Where to hunter/gatherers come from?

[shernren]

Article can be found here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/oneblood/chapter8.asp

with citations:

1. Rhys Jones, Tasmania’s Ice-Age Hunters, Australian Geographic 8:26–45, October–December 1987.
2. Jones, Rhys (R.S.V. Wright, editor), Stone Tools as Cultural Markers, ‘The Tasmanian Paradox’, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, Australia, 1977.

Note that these citations are practically 20 years old. Is this the most recent resource Creationists have on Stone Age people?

 

[AV1611VET]

Ken Hamm is a quack.

Right --- and Scotty's working the transporter today.

I see lots of speculation here and him quoting other people (poorly)...

Quoting other people is a large part of disseminating information. That's why Wikipedia and this Forum operate. It's also the way God made us. To stop the technological process, God confounded their tongues at Babel so they couldn't communicate in harmony.

...but I doubt he actually went out and did any fieldworkd to find evidence.

The United States is Ken Ham's field. God called him here from his homeland (Australia) to evangelize us - mainly in the area of Creation.

The last one is hilarious. King Louis XIV was told by his physician that the reason he was catching colds was that he was taking too many baths and he should cut the number in half--to one a year!!

Right --- poor hygiene can lead to colds and flu.

Also, people here in Japan up until the end of WWII were animists (some still are) and they have always been healthy and clean--among the longest living people on the earth.

That's the first I've heard this. I do know that when gunpowder was invented, they refused to trade their Samurai swords for rifles --- and paid the price for it.

The reason they refused is because they worshipped their swords as a deity, and placed their faith in them for protection.

Even today, most Japanese have no religion, and you should see the food culture and the cleanliness (baths are almost ritualized).

Japan was modernized --- Tasmania wasn't. Comparing Japanese animists with Tasmanian aboriginal animists is like comparing Green Acres to the Beverly Hillbillies.

 

[AV1611VET]

Quibble. Ken Ham has one m.

Thanks, shernren --- correction made.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, I just figured he needs everything he can get.

Actually he does --- would you care to support his ministry here in the U.S., so he can get his Creation museum built?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, he actually only cites one person (so I should not have written "people"):

This would make for excessively large books and postings, and would defeat their purposes.

However, here he provides no source for validation, which is using citations poorly.

Again, what do you want from a post or a book? The information, or an index of scientists and their credentials to cross-reference?

Pretty much everything else in the original quote from the Ham et. al. book seems to be nothing more than armchair speculation.

This is why I disagree with having to cite authors, etc. when posting someone else's work. Subsequent posts become nothing more than armchair peer reviews, and the point of the post is ignored.

I showed my wife your reply to my post this morning, saying:

"Look at this, I post all this from a book and he dismisses it outright because he doesn't like Ken Ham. He simply calls Ham a 'quack' and that's that."

Same with Kent Hovind and Lee Strobel. All scholarly information dismissed with the wave of a hand because of their patronage with one another.

Even God used Cyrus and Judas to fulfill prophecy.

 

[AV1611VET]

Article can be found here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/oneblood/chapter8.asp

with citations:

1. Rhys Jones, Tasmania’s Ice-Age Hunters, Australian Geographic 8:26–45, October–December 1987.
2. Jones, Rhys (R.S.V. Wright, editor), Stone Tools as Cultural Markers, ‘The Tasmanian Paradox’, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra, Australia, 1977.

Note that these citations are practically 20 years old. Is this the most recent resource Creationists have on Stone Age people?

Was something inaccurate? Should something specific be updated? If so, what?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Actually he does --- would you care to support his ministry here in the U.S., so he can get his Creation museum built?

According the Kentucky Post Ham was already making $170,000 a year in salary way back in 2001 so I think he is well enough supported. It looks to me like it was money and not God that called him to America.

I see the museum is now set to open in 2007 and not in 2004 as originally announced. Maybe they are having trouble accumulating sufficient nonsense.

As and aside I saw a web cast of a debate between some British scientists and Ham where Ham said the evolution was a lie and when callenged for evidence claimed that false scientific data was presented in the Scope trial. Besides the irrelevance of data presented so long ago I am quite sure that Ham is aware that the judge did not allow any scientific evidence to presented at the scopes trial so Ham was telling an outright lie to support his contention that evolution is a lie. What a nice bit irony that is.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[shernren]

Was something inaccurate? Should something specific be updated? If so, what?

Three AiG articles on the Tasmanians:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/oneblood/chapter8.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v2/i1/aborigines.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/culture.asp

Note:

In spite of the fact that Jones interprets the history of the Tasmanian aboriginals within the standard evolutionary/geochronological framework, the following of his conclusions are of great interest in the above context.

1. Their society rates as the simplest known—much simpler than Cro-magnon.
2. Their ‘primitivity’ was the result of a degeneration from previously higher levels. Some examples of this:
   • they had lost the art of making garments, being covered only by a coating of seal grease when met by the French scientific expeditions.
   • they had given up catching and eating fish, living on crabs and shellfish.
   • they had lost the art of making fire, having to keep a firebrand permanently alight or borrowing it from their neighbors.

In view of the Biblical implications that man had a fairly advanced level of technology at an early stage in his history, the above is certainly what the creationist would predict and expect.

(emphases in original)

The alleged technological 'primitivity' of the Tasmanians has been greatly exaggerated in the mainstream view. Lingering evolutionist bias undoubtedly plays a role, as well as the fact that their culture was largely destroyed before it was well recorded. - followed by descriptions of how the Tasmanian culture was actually "extremely adaptive" (actual quote)

(emphasis added)

When the mainstream says that the Tasmanians were culturally primitive: "See, that's what creationism predicts!"
When the mainstream starts saying that they were actually pretty well off: "See, that's what you get with evolutionism!"

Furthermore, the 1979 article contains blatant slander:

The evolutionists at the time of Tasmania’s early history, intoxicated with the Neanderthal discoveries, seized upon these unfortunate people as representatives of a subhuman race. Many (not all) of the atrocities which were inflicted on them can be traced to this philosophy. Indeed, some anthropologists maintained that they were the same species as Neanderthal, a surviving remnant of evolution. As their numbers dwindled, evolutionary scientists scrambled for their remains, resorting to disgraceful acts of grave robbing and necromutilation in order to fill their museum cases. The handful of survivors towards the end lived in humiliation and terror while the scientific establishment hovered in the background like vultures, waiting for their chance. ... readers may be sure that I have understated the extent of this sordid chapter in the history of evolutionary speculation.

And yet, checking with Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_Aborigines

George Augustus Robinson, a Christian missionary, befriended Truganini, learned some of the local language and in 1833 managed to persuade the remaining peoples to move to a new settlement on Flinders Island, where he promised a modern and comfortable environment, and that they would be relocated to the Tasmanian mainland as soon as possible. Once on Flinders Island, Robinson abandoned the Aborigines. Of the 300 people who arrived with Robinson, 250 died in the following 14 years in conditions more akin to a prison.

So, when the museums abuse them, that's evolutionary genocide (which is not to say that it didn't happen, admittedly), but what about when the Christian missionary abandons them? Not worth mentioning?

Now, don't imagine I've saved all the rebuttals for the creationists I found an interesting article: http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199705/0077.html which seems to argue for the exact opposite of the OP. The problem isn't how some cultures could have so quickly lost technology, it's how cultures could actually have kept any technology, given that there were only eight people on the Ark.

 

[AV1611VET]

According the Kentucky Post Ham was already making $170,000 a year in salary way back in 2001 so I think he is well enough supported. It looks to me like it was money and not God that called him to America.

What is the salary cap for a missionary in the Land of Opportunity?

I see the museum is now set to open in 2007 and not in 2004 as originally announced. Maybe they are having trouble accumulating sufficient nonsense.

Ya --- like permits.

As and aside I saw a web cast of a debate between some British scientists and Ham where Ham said the evolution was a lie and when callenged for evidence claimed that false scientific data was presented in the Scope trial. Besides the irrelevance of data presented so long ago I am quite sure that Ham is aware that the judge did not allow any scientific evidence to presented at the scopes trial so Ham was telling an outright lie to support his contention that evolution is a lie. What a nice bit irony that is.

At least he came to the right conclusion. If that would have been me up there being challenged, I'd just say I don't have any evidence, and let it go at that.

Atheism requires an inordinately large amount of evidence to believe in --- Christianity requires none.

Whenever God "proved" Himself, it was always with signs and wonders (singularities) - never with "hard evidence".

In the court systems in America, there are three progressive types of evidence that lead to judgements:

• preponderance of the evidence
• convincing evidence
• evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt

Atheism demands absolute "smoking gun" evidence for God and, in the end, He delivers it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Three AiG articles on the Tasmanians:

In any event, I'm not here to debate Ken Ham and AiG. What they believe is their business.

Christians, IMO, need to get out of the "evidence producing" business, and let God handle the convictions.

Christians look silly when they try using evidence (other than their faith) to prove God, and Atheists look silly when they deny the singularities that occurred in the first 4000 years of Earth's history.

 

[Soul Searcher]

What is the salary cap for a missionary in the Land of Opportunity?

20k

 

[JohnR7]

According the Kentucky Post Ham was already making $170,000 a year in salary

According to your link he raised $7.2 million last year. Do you think you could raise that amount of money in a years time?

 

[kahtar]

Christians, IMO, need to get out of the "evidence producing" business, and let God handle the convictions.

Exactly. 'Proving God' is not our commission. Sharing the gospel is. The Holy Spirit is the only One Who can prove Himself to anyone. And He said, 'If one were to be raised from the dead, they still would not believe'. So what's the point in trying? Just give people the gospel and let the Holy Spirit do his work, and avoid vain and pointless arguements.

 

[nvxplorer]

Christians look silly when they try using evidence (other than their faith) to prove God, and Atheists look silly when they deny the singularities that occurred in the first 4000 years of Earth's history.

The singularities you speak of were each multi-layered. Therefore, they cannot be called singularities.

 

[AV1611VET]

The singularities you speak of were each multi-layered. Therefore, they cannot be called singularities.

What do you mean by that?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

What is the salary cap for a missionary in the Land of Opportunity?

A hustler is a hustler. Appealing to religion can be quite profitable for a hustler.

Ya --- like permits.

I didn't know you needed a special permit to promote myth as science.

At least he came to the right conclusion. If that would have been me up there being challenged, I'd just say I don't have any evidence, and let it go at that.

No he had to lie to support his false "conclusion" that evolution is a lie. An intereting twist don't you think?

Atheism requires an inordinately large amount of evidence to believe in --- Christianity requires none.

Evolution is not atheism, evolution has evidence, creationism has none.

Whenever God "proved" Himself, it was always with signs and wonders (singularities) - never with "hard evidence".

So there is no evidence for God.

In the court systems in America, there are three progressive types of evidence that lead to judgements:

• preponderance of the evidence
• convincing evidence
• evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt

Atheism demands absolute "smoking gun" evidence for God and, in the end, He delivers it.

So now you say there is evidence for God. Do you often contradict yourself from one paragraph to the next?

F.B.

 

[nvxplorer]

What do you mean by that?

Exactly!

 

[AV1611VET]

A hustler is a hustler. Appealing to religion can be quite profitable for a hustler.

Not nearly as profitable as evolutionists appealing to, and getting, tax funding for such programs as SETI. At least Ken Ham earns his salary. His paycheck doesn't come from the paychecks of those who don't believe in what they have to support.

I didn't know you needed a special permit to promote myth as science.

No --- you guys use licenses from the NEA to do yours.

No he had to lie to support his false "conclusion" that evolution is a lie. An intereting twist don't you think?

I don't know. I didn't see the webcast. I'll take your word for what happened, but I won't agree with your conclusion (that he lied).

Evolution is not atheism, evolution has evidence, creationism has none.

As I have said before, micro-evolution, a fancy term for adaptation, has evidence (Christians have always believed in adaptation); macro-evolution, a fancy term for changes in genera, on the other hand, does not.

So there is no evidence for God.

Our faith, anecdotal testimony, and fulfilled prophecies in our lifetime (Israel) are good enough to be counted as evidence for me.

So now you say there is evidence for God. Do you often contradict yourself from one paragraph to the next?

Wrong conclusion. I presented those so as to show the kind of evidence an Atheist would demand before he would consider thinking otherwise.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

macro-evolution, a fancy term for changes in genera

now it is up to genera, what happened to kinds=species?
although it is a bit more accurate, after all the Latin term for kinds in Gen 1 is genus.
Hebrew miyn=Greek idea=Latin genus
hence the origin of the term in Linnaeus' reading of the Bible in Latin.

does anyone want to vote for microevolution within family as kinds? as in canids, for example.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Not nearly as profitable as evolutionists appealing to, and getting, tax funding for such programs as SETI.

Hmm. I thought SETI was privately funded.

At least Ken Ham earns his salary. His paycheck doesn't come from the paychecks of those who don't believe in what they have to support.

Anyone who "earns their paycheck" by distorting science to fool the faithful into giving donations is a hustler. Ken Ham is a hustler.

No --- you guys use licenses from the NEA to do yours.

What give you that idea?

I don't know. I didn't see the webcast. I'll take your word for what happened, but I won't agree with your conclusion (that he lied).

Either he lied or he is ignorant of a subject he is selling himself as an expert on (The Creation Evolution Debate).

As I have said before, micro-evolution, a fancy term for adaptation, has evidence (Christians have always believed in adaptation);

Many Christians accept evolution but I can remember when creationists denied speciation, this was before they decided they needed hyperevolution to reduce the number of animals needed on the ark.

macro-evolution, a fancy term for changes in genera, on the other hand, does not.

Macroevolution is well established in science. Get over it.

Our faith, anecdotal testimony, and fulfilled prophecies in our lifetime (Israel) are good enough to be counted as evidence for me.

Faith is hardly evidence. It funny that you denigrate SETI when the ancedotal evidence for extraterrestial visitors to earth is so strong.

Wrong conclusion. I presented those so as to show the kind of evidence an Atheist would demand before he would consider thinking otherwise.

First you said there was no evidence then you said there was evidence. Make up your mind.

F.B.