Re: Oldest Stone Tools and Intelligence

Glenn Morton (
Tue, 04 Mar 1997 16:49:54 -0600

At 03:13 PM 3/4/97 EST, Jim Bell wrote:
>Glenn wrote:
><<Of Christian apologetical view, mine is the only one which can
>easily incorporate such discoveries>>
>You get 10 points for brass, 0 points for humility...and negative points for

Jim, Welcome back. I never did hear a response to my documented refutation
of your bold, brassy claim that you had never, never said or implied that
spiritual men were created 30kyr ago or so. You clearly claimed that
spiritual mankind is no older than 30kyr and then promptly denied that you
had ever said so. That is more brassy height than I could ever hope to
aspire to.

You wrote:
on 28 Jan 97 18:13:16 EST
Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Glenn Morton: "Re: Polystrate trees, correction."
Previous message: Brian D. Harper: "Re: Static tools?"

Glenn writes:

<<Are you saying that Jim is correct that the anatomically modern men
who lived 100,000 years ago, were not spiritual? >>

If I weren't such a nice guy I'd come down there and do something
unmentionable to that dweeb nose!

I never said any such thing, never implied it. You can't produce a single item
that supports you in this statement. In fact I explained why I believe the
very OPPOSITE. I answered you specifically on this yesterday, explaining why
the greater evidence of spirituality should fall later on the timeline. And
you know full well what I mean by special creation by God.



To which I pointed out on Jan 28, 1997

Jim, a little history. On Dec. 6, 1996 you wrote in a thread named,

No Tears for Neanderthal:

Jim Bell (70672.1241@CompuServe.COM)
06 Dec 96 14:01:04 EST

>Glenn is going to love this.
>In the latest Facts & Faith, Hugh Ross deals with the so-called
>Neanderthal "flute" and other matters. There is a nice picture of
>the bone with holes, too. The article is a good one, entitled "The Meaning
>of Art and Music."
>One important point he makes, which bears repeating, is how difficult
>it is to say that "art" is associated with biblical humanness.
>"Most of us have seen chimpanzee art that compares favorably with modern art.
>Bower birds are known to decorate their nests." But we don't really consider
>birds human,or even incipient humans, do we? (Well, there might be a few...)
>Ross mentions a debate going on about "spirit art," art that would
>indicate "shaman-like" awareness, and thus true humanity. The debate is
>detailed in Bower, "Visions on the Rocks," Science News, vol. 150 (1996) pp.
>217-217. But note: neither group suggests that spirit art dates back earlier
>than 27,000 years.

Let see....since 100,000 years is older than 27,000 years, and "shaman-like
awareness" and "true humanity" only go back 27,000 years, then I really
don't understand how anyone could possbily get the idea that you don't
believe that homo sapiens who lived 100,000 years ago were not human. Nope,
just can't understand where some stupid Texan could possibly get that idea.
Must be the water.

In a thread entitled:

Re: The Shaman's Cape-Religion among the Neanderthals
On 17 Dec 96 16:05:13 EST Jim Bell (70672.1241@CompuServe.COM) wrote:

>With Neanderthal, we have the "lightning bug" of consciousness, compared to
>the "lightning" of true humanity. And this lightning is recent. As Leakey puts
>"Modern humans became modern when they spoke like us and
>experienced the self as we do. We surely see evidence of this in the art
of Europe >and Africa from 35,000 years onward and in the elaborate ritual
that accompanied
>burial in the Upper Paleolithic." (pg. 156)

Nope, just don't see how one could possibly get the idea that you are
excluding anatomically modern humans from their theological position. Must
be dislexia on the part of those who would say such awful things about your

Then amazingly, someone stole your computer and wrote a note under your name
entitled "Shaman Art"

Jim Bell (70672.1241@CompuServe.COM) on
27 Jan 97 13:28:53 EST wrote:

>The nature of these paintings is unlike anything which came before.
>What is it? It is "shaman-art", and it is at most 32,000 - 34,000 years old
>(though dating is a tricky process, it is unlikely the envelope will be pushed
>much further back).
>What are we to make of all this explosive, recent and utterly different
kind of art? >Where you have shaman art, you have fully modern homo
divinus, the spiritual >man. But there is NO evidence, anywhere, before
modern man, of what is called >the "shamanistic complex"

My gosh. Whoever wrote this ought to PAY. Imagine that person deluding
members of this board into thinking that you, of all people, believed that
"fully modern homo divinus, the spiritual man" might only be 34,000 years old.

Sarcasm off.

I consider the last statement equivalent to your saying that spiritual man
was only 34,000 years old or less.

While you have never used the exact words that the 100,000 year old Homo
sapiens were not human, you most assuredly HAVE implied it and gone out of
your way to convey that message. Don't act so astonished that someone might
believe that you felt this way.

Now how about a direct answer to my question. Is or is not 100,000 year old
homo sapiens, homo divinus?


Foundation, Fall and Flood

So how do you plead you clearly made the claim which you clearly denied
having made?

By the way, doess anatomically modern man found 120,000 years ago bear the
image of God or is he merely an animal that looks like you and me? You never
answered that question either. You ran from it like a rooster from a fox.

><< All of the above, combined with the other new discoveries, that
>Homo erectus was a hunter, not a scavenger and that some hominid
>lived in Siberia, 300,000 years ago, has shown that ancient man
>was far more intelligent and resourceful than was previously believed. >>
>In fact, all discoveries which push such hominid activity backward in time
>burst your balloon. As with the Oldowan stone tools that go back 250,000 years
>more than previously thought, you have to explain the greater and greater
>un-human-like stasis that the record reflects. Further, your "technological
>dark age" becomes increasingly untenable. It looks as if it was not a dark age
>at all, but merely an age without human-like innovation.

So why are there some spiritual humans who even in this century, are living
with stone age technology. They are living with the same technology that
Homo erectus had 1.6 million years ago. That is a longer stasis period than
you ascribe to the Oldowan tools. Are you implying that they are not human
because they have no creativity? If so, we better call the missionaries
home, they are wasting their time.


Foundation, Fall and Flood