Thx for that friendly reply, retrocrono.
Why so much obvious frustration?
Read my previous post (Why Creationists panick) , cause you just have proven one my points there.
quote:
I know very little of the Neanderthals so please do not stereo type what I say as to representing other creationist
Here you go!
http://sapphire.indstate.edu/~ramanank/
quote:
Firstly, I find it strange that you consider art to represent a soul. How do you know it was art that they were doing? Your perception of art could not be what they perceive as art and I'm doubtful they even new the concept.
Well I just called it soul to speak in your language. I refer to it as conscience.
And yes they had humanlike conscience and made jewelry , hundreds of different stone tools, made clothes nd they made flutes and thus played music. If I'm not mistaken we're the only species with selfawerenes enough to play selfmade melodies with selfmade intruments. So they must have been selfaware.
quote:
Did they some how leave recorded documents as to art so we can know what they perceived as art.
No there is no evidence that they had writing. But that's just a ridiculous argument. We homosapiens didn't even have writing capabilities at that time. Hey even now there are tribes in the amazon who don't write. Are you calling them animals?
You don't need a written report to conduct science and find evidence about their behaviour.
quote:
Thirdly, many animals dig holes and bury stuff, could it not just be instinct. I always wonder how you can draw such conclusions from so little evidence, can you really know they did any of these things you speak of through looking at some fossils?
Animals don't put in gifts and weopons and tools belonging to the cadaver in their holes. They don't put them in fetal position with their heads facing west 99% of the time.
Neither do animals remove the brains from the deceased by widening the nose cavity in the skull (much like egyptians did).
If that's not ceremonial burial, then what is.
quote:
Wow, I'm doubtful you speak for any real evolutionist there. Since when could two different species successfully mate?
Firstly, you quoted me out of context. I had two more possible theories. (adaptation or war with homo sapiens).
The theory you critisize is the least probable. (Ofcourse that's the you chose to critisize)
If two branches of a common ancestor haven't been seperated long enough and thus don't differ too much genetically, it may be possible to crossbreed. But it'd have to be a very small difference.
Recent findings of remnants of neanderthal DNA suggest that they probably couldn't have crossbred. But that wasn't my favorite theory about Neandertal extinction anyway.
quote:
Sigh, I'm kinda getting tired of this evolutionary thinking. You have all just become products of society being told exactly how to think. It's both boring and sad.
Yes, alas I rely for my information on hard working scientist all over the world. Would be nice to get a direct line to god like you.
[This message has been edited by maxm007, 12-27-2001]
™ Version 4.2