No, it wouldn't.
2/17/2007 8:08:08 PM
If you don't care enough to find out if it's true or not, what the fuck does it matter?
2/17/2007 10:13:07 PM
Wow. Any port in a storm.
2/18/2007 2:25:06 AM
\"That is SO condescending.\"[/Geicocaveman]
Despite being called \"cavemen\" in the popular vernacular, earlier human and hominid species' remains usually are not found in caves.
2/18/2007 3:43:05 AM
Almost always, the babies with birth defects were abandoned to predators or drowned or otherwise disposed of.
12/12/2010 12:00:08 AM
If "cave men" were nothing more than deformed humans, you would find many more "non-deformed" humans than "deformed" humans from the same time period. Guess what, there were no modern humans back then.
12/12/2010 12:34:31 AM
No, it wouldn't.
12/12/2010 12:55:08 AM
or many years before "biblical days" people had no shelter construction skills and took shelter where they found it. Diggin holes in hillsides, pulling branches over themselves or finding a natural pocket somewhere.
In "biblical days" I think you're suggesting 2000 years ago. People were carving out cliffs in many parts of the world, man-made caves go back way before your "biblical days" The Pyramids and Temples of South America are already pushing near your 6000 year old Earth theory.
And what you call "the people with birth defects and such" is what we looked like then, way to diss your ancestors
12/12/2010 7:29:17 AM
Having a slightly bigger* brain than ours is a birth defect?
I guess to Rapturites it would be a defect to be smarter than today... They would not be as able to stay as ignorant as they want to be.
*Yeah, I know, the possibly bigger brains in Neanderthals probably didn't mean they were smarter than us, only different. Can't I have a bit of fun with the Rapturites? Please?
12/12/2010 2:28:19 PM
9/12/2011 9:23:55 AM
Speaking as someone with a birth defect, this is blatant bullshit. Forgive me, Ms. Mendel (I sound like an 'internet tough guy' when I say this), if I want to hunt you down, cut off your set of male genitals which I am certain you have - being the inbred, hyper-religious hick cunt that you are - stick them up your fucking arsehole after wrapping them in barbed wire, and then brutally stab you a dozen times in the head before throwing your diseased corpse to a pack of wild piranha, you scum-sucking, fetid, fecund, vile, reprehensible, unworthy-of-life, subhuman cunt.
Now that felt good!
12/22/2011 8:43:45 PM
9/13/2012 9:30:39 AM
The disabled were cast out as soon as they were discovered, unless they were lucky enough to be born to a family that could afford them AND was sympathetic to them. Which wasn't likely back then.
I would argue the pendulum has swung a bit far the other way, with people spending every dollar they have and a lot they don't to save anencephalic or otherwise doomed babies that won't make it their first week, let alone first year. But that's a whole 'nuther issue.
9/13/2012 9:48:41 AM
And in your case, kathy, when you were being born, they should've thrown you away, and kept the afterbirth. It would be infinitely more intelligent than you.
The slogan of Channel 4's coverage of our 2012 Paralympics: 'Meet the Superhumans'.
And if fundies don't want to be considered inferior subhumans, the solution's simple: stop being fundies.
9/13/2012 10:08:40 AM
Yes, if "biblical days" was at least 30 000 years ago, as that is the youngest Neanderthal that has ever been found.
If you are thinking of Australopithecus, then "biblical days" must be at least 2 million years ago.
Edit, damn, I had already commented on this one...
9/13/2012 12:52:07 PM
Also, who was casting or shunningout the deformed or different, even killing them at birth? It's a very Abrahamic religion trait, y'know.
9/13/2012 2:27:25 PM
It would certainly be an item for research. With current dating methods it should be possible to show that the "cave men" existed at the same time as a nearby town. If enough of the skeletons showed defects then an opinion could be formed that these were outcasts.
It is a good point.
9/13/2012 4:35:34 PM