(January 27, 2015 at 1:41 pm)Drich Wrote: that's not true there are entire lost cities! It's not that people just forgot where the city was. The desert consumes all!But we know that the desert does not consume all. Aside from the evidence of activity in the range of 6,000-7,000 BC there are the ruins found in 2012 that could be slightly older than those. You note that we have developed methods for detecting even those sites that sank beneath the dunes, yet there is no trace of a nomadic group that likely would have been larger than any of those cities. And you claim that they were so thorough that they reused every last pot, tool, weapon and utensil in order not to leave a single scrap. We must also assume that they somehow "recycled" their dead people and livestock and even "recycled" the tons of fecal matter they had to have been producing daily.
So we can find lost cities, we can find remnants of small tribes, we can find armies with their utensils and weapons that were swallowed by the desert, but perhaps the largest ancient occupation of a desert area leaves not a single trace? That simply does not compute.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould