We don't know it with the Azilians, if you define human in the sense of being
spiritual. If you knew more anthro you would know that. No one has observed
the Azilians alive. We do know they left no shaman art. Under your view, that
humanity became spiritual and subject to atonement 33,000 years ago with the
advent of Shaman art, and given the fact that homo sapiens were on earth long
before 33,000 years ago, it is valid to ask whether the Azilians are spiritual
and the descendants of the spiritual shaman artists or merely the descendants
of those non-spiritual hominids who look like humans. So answer the question.
Are the Azilians who lived 12,000 years ago human?
This is no small group of beings we are talking about. Given that life span
was about 30 years, if we assume a population of 10,000 people for 60,000
years, then there were
60,000/30=2000 turnovers of individuals. 2000 X 10,000 = 20,000,000 people
you are saying were not human.
The problem with your view when applied to modern peoples is that racial
supremists have this nasty habit of saying that it doesn't matter that the xxx
group looks quite similar to us humans. Really they are sub-humans and we can
treat them as such. While I know you would not subscribe to such a nasty
view, the position you advocate allows for that to be a valid possibility on
earth today. I find your attempt to avoid this nasty little problem
insufficient and nonresponsive to say the least. Is it at all possible under
the views you advocate for humans to be alive today who are descendants of
those non-spiritual human-like animals?
>There may be
>myriad reasons for non-innovation, but since they are part of the species we
>know they have the same capacities as we all do. I once brought up the very
>famous example of Ishi to Glenn. Give me one of those tribesmen and I'll have
>him driving a car and writing incomprehensible legal briefs in a few weeks.
>
I know that the homo sapiens of 100,000 years ago were the same species as I
am today. That is what anatomists have concluded. So why are those homo
sapiens not spiritual?
>OTHO, when you deal with an ENTIRE SPECIES, like Neanderthal, and find no
>evidence of modern human capacity, you've got another bowl of bones. It's a
>different question. You're looking for clues of modern man on a
> species-wide level.
>
Forget Neanderthal. What about the Middle Eastern Homo sapiens who were
acting like Neanderthal 100,000 years ago at Qafzeh? Are they spiritual?
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm