The Orgin of Civilization. (verse, science, Universe, origin)

[Asheville Native]

Originally Posted by Mickiel

My money is on the divine. Its a gamble;

OK, the money is on the table, pot is right, time to show your cards.......... Oh you don't have any cards....... silly me

[Mickiel]

Take a look ( and this was a revealing learning experience for me , it proved me wrong about several things) at the best defined and most fully studied " Mesolithic culture", the Natufian, named after the Wadi en-Natuf in Israel, where the first of the sites was found. In 10,000 B.C., like their Paleolithic predecessors, the Natufians were hunters , about five feet tall, often living in the mouths of caves, were skillful in working bone and antler and in chipping retouched blades and burins out of flint, drew animals almost as well as the artist of the cave drawings of Lascaux, and wore perforated shells or animal teeth as ornaments ( I think 15,000, B.C. was close to the time of Adam).

By 9,000 B.C., they are buring their dead in ceremonial graves and adopting a more settled life. The latter is indicated by the first signs of structual building, such as plaving and walling of platforms with much plaster, and cemeteries sometimes as large enough for eighty-seven burials, a size unknown in any previous age. This was the age of " Names" comming about in language in evolutions theory. Evolution could make a case here for the advent of agriculture , but many evolutionist are too greedy with history and go back way too far for its advent. In the divine theory God taught Adams son Cain the beginnings of Agriculture, being a " Tiller of the ground."

From the Natufians came the " Eynans", still dating around 9,000 B.C., still Mesolithic , but their dead Kings are now considered " gods", and their elaborate tombs were considered " God - houses", or temples, which evolved into " Zuggurats", which later evolved into " Pyramids." Even on the theory of evolutions side we see the advent of " The divine" being an integral part of budding civilizations.

[Chango]

Originally Posted by Mickiel

Take a look ( and this was a revealing learning experience for me , it proved me wrong about several things) at the best defined and most fully studied " Mesolithic culture", the Natufian, named after the Wadi en-Natuf in Israel, where the first of the sites was found. In 10,000 B.C., like their Paleolithic predecessors, the Natufians were hunters , about five feet tall, often living in the mouths of caves, were skillful in working bone and antler and in chipping retouched blades and burins out of flint, drew animals almost as well as the artist of the cave drawings of Lascaux, and wore perforated shells or animal teeth as ornaments ( I think 15,000, B.C. was close to the time of Adam).

By 9,000 B.C., they are buring their dead in ceremonial graves and adopting a more settled life. The latter is indicated by the first signs of structual building, such as plaving and walling of platforms with much plaster, and cemeteries sometimes as large enough for eighty-seven burials, a size unknown in any previous age. This was the age of " Names" comming about in language in evolutions theory. Evolution could make a case here for the advent of agriculture , but many evolutionist are too greedy with history and go back way too far for its advent. In the divine theory God taught Adams son Cain the beginnings of Agriculture, being a " Tiller of the ground."

From the Natufians came the " Eynans", still dating around 9,000 B.C., still Mesolithic , but their dead Kings are now considered " gods", and their elaborate tombs were considered " God - houses", or temples, which evolved into " Zuggurats", which later evolved into " Pyramids." Even on the theory of evolutions side we see the advent of " The divine" being an integral part of budding civilizations.

Provided they even are the "first". Humanity seems to have spread around the world along the coasts, and -10,000 years ago and further back, those ancient coasts weren't underwater. We may never know about them, all traces would be obliterated after ten thousand years underwater.

If god did it, civilization would naturally spring out of nowhere fully formed, true, but it only superficially looks that way because we haven't found much from the time before the Sumerians. The natural environment is in constant flux; the stuff we build rarely lasts a few hundred years, much less 10 thousand.

[Mickiel]

Originally Posted by Chango

You should learn more about animal behaviors... especially Chimpanzees. If you do, you will see their tenderness, pain, violence, creativity and complicated relationships with each other are practically a mirror image of human behavior even today.

