Subject: Re: Understanding Creationists
From: heinrich@intersurf.com (Paul V. Heinrich)
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 22:47:30 -0600
In article <590gnk$d4r@agate.berkeley.edu>,
bmw@uclink2.berkeley.edu (Ben Waggoner) wrote:
...material omitted.....
> Now this applies to C*nr*d quite well. He just does it without
> letting the Bible back him up. But even then, it's not his
> beliefs that are particularly annoying -- it's the fact
> that his personality on the Usenet is more grating than
> a double-sided sandpaper condom, pardon the expression.
For better or worse, the First Amendment protects even C*nr*d's
rude, crude, and obnoxious speech. It could be worse, in Louisiana,
we have to put with the even ruder, cruder, and more obnoxious
demogogery of people such as David Duke and his fellow travelers.
In C*nr*d's case, he can safely, for the most part, just be
ignored.
Sincerely,
Paul V. Heinrich All comments are the
heinrich@intersurf.com personal opinion of the writer and
Baton Rouge, LA do not constitute policy and/or
opinion of government or corporate
entities. This includes my employer.
"To persons uninstructed in natural history, their country
or seaside stroll is a walk through a gallery filled with
wonderful works of art, nine-tenths of which have their faces
turned to the wall."
- T. H. Huxley
Subject: Ancient World on Television (North America)-12/16-22/96
From: "Paul E. Pettennude"
Date: 16 Dec 1996 04:40:58 GMT
The Ancient World on Television (North America)
December 16 - 22
Compiled from Various Sources
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The complete listings for the month are also available on the www at:
http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~classics/awotv.htm
Be sure to check out McMaster's website while you're there!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Next Installment on or about December 22
---------------------------------------------------------------------
***Monday, December 16
7.00 a.m. A&E; Classroom Who Wrote the Bible?
Part three of a three part series which explores the question in the title.
9.00 a.m. DISCU Assignment Discovery Episode 106
A look at various attempts, including Egyptian, to figure out the
circumference of the earth. Halley's comet also figures.
8.00 p.m. PBS National Geographic Egypt: Quest for Eternity
The building projects of Ramesses II and the efforts to save them.
9.00 p.m. TLC Passion of the Saints Martyrs
Stephen starts a trend ...
10.00 p.m. DISCC Secret Worlds Atlantis: Mystery of the
Minoans
A standard look at the discovery of Knossos and its supposed links with
Plato's lost continent
***Tuesday, December 17
9.00 p.m. TLC Passion of the Saints Hermits, Monks, and Madmen
>From the official description: "Christians began experimenting with
extremes
of self-denial as new ways to sanctity". We now call this graduate school
...
***Wednesday, December 18
9.00 p.m. TLC Passion of the Saints Mystics and Miracles
The miracles ascribed to assorted saints are put to the test by assorted
scientists
***Thursday, December 19
9.00 p.m. A&E; Ancient Mysteries Sacred Rites and Rituals
A 'premiere' of a show which focuses on the coming of age rituals -- most
of
which seem to be very painful -- which young men undergo in numerous
cultures
9.00 p.m. TLC Passion of the Saints The Road to Sainthood
A look at the process by which people have been declared saints in the
past,
and how the Vatican determines who are saints now
10.00 p.m. A&E; Mysteries of the Bible Jesus: Holy Child
The debate over when and where Jesus was *really* born
***Friday, December 20
9.00 p.m. TLC Passion of the Saints An Empire Conquered
An *excellent* program on the persecution of Christians in Rome and their
role in the Empire's 'downfall'
Saturday, December 21
6.00 p.m. TLC TLC Presents Christmas Star
Repeat of last Sunday's programme.
7.00 p.m. A&E; Mysteries of the Bible The Last Supper
The scholarly debate over the significance of Jesus' last symposium with
his
disciples
***Sunday, December 22
6.30 p.m. DISCU Terra X The Red Sea
A look at the archaeological evidence for various miracles associated with
the Exodus
7.00 p.m. A&E; Ancient Mysteries Temples of Eternity
A documentary about the temples at Luxor and Karnak "the site of anicent
Egyptian secret societies, priests, scholars, and scribes" hmmmmmmmmm ....
9.00 p.m. TLC TLCPresents Ancient Prophecies I
Not really ancient history, but assorted ancient prophecies predicting doom
in the year 2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel Guide
A&E; The Arts and Entertainment Channel (cable)
BRAVO Bravo! A New Style Arts Channel (Canadian cable)
DISCU Discovery Channel (U.S. Cable)
DISCC Discovery Channel (Canadian Cable)
FAM The Family Channel (pay-extra cable -- Canadian version)
HIST The History Channel (cable)
PBS Public Broadcasting System (U.S. National Schedule, where possible)
TLC The Learning Channel (cable)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Note on TLC and A&E;: TLC's evening schedule is regularly repeated on a
3-hour basis (i.e. something on at 8.00 p.m. will be rebroadcast at 11.00,
something at 8.30 will be rebroadcast at 11.30, etc.); on A&E;, the Thursday
night programming of interest to this list is rebroadcast at 1.00 a.m. and
2.00 a.m. respectively
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 2: If you would like to receive this listing as email and aren't
subscribed to the numerous lists it is posted to, drop me a line at:
dmeadows@inforamp.net
and I'll add you to the list
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu (Benjamin H. Diebold)
Date: 16 Dec 1996 05:37:59 GMT
Steve, there are many problems with your presentation, though I appreciate
the fact that you have *finally* offered something approaching a testable
proposition.
1. You suggest that trade networks in the 3rd millennium were the means by
which proto-Elamite/Dravidian was diffused. The problem is that all
documentation about such trade comes well AFTER these languages are
already in place. By the time you have evidence of big time Gulf
trade in the 3rd millennium, people have gone right through
proto-Elamite and into Elamite. Pretty big problem, I'd say.
2. You greatly exaggerate the extent to which the Gulf was engaged in
long-distance trade, and the level of culture present in the Gulf. Writes
Potts (1986: 127): "To sum up briefly, contact between Babylonia
and the Central Gulf in the Gamdat Nasr period is hardly attested to by
archaeological finds, although indicated in Uruk III lexical and economic
texts. There is substantially more evidence for contact in ED I-II, as
shown by the corpus of pottery from Abqayq, and in ED II-III times we have
the evidence of the steatite and chlorite from Tarut, both carved and
uncarved, for relations between the two regions. This is the time in which
written sources from Ebla, Fara, and Lagash attest to such contact, as
well...As we have seen, the Central Gulf was probably distinguished during
the later fourth millennium B. C. by a largely hunting-gathering oriented
population, using the so-called Qatar A-C-D flint tool kit."
Now the ED I and II times are probably the 3rd millennium periods you have
in mind, but as we've seen, that's really too late for you. And, as Potts
suggests, there isn't much happening earlier.
Leemans in 1960 wrote a nice survey of what was then known about foreign
trade. He suggests that "the evidence of the imports from Tilmun of all
kinds of valuable articles (ivory, etc) from more distant countries date
only from the reigns of the early Larsa kings Gungunum, Abisare, and
Sumu-ilum, and is restricted to Ur" (p. 135). This is the very outgoing
part of the 3rd millennium, much too late for your proposed diffusion
timeline. Von der Mieroop's re-examination of the Ur texts has not
substantially modified this view, that I know of. (Piotr?)
Finally, this trade declines during the second millennium to the point
where almost nothing is happening. With the centralization of power under
Hammurapi's dynasty the focus of exchange shifted to northern, overland
routes. Ur and Girsu declined, and were possibly abandoned. There may also
have been some serious silting of these southern harbors (and now the
shoreline is some 60 miles southeast of where it was in the 3rd
millennium). In short, there is surprisingly little evidence for your
great Gulf sea-culture, and what there is is of relatively short duration
(perhaps 1000 years).
3. I am annoyed by your continued suggestion that Piotr and other
professionals (not me -- I'm not in that class) are narrow-minded
disciplinarians who do not read widely. Piotr is known as one of the more
imaginative thinkers in the field, who has brought in interesting ideas
from disciplines outside the mainstream of Assyriology. I have no doubt
that he read more widely in college than you have ever done. He simply
believes (as I interpret his posts) that there are simple standards of
evidence that do not permit you to assert things that are in contradiction
to what are basic facts of chronology and geography. Reading deeply is not
incompatible with reading widely, in fact, quite the opposite.
4. Your continued insistence that there was nothing happening in Iran is
simply, and totally, incorrect. While it may be true that in the narrow
area of the desert of southeastern Iran there are few remains, there
is a whole lot elsewhere. There is a substantial, and nearly continuous
tradition of settlement in the Zagros, among other places, that has
NOTHING to do with the "Mesopotamian neolithic". First, these sites are
older than anything in Mesopotamia, by thousands of years (in fact, many
of them date to exactly the time Miguel is suggesting). Second, there is
no "Mesopotamian neolithic", unless you mean the early Ubaid, which is not
found in the Zagros. These are basic facts which you need
to get under control before any grand theories you might happen to form
have much chance of making sense.
5. You have stretched the wave of advance model to the breaking point. It
need not be imagined as actually, historically being a uniform, perfectly
gradual advance. That would be like imagining the Israelites crossed the
Sinai by traveling 3 yards a day. It is a model, a heuristic device,
suggestive of certain patterns. It is not, as developed by Renfrew anyway,
an explicit claim that this is how it works irrespective of other factors,
like geography or the presence of other cultures. Also, the wave of
advance model was originally developed to offer a model for the movement
of agriculture through Europe; the situation in the Near East, including
Iran, is quite different. There is agriculture in Iran at around 7500 BC,
if not earlier. Your questions about why there aren't indications of the
wave of advance at Mari are simply nonsensical (if I remember your post
correctly; in the interests of saving bandwidth I have decided not to
include it), and have nothing whatever to do with what Miguel is talking
about.
Piotr's point about Stein's work with the Uruk enclaves is very important.
If you want to talk about the kinds of contact that suggests colonization,
or the interaction of different ethnicities, this is the kind of data that
is crucial. Haci Nebi (Stein's site) is a great site, and he is doing some
neat stuff.
Ben
Subject: Re: Why didn't anyone know before Columbus?
From: S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 05:53:15 GMT
Claudio De Diana wrote:
>S.NEMETH@IX.NETCOM.COM (Stella Nemeth) wrote:
>>>Bart_Torbert@piics.com (Bart Torbert) writes:
> [...]
>>>Now to keep it secret you:
>>>(1) murder your entire crew before you make landfall so they don't tell
>>> anyone where they have been.
>>The crew doesn't necessarily realize that they have been somewhere
>>unusual. They just know that they, personally, have never been there
>>before, but that isn't unusual.
> This would imply that all your crew is composed by a bunch
> of idiots, none of them able to direct the ship without your
> help. This actually is impossible because, given that human
> beings need to sleep, the chief of the expedition need at least one (better two)
> people able to solve the troubles when he is sleeping.
The crew is the crew. The people who direct the ship are not the
crew. They are the officers. I didn't say that the officers didn't
know where they had been, only that the crew frequently didn't.
>>>(2) dump all of the great stuff you brought back lest your competitors
>>> start wondering where it came from and start trying to find out, and
>>The people who buy your "great stuff" don't have to know where it came
>>from. In fact, it would be quite unusual if they had any idea at all
>>of where most of the things that they bought came from.
> He is talking not about buyers but about competitors,
> if you read about the effort put in protection of trade/technical
> secrets such as glass-making/ silkworms/ tissue manufacturing
> you will se that this point is very hard to skip.
It is actually quite easy to skip. He wasn't talking about
competitors, in the first place. But let you and I talk about them
for a minute. Your comments about protecting trade secrets just makes
my point for me. It was very common for merchandise to arrive at
market which the buyer wanted, because it was unusual, but had no idea
of where it had come from or how it had been produced.
>>>(3) refuse to tell the investors you tricked into backing your venture
>>> (you couldn't tell them real the plan, or the secret would be out) where
>>> your ship went, why all the crew are dead, and why do don't have any cargo.
>>You are taking it for granted that the master of the ship had
>>investors. Although Columbus needed investors for the project he had
>>in mind, it is quite unlikely that fishermen fishing off the Coast of
>>Canada, if indeed they did so before Columbus, had investors, knew
>>that they were off the coast of a new continent, etc.
> With the dawn of the industrialization a division of works
> is always found,
We are talking abut the early 15th Century. And earlier.
Industrialization doesn't start for another 4 centuries.
>>>(4) never go back, since if you ever make a visible profit someone will
>>> wonder how and the secret will get out.
>>If they were fishing off the coast of Canada, they obviously went
>>back. And brought their friends as well. If it actually happened.
>>And I don't say it did.
> See above
Yes. Please do see what I wrote above. There were no **investors**
just a bunch of fishermen running a fishing boat.
>>>(5) starve to death, since you could never sign a crew after such a fiasco.
>>They could always eat the fish.
> If you have got the motivation to reach a new world, trade
> new goods and kill all of your crew then you just do not resign
> to eat fish for the rest of your life. And it is not clear where
> do you think this fisherman were located: Islanda? Ireland? Scotland?
> This were quite poor area, in order to have a gain from your
> imported goods you need to reach the richer markets.. other
> people involved.. more information spread.
Who said anything about reaching a new world (or even being aware that
they had gone somewhere unusual)? Or killing the entire crew. Please
remember that I'm the one who thought that idea was a bit off the
wall.
As for the fishermen who were supposed to have fished off the coast of
Canada, and I don't claim that any of them did, they were supposed to
have come from Northern Europe.
>>>The main reason crypto-historical and related conspiracy theories like this
>>>don't make any sense is simply 'three can keep a secret if two are dead'.
>>>You may have a motivation to keep quiet, though that is doubtful, but your
>>>crew doesn't and any backers only do if they agree you alone can make more
>>>money secretly for them that they can by investing in a fleet.
>>
>>There is a difference between keeping a secret, where you have a good
>>point, and publishing the results of a voyage of exploration.
>>Columbus published. Amerigo Vespuci (sp) certainly published and had
>>two continents named after him.
>>One of the big differences between 1100 and 1500 is that by 1500 there
>>was an active printing press all over Europe. It made a very big
>>difference in how much and how fast news got around.
> The first difference that I see is the technological
> progress in shipmaking, then you have failed to show
> that it is really possible to keep a secret in
> exploration. Also keep in mind that the Vikings failed
> to show that it was possible to have the only things
> that counted in that time, i.e. spices. If they
> had came back from Vineland with a load of pepper
> you would have observed a bunch of people trying
> to reach Canada in 1000.
The Vikings were looking for wood, and for new places to farm. If
they had wanted spices or silk or gold they would have headed to
Byzantiam, which, of course, they did on a regular basis.
Stella Nemeth
s.nemeth@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: petrich@netcom.com (Loren Petrich)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 07:28:49 GMT
In article <591b8d$hee@fridge-nf0.shore.net>,
Steve Whittet wrote:
>Actually there is far more than one item of trade as you well know.
>What the chlorite exchange across the Gulf does is simply establish
>a link across the Gulf as well as along it. The trade includes wood,
>cloth, metal, frankincense, pearls, eyestones, seals, carnelian,
>lapis lazuli, pottery and chlorite vessels. You know this trade
>exists and yet you pretend it does not. Why is that?
Luxury items all. Sheesh.
>You most certainly can. The issue raised was which mechanism best
>allowed proto elamite/dravidians to share an intermediate influence.
>The choices are:
>1.) A Renfrewesque wave of advance of farmers in the upper paleolithic
>across two of the worst deserts in the world against any actual
>archaeological evidence of human presence in the region at the time
Deserts nowadays, but not necessarily in the first few millennia
after the end of the last Ice Age (the Sahara was less arid back then).
>2.) A well established trade connection down the Persian Gulf in the
>mid third milleniunm BC
Trade in luxuries spreading language? The ONLY language likely to
be spread is names for said luxury items -- just look at the abundant
literature on word histories in historical times and you'll see.
>You have supported choice 1 over choice 2 and yet have not provided
>one shred of evidence for doing so.
There is good reason to consider choice 2 implausible; it would
require colonization or conquest (or both :-) to import a language
wholesale. That's the way that primary languages have historically
spread; consider why Mr. Whittet and I are speaking English and not some
Native American languages -- it wasn't aquatic trade contacts that did it.
>An interdisciplinary approach means we get to use whatever sources of
>information seem appropriate. Epigraphy, linguistics, archaeology,
>ethnography, geography, or architecture would be appropriate, as
>would sociology, anthropology, art history, climatology,or any
>other science.
A great excuse for incompetence [sarcasm].
>Is there a connection between the linguistics of India and Europe
>infered in the term IE? If so, and if an Aryan invasion of India
>is not proposed, then perhaps the connection went the other way
>Out of, rather than into, India.
That requires a heck of a lot of migration, and that does NOT
explain why non-Indo-Aryan IE languages, such as Iranian ones like
Baluchi, not to mention present-day European ones like Portuguese and
English, are all relatively late imports into India.
>I would not restrict the trade to luxury items. Trade in wood,
>metal, cloth, grain, pottery, and fish occured. Trade in luxuries
>gets more emphasis because things like Lapis, carnelian, Clorite
>vessels, eyestones, pearls, baboons, ivory and frankincense tend
>to be more useful in establishing connections between widely
>separated cultures.
Where is the direct evidence? And be specific. I'd be surprised if
there was a trade in fish, for example, because fish can be found just
about anywhere there is a sufficient amount of water (at least before
industrial times :-).
Again, there is no reason for this trade to do anything
linguistic other than to spread the names of exotic items? I've yet to
see any evidence of that.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
petrich@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.webcom.com/petrich/home.html
Mirrored at: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/pe/petrich/home.html
Subject: Re: more on Velikovsky
From: heinrich@intersurf.com (Paul V. Heinrich)
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 20:39:23 -0600
In article <32b465de.579403@news.easynet.co.uk>,
ian@knowledge.co.uk (Ian Tresman) wrote:
> heinrich@intersurf.com (Paul V. Heinrich) wrote:
>
> >He basically gave the concept that "catastrophes"
> >have infleunced Earth history such a bad name >
>
> >Velikovsky made life much harder for these geologists
> >because he gave the concept of catastrophes in Earth history
> >such a bad name.
