16-01-2002 00:38									#271
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless Lars: I certainly did NOT claim that Wise said that in the quote I provided. So, ironically, this is another lie by you.

Where did he say it then? You came up with something he supposedly said and then provided a quotation.

quote: YES, most mutations are harmful. So what? That's where natural selection comes in. Harmful mutations are IRRELEVANT to evolution, they get eliminated. But what you actually said was "No one in here believed it" (...that most non-neutral mutations are harmful). We DO believe this. Your claim that we do not is an invented claim, otherwise known as a "lie".

We DO believe this? Do you believe evolution has been proven? If so please provide the paper where it's proven and the name of the guy that won the Nobel Prize for writing it.

As far as lying goes:
Are you trying to prove the conspiracy theory that creationists produce allmost nothing but lies?

	16-01-2002 00:40									#272
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 1a) Why was the son of God hungry? 1b)What sort of moron looks for figs on a tree when it is not fig season?!? 1c)Is it rational to kill a tree for not bearing fruit out of season? 1d)The first account says that the tree was withered by the following morning,but in the second Jesus immediately destroys the tree!Which is it?

Like many NT stories, it is made up of metaphor.

Think about it, if you still need help I will explain.

	16-01-2002 00:45									#273
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless ...Where?

You mentioned some lying "creationists". I don't have the need to lie, and I always search for doubt-free sources in order to not lie.

	16-01-2002 00:45									#274
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Zealot I expose from a scientific standpoint evolutionist inconsistencies, and then I'm acused of not be giving evidence of creationism. I try to show how reasonable is the existence of a Divinity, and I'm accused of not arguing from a scientific standpoint. Uff...

Where's that hammer-banging smilie when you need it?

[rude comment]You haven't exposed anything except your own ignorance[/rude comment]

Seriously, though: your factual claims are specious and your hypotheses verging on sophistry. It's as though you simply ignore any evidence-real physical evidence-that people give you and continue to wallow in your pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo. Why isn't radio-dating inaccurate due to the fact that God irradiated the Earth? Sure, why not. Maybe God's playing a practical joke. Dinosaurs never existed, humans have always existed, the Earth is 6000 years old. The only clue God gave us to this is that he didn't leave every single fossil of every single organism ever to walk the earth under evolution's conception in an easy-to-find location. Do you mind telling us why exactly the fossil record demonstrates evolution in action? Why forms which are the ancestors of later forms under the theory of evolution are always* found in older layers than their progeny? Why does no record of large mammals exist prior to ~60 million years ago?

Where's your evidence? Making the untrue claim that there are no "transitional" fossils? Of course there are.

Jesus. A 1 second google search on "transitional fossils" turns up this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Do you have any idea of how many speciations we're talking about over the course of the last 3 billion years? Maybe as many as a billion (that's right, with a "b"). Most of those are what we would consider minor changes, of course. Right now we have a pretty decent idea of most family-to-family transitions, but things are too fragmentary to have gained a complete linkage between all species.

Read any of the subsections (particularly the one about transition from reptiles to mammals). Notice how many steps there are, just on a family level? Each of those families might represent a few dozen distinct species only on the direct linkage, never mind any branches which don't lay on the line between reptile and mammal. Why are all of those steps found in order in the ground? Why are there no mammal-like traits found 400 million years ago, some 350 million years ago, even more 200 million years ago, progressing to fully-formed mammals perhaps 150 million years ago. Hey look; there's even a gap in there of 30 million years. They haven't found many mammal-like fossils from that time period due to geological uphevals. Why does that destroy the fact that those dozens of steps are found in order? There isn't a random placement of these steps, with a more mammalian species being replaced by a less mammalian one, followed by an even more mammalian one; there's a steady progression.

What's your problem with Archaeopteryx, by the way? It's the poster-species for transitional specimens. Look at the goddamned thing; it's half-bird half-reptile. Sure you're missing a few million years of evolution between dinosaurs and archaeopteryx, but archaeopteryx is located just where you'd expect it to be found; after the appearance of winged dinosaurs and before the appearance of true birds. People take entire frigging degrees based on learning about examples of evolution in action; this isn't based on vacuum for God's sake. Buy an evolutionary biology book. Do you think they made up the order of fossils out of nowhere?

	16-01-2002 00:46									#275
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by SkeleTony69 Another link the creationists won't bother reading(this one on the "probabilities" argument): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob.html

I skimmed thru this serious science article by the name of "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations"

Here's a quote:

"4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation. "

Again it's said that highly educated ppl don't understand or misunderstand probabilities. Now I know where you ppl get it from. Serious science papers. Your arguments keep boiling down to: The creationists do not understand the simplest calculations or science. This is due to lack of intelligence and lack of education - blatant ingorance .

	16-01-2002 00:54									#276
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin I would think that someone stupid can be told how to make and use a lever more easily than they can be told how to solve Shrodingers wave equation. Don't you?

Perhaps, but there was a real need for intelligence just to come up with the idea of a lever. Remember that these people are starting with nothing. They don't know what force is, or gravity, or acceleration, or anything. If you've never been told that sharpening a stone by rubbing it against another stone would make it cut well, or ever seen a knife, would you come up with the idea? I really don't know if I would. It took a lot of intelligence (and dexterity) just to get things off the ground while your biggest concern is still that leopard who's been looking at you hungrily for the last hour. It was a lot to ask for populations to become tool-makers out of nowhere, but there was a lot to be gained even from an extremely crude stone blade.

	16-01-2002 00:59									#277
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

And yes,I have visited the site Dinodoc linked to a few times.To put it simply it is apologetic nonsense.As mI said earlier I can use impossible twists of logic and semantic dancing to argue that The Lord of the Rings was a historical work rather than fiction and these same tactics are used to explain away(not very well mind you) the various errors(and only a portion of them) in the bible.

They chalk up anything they are not able to explain away as being the fault of translation(as if it even mattered why the supposed word of God was so mucked up...if the bible is in err then it should not be adhered to as an infallible source for anything).
The author claims that most of the errors are trivial but I mguess this is pretty subjective.I think describing the world as being flat(in a number of places in the bible) ordescribing insects as having four legs is no trivial matter when you are trying to assert the bible as being more accurate than conventional science.

There is a section titled "101 bible contradictions cleared up" but there is no attempt to address the THOUSANDS of contradictions/errancies one can find in the bible(go to skeptics annotated bible site for a pretty thorough list)

I was tempted to attempt to post a rebuttal covering everything said at the site but I soon realised the futility as this thread would be another 35 pages long with that and no one would likely address the points made just as the points made in the VERY FIRST POST in this thread remain unanswered!

	16-01-2002 01:00									#278
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by SkeleTony69 Did you even read the bit I linked to?I don't think so.

Yes, I did! How do you think I explained why Jesus was expecting to find figs?

quote: Originally posted by SkeleTony69 Here are the major points to remember since you are too lazy too read: 1)In BOTH gospels it is stated that Jesus went looking for figs on a tree when it was not fig season(even if figs were always in season this amounts to errancy in the bible). 1a) Why was the son of God hungry? 1b)What sort of moron looks for figs on a tree when it is not fig season?!? 1c)Is it rational to kill a tree for not bearing fruit out of season? 1d)The first account says that the tree was withered by the following morning,but in the second Jesus immediately destroys the tree!Which is it?

1a. He was born as a human, why shouldn't he? Everybody knows that we eat to feed our cells in order to have energy! This is a dumb question...
1b. Well, this is a good question though. I can't see why, but for the reason he was hungry, and was curious, or was looking for birds which feed themselves with figs (my grandpa lost a lot of figs because the birds ate them all before they were mature for us to eat).
1c. As I said before, the fig tree should have any fig on it, even the little and immature ones. Since the fig tree didn't have any, it was just consuming the earth's nutrients without giving any fruit. It was a useless tree.
1d. the visible effects were only seen in the following morning. The tree died, but without being any "entertainment show".

I'm not quoting anywhere, I'm just using common sense, for a guy who knows quite a bit about fig trees.

	16-01-2002 01:06									#279
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Lars-E I skimmed thru this serious science article by the name of "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations" Here's a quote: "4) They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation. " Again it's said that highly educated ppl don't understand or misunderstand probabilities. Now I know where you ppl get it from. Serious science papers. Your arguments keep boiling down to: The creationists do not understand the simplest calculations or science. This is due to lack of intelligence and lack of education - blatant ingorance .

