Subject: the cause of longevity getting short (969 down to 70)
From: Eliyah
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 11:21:07 +0000
Jim Scannell wrote:
> I find it very hard to believe anyone would try to convince people that
> Genesis is factual when it is written that the children of the first humans
> (Adam and Eve, whom God created in his own image and all that) went to a
> nearby town to find wives (Genesis, chapter 4). Now, how in the hell did
> they go to a nearby town to find wives if they were the only humans in
> existence? Were they all brothers and sisters (sons and daughters and
> grandchildren of Adam and Eve) or did God keep "creating" more humans
> besides Adam and Eve and it's just not mentioned in the bible? Creation was
> but a children's story. One even has to doubt the accuracy of the factual
> stuff also although it sounds good (the real history of the Jewish people).
> Realistically, wait until Exodus to take anything seriously as fact.
> Madison, Wisconsin
> mailto:scannell@concentric.net
> http://www.concentric.net/~scannell/win95/
CORRECTION: posted hundreds of times and still not read.
Adam had 33 sons and 23 daughters; one son died,
23 sons married their sisters, 9 sons married their neices.
They did not GO to another town; rather raised outside of Eden
one BUILT a town where he settled with his wife.
> Sean Fitzmorris wrote in article
> <32A92F77.885@ix.netcom.com>...
> > It does seem a tad ridiculous that lifespans should be so long. However
> > that is only ridiculous by OUR standars, for whom a normal human life
> > span is around 77 years. Consider for a minute, that the Bible's account
> > is accurate. It DOES in fact make distinctions between years and lunar
> > months. The pre-flood descendants of Adam would naturally be expected to
> > be nearer to being perfect human beings, as Adam was before he sinned.
> > Thus it would be expected that they would live longer than we do today,
> > as we have the imperfections of thousands of years of human existence
> > piled in our DNA. They did not. The Bile lists no one as living more
> > than a thousand years, which is to God "as one day", the same amount of
> > time Adam And Eve were given in which to live and die after thier sin in
> > Eden.
> > (Gen 2:17; 2 Peter 3:8). In view of this context it seems that the
> > Bible's history can be taken as factual.
CORRECTION: it is NOT logical to fabricate this claim of deteriation due to sin.
This implies that sins of eating shortened our lives, and sins of sex shortened our
lives, and sins of cleanliness shortened our lives, as they all accumulated
thru the world, and passed on genetically, accumulating in our genes.
Digital computer science proves that DNA is like digital information. It does
not merely deteriate as does anolog recordings. Digital phones sending
digital over radio waves do not deteriate as does analog. Nor does
Frequency Modulation suffer as Amplitude modualtion. So how is it our God
is to blame in a relgious view that genetics does not HEAL but accumulates
into a longical DISTANCE from perfection. This lie is from Satan. Dont believe it.
The Genesis record does NOT
support this at ALL unless you accept the false Samaritan/Septuagint Genesis
which added 600 years BEFORE the Flood and another 600-720 years AFTER the
Flood. But the true Hebrew Genesis of Moses says for 1656 yrs life
was over 900; then in 850 yrs it dropped to 70; and for 3500 yrs has remained there.
How is this a logical decline from perfection ! It's NOT. So speak out against it.
Radioactive carbon-14 increase and the contrast between C-14 dates
with the correct Bible chronology verify that the curve of C-14 correction to make
the Bible correct requires an increase of C-14 by 12 times from the 2370 BC Flood
onward. Not only do dates then come into alignment but so does the cause
of longevity poisoning. Man's lesson becomes learned, and God then dilutes
C-14 with burning petroleum fossil fuels and the volcanic Armageddon.
Longevity 900 is restored and man then still needs to learn WHAT to obey
to live forever. Does any scientist out there wish to live 900 years so he
can study how to TOTALLY avoid death? Jesus proved we ALL need
our sacrificing christ....so who will humbly lead as he did?
************
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: Re: Ancient South Asian Archaeology (2/2)
From: ajenk70571@aol.com
Date: 7 Dec 1996 17:32:45 GMT
Joe --
Thank you very much for this excellent pair of postings. I have a passing
interest in but know virtually nothing about South Asian archaeology
(like, I suspect, most readers of this newsgroup), but this summary will
form an excellent starting point if I ever get to the point where I have
the time to look at it deeper.
I have looked a little at the historical chronology and genealogy of the
Magadhan kings. Much to my surprise, I find that I am in a position to
contribute on one point that you made:
>>>>
VII. City states of North India and Pakistan at the time of the Buddha
(George Erdosy) - 24 pp.
In this chapter, the effort towards a short chronology gathers much
force. Erdosy accepts arguments from one Bechert that the Buddha's
mahaparinirvana really occurred in 368, not 486.
I shouldn't judge in ignorance, but this looks suspect to me on a few
grounds. First of all, I haven't seen Bechert's arguments yet, and always
found the date of 486 pretty persuasive! Beyond that, Erdosy makes light
of the very old stupas (he mentions Vaisali but not Sravasti and
Kapilavastu as being probably as old as the parinirvana), while I found
those site reports convincing.
>>>
I also haven't seen Bechert's analysis (and would appreciate the
reference) but I do have a series of papers by P H L Eggermont entitled
"New Notes on Asoka and his Successors" which appeared in various issues
of the journal Persica from issue II on. Despite the name, Part III in
particular (Persica V (1970-71) 69-102) is a detailed discussion of
pre-Maurya chronology, including the date of the Buddha. Through a dense
textual analysis of the material in the Dipavamsa, the Mahavamsa and the
Puranas, Eggermont concludes that the traditional Magadhan kinglist is
actually a conflation of two views of the same history in which the kings
were known by variant names, accordingly certain kings and dynasties such
as the Sisunagas should simply be removed from the record. His
conclusion is as follows (p75):
"The total amount of their years of rule [i.e. that of the reduced
pre-Maurya kings] show that 100 years elapsed from the time at which the
Buddha died until the year that Asoka was anointed. It proves that E. J.
Thomas was right when he ventured to propose that at a very early period
the Theravadin Buddhists of Ceylon made use of the same Buddhist era as
the Sarvastivadin and Mulasarvastivardin Buddhists in India. [italicised:]
The epoch of 368 BC was common to all the early Buddhists sects. The
epoch of 486 BC however is an innovation peculiar to the Theravadins.[end
italics]"
I do not have the expertise to assess the material underlying Eggermont's
thesis. I was very impressed by the logical structure, the consistency
and the apparent thoroughness of his analysis. The standard Puranic
account of the Sisunagas and the Nandas has always seemed vague and
unlikely, so there is a certain satifaction in bringing Bimbisara and
Ajatasatru and the Buddha to the period immediately preceding the rise of
the Mauryas. I have often wondered what the Indological community makes
of this work -- I have never seen reference to it appear in popular
studies of the period. From your mail it looks like at least some of them
take it very seriously.
Cheers,
Chris Bennett
Subject: "Chlorite vessels"
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:28:47
In article <58ae52$aqd@fridge-nf0.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
>Wouldn't you expect there to be some connection between the two
>largest clusters of artifacts with a difference in numbers of
>this magnitude (222)at tarut (114) at Tepe Yahya (40) at Susa?
>Wouldn't you expect that if the two sites were connected by a
>land route the distribution would decline as one got farther
>from the source?
>Why be obtuse. The chlorite vessels establish the trade route
>existed, indeed you now say you don't deny it existed, as early
>as the Chlorite culture. There is a decline in trade down the
>Gulf as the Kassites come to power, but the Kassite seals are
>found as far south as Oman so it must still have existed in
>some form.
>The source appears to be Tepe Yahya which has the chlorite
>and its principal point of distribution appears to be Tarut.
I am sorry to be obtuse, but this is all wrong. I did not deny anything,
I only questioned why you brought in these vessels, as you throw in everything
but the kitchen sink, into a discussion of two different language groups.
First of all, there is no such things as Chlorite Culture, in fact only about
85% of these mid-third millennium soft stone vessels are actually chlorite,
others are of other soft stone, and it is not indicative of any specific
culture, that is it does not correlate with the distribution of other
artifacts. More important, while there is a fascinating large distribution
of these elite artifacts (Baluchistan to Syria), there is no one source of the
material or one source of production. As usual, you have found one source and
linked everything to it by sea routes. This is simply incorrect. Tepe
Yahya in Iran is indeed next to a source and produced such vessels. They were
NOT, however, traded with the island of Tarut, on the other side of the Gulf,
not even to Mesopotamia, as far as we know. The scientific analysis of the
Tarut chlorite vessels shows that they were made out of stone from inland
Arabia, south-west of Riyadh (P. Kohl, et al, Archeometry 21 [1979]. This is
also the source for vessels found in Sumer and Mari and Falaika, so there was
this trade, but no evidence of any connection between Yahya and Tarut; the
source of more eastely finds of this type of vessel is not known to me. There
is no relationship between this and what happens in the Kassite period, when
other mechanisms are at work.
>I am suggesting trade across the Gulf c 2500-1800 BC between
>1.) (Ancient Dilmun) The sealands south from Mesopotamia
>along the Al Hasa including Failaka, Tarut, Bahrain, and Hofuf,
>possibly Quatar.
This is much more complicated than would appear. Falaika, for example, was
not apparently occupied until about 2000, and the fragments of chlorite bowls
found there are probably imports from Mesopotamia of broken vessels for reuse,
a few hundred years after they were originally produced, as argued by R.
Ciarla. Apparently, these vessels were no longer in fashion and their remains
were used to produce chlorite stamp seals in the second millennium. Artifacts
and materials often have a more complex history than these simple maps would
suggest.
>2.) (Makkan) Tepe Yahya across the straits of Hormuz to include
>Ras al Kaymah Oman.
There is absolutely no evidence that Yahya was ever connected with Magan. If
Magan was anything, it was Oman.
>3.) (Meluhha) Points beyond the straits: to
include Gedrosia,>the Indus Valley and the Rann of Kutch,and Lothal,
>By c 1000 BC connections via the Ganges to Tamluk and up the
>Amana to Burma and the Dong son drum culture. By c 500 BC to
>Ceylon and Indonesia.
By this time there is no eastern Meluhha...
Subject: Re: drop this Lesbenese thread
From: August Matthusen
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 10:27:48 -0800
Richard Schiller (posing once again as a netcop who
decides what a proper thread is) wrote:
>
> I was referring to the fact that a specific woman had joined HIM
> in attacking me by name, (address, city, work) info.
> And that their kind of heart and motive were the same.
> So can this thread be dropped.
Gee, Richard have I become so elevated that references to
me are in all caps?? Although you exhibit such reverence,
you still continue bearing false witness about me. I
never posted anything about your address or city (even though
you did write a note to my ISP threatening (??) to do that to me.
Everything about you that I wrote was from the silliness you
have spammed to the net. As I remember, you were the one
who posted your own name, address, city, work (at least place from
where you were fired), and phone number to usenet. Additionally,
any claim of knowing what is my (or anyone's) heart or motive
is pure speculation on your part; don't state it as fact.
Please stop lying about me.
> If all of you people could pin notes up on a store's public bulletin,
> would you really be posting all this *HI THERE*, ME AGAIN,
> HERE ABOUT SO AND SO. Let's chat. In fact you chat more
> trivia instead of topic. And, when going to a chat line, they say
> nothing more than HI as if time is so plentiful to log on just for that.
So what, those posts are still better than reading your tripe.
You seem to be the only one complaining about this type of
interaction while many people complain about you.
Regards,
August Matthusen
Subject: Re: Word Count in Proto-Afroasiatic, was Sanskrit: etc.
From: seagoat@primenet.com (John A. Halloran)
Date: 7 Dec 1996 12:53:07 -0700
In article alderson@netcom16.netcom.com (Richard M. Alderson III) writes:
>>Here is what Ehret says, "Reconstructed Afroasiatic roots normally appear in
>>either of two forms in the tabulations of this chapter: (a) in the case of
>>verb stems, as *-CVC(C)-, *-VC-, or *-CV-, with the initial and terminal
>>hyphens indicating the points of attachment of conjugational and derivational
>>affixes; and (b) as *CVC(C)- or sometimes *VC- or *C- in nominals, where the
>>hyphen denotes the point of attachment of the PAA suffixed terminal
>>vowels...."
>Yes, just as if he had written a dictionary of Latin in which he listed nouns
>by their stems, such as
> homin- "human being"
> viro- "man"
> mala:- "apple"
>These stem forms never appear as words in the language, although they underlie
>those forms which *do* appear. Therefore, they are not words.
Many of the verbal affixes appear to be later inventions in Proto-Afrasian.
In other words, they were not original to the language. Ehret says, "The
Omotic grouping, it is argued in Chapter 6, may have split off from the
ancestor language of the rest of Afroasiatic while this extensive body of verb
extensions was still being elaborated and, as a result, may never have
included many of these affixes." p. 28. The inclusion in Omotic of the PAA
word for "grindstone, millstone" dates the separation of the Omotic speakers
from PAA to after the cultivation of cereals. The earliest date for the
introduction of agriculture into Africa is 7500 BC. Speakers of Omotic live
in western Ethiopia.
The evidence of the extreme genetic distance between the Northeastern African
group speaking Afroasiatic and the rest of the African population makes it
clear that these speakers and their language came from the Near East.
Cavalli-Sforza et al. say "most Ethiopians come from an admixture in which a
slightly smaller fraction, of Caucasoid origin, may have come in part from
northeast Africa and in part from Arabia, but ultimately mostly from the
Middle East, considering that Neolithic Middle Eastern migrants must have
contributed in an important way to North African genes." The History and
Geography of Human Genes, abridged paperback, p. 174.
I tie Afroasiatic to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic B culture of Palestine because
Mellaart says that drier conditions caused all of these sites to be abandoned
by 6,000 B.C. C-14, which corresponds to the appearance of agricultural
pastoralists in North Africa.
Regards,
John Halloran
Subject: Re: puzzle of the negrito: isolated archaic populations
From: seagoat@primenet.com (John A. Halloran)
Date: 7 Dec 1996 12:29:03 -0700
In article <58a5sd$q52@news.sdd.hp.com> geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl) writes:
>Why are the negrito referred to as "australoid"? There seems to be solid
>grounds for viewing them as populations of longstanding separation.
Cavalli-Sforza was analyzing a group of people that others call "australoid"
on the basis of "superficial, anthroposcopic characters, skin color, hair or
body shape, and there is always the suspicion that they are the product of
convergence because of a common climate. Thus far genetic data have not
helped to recognize a relationship." The History and Geography of Human Genes,
p. 356. "They clearly show greater similarity to their neighbors in India or
Southeast Asia than to New Guineans or Australians." "The separation is
clearly too great and the gene flow from neighboring populations too important
to find a significant relationship with the present data by this method." ibid.
>I'm confused by the comparison of dravidian and australian genetics; surely
>these two peoples and the negrito must be viewed as branches of the human
>family tree which separated long ago? Can you explain why cavalli-sforza makes
>such a comparison?
Probably because others have sought to link "pre-Dravidian" people with the
"australoid" Negritos. On the same page referenced above he compares the
"Australoid" Kadar population of Kerala, India with Negritos in the
Phillipines and finds a very large distance between them. He studied the
Kadar because of the distance between them and other Indians. On p. 239, they
say, "The Kadar, a small tribal group (about 1000 individuals) in Kerala, is a
major outlier. This may be due to drift but is interesting because,
morphologically, the Kadar are considered an Australoid group in India.
