Neanderthal research (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Friday, July 29, 2011, 23:49 (4657 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

I was just teasing, Tony.&#13;&#10;> > &#13;&#10;> > I do ask you a question though, regarding your last comment. Science isn&apos;t about final answers, you know that, right? ALL theories are provisional. So moving the date back 30k years sould come as little suprise--new evidence will always push the boundary back a little further.&#13;&#10;> &#13;&#10;> A little further would be moving the boundary from 30k-35k... or even 40k. With the new evidence that points to the conclusion that Homo Sapien and Neanderthal are even more similar than previously believed, we are effectively pushing the date back more than ten-fold, which opens up a lot more questions than it answers. If mother nature could swallow our cities in ~200 years, and completely eradicate our presence(with the exception of nuclear waste) at <~200k years, the what possibilities does that leave for ancestors with a guestimated history of ~400k+ years? &#13;&#10;> -400k years is a blink of an eye in geological terms: 400k/4.5Bn = .0000088% of the entire age of the world, in fact. So yeah, 30k is only &quot;a little further.&quot; -Geological evidence would offer SOMETHING to support the idea of technologically advanced civilizations--which is where I know you&apos;re going with this--Pompeii, Ashfall NE, other sites in China, India, etc. Chichen Itza and Coba were &quot;swallowed by mother nature&quot; yet the pyramids still stand; the Great Pyramid in Egypt was also once buried. There are several sites for civilization dating back to 5100 in Meso America, I&apos;ve heard some estimates as far back as 10k years. But no evidence of any kind of civilization on par with our own--they certainly never cracked the atom, or harnessed oil. -If an ancient, pre stone-age civilization was that advanced, there would be solid evidence for it. -> &#13;&#10;> Yes, I know science is not about final answers. However, the average person does not think that way, nor do they recognize that when presented with all of these theories as fact.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"