Americans Favour Creationism Over Evolution

[Hobbit]

With the Easter Island statues, they know what quarry they were taken from, that they were brought down to the beach from that quarry and that they were carved. The empty eyes were filled with lighter colored coral shaped like eyes. One of the more fascinating things about them is the statues were fashioned to look into the island and not out to sea. This leads anthropologists to believe that they were ancestor totems set to look upon their progeny.

They also know who they were created by. The Rapa Nui Society created the statues.

Here is a site that will tell you about the creation of the statues and the Rapa Nuis:

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/ioa/eisp/rapanui/rapanui.htm

I thought it had been concluded that the natives didn't have the technology to move such large rocks. I'll conced if I'm wrong and change the analogy to Stonehenge, but that was my understanding.

 

[no1tovote4]

I thought it had been concluded that the natives didn't have the technology to move such large rocks. I'll conced if I'm wrong and change the analogy to Stonehenge, but that was my understanding.

The analogy would still apply if you simply assumed that we just found the statues and had no evidence of their creation.

However, they know how they were transported as the Rapa Nui actually left records.

http://www.primitivism.com/easter-island.htm

The polynesian writing of "rongorongo" was used to establish the rituals and history of the people.

Settlements were scattered across the island in small clusters of peasant huts with crops grown in open fields. Social activities were centred around separate ceremonial centres, which were occupied for part of the year. The chief monuments were large stone platforms, similar to those found in other parts of Polynesia and known as ahu, which were used for burials, ancestor worship and to commemorate past clan chiefs. What made Easter Island different was that crop production took very little effort and therefore there was plenty of free time which the clan chiefs were able to direct into ceremonial activities. The result was the creation of the most advanced of all the Polynesian societies and one of the most complex in the world for its limited resource base. The Easter Islanders engaged in elaborate rituals and monument construction. Some of the ceremonies involved recitation from the only known Polynesian form of writing called rongorongo, which was probably less a true script and more a series of mnemonic devices. One set of elaborate rituals was based on the bird cult at Orongo, where there are the remains of forty-seven special houses together with numerous platforms and a series of high-relief rock carvings. The crucial centres of ceremonial activity were the ahu. Over 300 of these platforms were constructed on the island, mainly near the coast. The level of intellectual achievement of at least some parts of Easter Island society can be judged by the fact that a number of these ahu have sophisticated astronomical alignments, usually towards one of the solstices or the equinox. At each site they erected between one and fifteen of the huge stone statues that survive today as a unique memorial to the vanished Easter Island society. It is these statues which took up immense amounts of peasant labour. The statues were carved, using only obsidian stone tools, at the quarry at Rano Raraku. They were fashioned to represent in a highly stylised form a male head and torso. On top of the head was placed a 'topknot' of red stone weighing about ten tons from another quarry. The carving was a time-consuming rather than a complex task. The most challenging problem was to transport the statues, each some twenty feet in length and weighing several tens of tons, across the island and the then erect them on top of the ahu.

The Easter Islanders' solution to the problem of transport provides the key to the subsequent fate of their whole society. Lacking any draught animals they had to rely on human power to drag the statues across the island using tree trunks as rollers. The population of the island grew steadily from the original small group in the fifth century to about 7,000 at its peak in 1550. Over time the number of clan groups would have increased and also the competition between them. By the sixteenth century hundreds of ahu had been constructed and with them over 600 of the huge stone statues. Then, when the society was at its peak, it suddenly collapsed leaving over half the statues only partially completed around Rano Raraku quarry. The cause of the collapse and the key to understanding the 'mysteries' of Easter Island was massive environmental degradation brought on by deforestation of the whole island.

It is a fascinating study of how climate change and human interaction within a limited climate can effect a society. Cutting the trees down for farming and for transport of the statues and platforms used for ceremonies caused much of their downfall.

 

[no1tovote4]

Stonehenge is equally fascinating. A University, I forget which, once did a study on the technology of the time. They cut two stones from the quarry that they know the stones came from and attempted to transport them to the site using the technology of that time. They failed miserably when attempting to cross the first stream. They were unable to reproduce the feat by any means available with the known technology of that time.

 

[Powerman]

I hope you are not serious here because this is a poor analogy. The universe is not a rock carving.

It's a terrible analogy. If you asked most scientists what happened to the rocks they would say that someone put them there or carved them in that fashion. I suppose since scientists don't use a deity to explain the existence of life that would make them eliminate the idea that a person could have put something some where? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Powerman]

Stonehenge is equally fascinating. A University, I forget which, once did a study on the technology of the time. They cut two stones from the quarry that they know the stones came from and attempted to transport them to the site using the technology of that time. They failed miserably when attempting to cross the first stream. They were unable to reproduce the feat by any means available with the known technology of that time.

Yeah I got a chance to see stonehenge when I lived in Scotland. Pretty cool stuff. Have you ever heard of the Choral Castle?