And again,instead of addressing the points made or offering refutation you choose to whine about what you percieve to be a hidden insult to your intelligence.I am insulted by christians every day of my life here in the US and they are completely unaware of the fact that they are being insulting or bigoted.STill,when they present their theism as science,I attempt to understand,consider and thus far point out flaws in their arguments rather than whine about the fact that they consider me inferior for being an atheist (and what's more I can show WHY they are being bigoted and not just make some bald assertion as you have done here).

	16-01-2002 01:12									#280
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by SkeleTony69 I was tempted to attempt to post a rebuttal covering everything said at the site but I soon realised the futility as this thread would be another 35 pages long with that and no one would likely address the points made just as the points made in the VERY FIRST POST in this thread remain unanswered!

Ok, ok, don't yell!

http://www.godandscience.org/apolog...localflood.html

About those who personally insult you, you just have to say that Chist wouldn't ever treat you that way!
And try to find Christians who are both respectable and have some scientific knowledge about theism.

	16-01-2002 01:14									#281
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Zealot Yes, I did! How do you think I explained why Jesus was expecting to find figs? 1a. He was born as a human, why shouldn't he? Everybody knows that we eat to feed our cells in order to have energy! This is a dumb question... 1b. Well, this is a good question though. I can't see why, but for the reason he was hungry, and was curious, or was looking for birds which feed themselves with figs (my grandpa lost a lot of figs because the birds ate them all before they were mature for us to eat). 1c. As I said before, the fig tree should have any fig on it, even the little and immature ones. Since the fig tree didn't have any, it was just consuming the earth's nutrients without giving any fruit. It was a useless tree. 1d. the visible effects were only seen in the following morning. The tree died, but without being any "entertainment show". I'm not quoting anywhere, I'm just using common sense, for a guy who knows quite a bit about fig trees.

Again...your post betrays the fact that you did NOT read the page or bother to address the issues.We are not talking about your grandfather,or YOUR supposed knowledge of fig trees,or birds eating figs.If you bothered to read you would notice the gospel accounts do not say "Jesus destroyed the tree but it took a whole day to die".The gospel of Mathew says the tree was destroyed by Jesus IMMEDIATELY and the gospel of Mark contradicts this.VIOLA!!Biblical contradiction!
Also,as I said we are not talking about a regular mortal like your grandfather...we are talking about the allegedly infallible SON OF GOD!

	16-01-2002 01:21									#282
	Suffering from ads?

Lars:

Here's an example of Kurt Wise debunking a creationist claim.

This is a creationist article in which Wise addresses being called a "closet evolutionist" by other creationists.

And Zhu has already given a link to Sadly, an Honest Creationist.

I haven't found a specific reference to Wise's admission that the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution (not everything is on the Net, after all). But why else would an atheistic "evolutionist" like Dawkins, who loathes creationists in general, call Wise an "honest creationist"?

quote: We DO believe this? Do you believe evolution has been proven? If so please provide the paper where it's proven and the name of the guy that won the Nobel Prize for writing it.

Evolution consists of mutations and natural selection. Both have been observed, therefore evolution has been "proven".

Of course, the claim that all species on Earth have definitely been produced entirely by Darwinian evolution is un-proveable. Therefore it is not scientific: inherently unfalsifiable claims have no place in science.

quote: As far as lying goes: Are you trying to prove the conspiracy theory that creationists produce allmost nothing but lies?

Certainly not! I am claiming that creationists produce absolutely nothing but lies.

	16-01-2002 01:22									#283
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Zealot Ok, ok, don't yell! http://www.godandscience.org/apolog...localflood.html About those who personally insult you, you just have to say that Chist wouldn't ever treat you that way! And try to find Christians who are both respectable and have some scientific knowledge about theism.

Quit reposting links already shown to be lacking in refutation.There were dozens of points made in that first post alone and the link you are hoping can bail you out does not begin to adequately address the issues.Surely you can pick out at least several points yourself and offer some rebuttal ...?

How do you know "Christ would never treat me that way"?He treated many others(according to the bible) much worse.Do you know the mind of god/christ so well and yet are ubnable to hold your own in a debate with an atheist like me?

	16-01-2002 01:25									#284
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Damn, you people! Can't you have one debate without it turning into a war of the pedants over irrelevancies? Get back to debating evolution and entertain me!

Re The post below this one: Posts no longer count here so there is no reason to split your posts up in order to get your count up.

	16-01-2002 01:26									#285
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Find some christians who posess scientific knowledge about theism???


ROTFLMFAO!!!

	16-01-2002 01:27									#286
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

SkeleTony69, now you're just being a plain dork.
You are the one who must read the subject again!
You asked questions, I answered them.
What the hell do you want from me?

	16-01-2002 01:43									#287
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

You did NOT answer anything but your own misunderstandings of what the questions were!

IDIOCY...MAKING...HEAD...HURT.

MUST...IGNORE...ZEALOT!!!

	16-01-2002 01:50									#288
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Okay Zealot lets try and tackle just ONE of the problems.I will pick a simple(as in not hard to understand) one from my initial post:

Why do males have nipples?


Please do not repost the "Godandscience" link again.To the best of my knowledge the question is not addressed there and besides I want to hear a convincing refutation from one of you guys.

	16-01-2002 02:21									#289
	Inflate your Upload Space

Zealot:

quote: You mentioned some lying "creationists". I don't have the need to lie, and I always search for doubt-free sources in order to not lie.

The creation/evolution debate is rather like the flat-Earth/round-Earth debate: finding genuinely neutral sources is pretty much impossible. Given that both issues have long since been resolved, a person with no opinion on whether the Earth is flat or round would have to be very ignorant of geography, just as a person with no opinion on creationism or evolution would have to be ignorant of biology.

The closest you're likely to get would be some of the "Intelligent Design" (theistic evolution) supporters. But the pro-ID Discovery Institute refers to creationists as "guitar-strumming hilbillies" while some of its members make statements like "mutations cannot increase information" (false: they can, this has been observed to happen).

	16-01-2002 03:05									#290
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Zealot 1a. He was born as a human, why shouldn't he? Everybody knows that we eat to feed our cells in order to have energy! This is a dumb question... 1b. Well, this is a good question though. I can't see why, but for the reason he was hungry, and was curious, or was looking for birds which feed themselves with figs (my grandpa lost a lot of figs because the birds ate them all before they were mature for us to eat). 1c. As I said before, the fig tree should have any fig on it, even the little and immature ones. Since the fig tree didn't have any, it was just consuming the earth's nutrients without giving any fruit. It was a useless tree. 1d. the visible effects were only seen in the following morning. The tree died, but without being any "entertainment show". I'm not quoting anywhere, I'm just using common sense, for a guy who knows quite a bit about fig trees.

You seem to have missed the whole metaphor of that story.

	16-01-2002 04:21									#291
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

ARGH! Jesus Christ on a pogo stick! As if I didn't have to put up with people not listening enough in real life, I have to deal with it here!

I never, not once, called anyone uneducated. What I said was that people were being willfully ignorant. What that means is that you've been ignoring every piece of concrete evidence for evolution brought forward; you've closed your eyes, ignored thousands of years of progress in math and science and genetics, and refuse to acknowledge any facts that contradict the claim that evolution is a lie.

I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that the universe, life, and evolution were created/directed by some sort of deity or higher power. There is no scientific evidence to deny that. But there are volumes upon volumes of data supporting the theory of evolution. As DinoDoc asked, what the hell is problem?

	16-01-2002 04:42									#292
	Got spare money?

both sides have their idiots and their wise men.
You must be an idiot to claim that everyone on 'the other side' is an idiot.

Believe me, I'm as frustrated as you are that you do'nt understand what I say, and that you can't see the point. That's why we disagree.

If you think everyone who disagrees with you is a complete idiot, you pherhaps should start to learn to debate. And you can think whatever you want, but it's really really not done to speak those shameless thoughts out in public.

Why can't you just act like you're mature ?
btw, I don't know who mentioned that I was the one that claimed the bible didn't got any errors / etc. Why don't you read my posts before you blame me.