>
> Paul, is this what you really mean? Earth in Upheaval
> has hundreds of pages supporting, promoting and evidencing
> catastrophism, and it is Velikovsky that gives it a bad name?
Yes, this is what I mean.
This work does give catastrophism a bad name. I have read
this book and practices the type of "cut and paste" scholarship
that the scientific creationists use. If something supports his
theory he considered it a fact regardless of whether it is folklore
or fact and the facts that contradict his thesis were conviently
ignored. The material, at least concerning geology, presented
in that book is also now 40 years old and obselete as almost
all of the geological arguement he uses to promote catastrophism.
As far as I have determined, unlike Velikovsky, the scientific
creationists have at least taken the trouble to actually look
at actual rocks and outcrops before making their claims. That
I do give them credit for.
(In fact, I have likely looked at, in detail, several
hundred more outcrops and cores of Quaternary deposits, not
counting outcrops and cores of older strata, then either
you or Velikovsky have ever seen.)
> Do you think it might have something to do with the
>'open-minded' scientists of the day, some of
> whom boasted at not having read his books?
No. The fact that some people failed to read his book and
did treat him extremely shabbly indicates nothing about the
quality of work that he did. What it did do was make him
a folk hero and martyr to a number of people, e.g. T*d
Hold*n and Mr. Conr*d, who have a distinct distaste for,
even paranoia of, "establishment" science.
> >It is not Velikovsky that scientist try show as a kook.
>
> Dr. John H. Hoffman, a physicist from the University of
> Texas at Dallas and head of the mass spectrometer team
> for Pioneer Venus 2 said: "I haven't read anything by
> Velikovsky, ...I think he might be a kook" (The Dallas
> Morning News, 12/17/78, p. 37A).
Scientists like Dr. Hoffman exist. However, just because there
are a few scientists like him fails to show that all scientists
are like him. As in case of Alverz (meteorite impact killed off
the dinosaurs) and Bretz (channeled scablands), both faced the
same people like Dr. Hoffman. However, both got the last laugh
by demonstrating that their ideas are viable and serious
hypotheses. Just because a few know-nothings oppose someone
does not make that person right or even brilliant.
> >they just claim that he did very sloppy and poorly-reserach
> >theorizing.
>
> On 19 March 1973 the General Faculties Council of the University of
> Lethbridge passed a motion unanimously recommended "that Dr Immanuel
> Velikovsky be granted an Honourary Degree Doctor of Arts and Science
> at the Spring Convocation of 1974". (Confered 10 May 1974)
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that honorary degrees
may or may not represent actual accomplishment. There is a lot of
politics that go into these things. There are likely a number of
such degrees that represent people making a political statement, e.g.
how persecuted Velikovsky was, rather then any real achievement on
his part.
Sincerely,
Paul V. Heinrich All comments are the
heinrich@intersurf.com personal opinion of the writer and
Baton Rouge, LA do not constitute policy and/or
opinion of government or corporate
entities. This includes my employer.
"To persons uninstructed in natural history, their country
or seaside stroll is a walk through a gallery filled with
wonderful works of art, nine-tenths of which have their faces
turned to the wall."
- T. H. Huxley
Subject: Re: Who's the expert?
From: pjc@jet.uk (Peter Card)
Date: 16 Dec 1996 10:59:26 -0000
edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad) writes:
>I didn't know that Stephen Jay Gould had been ``taken to task"
>by Richard Dawkins, whoever the hell HE is.
This is troll, isn't it?
Check out the science section in a decent bookshop. About half the
popular-science books on evolutionary biology were written by Stephen
Jay Gould, and most of the rest were written by Richard Dawkins. They
seem to take contrasting positions on the way to look at evolution,
but they are both respected scientists, and highly readable writers,
who sell lots of books. Gould's actual accademic speciality is snails,
so I suppose that he is likely to arouse a certain amount of
pop-science envy among his peers when his essays on evolutionary
biology sell well, but not from Dawkins, who also sells well.
Read 'em both.
>Maybe Richard Dawkins -- I suppose a power-that-be -- would like
>an opportunity to step into the ring with someone his own size for a
>change.
They are pretty much a match.
>He'll learn rather quickly that his nonsensical factless rhetoric
>is going in one ear and quickly out the other, and that the only
>concrete fact to emerge from what he has to say is that
>his bullshit stinks.
It would be a dull world if respected scientists agreed about
everything. Since you haven't read Dawkins on Gould, is it possible
that you are arguing from ignorance?
--
----------------------------------------------------------
email Peter.Card@jet.uk || 100010.366@compuserve.com
Eat British Beef !! - One Million Cows Can't Be Wibble Moo Ssnnort!
===============================================================================
The above article is the personal view of the poster and should not be
considered as an official comment from the JET Joint Undertaking
===============================================================================
Subject: Re: TIME Magazine (Nov 25) humans living 420 years
From: smb@eznets.canton.oh.us (SteveB)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:15:15 GMT
On Sun, 15 Dec 1996 17:33:03 -0800, Morris wrote:
>And so do Christians. Theologians are constantly changing their
>positions
>on various issues to keep up with science. It is Science that is on the
>cutting edge. And your dark ages mythology is always trying to keep pace
>and to me its a joke.
The fundamentals of Christianity never change, although there has been no
shortage of "reformers" who have tried to rewrite scripture to fit with
their own modern view of the world. The important thing to remember is
that the opinions of men change frequently, but God's truth never changes.
It is unfortunate, however, that many well-meaning Christians try to make
the Bible into a scientific textbook, which it was never meant to be.
>position based on new facts...but so does religion. The difference is
>this: At least science is honest enough to say "we do not really know
>any of this for certain but based on the available facts, this is our
>best explanation. Christians on the other hand are so damn arrogant and
>sure in their beliefs that they say "I know this and I know that blah
>blah
If you'd take the time to look beyond the few most outspoken Christians,
you'll find that many if not most will also say that we do not know all the
facts about everything. The difference is that science, by nature, has to
find a logical explanation for everything. Religion, on the other hand, is
satisfied to know that everything is in the hands of God. The details are
unimportant. My opinion is that it is futile arguing whether the Bible says
the world was created in six days or in six gazillion years. The first
sentence in the Bible says it all: "In the beginning God created the
heavens and the earth." That's enough for me.
But don't fool yourself. Science is not as honest as you make it to be.
Science also proclaims what it believes to be "truth," often with
religious fervor. Take evolution, for example. Science proudly declares
this to be absolute fact, even though there are gaping holes in the
evidence and serious logical flaws with the theory. Why does science take
such a position? Simple -- to admit that evolution might not be true would
tear down the foundation of the world view that science has built for
itself. Rather than risk such a great crash, science takes the position
that evolution is unshakable fact... and the curious missing details will
somehow be worked out in time. That, my friend, is religion... not
science.
>is stupid, ignorant, and indicative of the IQ level of the people we are
>dealing with here. The heart is an organ that pumps blood up to your
>brain.
>It does'nt "know" anything you bunch of dolts!. The heart can not
>"know"
>and process information...the brain does that. You goofs should spend
>some time in a class room or, if you have already gone....go back and
>actually
>learn something this time!
If you think a person is actually referring to the blood-pumping organ in
their chest when they use that phrase, well... then... I'd strongly
suggest that it is you who needs your IQ re-evaluated.
>of yourself. You are a disgrace. The next time you are operating on
>someone
>stop and just start praying.......and watch the person DIE! And then get
>sued by people like me for malpractice! "Well if its god's will"
>Have you heard this idiotic line before. Is this not the most ignorant
>thing you have ever heard.
What are you so bitter about, Morris? I'd wager that if everyone reading
this were to fervently and sincerely pray for you, you would feel firsthand
the power of prayer in your life.
>I read a study the other day that concluded that educational levels,
>socio-economic status, and IQ go down as belief in religious ideas
>go up. For some reason I am not shocked at this. Does this mean that
>there are no intelligent, well educated christians? Well obviously
>not! (they should be ashamed too....damn traitors!) But the point is
>this: People are more likely to sit in church on sunday and cry and
>blubber and wave their hands around singing "bringing in the sheaves
>bringing in the sheaves....", if they are ignorant and uneducated.
>This makes sense to me. After church they go back to their paneled
>trailor homes and eat tuna casserole and watch the Walton's and
>blubber about John Boy being such a sweet boy....God I'am going to
>puke just thinking about.
Well, you are certainly good at using ignorant, but colorful stereotypes.
But you know what? The Bible even addresses your observation! Forgive me
for showing this to you, but:
(1 Cor 1:19-25 NIV) For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the
wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." {20} Where is
the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age?
Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? {21} For since in the
wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was
pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who
believe. {22} Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, {23}
but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness
to Gentiles, {24} but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks,
Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. {25} For the foolishness of
God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than
man's strength.
You see, Morris, the foolishness you see in those who believe in Christ is
nothing new. God's power remains strong even 2000 years after this was
written. Take heed lest you find yourself on the wrong end of that power
someday.
We Christians acknowledge that what we believe appears foolish to those who
mock and reject God. But guess what? We don't care! There is far more
satisfaction in the glory of God than there is in the opinions of doubting
men.
>is mythology.....lets get REAL! Why can you Christians not just admit,
>in fact, have the courage to admit, that we are going to rot in the
>damn ground! Thats it. Game over. End of the line. See ya....would'nt
>want to be ya. Yes folks, it's that simple.....your born, you live,
>along the way you have a little fun, screw around, reproduce, defecate,
>laugh, cry, get in a few heated debates....(like this one) and then
>you die AND ROT!
