|
Post by movieliker on Mar 12, 2019 15:39:31 GMT
You are wrong. Modern man would blow cavemen out the water with their superior communication skills. Which includes writing. This is not a semantics discussion. If you don't know what the term "caveman" means . . . Lord give me strength... I'm an archaeologist, and I'm telling you, caveman means absolutely nothing. Not according to Wikipedia. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveman
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 15:42:11 GMT
Lord give me strength... I'm an archaeologist, and I'm telling you, caveman means absolutely nothing. Not according to Wikipedia. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CavemanJesus Christ, Mary, and all the Saints... nobody has seriously used that term since the early 20th Century, when it was realised to be nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 12, 2019 15:44:25 GMT
Lord give me strength... I'm an archaeologist, and I'm telling you, caveman means absolutely nothing. Not according to Wikipedia. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CavemanLOL! The first line of that link reads "A caveman is a stock character representative of primitive man in the Paleolithic." And the works "stock character" link to an article whose first sentence reads "A stock character is a stereotypical fictional character in a work of art such as a novel, play, film, or a movie whom audiences recognize from frequent recurrences in a particular literary tradition."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 15:45:27 GMT
LOL! The first line of that link reads "A caveman is a stock character representative of primitive man in the Paleolithic." And the works "stock character" link to an article whose first sentence reads "A stock character is a stereotypical fictional character in a work of art such as a novel, play, film, or a movie whom audiences recognize from frequent recurrences in a particular literary tradition." Oh don't bother, he won't admit he's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 12, 2019 15:45:43 GMT
Jesus Christ, Mary, and all the Saints... nobody has seriously used that term since the early 20th Century, when it was realised to be nonsense. So? It is a word. And it has meaning.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 12, 2019 15:47:20 GMT
LOL! The first line of that link reads "A caveman is a stock character representative of primitive man in the Paleolithic." And the works "stock character" link to an article whose first sentence reads "A stock character is a stereotypical fictional character in a work of art such as a novel, play, film, or a movie whom audiences recognize from frequent recurrences in a particular literary tradition." Oh don't bother, he won't admit he's wrong. I am not wrong. It is a word. It does have meaning.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 12, 2019 15:48:08 GMT
LOL! The first line of that link reads "A caveman is a stock character representative of primitive man in the Paleolithic." And the works "stock character" link to an article whose first sentence reads "A stock character is a stereotypical fictional character in a work of art such as a novel, play, film, or a movie whom audiences recognize from frequent recurrences in a particular literary tradition." So, what's your point?
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 12, 2019 16:26:09 GMT
LOL! The first line of that link reads "A caveman is a stock character representative of primitive man in the Paleolithic." And the works "stock character" link to an article whose first sentence reads "A stock character is a stereotypical fictional character in a work of art such as a novel, play, film, or a movie whom audiences recognize from frequent recurrences in a particular literary tradition." So, what's your point? Oh, so when you said "Not as effectively as modern man. Cavemen are men who live in caves." you were talking about fictional characters? I thought you were talking about real humans that lived in the real world. My mistake.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 12, 2019 16:40:02 GMT
Jesus Christ, Mary, and all the Saints... nobody has seriously used that term since the early 20th Century, when it was realised to be nonsense. To be fair, I used this word here too. I thought it would be easier than saying "prehistoric people" or "people living in the stone age", which is what I meant to say. Apparently, I was wrong. My point was that prehistoric people didn't invent writing because they didn't need it. And if they had invented writing, they wouldn't be called "prehistoric", because apparently history begins with written records.
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Mar 12, 2019 17:04:10 GMT
what did those first christians scream out when they touched themselves at night?
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 12, 2019 17:14:03 GMT
Oh, so when you said "Not as effectively as modern man. Cavemen are men who live in caves." you were talking about fictional characters? I thought you were talking about real humans that lived in the real world. My mistake. Regardless of how accurate the term "caveman" is, you should know what was meant --- prehistoric man. I didn't introduce the word to this thread. I was responding to another poster who used that term. I could have split hairs on whether or not the word is used in archeological circles. But I knew what he meant. This thread is about recorded history before 4000 BC. Not specifically accurate archeological terms.