The comparison even works with Nature itself; nature as a whole can be awe inspiring and jaw dropping, ingenious and fascinating, cruel and indifferent, and even frighteningly violent and destructive. Humans are no different; clearly we are all creatures cast from the same mold...a mold formed by the nature of our world itself.

I admit that blood precipitation test indicate that the chimpanzee is our closest relative , I think 90% something simular, but I maintain that they are not conscious , as humans are. And thats the defining difference, besides; we must observe the following and keep them in consideration;

Milk chemistry indicates that the Donkey is mans closest relative.

Cholesteral level test indicate that the Garter Snake is man's closest relative.

Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the Chicken is mans closest relative.

On the basics of yet another type of blood chemistry test, the " Butterbean" is man's closest relative.

[Mickiel]

The beginning of civilization then can be pinpionted to the Eynan culture and possibly simultaneously in the Levant and Iraq lands around 9,000 B.C., and Agriculture in the near Eastern highlands, which later we see animal domestication going on within dominant food collecting economys. By 7,000 B.C. Agriculture had become the primary subsistence of farming settlements found in assorted sites in the Levant, the Zagros area, and southwest Anatolia. The crops consisted of einkorn, emmer, and barely, and the domesticated animals were sheep, goats and sometimes pigs. By 6,000 B.C. this spread over much of the Near East. By 5,000 B.C., the agricultural colonization of the alluvial valleys of the Tigris-Euphrates and Nile was rapidly spreading, swelling populations into an intensive cultural landscape. Cities of 10,000 inhabitants, as at the Merinde on the western edge of the Nile delta, were not uncommon. The great dynasties of Ur and of Egypt begin their mighty impact on history.

[Chango]

Originally Posted by Mickiel

I admit that blood precipitation test indicate that the chimpanzee is our closest relative , I think 90% something simular, but I maintain that they are not conscious , as humans are. And thats the defining difference, besides; we must observe the following and keep them in consideration;

Milk chemistry indicates that the Donkey is mans closest relative.

Cholesteral level test indicate that the Garter Snake is man's closest relative.

Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the Chicken is mans closest relative.

On the basics of yet another type of blood chemistry test, the " Butterbean" is man's closest relative.

Sources? And please not from "Jimbo's hoedown for Jesus academy" in central Tennessee.

[sanspeur]

Originally Posted by Chango

Sources? And please not from "Jimbo's hoedown for Jesus academy" in central Tennessee.

He had dragged that crap up before and it was thoroughly debunked...Facts bounce off this guy like bullets bounce off superman.

[Mickiel]

Originally Posted by Chango

Sources? And please not from "Jimbo's hoedown for Jesus academy" in central Tennessee.

I got that from a site I ran across on the internet years ago. I don't remember the site, so I can't give it. Its just in my notes.

[AREQUIPA]

Originally Posted by Mickiel

I admit that blood precipitation test indicate that the chimpanzee is our closest relative , I think 90% something simular, but I maintain that they are not conscious , as humans are. And thats the defining difference, besides; we must observe the following and keep them in consideration;

Milk chemistry indicates that the Donkey is mans closest relative.

Cholesteral level test indicate that the Garter Snake is man's closest relative.

Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the Chicken is mans closest relative.

On the basics of yet another type of blood chemistry test, the " Butterbean" is man's closest relative.

Which shows that we all evolved from something from which the butterbean also evolved.

Now I take your point about consciousness, but your argument is not about consciousness which your animals don't have but grouping together, which they do. If you are going to postulate consciousness as the origin of civilization, then do so, but animal grouping is traceable back to the animals and thus at least the hand dealt to evolution seems to be the winning one.

[Chango]

Originally Posted by Mickiel

I got that from a site I ran across on the internet years ago. I don't remember the site, so I can't give it. Its just in my notes.

I don't think it's exactly accurate. Just sayin'