You are certainly entitled to believe that. We know with certainty,
however, that there is much more to life than that. You can also have that
assurance, Morris. It is free for the asking.
>I have already covered this....Science does not have all the answers but
>lets not "make up" shit to cover the gaps in our knowledge.
Tsk, tsk... science "makes up" stuff all the time. It's called 'theory du
jour." These theories have a way of being presented to the public as 'the
latest scientific truth.' And the ignorant masses stand with jaws agape at
the wonder of their own wisdom, until another theory or explanation comes
along. Then they all make a quarter turn and look in that direction with
their jaws agape. W.C. Fields was certainly correct.
>I am not a Gnat.......speak for yourself.....I think Christians need to
>bolster their self confidence and quit referring to the Human race as
>Gnats!
To an outside observer, gnats just might have more intelligence than
humans. Gnats do not kill each other for fun and profit. Nor do they
destroy their own environment in the name of "progress." Gnats just do
what they were created to do, which is faithfully being gnats. Pretty
smart critters.
BTW, with all of your knowledge and proud achievement, can you create a
gnat?
> We have done a whole lot better than Gnats..I do not see any
>Gnat footprints on the Moon!.
But you see the very fingerprints of God when you look at the moon and the
stars and the infinity of all of creation. We have hopped from one speck
of dust onto another and planted a flag. Good. We're mighty!
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 10:32:44
In article <591b8d$hee@fridge-nf0.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
Speaking of evidence for trade in chlorite vessels SW writes:
>This is every bit as much of a culture as Mesopotamia. Because
>it is based on the sea and not on the land there is less evidence
>of agriculture, the domestication of animals and buildings.
This is complete, utter nonsense. The trade in soft stone vessels has
multiple origins and multiple centers of trade, as was the whole point of
Kohl's essays on "world systems." A complex trade system is not a culture,
no more than the obsidian trade results in an obsidina culture. Once again
you have said something without thinking and now the squid ink is on.
>>>"Presently no proven production centers from the Arabian mainland
>>>are known for the earlier Tarut Green chlorites, a fact which might
>>>imply that most if not all of the IS vessels were imported from
>>>production centers on the Iranian plateau"
>>
>>Yes, please read the plural "centers"--Kohl was very careful not
>>to claim that they all came from Tepe Yahya.
>Actually he does. When he says that no proven production centers from
>the Arabian mainland are known for the earlier Tarut Green chlorites,
>what he is telling you is that the only known source of that chlorite
>is at Tepe Yahya.
Once again you pay no attention to what anyone says and just ring your little
bell, Perhaps it might help if your read something more that your one book
on Bahrein as Kohl hinself makes it quite clear in many other places what
he mens. Production center means a place where the stone was worked. The
Tarut evidence for this is interesting, but flawed, as it was not excavated by
archeologists. He himself, in an article I cited earlier, but which you are
not interested in reading, provided analysis of the Tarut materials which
demonstrated that it came from multiple sources, including the chlorite source
on the Arabian mainland.
>The argument isn't whether this occured. Miguel proposes that
>Mallory, who cites McAlpins theory of a proto-elamite/dravidian
>intermediary, has made a case.
etc
I love this! You have spent weeks making completely illogical and unfounded
arguments against all of this, including emphatically denying the Dravidian
connection of Elamite, being rude to anyone who questions you, and refusing to
cite the evidence against it, and now, since you simply want to argue for
argument's sake, it is accepted as dogma.
>My position was that the earliest expansion is
actually>from Mohenjo-Daro c 3rd millemium BC along the coast of>baluchestan
to link up with Makkan. There are a number>of pieces of Harrapan script which
have been found in Oman.
What do a few Harrapan seals have to do with "expansion"? Where is the
EVIDENCE of any such cultural or population movement? We are back where we
started. Who expanded, what do you mean by such statement? You have
confused everyone with you pseudo-linguistic statements, so that at this
point I, for one, have no idea of what you have in mind. What languages
"expanded," from where to where and what is the evidence on the ground
that this happened? There is no debate that there was trade; you turn this
into major culture exchange. Prove it. Don;t just repeat imprecise evidence
for trade--that is very well established. The next step is simply not there.
Once again--if you want to argue linguistic or cultural expansion or
movement, provide evidence that something actually happened and not simply
inference from trade. It is a tired and illogical argument.
>Makkan is linked to Dilmun and indeed Dilmunite seals have
>been found at Harrapan sites. We then go on to link Dilmun
>to Tepe Yahya and southern Mesopotamia in the 3rd millenium BC.
