# Are there cavemen in heaven? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 22, 2009, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718 "2009-10-22T05:54:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2009, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/121 "2009-10-25T22:55:57Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > The reason I asked the question about a tribe of hunter-gatherers 100 years ago, is that if Christian missionaries were really concerned about their ultimate fate, _why would they tell the natives about Jesus_? The logical thing to do would be to shut up about it. The logical thing would be to not even mention it back home - if everyone who had ever heard of Jesus would just shut up about it, and burn the Bibles, then everyone gets to go to heaven! I meant when there was no absolutely no chance for someone to be told about God would they be saved despite it, if like say a tribesman five miles north of a civilized outpost didn’t hear about Jesus he’d go to Hell as the missionaries were perfectly capable of going there and telling God to him. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/122 "2009-10-26T01:08:55Z")
Really? Because some missionary was unable or too lazy to go find a tribe in the jungle, or there wasn’t a missionary near at hand, the entire tribe is doomed to hell? Harsh. ---
**Author:** ![Blut\_Aus\_Nord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Blut\_Aus\_Nord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blut_Aus_Nord)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/123 "2009-10-26T01:27:14Z")
Curtis LeMay’s take on salvation is kind of warped. According to Christianity, to know Jesus is not to know that he was the bastard child of a Jew girl and a dove that spies on us 24/7, but to know his heart. If we lead righteous lives according to his principles of altruism, we will know Jesus through others (Matthew 25:31-45), and thus accept Jesus, even without eating a wafer and fondling some beads. They may not have the supposed advantage of Jesus’ direct presence, but that’s not the point. Plus, in his example, the missionaries are at fault. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/124 "2009-10-26T01:49:59Z")
> [@Chakra Nadmara](#): > > Curtis LeMay’s take on salvation is kind of warped. According to Christianity, to know Jesus is not to know that he was the bastard child of a Jew girl and a dove that spies on us 24/7, but to know his heart. If we lead righteous lives according to his principles of altruism, we will know Jesus through others (Matthew 25:31-45), and thus accept Jesus,\*\* even without eating a wafer and fondling some beads\*\*. They may not have the supposed advantage of Jesus’ direct presence, but that’s not the point. > > Plus, in his example, the missionaries are at fault. You seem to sound like Jack Chick in the highlighted sentence. LOL. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/125 "2009-10-26T02:04:48Z")
Way to [del]miss[/del] sidestep the point. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt here. I guess if you give it to God, you deserve the same courtesy. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/126 "2009-10-26T06:15:03Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > RC-orthodox **Blake** proposes that > I counter-argue that a woman who cannot speak or even recognise herself as an individual miraculously giving birth to (or, say, seeing miraculously appear, from nowhere, before her eyes) a speaking, self-aware child contradicts not only the general, well-evidenced rule that evolution only works gradually, but specific evidence which places the emergence of some of these characteristics at _different times_. For the umpteenth time: what is the relavance of this? We are not talking about evolution, we are talking about an act of divine ex nihilo creation. > [@](#): > > For example, the oldest evidence of ‘artistry’ in the sense of painting pictures is Chauvet, a mere 32000 years ago. However, the [self awareness test](http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/patterson01.htm) is passed by, for example, _gorillas_, whose ancestry diverged from ours some 8 _million_ years ago or more. Also for the umptteeeth time: what is the relevance of this? We are not discussing whether there are gorillas or shopping carts in heaven. So I’ll ask for the final time: what argument are you trying to make here? Can you please stop with the non sequiturs and the ifs and maybes and just state what your argument is? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/127 "2009-10-26T07:24:40Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > For the umpteenth time: what is the relavance of this? We are not talking about evolution, we are talking about an act of divine ex nihilo creation. Just to be clear, you are talking about an act of divine _ex nihilo_ creation of WHAT, exactly? Of a human creature, complete with soul, or of a soul, paired with an individual member of the genus _homo_? ‘Cos it looks like **SentientMeat** is talking about the second, to the degree that he is discussing acts of divine _ex nihilo_ creation at all. The first, arguably, can be considered in a context completely divorced from the phenomenon of evolution; the second one cannot. From where I’m sitting, \*\*SentientMeat \*\*’s line of argument appears to be leading to the notion that the first ensoulment of a member of the genus was arbitrary to the point of capriciousness, and that such arbitrariness disqualifies any deity displaying it from being worthy of worship, or of consideration of its heaven being a reward worth caring about. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/128 "2009-10-26T09:04:41Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Just to be clear, you are talking about an act of divine _ex nihilo_ creation of WHAT, exactly? Read my posts, it quite clearly stated: Catholic theology is … adamant that [humans] were given souls at some point as an act of special, divine creation. > [@](#): > > ‘Cos it looks like **SentientMeat** is talking about the second, to the degree that he is discussing acts of divine _ex nihilo_ creation at all. If he is not discussing acts of divine _ex nihilo_ creation at all then he is not discussing my position. That being the case I can’t comment on the poisiton he is discussing and I wish he would cease quoting me, since he constructing a strawman by doing so. > [@](#): > > a soul, paired with an individual member of the genus homo… cannot [be considered in a context completely divorced from the phenomenon of evolution It also can’t be considered in a context completely divorced from the phenomena of stellar evolution or the big bang. Nonetheless it is not clear what relevance stellar evolution has on the discussion we are having here. > [@](#): > > From where I’m sitting, \*\*SentientMeat \*\*’s line of argument appears to be leading to the notion that the first ensoulment of a member of the genus was arbitrary to the point of capriciousness, and that such arbitrariness disqualifies any deity displaying it from being worthy of worship, or of consideration of its heaven being a reward worth caring about. Once more, we have a “clearly” followed by an “if” followed by a “then”. I don’t see that it clearly was arbitrary, and I don’t see how it follows that if it was arbitrary it was capricious. IOW if this is the argument then it’s begging the question. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 9:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/129 "2009-10-26T09:55:25Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > For the umpteenth time: what is the relavance of this? We are not talking about evolution, we are talking about an act of divine ex nihilo creation. I am arguing that such an act is _inconsistent with the specific evidence on which the scientific consensus concering the emergence of self-awareness, speech, artistry and so forth in our ancestors is based_. If it were merely inconsistent with evolution in _general_, the single miraculous act could still have _happened_ - it would just have no evidence _for_ it. I am arguing that there is enough evidence _against_ it to show that it _couldn’t have happened_ - at the very least, there would have had to be _separate_ acts: one for self-awareness, another for artistry, and so on. > [@](#): > > Also for the umptteeeth time: what is the relevance of this? We are not discussing whether there are gorillas or shopping carts in heaven. > > So I’ll ask for the final time: what argument are you trying to make here? Can you please stop with the non sequiturs and the ifs and maybes and just state what your argument is? We are discussing the first human (be they _Austalopithecus, Erectus, Neanderthal, Sapiens_, or some other species) who got to heaven, and on what criterion.[ul] A criterion of ‘self-awareness’ puts that time millions of years into the past, and also admits _animals_ which pass the commonly accepted self-awareness test into heaven. [\*]A criterion of ‘artistry’ puts that time merely tens of thousands of years into the past, with self-aware, language-using people being _denied_ heaven solely because they can’t paint pictures yet.[/ul]I’d be interested in hearing which _particular_ miraculously-endowed criterion **RC orthodox Blake** suggests is the one which actually allowed people to start entering heaven, where before there were only soulless individuals who simply died. Note that I am not discussing _evolution_ here: I am exploring _when_ the orthodox miracle occurred, and precisely _what_ it endowed us with. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 10:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/130 "2009-10-26T10:10:15Z")
I think I see what the problem is. You are working from a generic definition of “self awareness”, whereas I have always been specifically talking about self awareness as a “characteristic of man as we know him”. There’s no doubt that by some broad definitions other species also exhibit artistry, speech self awareness and so forth. Yet for all of those things there is a specific, defining human form that is qualitatively different from that found in other animals. I’m talking here about human level self awareness, just as I am talking about human level artistry and human level speech. Pointing out that ravens exhibit primitive self awareness, or that bower birds exhibit primitive artistry or that groun hogs exhibit primitive language is totally irrelevant because they don’t exhibit anything remotely like the human level of those traits. There isn’t any spectrum in these things that anybody has found evidence of. There is a level of those things that is characteristic of man as we know him, and there is a level far below that that is exhibited by some animal. If you have any evidence of a spectrum of artistry leading from bower birds to Michelangelo, or a spectrum of language leading from groundhogs to Shakespeare, or a spectrum of self awareness leading from Jackdaws to Freud then by all means present this evidence. Until that time I’m going to accept the principle that I’ve seen everywhere, which is that there is a distinct qualitative gap between humans and other animals in all those traits, ie that there are forms of all those things that are characteristic of man as we know him. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/131 "2009-10-26T10:32:04Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > I’m talking here about human level self awareness, just as I am talking about human level artistry and human level speech. Pointing out that ravens exhibit primitive self awareness, or that bower birds exhibit primitive artistry or that groun hogs exhibit primitive language is totally irrelevant because they don’t exhibit anything remotely like the human level of those traits. > … > If you have any evidence of a spectrum of artistry leading from bower birds to Michelangelo, or a spectrum of language leading from groundhogs to Shakespeare, or a spectrum of self awareness leading from Jackdaws to Freud then by all means present this evidence. Until that time I’m going to accept the principle that I’ve seen everywhere, which is that there is a distinct qualitative gap between humans and other animals in all those traits, ie that there are forms of all those things that are characteristic of man as we know him. But we’re talking about what the ‘level’ of the **parents** of (or, in the case of appearance fom nowhere, the people around at the time of) the first individual to miraculously receive true ‘human level’ self-awareness/artistry _etc_. was. _Whenever_ you place the ‘human level’ threshold, the evidence shows that said parents/contemporaries couldn’t have been _much_ below this, agreed? This diminishes the ‘miracle’ to something much less impressive than “self-unaware mute animal to true self-aware human chatterbox”, agreed? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/132 "2009-10-26T10:37:29Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > But we’re talking about what the ‘level’ of the **parents** of (or, in the case of appearance fom nowhere, the people around at the time of) the first individual to miraculously receive true ‘human level’ self-awareness/artistry _etc_. was. Well I haven’t been discussing that. That may have been what you thought you were discussing but I haven’t understood it of you were. > [@](#): > > _Whenever_ you place the ‘human level’ threshold, the evidence shows that said parents/contemporaries couldn’t have been _much_ below this, agreed? No, I don’t agree. What evidence are you talking about? I ask yet again: what possible evidence could you have for the thought processes of a dead organism? > [@](#): > > This diminishes the ‘miracle’ to something much less impressive than “self-unaware mute animal to true self-aware human chatterbox”, agreed? I agree that it’s begging the question. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/133 "2009-10-26T11:37:29Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > No, I don’t agree. What evidence are you talking about? I ask yet again: what possible evidence could you have for the thought processes of a dead organism? Encephalisation quotient is a strong indicator of coginitive complexity: we don’t see small-EQ organisms touching their own face in a mirror, and we don’t see large-EQ organisms starving to death because they can’t compete a simple cognitive task to reward them with food. In the case of human ancestors, there is also direct evidence in the form of complex tool manufacture. So even if we place the divine act a million years back in a _Homo Erectus_, these guys were still running around with an impressively high EQ making complex tools. And said act could still not have raised old Eric Erectus to _our_ ‘level’ since there would be cave paintings, jewellery, ritual burials and the like to show for it. Said divine act would merely have pushed Eric _a bit_ further towards _Heidelbergensis_ and _Neanderthalis_, and further acts are required to bring _them_ to the ‘level’ of Homo Sapiens. > [@Blake](#): > > I agree that it’s begging the question. But I’m not slamming down my cards and declaring “Therefore the criterion is arbitrary, God is an arsehole and Catholics are idiots”. I’m arguing that the evidence requires at least a _diminution_ of the miracle from … > [@RC Blake](#): > > humans physically evolved gradually, but at some point we were imbued with a soul. With the soul came **all** the characteristics of man as we know them: self awareness, artistry, speech and so forth (bolding mine) … to a less _dramatic_ miracle. Do you accept this, at least? If so, we can explore what follows logically, but I won’t even _propose_ any such consequences until I’m confident we’re departing from the same station. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/134 "2009-10-26T13:02:05Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Encephalisation quotient is a strong indicator of coginitive complexity: we don’t see small-EQ organisms touching their own face in a mirror, and we don’t see large-EQ organisms starving to death because they can’t compete a simple cognitive task to reward them with food. In the case of human ancestors, there is also direct evidence in the form of complex tool manufacture. So even if we place the divine act a million years back in a _Homo Erectus_, these guys were still running around with an impressively high EQ making complex tools. And said act could still not have raised old Eric Erectus to _our_ ‘level’ since there would be cave paintings, jewellery, ritual burials and the like to show for it. Said divine act would merely have pushed Eric _a bit_ further towards _Heidelbergensis_ and _Neanderthalis_, and further acts are required to bring _them_ to the ‘level’ of Homo Sapiens. I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. Since nobody has suggested that the act \*did \*occur WRT erectus, you seem to be arguing against a position that nobody holds > [@](#): > > But I’m not slamming down my cards and declaring “Therefore the criterion is arbitrary, God is an arsehole and Catholics are idiots”. I’m arguing that the evidence requires at least a _diminution_ of the miracle from … … to a less _dramatic_ miracle. Do you accept this, at least? No I don’t because, as I’ve said several times, you have presented no such evidence. It’s hard to imagine what evidence you could present concerning the thought processes of a dead organism, something I’ve also noted several times. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/135 "2009-10-26T13:35:33Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. Since nobody has suggested that the act \*did \*occur WRT erectus, you seem to be arguing against a position that nobody holds Well, OK, let’s move the act forward a few hundred thousand years. But _then_ there are more indicators of high cognitive complexity **before** this point, yes? I state once more, for the hard of thinking: **Whenever** one places the divine act, there is _either_ evidence of significant cognitive development **before** it _or_ evidence of _further_ cognitive development **after** it. For the divine act of Catholic orthodoxy to have occurred _at all_ in the last million years, there would be a **sudden** appearance of complex stone tools, controlled fires, jewellery, survivable infirmity, cave paintings, spears, clothing, traps, symbolic shells, ritual buried bodies, wooden huts _etc._ **all at once** at some point in the fossil record. Instead, _each_ of these developments emerged at **different times** in the last million years (and one or two of them before that). The “All ‘human level’ characteristics in a specific act” orthodoxy _cannot be reconciled with the evidence_, agreed? > [@](#): > > No I don’t because, as I’ve said several times, you have presented no such evidence. It’s hard to imagine what evidence you could present concerning the thought processes of a dead organism, something I’ve also noted several times. Have a look at [these](http://www.blueberry-brain.org/chaosophy/Cybersexuality/Tool%20evolution%20Bordes%20450.gif). Do you believe that they say precisely nothing about the cognitive complexity of the individuals who made them? Do you believe that encephalisation quotient is no indicator of cognitive complexity either, despite the [vast swathes of evidence](http://weber.ucsd.edu/~jmoore/courses/allometry/allometry.html) to the contrary? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/136 "2009-10-26T13:43:19Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Until that time I’m going to accept the principle that I’ve seen everywhere, which is that there is a distinct qualitative gap between humans and other animals in all those traits I don’t see it. Humans are outliers when it comes to language, artistic ability, and probably self-awareness, but I don’t see that ours is a difference in _kind_, only of quantity. We also have some evidence of the gradual evolution of these characteristics, besides the point that it’s just freakin’ obvious that they evolved gradually, to anyone who accepts evolution. Now I thought the argument here was that Catholic theology says that God, at some point, suddenly granted humans a soul, without regard to the amount of self-awareness, language ability, or artistic ability that those humans had. That seems pretty capricious to me. But you seem to be saying that God granted not only the soul, but the other characteristics, suddenly at some point. Is that _your_ interpretation, or the Catholic Church? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/137 "2009-10-26T14:16:33Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Well, OK, let’s move the act forward a few hundred thousand years. But _then_ there are more indicators of high cognitive complexity **before** this point, yes? I don’t know. I am forced to ask yet again: what evidence? It’s hard to imagine what evidence you could present concerning the thought processes of a dead organism > [@](#): > > I state once more, for the hard of thinking: Now you’re just being rude. > [@](#): > > For the divine act of Catholic orthodoxy to have occurred _at all_ in the last million years, there would be a **sudden** appearance of complex stone tools, controlled fires, jewellery, survivable infirmity, cave paintings, spears, clothing, traps, symbolic shells, ritual buried bodies, wooden huts _etc._ **all at once** at some point in the fossil record. Why? What’s that based on > [@](#): > > Have a look at [these](http://www.blueberry-brain.org/chaosophy/Cybersexuality/Tool%20evolution%20Bordes%20450.gif). Do you believe that they say precisely nothing about the cognitive complexity of the individuals who made them? I don’t know. You tell me, which`characteristics of those items allow you to judge the poetry composition skills and the introspection ability of the maker. When you do that you can set about explaining how you tested the correlation between those characteristics and the maker’s poetry composition skills and the introspection ability. Of course if you can’t explain those points then you’ve really got nothing, just another “surely”. IOW if you can’t do that then those tools do indeed say precisely nothing about the cognitive abilities _under discussion_ of the individuals who made them. You might _believe_they to say all sorts of things, but if you can’t tell me what the correlation is and how it was tested then it is, in fact, wishful thinking. > [@](#): > > Do you believe that encephalisation quotient is no indicator of cognitive complexity either, despite the [vast swathes of evidence](http://weber.ucsd.edu/~jmoore/courses/allometry/allometry.html) to the contrary? Once again I ask: what evidence? You keep referring to this evidence, and I keep asking you to present it, and you keep failing to do so. So I ask yet again: what are these swathes of evidence that encephalisation quotient is an indicator of cognitive abilities _under discussion_? What points concerning encaphalisation quotient did the researchers correlate with ability to compose a melody and the ability to define perspective? And how did they test those correlations? And what was the final correlation and the probability? Because if you can’t give me that then I have to ask why you believe that encaphalisation quotient is any indicator of self awareness or artistic ability. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/138 "2009-10-26T14:20:48Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I don’t see it. Humans are outliers when it comes to language, artistic ability, and probably self-awareness, but I don’t see that ours is a difference in _kind_, only of quantity. Given that the characteristics we are talking about can’t even be quantified effectively you’re gonna have a hard time arguing that assertion. > [@](#): > > We also have some evidence of the gradual evolution of these characteristics, besides the point that it’s just freakin’ obvious that they evolved gradually, to anyone who accepts evolution. 1. Let’s see this evidence. 2. “It’s obvious” isn’t an argument, it’s an assertion. > [@](#): > > That seems pretty capricious to me. Once again, an assertion is not an argument. > [@](#): > > But you seem to be saying that God granted not only the soul, but the other characteristics, suddenly at some point. Is that _your_ interpretation, or the Catholic Church? No, the soul results in the man. The characteristics are the natural and inevitable result of the soul. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/139 "2009-10-26T14:45:17Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Now you’re just being rude. And you are being obtuse. > [@Blake](#): > > Why? What’s that based on The fact that the oldest stone tools are older than the oldest bodies that survived infirmity, which are older than the oldest controlled fires, which are older than the oldest wooden huts, which are older than the first spears, which are older than the first shell-jewellery, which is older than the fist ritual burial, which is older than the first clothing, which is older than the first painting. A single, specific divine act can only account for any **one** of these developments. > [@Blake](#): > > I don’t know. > > You tell me, which`characteristics of those items allow you to judge the poetry composition skills and the introspection ability of the maker. _Whoa_, those goalposts shifted so quickly it _could_ be due to a divine act! [reads thread again, performing a quick highlight search of the words “poetry” and “intospection”. Nope.] So you’re now suggesting a divine act which only granted _poetic_ and _introspective_ abilities? That’s