Re: Conrad's Conjectural Carboniferous Wooden Handle


Augray wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2006 06:02:18 -0800, "Lin Liangtai" <lin440315@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> >Augray wrote:
> >> On 1 Jan 2006 05:51:34 -0800, "Lin Liangtai" <lin440315@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Augray wrote:
> >> >> On 24 Dec 2005 02:15:12 -0800, "Lin Liangtai" <lin440315@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Augray wrote:
> >> >> >> On 21 Dec 2005 04:20:50 -0800, "Lin Liangtai" <lin440315@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Augray wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On 19 Dec 2005 03:13:11 -0800, "Lin Liangtai" <lin440315@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >Ed's handle can be used not only to insert into hammer heads but also
> >> >> >> >> >to overturn evolution.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> How does it overturn evolution?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >I wonder what was evolved after man made a nice handle 300 million
> >> >> >> >years ago.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Assuming that it *is* a handle, and made by man, why couldn't man have
> >> >> >> evolved more than once? I've asked Ed this question several times, and
> >> >> >> he never could answer it. Considering the overwhelming evidence for
> >> >> >> evolution, the idea that man evolved more than once makes more sense
> >> >> >> than claiming that evolution is false.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >OK, let's not talk about evolution being false. I don't know exactly
> >> >> >what you mean by "evolved more than once".
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm trying to suggest that there might have been more than one group
> >> >> of humans, with each group having a separate origin.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, before civilization reached a certain height, there were more than
> >> >one group of humans, with each group thinking they had their own
> >> >origins. That was so especially after large-scale catastrophies
> >> >reversed human civilizations from unimaginable heights to primitive
> >> >conditions, isolating human groups from one another, gradually leading
> >> >such groups to forget their long-ago common ancestors, who came to
> >> >earth in a large group led by many gods.
> >>
> >> This doesn't really address my point. What if there different groups
> >> of humans that *didn't* have a common ancestor?
> >
> >I don't quite catch you.
> >Do you mean that different groups of apes evolve into different groups
> >of humans?
>
> Why limit yourself? For example, why not imagine a scenario where one
> group of humans evolve from apes, and another evolve from bears?
>
>
> >If so, don't you think that different groups of apes come from a
> >common ancestor?
>
> I'm just playing Devil's Advocate.

Please elaborate your point, as I really don't know what you wish to
say.
>
>
> >I do believe that different groups of humans may have different
> >ancestors in the not-too-distant past.
>
> But apparently still human.
>
>
> >In the more distant past, the
> >world was a melting pot when civilization/transportation reached high
> >levels of technology. For example, there are blacks and whites in U.S.
> >today. ( Before white people reached America, North America was in a
> >different "substage" of civilization than today's American
> >civilization. Such "substages" were mentioned to you before.)
>
> Yet there is no evidence for these "substages".

I meant that American Indian culture of 300 years ago was "evidently"
different from Today's American culture, and that these two cultures
belong to two "different substages" of the whole world's human culture,
which could be considered as containing many "substages" of human
culture/technical civilization at different times (in the last 6,000
years) in different continents/places. There are too many evidences for
dividing North American history into
(1) Indian culture of 300 years ago--one substage, and (2) American
culture of today--another substage.


>
> [snip]

.

Relevant Pages