Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 12:47:15 GMT
In article <56e16h$5d2@fridge-nf0.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet wrote:
>I think you are missing the point Ben. If hunter-gathering and nomadic
>pastoralist groups were perfectly proficient in language, language
>would not evolve. ...
Irrelevant; there is an abundance of evidence of evolution of
historically-attested languages -- and often evolution in fields that
show no need for evolution, such as phonology, grammar, basic vocabulary,
etc.
... Chimpanzees can be
>taught to form sentences even though their mouths and vocal cords are
>not suited for speech using sign language. Their sentences often use
>pivot words just as is the case with children.
However, there's been a lot of controversy over simian linguistic
abilities; it's not clear that chimps are able to construct coherent
sentences, even with sign language.
>Perhaps you are confusing speech with language. People have had the
>ability to speak for about the last 200,000 years and may have had
>several hundred different vocalizations or calls ranging from
>grunts and growls to whoops, howls, screeches, screams, barks,
>whines, chortles, groans, whimpers, oohs, and aahs to whistles.
Very cute. I'm sure that you can make all these sounds on
command, Mr. Whittet. However, why isn't there *any* human society, even
in the most isolated parts of the world, which have only those
aforementioned sounds as their means of communication?
>>It's not for nothing you've been compared to a squid. An apt comparison,
>>in my experience.
>Generally it has been my experience that people who have the facts to
>make a case need not resort to recycling used invective.
Just more proof of how well my comparison to a squid holds up;
Mr. Whittet (metaphorically) squirts ink to cloud an issue when he sees
that he's about to lose.
>>I can't imagine why you think a major adaptation like language, with
>>serious associated neurological apparatus, should have only appeared in
>>the last 6,000 years, and then spread without a single exception to every
>>group world-wide in such a short period of time. (Or, presumably, much
>>more recently, since urbanization in most of the world is a very recent
>>phenomenon.)
>I am measuring it as an exponential curve. ...
And what is your motivation for an exponential curve, Mr. Whittet?
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Subject: Re: Q: Archaeoastronomy Sites
From: maguirre
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 12:11:58 +0100
Aadu Pilt wrote:
>
> I am looking for useful archaeoastronomy sites that discuss the dating of
> ancient events, such as eclipses, occultations, conjunctions, etc., and
> the accuracy with which this can be done. I understand that the main
> impediment to accuracy is imprecise information on a quantity known
> as "delta-T" which is proportional to the square of the time backwards.
> Presumably this is due to uncertainties in the earth's nutation and
> slowing down, since these effects depend on a detailed understanding of the
> earth's internal structure, whilst the precession depends primarily on
> the earth's oblateness and other spherical harmonics. Am I right in this?
>
> --
> Aadu Pilt
> aadu.pilt@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
In first approximation you are rigth. Archeoastronomy requires to solve
the problem of where were the Earth and the Starts at some moment of the
past. This requires to take into account the movement of the earth
including:
Precession
Nutation
Polar wandering
Variation on Earth rotation period
Precession and nutation are produced by the effect of the Sun and the
Moon on the non spheric non rigid Earth.
Polar wandering is produced by redistribution of mass over the Earth
with time
The variation of the Earth rotation is produced by tidal effects.
Detailled description of the issue can be seen in any good book of
positional astronomy and/or geodesy
I have never seen an error analysis of the estimation but, of course,
errors in our understanding of the phenomena mentioned above, i.e. Earth
response to tides, will produce errors on archeoastronomy results. The
error estimation will be much more complicated that a single delta-T
proportional to the square of time backwards. I have the impresion that
you are talking about the relationship between dynamic time and UT time.
I have never do the calculation but I bet that the present level of
knowledge allows a much more than acceptable reconstruction of the
reference frames, but this will be a heavy task.
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 13:58:06 GMT
whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>In article <56dpr3$r14@news.ycc.yale.edu>, bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu"
>says...
>>
>>This is a tiresome and pointless debate
You're right. I had to take a break from it.
Let me try just one more time.
>>
>>Steve
>>: If you think about this for a moment you will realise that the very
>>: essence of language is interaction with other people.
>>
>>Which is why every single hunter-gathering and nomadic pastoralist group
>>ever documented has always been perfectly proficient in language, even
>>though those languages often are ENTIRELY unrelated to anything spoken by
>>any urbanized group.
>I think you are missing the point Ben. If hunter-gathering and nomadic
>pastoralist groups were perfectly proficient in language, language
>would not evolve. Language does evolve, and like most other observable
>manifestations of mans social evolution toward rather than away from
>more complex forms; at about the same exponential rate of change as
>may be observed in population increase.
This is most strange. Usually I have to convince people of the
opposite: that languages have not *decreased* in complexity since
Latin, Greek, Old English or Proto-Indo-European. People who have
studied a bit of historical linguistics, or an ancient IE language, come
away with the impression that modern languages are much less complex.
After all, English doesn't have an accusative and a dative case anymore,
and the genitive ('s) is on its way back. And before that, Old English
had already lost the PIE locative, instrumental and ablative cases, and
a lot of other complexities one still finds in Latin or ancient Greek.
These losses are compensated, however, by new complexities that English
has, and which were absent from PIE. On the whole, complexity has
remained about equal. Language does not evolve (in the sense of
"becomes more complex"). And certainly not "at the same exponential
rate of change as may be observed in population increase". This is
demonstrably untrue. Just look at the data for the British Isles from
Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones' Atlas of World Population History:
Upper Paleolithic: zero [winter] ~ a few hundred [summer]
Mesolithic: a few hundred [winter] ~ a few thousand [summer]
By 5500 BC: 2 or 3 thousand [those trapped when Channel opened :-)]
End of Neolithic: 50,000 (Celtic)
Late Bronze Age: 100,000
500 BC: 200,000
AD 1: 600,000
400 (Roman Emp.): 800,000
600: 600,000 Old English
800: 800,000
1000: 1,500,000
1300: 3,750,000 Middle English
1400: 2,500,000
1500: 3,750,000
1700: 5,750,000 Modern English
1800: 9,250,000
1900: 33,000,000
1975: 49,000,000
If there were a connection between population density and language
complexity, Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" would be childish babble
to us now, only slightly less infantile than Bill Shakespeare's works.
Old languages spoken thousands of years ago, and modern languages spoken
now by hunter-gatherers from the Kalahari, New Guinea or the Amazon
jungle are just as complex as English, French or German. They even seem
*more* complex, but that's just a side effect of their being so
unfamiliar.
Language does not evolve toward greater complexity. It just changes,
while staying basically the same: every single datum from historical
linguistics or "anthropological" linguistics confirms this.
Language in this behaves very much like one of the basic consituents of
the human condition. Like sex, for instance. Sex hasn't become more
complex, or more evolved, just because the population densities have
soared. You just have to go to greater lengths to get some privacy.
Saying that people did not have language 10,000 years ago, feels to me
like saying they didn't have sex. They probably had different rules for
it back then (I mean rules of grammar), and different favourite
positions (tongue positions, I mean), and maybe they weren't as perverse
as us (they didn't write it all down, that is), but they sure were doing
it. I mean, what else can you do around a paleolithic campfire all
night? You have a good chat.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: LUCY: ``Yes, we have no bananas!"