Last: why is majority of my points not answered, while the thread grew insane ? Ignoring posts doesn't make the evolutionistic team look very clever.

You can just admit a point now and then. (like I did and will do again) or do you REALLY believe that all you say is right and all we say is wrong ?

In fact: people that think that way are really helpless. Theistic or atheistic.......... write it on the top of your monitor so you can read it everytime you debate: "I'm not infallable, not omniscient, and even I make mistakes"

good night my humble gods.

CyberShy

	16-01-2002 07:50									#293
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

If it was not you Cybershy who stated this then I apologise as it was I who mistakenly identified you as the one to put forth the claim that the bible contained no errors(my memory is not what it used to be).

I have no problem admitting I am wrong when I am indeed wrong but why on earth do creationists insist that we concede that we are wrong(or be labled "arrogant" or "close minded")even if we have not been shown to be wrong?

I am unaware of any points you made that went unanswered so I will reread the thread later when I have time but this doesn't change the fact that pretty much every point in the entire case for evolution has gone unanswered and we have caught several out right lies put forth by your side(the false deathbed recantation of Charles Darwin comes to mind as well as the several scientific errors).

Show us to be in err,through logic,reason and ACTUAL scientific evidence rather than just say "you guys are wrong" and I will be first to admit such.

jack's analogy about the "flat earthers" is spot on and that is why we do not conced that there are "wise" people on the creation "science" side.

	16-01-2002 07:55									#294
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin quote: 1a) Why was the son of God hungry? 1b)What sort of moron looks for figs on a tree when it is not fig season?!? 1c)Is it rational to kill a tree for not bearing fruit out of season? 1d)The first account says that the tree was withered by the following morning,but in the second Jesus immediately destroys the tree!Which is it? Like many NT stories, it is made up of metaphor. Think about it, if you still need help I will explain.

The funny thing here is that Bible literalists(I'm not saying you are one) are always literal until they run into a discrepancy which they cannot explain away and then we get the "well that is just metaphor" bit.It seems to "truly" understand the words of God,you have to fully understand the MIND of God(and if we can do that then what need have we of God?)!

I was merely pointing out substantial contradiction within the Bible which others claimed there was not any.

	16-01-2002 14:57									#295
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Skeletony69 you keep whining about ppl not answering your posts. What about my figtree post? I can't see that you answered it.

quote: Find some christians who posess scientific knowledge about theism???

Theologians know nothing about theism? Is this the argument that's gonna turn us into evolutionists?

	16-01-2002 15:17									#296
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless Here's an example of Kurt Wise debunking a creationist claim.

Debunking?

"Though I have not seen all of Conrad's
specimens, I suggest that his material be considered with the greatest caution. It is very possible that most, if not all, his material is inorganically precipitated iron siderite nodules and not fossil material at all"

I think that later they found that there were no "mammalian bones" there.

quote: This is a creationist article in which Wise addresses being called a "closet evolutionist" by other creationists.

Unfounded to say the least based on your article:

"He is concerned that there are 'creationists' around who, because of their understanding of particular scientific issues, deviate from the scriptural foundation promoted so strongly by Dr Henry Morris, for example."

Creationists who deviate from scriptures - I would expect them to say anything. There's seems to be a controversy between serious creationists like the ppl atICR

and creationists who do not believe the bible.

quote: And Zhu has already given a link to Sadly, an Honest Creationist.

Sadly, yes. This looked like an obituary where the writer mocks the dead. I am not surprised at Dawkins. He seems to have proven that God is dead. Dawkins is the Charles Simonyi Professor of Public Understanding of Science - is that public understand of 'God is dead theology" and evolution? Seems like even some evolutionists in this thread is fed up with this guy.

quote: I haven't found a specific reference to Wise's admission that the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution (not everything is on the Net, after all). But why else would an atheistic "evolutionist" like Dawkins, who loathes creationists in general, call Wise an "honest creationist"?

There could be many reasons. But then again there's only 1 saving answer. Evolution is the solution.

quote: Certainly not! I am claiming that creationists produce absolutely nothing but lies.

Even Wise ic. Paranoia.

	16-01-2002 16:04									#297
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Guynemer But there are volumes upon volumes of data supporting the theory of evolution. As DinoDoc asked, what the hell is problem?

