Cavemen

Chalnoth · Aug 18, 2006

I doubt that "caveman" was ever an appropriate term for early humans and our earlier ancestors. There just aren't enough caves to support a population in most areas. More likely these people/animals remains are often found in caves because they were more easily preserved there. But the general populations would have likely roamed openly in hunter-gatherer societies.

JohnR7 · Aug 18, 2006

Chalnoth said:
More likely these people/animals remains are often found in caves because they were more easily preserved there.

They seldom find human bones in caves. Mostly just animal bones.

LightHorseman · Aug 18, 2006

Well ACTUALLY...

Homo Sapiens and to a much lesser degree Homo Neanderthalensis seem to have taken care to dispose of their dead with some ceremony, so it would be unlikely to find human bones in caves that humans continued to live in. Imagine living in the same room as Grandma's corpse? Creepy...

However there are often finds of broken and eaten animal bones in inhabited caves, because middening was a common practice until quite recently.

Oh, and has anyone mentioned cave art yet?

rmwilliamsll · Aug 18, 2006

However there are often finds of broken and eaten animal bones in inhabited caves, because middening was a common practice until quite recently.

we just changed the names, to sanitary landfill.
but a midden or outhouse hole but any other name....

*grin*

JohnR7 · Aug 18, 2006

LightHorseman said:
so it would be unlikely to find human bones in caves that humans continued to live in.

Actually, in some cases there were people that buried the bones in their house.

Oh, and has anyone mentioned cave art yet?

Most of the cave art was either the charcoal from the fire, chalk or sometimes they would use red clay.
Later on they learned how to mix different colored earth with animal fat or oil to produce paint.

Everloving · Aug 19, 2006

MrGoodBytes said:
No need to run away, there's no one yelling (yet). Care to elaborate on why the definition of "caveman" depends on evolution?

I said that in an earlier post, but I'll put it again.

I'm just saying you can either believe in evolution and think cave men were early stages of humans, or you can believe in a seven day creation and believe that cave men were the early humans that sought shelter in caves. That's what I meant by difference. I believe in creation, but I'm not here to offend anyone. They're just two ways of discribing a man who lives in a cave. Also, bepending on what you believe, the time periods in which they lived would be dirrerent.

Tenka · Aug 19, 2006

EL said:
I'm just saying you can either believe in evolution and think cave men were early stages of humans

Actually for those who accept science some "cave men" would have been modern humans, since hunmans have been existing in this state commonly until quite recently.
It's not like the scientific concensus is that they all suddenly evolved and began living in houses.
I would say that the term "cave men" is a very bad for identifying specific groups since it describes more than just modern homo sapiens.

ushishir · Aug 19, 2006

Check out this amusing website: http://www.thestoneage.org/

which claims 'cavemen' did not exist and there never was a stone age.

Its by Islamic creationist Harun Yahya, but there is very little difference between Islamic creationsis and christian creationists - Harun Yahya copied most of his stuff directly off Christian creationsist websites and the rhetoric and style of religion is very similar.

USincognito · Aug 19, 2006

Everloving said:
I'm just saying you can either believe in evolution and think cave men were early stages of humans, or you can believe in a seven day creation and believe that cave men were the early humans that sought shelter in caves.

I hate to note this since some of the most awsome TE posters here accept a literal Adam and Eve*, but your assertion is problematic since if we go by your assertion, either you're espousing pre-Adamite humans and a type of Gap Theory, or you're denying a literal interpretation of Genesis where already, at the second generation, Cain and Abel were farmers or animal husbanders with nor reason to revert back to the hunter/gatherer lifestyle of "cavemen."

In your dilemma, either there were pre-Adamite hunter/gatheres, or there was a reversion to hunting and gathering that occured some time after Cain and Abel, which you'll need to provide some sort of reasoning/evidence for.

*I've had several interesting discussions with them regarding the Fall as being an advent of agriculture/animal husbandry vs. a pristine primordial hunter/gatherer society so it's not a dig on literal Adam/Eve TEs btw.

shadowmage36 · Aug 19, 2006

I've read a bit of stuff by Harun Yahya. He can't even get basic facts about animals that most fourth-graders know correct.

For instance, in one of his books, he claims that bats are completely blind. He uses this as evidence of miraculous abilities, because if they're blind, how can they find their way from their caves out many miles and back each night?

I stopped reading after that page.