From: edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
Date: 14 Nov 1996 14:38:01 GMT
Michael Clark wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Ed Conrad wrote:
>> To my mind, the ONLY physical anthropologist who possessed scientific
>> integrity in a search for honest answers to legitimate questions about
>> man's origin and ancestry was the late Dr. Earnest A. Hooton, longtime
>> professor of anthropology at Harvard University.
>>
>(T)ed? Do you know any LIVING anthropologists?
Quite frankly, no!
Oh, I do know of some who are still walking and talking because
I see them on TV every once in a while, usually after an ``incredible
discovery" like the time they claimed to have found Little Lucy's
fossilized babushka.
But, unfortunately, as anyone who follows their rather mechanical
straight-from-the-book irrational establishment-protecting commentary
is well aware, they're actually brain dead zombies.
To be honest, I found their unusual condition so intriguing that some
time ago I sought an explanation from Clayton Lennon because of
his expertise in explaining the cause of abnormalities such as this.
Well, let me tell you, Michael, what he told me was was rather
shocking, to say the least.
Apparently, the zombie-like condition is the result of a disconnection
between the brain and another (unmentionable)( part of the body.
It just so happens that the anthropologists' years of abnormal
absorption of nonsensical incorrect data has disrupted the Fornix
Optic Thalmus -- located in the interior of the brain -- and has
adversely affected the rather complex Human Services system.
In turn, it has triggered the spontaneous growth of miniscule
purplish-shaped hourglass-like embers on the north and southeast
walls of the large intestine.
Consequently, nauseous gases usually emitted from the rectum,
accompanied by ``popping" noises but oftimes even louder -- are
required to take a detour to you know where but have no alternative
and have to find a different route.
Amazing as the human body is -- God bless God for creating evolution!
-- they found a way.
Most amazingly, these gases shift to reverse, re-enter the stomach,
bean-stalk up the spinal cord, enter the Limbic Lobe, make a almost
perfect U-turn -- sort of like a Cho Cho coming 'round the mountain --
and enter the Fornix Optiic Thalmus.
It's then that they relocate the entrance to spinal cord, zip down the
bean-stalk, make a bee-line to the oxyntic glands of the stomach and
race like helll to the outer limits of the large intestine where they
finally find the Exit.
I know it sounds incredible, Michael. But, as we both know, truth
indeed IS stranger than fiction.
Subject: Re: Yaws & syph (Was: Decimation of American Indian)
From: S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:37:33 GMT
Saida wrote:
>I never recall reading Henry VIII had syphilis. From what I have
>gathered, what killed him was an ulcerated leg (some of these leg ulcers
>are very stubborn about healing, can lead to systemic poisoning, and the
>same thing killed my grandmother) his body surely undermined by vast
>corpulency and who knows what else. His son, Edward, from all reports,
>died of tuberculosis or "consumption", as used to be called.
Depends on the author. Also depends on the decade the author was
writing. I've seen both pro and con for Henry, and some discussion
about Edward as having been born with the disease and having died from
it as well.
The disease was epidemic. Before Edward's birth, Henry had no trouble
getting children. Even if they tended to be either the wrong gender
or very sickly males, there certainly were a lot of them. After
Edward there were no children at all.
On the other hand there is the question of why both Edward and his
half brother Henry died, both at approximately the same age, and why
all of the other boys died as well?
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: LUCY: ``Yes, we have no bananas!"
From: myers@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Paul Z. Myers)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:06:58 -0500
In article <56fas9$6ta@news.ptd.net>, edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>Michael Clark wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Nov 1996, Ed Conrad wrote:
>
>>> To my mind, the ONLY physical anthropologist who possessed scientific
>>> integrity in a search for honest answers to legitimate questions about
>>> man's origin and ancestry was the late Dr. Earnest A. Hooton, longtime
>>> professor of anthropology at Harvard University.
>>>
>>(T)ed? Do you know any LIVING anthropologists?
>
>Quite frankly, no!
>Oh, I do know of some who are still walking and talking because
>I see them on TV every once in a while, usually after an ``incredible
>discovery" like the time they claimed to have found Little Lucy's
>fossilized babushka.
>
>But, unfortunately, as anyone who follows their rather mechanical
>straight-from-the-book irrational establishment-protecting commentary
>is well aware, they're actually brain dead zombies.
>
>To be honest, I found their unusual condition so intriguing that some
>time ago I sought an explanation from Clayton Lennon because of
>his expertise in explaining the cause of abnormalities such as this.
>
>Well, let me tell you, Michael, what he told me was was rather
>shocking, to say the least.
>
>Apparently, the zombie-like condition is the result of a disconnection
>between the brain and another (unmentionable)( part of the body.
>
>It just so happens that the anthropologists' years of abnormal
>absorption of nonsensical incorrect data has disrupted the Fornix
>Optic Thalmus -- located in the interior of the brain -- and has
>adversely affected the rather complex Human Services system.
>
>In turn, it has triggered the spontaneous growth of miniscule
>purplish-shaped hourglass-like embers on the north and southeast
>walls of the large intestine.
>
>Consequently, nauseous gases usually emitted from the rectum,
>accompanied by ``popping" noises but oftimes even louder -- are
>required to take a detour to you know where but have no alternative
>and have to find a different route.
>
>Amazing as the human body is -- God bless God for creating evolution!
>-- they found a way.
>
>Most amazingly, these gases shift to reverse, re-enter the stomach,
>bean-stalk up the spinal cord, enter the Limbic Lobe, make a almost
>perfect U-turn -- sort of like a Cho Cho coming 'round the mountain --
>and enter the Fornix Optiic Thalmus.
>
>It's then that they relocate the entrance to spinal cord, zip down the
>bean-stalk, make a bee-line to the oxyntic glands of the stomach and
>race like helll to the outer limits of the large intestine where they
>finally find the Exit.
>
>I know it sounds incredible, Michael. But, as we both know, truth
>indeed IS stranger than fiction.
followups redirected. Please do NOT reply to this post in this
newsgroup -- go to talk.origins.
--
Paul Z. Myers myers@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Dept. of Biology myers@netaxs.com
Temple University http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/
Philadelphia, PA 19122 (215) 204-8848
Subject: Re: LUCY: ``Yes, we have no bananas!"
From: myers@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Paul Z. Myers)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:05:44 -0500
In article <3289792b.3697880@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, fmurray@pobox.com wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:08:53 +1100, wilkins@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3287553b.34560842@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, fmurray@pobox.com
>>wrote:
>
>>>|i suggest that if these worthies are to continue to post to sci.
>>>|groups, they should take that "sci." seriously, drop the ad hominem
>>>|attacks on ed, and post evidence refuting ed's claim..
>
>>And it was refuted in talk.origins, with the usual amount of t.o ad homina,
>>but citing sources. IIRC, Lucy was found within an area of 11 square feet.
>>I suppose one could argue that on an astronomical scale it's within an
>>order of magnitude of one square mile.
>>
>>Conrad has taken a real licking in t.o because there are too many people
>>there familiar with the primary literature.
>
>and yet despite this familiarity with the primary literature we find
>that:
>
>steve geller refuted ed by writing:
>>A "square mile" should be more like 10 square meters or so.
>
>graeme kennedy refuted ed by writing:
>>The consensus is that this is a 40% complete skeleton, including symmetry.
>>Johanson's "Lucy" describes the finding of the bones for this individual:
>>the largest distance between pieces was about eleven feet.
>
>socrates (presumably a late version) refuted ed by writing:
>>ACtually 70% of the entire skeleton was found and all within a few
>>hundered yards. Also since then several other examples of the same
>>species have been found. We now have several examples with well over
>>50% of the skeleton.
>
>jim foley refuted ed by writing:
>>Lucy was found within a small area. A knee joint found a year earlier
>>and about 1.5 km away was a separate find and has never been claimed to
>>be a part of Lucy, creationist claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
>
>what i find interesting here is that the ratio of the largest
>refuter's figure to the smallest refuter's figure is larger than the
>ratio of ed's figure to the largest refuter's figure...this becomes
>true if we take socrates "few hundred yards" to mean a figure above
>approx. 132 feet...as we use a larger value for socrate's "few hundred
>yards" (his phrase justifies using a larger value), the ratio between
>the largest of the refuter's figure and the smallest of the refuter's
>figures becomes a multiple of the ratio between ed's figure and the
>largest of the refuter's figures....
>
>perhaps something might be wrong with the refuter's figures??...
>
>frank
followups redirected. Please do NOT reply to this post in this
newsgroup -- go to talk.origins.
--
Paul Z. Myers myers@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Dept. of Biology myers@netaxs.com
Temple University http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/
Philadelphia, PA 19122 (215) 204-8848
Subject: Re: Skull in Boulder images
From: myers@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Paul Z. Myers)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:04:30 -0500
In article <56e6il$9qv@news.ptd.net>, edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>bmw@uclink2.berkeley.edu (Ben Waggoner) wrote:
>
>>WOULD EVERYONE PLEASE QUIT CROSSPOSTING
>>THIS CRAP TO SCI.BIO.PALEONTOLOGY?
>
>Ben:
>Truer words were never spoken.
>I, too, am getting tired of all the idiotic crap that's being spouted
>here and elsewhere in total denial of the most important discovery
>of the 20th century.
>You'd think, Ben, that, by now, your colleagues would've come to
>their senses -- as, thank goodness, you have -- and concede that man,
>in almost his present form (but perhaps 20 percent larger), had indeed
>existed way, way back while coal was being formed.
>Meanwhile, I'd like to commend your intestinal fortitude in calling
>their rantings ``crap."
>Personally, I think you could've been more diplomatic, considering
>your present stature at U. of C./Berkeley and obviously your vested
>interests.
>But, then again, I can understand and appreciate why you've taken such
>a hard stance. In our past dealings, it was obvious to me that you
>undoubtedly are the type of person who likes to call a spade a spade.
>
> Ed Conrad
followups redirected. Please do NOT reply to this post in this
newsgroup -- go to talk.origins.
--
Paul Z. Myers myers@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Dept. of Biology myers@netaxs.com
Temple University http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/
Philadelphia, PA 19122 (215) 204-8848
Subject: Re: Skull in Boulder images
From: myers@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Paul Z. Myers)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:04:10 -0500
In article <56ed6p$gng@news.ptd.net>, edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>"Michael D. Painter" wrote:
>
>>Steve Jones - JON wrote...
>>> Ed Conrad wrote:
>>> >
>>> > scottb@ucr.campus.mci.net (Scott Begg) wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >Strange... And how could a comparatively fragile bony structure like a
>>> > >human skull become fossilized in a SOLID BOULDER without being filled
>>> > >or rendered solid itself?
>>>
>>> > For crying out loud, Scotty, how the hell do I know?
>>> > Ask Macrae and Myers. They seem to have all the answers.
>>>
>>> So you don't know how this happened then... but you refuse to listen to
>>> people who have studied in this field ?
>>>
>>> Sounds a little strange to me, if I don't understand something I read up
>>> on it and learn, ask questions of those that have studied and expand my
>>> knowledge. Never thought of pig-headed arrogance as an approach to
>>> learning before.
>>>
Steve Jones
>
>>Not clear what you mean here Steve. There is no skull. The people who have
>>studied it and myriad other rantings of Mr Ed have time and time again
>>shown what these are.
>>They are rocks. They are not skulls, bones, kidneys or anything else.
>
>Steve Jones:
>If you really knew the scope of deceipt, dishonesty, collusion and
>conspiracy that exists in the scientific community relative to
>perpetrating the hoax of man's link to inhuman primates, you wouldn't
>consder my stance as ``pig-head arrogance."
>You'd find -- as I have -- that it would do no good to ask legitimate
>questions of those who ``have studied" it because, the sad fact is,
>they'd be filling your brain with garbagy nonsense that has no
>substance in fact.
> + + + + +
>Michael Painter:
>You, sir, unfortunately, are a perfect example of what a steady dose
>of brainwashing can do.
>``The people who have studied it" -- and deny it's a human skull --
>most certainly are not operating as honest scientists seeking the
>truth at all costs, no matter the consequences.
>Instead, they resort to a platitude of dirty tricks and Gestapo-type
>propoganda in a never-ending effort to vehmently protect their
>erroneous party line and thus prevent mankind from becoming fully
>aware of the VERY SPECIALl creature we really are.
followups redirected. Please do NOT reply to this post in this
newsgroup -- go to talk.origins.
--
Paul Z. Myers myers@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Dept. of Biology myers@netaxs.com
Temple University http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/
Philadelphia, PA 19122 (215) 204-8848
Subject: Re: Skull in Boulder images
From: myers@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Paul Z. Myers)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:03:45 -0500
In article <56eeop$htt@news.ptd.net>, edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>"henry l. barwood" wrote:
>
>>Ed Conrad wrote:
>
>>> Not once -- ever -- did I state anywhere at any time that the
>>> specimens of petrified human bone and soft organs were ``found in
>>> anthracite coal."
>>> I have stated time after time that they were found in the shale (or
>>> slate) between anthracite seams.
>>>
>
>>Well, Conrad caught me in a huge conspiratorial lie! I did confuse his
>>constant rants about "Carboniferous human/hominind fossils" and his
>>"anthracite coal" posts and for this I most humbly apologise to Mr.Ed.
>>Your skull-shaped concretion did not come out of the anthracite coal, but
>>from the shale between coal seams.
>
>You're right AND you're wrong, Henry!
>You've finally got it right that the specimen was removed from between
>two anthracite veins, not from the coal itself.
>And you're dead wrong when calling it a ``skull-shaped concretion"
>when its actually a petrified human skull, much as you tend to
>disagree.
>Granules removed from various areas of the skull-like protrusion
>have revealed, during microscopic examination, the presence of
>Haversian canals (the distinguishing difference between my petrified
>bones and your concretions).
>In any event, I accept your apology for admitting that you were wrong
>about where the specimen came from.
>Meanwhile, be prepared to write another apology -- perhaps sooner than
>you think -- for recklessly and callously calling The World's Most
>Important Fossil a rock.
followups redirected. Please do NOT reply to this post in this
newsgroup -- go to talk.origins.
--
Paul Z. Myers myers@astro.ocis.temple.edu
Dept. of Biology myers@netaxs.com
Temple University http://fishnet.bio.temple.edu/
Philadelphia, PA 19122 (215) 204-8848
Subject: Re: Diffusionism, Pompeian Pineapples & the Rate of Success of the Viking Reaching the Northern Territories of America. (for Yuri K. especially)
From: yuku@io.org (Yuri Kuchinsky)
Date: 14 Nov 1996 15:51:00 GMT
Claudio De Diana (sniper@tep.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de) wrote:
: Christmas vacation is coming, I do not promise anything but, :
regarding proofs of possibile diffusion here in Italy (or Europe) : like
our, now very famous, "pompeian pineapple" would you mind do post me : a
list of references so maybe I can make some check?
As I wrote to Claudio, the following are the only refs I have at this
time. The Italian text indicates that the supposed picture of pineapple
is located in Casa dell'Efebo in Pompeii. Merrill is a highly respected
botanist. It would be interesting to see the picture of the other fruit
in Pompeii (possibly the sap-apple) that is indigenous to the Americas.
Best,
Yuri.
[begin quotes from an old message]
>Here's a follow-up to the pineapple discussion. Elmer Drew Merrill
>discusses it in a book about Cooks's voyages published in '54. In this
>book he admits that the Pompeii fresco looks very much like pineapple.
>There's also another American plant that is apparently portrayed on the
>same fresco (sap-apple?).
>>> The reference in the _Man across the sea_ is slightly garbled
>>> D. Casello, La frutta nelle pitture Pompeia in
>>> Pompeiana : raccolta di studi per il secondo centenario degli scavi
>>>di Pompei / [edited by Amedeo Maiuri]. Napoli : Gaetano Macchiaroli
>>>Editore, 1950.
>>>It discusses the fruit appearing in the paintings. There's only a
>>>couple of paragraphs about the supposed pineapple, with one poor
>>>quality illustration. Quote from p. 367:
>>>"sul larario a destra entrando nella Casa dell'Efebo, si trova
>>>dipinta una infruttescenza di Ananasso (fig. 46) di medie dimensioni,
>>>di colore rosso, provvista del caratteristico ciuffo di foglie, la
>>>quale dimostra che questa specie tropicale e anche orginaria
>>>dell'Asia o dall'Africa e che conosciuta dai nostra avi prima della
>>>scoperta dell'America."
[end quotes]
--
** Yuri Kuchinsky in Toronto **
-- a webpage like any other... http://www.io.org/~yuku --
Most of the evils of life arise from man's being
unable to sit still in a room || B. Pascal
Subject: trimming headers (to stop crossposting)
From: Eliyehowah
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 13:11:10 +0000
Necron wrote:
> Elijah,
> Noone cares what you post, but we prefer that you keep biblical debate out of
> alt.satanism and in a more appropriate newsgroup.This is only common courtesy and it's
> as simple as trimming your headers. I am trying to get people in alt.satanism to do
> this as well. Part of this whole thing was started by people not trimming their headers
> and inappropriately crossposting. I do not know if you frequent alt.satanism where I
> am reading this thread, so I will leave the headers to insure that you see this.
> Necron
> Temple of the Ram
Your reply is good and reasonable. (Most are not.)
When I wish to reply to a 22-newsgroup header, I would open
a new thread and just paste the few groups I was sending to.
However, a reply about Satan may be a thread to some idol
image of the dark ages so how do I know whether to edit out
archeology......you soon find out by the threats. Another example,
is your posting why you left the headers to find me.....I only
search alt.religion.christian, alt.mythology, and alt.archeology
All the other headers come from replying. And I too wish only to
make sure the reader finds my reply (emailing doesnt work), if
they find biblical ansers repulsive they have a case against you
in private email (and a recent post says some pay for incoming email).
Sounds fishy to me, however I am a character easily bluffed by trusting people
as being honest on intitial introduction. Yet you will find that your
explaining why you didnt edit the header MUST BE the very first line
or they do not read it, and thus threaten. In fact there are those
who attack merely on basis of the subject title, and do not even read the first line.
ALL I CAN DO IS SAY (PREDICT) THAT THIS NET IS CONDEMNED
Ever see the movie, This House Is Condemned (Natalie Wood, Robert Redford)?
It drives a point beyond the mere storyline or acting.
************
everyone benefiting from my work please email
my postmaster, my site will move unless those appreciative
send email to counter those trying to destroy it
************
A voice crying out and going unheard,
(40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24
God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah
Subject: Bible Chronology vs. Archeology History, Intro (was: Part 1b)
From: Eliyehowah
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:08:53 +0000
You goofed.....
Part 1 hasnt even started....
You call posting a slam against the Flood as being
comparable to starting a convention debate?
God knows then why your damn fields cant interpret the
scientific reality ! You remind me of the story where Aveni
had the gaul to slam a fellow astronomer's presentation at the Swiss convention,
exalting himself as self-appointed critic, when his own books prove he
expounds on Mexican astronomy and presents so little on other cultures.
>I spent a good amount of time getting together my sources and doing the
>research and now with a wave of your hand you have dismissed what I have
>researched and claimed that my stance is an "altar". It is not. Either
>your facts measure up or not.
EVERY issue in the world is an altar, where people sacrifice their own
hard work, efforts, and time at great cost to unveil truth,
*OR*
sacrifice others' work, others' time, others' reputations, and even
others' physical lives in injuries and deaths over things that prove to
be lies. So this discussion will not last long if either of us
like to feel offended by the way we interpret the other's analogies.
>Your chronology is based on the erroneous and completely unproven notion
>that there was a biblical flood. There was NO FLOOD, there is NO
>EVIDENCE. I cited my sources.
This topic debate is NOT starting with the Flood unless you first determine
which time location we are referring to. Your Egyptian 3090 BC is my
2370 BC Flood.
My chronology IS NOT based on that Flood. Where do you think you can just
dispute it as impossible and thus throw the whole physical word of God
out of the court. My writing impossible after each of your own paragraphs
doesnt defend my side either. Read on for MY rules...since you already posted
YOUR rules which I agreed to.
>No carbon-14, nothing to prove your
>methodology of dating your chronology, and now you have the audacity to
>ask me to verify several hundred years of how countless scientists have
>set up the process of dating the world and the historical events that
>have taken place on it.
You have NOT been asked to verify. You have been asked to state the general
schematic of it. I may presume that you believe the world's extinction
of dinosaurs as 65 million BC but that doesnt tell me when you feel
they came forth. So a general schematic is NOT an effort to confine
you so as to turn and call you with the card of being wrong. This is
not a poker game of bluff. I am doing the appropriate thing of asking
you to state your own case before you slam mine. Or dont you know
the case you are defending ! I understand my case I am defending, and my
level of comprehension is not so low as to NOT know the general case of what
you choose to defend. But please dont play as if I know more about dinosaurs
than you do. I am not asking that you present the cases in the manner nor depth
that other scholars have published them, I am asking that you tell me
where we are going to start. Dont pick a subject point in my case to start;
pick one in YOUR subject case; or if you pick one from MY case, at least
present the explanation for alternative view. You presented no alternative view
to represent the degree of human knowledge. The evolution of the hulled ship
is NOT that of Noah's chest-shaped ark. Yet it DOES come from the same 6:1 ratio
in length.
As an example, if you do not wish to start
with continental land rising above water (if it did or not according to
your defence for the world), then how about starting with the Ice Age.
You say (as the world says I presume) 20,000 BC where as I say the 2370 BC
Flood created the ice caps, rain, snow, known precipitation cycles, and
that it's 50 years 2370-2320 BC are C-14 misdated as 20,000-10,000 BC.
And the next 2320-2270 BC misdated as 10,000-2300 BC. I am not presenting
my sources in this paragraph because you have yet to agree as to where
the topic will start. I said pick a topic. I didnt say start filabustering
without me. It is already known that you will claim that 3000 BC is
the existence of Egypt before my Floodyear 2370 BC. But as Halley's Bible
Handbook on page 91 says
"Egyptologists placing 600 years before the Flood events which must have
come considerable time after the Flood. This seems like a conflict between
Egyptian chronology and Bible chronology. ..some Egyptologists bring
the beginning of the Egyptian historical period to this side of 2400 BC,
and it must be remembered that the Septuagint and Samaritan Pentateuch
push the Bible date for the Flood back of 3000 BC."
Because I know how to read such words without feeling insulted,
I am capable of seeing that EGypt fits into the short stretch, rather than
be insulted as if Halley expects me to accept the long false Genesis.
The point is that you must first align your chronology data.
I cannot make a dinosaur go extinct before the Flood and then use the same
data again as if they went extinct by the Flood. This is what ancient chronology does.
(The Hyksos lowered themselves to become citizens of Moses & Israel in exodus,
yet the two have wrongly since become separate events.)
If your mouth rambles on about the 2600 BC pyramid being before my 2370 BC Flood, it
is because all the Septuagint Genesis says the Flood was 3090 BC followed
by a 2740 BC pyramid, while the Hebrew Genesis says the Flood was 2370 BC
followed by a 2170 BC pyramid. It is repetitiously unproffessional on the
part of arguing scholars to cross timelines by claiming a 2600 BC pyramid as
proving there was no 2370 BC flood. So we must each establish what buildings and
people we are going to present. I will take it that you wish to start with C-14,
or am I presuming?
>Nothing I have *ever* posted in these newsgroups is ever personal. You
>have all but accused me of being a soul-less scientist with no
>aknowlegement of Divinity or the Netjeru. Nothing could be further from
>the truth. I acknowlege God (Netjer) in a far different way than you
>do. I do not think that science and the far more ancient history of the
>earth are necessarily incompatible. What I *do* feel is incompatible
>are the dating techniques that you are using based on Judeo Christian
>time tables that have been edited so many times they do not even
>remotely resemble what was originally written.
You DO keep your personal remarks out of a data debate, but if you could
keep your personal opinions (feelings, emotions) out of your reading
comprehension, your being offended or your accusations of my claims
would not be such great hurdles for all to leap over. I dont leap
when people say jump. I tell them, get a brain. (Although I admit I do so
in an emotional way. Let me blame my Italian mother.)
>You cannot set up a scientific model without concrete factors.
That is EXACTLY my point. In your first post of this debate,
you are tearing down the model I already have,
instead of posing questions and permitting me to present the
bibliographies. Further, shame (mistake) on your part is that
of demanding this model without even presenting a model of
your own. Sorry! but if you wish to start against me, then post questions.
If you wish to start with your own model, then present it (WHERE IS IT babe?).
[I realize you dont mind using the word B---, but others rebutt, so I'll say
babe....and probably still get flack.]
>Im sorry,
>I dont feel that God was out there with an enormous branch trying to
>cover up his tracks or traces of his flood. If your facts are indeed
>facts then the scientific data will be there to verify those facts. YOu
>have no controls, no supporting data, outside the bible and scholars who
>stand on that as being an actual model for the earth's history.
Is this your reply, in a request that you start with a timeline.
An outline of time. Please go back to the pyramid analogy. I dont need you
making false claims about me in this discussion if you choose to carry on.
Example (sssssh merry-go-round again, how many times need I make of the same thing
before the stubborn understand?): I say Adam was created in 4025 BC. If you wish to
claim Egypt before that, then do so, but you people usually fabricate a lie
saying that I believe the planet was created in 4025 BC. I say day 1 began
in 46,005 BC. And you people then say that I claim it is the age of the Earth.
It proves you do not know what I beleive, it proves you do not ask, it proves
you do not listen, nor do you look into my site. (I have a creation GIF).
So my point is let's reduce our presentations to single points based on an outline
of what we wish to cover. Here's mine.
I wish to reveal that history is stretched 720 years further back than reality.
How's that for Part 1. I was willing to let you personally choose part 1
yourself, but it required not that you merely have sources to slam me
(you think I dont read your same sources!), it requires you present your
alternative, as in OKAY what knowledge did they have...how is it they can build
a pyramid and not a 500-foot chest of wood?
>I am waiting for ONE SINGLE SOURCE outside of the edited document that
>you have to base your assumptions on.
WHAT edited document? I edit to make brevity, I do NOT edit to hide
an author's view. I even use Sitchen admirably skilled to define Sumerian,
yet openly tell others the quack believes we were dropped off by UFOs.
>The burden now falls not upon me
>but upon you to produce the data. I dont want data that is not
>substantiated, I do not want tables that you drew up based on events
>that have no scientific proof to back them up. Give me the citations, I
>have done my part of the bargain according to the terms that we both
>agreed to. You cannot change the rules midstream just because you dont
>like the way the game is going.
>Regards,
>Xina
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/c14TPC.gif
I have now posted 5 times a GIF source from the convention of 1969.
It is not a table I drew up. The color lines indicate where
the Britannica published Egypt epoch is versus the Hebrew Flood
and the Egyptian C-14 supports the Flood as 2370 BC.
I desire everyone who reads this
and has seen the post to write Xina to tell her that according to her words
above, she is refusing the source
of the Nobel symposium 12 of Uppsala Sweden published in 1970. p.51
(further scans of further C-14 charts will be posted; one is not enough
for those too haughty to look, too blind to see)
I doubt very much that the refinement of C-14 since 1970 has come up
with the 720 years other than to claim dendrochronology proves it.
How can they say the carbon is wrong and the trees correct,
when it may be the trees are wrong and the carbon is correct.
You take a stand with your life (your existence) by making the wrong choice.
************
everyone benefiting from my work please email
my postmaster, my site will move unless those appreciative
send email to counter those trying to destroy it
************
A voice crying out and going unheard,
(40 years Oct 7) Nehemiah's (9:1) 50th JUBILEE of Tishri 24
God's 1000 years has begun Sep 14 of 1996.
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah/Ezra1991CE.gif
Discover the world's true chronology thru the Bible at
http://www.execpc.com/~elijah
Subject: "New Explorers" Half-Truths
From: rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 13:09:40 -0600
Last night the PBS show "The New Explorers" dealt with late Anasazi
settlement in the Four Corners region of the American Southwest. They
followed a husband-and-wife archaeology team as they sought evidence to
explain why people started building cliff dwellings between A.D. 1250 and
1300.
Before I go into my rant, let me say that I have a particular beef
against this show in general because they hold up "the Scientific Method"
as an icon of objective thought. To give them credit, they do seem to
understand that the SM is a process, but the way they illustrate it
reifies popular (mis)conceptions about the nature of fact, theory,
induction, and deduction.
Another thing they do is focus on researchers whose work can be seen as
going against the mainstream, but, journalism being what it is, the
grey-shaded nature of such research is reconstituted in black-and-white
terms: the renegade researchers doggedly pursuing Truth, opposed to the
dogmatic inertia of the 'party line'.
This is what particularly bugged me about last night's show. A little
background: the Anasazi, who built the great pueblos of northern New
Mexico and the Cliff Dwellings of southern Colorado and northeastern
Arizona, appear to have vanished between A.D. 1200 and 1300. Let me
rephrase that -- evidence of large-scale architecture, long-distance
trade, and population nucleation vanishes at that time. The question of
Why? was a major impetus for southwestern archaeology (from the
perspective of a young, westward-expanding country, the disappearance of
a budding civilization which, had it survived, may have given that
country the heroic past its ego so desperately wanted was a major concern).
Current answers seem to point the finger at environmental change as the
culprit. Environmental evidence suggests that the two or three centuries
prior (i.e., A.D. 900-1200) had unusually good growing conditions, which
allowed the cultural elaboration that included massive architectural
programs. When the droughts started returning ca. A.D. 1250, so the
story goes, the problems of farming drew people away from these 'extra'
activities, and the heyday of the Anasazi ended.
Underlying this has always been the possibility of conflict -- that has
been a suggestion for decades, and each generation of archaeologists have
had to deal with it.
Then along comes "The New Explorers," following some archaeologists
interested in the conflict theory, and lo and behold the possibility of
"war" becomes a brand-new theory that hasn't gotten a lot of support
because it is un-p.c., so "TNE" is going to show the indisputable
evidence on national television.
The problem is, "TNE" misrepresents the current understanding so that
conflict and environmental change appear to be incompatible. This just
ain't so!
1. The show ostensibly covered all the Anasazi, but the area actually
covered was a small region around the four corners. They overgeneralized.
2. The intial evidence was movement of people away from canyon floors
and into cliff dwellings ca. A.D. 1250. They certainly showed the cliff
dwellings, but they didn't go into whether or not canyon-floor
settlements continued (and I don't personally know). They presented a
biased sample.
3. War and environmental change are presented as alternatives. But
think about it: why would people suddenly engage in conflict? Maybe
because environmental change had undermined crop reliability? Granted,
this was mentioned -- but only in the last ten minutes, after the whole
rest of the shoe had been plugging "war". They presented an overly
simplistic causal explanation in an unethical way.
4. They hyped "war" rather than conflict. War, as we understand it, is
a particular kind of conflict that is resource-intensive and engaged in
by organized polities out to dominate each other. The kind of conflict
that was likely going on here was raiding. Raiding is not war, and it is
well-documented among Native Americans. It is not, therefore, a major
new discovery. They misrepresented the theory they were documenting.
5. This is actually a problem with the archaeologists themselves. A few
mesa-top villages were located that were connected through line-of-sight,
which meant they could signal each other visually. The arkies
interpreted this as a "social" (rather than technological) invention:
the invention of group identity, what we would today call tribes.
HELLO!! Do they SERIOUSLY think it took NINE THOUSAND YEARS for the
concept of group exclusivity to develop?! 'Fraid not, guys: the
circumscription of social groups has been going on for millenia. The
continuing restriction of territories, from the Paleoindians on down,
means that people have been living in increasingly exclusive groups,
membership in which carries rights to local resources, ever since the
Paleoindians moved in. Once land got too crowded for people to live off
the land because nobody had a large enough territory, they settled down
and started farming. As farmland got more scarce, people started making
historical claims to the land they were on: you weren't part of the
group, you couldn't farm there. People developed different forms and
types of artifacts that may have signalled group identity. Contrary to
what those two bozos would have the American public believe, us-them
social distinctions are much, much older than 800 years. Villages that
could signal each other probably represent a defensive alliance rather
than a tribe -- because we know from the ethnohistoric record that tribal
membership does not guarantee cooperation.
So what probably happened? The environment changed in the 13th century
and the bottom fell out of agriculture. There wasn't enough food to
support the population and the investment in large public monuments. The
long-distance social networks that had supported those activities
disintegrated. In the absence of that cooperation, groups began to raid
former friendly groups to get food, better farmland, or both. Over the
last half-century, the situation continued to decay, and people abandoned
the area in search of (a) safety and (b) better farmland. This is not a
major surprise. There is no evidence of organized warfare. There is no
evidence of genocide, land-hungry expansionist polities, and so on.
6. The argument in the show was logically flawed. The show purported to
explore theories for why the Anasazi vanished. They held up warfare as
the emergent best explanation. Unfortunately, the researchers they
followed found conflict to be an explanation for *why people moved onto
cliffs and mesas*, not why the Anasazi vanished. If you pay close
attention, here is the researchers' argument:
People suddenly moved onto cliffs and mesas. Why? To escape conflict.
Why was there conflict? Environmental decay. That is, environmental
change led to conflic, which caused people to move into hidden spots.
While conflict may have been the immediate reason for the abandonment of
the area, the conflict probably would not have happened had the
environment not gone sour. Ultimately it was environmental change that
was responsible.
What "TNE" argues, however, is: The Anasazi vanished. Why? "Was it...War?"
This is oversimplistic, unethical journalistic pandering to the Ivory Tower
strawman that our scientifically-illiterate population likes to pummel in
defense of superstition and prejudice.
The tragedy is that this show perpetuates such misunderstandings in the
guise of documenting the scientific method. Last night did a real
disservice to archaeologists.
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn Johnson
Ph.D. stud., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
Subject: Pompeiian Pineapples
From: cboulis@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Chrisso Boulis)
Date: 14 Nov 1996 20:07:53 GMT
I think that the following story makes a wonderful aside to
the whole Pompeiian Pineapples thread.
Last weekend I attended a Roman Banquet as part of a "Roman
Lifestyles Symposium." The tables were appropriately arranged,
though, there wasn't room to "recline". The first course -
GUSTUM, was historically accurate - marinated fish, chicken,
herbed pork, artichokes, olives, bread, other vegetables. The
Second course was fish, spinich, mushrooms and turnips. The
Third couse was honey omelets, seminola cakes, custard tarts,
oranges, apples, banannas. . . .
Bananas??? That's what everyone at the table asked almost in
unison. We then devolved into giant sparrows carrying bananas
all over the world, in addition to coconuts! Or maybe they
specialized in bananas and pineapples in the Roman periods and
progressed to coconuts in the Middle Ages.
Later
C.E.S. Boulis
University of Pennsylvania Museum
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 14 Nov 1996 23:42:08 GMT
In article <328B5EC3.259A@ccil.org>, cowan@ccil.org says...
>
>Steve Whittet wrote:
>
>> Just to give an analogy, after man arrived in the New World and
>> hunted big game like bears, bison and mamoths to the point of
>> extinction horses evolved some twenty two new *species* to fill
>> the niche. Man has been in New Guinea about 70 times as long
>> as it took the new World horses to evolve.
>
>Now this is the merest rubbish. Within historic times there have
>been only two species of horses (plus two ass and three zebra
>species):
Well ok, go tell Bruce MacFadden and Kathleen Hunt that.
I was interested in the reason that the horse, along with
camels and pigs which evolved in the New World, periodically
crossed over the Bering land bridge east to west when all we
ever hear about is people crossing it west to east.
First I went to Harvards Museum of comparitive Zoology
and discovered that if anybody knew anything about the
evolution of horses it was Bruce MacFadden.
I called him in Florida and asked him if the horse might
have survived long enough in the new world to have been
domesticated by man instead of just hunted to extinction.
He explained that the reason we know that did not happen
was that we can follow the evolution of horses right up
to the point where they begin to evolve to fill the niches
of other big game animals hunted to extinction and then we can
see where they themselves go extinct.
If you want you can go download kathleen Hunts horse FAQ to
find out about the many species of horse which evolved over
the last sixty million years and how they got to Asia, Europe
and Africa.
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/horses.html
Here is a sample:
2My Old & New World Equus
\ | /
\ | /
4My Hippidion Equus
Stylohipparion
| | Neohipparion Hipparion
Cormohipparion
| | Astrohippus | | |
| | Pliohippus ---------------------------
12My Dinohippus Calippus \ | /
| | Pseudhipparion \ | /
| | | |
------------------------------------------- Sinohippus
15My \ | / |
\ | / Megahippus |
17My Merychippus | |
| Anchitherium Hypohippus
| | |
23My Parahippus Anchitherium
Archeohippus
| |
|
(Kalobatippus?)-----------------------------------------
25My \ | /
\ | /
|
35My |
Miohippus Mesohippus
| |
40My Mesohippus
|
|
|
45My Paleotherium |
| Epihippus
| |
Propalaeotherium | Haplohippus
| | |
50My Pachynolophus | Orohippus
| | |
| | |
------------------------------
\ | /
\ | /
55My Hyracotherium
To start with Eohippus was a rabbit sized hyracothrium who
belonged to the Paleocene.
The Eocene and some twenty million years later Mesohippus
a deer like horse the size of a sheep emerged in the Oligocene.
Merychippus living in the Miocene was the size of a Shetland pony.
In the Pliocene Merychippus became Pliohippus and grew to about
the size of a donkey.
Animals like Zebras and the wild ass are descended from a
migration across the Bering land bridge of Equus who apparently
also gave rise to four basic European horses called Pony I
found in North west Europe, Pony II found in northern Eurasia,
which includes the Przewalski foals, Horse III in Central Asia,
and the Tarpan.The horses who stayed home became Equus Caballus.
More Kathleen Hunt Horse Faq:
IX. Modern Equines (Recent)
The three-toed horses gradually died out, perhaps outcompeted by the
phenomenally successful artiodactyls (or not). Most of the one-toed
horses in North America also died out, as the Ice Ages started.
(The causes of these extinctions are unknown.) However, one-toed
Equus was very successful. Until about 1 million years ago, there
were Equus species all over Africa, Asia, Europe, North America,
and South America, in enormous migrating herds that must easily
have equalled the great North American bison herds, or the huge
wildebeest migrations in Africa.
In the late Pleistocene there was a set of devastating extinctions
that killed off most of the large mammals in North and South America.
All the horses of North and South America died out (along with the
mammoths and saber-tooth tigers). These extinctions seem to have
been caused by a combination of climatic changes and overhunting
by humans, who had just reached the New World.
For the first time in tens of millions of years, there were no equids
in the Americas.
The only members of Equus -- and of the entire family Equidae -- that
survived to historic times
were:
Order Perissodactyla, Family Equidae, Genus Equus
Equus burchelli: the Plains zebra of Africa, including "Grant's zebra",
"Burchell's zebra",
"Chapman's zebra", the half-striped Quagga, and other subspecies. The
Plains zebra is what
people usually think of as the "typical zebra", with rather wide
vertical stripes, and thick
horizontal stripes on the rump.
Equus zebra: the Mountain zebra of South Africa. This is the little
zebra with the dewlap and
the gridiron pattern on its rump.
Equus grevyi: Grevy's zebra, the most horse-like zebra. This is the big
zebra with the very
narrow vertical stripes and huge ears.
********************************************************************
Equus caballus, the true horse, which once had several subspecies.
**********************************************************************
Equus hemionus: the desert-adapted onagers of Asia & the Mideast,
including the kiang
(formerly E. kiang).
Equus asinus: the true asses & donkeys of northern Africa. (The African
wild asses are
sometimes called E. africanus.)
In North America Equus Caballus developed into a number of species
to fill the niches of other animals going extinct sometime before
it went extinct itself.
Migrations of horse types may have begun as far back as fifty
million years ago. None of the early migrants survived. The
last time around must have been at least 30,000 years ago.
> plain old *Equus caballus* and Przewalski's wild horse.
>Horses evolved from *Hyracotherium* (aka *Eohippus*) to
>*E. caballus* in the New World, went extinct there around Paleo-Indian
>times, but had spread to the Old World (and were
>reintroduced by the Spanish much later).
Actually not. Equus Caballus and Prezewalskis wild horse evolved
from Equus on separate continents.
>
>Mr. Whittet is plainly smoking some unusual juice here.
Research first, then post.
>
>--
>John Cowan
steve
Subject: Re: Why Satan is released
From: MGUIRGUIS@UCI.EDU (Michael Guirguis)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:08:37 -0800
In article <56gdt1$t78@access1.digex.net>, dickeney@access1.digex.net
(Dick Eney) wrote:
> In article <328BB0D4.3F7F@mech2.com>, elrick wrote:
> >Bradley Gouldson wrote:
> >>
> >> > SATAN IS A CROCK OF FOLK STORY.
> >> If only that were true...
> >> But of course it isn't. If you believe in God then satan
> >> must exist. Simple
> >> logic. For where else did all the evil in the world come
> >> from? Do you then
> >> believe the entire Bible is a folk story? If you do not
> >> believe in God then
> >> not believing that satan exists is I guess irrelevent...
> >
> >who in their right mind believes in god???( he cried incredulously)
>
> But it's so simple and logical. God is omnipotent and omniscient, right?
> Well, then he created this being of ultimate evil to mess us over without
> putting any blame on _him_, God. Now, who would do that except a creature
> of ultimate evil? Therefore, God IS Satan. And thus it follows that if
> you believe in God you are believing in Satan. Quod erat demonstradum, as
> Thomas Aquinas would say, although probably not after coming up with an
> argument like that.
>
> -- Dick Eney
why would God want to hurt his own creation, he created the humans so why
would he want to kill them. besides if he wanted to kill us, he would
have arleady did like with noah.
so Dick Eney, you are an idiot who doensn't know jack. and i would
suggest that you think then you right like most people.
--
M.G.
Subject: Re: Pompeiian Pineapples
From: August Matthusen
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 05:34:38 -0800
Chrisso Boulis wrote:
>
> I think that the following story makes a wonderful aside to
> the whole Pompeiian Pineapples thread.
>
> Last weekend I attended a Roman Banquet as part of a "Roman
> Lifestyles Symposium." The tables were appropriately arranged,
> though, there wasn't room to "recline". The first course -
> GUSTUM, was historically accurate - marinated fish, chicken,
> herbed pork, artichokes, olives, bread, other vegetables. The
> Second course was fish, spinich, mushrooms and turnips. The
> Third couse was honey omelets, seminola cakes, custard tarts,
> oranges, apples, banannas. . . .
>
> Bananas??? That's what everyone at the table asked almost in
> unison. We then devolved into giant sparrows carrying bananas
> all over the world, in addition to coconuts! Or maybe they
> specialized in bananas and pineapples in the Roman periods and
> progressed to coconuts in the Middle Ages.
In the interest of avian accuracy, I must object. The controversey
hinges on the air-speed velocity and carrying capacity of
European vs. African *swallows*. :-)
Regards,
August Matthusen
Subject: Re: Shang script among Olmecs
From: bartjean@henge.com (Bart Torbert/Jean Dupree)
Date: 15 Nov 1996 03:15:45 GMT
In article <01bbd0ed$09fca740$b494d9ce@tekdiver>, tekdiver@ix.netcom.com
says...
>
>Yes, Yuri. David is a Master of Shang script as well. Why don't you
email
>him up at Harvard? He shares space with an interesting fellow named Ian
>Graham. I don't know if you've heard of either David or Ian. My guess
is
>you probably haven't since you posed the rather uninformed question
below.
>The fact that you did pose the question strongly suggests that you ought
to
>do more reading before you do all of the writing you have done. There's
an
>old proverb about remaining silent and keeping people unsure of your
>ignorance as opposed to broadcasting it to the world as you seem intent
on
>doing. I think people would take you a little more serious if you didn't
>start out so uninformed about whatever you are discussing as it relates
to
>Mesoamerica. Since you seem to disagree with most of the research which
>has taken place in the last decade, I think you should read what has been
>done before you try to discredit it. Eric Thompson did the same thing
and
>look where it got him. If you don't know who Eric Thompson is, let me
>know, to.
>
>Paul Pettennude, Ph.D.
>Maya Underwater Research Center
>
>
>
Watch it Yuri! This guy is dangerous! He is packing a !!!!PH.D!!!!. He
might get angry at you and get a couple of his !!!EXPERT!!! friends to
throw !!!BIG WORDS!!! at your. OOOOH THAT WOULD HURT!
I am sure that Dr. Pettennude is just trying to be oh-so politically
correct. It is not nice to suggest that the Indians would need outside
consultants to create the high cultures of MesoAmerica (I guess as
compared to the low cultures the rest of them muddled along with, the poor
dears).
I know when an academician wants advice on a matter he turns to other
academicans. After all who else could be an "Expert" on the matter. In
this case maybe all these whiz-kids should do something real radical like
ask the Indians themselves what they think about the whole mess and
whether their dignity needs protection from a bunch of white guys running
around in long dresses and funny hats(that is academic robes to all you
plebes). I have asked such questions and the answers have been most
surprising.
I was privilaged to attend of gathering of Indian elders last year where
the whole topic of Diffusionism was under discussion. The Indians in
attendence just about covered all the types there could be. There were
folks with Ph.D.'s in history and anthropology (doesn't that make them
some sort of "Expert" in whose presense us mere mortals are to quake in
our boots-- I guess all experts are not created equal), traditional tribal
religious leaders, and some of the scarier names in AIM. None of them had
any problems with the idea that non-Indians got here long before Columbus
and had profound influence upon their ancestors.
They don't have a problem because their own tribal lore contains many
tales of these early visitors. They know that somewhere under all the
moralizing and entertainment frills of oral traditions, there are some
gems of historical fact. They seemed to appreciate the fact that some
folks were starting to get at the same historical events from another
angle and providing new perspectives to the matter.
So maybe the academics need to refer to "Experts" before making any sort
of comments themselves.
Bart Torbert
bartjean@privatei.com
Subject: Sorting Out the Facts: Chronologies for the Earth's Age and True History of Mankind
From: Xina
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 21:44:41 -0600
In response to Elijah's earlier post entitled" "Bible Chronon vs.
Archaeology...etc etc) I will post what I believe the true chronology of
the earth's age. There are many who dont agree with this. This is
fine. I have no emotional attachment to being right or wrong on this.
If I am wrong, I will bow to the superior knowlege of anyone who can
adequately show through citation of archaeological or geological *FACT*
that I have erred. At the end of this post I shall (*again!*) post my
sources.
I have no concrete date that I can cite with certainty about the earth's
true age. I will therefore post in chronological order the first life
to modern man and then in a later post we can go through whether or not
there are dates that correspond with the bible, or not. All information
posted is the opinion and research of the author, no claims to its
spritiual or scientific absoluteness is implied outside of what is now
available to us through scientific research.
1) bacteria - 3.8 billion years
2) Blue Green Algae or Cyanobacteria - 2.9 billion years
3) Eukaryotes( first plant and animal cells with nucleus) - 1.45
billion years
4) Multicelled animals - 680 million years
5) Fish - 530 Million years
6) Land Plants - 400 million years
7) Amphibians - 370 million years
8) Reptiles - 340 Million years
9) Mammals - 200 Million years
10) Dinosaurs 200 million years
11) Birds - 175 Million Years
12) Austrolpithencus Africanus - 4.5 million years
13) Australopithecs rubustus - 4 million years
14) Homo Habilus - 3.5 million years
15) Homo Erectus - 2 million years
16) Homo Sapiens Neanderthalenesis - 200,000 years
17) Homo Sapiens Sapiens - 30,000 years (See source #1)
This puts us right up to the Upper Paleolithic Age, which went from
30,000 BC to 10,000 BC. From there we can go to our second source
(2)"Archeaology of the Land of the Bible 10,000 BC - 586 BC by Amihai
Mazar(Professor at the University of Tel-Aviv in Israel) 1992 Doubleday
Publishing) We are now into the Neoltihtic age.
Pre-Pottery Neolithic A ca. 8500 - 7500 BCE
Pre Pottery Neolithic B ca. 7500 - 6000 BCE
Pottery Neolithic A ca. 6000 - 5000 BCE
Pottery Neolithic B ca. 5000 - 4300 BCE
Chalcolithic ca. 4300 - 3300 BCE
Early Bronze ca. 3300 - 3050 BCE
Early Bronze II -III ca. 3050 - 2300 BCE*
Early Bronze IV/Middle Bronze I ca. 2300 - 2000 BCE*
Middle Bronze IIA ca. 2000 - 1800/1750 BCE
Middle Bronze IIB-C ca. 1800/1750 - 1550 BCE
Late Bronze I ca. 1500 - 1400 BCE
Late Bronze II A-B ca. 1400 - 1200 BCE
Iron IA ca. 1200 - 1150 BCE
Iron IB ca. 1150 - 1000 BCE
Iron IIA ca. 1000 - 925 BCE
Iron IIB ca. 925 - 720 BCE
Iron IIC ca. 720- 586 BCE
* Elijah's alleged date for the biblical flood.
Essentially the Pyramids were built within the period around the Early
Bronze Age, if the flood occured there would be an interuption of this
age into the next one, in fact there would be noticable setback in
pottery and in building etc.
I will post a pharonic chronology later this week.
My questions are:
If Adam was the 'first man' (or was he the first white man as some here
have proposed) then we can actually date him to over 10,000 years ago.
If the biblical flood was an actuality, *why* was there no break in the
architecture, art and culture of any civilization in the areas of africa
and Europe at that time?
I will need to see how you explain away several billion years of
pre-history.
SOURCE LIST:
(1) 'Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Life' by Beverly Halstead 1989 Running
Press
(2)"Archeaology of the Land of the Bible 10,000 BC - 586 BC by Amihai
Mazar(Professor at the University of Tel-Aviv in Israel) 1992 Doubleday
Publishing)
Also cited in part one The World Atlas of Archeaology, by GK K Hall and
Co. (page 23)
Regards,
Xina