# 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:** 8
**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, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/141 "2009-10-26T16:14:15Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Why can it only account for one of them? Because if a divine act was responsible for _two_ of them, they would _both have appeared in the fossil record **at the same time** _. > [@](#): > > Despite comprehensive searching we know that there is no genetic difference between people who only developed stone tools and people who developed silcone chips. [**FALSE**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homo_erectus.jpg). > [@Blake](#): > > 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. And stone tools, jewellery, ritual burial and cave paintings are _also_ very good indicators of human artistry, human speech and human self awareness, agreed? > [@](#): > > I have always been asking for evidence of those artistic traits, speech and self awareness characteristic of humanity. [Stone tools, \>1 million years](http://www.iupui.edu/~mstd/a103/Paleolithic%20Tool%20Types_files/Oldowan1.gif) [Wooden huts, 0.6 million](http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news218.htm) [Spears, 0.4 million](http://www.archaeology.org/9705/newsbriefs/spears.html) [Oldest ritual burial, 0.3 million](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_religion) [Oldest clothes, less than 0.2 million](http://bhowc.wordpress.com/category/prehistory/) (even this shows gradual development) [Oldest jewellery, 0.1 million](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5099104.stm) [Oldest cave painting, 0.03 million](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauvet_Cave) Note that this timespan extends over **several genetically distinct species**. Your divine act occurred between two of these developments. Why didn’t those people then start doing the things in later entries _as well_? > [@Blake](#): > > 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. So you _wouldn’t_ deny that an anonymous _Homo Sapiens_ was artistic and self-aware. Are you not basing this refusal to deny such characteristics solely on the size of the skull? ---
**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, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/142 "2009-10-26T16:17:36Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > \*Why \*can it only account for one of them? I agree - it does seem like you’re being intentionally obtuse to prove a point of some kind. Those qualities arose at vastly different times in humans’ evolution. If you’re going to posit that they all are a result of a single instance of divine ensoulment, that’s not consistent with the evidence that the things that are supposed to be the result of a single moment’s event actually appeared over a very long time period. > [@](#): > > 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. But there’s a significant difference - firearms, rocket motors, and silicon (not silicone!) chips came about after the invention of writing, where complex knowledge can survive over many generations. > [@](#): > > 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? I think you’re getting mixed up about who is arguing for what. It’s _you_ who claims that there was a “spiritual” (whatever that means) change that’s responsible for self-awareness and artistic ability. And people didn’t develop new technologies over hundreds of millennia without genetic changes. We’ve developed new technology over a few millennia without significant genetic change, but over hundreds of millennia, there were significant changes. > [@](#): > > 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 Man, I’m really confused. I thought that you were the one arguing that God’s ensoulment of man was responsible for all of those things, suddenly and at once, and SentientMeat was pointing out that they developed over a long period of time. Did I misunderstand? > [@](#): > > 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. But it was _you_ who said you believe that “there is a specific, defining human form that is qualitatively different from that found in other animals.” Now it sounds like you’re demanding he supply evidence for your claims. Has someone else been using your board login? ---
**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, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/143 "2009-10-26T16:26:59Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > So you wouldn’t deny that an anonymous Homo Sapiens was artistic and self-aware. Are you not basing this refusal to deny such characteristics solely on the size of the skull? I don’t think he is. It appears that his refusal to deny it is because you haven’t provided a “smoking gun” to prove that the anonymous _Homo Sapiens_ was self-aware. It’s like watching a Birther continue to insist that Obama’s birth certificate hasn’t been presented for examination. ---
**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, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/144 "2009-10-26T16:31:45Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Because if a divine act was responsible for _two_ of them, they would _both have appeared in the fossil record **at the same time** _. You mean the way that stone tools and silicone chips don’t appeared in the fossil record at the same time, despite the fact that the same act of evolution enabled them them ? Oh hang on. > [@](#): > > [**FALSE**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homo_erectus.jpg). Sigh. :rolleyes: If we’re going to be forced to play these silly semantic games I’ll rephrase: 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. \*Homo sapiens \*populations learn and they advance their technology through learning. Despite comprehensive searching we know that there is no genetic difference between \*Homo sapiens \* who only developed stone tools and \*Homo sapiens \*who developed silcone chips. If you believe that there was no genetic change between the \*Homo sapiens \*who developed the first stone tools and the \*Homo sapiens \*who later developed silicone chips, why do you believe that there must have been a spiritual change? If \*Homo sapiens \* 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 > [@](#): > > And stone tools, jewellery, ritual burial and cave paintings are _also_ very good indicators of human artistry, human speech and human self awareness, agreed? Back to the same question that you have refused to answer four times: 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 artefacts 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. > [@](#): > > Note that this timespan extends over **several genetically distinct species**. Your divine act occurred between two of these developments. Did it? How did you determine when it occurred? > [@](#): > > Why didn’t those people then start doing the things in later entries _as well_? Why didn’t the _H. sapiens_ who created stone axes start creating silicone chips as _as well_? After all we know that there is no genetic difference between the _H. sapiens_ who created stone tools and the _H. sapiens_ who created silicone chips, so there was no evolutionary change involved. Therefore by your “logic” the people who created stone axes should have simultaneously started creating silicone chips as _as well_. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > So you _wouldn’t_ deny that an anonymous _Homo Sapiens_ was artistic and self-aware. Are you not basing this refusal to deny such characteristics solely on the size of the skull? :rolleyes:Watch the heat form that strawman when it goes up. I’m not refusing anything, nor am I denying anything. I am asking you for the mountain of evidence that you claim exists. ---
**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, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/145 "2009-10-26T16:34:35Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > I don’t think he is. It appears that his refusal to deny it is because you haven’t provided a “smoking gun” to prove that the anonymous _Homo Sapiens_ was self-aware. Ah, but in that case he _would_ deny the corpse’s former self-awareness because I couldn’t provide the literally impossible evidence that a dead body _used to be_ self-aware. He said he _wouldn’t_ deny it - I was asking him why not. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2009, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/146 "2009-10-26T16:39:46Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > I don’t know, are you? > > I’m increasingly struggling to find any clear position in your posts. Just lots of "certainly"s and "clearly"s. > > What has the rate of evolution got to do with the price of eggs,? I repeat, in RC theology the spiritual body, the soul, was endowed as a specific act of ex nihilo creation via divine intervention. > > In which case you have totally misunderstood every post of mine that you have read so far. Can I ask you to go back and re-read them? > > Apologist would perhaps be more accurate and less disrespectful to the belief system at hand. > > That is because I find myself more and more echoing Koxinga. Your posts are full of "if"s without "because"s. > If I had wheels I would be a shopping cart. If a frog had wings it wouldn’t bump its arse on the ground as it hopped. But there is no reason to believe I ever will have wheels and no reason to believe a frog ever did have wings. So basing an argument on whether I am a shopping cart or the state of a frog’s arse is both silly and futile. [http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=painting+elephants&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=e9DlSpr2AoyGMZ3wuJ8D&sa=X&oi=video\_result\_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBEQqwQwAA#](http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=painting+elephants&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=e9DlSpr2AoyGMZ3wuJ8D&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBEQqwQwAA#) Here is a pretty good argument on man being the only creature with self awareness and art. ---
**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, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/147 "2009-10-26T16:47:35Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I agree - it does seem like you’re being intentionally obtuse to prove a point of some kind. I think you are being unintentionally obtuse. > [@](#): > > Those qualities arose at vastly different times in humans’ evolution. This assertion keeps getting repeated in every post, and I keep asking for the evidence in every other post. Yet no evidence is forthcoming. SIimply repeataing something doesn’t make it true you know. > [@](#): > > But there’s a significant difference - firearms, rocket motors, and silicon (not silicone!) chips came about after the invention of writing, where complex knowledge can survive over many generations. And…?What exactly is your position here? That writing has a genetic basis, and that those people’s who didn’t invent writing are genetically less advanced? That people without writing didn;t develop new technologies such as writing itself? Are you disputing that _H. sapiens_ developed new technologies over the past 40, 00 years? Or`are you disputing that _H. sapiens_ now are genetically unchanged from _H. sapiens_ 40, 000 years ago. Because if you aren’t disputing any of those points then you are conceding my point, which is that people make technological advancements over tens of millenia despite remaining genetically unchanged. > [@](#): > > I think you’re getting mixed up about who is arguing for what. And why do you think that? > [@](#): > > And people didn’t develop new technologies over hundreds of millennia without genetic changes. We’ve developed new technology over a few millennia without significant genetic change, but over hundreds of millennia, there were significant changes. Cite. Give me this evidence that there have been significant genetic changes between an Aborigine or a San bushman today and his ancestor 40, 000 or even 200 years ago who was using palaeolithic technology. I would dearly love to see that evidence > [@](#): > > Man, I’m really confused. I thought that you were the one arguing that God’s ensoulment of man was responsible for all of those things, suddenly and at once, and SentientMeat was pointing out that they developed over a long period of time. Did I misunderstand? Not as far as I can see. > [@](#): > > But it was _you_ who said you believe that “there is a specific, defining human form that is qualitatively different from that found in other animals.” Now it sounds like you’re demanding he supply evidence for your claims. Where have I ever demanded that he provide evidence that he provide evidence that “there is a specific, defining human form that is qualitatively different from that found in other animals.” Please quote where I demanded anyhting remotely like that? > [@](#): > > Has someone else been using your board login? Has someone been spiking your drink? ---
**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, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/148 "2009-10-26T16:52:25Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Here is a pretty good argument on man being the only creature with self awareness and art. I couldn’t be bothered watching the video, but if you intend to participate in this debate you might want to note that nobody but you is arguing this position. ---
**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, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/149 "2009-10-26T16:55:22Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Ah, but in that case he _would_ deny the corpse’s former self-awareness because I couldn’t provide the literally impossible evidence that a dead body _used to be_ self-aware. He said he _wouldn’t_ deny it - I was asking him why not. :rolleyes: So now we’ve got two posters constructing and demolishing strawman misrepresentations of my position. Guess it’s easier than dealing with my requests for the mountains of evidence that you claim to have. ---
**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, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/150 "2009-10-26T16:59:18Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > This assertion keeps getting repeated in every post, and I keep asking for the evidence in every other post. Yet no evidence is forthcoming. It was right here in SentientMeat’s post: > [@SentientMeat](#): > > [Stone tools, \>1 million years](http://www.iupui.edu/~mstd/a103/Paleolithic%20Tool%20Types_files/Oldowan1.gif) > [Wooden huts, 0.6 million](http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news218.htm) > [Spears, 0.4 million](http://www.archaeology.org/9705/newsbriefs/spears.html) > [Oldest ritual burial, 0.3 million](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_religion) > [Oldest clothes, less than 0.2 million](http://bhowc.wordpress.com/category/prehistory/) (even this shows gradual development) > [Oldest jewellery, 0.1 million](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5099104.stm) > [Oldest cave painting, 0.03 million](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauvet_Cave) > [@Blake](#): > > Where have I ever demanded that he provide evidence that he provide evidence that “there is a specific, defining human form that is qualitatively different from that found in other animals.” Please quote where I demanded anyhting remotely like that? When you said “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.” ---
**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, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/151 "2009-10-26T17:01:47Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > You mean the way that stone tools and silicone chips don’t appeared in the fossil record at the same time, despite the fact that the same act of evolution enabled them them ? What evidence have you for this fact? I assure that such evidence would win you a Nobel prize, because the individual which used the first stone tool was a _genetically distinct species_ to the one whcih used the first chip. > [@Blake](#): > > we know that there is no genetic difference between \*Homo sapiens \* who only developed stone tools and \*Homo sapiens \*who developed silcone chips. But they _didn’t_ develop stone tools - that was a _different species_. > [@Blake](#): > > if you can’t do that then those artefacts do indeed say precisely nothing about the cognitive abilities under discussion of the individuals who made them Jewellery, ritual burial and cave painting say _nothing_ about those people’s self-awareness and artistry? You wouldn’t say that people who buried their dead were self-aware, and people who painted pictures were artistic? > [@](#): > > Did it? How did you determine when it occurred? **Your very own words** stated that it was a single, specific act. How could that act be _extended over a long timescale_? > [@Blake](#): > > Why didn’t the H. sapiens who created stone axes start creating silicone chips as as well? I’m not _positing_ such a single enabling act - _you_ are. I’m trying to explore how a divine act which, say, allowed _Homo Habilis_ to start making stone tools **causes** _Homo Heidelbergensis_ to start using fire. Or, how a fire-enabling act causes _Neanderthalis_ to start burying their dead. Or, how a ritual-burial-enabling act causes another **different species** to make silicon chips. > [@Blake](#): > > I’m not refusing anything, nor am I denying anything. I’m accurate in saying you _wouldn’t_ deny it, then. So I’ll ask you straight up: I present to you a naked, anonymous skeleton with a skull which looks exactly like you own and ask, in your opinion, was this person self-aware? Why do you reply in the manner you do? ---
**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, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/152 "2009-10-26T17:15:18Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > It was right here in SentientMeat’s post: Since you seem determined to repeat all the smae assertions that I’ve already discredited for him, Ill ask you the the same question that he has refused to answer four times: Since you assert that the progression of those technologies is evidence of a progression of human defining speech, artistry and self awareness then 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 artefacts 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. > [@](#): > > When you said “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.” I will ask again: please quote where I asked for evidence that there is a specific, defining human form that is qualitatively different from that found in other animals. That was your strawman claim. Now please suport it. Don’t quote where I asked for evidence of the existence of those traits. Quote where I asked for evidence _that there is a specific, defining human form of those traits_. Or alternatively apologise for that blatant strawman and retract the comment. Quite frankly this whole position is ridiculous since only one drive by bothered to dispute the existence of a form of those triats that is qualitatively different from that found in other animals. Why would I bother to ask somebody for evidence of something that we both accept exists? You are constructing a blatant and rather stupid strawman and I would thank you to retratct and apologise. I also await with bated breath your evidence that that there have been significant genetic changes between an Aborigine or a San bushman today and his ancestor 40, 000 or even 200 years ago who was using palaeolithic technology. Will I have to wait long? ---
**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, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/153 "2009-10-26T17:18:59Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Since you seem determined to repeat all the smae assertions that I’ve already discredited for him What? Where have you _discredited_ the timeline of human development I presented there? ---
**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, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/154 "2009-10-26T17:59:33Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > What evidence have you for this fact? I assure that such evidence would win you a Nobel prize, because the individual which used the first stone tool was a _genetically distinct species_ to the one whcih used the first chip. WTF? Who ever said \*first \*stone tool? Strawman much. Or`are you denying perhaps that \*H sapiens \*used stone tools?:rolleyes: Now are you going to answer the question or not? You can try to play these sematic games all you want, but the question is going to keep coming back to bite you one the arse because your position is so ridiculous. Stone tools and silicone chips don’t appeared in the fossil record at the same time, despite the fact that the same act of evolution enabled them them. Why is that, since your “logic” says that technological advancements are only possible if there is a change of some sort in the species involved. Or perhaps you are now willing to concede that technological changes can occur without any change in the species involved, but rater simply form learning? > [@](#): > > But they _didn’t_ develop stone tools - that was a _different species_. WTF? You can not be this ignorant? You aren’t seriously arguing that \*H sapiens \*never develoed any stone tools? Who the fuck do you think developed the flint scythe? Jackals? Do you really think tha neolithic farmers used the same toolkit as\* H erectus?\* Your ignorance of this topic is truly staggering when you start denying that H sapiens developed stone tools. > [@](#): > > Jewellery, ritual burial and cave painting say _nothing_ about those people’s self-awareness and artistry? Is that right? > [@](#): > > You wouldn’t say that people who buried their dead were self-aware, and people who painted pictures were artistic? Wouldn’t I? See I too can play the “question” game so as to avoid making any statement that might require evidence. Unfortunately for you you’ve already claimed to have amountain of evidence that I am still wiating for you to produce. > [@](#): > > **Your very own words** stated that it was a single, specific act. How could that act be _extended over a long timescale_? I don’t know, how could it? It’s your idea so you must know. Because I certainly never said it was extended over a long timescale, and you wouldn’t indulge in such a blatant strawman as to insinuate that I ever did. Because then when I asked you to quote where I made such a claim you would be unable to do so. Right? > [@](#): > > I’m not _positing_ such a single enabling act Dude you’ve only got two options here. Either the _H. sapiens_ who only used stone tools are genetically the same as the people who used silicone chips, or they are genetically inferior. If they are genetically the same then there has only been one single enabling act for both stone tools and silicon chips. A single genetic change that has enabled _H sapiens_ to use stone tools or to use silicon chips. Since you are not positing such a single enabling act you are claiming that there is a genetic difference that allows some people to make only stone tools and there has been a genetic change that allowed other people to make stone tools and silicon chips. Cite please. I really want to see this evidence that the reasons why Aborigines used stone tools is because they missed out on the act that enabled them to use silicone chips. > [@](#): > > I’m trying to explore how a divine act which, say, allowed _Homo Habilis_ to start making stone tools **causes** _Homo Heidelbergensis_ to start using fire. Or, how a fire-enabling act causes _Neanderthalis_ to start burying their dead. Or, how a ritual-burial-enabling act causes another **different species** to make silicon chips. For the sake of argument, let’s posit that it works \*exactly \* the same way as the evolutionary act which allowed paeaeolithic _H sapiens_ to use stone tools, then **causes** neolithic _Homo sapiens_ to start using ceramics. Or exactly the same way that a how a writing enabling mutation causes _Chinese_ to start using gunpowder. Or, how a boomerang-making–enabling mutation causes another **different continent** to make silicon chips. Let’s assume that it works _precisely_ the same way, except it’s caused by a spiritual rather than a genetic change. What is exactly is giving you trouble here? It’s such a simple concept, I cna;t see why it’s confusing you. We know beyond any shadow of a doubt that a single enabling evolutionary act leads to a long, slow steady progress in technology wth no need for any further acts. You don’t deny that do you? You don’t deny that the genotype that enabled the Chinese to invent the wheelbarrow is the same one that enabled them to invent the printing press 4, 000 years later? You don’t believe that the Chinese developed a wheelbarrow gene in 3, 000 BC and then developed printing press gene in 1000 AD? So you accept that the evolutionary act that allowed the Chinese to develop the wheelbarrow was the same act that allowed them to develop the printing press 4, 00 years later? So why the fuck do you insist on repeatedly claiming that single act can’t produce technological developlments over millenia? Why do you insist on repeatedly claiming that if a group of people have the makeup (spiritual or genetic) to do something they would do so immediately rather than taking millenia to do so? I really can’t see why you are struggling with the simple and rather uncontroversial fact that human technological potential is not expressed to its fullest immediately I can’t see why you insist that every technological advanacenmnt has to be evidence of either a genetic or spiritual change. > [@](#): > > I’m accurate in saying you _wouldn’t_ deny it, then No, you aren’t. Once again this is a strawman and I never said any such thing But hey, if we’re playing silly buggers with complex quetsions: do you deny that you still beat your wife? > [@](#): > > So I’ll ask you straight up: I present to you a naked, anonymous skeleton with a skull which looks exactly like you own and ask, in your opinion, was this person self-aware? Why do you reply in the manner you do? Because that is what evidence available tells me. Now I ask again: You said that you had a mountain of evidence concerning a gradual development of human language. Can weplease see this evidence and the manner in which you correlated the (presumably) physical changes with the mental changes? Is there any chance you will actually answer this request for the evidence which you \*volunteered \*that you had? ---
**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, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/155 "2009-10-26T18:06:18Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > What? Where have you _discredited_ the timeline of human development I presented there? Can you possibly cram any more strawmen into this debate? Where the fuck did I ever say that I discredited the timeline? You actually quoted where I said said that I discredited your fucking _assertion_ that this is evidnceof a slow progression of language and self awareness. Which I have, comprehensibly. And very easily by simply asking you to tell us which physical evidence you correlated with the mental workings of the creators,and how you checked that correlation. Dude this is such a blatant strawman that I can no longer put it down to incompetence. You have to be doing it deliberately whenyou quote me saying that I discredited your assertion and then claim that I said I discredited the data. If you don’t tidy your act up then I’m outta here. I will not engage with the disingenuous or the willfully ignorant, and deliberate strawmen and claims that _H sapiens_ never developed any stone tools meet both criteria in my book. ---
**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, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/156 "2009-10-26T18:19:34Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > 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. From one of your earlier posts: > [@](#): > > With the soul came all the characteristics of man as we know them: self awareness, artistry, speech **and so forth.