectus being found there it is done so with no associated pottery etc.All in all, it seems far less plausible than the alternatives of Homo erectus building a giant tower where all humans could gather and discuss which annoyed God so he created different languages and forced them to rapidly disperse and build up their population at unprecedented rates before settling into more recent history and suddenly stopping their growth and taking on a more natural looking growth rate.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This is an easy one to support or disprove.Find some Homo erectus bones in the general range of 4,000 years of age. Document them properly and that should support the idea pretty effectively.That no such bones have been found in 150 years of archaeology pretty much disproves this idea as nonsense.I have been digging into sites of that age for nearly 40 years. I was working in one just yesterday. We had a nice variety of faunal remains, but no Homo erectus. Same as always.This idea is just another example of creation "science" -- twist science around however you have to, no matter how ridiculous the outcome, to make the data all fit as creationists want. Repeat as needed. When you run out of new ideas go back to the first and start again. Ignore all evidence to the contrary.

Just in case you can't do the math.....Chimp ancestors had brains just about the same size as chimps (400-500 cc's). Maybe just slightly different. So it really does nothing to alter my estimates significantly. Wow, if only it could be true. That evolution stuff really is magic when you can imagine just about anything, but can't demonstrate it with observation and repeatability.You do realize that the brain is a polygenic trait. In fact it is made up of hundreds of genes. It is highly unlikely that one mutation to a brain gene would do anything to it's relative size. We know from scientific studies that there are vast genetic differences in chimp and human brains. Far more than your one imaginative doubling from a single mutation. Also you are forgeting about all the other traits that are attached and related to the brain that must simultaneously adapt (through additional genetic change) to these genetic changes. Including the skull for an example. The first book I was required to read in college was "How to Lie with Statistics". I can show you brain to body mass calculations of homo sapiens that are far worse than 1:125. This statistic in homo sapiens varies widely. But not so with chimpanzees. First let me discuss brainpower. Yes I beleive that homo erectus had the intellect to build the tower of Babel.Second, I believe that God helps every human being whether they are in His will or not. He may not have given them the plans to build the structure, but He certainly gave them the intellect and physical capacity to do so. Well, I would say that the type of tools has very little to do with intellect. If I took all your tools away, and put you on a desert island by yourself, what would you do for tools? I think they would be very similar to homo erectus tools. The tools you use have nothing to do with intellect. Over time new tools and processes are developed by some individuals. Then they must be spread to others through some sort of economic means. The tools you use have more to do with the total environment as than they do with intellect.I am not saying that a larger brain doesn't have the capacity for more intellect. We certainly may be more intellectual that homo erectus. But most of us couldn't plan and build a tower either.

I like your logic!. Then I assume you also consider ToE/OoS an equal bunch of nonsense because in the last 150 years we have found none of the transitional fossils for all the phyla of complex organisms in pre Cambrian layers? All of these phyla explode in the early Cambrian including vertebrates, but nothing in the pre-Cambrian. Yes, I agree, it is nonsense.Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

When you achieve some understanding of this beyond the creationist talking points get back to me.Because you have posted essentially canned talking points to me, here is a canned response (this is point one of seven; see the link for the rest):

Source

Take a look at all seven points and get back to me.Also -- this red herring you have dredged up from the bait box has nothing to do with the lack of Homo erectus bones being found in recent times. That is the subject of this thread.

I raised the growth model in response to Coyotes' claim that there wasn't enough time to repopulate the world since the flood. And then I tried to explain myself by making calculations based on figures I pulled out of my head, that I thought reasonable. You are right in saying the model isn't perfect. I never claimed it was. It's a general model. We could tinker at the edges but we will still have exponential growth. That's just the way it is.Now you and bluegenes talk about disease and big scary foxes decimating the population. What fox bluegenes? Rex?.If you wipe out half the population of the world today, you will only set the growth back 50 years. Now can you see my point. If you don't then that's bad luck because this is not the topic of discussion and I'm not wasting any more time trying to convince you guys of the blatantly obvious. Edited by LucyTheApe, : forgot to sign it.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything.
Pascal