Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Christian/Creation PB followers

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by GeorgiaPeach View Post
    Ooops I must have asked the question the wrong way... Looks like I said, "would someone debate creation vs evolution?"
    I like your sense of humor lol. I'm a Christian/creationist. I believe in God and Jesus Christ as my savior. To me it just makes sense that God made us to eat the food He created...not the food we created. I do believe that a lot of the science behind PB/Paleo makes a lot of sense, but I in no way believe in or support the evolution/natural selection theory. I'm assuming your Christian too? Good to know I'm not the only one lol God bless

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Grok View Post
      How many people do you think were in these tribes? Do you think when you broke a leg 25,000 years ago you were rushed off to a socialist tribal doctor who put you in a splint?
      I'm aware that they didn't have the technology that we have today and never stated anything to the contrary. Quality of life is not defined by technology.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
        I'm aware that they didn't have the technology that we have today and never stated anything to the contrary. Quality of life is not defined by technology.
        No, I mean seriously, how many people do you think were in prehistoric tribes before the advent of farming and domesticated animals? Say typical size and largest size?

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Grok View Post
          No, I mean seriously, how many people do you think were in prehistoric tribes before the advent of farming and domesticated animals? Say typical size and largest size?
          Maybe 50 to 150. I don't have any reliable info on that.

          Comment


          • #95
            Neither do I, that would be my guess as well. I would have guessed anywhere between a few dozen as typical size and a little over 100 for larger tribes.

            Clearly humans migrated so not everyone stayed put in a single place either.

            I'm sure there was some division of labor among the sexes, and probably some free trade among neighboring tribes.

            However, I sincerely doubt that there were certain people who had certain full-time professions like "cop" and "teacher" and "doctor". Yeah, there may have been a medicine man, but that was probably someone who was also an elder and had already spent a lifetime of hunting. Schooling was probably just a boy going through rites of passage to become a man. And there was no way in hell there were cops in prehistoric times. Disputes were handled the old fashioned way. Like that one between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton.

            I'm sure for larger tribes, if you are hunting big game, you need coordination and everyone participating. The idea that there were men doing full-time professions as young adults other than hunting seems unlikely to me. The idea of having policemen, and teachers and other "social workers" in prehistoric tribal times seems like a far-fetched fantasy of an anarcho-communist who has a dream that the natural way of things is the "socialist man" who lives from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

            I think it is far more likely, that if you were a man, you were a hunter. And if you couldn't hunt, you probably didn't live to become a man.
            Last edited by Grok; 06-22-2012, 10:41 PM.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Grok View Post
              Neither do I, that would be my guess as well. I would have guessed anywhere between a few dozen as typical size and a little over 100 for larger tribes.

              Clearly humans migrated so not everyone stayed put in a single place either.

              I'm sure there was some division of labor among the sexes, and probably some free trade among neighboring tribes.

              However, I sincerely doubt that there were certain people who had certain full-time professions like "cop" and "teacher" and "doctor". Yeah, there may have been a medicine man, but that was probably someone who was also an elder and had already spent a lifetime of hunting. Schooling was probably just a boy going through rites of passage to become a man. And there was no way in hell there were cops in prehistoric times. Disputes were handled the old fashioned way. Like that one between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton.

              I'm sure for larger tribes, if you are hunting big game, you need coordination and everyone participating. The idea that there were men doing full-time professions as young adults other than hunting seems unlikely to me. The idea of having policemen, and teachers and other "social workers" in prehistoric tribal times seems like a far-fetched fantasy of an anarcho-communist who has a dream that the natural way of things is the "socialist man" who lives from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.

              I think it is far more likely, that if you were a man, you were a hunter. And if you couldn't hunt, you probably didn't live to become a man.
              You totally did not understand the point of what I was saying. I agree that defined titles were not necessarily common. All I was saying is that their economy was "give support, receive support", and our current economy is "make products, receive products."

              I disagree on that last notion though. I think there were multiple places for men and women in these tribes. Even you state there was probably some division of labor. I think you should stop arguing with me over minor details, contradicting yourself, and maybe be open to the possibility that some of these people had something that worked better than what we have now. Not because it was advanced, but because it was refined by evolution of millions of years.
              Last edited by wiltondeportes; 06-22-2012, 10:52 PM.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by karatepig View Post
                I understand this line of thought, I truly do, but it allows human psychology to alter data (that data here being the Bible). We humans often find ourselves finding patterns where none really exist (think of cloud watching). Using our modern understanding of history and Physics (by which I refer to all scientific fields), it is possibly to attribute MANY fantastic meanings to even the simplest legend. This has been done quite famously with the multifold "prophesies" of Nostradamus. You can read books full of precise interpretations, and see for yourself how they change over the years as different events take place.

                I don't mean to pick on you RitaRose, even if it may seem that way.
                Oh, no, I didn't think you were picking on me at all.

                I think the human mind, whether focusing on theology or science, will always interpret data in a way that fits our belief system and makes sense to us. It's just what we do, finding patterns and links where there are none. A perfect example of that is the monkey face on the moon or, more recently, Mickey Mouse on Mercury.

                I think it happens in many religions (coincidence or unknown natural cause interpreted as a miracle) but also in science. Think how high cholesterol levels were tied in to heart attacks, even though the relationship just isn't there.

                In other words, I think we all make leaps of faith when it comes to dealing with our lives. Some of them are reasonable and some are pretty ridiculous. But I don't think it's exclusive to the religious community.
                Last edited by RitaRose; 06-23-2012, 06:58 AM.
                Durp.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                  You totally did not understand the point of what I was saying. I agree that defined titles were not necessarily common. All I was saying is that their economy was "give support, receive support", and our current economy is "make products, receive products."

                  I disagree on that last notion though. I think there were multiple places for men and women in these tribes. Even you state there was probably some division of labor. I think you should stop arguing with me over minor details, contradicting yourself, and maybe be open to the possibility that some of these people had something that worked better than what we have now. Not because it was advanced, but because it was refined by evolution of millions of years.
                  Yes, it is an interesting topic and I was contemplating it as I went to sleep last night and again this morning.

                  For division of labor, I surmise that labor was chiefly divided among four different groups: children, elders, able-bodied men and able-bodied women. A further more refined division of labor would occur within the women and children as they performed most of the work.

                  Let's assume an average tribe size was fifty people and half of those are male. Now, let's assume roughly 10% of the males are considered "elders" and perform other duties besides hunting. We can also assume a certain percentage of the males are going to be children who are too young to hunt. So let's assume we have twenty-five males, three of which are elders and five of which are young children. And for the sake of argument, let's assume one able-bodied male is sick or incapacitated in some way who is left to guard the women with the elders while the rest are hunting. That leaves sixteen able-bodied men to gather enough protein for fifty tribesmen each day.

                  Since not all hunting is going to be successful, the sixteen lean men divide themselves into four groups of four men who head off in different directions to gather protein while the fatty women gather carbohydrate. One group heads to the river for fishing, one group sets traps and checks traps for small game and the other two groups look for larger game. At the end of the day a dozen fish were caught, a couple of rabbits were trapped, and a porcupine was speared. One group was unsuccessful at catching anything.

                  Now, let's consider an anarco-communist perspective of the same tribe. Of the sixteen able-bodied men left to hunt the protein for the rest of the tribe, one decides he doesn't want to hunt and wants to become a social worker instead. So he decides he will become the socialist cook. The others, thinking that hunting could be harmful to their health think this is a good idea, and so one becomes the socialist story teller who entertains the tribe and tells the story of the day's hunt. Another decides he wants to become the socialist central planner. His job is to evenly divide the meat for the day to ensure that the elderly and sick and foodless people of the tribe get a fair share. Then yet another decides that he wants to be a socialist fire keeper. His job is to collect wood and start the fires and make sure there is always fire available for the tribe. Then another decides he wants to become the socialist teacher. His job is to educate the children about how to be a good socialist man when they grow up. Then another decides he wants to be a socialist artist. His job is to paint pictures on cave walls of the hunt to entertain the villagers. And so on, and so on until there is only one man left who couldn't think of something to do besides the dangerous job of hunting.

                  So in this fantasy-land anarcho-socialist tribe the last remaining able-bodied independent productive male is left to do all the dangerous hunting for all the totally unproductive socialists in the tribe. After one day of this they are all starving and start blaming the single hunter for not doing is job well enough. The single hunter decides he doesn't like doing all the hunting for everyone else so he protests. Then the socialist central planner gets the socialist cop to enforce the socialist plan and uses force and violence to force the single hunter to hunt. All socialist societies result in force in violence because of course nobody wants to do the dangerous work.

                  So the next day, the hunter goes off and never returns to his socialist tribe which is no longer an anarchy and is now ruled by violent socialist dictators who are starving to death. And socialism, tyranny, oppression, and totalitarianism will have to wait another 25,000 years...
                  Last edited by Grok; 06-23-2012, 08:24 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                    All I was saying is that their economy was "give support, receive support", and our current economy is "make products, receive products."
                    I think this is an important point you make and clears up the idea that Grok was somehow less greedy and less violent....the central motivation is different, but the nature of the person is the same.

                    Originally posted by Uncephalized View Post
                    It doesn't mean people were never petty and never corrupt and never awful,
                    Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                    and we naturally must protect our area from violent threats.
                    ...because, I imagine (can't say where I think I know/suspect/infer that from), aside from disputes inside the tribes, they also had to protect themselves from other tribes, and I can't accept that all tribes only attacked other tribes when their own survival was at risk (that's a romanticization). I'll bet sometimes they did it just because they wanted what that other tribe had....or maybe their god told them to do it...
                    Female, age 51, 5' 9"
                    SW - 183 (Jan 22, 2012), CW - 159, GW - healthy.

                    Met my 2012 goals by losing 24 pounds.
                    2013 goals are to get fit and strong!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Grok View Post

                      Since not all hunting is going to be successful, the sixteen lean men divide themselves into four groups....

                      ....So the next day, the hunter goes off and never returns to his socialist tribe which is no longer an anarchy and is now ruled by violent socialist dictators who are starving to death. And socialism, tyranny, oppression, and totalitarianism will have to wait another 25,000 years...
                      That's great!
                      Female, age 51, 5' 9"
                      SW - 183 (Jan 22, 2012), CW - 159, GW - healthy.

                      Met my 2012 goals by losing 24 pounds.
                      2013 goals are to get fit and strong!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by RitaRose View Post
                        Oh, no, I didn't think you were picking on me at all.

                        I think the human mind, whether focusing on theology or science, will always interpret data in a way that fits our belief system and makes sense to us. It's just what we do, finding patterns and links where there are none. A perfect example of that is the monkey face on the moon or, more recently, Mickey Mouse on Mercury.

                        I think it happens in many religions (coincidence or unknown natural cause interpreted as a miracle) but also in science. Think how high cholesterol levels were tied in to heart attacks, even though the relationship just isn't there.

                        In other words, I think we all make leaps of faith when it comes to dealing with our lives. Some of them are reasonable and some are pretty ridiculous. But I don't think it's exclusive to the religious community.
                        I won't argue that. However, if one is to presume that science and faith go hand in hand via a non-literal interpretation of the bible, one question comes to mind. Why? Why the faith component, when the universe works just fine without it? Why must a god exist? Nothing in physics thus far demands the existence of a god. There are gaps in our knowledge, but fewer every day. The same method of scientific inquiry has proved its' mettle time and time again. The last, big "gap" that I hear creationists refer to is before the beginning. That is, "where did the matter and energy that formed the singularity (the point in space from which came the unfortunately-named Big Bang) come from?" When a physicist says "I don't know", the creationist will say "AHA!" As if that lack of knowledge invalidates all of science. But creationists have no better answer to the question "where did god come from?". In fact,they have worse. Am I really supposed to swallow the no beginning crap? The universe is a marvelously complex, IMPRECISE, and fundamental RANDOM place. When you begin to get into quantum physics, you realized how hap-hazard "reality" is. Hell, did you know that particles actually pop in and out of existence all the time in the form of matter and anti-matter, only to be destroyed in almost the same instant? The supposed void of space contains unfathomable amounts of energy. Energy can convert to matter. There's the mechanism for "something from nothing" right there. And that is just the tip of the iceberg!
                        I understand that I probably won't sway you, but I, for one, find it unbelievable that any one entity could invent every nuance of the universe, then create it all using some king of u=inherent, sourceless power (because it had a source, then it would have defining properties, and, thus, limitations.)

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by karatepig View Post
                          Why? Why the faith component, when the universe works just fine without it? Why must a god exist? Nothing in physics thus far demands the existence of a god.)
                          There is no perceived need for black pigs. Pink pigs and white pigs do the job quite well. For that matter, there's no specific need for pigs in general. Sure, they have a role in the world, but we could just as easily eat cows and chickens and fish and do quite well. The world does not demand their existence. And yet they exist.

                          The one failing of science (often attributed to theology) is that there must be a reason, a "need", for the existence of everything, and every action must have a compelling reason.

                          Originally posted by karatepig View Post
                          When you begin to get into quantum physics, you realized how hap-hazard "reality" is. Hell, did you know that particles actually pop in and out of existence all the time in the form of matter and anti-matter, only to be destroyed in almost the same instant? The supposed void of space contains unfathomable amounts of energy. Energy can convert to matter. There's the mechanism for "something from nothing" right there. And that is just the tip of the iceberg!
                          I understand that I probably won't sway you, but I, for one, find it unbelievable that any one entity could invent every nuance of the universe, then create it all using some king of u=inherent, sourceless power (because it had a source, then it would have defining properties, and, thus, limitations.)
                          And yet quantum physics makes sense?
                          Durp.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by karatepig View Post
                            There are gaps in our knowledge, but fewer every day.
                            There are vast expanses of deep interstellar empty space in our knowledge and they grow larger every day.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by wiltondeportes View Post
                              All I was saying is that their economy was "give support, receive support", and our current economy is "make products, receive products."
                              Up until about 30,000 B.C. (as far as we know) there wasn't much capital to become a capitalist. The earliest pottery dates to around 30,000 BC, and the earliest farming evidence we have dates to around 25,000 BC.

                              Once capital equipment is invented such as a fishing net, people can become more productive in certain areas of the economy and you can have a greater division of labor and larger societies which allow you to kill off competition for your food. Thus we see the extinction of other species around that time like the Neanderthals.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Grok View Post
                                Yes, it is an interesting topic and I was contemplating it as I went to sleep last night and again this morning.

                                For division of labor, I surmise that labor was chiefly divided among four different groups: children, elders, able-bodied men and able-bodied women. A further more refined division of labor would occur within the women and children as they performed most of the work.

                                Let's assume an average tribe size was fifty people and half of those are male. Now, let's assume roughly 10% of the males are considered "elders" and perform other duties besides hunting. We can also assume a certain percentage of the males are going to be children who are too young to hunt. So let's assume we have twenty-five males, three of which are elders and five of which are young children. And for the sake of argument, let's assume one able-bodied male is sick or incapacitated in some way who is left to guard the women with the elders while the rest are hunting. That leaves sixteen able-bodied men to gather enough protein for fifty tribesmen each day.

                                Since not all hunting is going to be successful, the sixteen lean men divide themselves into four groups of four men who head off in different directions to gather protein while the fatty women gather carbohydrate. One group heads to the river for fishing, one group sets traps and checks traps for small game and the other two groups look for larger game. At the end of the day a dozen fish were caught, a couple of rabbits were trapped, and a porcupine was speared. One group was unsuccessful at catching anything.

                                Now, let's consider an anarco-communist perspective of the same tribe. Of the sixteen able-bodied men left to hunt the protein for the rest of the tribe, one decides he doesn't want to hunt and wants to become a social worker instead. So he decides he will become the socialist cook. The others, thinking that hunting could be harmful to their health think this is a good idea, and so one becomes the socialist story teller who entertains the tribe and tells the story of the day's hunt. Another decides he wants to become the socialist central planner. His job is to evenly divide the meat for the day to ensure that the elderly and sick and foodless people of the tribe get a fair share. Then yet another decides that he wants to be a socialist fire keeper. His job is to collect wood and start the fires and make sure there is always fire available for the tribe. Then another decides he wants to become the socialist teacher. His job is to educate the children about how to be a good socialist man when they grow up. Then another decides he wants to be a socialist artist. His job is to paint pictures on cave walls of the hunt to entertain the villagers. And so on, and so on until there is only one man left who couldn't think of something to do besides the dangerous job of hunting.

                                So in this fantasy-land anarcho-socialist tribe the last remaining able-bodied independent productive male is left to do all the dangerous hunting for all the totally unproductive socialists in the tribe. After one day of this they are all starving and start blaming the single hunter for not doing is job well enough. The single hunter decides he doesn't like doing all the hunting for everyone else so he protests. Then the socialist central planner gets the socialist cop to enforce the socialist plan and uses force and violence to force the single hunter to hunt. All socialist societies result in force in violence because of course nobody wants to do the dangerous work.

                                So the next day, the hunter goes off and never returns to his socialist tribe which is no longer an anarchy and is now ruled by violent socialist dictators who are starving to death. And socialism, tyranny, oppression, and totalitarianism will have to wait another 25,000 years...
                                This lovely story is such a ridiculous simplification of human relations I'm not even sure where to start. You think young, able-bodied men in a tribal society with thousands of years of hunting culture are going to just decide to up and stop hunting because "it's dangerous"? Think about the social pressure one would feel from parents, friends, and most importantly POTENTIAL MATES if one started acting like a coward and stopped contributing meat to the group. Loss of prestige, loss of social standing, loss of mating opportunities, point-blank. If you got lazy enough you might even get booted out of the group for not contributing. These societies have evolved defense mechanisms (shaming, ritual punishments, religious strictures, and ostracism, among others) to prevent exactly this problem, precisely BECAUSE, left unchecked, it IS a problem.

                                Being laughed at by women you want as mates is probably the single most-motivating negative experience a young man could feel. There is no way a majority of males would spontaneously decide to endure that, and give up the advantages of being seen as big men and providers by participating in hunts. Also, how could you possibly force someone to hunt for food? Any competent hunter is also a competent tracker and woodsman. You can't follow a hunter around with a spear and enforce your will, or you'll interfere with the hunt and guarantee failure. And at that point, wouldn't it be easier just to help with the hunt anyway? And if you tell someone "oi, go hunt or we'll kill you," leaving aside the fact that such coercion is simply not very realistic in a group with close family ties, since the main motivation is a sense of obligation to family and tribe, the oppressed individual can simply leave--there being no fences to hold him, and his knowledge and skills being sufficient to ensure a reasonably high chance of survival on his own. But it's so unlikely to ever come to that in the first place that it's almost not even worth speculating about. The only time it becomes economical and pragmatic to oppress and violently coerce people on any large scale is when their livelihoods are tied to a certain piece of land, they don't have the skills to survive on their own because they are too specialized or rely on artificial environmental conditions for their skills to apply, and it is possible to hoard and restrict access to food or services. All of these conditions really only apply in agricultural societies.

                                Wilton also never even implied that anyone was a "full-time" social worker or teacher or anything (nor did I). Those are ROLES that can be filled by whoever feels the need to fill them, when they are needed. A man who sits around proclaiming himself the tribe's conflict resolver is going to get laughed at and will quickly either give up his delusions of grandeur or receive escalating social repercussions until he does. What will more likely happen is that two men will get in a fight while out on a hunt, and the cool-headed, smooth talker in the group will step in and calm them down. If this becomes a pattern, people will notice that that guy is particularly good at resolving disputes and will start seeking him out for advice and bringing problems to him because they recognize his ability. He doesn't get named the Official Tribal Negotiator, he just fills that role organically. If he's not around someone else will do the same thing, as needed, because everyone in the group understands all the basic needs of the group and how to competently address them, even if there are some people in the group who are better at a given skill than others or who prefer to do X over Y when they have the option. It's nothing at all like the modern division of labor or even a pre-industrial type where you have farriers and carpenters and cobblers and tailors and one doesn't know how to do a fraction of what the others can. It's more like a soccer team, where every member understands all the rules, and can fill in for any position in a pinch, but generally they take the spot they are best at because that makes the team the most successful.

                                Also, your assertion that hunting men are the only major protein source for HG societies is not true AFAIK. Women in such groups are often responsible for trapping, fishing and harvesting small game, insects, fish, eggs, nuts, and so on--often supplying the majority of animal protein as well as the majority of calories. If it weren't for gangs of men from rival groups coming in to rape and steal women, there might not be a need for men in most such groups at all, outside of breeding. Not that men don't contribute--but they're hardly the lynchpins of nutrition that you paint them as. They're probably more essential as deterrents to attack from other, non-related males (which is still a very important role!). The fact that they supply less food, on average, than the women do means that if they were to disappear there would actually be more food for the women and children rather than less.
                                Today I will: Eat food, not poison. Plan for success, not settle for failure. Live my real life, not a virtual one. Move and grow, not sit and die.

                                My Primal Journal

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X