Archeologists unearth first-ever ‘gay caveman’ skeleton

[Brocke]

Archeologists unearth first-ever ‘gay caveman’ skeleton

By Stephen C. Webster
Thursday, April 7th, 2011 -- 9:41 am



Archeologists say they've made a unique discovery in the Czech Republic: remains of a human male from the Copper Age, who was buried in a way traditionally only reserved for females who were part of the Corded Ware culture.

To them, this means they've unearthed the first-ever "gay caveman."

"From history and ethnology, we know that people from this period took funeral rites very seriously so it is highly unlikely that this positioning was a mistake," one of the archeologists told The Telegraph.

more: http://theweek.com/article/index/214009/have-scientists-unearthed-the-first-gay-caveman

[Seroquel XR]

LOL. They will do anything to push the gay agenda.
How can they even put out this silly bs?
Nice science work there.

[chrisfromchi]

One hundred thousand years ago, a caveman was out hunting in the plains, when he slipped and fell into a crevasse, where he was frozen solid. In 1988, he was discovered by scientists and was thawed out. He then attended law school and became...
http://youtu.be/Vg5gPnUdbc8

[decepticon]

seriously ? whats your take brocke ?

[Seroquel XR]

[Brocke]

seriously ? whats your take brocke ?

Archeology is a science based on guessing. They are constrained to a fixed time line (much like Biblical fundamentalists) and any of them who question the accepted model are ridiculed. It's a totally stupid story.

Analogy: A man dies in 2011 and he is buried with his daughters favorite doll because she wanted something of hers to be with him then in thousands of years he is dug up and labeled gay because of the doll.

Archeology is wildly inaccurate and that's the way the NWO wants it. They don't want us to know our true history and the fact that human beings have built up "modern" civilizations many times in the past only to be accidentally or deliberately destroyed allowing the Priest Class to start their NWO agenda with a clean slate.

[TheTimeToActIsNow]

Archeology is a science based on guessing.

Not much a science then is it? 

[agentbluescreen]

Archeology is a science based on guessing. They are constrained to a fixed time line (much like Biblical fundamentalists) and any of them who question the accepted model are ridiculed. It's a totally stupid story.

Analogy: A man dies in 2011 and he is buried with his daughters favorite doll because she wanted something of hers to be with him then in thousands of years he is dug up and labeled gay because of the doll.

Archeology is wildly inaccurate and that's the way the NWO wants it. They don't want us to know our true history and the fact that human beings have built up "modern" civilizations many times in the past only to be accidentally or deliberately destroyed allowing the Priest Class to start their NWO agenda with a clean slate.

C'mon, they weren't born yesterday, obviously they have adequate historical precedent and example to determine that this male was (for some reason) accorded an unmistakably feminine funerary ritual. This does not indicate however that the person was "openly gay" however as the entire manner and custom of funeral preparations is completely unknown, and it could well have been a very private matter involving only a small circle of people. Also nobody knows what the repercussions of this (if any) or the considerations for it were. The person in question may well have simply lived as a transvestite which has nothing (or very little at best) to do with sexual freedoms, preferences or established-socialist mores.

If anything it demonstrates the silly irrelevance of one's sex and/or sexuality. We all deserve only the respect we have earned.

[donnay]

I was pretty sure that this was going to lead up to a GEICO commercial!   

[EvadingGrid]

ROFL

[Kilika]

C'mon, they weren't born yesterday, obviously they have adequate historical precedent and example to determine that this male was (for some reason) accorded an unmistakably feminine funerary ritual. This does not indicate however that the person was "openly gay" however as the entire manner and custom of funeral preparations is completely unknown, and it could well have been a very private matter involving only a small circle of people. Also nobody knows what the repercussions of this (if any) or the considerations for it were. The person in question may well have simply lived as a transvestite which has nothing (or very little at best) to do with sexual freedoms, preferences or established-socialist mores.

If anything it demonstrates the silly irrelevance of one's sex and/or sexuality. We all deserve only the respect we have earned.

And maybe the village just didn't like the guy because he was terrible at hunting.

[decemberfellow]

 

LOL. They will do anything to push the gay agenda.
How can they even put out this silly bs?
Nice science work there.

Exactly.  What bullshit.

[tinfoiltruth]

Not much a science then is it? 

is not all science based on Guessing?

do scientist not write a theory on something they think is right. then let the rest of the community analyze it. and if everyone agrees then it is Scientific fact?