a far less **dramatic** miracle than “ **all** the characteristics of man as we know them: self awareness, artistry, speech and so forth”, wouldn’t you say? > [@Blake](#): > > So I ask yet again: what are these swathes of evidence that encephalisation quotient is an indicator of cognitive abilities _under discussion_? What points concerning encaphalisation quotient did the researchers correlate with ability to compose a melody and the ability to define perspective? [reads thread again, performing a quick highlight search of the words “melody” and “perspective”. Nope.] > [@Blake](#): > > Because if you can’t give me that then I have to ask why you believe that encaphalisation quotient is any indicator of self awareness or artistic ability. OK, let’s dig up a naked, anonymous dead body in a cemetery. What evidence would we have that _that_ body was self-aware and artistic, in your opinion? Or would you deny its self-awareness and artistry despite it being a _Homo Sapiens_ having a similar EQ to your own? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/140 "2009-10-26T15:36:06Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > And you are being obtuse. I was going to let your insult pass, but since you persist, consider yourself reported > [@](#): > > A single, specific divine act can only account for any **one** of these developments. WTF?😕 This is a total non sequitur. \*Why \*can it only account for one of them? The fact is that the oldest stone tools are older than the oldest firearms, which are older than the oldest rocket motors, which are older than the oldest silicone chips. A single, specific genetic advance can only account for any one of these developments. Ergo those developments must all be due to different evolutionary developments in the human race. Utter nonsense, and you know it’s utter nonesense. Human populations learn and they advance their technology through learning. Despite comprehensive searching we know that there is no genetic difference between people who only developed stone tools and people who developed silcone chips. If you believe that there was no genetic change between the people who developed the first stone tools and the people who later developed silicone chips, why do you believe that there must have been a spiritual change? If people can develop new technologies over hundreds of millenia despite remaining genetically unchanged, why do you believe they are unable to do so despite remaining spiritually unchanged? Like I said,your position is a total non sequitur. We’ll worry about the corrollary of why you believe a single, specific divine act needs to account for \*all \*of these developments when you’ve satisfactorily explained why it can only account for one of them > [@](#): > > _Whoa_, those goalposts shifted so quickly it _could_ be due to a divine act! > > [reads thread again, performing a quick highlight search of the words “poetry” and “intospection”. Nope.] WTF? This \*\*entire discussion \*\*has concerned the artistic traits, speech and self awareness characteristic of humanity. If you honestly don’t understand that poetry and introspection are very good indicators of human artistry, human speech and human self awareness respectively then there really is no hope for you. Just to make it plain for you: No goalpost shifting has occurred. I have always been asking for evidence of those artistic traits, speech and self awareness characteristic of humanity. I still am asking for evidence of those artistic traits, speech and self awareness characteristic of humanity. If you can’t provide evidence of poetry or introspection then please provide any other evidence you feel is indicative of those artistic traits, speech and self awareness characteristic of humanity. > [@](#): > > So you’re now suggesting a divine act which only granted _poetic_ and _introspective_ abilities? That’s a far less **dramatic** miracle than “ **all** the characteristics of man as we know them: self awareness, artistry, speech and so forth”, wouldn’t you say? I’d say this is a blatant strawman because I have never suggested any such thing. > [@](#): > > OK, let’s dig up a naked, anonymous dead body in a cemetery. What evidence would we have that _that_ body was self-aware and artistic, in your opinion? I’m here to disprove your position, not to prove it. \*You \*are the one who is contending that there is a mountain of such evidence, not me. It is up to \*you \*to tell \*me \*what that evidence is and how you correlated it with the self awareness and artistic ability of the person when they were alive. Can you do that, or were your claims of this mountain of evidence totally fabricated? > [@](#): > > Or would you deny its self-awareness and artistry despite it being a _Homo Sapiens_ having a similar EQ to your own? I wouldn’t bother to deny anything. I would simply point out that, despite your rather shrill claims that there is a mountain of evidence that allows you to establish its artistic ability, you can not in fact provide any evidence at all. All you can do is resort, yet again, to “surely”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718.md?page=8)