"What kind of physical head trauma did you suffer that caused enough damage
for you to be able to think that a 'few years' is 95,000 years? And, if
95,000 years is a 'few years' how many years is 5,000? A 'year or two'?
Were you born yesterday?"
Now, now, "Cummings", play nice or we'll have to put you back in your cage
and you won't get any raw meat for dinner.
"Cummings" also wrote:
"How old do the modern myth-makers say [H]omo erectus is? Approaching a
couple million years? Is it your assertion that he was smart enough to
manufacture tools, but too stupid to learn even crude writing, couldn't draw
a picture of a constellation?"
Nothing is achieved suddenly, and some things take longer than others. Tool
use exists among chimpanzees, so early man would have been developing tools
before he could even speak. Speech gives rise to language, language gives
rise to imagination, imagination gives rise to creativity, and creativity
gives rise to art. Depending upon how far along Homo erectus was in
developing language, he may not have been developed enough to be creative.
>BTW, as for the disagreement you refer to, who says it's human, who says
>it's not? Part of the answer could be that a number of different fossils
>are identified as homo erectus.
Gish has stated that Java Man was an ape, Turkana Boy was human; both are
Homo erectus. But if you superimpose the Java Man skullcap onto the Turkana
Boy skull, you find that they match completely. Therefore, if both are Homo
erectus, and if both are identical in skeletal structure, how can one be an
ape and the other human?
Kevin L. O'Brien