Hi Glenn, nothing personal. I agree with your conclusions, however, do
question the arguments listed below.
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of Glenn Morton
Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 11:55 PM
To: Adrian Teo; 'Asa@Calvin. Edu '
Subject: RE: How and when did we become "men"?
Glenn: The effort of some of these sites is far more than required for
showing off
[afterall why take a showing off trophy deep into a cave where no one will
see it?] At Bruniquel, the Neanderthals went deep into the cave, totally out
of the range of light and that is dangerous, requires effort. They had to
plan lighting (lamps or torches) and take enough to never run out of light
or they would be lost forever. And then they had to bring the bear body with
them. Bears are not found deep underground, so it is unlikely that they
found a bear there as deep as they were. Even bears in cave rarely go into
the total darkness of the deeper cave. They also need to find their way back
to the surface. The Bruniquel people then built a square structure and
burned the bear there. Fires are not very likely underground in the total
dark of a cave even if a bear gets trapped there. And they had to have
enough fuel in the form of wood to burn the bear. One simply doesn't touch a
torch to a bear fur and expect the bear to be incinerated. These were the
days before gasoline you know.
At Chauvet, the intentionality of the bear skull arrangment is clear from
the fact that there are NO skeletal bones! The bears heads were carried
into the cave but no legs. Thus, this deposit is not the site of natural
bear deaths. Once again, fire is not common in caves. There is nothing
combustible and there is no spark. Caves are damp (if you have ever been in
many you will know). Thus to find a bear skull on a rock
Don: While I tend to believe that it is religious, your reasoning is
lacking. Going deep in a cave to show off trophies? Why not? It might have
been cold out. Why do you assume that darkness equates to danger? You said
they had built fires. So obviously they had a source of light. What do you
mean they had to take the bear body? Your said they only had the skulls. The
structure could be for fire containment and for increased wood fuel
efficiency. Finding their way back? Assuming they brought enough wood to go
in they probably wouldn't have a problem getting out. None of your arguments
point to religion, although they do point to some effort. Is religion the
only time people go out of their way to do something? Let me help you here,
if you don't mind. A better argument would be not that they brought skulls
into the caves, but rather that they left them there. If someone was trying
to sit out a snow storm and sat around showing off the kills of the winter,
one would not just leave the prize in the cave. Most likely they would bring
them to their habitats. The only other situation would be if this was not a
groups doing, but a single individual, then this could just be his heads
mounted on the wall. Not likely due to the depth of the cave however. So as
I said, I do agree with the conclusion but either they or you should use
reasoning that has a somewhat firmer ground. No disrespect intended. You are
one of the most knowledgeable people I've seen.
__
| |__ Skull
|_____|
fire*____
| |rock
| |
| |
| |
Glenn: Yeah, because they have examined the evidence and you havn't. This
is a
case of the non-expert, who hasn't actually read the articles, much less
excavated the site, telling the expert what he found. That seems to be a
bit over the top. One really should listen to the guy who did the study
unless one has clear evidence refuting what he says.
Don: Does this mean that if I go out and make a discovery and make
conclusions, that no one except those that were with me at the time are
allowed to dispute?
Glenn: Probability is never done when we discuss the Bible or concerning
Washington
crossing the Delaware so why are you asking for something no one else does
in any equivalent field? I suggest it is to give cover for the denial of
evidence that you don't like.
Don: Somehow I don't think that comparing an event that was written down,
while memories were fairly fresh, with something witnessed after the fact is
proper. What Washington did was witnessed and written down, although perhaps
exaggerated. Skulls in caves? Did someone see them put the skulls there and
did they ask why they were doing it?
Glenn: Given the correction, tell me how you can prove that the Maltese
temples
were religous in nature. THey were built just prior to writing. And what of
the stone circles in Scotland? There are hundreds of them, all built before
writing came to the British Isles. Are we to discount them as religious
sites? One site in the Orkneys took 200,000 man-hours to build! Seems a bit
over the top if it wasn't for religion.
Don: Most likely, but more so since some semi-structures like these have
been used for burial grounds. But again you assume as do many that religion
is the only reason for effort. I would say that money and social power were
and are and will be more of a driving force. Somehow I don't believe that
Scotland was conquered by England for religion alone. That took allot of
effort and lives.
Glenn: NO, it is frustration at dealing with someone determined to doubt
everything. Of course we can do that. But upon what basis? Why can we only
use analogy on religion when it is in historical periods where we have
historical documents attesting to religious activities? What kind of sense
does that make? It means that religion began when man began to write. And
that seems silly.
Don: Actually, you have implied the writing criteria by stating that
everyone must read in order to object. It is best to do so, so that ones
facts are in order, but logic is logic regardless of reading someone else's
conclusions. What you are saying is that in order for someone to be right,
they must publish something. It's easy to say that I'm right because someone
else says so, or wrote so.
Respectfully
Don P
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 17:30:12 EDT