Actually, that was the only page I saw in that book.

I've never touched his work since.

Everloving · Aug 19, 2006

USincognito said:
I hate to note this since some of the most awsome TE posters here accept a literal Adam and Eve*, but your assertion is problematic since if we go by your assertion, either you're espousing pre-Adamite humans and a type of Gap Theory, or you're denying a literal interpretation of Genesis where already, at the second generation, Cain and Abel were farmers or animal husbanders with nor reason to revert back to the hunter/gatherer lifestyle of "cavemen."

In your dilemma, either there were pre-Adamite hunter/gatheres, or there was a reversion to hunting and gathering that occured some time after Cain and Abel, which you'll need to provide some sort of reasoning/evidence for.

*I've had several interesting discussions with them regarding the Fall as being an advent of agriculture/animal husbandry vs. a pristine primordial hunter/gatherer society so it's not a dig on literal Adam/Eve TEs btw.

Earlier I posted that I believe that IF cavemen did exist, it would brobably be right after the dispersion at Babel. Dilemma solved.

joey444 · Aug 19, 2006

shadowmage36 · Aug 19, 2006

joey444 said:
Tag.

You sir, have just won the internet.

*Tag*

Edit: BUT WAIT!!! HE WAS ALREADY HERE!! WHAT DO WE DO NOW?!?!

Chalnoth · Aug 19, 2006

Everloving said:
Earlier I posted that I believe that IF cavemen did exist, it would brobably be right after the dispersion at Babel. Dilemma solved.

Except the dates don't match up. So-called "cave men" have existed for a few million years.

Grummpy · Aug 19, 2006

Except the dates don't match up. So-called "cave men" have existed for a few million years.

Actually 19 cavedwellers knocked down the Twin Towers of WTC in 2001. Osama actually lived in a cave, and their superstitious beliefs were Neanderthal in nature.

Grumpy

shadowmage36 · Aug 19, 2006

Grummpy said:
Actually 19 cavedwellers knocked down the Twin Towers of WTC in 2001. Osama actually lived in a cave, and their superstitious beliefs were Neanderthal in nature.

Grumpy

Wow....that's harsh.

Why ya gotta be hatin' on Neanderthals like that?

JohnR7 · Aug 19, 2006

Everloving said:
Earlier I posted that I believe that IF cavemen did exist, it would brobably be right after the dispersion at Babel. Dilemma solved.

What do you mean by a "cave man". There is "art" in caves around 20,000 years ago. But the Towers in Bable were a lot more recent than that.

Of course a tower was a lot different back then because they were built out of stone,
so the base of them was pretty big to support all the weight of the stone above it.

Why would they live in a cave if they had the technology to build?

shadowmage36 · Aug 19, 2006

Actually, John, I believe that particular ziggarut is built of bricks.

Brick is less tough than stone, which means that you can't build quite so high with brick as with stone. In addition, (and correct me if it wasn't your intent to say that particular ziggarut was ever taller than in that picture) it seem from the look of that ziggarut that it was never any taller than it is in the picture, unless maybe a small wooden structure was built atop of it.

Grummpy · Aug 19, 2006

shadowmage36

Why ya gotta be hatin' on Neanderthals like that?

You are right, those 19 cavemen would have to dig upwards for several days to reach the level where Neanderthals take a dump.

Grumpy

JohnR7 · Aug 19, 2006

shadowmage36 said:
it seem from the look of that ziggarut that it was never any taller than it is in the picture, unless maybe a small wooden structure was built atop of it.

It was taller. The picture comes from Iraq and that is close to where the tower of Babel was located. The foundation may still be there, a lot of the remains of the ancient foundations from zagnut towers are still there in Iraq and other there are other types of towers or large building projects all over the world.

Egypt, Babylon & the Aztec seem to all have had a different reason for building their structures. But they all have one thing in common in that they all follow the same laws of physics. But as you point out, the material they use are different because they have different materials in the area they are in.

Cavemen

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

avid reader

Well-Known Member

Everloving

Guest

Tenka

Guest

Active Member

a post by Alan Smithee

Iä! Iä! Cthulhu ftaghn!

Everloving

Guest

Active Member

Iä! Iä! Cthulhu ftaghn!

Senior Contributor

Regular Member

Iä! Iä! Cthulhu ftaghn!

Well-Known Member

Attachments

Iä! Iä! Cthulhu ftaghn!

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency