Subject: Re: Is It Time For a Biblical Archaeology Newsgroup?
From: Saida
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 17:57:02 -0600
Jerry Tribe wrote:
>
> Xina wrote in article <32908C23.813@netins.net>...
> > After this past couple of weeks recent developments, I am left wondering
> > whether or not it would be in the best interestes of all concerned that
> > a newsgroup such as, 'alt.archaeology.biblical, or alt.bible.archaeology
> > can or rather *should* be created.
> >
> > Do I propose a seperation? I do at this point, yes. I find the groups
> > of alt.archaeology, and sci.archeology overwhelmed as of late with posts
> > by those people that beleive in the bible and study its archaeology. I
> > agree that sooner or later any good archaeologist has to deal with the
> > bible, but like everything else, whether or not they belive in the bible
> > as the inspired and infallible word of God is up for individual
> > interpretation.
> >
> > I want to see peaceful co-existence, but what I have seen lately has
> > left me frustrated. Differeneces of opinion are one thing, but I think
> > that we may just need to realize that science and bible may not see eye
> > to eye for a good long time still, and adjust our headers accordingly.
> >
> > Feedback from other newsgroup participants will be appreciated.
> >
> > Xina
>
> Hello Xina
>
> I would think not becuase the actuality of acheological artifacts that
> agree with biblical accounts doesn't really mean much. This is why:
>
> "yesterday I walked from St. James Park, to Saville Row. While I
> was doing this God gave me a message to the effect that the
> universe was created in order to prove the idea that x=x".
>
> The fact that both the places exist has no bearing on the
> truth of my supernatural revelation.
>
> It may be suitable as an anthropological / archeological group
> but not as an alt.christnet. Sez me.
>
> Rgds
>
> -- Jerry
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hell Is A City Much Like Dis And It's Pandamonium.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Jerry,
Do you mean "pandemonium" or "pandaemonium" or is it really "panda" like
in the bear? Just curious. Are you quoting someone, perchance?
Subject: Re: Is It Time For a Biblical Archaeology Newsgroup?
From: Xina
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 15:42:16 -0600
fmurray@pobox, frank murray wrote:
(snipped a bit)
> better, that posters to sci.arch. learn to treat with civility those
> with whom they fundamentally disagree...a polite post, pointing to the
> scientific evidence supporting one's view, invites the same from the
> "other"...the ad hominem breeds hatred...worse, it's almost never
> posted with any sense of style...
Em Hotep, Frank! (In Peace!)
While I agree wih the majority of what you are saying, my concern is
with the few who are just fundamentally disagreeable with whatever
evidence is posted (on either side). I am not personally oppossed to the
bible nor the views of those who do hold it sacred, what I do find
rather worrisome is the blind adherence to something that despite the
scientific advances to ascertain appropriate time frames to an event or
if they are metephoric in nature rather than actual, it is rejected.
Blind adherence to either religion or science without examining all that
is presented is a dangerous precedence. All we can hope to be is grace
under pressure and calmly state our points of view, and provide the
proper data and citations in order to assert whatever view point we are
on. The realy concern comes from the attempted conversions and spamming
and almost inexcapable wailing and prosteletizing that is outside of
both archaeology and serious religious study.
For myself I can agree to get along with all parties involved, I just
wonder where the lines can be drawn between science, faith and
respectful commentary and difference of opinion.
Cheers!
Xina
>
> frank
Subject: Re: exalted teachers who label students as lost cause
From: rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 18:02:32 -0600
On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Elijah wrote:
> Can these great scholars and great teachers define someone who is
> a LOST CAUSE. Their definition is that of being a person who cannot be
> seduced into or forced into their doctrines. How does this make them different
> than cult religions !
You're on the verge of an insight here. Exchange "ideologies" for
"religions", and define "cult" thusly: "There are two kinds of people in
the world -- the righteous and the unrighteous. The righteous do the
dividing." But -- wait -- Whoa, Horsey! That includes all of us!
Here's the $25,000 question: What is the difference between
enculturation and indoctrination?
A: The number of people who believe it.
> Angry at religion, they make themselves the teachers
> based on scientific success as the proof (God's approval) and claim to be the
Ummm...if God approves...aren't you risking your soul with this sort of
post?
> new purged church of doctrines. And like priests they will seek for you to be
> publicly shunned and slaughtered for choosing the freedom to oppose their
> doctrine. As ALL have seen, I presented the data of a C-14 convention and
O, the lovely fragrance of a double entendre. When speaking of a
radiocarbon "convention", the "conventional" (tee hee) understanding is
`agreement on social behaviour etc. by implicit consent of the majority.'
So, for example, the standard definition of the radiocarbon present is
A.D. 1950 -- by convention. The radiocarbon convention to which you
refer is unconventional.
> internet archeo-cult pushers labeled the editor and convention as bible
> fanatics,
Well, since we are the majority, that is our prerogative. It also makes
YOU the cult, not us. But you know, when you hold up a book and say "we
have to keep doing the problem until the answers we get match those in
the back of the book," you're not trying to learn anything -- you're just
trying to figure out how to get a particular answer. Your faith is in
the answer, ours is in the process.
What would you do if you believed God wanted you to make an offering of
$13 using only two US banknotes? God has made you an amazing gift of
your brain. Did it ever occur to you that the test here may be whether
you can use it to think critically about the basic assumptions of your
life, not whether you can succesfully reject all contradictions to them?
> They act no different than those who slaughtered Galileo.
Ummm...wasn't Galileo just placed under house arrest?
> Xina knows not what a Messiah complex is. You have made yourselves the
> Messiah claiming your findings will save men from all sorts of calamities.
I take it you adhere to the "it takes one to know one" theory.
> > >NOTICE THE SLAM, real professional behavior at a convention.
>
> > In my experience, most of the time at conventions is taken up with
> > consideration of serious matters such as who will be sleeping with whom!
But only after the hotel bar has run out of beer (hey, it's happened...)
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn Johnson
Ph.D. stud., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
Subject: Re: where is my wound
From: sshinn@sparky.wrlc.org (Scott)
Date: 18 Nov 1996 18:17:20 GMT
Elijah (elijah@wi.net) wrote:
: Shez wrote:
: > Xina I vote you word warrior of the year, you have won hands down, and
: > have the grace to leave the wounded to lick there wounds.
: > Well done.
: where have I been wounded?
: How have I been wounded?
: I was at a peaceful position of the table where both
: sides had reached the state of realizing we must first
: lay down our claims in the form of a timeline, when suddenly
: Xina threw a fit demanding I never use the word Flood
: again since her side says there was none. She ultimately
: walked off, left the table, saying that she refused to contrast
: her scholastic 3090-1991 BC to my biblical 2370-1943 BC.
: In essence she wanted a joust where she chooses both
: of our weapons. Well, I'm sorry but that *IS* a bitch she
: so proudly admits to be.
: Especially since I am not offended by (even know and like)
: several arrogant women, and yet I refer only to the liars
: as being the bitches.
Ad Hominen is the last refuge of the incompetent Richard, it is the
tell-tale sign of a lost arguement.
:And I hate deliberate malice liars as much as Jesus did.
Jesus didnt hate anyone Richard, he forgave them. You would perhaps
do better by emulating him.
Go with god,
sshinn
Subject: Re: where is my wound
From: jrdavis@netcom.com (John Davis)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 21:37:37 GMT
Elijah (elijah@wi.net) wrote:
: Shez wrote:
: > Xina I vote you word warrior of the year, you have won hands down, and
: > have the grace to leave the wounded to lick there wounds.
: > Well done.
: where have I been wounded?
: How have I been wounded?
: I was at a peaceful position of the table where both
: sides had reached the state of realizing we must first
: lay down our claims in the form of a timeline, when suddenly
: Xina threw a fit demanding I never use the word Flood
: again since her side says there was none. She ultimately
: walked off, left the table, saying that she refused to contrast
: her scholastic 3090-1991 BC to my biblical 2370-1943 BC.
: In essence she wanted a joust where she chooses both
: of our weapons. Well, I'm sorry but that *IS* a bitch she
: so proudly admits to be.
: Especially since I am not offended by (even know and like)
: several arrogant women, and yet I refer only to the liars
: as being the bitches. And I hate deliberate malice liars
: as much as Jesus did.
Well I have been wounded by your continual attempt to defeat my killfile
by changing your pseudonym. If you are going to insist on posting this
rubbish to inappropriate groups then do it under one name. You are a one
man alt.syntax.tactical squad. I repeat, if you refuse to stay on your
medication then stick to one name.
--
A_A No combat ready unit has ever passed inspection.
John Davis (o o)
----------oOO-(^)-OOo----------------------------------------------------
~ Murphy's Laws of Combat
Subject: Re: New Study Supports Man Hunting Mammoth to Extinction
From: rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 18:28:12 -0600
On 18 Nov 1996, Franz Gerl wrote:
> rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:
> : On Fri, 8 Nov 1996, Mike Noreen wrote:
> : >
> : > Well, if the Mammoths responded with lowered age at first birth, and
> : > smaller size, then the increase in predation pressure must have been
> : > significant. Unquantifiable, but significant.
> :
> : Yes, *IF* those things were all true, then you have a point. But the
> : basis for discussion here is *INCREASED REPRODUCTIVE FREQUENCY*. Under
> : the original premise of this thread, the conclusion of increased hunting
> : is a non sequitur. You have introduced new premises, and because they
> : are new, they do not challenge my point, which was (and remains) that
> : *evidence of hunting is NOT evidence of hunting-to-extinction*.
>
> Of course it adds to the evidence of hunting-to-extinction,
> however it is by now means a proof that it happened.
>
> The other championed reason for the demise of the mammoths
> are climatological and vegetational changes. They however would
> not result in an increased reproduction. Could you comment
> then, why this is not *evidence*?
(Fists clenched)
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRGHHH!!! ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!! ARRRRGH ARRRRGH!!
(pant, pant, wheeze, pant)
The question is *evidence of WHAT*!!!!!!!!!!! Yes, we have evidence of
HUNTING! That is not a surprise! When you find projectile points in the
body cavities of mammoth fossils, clearly you had HUNTING! This
tusk-o-chronology is just MORE evidence of hunting! And evidence of
HUNTING is *NOT* evidence of HUNTING-TO-EXTINCTION!!!!! And it never
WILL be, no matter HOW MUCH evidence of HUNTING you get!!! If you want
to claim hunting-to-extinction, you need evidence for the TO-EXTINCTION
part!! All we have right now are ASSUMPTIONS based on CHRONOLOGICAL
COINCIDENCE!
Get it? Hunting does not equal hunting to extinction! The former does
not imply the latter. You can demonstrate the former without commenting
on the latter. If you demonstrate the former, all you have done in terms
of the latter is KEEP THE POSSIBILITY OPEN. A statement of what is
POSSIBLE is not a statement about what is PROBABLE.
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn Johnson
Ph.D. stud., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
Subject: Re: Is It Time For a Biblical Archaeology Newsgroup?
From: jrdavis@netcom.com (John Davis)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 21:58:53 GMT
Xina (xina@netins.net) wrote:
: After this past couple of weeks recent developments, I am left wondering
: whether or not it would be in the best interestes of all concerned that
: a newsgroup such as, 'alt.archaeology.biblical, or alt.bible.archaeology
: can or rather *should* be created.
: Do I propose a seperation? I do at this point, yes. I find the groups
: of alt.archaeology, and sci.archeology overwhelmed as of late with posts
: by those people that beleive in the bible and study its archaeology. I
: agree that sooner or later any good archaeologist has to deal with the
: bible, but like everything else, whether or not they belive in the bible
: as the inspired and infallible word of God is up for individual
: interpretation.
: I want to see peaceful co-existence, but what I have seen lately has
: left me frustrated. Differeneces of opinion are one thing, but I think
: that we may just need to realize that science and bible may not see eye
: to eye for a good long time still, and adjust our headers accordingly.
: Feedback from other newsgroup participants will be appreciated.
It wouldn't help. It would just give the village idiot another entry for
crossposting to his Newsgroups: line. The only thing that helps is a well
maintained killfile. I usually don't killfile those who make
controversial or objectional posts; I want to be able to counter any
really bad stuff. However, where an idiot like Elijawhosits is concerned,
anyone reading three lines of his crap knows he's a fool anyway. You
can't argue with him because he won't argue. He just makes ad hominem
attacks and repeats the same nonsense over and over. The only solution is
to relegate him to net-ghost status.
--
A_A No combat ready unit has ever passed inspection.
John Davis (o o)
----------oOO-(^)-OOo----------------------------------------------------
~ Murphy's Laws of Combat
Subject: Re: Bible Chron scale versus Earth Chron, Intro2 (reply to SORTING)
From: August Matthusen
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 08:09:50 -0800
Richard Schiller (posing as a prophet and a savant) wrote:
> I regard all C-14 readings from 20,000 BC to be postFlood 2370 BC.
That's fine, Richard. What is the evidence upon which you base this
"regard"? It appears you are the only one who "regards" it so.
I see a lot of allegations, conjectures, or speculation below and
above, but no EVIDENCE.
> I do believe that preFlood wood can be used by postFlood man.
> Such wood would date as older than 20,000 BC. Yes, archeology does
> collect the smallest little things and claims they were made by humans.
Evidence that "Such wood would date as older than 20,000 BC"? (While
you're at it, maybe you could also explain where you got the idea that
all coals date to 20000 years? I've never seen a response to this.
You weren't bearing false witness again, were you? That's a sin, you
know.)
> Abel's death after 3955 BC would date by our C-14 labs as 20,000 more
> years or thus as 21,855 BC.
Evidence?
> Thus preFlood humans of 3955-2370 BC
> date by C-14 as 21,855-20,000 BC.
Evidence? You state this a fact. Where is this published?
> The C-14 limits of 50,000-70,000
> are thus reduced to being 30,000-50,000. Radiologists are very cautious
> to go beyond the lower figure of 50,000 (biblical 30,000).
Of course chronologists are cautious, by 50000 yrs the C-14 has decayed
by 10 half-lives. Now AMS can push the age back further by more
accurate measurements of small quantities.
> (reference for the 50,000 and 70,000 upon request)
> Note that the 30,000 falls within the creative day earth rose from the sea.
> Below these poterries are dated by C-14 and thus in my view are all
> post Flood as after 2370 BC, and being dated as post 10,000 BC ice age
> also means they are viewed by me as post Ice Age 2320 BC.
"poterries" (sic) very seldom contain material capable of being dated
by C-14. Maybe you can tell us all about thermo-luminescence dating
or archaeo-magnetism and why they provide the "wrong" dates?
[snip]
> Correct. I feel he is incorrectly dated as over 10,000 years due to C-14
> of 2320 BC giving a false age of 10,000 years. Adam's death being in
> 3096 BC would thus give a false reading of 20,725 BC if his body were
> preserved.
Evidence (other than your "regard" or what you "feel")?
"Regards",
August Matthusen
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: Mike Wright
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 20:51:38 -0700
Steve Whittet wrote:
>
> In article <328F0105.2CF8@scruznet.com>, darwin@scruznet.com says...
> >
[snipping because it's just getting too long]
> >The question is not whether my personal vocabulary "means something",
> >but whether or not it is a valid measure of something called the
> >"sophistication" of my language.
>
> The sophistication of a language can be more than just its
> linguistic complexity, it can also determine whether or not
> it is possible to concieve of some concepts.
>
> Take the difference between the word "real" in normal usage
> and the word "Real" as philosophical jargon. The second usage
> has a rather different meaning than the first, though both are
> nominally the same word. Isn't that one sense of what we mean
> when we use the word "sophistication"? Adding the second usage
> to your vocabulary makes possible a concept you would not otherwise
> be capable of concieving.
But how does one apply this idea in practical terms to decide whether an
Austrailian language is more or less "sophisticated" than Inuit or
French?
What if it turns out that the Austrailian Aborigine can conceive of
things that escape the Frenchman, while the Frenchman can conceive of
things that the Australian does not get? Do we have to do up a scorecard
for the whole of each language in order to arrive at a decision about
which language is more sophisticated? And, once we have that, what have
we actually got?
> >School entrance exams test for
> >vocabulary that will be useful in the context of receiving training at
> >that particular school. The vocabulary required to qualify for entrance
> >into an advanced music institute might be quite different from the test
> >for advanced computer engineering.
>
> Both simply correlate the possession of an understanding of a fields
> jargon with familiarity with a fields issues.
Precisely.
> > Which has the more sophisticated
> >requirements? A language training facility or one that trains gymnasts
> >might require only aptitude tests, because vocabulary is not
> >particularly important to either endeavor.
>
> Actually, vocabulary is important to both. A poor understanding
> of grammar might be reflected by problems with the conjugation
> of verbs and make learning a language unnecessarily difficult.
This is not true in my experience. A good understanding of English
grammar doesn't gain you anything whatsoever in studying Chinese,
Japanese, Malay, or Arabic. If anything, it may mislead you. A good
school will teach you the appropriate terminology along with the
language. (As a friend found out when studying Cambodian at Berlitz,
some schools may not even mention grammar in the early stages of
training, but I find that a bit extreme when training adults.)
> A poor understanding of terms for parts of a persons physical
> anatomy might inhibit a gymnasts attainment of the best
> possible performance.
Again, the school should teach any required terminology along with the
actual physical training. Chances are good that the student will have to
learn more restrictive meanings of common words when they are used as
jargon. Frankly, I just used gymnastics because my granddaughter had
just come back from her gymnastics class. An example that I'm more
familiar with is physics. A good part of learning any specialty is
learning the jargon.
I think the point I was trying to make is that *every* field has its
jargon. So, how is a speaker who knows the jargon of physics either more
or less "sophisticated" than a speaker who knows the jargon of a
hunter-gatherer in the rainforests of Brazil? This kind of
sophistication is very much context-specific. If we say that the Italian
physicist is "more sophisticated" than the Yanamamo, we are making a
value judgement about cultures and lifestyles. We are not making an
objective evaluation of their respective languages as such.
[...]
> >What is the objective method of measuring degrees of "sophistication"?
> >What are the criteria? Has anyone ever actually applied these methods in
> >comparing existing languages?
>
> An evaluation of the number of words is just one of several
> dialectical criteria which might be applied. You could look at the
> relative similarity or difference of the words used. You could
> evaluate the numer of process terms, or the sequence in which
> the words are composed in structuring a sentence.
Are you saying that certain sentence structures might be inherently more
sophisticated that others? If so, is SVO more or less sophisticated than
SOV? Are synthetic languages more or less sophisticated than analyitic
ones? How about the use of inflection vs. postpositions vs. relative
position? How do we actually go about applying these "dialectical
criteria"?
--
Mike Wright
____________________________________
email: darwin@scruznet.com
WWW: http://www.scruz.net/~darwin/language.html
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: scott@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott)
Date: 19 Nov 1996 04:02:34 GMT
In article <56oh14$i2g@fridge-nf0.shore.net>, whittet@shore.net says...
[some snipping]
>In article <56nj5p$kpv@csu-b.csuohio.edu>, scott@math.csuohio.edu
>says...
>>In article <56n631$5cs@fridge-nf0.shore.net>, whittet@shore.net says...
>>[some snips]
>>>In article , petrich@netcom.com says...
>>>>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.
>>>You don't think language evolves. Are you a creationist?
>>He just said that there is 'an abundance of evidence of evolution of
>>historically-attested languages'; obviously he thinks that languages
>>have evolved.
>Let's allow that some of the evidence (writing) is limited to
>historically-attested languages. Loren is fond of claiming that
>linguistic reconstructions of language are also evidence of the
>existence of language, so to limit the language that he allows
>has evolved to historically attested languages strongly implies
>that he thinks whatever was spoken prior to the written evidence
>of its having evolved, was created in the same perfectly proficient
>form which Ben claims.
If this is logic, I'll take vanilla. I very much doubt that he
believes anything of the sort, but I'm perfectly happy to let him
speak for himself. Try a little common sense: where *but* in
historically attested languages is one to find evidence of
*anything* linguistic?!
>> The part that you underlined merely indicates that he
>>sees no good reason for some of this well-evidenced evolution.
>If there is "no need for evolution in phonology, grammar,
>basic vocabulary, etc." what is there need for evolution in?
'Need' was probably an ill-chosen term. I don't presume to speak
for Loren, but I understood him to mean that in contrast to the
situation in biology, there are few if any obvious evolutionary
pressures.
>>The introduction of creationism is a blatant non sequitur (and a rather
>>insulting one, in my opinion):
[more non sequiturs deleted]
>> it is difficult to see what connection
>>there might be between the origin of life and the nature of linguistic
>>change.
>For one thing there is the out of Africa theory, for another
>proto world and nostratic.
Which have no necessary logical connexion with the origin of life.
You're simply not *thinking*, Mr. Whittet.
>>>> 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.
>>>Not since the mid sixties when Washoe began to construct coherent
>>>complex sentences, or aren't you familiar with the work of Allen
>>>and Beatrice Gardiner? I don't know how many times the experiment
>>>has been replicated since then but to label it contraversial is
>>>simply uninformed.
>>To label it anything *but* controversial is either to indulge in
>>wishful thinking or to be uninformed. The last time I looked, the
>>controversy hadn't been resolved.
>What controversy do you refer to?
The replicability of the results is still in question, and I've seen
no general acceptance that they aren't at least partly to be explained
by the Clever Hans effect. I reserve judgement, myself; but the fact
remains that the Gardiners' conclusions are not universally accepted.
>>>Language has evolved over a period of 200,000 years. Very slowly
>>>at first but with the rate of change changing at an increasing rate,
>>>in very recent times very rapidly. Generally when you observe a
>>>phenomena where the rate of change changes at an increasing rate
>>>you may describe this as an exponential curve.
>>But I see now that you aren't answering it after all. You are merely
>>asserting without evidence that the exponential curve fits the facts.
>I am asserting that an exponential curve is the appropriate model
>to use in graphing an observed rate of change which is changing at
>an increasing rate.
>>What *is* the evidence that leads you to use an exponential model?
>>What variable are you measuring quantitatively in such a way that you
>>can actually draw a graph?
>the x axis measures time, the y axis measures vocabulary words
>the curve begins at the left c 200,000 BP, with a value of 500
>words.It moves to the right as an essentially horizontal line
>up to c 20,000 BP where it crosses 1000 words. By c 1600 AD
>the Chineese have 45,000 individual ideograms. Today we have
>a vocabulary in English of a couple hundred thousand words
>and the line goes verticle.
So you are using size of lexicon as a measure of complexity. As
has, I believe, been pointed out many times here, this is a most
unsatisfactory measure. Moreover, we don't have information on
it for languages more than a few centuries old. The extant corpus
of Old English runs, I believe, to about 23,000 - 24,000 words;
but that's merely what happens to have been preserved. The real
total is undoubtedly much greater. I very much doubt that *any*
information is available from 200,000 BP.
I might add that your 'data' are inconsistent with an exponential
curve. Your first two points imply a doubling time of about
180,000 years; if the growth were really exponential, we wouldn't
reach 2000 words for another 160,000 years or so. If you're going
to use an unrealistic measure and model, you could at least get
the mathematics right.
>Interpolating in the curve c 3,000 BP we might have 2 or 3000 words.
>Now take any othe observable sociological trend you care to name
>and examine it similarly. The exponential curve is actually reflecting
>the increased complexity caused by the rapid growth in population
>of our urban civilization.
>>>When this curve is compared with increases in population, urbanization
>>>or indeed any observable sociological trend you care to name, there
>>>is very close congruence.
>>This is nonsense. Population is a well-defined (if not always easily
>>measured) numerical quantity.
>The rate of change in population has been changing at an increasing
>rate for some time. Read Erlichs "The Population Bomb" or look at the
>CIA's "World Fact Book".
That's nice, but it has no bearing on the present discussion.
>I read anthropology books.
Written 200,000 years ago with a vocabulary of 500 words, no doubt.
Brian M. Scott
Subject: Re: exalted teachers who label students as lost cause
From: August Matthusen
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 09:16:31 -0800
rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Elijah (aka Richard Schiller) wrote:
[snip]
> > new purged church of doctrines. And like priests they will seek for you to be
> > publicly shunned and slaughtered for choosing the freedom to oppose their
> > doctrine. As ALL have seen, I presented the data of a C-14 convention and
>
> O, the lovely fragrance of a double entendre. When speaking of a
> radiocarbon "convention", the "conventional" (tee hee) understanding is
> `agreement on social behaviour etc. by implicit consent of the majority.'
> So, for example, the standard definition of the radiocarbon present is
> A.D. 1950 -- by convention. The radiocarbon convention to which you
> refer is unconventional.
Yeah, just as the "Libby half-life" is about 3% off from the actual
C-14 half-life which is partially why the skew of C-14 vs actual dates
occurs. But don't expect Richard Schiller to understand.
[snip]
> > They act no different than those who slaughtered Galileo.
>
> Ummm...wasn't Galileo just placed under house arrest?
Rebecca, I think you're taking a metaphor literally, but then since
it was written by a literalist who takes biblical metaphors literally,
I can see from where the confusion came. Should be a limerick or
something like that in this conundrum:
A literalist who literalized a metaphor,
Tried to literally metaphorize a litericism.
Said the metaphor to the literalist:
Is it easier to literalize
Or to pull it out of thin air?
(Ok, I know it doesn't rhyme and the scansion sucks but it's
provided for educational purposes only. Rewrites welcomed.)
[snip]
> > > In my experience, most of the time at conventions is taken up with
> > > consideration of serious matters such as who will be sleeping with whom!
>
> But only after the hotel bar has run out of beer (hey, it's happened...)
Or the eternal question of finding another bar.
Regards,
August Matthusen
Subject: Re: Is It Time For a Biblical Archaeology Newsgroup?
From: "Jerry Tribe"
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:10:18 GMT
fmurray@pobox; frank murray wrote in article
<3290d2ad.67673092@netnews.worldnet.att.net>...
> On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 10:17:39 -0600, Xina wrote:
>
> >After this past couple of weeks recent developments, I am left wondering
> >whether or not it would be in the best interestes of all concerned that
> >a newsgroup such as, 'alt.archaeology.biblical, or alt.bible.archaeology
> >can or rather *should* be created.
>
> perhaps sci.archaeology.biblical??...after a six month fight over the
> prefix??...if nothing else, that would add another group to the
> crossposter's header, and up the number of biblical posts to this
> group...
>
> but the religion-based debates on sci.arch. have barely begun...the
> "africa one" project (at&t;) will bring much of africa and the mideast
> into the fibre-optic connected loop of the net...mini-terminal costs
> will drop towards the calculator range...voices, not yet heard online,
> will vie with those now here...
Ha. If (for example) Kenyas KP&TC; let their monopoly go and
reduce phone charges, it will be a miracle....
-- Jerry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hell Is A City Much Like Dis And It's Pandamonium.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Coal formation in short time re Cretaceous skull
From: moo@radix.net
Date: 19 Nov 1996 01:27:08 GMT
I'm not a specialist in the formation of coal but I distinctly remember
reading in what seemed to be an authoritative source that coal can
form in amazingly short spans of time. Because I can't supply the
reference I can only suggest that interested people consult a
specialist in the formation of coal.
If short time spans are indeed possible, then to prove a skull embedded
in coal is Cretaceous would require paleontological study of co-embeded
formerly living objects characteristic or not of the Cretaceous period.
In any case, even if a Cretaceous date were proven, it has no implications
about the correctness of the theory of evolution. IF scholarly
study has incorrectly identified the time span of human evolution
it means only that the time span of the evolution of primates etc.
would need revision, not the theory of evolution.
Regarding a question about a reference to the "Ice Man" found
in the glacier, the team of specialists studying him has published
a book called "The Man in the Ice" by Konrad Spindler published
by Crown Trade Paperbacks, 1994, NY NY. They infer that he was
probably a shepherd fleeing his home village from invaders.
Subject: Re: His excellent reply: trimming headers (to stop crossposting)
From: August Matthusen
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 08:36:15 -0800
Richard Schiller (posing as a NetCop) wrote:
> I suggest that everyone who can understand the above post
> take it and paste it in a notepad where everytime they read a post like
> below which calls people fuckwits and accuses them of starting the
> thread....you can mail their postmaster by merely copying their
> address and writing postmaster ahead of it.
>
> examples for the below posts of
> Jack Campin as:
> jack@purr.demon.co.uk
> postmaster@purr.demon.co.uk
>
> and Michael D. Painter as:
> mpainter@maxinet.com
> postmaster@maxinet.com
>
> > Ah, Jack, it appears that you have not met EJ before.
> > This latest appearance is one of the most coherent posts I've seen from
> > him. ( No, really)
> > He exhibits all the behavior of someone who goes off his meds, gets worse
> > and worse, then gets locked up for a few days (when he disappears) and is
> > put back on track.
> > I said this in jest the first time I ran across him but am beginning to
> > believe I was right.
>
> > Jack Campin wrote in article<1942@purr.demon.co.uk>...
> > > Eliyehowah writes:
> > > > This is a reply. I have not chosen the header newsgroups this thread is
> > > > found in.
> > >
> > > Yes you have, fuckwit. You can't weasel out of your responsibility by
> > > saying "the other guy started it".
> > > > I have added alt.religion.christian to share with them
> > > I'm sure that group's readers are all *really* grateful. I don't think.
> > > Now edit your goddamn headers before continuing this discussion.
I'm puzzled, Richard. Are you trying to stifle Painter's and Campin's
freedom of speech? You, who keeps claiming that you are being stifled?
At least Painter and Campin aren't spamming off topic garbage to every
news group under the sun. This thread, which you changed the title on,
even had misc.test in the newgroups line. If you can change the title
on every thread, why can't you trim newsgroups?
[Newsgroups trimmed--see how easy that was?]
Should everyone write to *your* postmaster because in a post entitled.
"PUBLIC: note the evil spirit in deaf men (and deaf women)" dated
Sat, 02 Nov 1996, you wrote:
[Begin quote of Richard Schiller posing as Eliyehowah talking about
Australia]
BTW your country has a problem when American sailors say that you
have a custom of letting your women gather on piers to take them home
to feed and bed them.
Gee throw your hat to them with your name in it and they'll take you
home.
Two hats and you got a choice !
Some even have husbands who feed you and give you bed. They like
watching you with their wife ! I suggest you find a moral code for your
country before you accuse this world of having too many people
behaving like Jesus. Of course in your mind, you always win if you
accuse them of claiming to be Jesus.
[End quote of Richard Schiller posing as Eliyehowah talking about
Australia]
Regards,
August Matthusen
PS Don't worry, Richard. By now, most people on the internet who
have been exposed to your posts know that anyone who calls you *any*
kind of wit is only half right.
Subject: Re: sphinx
From: fmurray@pobox,com (frank murray)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 06:44:06 GMT
On Tue, 19 Nov 1996 20:20:29 GMT, Andrew.Elms@datacraft.com.au (Elmo)
wrote:
>menglund@mum.edu wrote:
>
>>What's the Sphinx-Mars relationship?
>
>I have also heard about some supposed links between the Sphinx, the
>pyramids and Mars, but so far haven't found out much more about it.
>Most of the people in the archaeology fields seem to think you are a
>bit ga-ga when you start asking these sorts of questions.
>Let me know what you find out.
try richard c. hoagland's "the monuments of mars: a city on the edge
of forever"...1987...north atlantic books...berkeley, california...
the disjunction between the publisher's name and location serves as
fine introduction to some of hoagland's shifting angular
measurements...
for more poetically titled sf, try "a rose red city, half as old as
time"....author's name forgotten...
frank
Subject: King Offa's Dinar
From: Ishinan
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 00:56:07 -0600
Among the most mysterious discoveries of Anglo-Saxon archaeology is the
golden coinage of King Offa of Mercia (757-796 AD). The coinage, struck
in Kent, was issued in perfect Arabic Kufic script bearing Qur’anic
verses referring to the fundamentals of the Islamic faith along with the
name of King Offa of Mercia!
I refer to the coin described by C. E. Blunt (on p. 164 of Mark
Blackburn's edited volume 'Anglo-Saxon Monetary History', 1986); and in
_Kashif al-Asrar fi Qadim al-Athar_, by S. Zaki, Cairo, p.6-7, 1992.
The coin in question was procured by the Duc de Blacas in Rome sometime
before 1841 and has been in the British Museum since 1922.
The significance of this archaeological artifact is that it is the first
and the only dated coinage of the Anglo-Saxon period. In general
Anglo-Saxon coins were not dated and a mixture of kings names, moneyers
names and typological sequence has been used to date them. It is
surprising that numismatists and historians can be so confident about
their *dates*. However, here we have a coin with an actual date in
Islamic Hijra (157 AH / 774 AD), and the connection has never been fully
explored or explained.
Further analysis of the coin reveals startling linguistic coincidences
which might be of interest to this group. Along with the name of King
Offa, the _Bismallah_ is inscribed along with "The Shihada," and
Surat "al-Ikhlas," Q.112 (The Islamic Salvation).
(1) The term "Ikhlas," from the Arabic root _Khls_, which declares the
belief in the unity of God as well as salvation, whole and deliverance;
strangely enough when you consider the Old English _hals_, with the same
range of meanings, and is commonly found in the religious vocabulary
(i.e. Old High German: heilida; Old Norse: heilsa; and Modern English:
health)!
(2) The first letter of the _Bismallah_ of the _Fatiha Verses_ (the
opening verse of the Qur'an), which is the Arabic preposition _Bi_,
coincides with the Anglo-Saxon _Bi_ (_by_ in Modern English).
(3) The last word in the same verses is _Dalyyin_ Arabic Root of _Dll_
; to err, which coincides with the Anglo-Saxon _Dol_ (O.H.Ger _tol_,
Gothic _dwal/s_ , in Chaucer _dul_, in 'Orm' _dill_ meaning: _Erring_
and _heretical_)!
Offa's coin is the first and the only dated coinage of the Anglo-Saxon
period, and bears the Islamic date 157 AH (774 AD), along with the
name of King Offa. The next English dated coinage appeared 400 years
later in the post-Norman period.
In historical documents, exchanged between King Offa and Charlemagne,
the coin is referred to as _Mancus_, allegedly from Medieval Latin
_MANCUSA_ (first occurrence 785 AD). While in contemporary Islamic
coins, under the rule of the Abbasid Khalif Al-Mansur (died 158 AH / 775
AD), the very same type of coins were known as _Manqus_ (root of _NQS_)
for their deficiency in weight!
Scholars in playing down this find are failing to see the significance
of these linguistic evidences and their possible connection with
religious vocabulary items in the Germanic dialects.
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 09:39:03 GMT
In article <56oh14$i2g@fridge-nf0.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet wrote:
>Let's allow that some of the evidence (writing) is limited to
>historically-attested languages. Loren is fond of claiming that
>linguistic reconstructions of language are also evidence of the
>existence of language, so to limit the language that he allows
>has evolved to historically attested languages strongly implies
>that he thinks whatever was spoken prior to the written evidence
>of its having evolved, was created in the same perfectly proficient
>form which Ben claims.
I never claimed ANY SUCH THING!!!
Just because groups of existing languages had some common
ancestor does not preclude that ancestor having ancestors of its own.
Thus, the Germanic languages clearly have a well-defined common ancestor,
but this ancestor is clearly descended from the ancestor of the IE langs.
>If there is "no need for evolution in phonology, grammar,
>basic vocabulary, etc." what is there need for evolution in?
Words for new things.
>If it evolved from one souce and diffused around the world, does
>it reflect people coming from one source and bringing language
>with them, or did it come to people where they had settled
>previously either without language, or with an older language
>that the new language from the common source replaced?
Most likely, our species has had language as long as humanity has
existed. Even people in distant parts of the world with Paleolithic-level
technology have had language.
>How long would it take for such a process, (whatever process
>you decide to choose) to distribute common bits of language
>around the world. Would it make a difference in the amount
>of time the process took, how sophisticated and urbane mankind
>had become at the point when this occured? Would language
>diffuse faster at a time when there were mechanisms for the
>rapid transmission of new ideas such as boats and horses?
So what if more-advanced technology helps language spread faster?
Mr. Whittet, if you spend 1/10 the time studying historical
linguistics that you spend on archeology, you might actually *learn*
something about this subject.
>Suppose that language were independently invented over and
>over again all over the world. When would this first occur?
>When was the last time you think it occured?
There is good reason to suppose that that has happened only once.
Why aren't there any language-less stragglers?
>>To label it anything *but* controversial is either to indulge in
>>wishful thinking or to be uninformed. The last time I looked, the
>>controversy hadn't been resolved.
>What controversy do you refer to?
Mr. Whittet, don't be an idiot. Ape-language claims have provoked
some strongly skeptical responses and some failed attempts at repetition;
the most that's been claimed is "sentences" of 2 or 3 words.
[a lot of (metaphorical) squid-style squirted ink deleted...]
--
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: lesbianism is not a disease! (was: Re: Satire: Sorting Out Arc)
From: fx@iland.net (PageMaster)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 05:38:26 GMT
I am sorry to say that being a lesbian does not make you diseased. It
is just a bunch of women that eat pussy because they are the only ones
that truly know HOW IT IS DONE! This does not make you diseased!
This makes you a master at a job! And for your information, I laugh
all the time! In fact! I have made women laugh with joy after an
orgasm that I have given her! When is the last time you made a girl
laugh because you had sex with her? I'll bet I know!
Meri (Laughing Out Loud!)
snip
>thinking that as a lesbian bitch she can list off her psychological
>profile of me in scientific newsgroups).
snip
>(REFERENCE: This is a movie reference and not a lesbian snatch pun.)
snip
>However of course IMHO it is true I have never met
>a laugher who admits to lesbianism, nor a lesbian who laughs.
>Of course Xina might say that lesbianism isnt a mental disorder in need of counseling.
>Why they have educated themselves to become the very counselors
>of unhappy heterosexuals. Xina's list of psychotic behavior certainly
>wasnt found in 3 hours of psychological testing for a job. Wonder if she
>took the same test I did?
__________
\||/ / \
| @___oo / Brightest \
/\ /\ / (__,,,,| < |
) /^\) ^\/ _) \ Blessings!!!! |
) /^\/ _) \ /
) _ / / _) \_________/
/\ )/\/ || | )_)
< > |(,,) )__)
|| / \)___)\
| \____( )___) )__
\______(____;;; __;;;_________{From The Mote Of Meriamelle}__
Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: vidynath@math.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath K. Rao)
Date: 19 Nov 1996 11:22:07 GMT
In article ,
Joe Bernstein wrote:
>Um, yes, actually, the criterion described by Ms. Nemeth certainly has
>been applied. I've seen any number of references in stupid textbooks to a
>language's vocabulary size (word count, whatever you call it in
>linguistics) as a measure of its "sophistication". Not being a linguist,
>I haven't seen much by way of refutation.
Somebody in another thread has already beaten me to this. The point is
that defining a `word' is problamatic. So how do you count
vocabularies? [I think that the root subject of the said thread is
`Article', which is why I missed it. The ones I caught had subject line
like `Word' or `Definition of word'.]
To give examples just from English, are `stand' and `stood' different
words? What about `understand'? What about `stand-off'? If you know
`carry', `on' and `with', do you automatically know the meaning of
`carry on with'?
Let me switch to a language typical reader of this thread is unlikely
to know: are `gacchati' and `jagmuh' same word or different?
What about `avagacchati'? Are `avasaaya' and `avasaaya' same word or
different words?
The other thread I mentioned referred to Eskimo. Perhaps somebody who
knows that language can post a few examples to occupy the minds of
the word counters.
--
Vidhyanath Rao It is the man, not the method, that solves
nathrao+@osu.edu the problem. - Henri Poincare
(614)-366-9341 [as paraphrased by E. T. Bell]
Subject: Re: MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL (A human skull as old as coal!)
From: rg10003@cus.cam.ac.uk (R. Gaenssmantel)
Date: 19 Nov 1996 11:22:38 GMT
Janet Jubran (jubran@mailhost1.csusm.edu) wrote:
: Avoid it "The Man in the Ice". A lot of speculation. Not a lot of
: substance. I am waiting, eagerly, for something serious on the ice man.
I haven't tried it, but you might also find something under either Otzi or
Oetzi (spellt in German with an o-umlaut). That was the name given to the
ice man at the time - after the Oetztaler Alpen, where he was found (I think
hes received that name from media and scientists alike).
Ralf
: In article <328B5555.55B3@tnp.com>, paninaro@tnp.com wrote:
: > TJ wrote:
: > >
: > > Jukka Korpela wrote:
: > > >
: > > > edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) writes:
: > > >
: > > > > The WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT FOSSIL, unquestionably, is
: > > > > a petrified human skull embedded in a boulder which was discovered
: > > > > between anthracite veins in Carboniferous strata near Shenandoah, Pa.
: > > >
: > > > I suppose no-one is fool enough to take this kind of scrap seriously,
: > > > but just in case...: If this kind of "news" had any truth in them,
: > > > and especially if they were unquestionable, we would certainly have
: > > > read about them in reputable scientific magazines - which would really
: > > > struggle for the right to publish such revolutionary reports before
: > > > their competitors.
: > > >
: > > > Yucca
: > > Speaking of human remains...Remember the freeze-dried bronze-age man
: > > found in the Alps a few years back. PBS did a once over lightly special
: > > on him. I assume much of the research has been done, but where can I
: > > find an account of the 'findings' on this guy? Any good books out, or
: > > articles? With near-morbid fascination of the very old, tj
: >
: > i saw a book on it at a Barnes and Nobles bookstore in new York City.
: > One does exist.. i know that!
: >
: >
: > --
: > +---------------------------------------------------+
: > | -Pan- of Anthrox http://www.anthrox.com |
: > | Console Programming and Game Information Web Site |
: > +---------------------------------------------------+
--