 

[no1tovote4]

Yeah I got a chance to see stonehenge when I lived in Scotland. Pretty cool stuff. Have you ever heard of the Choral Castle?

Yes I have. Dude fashioned something where he could move all those heavy cuttings himself. He worked alone and fashioned something that they still cannot figure out.

I love mysteries like that.

 

[Powerman]

Yes I have. Dude fashioned something where he could move all those heavy cuttings himself. He worked alone and fashioned something that they still cannot figure out.

I love mysteries like that.

Yeah things like that are really interesting. I think sometimes it makes it better when you don't know. If someone explained to you how they did everything it would kinda take the fun out of it for me. I play guitar and I try not to learn my favorite songs on the guitar because it will make me not appreciate the song as much for some odd reason. Guess it's kinda analagous to me not wanting to know some things.

 

[Nuc]

And I'd like to know why you think it's a poor analogy. The complexity of the Easter Island statues is evidence that they were created. Therefore, why shouldn't the complexity of life be evidence that it, too, was created.

I don't think you are serious, but I'll bite. Easter Island statues are examples of statues. We know for a fact that most, if not all, statues have been made by man. We also have a pretty good idea that they weren't made by birds or worms. So although we may not know exactly who made the statues we can assume on the basis of our knowledge of statues that they were made by man.

On the other hand there is only one universe. There are no other universes with creators known to us for us to compare this one to.

When you say stuff like this it calls all of your reasoning into question.

 

[Powerman]

I don't think you are serious, but I'll bite. Easter Island statues are examples of statues. We know for a fact that most, if not all, statues have been made by man. We also have a pretty good idea that they weren't made by birds or worms. So although we may not know exactly who made the statues we can assume on the basis of our knowledge of statues that they were made by man.

On the other hand there is only one universe. There are no other universes with creators known to us for us to compare this one to.

When you say stuff like this it calls all of your reasoning into question.

Now that's logic I can follow. You have a basis for comparison in one case and in the other you don't. It completely seperates the 2.

Also Hobbit you might want to be careful when you say things like "gravity isn't a theory" when people like myself no damn well that it is a theory and can easily call you out on it. Making things up off of the top of your head isn't a good way to conduct yourself in an argument regarding science. I'm willing to let it slide because it might not be well known to the average person that gravity is a theory.

 

[Gunny]

Now that's logic I can follow. You have a basis for comparison in one case and in the other you don't. It completely seperates the 2.

Also Hobbit you might want to be careful when you say things like "gravity isn't a theory" when people like myself no damn well that it is a theory and can easily call you out on it. Making things up off of the top of your head isn't a good way to conduct yourself in an argument regarding science. I'm willing to let it slide because it might not be well known to the average person that gravity is a theory.

Gravity is a theory supported by fact, within the limits of Man's intellect. Scientific theories of origin are supported by NO facts, nor even logical conclusion anymore logical than ID.

 

[Powerman]

Gravity is a theory supported by fact, within the limits of Man's intellect. Scientific theories of origin are supported by NO facts, nor even logical conclusion anymore logical than ID.

That's simply not the case. The evidence is in the fossil record. There are facts that support evolution. You just don't want to believe it so you'll sit here and argue with me about it for no reason.

 

[no1tovote4]

That's simply not the case. The evidence is in the fossil record. There are facts that support evolution. You just don't want to believe it so you'll sit here and argue with me about it for no reason.

You are mixing up Evolution with Origin, they are two different tracks of scientific reasoning. The fossil record supports evolution, it has no idea nor can it on where it all started and how.

Gunny is speaking solely of Origin Theories, not about Evolution.

 

[Powerman]

You are mixing up Evolution with Origin, they are two different tracks of scientific reasoning. The fossil record supports evolution, it has no idea nor can it on where it all started and how.

Gunny is speaking solely of Origin Theories, not about Evolution.

OK so I guess I did get mixed up there. Well since we don't have a good explanation of the actual origin of life then why bother teaching that part of it at all. Just teach evolution from where we can understand it.

 

[Gunny]

You are mixing up Evolution with Origin, they are two different tracks of scientific reasoning. The fossil record supports evolution, it has no idea nor can it on where it all started and how.

Gunny is speaking solely of Origin Theories, not about Evolution.

Thank you. I think there's a mental block on this though.

I have no problem with evolution, and do not find it and religion at odds.

My simple point concerning "origin" is that one theory is as good as any other without evidence, of which there is none I an aware of.

 

[no1tovote4]

OK so I guess I did get mixed up there. Well since we don't have a good explanation of the actual origin of life then why bother teaching that part of it at all. Just teach evolution from where we can understand it.

I agree with this. If there is no supporting evidence then we should not teach it in science class.

 

[Gunny]

OK so I guess I did get mixed up there. Well since we don't have a good explanation of the actual origin of life then why bother teaching that part of it at all. Just teach evolution from where we can understand it.

I agree with it too.