I could be generalizing things, well no I am.. But most sciences are guessing games.

[aknoto]

I think they are just pushing the gay agenda too, more into your self, more selfishness, more self absorbed....less God

[Dok]

Not much a science then is it? 

Most of modern science is based on assumption, not science.

[djpj06]

most prejudice is based on assumptions and not science or faith.

[Brocke]

C'mon, they weren't born yesterday, obviously they have adequate historical precedent and example to determine that this male was (for some reason) accorded an unmistakably feminine funerary ritual. This does not indicate however that the person was "openly gay" however as the entire manner and custom of funeral preparations is completely unknown, and it could well have been a very private matter involving only a small circle of people. Also nobody knows what the repercussions of this (if any) or the considerations for it were. The person in question may well have simply lived as a transvestite which has nothing (or very little at best) to do with sexual freedoms, preferences or established-socialist mores.

If anything it demonstrates the silly irrelevance of one's sex and/or sexuality. We all deserve only the respect we have earned.

Ok, what do you want me to change the name of the tread to...

[Dok]

Ok, what do you want me to change the name of the tread to...

oh dear lord don't do that, there isn't enough room for that many run on adjectives!!!

[Paranoid Puppet Master]

LOL. They will do anything to push the gay agenda.
How can they even put out this silly bs?
Nice science work there.

ha! When I saw the headline I thought "how did they know if there was only one?" so they were just wildly speculating...

Today I read that Obama complained to the UN to do more to protect gay rights: (here)

[Brocke]

Suggest truth but do not ensure it

Inductive reasoning, also known as induction or inductive logic, is a kind of reasoning that constructs or evaluates inductive arguments. The premises of an inductive logical argument indicate some degree of support (inductive probability) for the conclusion but do not entail it; that is, they suggest truth but do not ensure it.

Induction is employed, for example, in the following argument:

    Every life form we know of depends on liquid water to exist.
    All life depends on liquid water to exist.

Inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false, even where all of the premises are true.

For example:

    All of the swans we have seen are white.
    All swans are white.


Any statement in archaeology, like all laws but not only, need to be confirmed. Once confirmation is interpreted as a relation between statements, it is time to use logic.

Logic allows you to reach a confirmation saying that the truth of some statement can guarantee the truth of others. Logic also provides guidelines that enable us to reject some statements on the basis of others. Deductive reasoning is important in archaeology, but it is inductive reasoning that is the most important for archaeologists since the problem of confirming statements about the past on the basis of material evidence in the present is a problem of inductive logic. However inductive arguments in their conclusion provide more information than in their premises and this means that they could be false even if all their premises are true. One of the favourite methods proposed by new archaeologists is the hypothetico-deductive method.

This is constituted basically of three phases:

1) the formulation of a hypothesis and then the deduction of some prediction,
2) which through observation will be considered true or false.
3) If the prediction is true, the hypothesis is confirmed; if not, it is dis-confirmed.

This method seems to be inadequate for archaeologists since they use essentially statistical hypothesis and this method is produced using hypotheses of other statistics that have to be considered. The result is a lost of simplicity and with this loss comes a major possibility of error. This method is however important for the most scientific part of archaeology, and less when human behaviours are considered. Other, more reliable, methods are possible. A key-point is however the hypothesis and how it is formulated: it must be simple and related to true evidence. The problem is then which hypothesis to test, since often the testing process in archaeology involves excavation. The importance of the elements given by the hypothesis must be considered, but a consideration of its validity prior to testing is normally very subjective. Even in applying particular statistical methods, there is still a probability of it being true or false, till the definitive testing: the dig. It is important therefore to formulate hypotheses in a correct way according to well-defined method that could easily confirm or deny the validity of the thesis.

To individuate a successful hypothesis an analogy must also be employed. Simple hypothesis that are similar to other successful hypothesis are likely to be successful too. The use of methods based on the distinction cause\effect are not effective: it is hard sometimes to argue which is the cause and which the effect. Alternative methods of confirmation are however possible and these are based especially on the knowledge of archaeology and related fields, imagination and experience. To confirm a hypothesis then there is no better alternative than fieldwork for archaeologists, but the methods presented above as well other new methods could help in the understanding when they do not complicate things. The more complicated, the higher the possibility of errors and misunderstandings.