Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
planet of the apemen
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by simtau (U14917714) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011
The dramatic recreations of early man are so laughable and not so say questionable and bizarre so as to be quite ridiculous. Is this objective natural history or was it meant to be comedy ? Certainly made me laugh. Surprising the industrial revolution took so long ? Why on earth wasn't it started by one particularly ridiculously depicted tribes of homo erectus in Africa if we are to trust this piece of pseudo documentary rubbish .
-
Message 2
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Saturday, 25th June 2011
There was some interesting bits in it, what's the evidence for homo erectus not being able to throw a spear?
-
Message 3
Posted by elderberry (U13512571) on Friday, 1st July 2011
I want to know why the Neanderthals were not shown doing some gentle stuff like putting flowers in graves.
-
Message 4
Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
Hello all,
How advanced the Neolithic was! If I have understood the second episode correctly homo sapiens had hairdressers that made housecalls to trim, curl and fluff. At least, that is what I make of the hairdo of the disobedient daughter.
Regards,
Poldertijger -
Message 5
Posted by elderberry (U13512571) on Saturday, 2nd July 2011
SInce slavery has existed for as long as history, might one race of humans enslaved members of the other?
-
Message 6
Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Wednesday, 6th July 2011
what's the evidence for homo erectus not being able to throw a spear?Ìý
As was explained, the fossils show that the bone structure of Homo erectus' arms were different to those of Homo sapiens, and as a result their hand palms faced forward. They didn't rule out that they could throw a spear but merely cast doubt on it. -
Message 7
Posted by Luther_Wesley-Baxter (U13668671) on Friday, 23rd September 2011
Do people still believe in monkey-men?
-
Message 8
Posted by Will (U14768496) on Friday, 23rd September 2011
Do people still believe in monkey-men?Ìý So, your point is what exactly? Please clarify!
-
Message 9
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Monday, 26th September 2011
Don't ask. LWB is a decent enough chap, but amazingly enough he really, truly and genuinely believes that the earth is 6,000 odd years old because it says so in Genesis.
This prompted all sorts of hysteria on the old religion message boards, but I suspect it isn't appropriate fare for the history boards.
Regards,
A R -
Message 10
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 26th September 2011
Hi AR
Like you, I guess, I have considerable sympathy for those whose religious faith compels them to believe in the 6,000 year old earth. I once knew a physicist who was trying to reconcile her profession and her faith. To cope with radiocarbon and other scientific dating systems she was forced to assume that the rate of radioactive decay was more rapid in the past. As you will appreciate there are huge theoretical and experimental objections to this view.
What saddens me is that many people will ignore the valuable ethical teaching of the Gospels, which obviously contain no geology or astrophysics, if it were obligatory to believe impossible accounts of the history of the world or the origin of the universe.
TP -
Message 11
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Tuesday, 27th September 2011
Hi TP,
Without wishing to sound unkind (and without wishing to go too far off piste), I'm not sure if I have quite as much sympathy as you!
It seems to me that the leap of faith necessary to believe in the existence of a supernatural creator is different to the leap of faith necessary to believe in the infallible and literal truth of the Bible. The fact that the vast majority of Christians accept the former whilst rejecting the latter seems to underline this distinction.
I'm always on the side of the reasonable and the tolerant. A dogmatic, prescriptive view of the veracity of the Biblical creation account, involving as it does the rejection of overwhelming mountains of evidence, runs the risk of leading one into fundamentalism, bigotry and intolerance. And I have no sympathy for that.
"What saddens me is that many people will ignore the valuable ethical teaching of the Gospels, which obviously contain no geology or astrophysics, if it were obligatory to believe impossible accounts of the history of the world or the origin of the universe."
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Those ethical lessons remain valid for us all, irrespective of our personal belief (or lack of it).
Best regards,
A R -
Message 12
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Tuesday, 27th September 2011
A brilliant last paragraph, TP!
If only we could be persuaded to use the Bible as a guide to 'How to Live',
rather than a doctrinaire account of 'Why we Live' -
Message 13
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Tuesday, 27th September 2011
I once knew a physicist who was trying to reconcile her profession and her faith. To cope with radiocarbon and other scientific dating systems she was forced to assume that the rate of radioactive decay was more rapid in the past. As you will appreciate there are huge theoretical and experimental objections to this view.Ìý
And that, of course, is merely the thin end of the wedge. The assumptions a scientist would need to make to hold on to that belief are far-reaching and mind-boggling. Astrophysics, geology, biology, genetics... The understanding that the earth is far older than a few thousand years predates our knowledge of radioactive decay mechanisms, although it is true that radio-isotopes were the first method to produce quantitative estimates.
I have a very limited sympathy for those who hold on to this belief. To me, the problem is not "young earth creationism" itself, a belief that seems harmless enough in daily life. The problem is that the intellectual position can only be defended by bending the rules, making claims that are glaringly wrong, sinning against the basic rules of logic, and in general resorting to (self-) deceit. The belief in creation 6000 or so years ago (Genesis does not mention any time, and various scholars have calculated different numbers) may be irrelevant in itself but it has become a powerful generator of intellectual pollution.
Modern society seems to have adopted the view that consenting adults have to right to expose themselves to harm. To that extent, I have no problem with the believers, and a degree of sympathy. I have no sympathy for those who would expose children to this; I think that is morally equivalent to exposing children to development-retarding chemicals (e.g. lead). -
Message 14
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 28th September 2011
Hi Mutatis_Mutandis
It is very difficult to argue with anything you have written but I would like to say one more thing before the hosts wake up and decide this is way off-topic for a history message board. I accept that my own views have been shaped by personal experience and probably lack objectivity.
When I was a young man I had a great friend who was Christian, a Plymouth Brother I think, and who had a 'young earth' view of the world's creation inspired by his beliefs. He wished to be a medical missionary and so was forced to study science A levels with consequential exposure to evolution, geology and radioactivity. He was far too clever not to understand the implications of these theories, and far too honest simply to pretend he was learning material of no importance except for the purposes of passing examinations. I was the unwilling witness of a very real struggle on the part of a man who was ethically a great deal better than I was.
Education of the young is very difficult, as you are right to point out. Committed parents and educators naturally wish to pass on to the next generation the important truths as they see them and these truths may not include evolution, democracy, or black holes. But I am old enough to have been taught (ironically by the same geography master) that the theory of 'Continental Drifting' was wrong, and in South Africa the practice of apartheid was probably right. I never believed him on either count. I suppose my views on religion are similar to Chesterton's, that it is a 'lot of small lies supporting a great truth'. I differ from him in as much as I don't see that any of these small lies are really necessary.
Now my friend and I came up with a good solution I think. He considered that a perfect God created a perfect world. A world with an apparently long history was more perfect than a world that suddenly sprang into being. Therefore we could both study evolution, sedimentary rocks and the Neolithic. I was studying the world as it was actually created and he was studying the history of the world that God designed for it some time in 4000 BC. I would call that subtle, others an unsatisfactory compromise. But such is the nature of compromises.
Regards,
TP -
Message 15
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Wednesday, 28th September 2011
I suppose my views on religion are similar to Chesterton's, that it is a "lot of small lies supporting a great truth." Ìý
Yes, yes, yes!
Clever old Chesterton, and clever old TP! -
Message 16
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Wednesday, 28th September 2011
Sorry, no, no, no.
Religions comprise of a lot of quite important lies supporting a great lie : that there are higher supernatural powers that are interested in the fate of men and are accessible to and able to be influenced by his needs and desires if they perform the right rituals.
Must run, going to the seaside! -
Message 17
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Wednesday, 28th September 2011
Sorry, no, no, no.
Religions comprise of a lot of quite important lies supporting a great lie : that there are higher supernatural powers that are interested in the fate of men and are accessible to and able to be influenced by his needs and desires if they perform the right rituals.
Must run, going to the seaside!Ìý
Maybe, maybe not - who knows?
Enjoy your day at the seaside - hope you find a fossil!
It's so hot, isn't it? -
Message 18
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 28th September 2011
ferval
In order to please everyone if you do find a fossil can you make sure it is less than 6000 years old? Sea shells and a starfish might be less controversial.
Regards,
TP
PS Do they have seaside in Scotland? I'm from the famous Sussex coast myself. -
Message 19
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 28th September 2011
Hi SST
I'm very glad you can be tempted way from Tudor history to this unpromisingly titled thread, long forgotten by its originator. I've been looking for a way to turn it back to history and I think ferval may have provided one:
"..that there are higher supernatural powers that are interested in the fate of men and are accessible to and able to be influenced by his needs and desires if they perform the right rituals."
Now I must say at once that there is no poster whose knowledge I admire more than feval's, all the more so since, as a fellow archaeologist, I can always understand what she is saying. The quoted statement from her post would seem to be a valid objection to the religion of classical Greece or Rome but would not represent the world-view of any member of the Abrahamic faiths.
Anyway it reminds me that religions. like science, have a history and when wishing to investigate the two systems it may be best to contrast modern scientific thought with modern religious belief.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 20
Posted by Luther_Wesley-Baxter (U13668671) on Wednesday, 28th September 2011
TwinProbe
No problem. Most fossils are 4,359 years old. -
Message 21
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Wednesday, 28th September 2011
As always, a thoughtful and well written post TP.
Re, small lies supporting a great truth. Whenever confronted with creationism I'm reminded that Christianity also once contended that the earth was flat and was eventually forced to step down from that position by the sheer weight of evidence to the contrary. -
Message 22
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Wednesday, 28th September 2011
Really? How are you so sure about the 9?
-
Message 23
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Wednesday, 28th September 2011
Oh dear, I really shouldn’t dash off a post while my daughter is sitting in the car outside the house and tooting the horn.
TP, you are of course correct in observing that my statement was badly worded, what I was trying to say was that religions are based on the premise that a spiritual being (or beings) exists and whatever form of deity they revere is not uninterested in the affairs of men. The adherents can communicate with he/she/it/them by some form of action be it through ritual, adherence to a code of conduct or expression of belief and through that achieve a desired goal, be it a good harvest, military success, a paradisiacal eternal life or whatever.
This is of course just my interpretation since what might be defined as a religion is so fluid and contextual. I think it was Feuerbach who said that what today is atheism tomorrow will be called religion.
There’s lots of fun to be had in debating the intellectualist or symbolist approaches too.
I had a lovely day at the seaside, thank you. No fossils unfortunately and prompted by that......
Luther, since after the flood, humanity was starting again from just Noah's clan, where in your chronology would you place such events as the first settlement at Jericho, the start of dynastic Egypt, the building of the Ur-Nammu temple at Ur and the destruction of Carthage?
Oh, and when did humans arrive in Australia and North America?
Also I'm interested in your estimates of population growth given you have, allowing 20 years to a generation, about, let's say, 225 generations from then until now. -
Message 24
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Thursday, 29th September 2011
Luther, you say that
Most fossils are 4,359 years old.Ìý
Most? So how old are the others?
I'm amazed at the things one can learn on this website.
All of which reminds me of my antipodean distant relative (I'd just explained our family's ins & outs to him) who exclaimed: "Family trees? Here's a family tree!" He unrolled a yard of paper printed with a pedigree, all the way from Adam to Jesus. "See that!" he said. "Obviously, all that about the Stone Age and the Bronze Age - it's got to be all nonsense - there just wasn't enough time for any of that."
Yes, I could see he had a point. So, very worried, I made an excuse and left. -
Message 25
Posted by ArweRheged (U14720560) on Friday, 30th September 2011
Chaps,
Don't waste your time asking LWB these questions. He's highly unlikely to reply and, even if he does, it'll only be a very short reply along the lines of "the Bible says so".
He won't get into the nitty gritty of dealing with individual points. He probably woudn't know the answers. But he doesn't need to. If anything is at odds with his interpretation of the Bible, it has to be untrue. It's that simple. Everyone marches out of step except Our Johnny.
I'm still waiting for him to give me the the name of a single suitably qualified scientist who has no religious affiliation but who believes that the earth is only 6,000 odd years old.
To follow TP's lead and to twist the post back to history (and away from personal faith and spirituality), the development of the Church as an institution is a fascinating subject. My view (based on British history) is that, for the most part, organised religion acts as a buttress (rather than a foil) to the secular authority. There are exceptions, of course, but as a powerful landowner and authority in its own right, the Church had a vested interest in protecting its wealth and privileges and this was usually secured by working hand in glove with the secular authorities.
Regards,
A R -
Message 26
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Friday, 30th September 2011
Yes, I fear you are correct ArweRheged. To answer our questions would involve some logical thinking on Luther's part and the prospect of uncomfortable truths.
Although, I would still like to know if Noah transported dinosaurs with the rest of the animal world. Surely if the earth is only 5,000yrs old, it must stand to reason that dinosaurs were alive at the same time as humans? -
Message 27
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 30th September 2011
Hi ID
I think I partly know the answer to this. Dinosaurs are not found today and are not mentioned in the Bible ; thus they were not with Noah in the Ark. Their remains exist however so they might form part of the ante-diluvian world that was destroyed in the Flood.
Now clearly human remains and dinosaur remains are not found together which is tricky. But could you argue that all the great sedimentary rocks were produced in the flood? If you ignore scientific dating completely a single uniform rock type, like chalk, sort of fits this hypothesis. Several kilometres thickness of multiple rock types, like coal measures, are more difficult to explain.
TP -
Message 28
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Friday, 30th September 2011
Many thanks TP.
-
Message 29
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Friday, 30th September 2011
Yes, I fear you are correct ArweRheged. To answer our questions would involve some logical thinking on Luther's part and the prospect of uncomfortable truths.
Although, I would still like to know if Noah transported dinosaurs with the rest of the animal world. Surely if the earth is only 5,000yrs old, it must stand to reason that dinosaurs were alive at the same time as humans?Ìý
Yep Noah certainly did, only friendly dinosaurs mind, or they would have eaten all the other animals. -
Message 30
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Saturday, 1st October 2011
Not to mention Noah and the kids. Mmm, then were would human (and animal) kind be?
-
Message 31
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Sunday, 2nd October 2011
dinosaurs were alive at the same time as humans?
No Comment.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes;
-
Message 32
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Wednesday, 12th October 2011
Stand by, folks, for more of the above, there's a new series starting next week called 'Origins of Us' with Alice Roberts (again!).
-
Message 33
Posted by Mutatis_Mutandis (U8620894) on Monday, 17th October 2011
Stand by, folks, for more of the above, there's a new series starting next week called 'Origins of Us' with Alice Roberts (again!).
Ìý Well, it could have been worse. I liked the deliberate strategy to intertwine modern anatomy with paleontological discovery. Besides illustrating how central evolution is to our understanding of biology, that brings the subject a lot closer to us. It contained some really interesting material on the anatomical differences between apes and humans.
On the downside, it gives little attention to chronology, it tries too much to be charming (we get an overdose of Alice, babies, and playful chimps) and the information density is quite low. I think these shows are made too much with the hope of selling them to American audiences with their advertising-saturated brains. -
Message 34
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Monday, 17th October 2011
Was it necessary to spend quite so much time focussing on Alice's bum? Or am I just jealous?
My other main complaint was the impression that might have been gained that the skeletal changes were environmental or behavioural adaptations rather than favourable mutations.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Ö÷²¥´óÐã iD
Ö÷²¥´óÐã navigation
Ö÷²¥´óÐã links
Ö÷²¥´óÐã © 2014 The Ö÷²¥´óÐã is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.