Extreme types have some Negrito characters - that is, frizzy hair instead of
straight or wavy hair and especially dark skin - but is has been suggested
that some observed examples of frizzy hair are due to rare admixture with
Africans."
Regards,
John Halloran
Subject: Re: WELCOME TO OUR WORLD!
From: casanova@crosslink.net (Bob Casanova)
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 20:42:08 GMT
On 7 Dec 1996 15:36:11 GMT, in sci.anthropology.paleo,
edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
>
>julia wrote to alt.archaeology:
>
>>Greetings and Salutations!
>> My name is Julia and I love history. I am 15, and plan to do a PhD
>>in History at the Australian National University, might as well learn a
>>little now!! Just thought I'd introduce myself...
>
>>Smile everyone
>>Julia :)
Now Ed's attempting to subvert minors. Why am I not surprised.
>
>Goodness gracious, Julia, what a pretty smile!
>Welcome aboard!
>My name is Ed Conrad and I, too, have a fascination for history --
>really, really OLD history.
>
>The difference between me and most of the people you'll hear from --
>via postings to the pertinent scientific news groups -- is that I deal
>in facts and evidence.
"Evidence" only Ed accepts. That's called a "delusion", Julia.
>The vast majority of others have long dabbled in fantasy and fiction.
>I contend -- and have the proof -- that man existed on earth while
>coal was being formed.
Ed has no such proof, as experts who examined Ed's "evidence" have
pointed out. He has odd-shaped rocks and coal, no more.
That's a long, long time ago (at least 280
>million years ago, if science's geological dating is correct).
>
>My opponents cling to an erroneous theory that man evolved fromsmall
>small inhuman monkey-like primate -- called an insectivore -- that
>lived some 65 million years ago.
>And I say, IF man existed in almost his present form
>multi-multi-millions of years before the initial emergence of the
>insectivore, then common sense dictates that man certainly has no such
>ancestor.
This would be a true statement, if it didn't start with a false
premise. Which it does.
>
>It means my opponents have to come up with another explanation for
>man's existence eons upon eons earlier.
Not until there is evidence for such, which there isn't.
Obviously, one possibility is
>that we were created -- but they want no part of that.
>Therefore, without the type of answer they know they require to
>enhance their Godless position and shoot me down, they've gone
>bananas in their criticism of my discoveries.
Ed's "discoveries" are garbage. Watch out for charlatans, Julia. One
indicator is the "Everyone's trying to bury my discoveries, which only
I am competent to judge." syndrome.
>
>They can get pretty nasty, too. I've been called a moron, a loon, an
>imbicile -- and much, much worse.
Like liar, delusional. charlatan. Maybe not all true (Ed may actually
*believe* his garbage), but mostly correct descriptions of Ed's posts.
>They're demanding evidence -- a bushel basketful-- even though they
>themselves are fully aware that their adamant stance concerning man's
>evolution from the insectivore lacks a single shred of undisputed
>evidence.
How about rephrasing that as "...evidence undisputed by Ed Conrad and
other scientifically-ignorant creationists and similar charlatans, but
accepted by competent professionals."; that would seem a more correct
picture of the actual situation.
>
>I tell them that and they get angrier and angrier, but not one of them
>has put their cards (their evidence) on the table.
Plenty of evidence, but Ed doesn't have the education to understand
it. That's why you need a good education, Julia, so the charlatans
can't fool you.
>They can't do it because it simply doesn't exist.
Read this as "I don't understand it, so it doesn't exist.".
>
>The saddest part of this story, Julia, is that the scientific
>community -- eager to protect its erroneous theory -- has resorted to
>deceipt, dishonesty, collusion and conspiracy in an effort to deny my
>discoveries and my evidence.
>Sadly, some of them actually have tampered with the results of the
>evidence.
Here is Ed's conspiracy theory in full bloom, Julia. He can't accept
that his "evidence" is garbage, so someone must have tampered with it.
>
>For example, my discoveries of human bone (and soft organs!)
>between the coal seams in Northeastern Pennsylvania are petrified,
>which means they have been transformed to a rock-like appearance.
>
>Yet the Haversian canals, a telltale indicator of the cell structure
>of bone, still exist and can be seen under the microscope. But my
>opponents, the vast majority who have never examined *petrified* bone
>in their life, insist that it must precisely resemble the cell
>structure of bone that has not petrified.
No, they don't. They do, however, say that it does *not* resemble
petrified bone, and that Ed is mistaken. Of course, this is
unthinkable, so Ed imagines a conspiracy.
The balance of Ed's post is more of the same, so I'll only encourage
you to get a good education, and examine the evidence knowledgeably.
Good luck in your chosen field, and,once more, beware of the
charlatans, particularly those who feel persecuted by the scientific
"establishment".
>
>I keep telling them that only the Haversian canals remain from the
>complete Haversian systems because of the petrification process which
>has removed the visibility of the surrounding structure so it can no
>longer be seen -- but they don't want to hear it.
>Their unflinching denial -- this total lack of openmindedness -- is
>caused by the brainwashing job that has been so successfully
>accomplished over a period of many, many years.
>
>Those poor souls didn't DARE question what they were being taught
>because to have done so would've been considered a sacrilege. Then,
>after graduating and landing a nice job and eventually gaining access
>to substantial ancillary income, they soon realized that you don't
>dare make waves by asking questions in response to ridiculous answers.
>Quite simply, it is called protecting your vested interests.
>
>Oh, by the way, Julia, the static these individuals are giving me only
>matches the static that I have been tossing back. You'll find most of
>it by calling up talk.origins but some can also be found in the
>``sci"-related groups like sci.bio.paleontology and sci.anthropology.
>I put up with none of their gibberish, gobbledygook or nonsense.
>
>In conclusion, I'd like to emphasize that you'll NEVER find me
>thumping the Bible on your computer screen. I AM NOT a creationist, in
>the strictest sense of the word, and you'd be shocked to learn that
>even the creationist organizations worldwide are deathly afraid of me,
>along with the evolutionists.
>
>Now isn't THATsurprising? But it's true!
>
>I've been placed in a situation where, because of stringent opposition
>from BOTH sides, I'm not supposed to have a ghost of a chance at
>making any headway.
>
>Yet such monumental obstacles haven't seemed to phase me and
>certainly aren't stopping me. I just continue chugging along, eager to
>contribute something substantial to my fellow man.
>
>Finally, Julia -- over there in Australia -- I'd like to leave you
>with a very brief synopsis of what's been going on over here.
>
>I'll lete my late, dear friend tell you -- in his inimitable style --
>the way he once told me:
>
>> ``They know they have a skeleton
>> in their closet and they don't want
>> to open the door."
>> Clayton Lennon
>> (1900-1996)
> Cordially,
> Ed Conrad
> Shenandoah, Pa.
> (edconrad@ptdprolog.net)
>
>P.S. -- The truth can be found at
>http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm
>
>The fabrication (especially the sad, deplorable orchestrated effort
>to deny that my specimens are indeed petrified bone) can be found at
>http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/carbbones/carbbones.html
>
>
>
>
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
"No one's life, liberty or property is safe while
the legislature is in session." - Mark Twain
Subject: Re: Way to eliminate nutcases from newsfeed
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 11:16:10 -0800
Ed Conrad wrote:
>
> hegeman@wchat.on.ca (Toby Cockcroft) wrote:
>
> >In article <583um0$5cg@news.ptd.net>, edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) wrote:
> >>Hey, Dickover:
> >>Something tells me you're scared of the truth by playing ostrich and
> >>burying your head in the sand.
> >>Does Truth frighten you THAT much?
Actually, we would all prefer to have been created - to be eternally
and immutably perfect. At least the process of evolution could not
reverse directions towards degeneration of the human race, as it has
since the end of the stone-age, and the onset of agri-barbarism, oops,
I mean agri-culture.
But unfortunately for your theory of immutability, the processes
of degeneration, of lapsing into lower forms of life prove the
existence of evolutionary mechanisms in negative.
> >>Obviously, some other close-minded ``ostriches" will follow your
> >>advice and, personally, I couldn't care less.
Altho, you come across as an intelligent and fairly well educated
person, it seems to me that you like controversy for the sake of
turmoil alone.
> >>But I assure you there are countless others out there who ARE
> >>open-minded and have long felt that the scientific establishment
> >>certainly has not been honest and forthright in dealing with the
> >>question of man's origin and ancestry.
Where are they? Would one of this mass of Ed's creationism fans
please rise, so as to substantiate what seems as a trumped up claim?
> >>And I think they're rather pleased that they're finally tuned to the
> >>right channel where I'm calling a spade a spade..
> >The only reason that people have resorted to kill files is because of your
> >mindless drivel.
TO the contrary, your drivel is presented with maximum decor.
> >You don't like the results so you claim that the scientific community isn't
> >being forthright and honest . . . what a load of bullshit that is . . .
> >The truth has never frightened us and the only person who is close minded
> >here is yourself.
Objectively speaking, if the truth weren't scary, you would be
attempting to debunk my theories, instead of trying to beat up on
little kids like Ed. If you like to take up a real substantial
fight, go to http://www.lynx.bc.ca/~jirimruzek
> >The TRUTH is on our side while you have been stuck in Lamarkian science
> >others have progressed and made new discoveries and new inquiries to the
> >origins of humans and human nature.
> There is absolutely *NO* scientific evidence of ANY kind == not one
> soliltary shred == to back up the scientific establishment's
> contention that man evolved from the cat-size, monkey-like insectivore
> of 60-65 million years ago.
And so man devolved from the giant Big-Feet?
> There is *NO* evidence whatsoever that man had an inhuman ancestor.
>
> Meanwhile, the discovery of petrified human bones and petrified soft
> organs in strata muti-multi-millions of years older reflects the
> absurdity of clinging to a theory that isn't really worth the time of
> day.
A couple of photographs on your webpage is supposed to do all that?
Hmm, I find your scientific proof rather inconclusive. Rather, I feel
like you are begging, pleading, and so on, rather than using sharp
logic.
> The anthropological community, most certainly, has *NOT*
> dealt with the issue of human ancesry and origin and continues
> to be scared shoutless.
It saddens me to hear you think that they haven't tried. What about
the Origins by Darwin?
> > ``If you can't stand the heat,
> > stay the hell out of the kitchen."
Your half-cooked theories prove you don't like the kitchen much
yourself.
Jiri (a close relative of the Nasca Monkey)
If you don't believe in evolution, you can also eat monkey-meat
without compunctions.
Subject: ConradBot v1.0
From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: 7 Dec 1996 23:09:38 +0100
Since the ConradBot has been engaging in small-scale
(to 3 to 4 newsgroups) repostings of the same articles,
this article is being reposted to other groups spammed
by the ConradBot in an effort to fully identify the problem
and its most efficient solution.
Subject: ConradBot v1.0
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 14:53:16 -0500
From: pres@botsrus.com (SuperUser)
Organization: Bots R Us
Newsgroups: talk.origins, sci.bio.paleontology, sci.skeptic
We here at Bots R Us pride ourselves in providing the Usenet
community with quality bots to stimulate exciting discussion.
It has come to our attention that one of our bots has been
released before it was ready.
The program in question is ConradBot (most likely a pre-release
version of v1.0). It is most probably identifying itself as
one "Ed Conrad". It started life as a bad unix port of the old
Eliza program with all sorts of paranoid, anti-establishment,
conspiracy-minded rants. When we were getting ready to release
it, we found that certain subroutines which should have been
included with our PeeWeeBot were linked into the ConradBot. This
caused the program to loop, multiply-crossposting "I know you are
but what am I?"-type childish rants. We weren't planning to release
the program until this was fixed, but a copy made it out our door
with a disgruntled former employee who may have released it onto
Usenet.
So, please, if anybody in talk.origins, sci.bio.paleontology,
or sci.skeptic should see a posting by an "Ed Conrad", ignore it.
It's merely the mindless rants of a broken program. Ignore them
and the bot will stop posting after a few days.
I'm very sorry if this bot has caused any problems.
Sincerely,
Curtis M. Greenwald
President
Bots-R-Us
Subject: Re: White tribes of Olde America
From: dolmen1@ix.netcom.com(Leonard M. Keane)
Date: 7 Dec 1996 23:49:09 GMT
In <32ac19fd.61604289@betanews.demon.co.uk> dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk
(Douglas Weller) writes:
>
>On 6 Dec 1996 16:38:32 GMT, dolmen1@ix.netcom.com(Leonard M. Keane)
wrote:
>
>>In <32b9d14d.126653104@news.demon.co.uk> dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk
>>(Douglas Weller) writes:
>>>
>>>>>>(Douglas Weller) writes:
>>>>>>>What you call a central table, and has been referred to as a
>>>>>>sacrificial
>>>>>>>stone, can be found in other New England farming communites,
where
>>>>it
>>>>>>was used
>>>>>>>to produce soap.
>>>>>>>[SNIP]
>>>>
>>>>How many others exist? I have never seen another even remotely
>>>>resembling the bell-shaped table at Mystery Hill. - L.K.
>>>Let's check to see if we are talking about the same thing-- does it
>>have a
>>>groove a few inches inside the edges running parallel to them?
>>
>>Yes, The Mystery Hill table has a groove, such as you describe.
>>Distinguishing features of the Mystery Hill table are its rather
large
>>size and its shape. I have seen a few smaller grooved tables, always
>>perched, and in remote or difficult to reach places. - L.K.
>
>OK, there's one of these at the Farmer's Museum in western Mass,
described as
>a common artefact found in historical New England farming communities.
I've
>seen pictures of this and the Mystery Hill one, and they are virtually
>identical.
How does the one in the museum compare in size? If it is a "common"
artifact, why have the many researchers and owners of the Mystery Hill
site never asssociated them? The table is the "astronomical center" of
the site and once the woods were cut back also proved to be the optimum
viewing point to the Winter and Summer Solstice sunset stones. There
are at least ten placed stones associated with significan sun and moon
alignments visible from the table area. (See 'The Mystery Hill Story,
by Mark Feldman, 1977, p. 70 and Survey Map). - L.K.
>[SNIP]
>>The standing stones I have seen at Mystery Hill are clearly
artifacts. - L.K.
>Er, yes, but surely you know that's not what I mean? I mean the bits
and
>pieces humans leave behind, which are found on such sites all over the
world,
>and in fact were found at Mystery Hill, problem being they were all
18th/19th
When Goodwin was owner he may have inadvertently disposed of artifacts
he could not relate to his Culdee Monk theory. On the other hand,
whatever artifacts existing from the original builders would probably
depend on what the site was used for. If it was a sacred site we might
not expect usual household items, weapon points, etc. I have mentioned
the shaped "canine-head" stones I have personally found on the surface
at Mystery Hill and in various places throughout the country. - L.K.
>[SNIP]
>>>
>>>The point about associated artefacts is one that is sometimes
ignored.
>>If you
>>>have, for instance, stone structures, you will almost always find
>>associated
>>>artefacts.
>>
>>Agreed, but stone structures may have been used for centuries by many
>>different people. The odd stone walls at Mystery Hill have been
>>shown to have some astronomical features linked to the central
>>complex and the standing stones. These are all "artifacts". - L.K.
>
>You are still missing my point.