There isn't really that much evidence for the theory of evolution - a least not enough to satisfy a skeptical scientist (like me!). There is a lot of evidence for certain areas: for example, evolution via mutation does occur in the laboratory in fruit flies, and carbon dating of fossils gives tells us the the Earth is older than the traditional 6000 years. There is also some evidence to suggest that the universe itself is approximately 14 billion years old (but you could dispute that).

However, there is absolutely no evidence for certain parts. For example, there is still no link between humans and apes. There are fossils of creatures which seem to fall in between but there are still big gaps. This is true for many other species too.

More worryingly, we have been completey unable to produce primitive life in the laboratory from inanimate matter. We actually have no evidence for the 'creation event' in the primordial soup. Was it one event (which may be extremely rare) from which all life on Earth spawned, or was there multiple events so that certain forms of life are completely unrelated? Did life even form here first at all? Perhaps there was monocellular life on an asteroid which impacted on the primitive Earth?

I personally feel that there will be some 'evolution-like' explanation, but I am certainly not convinced of Darwin's evolution via natural selection yet. There is just not enough evidence for it.

Remember Laplace's Theory of Evolution also looked correct until it was disproven by fossils.

I get a little bit annoyed when people say that if you don't believe in evolution you must be stupid. Skepticism in science is extremely valuable. Without it we are all poorer and scientific advance would be much slower.

Incidentally, not being convinced some theory is true doesn't mean you can't still use it in your quest for the real truth. Instead of typing this, I am supposed to be working on testing to see if Supersymmetry is present in nature, but I am by no means convinced that it is....

	16-01-2002 16:26									#298
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: However, there is absolutely no evidence for certain parts. For example, there is still no link between humans and apes. There are fossils of creatures which seem to fall in between but there are still big gaps. This is true for many other species too

True, there is a gap in the fossil record which includes the probable splitting point between the great apes and hominids, but "Lucy" (she was discovered 15-20 years ago, wasn't she?) is a good example of an extremely early hominid (australopithecus afarensis) from ~4 million years ago. Her brain capacity was just about 1/3 that of modern humans and she stood (yes, stood) just about 4 feet tall with heavy bone structure and musculature. I wouldn't really consider her human, and between her and us there's a pretty good link-up through a half-dozen steps.

	16-01-2002 17:25									#299
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Perhaps, but there was a real need for intelligence just to come up with the idea of a lever. Remember that these people are starting with nothing. They don't know what force is, or gravity, or acceleration, or anything. If you've never been told that sharpening a stone by rubbing it against another stone would make it cut well, or ever seen a knife, would you come up with the idea? I really don't know if I would. It took a lot of intelligence (and dexterity) just to get things off the ground while your biggest concern is still that leopard who's been looking at you hungrily for the last hour. It was a lot to ask for populations to become tool-makers out of nowhere, but there was a lot to be gained even from an extremely crude stone blade.

People are always amazed at how brilliant our ancestors were, often to the point of ridiculousness. Part of the problem is that due to their upbringing in the modern world they tend to think that the ancients had to work the whole idea out on a chalkboard, and then present it for peer review. They forget the power of the accidental discovery. The genius comes in the realization, the remembering, and most importantly the transmission of the idea.

For instance "the lever". A brilliant discovery. Of course the club is a useful lever par excellence. I have seen a nature film where a baboon picks up a (fairly sturdy) stick and strikes a lion with it, while others in the troop are throwing rocks and sticks and screaming like mad. How much of a leap is it to a biped hanging on to that stick out of fear (and having a free hand or two), and then finding other applications for the new force he has discovered, leverage?

I was watching another show on siege engines one night, and one of the archeologists was waxing on euphorically about how the ancients knew just how long to make the arm of the trebuchet to get the maximum efficiency, and how that sort of mathematics was not formally invented until centuries later. This again assumes the theoretic approach. I assume that in ancient times they did what me and my friends did, which is to adjust the fulcrum until the stone went no further. Hell, it's a lot quicker than inventing the math!

	16-01-2002 17:40									#300
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Ancient Sumerian texts record the event. I've read some of the ones relating to the flood. They also record a man building an ark. With more than one Civ recording the same event, your sources become more credible.