Well, I'll just let you read the article...

 

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/18/history-in-the-remaking.html

 

What do you think? Could this mean that we were wrong about so many things?

Lies. We all know human beings evolved from Tyrannosaurus Rex's.

Of course we've been wrong. Our ideas will always be revolutionized and reshaped. Although this is cool.

 

Only Darwin's basest ideas hold water these days. Survival of the fittest is hardly something to teach in school, as there are so many different facets of evolution. Having a goal is not one of them.

Of course we've been wrong. Our ideas will always be revolutionized and reshaped. Although this is cool.

 

Only Darwin's basest ideas hold water these days. Survival of the fittest is hardly something to teach in school, as there are so many different facets of evolution. Having a goal is not one of them.

I dunno, not dying seems like a pretty good goal to me.

 

Anyways, I read the first couple paragraphs and then got bored. I'll probably finish it sometime tonight/tomorrow morning.

The problem seems to be the time scale between this structure and the next structure built afterwards. I think this may end up like a lot of things, over-hyped by the discoverer and may turn out to be more recent.

Fantastic discovery, its amazing to think that potentially so much we don't know about early civilization.

I'd love to see some pictures of this Turkish site. It sounds just phenomenal.

 

The problem seems to be the time scale between this structure and the next structure built afterwards. I think this may end up like a lot of things, over-hyped by the discoverer and may turn out to be more recent.

 

Carbon-14 dating doesn't lie my friend!

Of course we've been wrong. Our ideas will always be revolutionized and reshaped. Although this is cool.

 

Only Darwin's basest ideas hold water these days. Survival of the fittest is hardly something to teach in school, as there are so many different facets of evolution. Having a goal is not one of them.

 

sorry, did you even read the article?

 

the only issue contested is the origin of civilization, which has nothing in particular to do with evolution per say. It has to do with the origin of settlement.

 

Now, even with ruins in Turkey, remains of agriculture that are 11000 years old at least exist on most continents. It's preposterous to argue that all civilization and this agriculture emanated from Turkey 500 years earlier, and crossed to all continents that quickly. It did take 30 000 years from the spread from Africa tlil Asia, Europe and Australia, how could civilization (through religion as is claimed) move 600 times faster?

 

No, this seems like typical populist science to me, where the outcomes of minor research are exaggerated so far out of proportions that "everything changes"

 

Darwin was right. Factual evolution through natural selection has occured, has been documented to occur and is occuring today. Humans are not exempt, a vivid example of that is HIV resistance in surviving South African prostitutes, the definition of natural selection by phenotype.

Of course we've been wrong. Our ideas will always be revolutionized and reshaped. Although this is cool.

 

Only Darwin's basest ideas hold water these days. Survival of the fittest is hardly something to teach in school, as there are so many different facets of evolution. Having a goal is not one of them.

 

sorry, did you even read the article?

 

the only issue contested is the origin of civilization, which has nothing in particular to do with evolution per say. It has to do with the origin of settlement.

 

I was rambling, but I still forgive you.

Seeing as how this site predates Sumer by more than Sumer predates us, I'd say it is pretty significant.

 

I highly doubt that they will find anything truly revolutionary (besides the fact that this is the earliest example of proper human construction).

Of course we've been wrong. Our ideas will always be revolutionized and reshaped. Although this is cool.

 

Only Darwin's basest ideas hold water these days. Survival of the fittest is hardly something to teach in school, as there are so many different facets of evolution. Having a goal is not one of them.

 

sorry, did you even read the article?

 

the only issue contested is the origin of civilization, which has nothing in particular to do with evolution per say. It has to do with the origin of settlement.

 

I was rambling, but I still forgive you.

 

you can ramble all you like, as long as it's factually correct :ohnoes: :ohnoes: :ohnoes: :ohnoes:

No, this seems like typical populist science to me, where the outcomes of minor research are exaggerated so far out of proportions that "everything changes"

 

*Sigh* God damned MSM.

Fantastic discovery, its amazing to think that potentially so much we don't know about early civilization.

I'd love to see some pictures of this Turkish site. It sounds just phenomenal.

 

The problem seems to be the time scale between this structure and the next structure built afterwards. I think this may end up like a lot of things, over-hyped by the discoverer and may turn out to be more recent.

 

Carbon-14 dating doesn't lie my friend!