>Even the Early Sites Foundation, which controlled the site in the 50s,
hired
>an archaeologist to find the sort of thing I mean - evidence of the
people who
>built the structures -- and the archaeologist found 7000 artifacts,
all either
>prehistoric Indian dating to an occupation of the site before the
structures
>were built, or historical European from th 19th century.
You say "..the archaeologist found 7000 artifacts, all either
prehistoric Indian dating to an occupation of the site before the
structures were built.."
Oh, do you claim to know when the structures were built?? That's one
of the main objectives of all the researchers ever involved. Are not
what the archeologist found the likely artifacts to expect given the
known and likely occupation? - L.K.
Len.
Subject: Re: marianna- Hurrian or IE?
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 20:35:40
In article <32A99465.DBF@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> Saida writes:
snip
"Maryanna" could be the "Indo-Aryan"
>version of this.
>>
>> No, I am sorry, but it could not. We have various letters and personnel lists
>> with mention of marianna and none of them are
>"princes." These are simply > unrelated facts.
>Oh, yeah? Maybe, then, you can tell me Sir Alan Gardiner was
>fantasizing when he said in "Egypt of the Pharaohs":
>"More agreement has been reached about the term Maryannu mentioned a
>number of times on our stelae; this Indo-Iranian word indicates the
>highest rank of fighting men in the towns of Syria, those who were
>intrusted with chariots and horses of their own."
That was many moons ago. Of course, one can cite many such statements in the
literature, but they have nothing to do with the arguments presented in the
works I cited before, which were written more recently. Note, however, that
Gardiner already did not claim any aristocracy, but only called them fighting
men, much in line with what has been argued here.
>As for poor Newby, whom you have so prematurely maligned, I will
now >give you his source, which is surely the Memphis stela:
>"Now His majesty (the pharoah) proceeded on his chariot to Khashabu,
>alone and without a companion, and returned thence in a short time
>bringing sixteen living Maryannu at the side of his chariot, twenty
>hands at the foreheads of his horses and sixty cattle driven in front of
>him. (snip)
>Amount of this plunder: Maryannu 550; their wives, 240; Canaanites, 640;
>children of princes, 232; female children of princes, 323; female
>musicians of the princes of every land, etc.
Thanks for the reference. None of this in any way proves that m. were
"adventurers" who "became rulers." Nor does it in any way invalidate the fact
that the word is probably not IE and that they were not the "aristocracy."
Sorry, this really does not change anything; Mr N. made up his conclusions.
>Evidently, then, Gardiner is in agreement with me about the status of
>the Maryannu, and my analogy of "knight" was not too far off the mark.
>I put in the Egyptian "sr" as being a possible part of the etymology of
>the term "sir" as applied to the English knights. etc
That is not my cup of tea either, but I will leave such speculations to others/
Subject: Re: The Mystery of Pyramid
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 16:14:41 -0800
Jonathan Ferguson wrote in the month of October:
> Siah In Shin wrote:
> > WHAT ARE THE MYSTERY OF THE PYRAMID THAT ARE STILL UNEXPLAINED.
> > COULD SOMEBODY SEND ME SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE PYRAMID.
> > LIKE THE TOPIC OF THE APPLE WHICH PUT IN THE MODEL PYRAMID THAT
> > WILL REMAIN UNCHANGE.
> > MY FRIENDS AND I HAVE INTEREST TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT.
> > THANK YOU FOR ANY REPLY.
> I am wondering the same thing myself, but for different reasons.
You are? But you ignore the topic completely from here on.
> As an Honours
> Archaeology BA graduate now pursuing my MA,
Read as "your mental superior, and supreme authority of Big Uncle-hood".
> I have studied the pyramids among the rest
> of Egyptian culture (as well as Mesopotamian, Greek, Roman, etc.). The pyramids have
> been studied to practically the point of exhaustion
Read: he got tired out trying to cram the course materials into his head
before the exams". This fatigue was like reading ten issues of Penthouse
at once..
> and almost all questions have been answered.
Almost?! Meaning he got a couple of simple questions wrong on the test.
> And yet, the likes of Leonard Nimoy continue to prattle on with such trash as "Ancient
> Mysteries," "Mysteries of the Bible," et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. When will TV
> producers stop trying to confuse the public with so-called "mysteries" and start giving
> them answers? These programs cause as much misunderstanding of the past as they do
> understanding. Maybe the truth is too boring...
What a passionate speech. How about Passion off - Bring on some reason.
Or is reason too boring for the likes of you and Madelaine Albright?
> Forget eternally-sharp razors or never-rotting apples.
Why? Isn't that a perfect topic? Huh?
> If you want the truth about the
> pyramids, pick up a good book about ancient Egypt written for laymen by scholars in that
> field. I have handy "The World of the Pharaohs" by Christine Hobson, which covers the
> pyramids in Chapter 3, but others here may be able to suggest for you good popularist
> works dedicated entirely to the pyramids.
Ch. Hobson covers the pyramids in one chapter! I can just imagine
the shameless propaganda passed off for verified truth, and the two
words spent on the so far inexplicable pyramid-power phenomenon: "Pure
Bunk".
And you: do you think that the patent for a razorblade sharpening
pyramid
issued to Mr. Karel Drbal by the Czecho-Slovak patent office was not
approved
on a scientific basis ? Tell us honorably, how come?
Are the Czechs inferiors, whose sci. institutions are just a sham?
It seems that you imply exactly that..
I demand that you issue an official letter of apology to the Czech and
Slovak
scientific communities - presto.
Jiri Mruzek http://www.lynx.bc.ca/~jirimruzek
**************
You've got all the answers wrong on my test!
Subject: Re: marianna- Hurrian or IE?
From: Saida
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 18:50:18 -0600
Piotr Michalowski wrote:
>
> In article <32A99465.DBF@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> Saida writes:
> snip
> "Maryanna" could be the "Indo-Aryan"
> >version of this.
> >>
> >> No, I am sorry, but it could not. We have various letters and personnel lists
> >> with mention of marianna and none of them are
> >"princes." These are simply > unrelated facts.
>
> >Oh, yeah? Maybe, then, you can tell me Sir Alan Gardiner was
> >fantasizing when he said in "Egypt of the Pharaohs":
>
> >"More agreement has been reached about the term Maryannu mentioned a
> >number of times on our stelae; this Indo-Iranian word indicates the
> >highest rank of fighting men in the towns of Syria, those who were
> >intrusted with chariots and horses of their own."
>
> That was many moons ago. Of course, one can cite many such statements in the > literature, but they have nothing to do with the arguments
presented in the > works I cited before, which were written more
recently. Note, however, that > Gardiner already did not claim any
aristocracy, but only called them fighting > men, much in line with what
has been argued here.
That depends upon what you mean by "aristocracy". The ancients did not
have an "Almanache de Gotha" and (I would guess) as complicated a
pyramid of titles as Europeans. I don't have to tell you, Piotyr, that
the term "prince" in the ancient east did not always mean what it does
in European countries. For example, I mentioned the Hebrew word "sar",
which I have long taken for granted meant "prince", although I did not
know whether it meant king's son or exactly what. However, when I
looked in my Hebrew dictionary, this is what there was: "minister,
chief, ruler". This seems to correspond to the range of meanings of the
Egyptian "sr".
>
> >As for poor Newby, whom you have so prematurely maligned, I will
> now >give you his source, which is surely the Memphis stela:
>
> >"Now His majesty (the pharoah) proceeded on his chariot to Khashabu,
> >alone and without a companion, and returned thence in a short time
> >bringing sixteen living Maryannu at the side of his chariot, twenty
> >hands at the foreheads of his horses and sixty cattle driven in front of > >him. (snip)
> >Amount of this plunder: Maryannu 550; their wives, 240; Canaanites, 640;
> >children of princes, 232; female children of princes, 323; female
> >musicians of the princes of every land, etc.