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 12, 2019 17:43:50 GMT
Oh, so when you said "Not as effectively as modern man. Cavemen are men who live in caves." you were talking about fictional characters? I thought you were talking about real humans that lived in the real world. My mistake. Regardless of how accurate the term "caveman" is, you should know what was meant --- prehistoric man. I didn't introduce the word to this thread. I was responding to another poster who used that term. I could have split hairs on whether or not the word is used in archeological circles. But I knew what he meant. This thread is about recorded history before 4000 BC. Not specifically accurate archeological terms. That's good. You were momentarily arguing with an archaeologist about the use of the term. Perhaps you and I agree that the OP is preposterous.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 12, 2019 17:59:34 GMT
Regardless of how accurate the term "caveman" is, you should know what was meant --- prehistoric man. I didn't introduce the word to this thread. I was responding to another poster who used that term. I could have split hairs on whether or not the word is used in archeological circles. But I knew what he meant. This thread is about recorded history before 4000 BC. Not specifically accurate archeological terms. That's good. You were momentarily arguing with an archaeologist about the use of the term. Perhaps you and I agree that the OP is preposterous. Let's see. Here is the OP; "I find it odd how Evolutionists claim man has been evolving for millions of years and as modern humans we’ve been around for about 200,000 years. Yet there is no recorded history stretching further than 6000 years which coincidentally enough is how long many Christians believe the bible dates as the beginning of mankind.
We have no writings, no battles, no wars, no countries, no carved stones, no nothing. If human evolution is true then surely it would be traceable far beyond 4000bc."I can appreciate his first paragraph. I think you and I know why there is no recorded history earlier than 6 thousand years ago. But I can understand somebody, not as familiar with human history as you and I, might find that curious. I think his second paragraph is wrong. No, there is no writing or recorded history. But there were battles, wars and countries. And I think there is amble testimony to that assertion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 18:06:01 GMT
That's good. You were momentarily arguing with an archaeologist about the use of the term. Perhaps you and I agree that the OP is preposterous. No, there is no writing or recorded history. But there were battles, wars and countries. And I think there is amble testimony to that assertion. Actually, the evidence of 'war' and 'battles' pre-neolithic is very scarce... there was nothing to fight over. There were no countries, people moved around throughout the year to exploit seasonal resources. In the Neolithic people started settling land, populations exploded, then competition for local resources began. However, it still isn't really until the Bronze Age, with production, ownership, and hierarchical society, that we see evidence of more widespread inter-communal violence. You are ill-informed again.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 12, 2019 18:08:41 GMT
No, there is no writing or recorded history. But there were battles, wars and countries. And I think there is amble testimony to that assertion. Actually, the evidence of 'war' and 'battles' pre-neolithic is very scarce... there was nothing to fight over. In the Neolithic people started settling land, populations exploded, then competition for local resources began. However, it still isn't really until the Bronze Age, with production, ownership, and hierarchical society, that we see evidence of more widespread inter-communal violence. You are ill-informed again. So ... you are saying the "Neolithic" period went all the way up to the beginning of recorded history? There was no time between the "Neolithic" and recorded history?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 18:12:44 GMT
Actually, the evidence of 'war' and 'battles' pre-neolithic is very scarce... there was nothing to fight over. In the Neolithic people started settling land, populations exploded, then competition for local resources began. However, it still isn't really until the Bronze Age, with production, ownership, and hierarchical society, that we see evidence of more widespread inter-communal violence. You are ill-informed again. So ... you are saying the "Neolithic" period went all the way up to the beginning of recorded history? There was no time between the "Neolithic" and recorded history? I'm off to evening Mass now ✝️ I'll leave you to figure it out 🤔 Peace be with you 🙏
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 12, 2019 18:17:20 GMT
So ... you are saying the "Neolithic" period went all the way up to the beginning of recorded history? There was no time between the "Neolithic" and recorded history? I'm off to evening Mass now ✝️ I'll leave you to figure it out 🤔 Peace be with you 🙏 I looked it up. No, the Neolithic Period stopped when history began to be recorded. But there is evidence of communities and settlements during the Neilithoc Period. I have to believe there were battles, wars and groups of people representing certain areas. They may not have been called countries. But still they represented an area and its people. Kingdoms had battles and wars. But kingdoms were not always called countries.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 19:44:51 GMT
I'm off to evening Mass now ✝️ I'll leave you to figure it out 🤔 Peace be with you 🙏 I looked it up. No, the Neolithic Period stopped when history began to be recorded. Wrong again genius, the Neolithic ended with the advent of metallurgy, the Chalcolithic/Bronze Age. You are currently failing your global pre-history exam ☹️
|
|
|
Post by maya55555 on Mar 12, 2019 19:55:53 GMT
How do you explain GOBEKLI TEPE?
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Mar 12, 2019 20:10:42 GMT
Because people back then were dumbasses.
|
|