** The “and so forth” part appears to have been allowed to fall by the wayside. Also, while it is certainly true that poetry and introspection are very good indicators of human artistry, human speech, and human introspection, they are not the ONLY such indicators. Are they the minimum that you’re willing to accept as being indicators? Progressively sophisticated human artifacts, such as have been brought up also indicate human artistry (at least). As for human speech and human introspection, I’ll confess that I don’t have the paleoanthropological chops to make that case that they are indicated by forensic examination of the same artifacts. But I expect that someone does. ---
**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, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/157 "2009-10-26T18:26:11Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > :The “and so forth” part appears to have been allowed to fall by the wayside. No, it doesn’t. > [@](#): > > Also, while it is certainly true that poetry and introspection are very good indicators of human artistry, human speech, and human introspection, they are not the ONLY such indicators. Why are they the minimum that you’re willing to accept as being indicators? They’re not. We’ve resolved all this. ---
**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, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/158 "2009-10-26T18:48:27Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Stone tools and silicone chips don’t appeared in the fossil record at the same time, despite the fact that the same act of evolution enabled them. _What?_ I don’t understand this assertion of yours. What act of evolution could _possibly_ enable stone tools 1 million years ago **and** silicon chips several decades ago? And if we’re talking about early Homo Sapiens stone tools, why do you say that an act of evolution ‘enabled’ them when they had _already been in use for a million years_? > [@Blake](#): > > Why is that, since your “logic” says that technological advancements are only possible if there is a change of some sort in the species involved. What? Where did I say this? > [@Blake](#): > > Or perhaps you are now willing to concede that technological changes can occur without any change in the species involved, but rater simply form learning? Of course I accept that. > [@](#): > > WTF? You can not be this ignorant? You aren’t seriously arguing that \*H sapiens \*never developed any stone tools? Ah, you mean _improved upon_, not developed _from scratch_. Gotcha. No, I’m not arguing that. So let’s explore a divine act that enabled them to make _slightly better_ stone tools than those already around. > [@me](#): > > Jewellery, ritual burial and cave painting say nothing about those people’s self-awareness and artistry? You wouldn’t say that people who buried their dead were self-aware, and people who painted pictures were artistic? > [@Blake](#): > > Is that right? Wouldn’t I I am asking you if you _agree_ that ritual burial and cave painting say precisely nothing about those people’s self-awareness and artistry. Grow up. > [@Blake](#): > > I don’t know, how could it? Your single specific divine act couldn’t be extended over a long timescale _by definition_. > [@Blake](#): > > Because I certainly never said it was extended over a long timescale So it _did_ occur at a specific instant, such that it \*couldn’t have extended over two or more of those developmental landmarks in the list. _That_’s how I know that the divine event must have occurred _between_ two such landmarks. > [@Blake](#): > > Dude you’ve only got two options here. > > Either the _H. sapiens_ who only used stone tools are genetically the same as the people who used silicone chips, or they are genetically inferior. > > If they are genetically the same then there has only been one single enabling act for both stone tools and silicon chips. A single genetic change that has enabled _H sapiens_ to use stone tools or to use silicon chips. > > Since you are not positing such a single enabling act you are claiming that there is a genetic difference that allows some people to make only stone tools and there has been a genetic change that allowed other people to make stone tools and silicon chips. False dichotomy (_now_ who’s employing ‘surelys’?) I am positing that a single divine act that enables _very slightly better_ stone tools (and somehow, for argument’s sake, is also responsible for silicon chips tens of thousands of years later) amongst a species who are _already_ living in huts, wearing clothes, cooking spear-hunted game on fires, wearing jewellery and burying their dead in elaborate rituals, is not much of a frigging miracle. > [@Blake](#): > > So why the fuck do you insist on repeatedly claiming that single act can’t produce technological developlments over millenia? Because that is nothing remotely _like_ “ **all** the characteristics of man as we know them: self awareness, artistry, speech and so forth” in a single act. It is precisely like “an _arbitrarily small, insignificant_ act which only the tragicomically credulous would consider responsible for innovations made thousands of years afterwards”. > [@Blake](#): > > No, you aren’t. Once again this is a strawman and I never said any such thing You said that you “wouldn’t bother denying it”. > [@](#): > > Because that is what evidence available tells me. But the available evidence _doesn’t_ tell you much at all, only the size of his skull. You _infer_ his self-awareness and artistry based solely on that. > [@Blake](#): > > If you don’t tidy your act up then I’m outta here. I will not engage with the disingenuous or the willfully ignorant, and deliberate strawmen and claims that H sapiens never developed any stone tools meet both criteria in my book. Listen, _calm down_. I am trying to explore this divine act of RC orthodoxy because I’m _interested_ in it. Your meltdowns aren’t helping matters. ---
**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, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/159 "2009-10-26T18:54:39Z")
In fact, **Blake** , since you’re constantly complaining of my arguments not being clear, the central point of my last post was this: I am positing that a single divine act that enables very slightly better stone tools (and somehow, for argument’s sake, is also responsible for silicon chips tens of thousands of years later) amongst a species who are already living in huts, wearing clothes, cooking spear-hunted game on fires, wearing jewellery and burying their dead in elaborate rituals, is not much of a frigging miracle. ---
**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, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718/160 "2009-10-26T20:34:16Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > I will ask again: please quote where I asked for evidence that there is a specific, defining human form that is qualitatively different from that found in other animals. That was your strawman claim. Now please suport it. When you said “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.” > [@](#): > > Don’t quote where I asked for evidence of the existence of those traits. Quote where I asked for evidence _that there is a specific, defining human form of those traits_. Or alternatively apologise for that blatant strawman and retract the comment. Your words above sound to me like you’re asking for evidence that there’s a defining form of those traits specific to humans. Is that not what you were asking? If not, then what the hell were you asking for? Then this: > [@](#): > > Quite frankly this whole position is ridiculous since only one drive by bothered to dispute the existence of a form of those triats that is qualitatively different from that found in other animals. Why would I bother to ask somebody for evidence of something that we both accept exists? That’s what I wanted to know - you asserted that there is a qualitative difference in the human form of those traits, then you asked for evidence of the human-only form of those traits for some reason (since it was your own claim), now you’re asserting it again and saying that we both accept it. Well I don’t know about SentientMeat, but I sure don’t accept a qualitative difference in the human form as compared to the other animals, only a quantitative difference. > [@](#): > > You are constructing a blatant and rather stupid strawman and I would thank you to retratct and apologise. I’m afraid I may have to limit my participation in this thread to keep from violating board rules. > [@](#): > > I also await with bated breath your evidence that that there have been significant genetic changes between an Aborigine or a San bushman today and his ancestor 40, 000 or even 200 years ago who was using palaeolithic technology. I think the claim was that there are significant genetic changes between the first people to develop stone tools and modern man. And there were significant genetic changes in the first to create jewelry, bury their dead ritualistically, wear clothes, etc. > [@Blake](#): > > Your ignorance of this topic is truly staggering when you start denying that H sapiens developed stone tools. There’s no need to be insulting - he and I are just trying to understand WTF you’re saying and have a discussion. It needn’t be this difficult. It sounds like you’re the one playing word-games when you say that H sapiens developed stone tools, when what matters is who developed them _first_, and that was not H sapiens. Stone tools were not developed by the same species of critter that created silicon (not silicone!) chips. _Mmmmmm… silicone._ > [@](#): > > Either the _H. sapiens_ who only used stone tools are genetically the same as the people who used silicone chips, or they are genetically inferior. > > If they are genetically the same then there has only been one single enabling act for both stone tools and silicon chips. A single genetic change that has enabled _H sapiens_ to use stone tools or to use silicon chips. > > Since you are not positing such a single enabling act you are claiming that there is a genetic difference that allows some people to make only stone tools and there has been a genetic change that allowed other people to make stone tools and silicon chips. > > Cite please. I really want to see this evidence that the reasons why Aborigines used stone tools is because they missed out on the act that enabled them to use silicone chips. Again - what the hell are you saying? We _know_ that the first ones to develop stone tools were a different species from us. Are you actually asking for evidence for this? It’s been shown to you repeatedly right here in this fuckin’ thread, addressed specifically to you, _three times_! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cavemen-in-heaven/514718.md?page=9)