 

 

Good luck carbon dating stone? The article only mentions the structure that has been found, not items inside it. The structure also sounds as if it is made of large rocks similar to Stonehenge, which as far as I know cannot be carbon dated. As with an incredibly large amount of ancient history, dates come hugely from assumptions.

Schmidt's thesis is simple and bold: it was the urge to worship that brought mankind together in the very first urban conglomerations. The need to build and maintain this temple, he says, drove the builders to seek stable food sources, like grains and animals that could be domesticated, and then to settle down to guard their new way of life. The temple begat the city

 

Thats where i stoped reading. If this site really is big it would have needed a stable food source before they started building. Can you imagine hunter/gatherers providing the food for an entire army of workers? The entire area would have been over hunted and more then likely most of the people would have starved.

 

This could simply mean that agriculture and domestication apeared earlier then we first asumed. But no, jump right on the religion band wagon.

It's some pretty interesting stuff, I have to agree with the guy above me, saying agriculture arose because of architecture or religion is ridiculous. Though it does seem at least semi-logical that a temple would be the first building.

 

But out of curiosity how can they possibly trace the roots of agriculture? Agriculture is planting produce and harvesting it. How does that leave traces over thousands of years, so the only possible way to tell is by finding farming tools, which I'm sure they developed years later.

Damn Turkey is like a porn fest for Archaeologists. All the cool [cabbage] is there.

 

Amazing discovery, and it was VERY interesting. Being the anthropologist nerd I am I emailed that link to all my friends. Oh my god thats amazing. Seriously. And did those doubting the age did you read where it said the problem not being not enough evidence, but the over abundance of evidence?

 

Also, would lol if it was a massive prank. If such a thing was possible.

Pretty cool. But why did it take until July to get this on here? This article is from February.

sorry, did you even read the article?

 

the only issue contested is the origin of civilization, which has nothing in particular to do with evolution per say. It has to do with the origin of settlement.

 

Now, even with ruins in Turkey, remains of agriculture that are 11000 years old at least exist on most continents. It's preposterous to argue that all civilization and this agriculture emanated from Turkey 500 years earlier, and crossed to all continents that quickly. It did take 30 000 years from the spread from Africa tlil Asia, Europe and Australia, how could civilization (through religion as is claimed) move 600 times faster?

 

No, this seems like typical populist science to me, where the outcomes of minor research are exaggerated so far out of proportions that "everything changes"

 

Darwin was right. Factual evolution through natural selection has occured, has been documented to occur and is occuring today. Humans are not exempt, a vivid example of that is HIV resistance in surviving South African prostitutes, the definition of natural selection by phenotype.

 

I agree, and I don't understand how this is all that revolutionary. The evolution of behaviourally modern humans is controversial but can be dated to around 50,000 years ago, you've got cave paintings, beads and other forms of cultural art that all pre-date this temple so I don't see why this changes much. Of course the best estimate for when certain aspects of culture (tool-making, farming etc.) evolved will change all the time in light of new evidence but this has zero bearing on genetic evolution and fairly minor bearings on cultural evolution.

This reminds me of a comic strip I once saw. Two cavemen are relaxing against a rock. "Can you stand the fact that future generations will have it as good as us?" ... "No." "Good, lets form a government!"

Thanks for that article. It is very interesting. I want to know more about this religion though. Were they monotheists or polytheists?

 

This is a really neat find though.

Thanks for that article. It is very interesting. I want to know more about this religion though. Were they monotheists or polytheists?

 

This is a really neat find though.

 

 

You know I wanna say polytheists, but we can't really know for a few more years.

All mankind was made by God, and this what I trust, LMAO

All mankind was made by God, and this what I trust, LMAO

 

Yeah. Same here.

Edited by Bad911. Due to the controversial topic, I decided to remove the picture seeing as it added little to content and only portrayed a view-point satirically. Please pm me if you have any questions.

Anywho, this was a pretty interesting find, although it doesn't surprise me that religion came before civilization. It seems that ancient humans would have delved into mysticism due to their environments and would have came together in order to share these experiences, thus leading to small communities that eventually became cities. The one bit that did surprise me was the part about agriculture possibly being developed due to the gatherings at temples and such.

Thanks for that article. It is very interesting. I want to know more about this religion though. Were they monotheists or polytheists?

 

This is a really neat find though.

 

Polytheism is more likely. No proof either way though.

As far as I know, the only monotheistic religion that we know of in that area (aside from Christianity and Islam) is Zoroastrianism. These people were definitely not Zoroastrianists.

We don't have firm, undeniable proof that that's the only one though.