real life wrote:Not so long ago, evolutionists were postulating that "ancient man" was little better than an apeman or brutish caveman 10,000 years ago.
Now he's got vast cities 9,000 years old. Hmmmmm. Might have to rethink that caveman thing after all.
Once again, tediously, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist." The theory of evolution is not an ideological construct, it is a tool in the scientific method for investigating origins and development of life forms.
Anthropologists (to whom one properly turns for information about such human specimens as
homo neanderthalis) consider that Neanderthal man flourished from 230,000 years ago, and persisted until as recently as 28,000 years ago (see the
Columbia Encyclopedia article), which is well after the rise of
home sapiens sapiens.
In
the Wikipedia article, one finds the following statments:
Quote:A Neanderthal skull was first discovered in Forbes' Quarry, Gibraltar in 1848, indeed prior to the "original" discovery in the Neander Valley in August, 1856, three years before Charles Darwin's Origin of Species was published. The fossils from the Neander Valley were found in a limestone quarry near Düsseldorf in the Neanderthal, Germany.
The type specimen, dubbed Neanderthal 1, consisted of a skull cap. Other material found were two femora, the three right arm bones, two of the left arm bones, part of the left ilium, and fragments of a scapula and ribs. They were originally thought to be bear remains by the workers who recovered it. The workers gave the material to amateur naturalist Johann Karl Fuhlrott. Fuhlrott turned the fossils over to anatomist Hermann Schaafhausen and in 1857 the discovery was jointly announced.
That discovery is now considered the beginning of paleoanthropology. These and other discoveries ultimately led to the idea that these remains were from ancient Europeans who had played an important role in modern human origins. Over 400 Neanderthals have been found since.
In this, i refer only to one species which it would be reasonable to characterize as being described by scientists as "ancient man." There are many, many others for which even older origins are postulated based upon sound scientific method applied to archaeological evidence. Whether or not any particular hominid was troglodytic has absolutely no bearing upon the statements of anthropologists about the relative antiquity of those men and women.
Therefore, your statement: "Not so long ago, evolutionists were postulating that 'ancient man' was little better than an apeman or brutish caveman 10,000 years ago."--is completely without foundation. As i pointed out in the "Which Religion is the True Religion" thread, there is a difference between evidence and mere assertion. This is mere assertion on your part, for which you provide no evidence. I was amused, however, to find, when i went to Google to make sure i could cite sources for what i would write, to find several self-avowed creationist sites which not only make the same unfounded assertion, but use almost identical language. Do they give you boys a list of talking points?