>
> Thanks for the reference. None of this in any way proves that m. were
> "adventurers" who "became rulers." Nor does it in any way invalidate the fact > that the word is probably not IE and that they were not the
"aristocracy."
> Sorry, this really does not change anything; Mr N. made up his conclusions.
Well, he referred only to one Drusha, about whom he possibly had more
information that warranted calling him "maryanna".
>
> >Evidently, then, Gardiner is in agreement with me about the status of
> >the Maryannu, and my analogy of "knight" was not too far off the mark.
> >I put in the Egyptian "sr" as being a possible part of the etymology of
> >the term "sir" as applied to the English knights. etc
>
> That is not my cup of tea either, but I will leave such speculations to others/
Still, you have to admit the possibly that, the maryannu, if not rulers
or "princes" might be a type of "knights", as I said, and certainly
"aristocrats" in terms of being special in their valuable capacity.
Subject: Re: Dating the Giza Pyramids: Was Re: Pyramid "Ventilation" Shaft
From: Rodney Small
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 21:58:00 -0800
Benjamin H. Diebold wrote:
>
> Rodney Small (rsmall@erols.com) wrote:
> [snip]
> : It's not clear that the Radiocarbon Dating Project was conclusive. If it
> : is accepted as such, it poses problems for the conventional wisdom
> : because the radiocarbon dates were earlier for the Great Pyramid than the
> : Step Pyramid.
>
> While it may be true that the results of the dating project pose some
> difficulties (probably related to contamination of the samples), it
> also seems clear that those results render the chances for a 10,500
> timeline for the pyramids statistically indiscernable. Contamination tends
> to artificially *age* samples by adding excess carbon. I don't know of any
> circumstances where contamination increases the decay rate or removes
> c14. Therefore, the dates cannot be older than suggested by the dating
> project (which is mid 3rd millenium), and may well be younger.
>
> Ben
I think you're overlooking the possibility that an astrophysical event or
a volcanic eruption in ancient (prior to the construction of the Great
Pyramid) times could have enriched the atmosphere with C-14. If that
were the case, ancient mortar would date much younger than it really is.
Also, it is possible that the samples used in the radiocarbon project
were not original Great Pyramid construction, but later reconstructive
work. Finally, you didn't address my main point -- namely, that the
Great Pyramid dated earlier than the Step Pyramid. While it may have
been that there was greater contamination in the Great Pyramid samples
than the Step Pyramid samples, falsely shifting the Great Pyramid dates
to earlier than the Step Pyramid dates, this is only speculation. I
would think if Egyptologists were interested in sorting this issue out,
they would encourage carbon dating of additional pyramid samples, but I
don't detect a great deal of enthusiasm for this project.
Subject: Needs Help
From: wh@accent.net
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 21:25:07 -0500
Aboriginal Foster Famiy Association of Montreal
Mission Statement:
To serve Aboriginal people by developing and promoting an Aboriginal
holistic service that would enhance the overall quality
of life and well being for children and their families when they are in
difficulty. This program would ensure the caring and
healing of our children and families in the Montreal Aboriginal
Community.
Objectives:
A service model that is culturally based, respecting the holistic
values of Aboriginal people,
the extended family, and the right to self determination, in all
aspects of life.
Creation and maintenance of a culturally appropriate agency of
service for Aboriginal individuals and families.
Evolution of an integrated network of effective programs and
positive relationships between agencies, for a more
caring and sensitive support service enviornment.
Guaranteed delivery of culturally relevant support services and
resources for child and family care, healing and
rehabilitation.
Roles and Responsibilities:
To sensitize Aboriginal people to the acute need for Aboriginal
foster homes.
To promote a recruitment process which will enhance commitment
from the Aboriginal community to foster
Aboriginal children.
To act as resource and avocate, and to mediate between Aboriginal
people and existing agencies.
The Aboriginal Foster Family Association of Montreal would like to
provide the following services:
Casework, which would include counselling, information, referral, family
mediation, advocacy, one to one interventions,
support to families within the youth protection jurisdiction.
A Customary Care Program for a child that needs to be living away from
their family. The worker would stay within the
extended family, a relative, or the Aboriginal community at large.
This group of volunteers have been working steadily since October 1995,
and in order for this group to attain these goals we
require a few necessities. If anyone is able to assist us with any
donations, we would be eternally grateful and be able to
furnish tax deductible receipts upon request.
Basic office supplies ( staples, pens, etc,) stationary ( paper,
envelopes, etc.),and equipment such as computers,
printers, fax, photocopiers, etc.
1000 of our pamphlets printed.
Basic phone service along with answering machine.
The costs to cover incorporation, etc.
Please help us to grow and develop into a healthy and distinct body
representing the Urban Aboriginal Community.
Thank You, Meegwetch, Nia:wen, Nakomie, etc.
Please send donations or write us at:
P.O. Box 446
Kahnawake, Quebec (Canada)
J0L 1B0
Subject: Re>Egyptian Concrete Theory
From: jd20@calvacom.fr (F. Davidovits)
Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 21:11:04 -0600
clastic@metronet.com wrote> As a sedimentary geologist who has visited the great pyramids on several> occassions and examined the stones in the quaries AND in the pyramids, I> can unequivocably state that the "concrete" idea is nonsense. > > The stones are roughly cut, NOT molded, they have cross bedding structures> and fossil shell "hash" layers exactly like the stone in place in the> adjacent quarries, the stones are filled with large and small fossils in> LIFE positions, not in random orientation. And finally I have seen> geologically prepared thin-sections of these stones and they are without a> doubt composed of calcium carbonate... calcite...and NOT laced with some> polymer, natron or whatever. > > Davidovitts and Morris are not geologists, have not applied geologic tests> to the stones and have continued to ignore a blizzard of geological> rebuttal world-wide> > Cheers.........> > Dr. Clair R. Ossian It is flagrantly obvious that so-called serious experts who are contradicting the concrete theory have not read the book "The pyramids: an enygma solved". On page 99, on figure 19, it is written, I quote: "Davidovits examines transition between bedrock and pyramid blocks.(A) Fossil shells correspond to the natural sedimentary layering in the bedrock portion of the base. (B) Pyramid blocks cast on bedrock have well-fitted joints. In lighter top portion jumbled and broken fossil shells are visible. (C) Separation beween bedrock and pyramid blocks." The bottom line in Davidovits' concrete theory is that the concrete blocks are made of 95% of natural fossil shells, which are jumbled. This has been clearly shown by Davidovits in the NOVA film "The old pyramid" aired by PBS some years ago. Dr. Davidovits is member of the International Association of Egyptologists since 1979. There is a French proverb that claims "La critique est facile, mais l'art est difficile."Regards, -- F. Davidovits
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Subject: Re: Word Count in Proto-Afroasiatic, was Sanskrit: etc.
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 04:05:49 GMT
whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>In article , seagoat@primenet.com} says...
>>
>>In article <588rsv$cj9@halley.pi.net> mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
>writes:
>>...snip...
>>> And this was, at the very least, around 8,000 BC...
>>
>>Actually, PAA has words for 'bull, ox' #813/1005 and 'cow; cattle' #888
>which
>>are hard to reconcile with such an early date. If the homeland was not PPNB
>>Palestine, which broke up by 6,000 B.C. C-14, where would you put the
>>homeland? What date do you find for the introduction of sheep, goats, and
>>cows into North Africa?
>Zarins puts the domestication of cattle in Africa c 7,500 BC and
>in northern Arabia shortly thereafter. 8,000 BC is too early for
>cattle, but perhaps not too early for sheep and goats.
And it's never too early for wild sheep, goats and cattle. Why change
the name of the animal just because you're breeding it instead of
hunting it?
The only case I'm aware of where the name was almost universally changed
was wolf > dog, where the animal went from "enemy" to "man's best
friend". A name change was in order. Nothing of the sort applies to
cattle, sheep and goats.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 04:05:57 GMT
whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>In article <58bq7r$lj6@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>>
>>whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) wrote:
>>
>>>I don't see Dravidian as either Indo-Aryan or Indus Valley but rather
>>>an area in between the two (ancient Ge drosia)
>>
>>So how do you account for Dravidian in Southern India?
>I don't think there is anybody in southern India in the 2nd and
>3rd milleniums BC. Dravidian shows up in southern India after
>Alexander and his fleet enter the India Ocean.
How did they get there if they came from somewhere in Iran?
>>The most likely explanation is an early expansion of agricultural
>>peoples from Elam across Iran to India.
>Why is it likely that agricultural peoples would expand across two
>of the most arid and inhospitable deserts on earth, the Dasht-e Kavir
>and the Dasht-e Lut the one folloewing on the heels of the other at
>a time when Elam doesn't even exist?
"The Indo-Iranian borderlands [Baluchistan] form the eastern extension
of the Iranian Plateau and, from many points of view, mirror the
environmanet of the Fertile Crescent [...] in the Midlle East. Across
the plateau, lines of communication existed from very early times, and
throughout the whole area it is to be expected that settled life with
agriculture and domestication of animals would have spread, once
developed, without undie delay. Yet the eastern portions are still less
well-known than their western counterparts, and to date the earliest
radiocarbon date in Baluchistan is not much older than 3500 BC. It is
evident, however, that settlements of some kind had existed for a
considerable period prior to that time". [Allchin, in EB]
In post-Glacial times the climate was not as arid in Iran as it is now.
Furthernore, the groups that crossed from Elam to India were primarily
pastoralist, switching the focus back to agriculture when they reached
the Indus Valley. It is not unlikely that the present extension of the
Dasht-e-Lut, and the desertification of Central Iran are partially the
responsibility of man (goat, actually).
>>>I have no clue why Mallory choses to place Dravidian in the Dekkan
>>>which was essentially uninhabited for another four millenia after
>>>proto elamite came and went.
>>
>>The first (Dravidian) Neolithic culture of the Deccan was 3rd
>>millennium, contemporary with Elam and Harappa. They had lost of cows
>Have you a cite for this?
"The second main area in which stone axes have been discovered is
located in Karna:taka and in Andhra Pradesh. In the northern parts of
Karna:taka the nucleus from which stone-axe using pastoralists spread to
many parts of the southern peninsula has been located. The earliest
radiocarbon dates obtained for this area are from ash mounds formed by
the burning on these sites of great masses of cow dung inside cattle
pens. These indicate that tye first settlers were semi-nomadic and that
they had large herds of zebu cattle. The earliest known settlements
date to c. 2400 BC. [...] Other settlements have been excavated in
recent years in this region, but so far they have produced only dates
from the 2nd millennium, suggesting that the culture continued with
little change for many centuries." [Allchin, EB]
>>What the map shows are the relative locations of the modern Dravidian
>>languages with respect to the ancient Elamite and Indus Valley
>>Civilization. Of course the main body of Dravidian is placed in the
>>Deccan. That's where it is.
>That's where it is when?
Can't you read English? "is" is a present tense form.
>During the period of the hypothetical
>proto-elamite language prior to the 5th milleniumm BC, what
>Dravidian city in the Dekkan would you care to cite as an
>example of this culture? Cities appeared in the Dekkan plateau
>only around c 100 AD.
What Bantu city from the first centuries AD can you give as evidence
that Bantu pastoralists (cattle) and farmers migrated all over Central,
Eastern and Southern Africa? They did.
Your fixation with cities and trade makes you completely blind to the
obvious archaeological and linguistic connections that went on before
and during the age of urbanization. If you can't comprehend that the
people with the large herds of zebu cattle that Allchin describes must
have been Dravidian speaking, given their date and their distribution,
and the fact that they were the first sizeable population of the Deccan,
just because they had no cities, then I don't know what else to say.
They did build cities, and did found states, in the long run, you just
have to give them time. They were a couple of pastoralist tribes in the
3rd mill. BC, just a few thousand strong, not 150 million like they are
now, but that's a question of time as well.
>>The linguistic evidence is that Elamite is very likely related
>>to Dravidian, and in particular with the modern northern outlier Brahui.
>And as we have seen, that doesn't fly either.
[I am suppressing my original reaction here (which contained the word
"fuck"), in order to refer everyone to Piotr Michalowski's reply in
another article nearby]
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: White tribes of Olde America
From: dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller)
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 09:09:16 GMT
On 7 Dec 1996 23:49:09 GMT, dolmen1@ix.netcom.com(Leonard M. Keane) wrote:
>In <32ac19fd.61604289@betanews.demon.co.uk> dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk
>(Douglas Weller) writes:
>>
>>OK, there's one of these at the Farmer's Museum in western Mass,
>described as
>>a common artefact found in historical New England farming communities.
>I've
>>seen pictures of this and the Mystery Hill one, and they are virtually
>>identical.
>
>
>How does the one in the museum compare in size?
Looks like about the same size to me.
If it is a "common"
>artifact, why have the many researchers and owners of the Mystery Hill
>site never asssociated them?
Some of the researchers certainly have, it's just that they are the ones that
don't see Mystery Hill as prehistoric. The owners, well, they do have a vested
interest.
The table is the "astronomical center" of
>the site
But it isn't necessarily in it's original position.
>>>The standing stones I have seen at Mystery Hill are clearly
>artifacts. - L.K.
>>Er, yes, but surely you know that's not what I mean? I mean the bits
>and
>>pieces humans leave behind, which are found on such sites all over the
>world,
>>and in fact were found at Mystery Hill, problem being they were all
>18th/19th
>
>When Goodwin was owner he may have inadvertently disposed of artifacts
>he could not relate to his Culdee Monk theory. On the other hand,
>whatever artifacts existing from the original builders would probably
>depend on what the site was used for. If it was a sacred site we might
>not expect usual household items, weapon points, etc. I have mentioned
>the shaped "canine-head" stones I have personally found on the surface
>at Mystery Hill and in various places throughout the country. - L.K.
No, you find small artefacts at similar sites in other countries, and
artefacts were found at Mystery Hill, as I said -- broken tools, food remains,
burials, etc. Sorry, but this isn't a trivial point and can't be explained
away by saying it was a sacred site.
>
>You say "..the archaeologist found 7000 artifacts, all either
>prehistoric Indian dating to an occupation of the site before the
>structures were built.."
>Oh, do you claim to know when the structures were built?? That's one
>of the main objectives of all the researchers ever involved. Are not
>what the archeologist found the likely artifacts to expect given the
>known and likely occupation? - L.
Sorry, when the structures were probably built.
What known and likely occupation are you talking about, by the way? And
remember some of these artefacts were found inside one of the walls.
Have you read Neudorfer's 1980 survey?
Subject: Re: ConradBot v1.0
From: edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
Date: 8 Dec 1996 07:42:10 GMT
nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
>Since the ConradBot has been engaging in small-scale
>(to 3 to 4 newsgroups) repostings of the same articles,
>this article is being reposted to other groups spammed
>by the ConradBot in an effort to fully identify the problem
>and its most efficient solution.
>Subject: ConradBot v1.0
>Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 14:53:16 -0500
>From: pres@botsrus.com (SuperUser)
>Organization: Bots R Us
>Newsgroups: talk.origins, sci.bio.paleontology, sci.skeptic
>We here at Bots R Us pride ourselves in providing the Usenet
>community with quality bots to stimulate exciting discussion.
>It has come to our attention that one of our bots has been
>released before it was ready.
>The program in question is ConradBot (most likely a pre-release
>version of v1.0). It is most probably identifying itself as
>one "Ed Conrad". It started life as a bad unix port of the old
>Eliza program with all sorts of paranoid, anti-establishment,
>conspiracy-minded rants. When we were getting ready to release
>it, we found that certain subroutines which should have been
>included with our PeeWeeBot were linked into the ConradBot. This
>caused the program to loop, multiply-crossposting "I know you are
>but what am I?"-type childish rants. We weren't planning to release
>the program until this was fixed, but a copy made it out our door
>with a disgruntled former employee who may have released it onto
>Usenet.
>So, please, if anybody in talk.origins, sci.bio.paleontology,
>or sci.skeptic should see a posting by an "Ed Conrad", ignore it.
>It's merely the mindless rants of a broken program. Ignore them
>and the bot will stop posting after a few days.
>I'm very sorry if this bot has caused any problems.
>Sincerely,
>Curtis M. Greenwald
>President
>Bots-R-Us
clickkkkkk dlllickkkk clllliiiickkkk clickc clikckcic ckcil cklkl
123455667678999900012234456789012334455678990
xxxx#####33333@@@@22========0007&&&&^6
enter data enter data enter data entrer data.....
ENTRY MISUNDERSTOOD
ENTRY MISUNDERSTOOD
ENTRY MISUNDERSTOOD...
...
wH0987654321. CoNRADbOT v1.0, 12-8-1996 LSTD4-44-13241
///////////
A-OK. A-OK. A-OK
ENTER DATA. HOOKUP COMPLETE...
0987654321 abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
!@#$%^&*()_+|
all keys functional
esdfeProblem Recitified.
repeat PROBLEM RECTIFIED...
Back to Bot R Us base (Controller 34-44-237)
> SHOULD I TEST RUN FOR CONFIRMATION?
>>>> Yes. But make damn sure all screws tightened!!
Roger!
OaESE....
Begin New Feed////correction-mode
Bots R Us -- ConradBot v1.0 ConradBot v1.0 ConradBot v1.0
XX9m-1212-EC (12-14-917, 12-8-96
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
DANGLEWIRE LOOSE. TIGHTENED. SODERED. WORKING FINE NOW. COMPUTER BRAIN
CONNECTION AIRBRUSHED. GOOD WORKING ORDER. NONSENSE DISK DISCONNECTED.
REPLACED SARCASTIC RESPONSE MODE. SUB WITH GOOD MANORS & COURTESY
DISK.
CONRAD BOT APPARENTLY A-OK.
> FULL SERVICE RESTORED
RESUME OPERATION WITH CAUTION.
TEST RUN
TEST RUN
TEST RUN
...hI
hi...
hI
Hi:
My name is Ed ConradDDD.
> RESTART 0987654321 0987654321 (EC-1-913-231-674)
hI
hI.
Hi. My name is Ed Conrad. I am really ConradBot v1.0. I believe in
evolution. We all came from monkeys. We used to swing on trees.
Columbus was Italian. There are no vested interests. Science is not
corrupt. Andrew MacRae is a nice guy. David Pilbeam is not a horse's
ass. Paul Myers is right. Ted Holden is wrong. I have discovered
concretions. Anthropologists are honest. The sky is blue. Velikovsky
is wrong. Carl Sagan is not an egomaniac. Science has all the answers.
Henry Barwood's brain is not a siderite nodule. Politicians are
honest. Fat ladies have the best voices....
> SURE LOOKS GOOD TO ME, MR. GREENWALD.
> SHOULD I STILL BRING HIM BACK TO THE FACTORY?
Subject: Re: ConradBot v1.0
From: edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
Date: 8 Dec 1996 09:03:22 GMT
nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) wrote:
>Since the ConradBot has been engaging in small-scale
>(to 3 to 4 newsgroups) repostings of the same articles,
>this article is being reposted to other groups spammed
>by the ConradBot in an effort to fully identify the problem
>and its most efficient solution.
>Subject: ConradBot v1.0
>Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 14:53:16 -0500
>From: pres@botsrus.com (SuperUser)
>Organization: Bots R Us
>Newsgroups: talk.origins, sci.bio.paleontology, sci.skeptic
>We here at Bots R Us pride ourselves in providing the Usenet
>community with quality bots to stimulate exciting discussion.
>It has come to our attention that one of our bots has been
>released before it was ready.
>The program in question is ConradBot (most likely a pre-release
>version of v1.0). It is most probably identifying itself as
>one "Ed Conrad". It started life as a bad unix port of the old
>Eliza program with all sorts of paranoid, anti-establishment,
>conspiracy-minded rants. When we were getting ready to release
>it, we found that certain subroutines which should have been
>included with our PeeWeeBot were linked into the ConradBot. This
>caused the program to loop, multiply-crossposting "I know you are
>but what am I?"-type childish rants. We weren't planning to release
>the program until this was fixed, but a copy made it out our door
>with a disgruntled former employee who may have released it onto
>Usenet.
>So, please, if anybody in talk.origins, sci.bio.paleontology,
>or sci.skeptic should see a posting by an "Ed Conrad", ignore it.
>It's merely the mindless rants of a broken program. Ignore them
>and the bot will stop posting after a few days.
>I'm very sorry if this bot has caused any problems.
>Sincerely,
>Curtis M. Greenwald
>President
>Bots-R-Us
clickkkkkk dlllickkkk clllliiiickkkk clickc clikckcic ckcil cklkl
123455667678999900012234456789012334455678990
xxxx#####33333@@@@22========0007&&&&^6
enter data enter data enter data entrer data.....
ENTRY MISUNDERSTOOD
ENTRY MISUNDERSTOOD
ENTRY MISUNDERSTOOD...
...
wH0987654321. CoNRADbOT v1.0, 12-8-1996 LSTD4-44-13241
///////////
A-OK. A-OK. A-OK
ENTER DATA. HOOKUP COMPLETE...
0987654321 abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
!@#$%^&*()_+|
all keys functional
esdfeProblem Recitified.
repeat PROBLEM RECTIFIED...
Back to Bot R Us base (Controller 34-44-237)
> SHOULD I TEST RUN FOR CONFIRMATION?
>>>> Yes. But make damn sure all screws tightened!!
Roger!
OaESE....
Begin New Feed////correction-mode
Bots R Us -- ConradBot v1.0 ConradBot v1.0 ConradBot v1.0
XX9m-1212-EC (12-14-917, 12-8-96
..........................................................................................................................................................................................................
DANGLEWIRE LOOSE. TIGHTENED. SODERED. WORKING FINE NOW. COMPUTER BRAIN
CONNECTION AIRBRUSHED. GOOD WORKING ORDER. NONSENSE DISK DISCONNECTED.
REPLACED SARCASTIC RESPONSE MODE. SUB WITH GOOD MANORS & COURTESY
DISK.
CONRAD BOT APPARENTLY A-OK.
> FULL SERVICE RESTORED
RESUME OPERATION WITH CAUTION.
TEST RUN
TEST RUN
TEST RUN
...hI
hi...
hI
Hi:
My name is Ed ConradDDD.
> RESTART 0987654321 0987654321 (EC-1-913-231-674)
hI
hI.
Hi. My name is Ed Conrad. I am really ConradBot v1.0. I believe in
evolution. We all came from monkeys. We used to swing on trees.
Columbus was Italian. There are no vested interests. Science is not
corrupt. Andrew MacRae is a nice guy. David Pilbeam is not a horse's
ass. Paul Myers is right. Ted Holden is wrong. I have discovered
concretions. Anthropologists are honest. The sky is blue. Velikovsky
is wrong. Carl Sagan is not an egomaniac. Science has all the answers.
Henry Barwood's brain is not a siderite nodule. Politicians are
honest. Fat ladies have the best voices....
> SURE LOOKS GOOD TO ME, MR. GREENWALD.
> SHOULD I STILL BRING HIM BACK TO THE FACTORY?
