Stone-age toddlers had art lessons, study says

Guardian UK ^ | Thursday 29 September 2011 | Caroline Davies

[SunkenCiv]

Well, duh! They didn't have electronics or pacifiers, how else do you keep a bunch of kids quiet during the long ice-age winters?

Artworks such as this were created 13,000 years ago by children in caves in the Dordogne, research suggests. Photograph: University of Cambridge/PA

[SunkenCiv]

In her Plato Prehistorian: 10,000 to 5000 B.C. Myth, Religion, Archaeology, Mary Settegast reproduces a table which shows four runic character sets; a is Upper Paleolithic (found among the cave paintings), b is Indus Valley script, c is Greek (western branch), and d is the Scandinavian runic alphabet.

[SunkenCiv]

GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach	join list or digest view topics view or post blog bookmark post a topic subscribe
This kinda flies in the face of the idea that everything prehistoric people did had some kind of ritual, symbolic, or sexual origin. :') To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.

[Navy Patriot]

I wonder how much taxpayer money they spent to figure out that kids play with mud.

[JoeProBono]

[Raycpa]

Makes sense. Otherwise these kids would have been an only child and the husband would have been off to other pastures.

[mikrofon]

Actually, some of these early artists got pretty good at it-

[TheZMan]

It’s stuff like this that keeps me from believing the 6000 year old Earth theory.

[GAB-1955]

It’s worth it.

[Matchett-PI]

"Without a doubt, the ultimate Black Swan is whatever it was that permitted merely genetic human beings to emerge into full humanness just yesterday (cosmically speaking), some 50,000 years ago.

Prior to this there was existence, but so what? There was life, but who cares? With no one to consciously experience it, what was the point? Without self-conscious observers, the whole cosmos could bang into being and contract into nothingness, and it would be no different than the proverbial tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear it.

One of the reasons why this is such a lonely and unpopular blog is that it takes both science and religion seriously. Most science and religion are unserious, but especially -- one might say intrinsically -- when they exclude each other.

A religion that cannot encompass science is not worthy the name, while a science that cannot be reconciled with religion is not fit for human beings. And I mean this literally, in that it will be a science that applies to a different species, not the one that is made to know love, truth, beauty, existence, and the Absolute. Science must begin and end in this principle -- which is to say, the Principle -- or it is just a diversion. ...."

Creation Myths of the Tenured

bttt

[Matchett-PI]

"It’s stuff like this that keeps me from believing the 6000 year old Earth theory."

Promoted by simplistic, literalist / fundies. (See my post # 10)

Also see:

Why Darwinists Reject Evolution

[SunkenCiv]

I wholeheartedly agree.

[SunkenCiv]

· Theodidactic Neotraditional Retrofuturism · Orthoparadoxical Nouspeak · Spontaneous Verticalisthenics · Immanental Gymgnostics · Logospheric Circumnavelgazing · Dilettantric Yoga · Freevangelical Pundamentalism · Absurcular Arguments · and · Omspun Jehovial Witticisms ·

No wonder that post was such a mixture of ex cathedra and gibberish.

[SunkenCiv]

Nice Ryan Reynolds baby picture.

[SunkenCiv]

:’D

[SunkenCiv]

So to speak. ;’)

[Matchett-PI]

:)

[GOP Poet]

haha. good one.

[CrazyIvan]

More accurate than you might think. Isn’t red hair supposed to originate in neanderthals?

[To Hell With Poverty]

OMG, so sweet, I love it!! Can you tell I have little ones, LOL.