>Mallory cites McAlpin as having found a linguistic connection
>between Elamite and Dravidian. Does this linkage have to be
>c 8,000 BC? Why doesn't a linkage in the 3rd millenium, still
>prior to the emergence of either Elamites or Dravidians, serve
>us equally well?
>>
>
>Is there a connection between the linguistics of India and Europe
>infered in the term IE? If so, and if an Aryan invasion of India
>is not proposed, then perhaps the connection went the other way
>Out of, rather than into, India.
>>The time frame one cannot pin you down on, since you cite evidence from
>>different parts of the world from different periods.
>My time frame for what I am discussing is the third millenium BC.
>I am not the only participant in the dialog. When others propose
>other dates and places then it is necessary to look at what was
>going on in other places at other times
>> The end result is nowhere to be seen, as you have not provided
>>evidence for that either.
>The end result is a huge trade network sprading from India
>into Europe and Central Asia along rivers and coasts which
>is well positioned in time and space to help spread language.
You have been repeating this round and round for years, No matter what
subject comes up here, you pug it into this. I do not think that we need to
rehash this--everyone knows what you think. The point is not your aquatic
obsession, but what the consequences are. You propose all sorts of movements,
expansions, etc. Prove them. Where are these consequences and what is the
evidence that they actually tool place, as opposed to the inference that if
there was trade, things had to happen.
>3.) They don't see a lot of
little connections as one big connection
SO what? Where is the result of this connection?
>steve
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:44:48 GMT
Steve Whittet wrote:
>
> In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
> >I still have no idea what is going on here.
>
> The points:
>
> 1.) A single wave of proto elamite/dravidian advance coming
> from somewhere in the cluster of sites Miguel named on the Simerah
> toward Pakistan led by Neolithic farmers c 8,000 BC makes no sense.
> A.) There were many centers
> B.) These different centers are influential at different dates
> C.) Farmers tend to farm river valleys in preference to deserts
Farmers tend to farm on terrain that is the same or similar to what
their fathers farmed on. River valleys were not immediately attractive
to the people who were farming on the hills of the Zagros and
Kurdistan/E. Anatolia. Farming on an alluvial plane like Mesopotamia
(and I guess the Indus Valley likewise) requires new farming techniques
and lots of adaptation. That partially explains why it took them so
long to make up their minds and colonize the Mesopotamian valley.
Now if you went south along the Zagros to Fars, circumstances and
terrain stayed pretty much the same. And on to Kerman, Baluchistan. No
deserts, no river valleys, just hills and mountains.
> The Elamites eventually reached Babylon, but not so far as I know,
> Mari. Consider the fact that this occurs seven millenia after the
> period in which Miguel proposed a wave of advance reached Pakistan.
>
> If there were one radial wave of advance from Susa and it was
> supposed to reach Pakistan c 8000 BC, how come it never managed
> to reach Mari?
Because when people eventually went down in the valley, it happened not
to be the Proto-Elamites, but the Proto-Sumerians and Proto-Akkadians.
So the passage-way to Mari was blocked. You have to understand that the
"wave of advance" model can only describe the advance of Neolithic
populations in areas of "virgin farmland" (if they specialize in
farming), or "virgin pastures" (if they specialize in herding). The
wave of advance is blocked when areas are already colonized by other
farmers, or when there is a significant change in terrain/climate
necessitating new technology, or when there are other obstacles like
deserts or seas. Language replacement could and did take place in areas
already populated by farming communities (e.g. the Amorite, Hurrian and
Aramaic cases Piotr mentioned), but by different mechanisms, *not* the
"wave of advance".
> The linguistic theory seems to be that there was a
> proto-elamite/dravidian intermediary language which
> explains the similarity between modern languages in
> Pakistan and Iran.
Aren't you forgetting 150 million people in Southern India?
The linguistic theory is about an ancestral Proto-Elamo-Dravidian
language. Your use of "intermediary" is completely misleading.
> I objected that the dates being thrown around were two early.
> Iran was largely uninhabited.
Which is not true.
>I offered as an alternative
> that at a later date in the third millenium when Susa and
> Anshan are establishing connections, we have an intermediate
> culture in place, actually we have two of them, Makkan and Dilmun.
And that date is obviously too late. But you have to know something
about linguistics to understand why. It's not awfully difficult to
grasp, however: simply a matter of evolution and time depth, as it is in
biology. If you have horses, asses and zebras "in place", you know that
you're simply too late, and that the "Proto-Equus" (Eohippus aka
Hyracotherium) connection must be earlier. If you have Elam,
Makkan/Dilmun and the Indus Valley "in place", in the third millennium,
the connection (between Elam and the Indus Valley) must be earlier.
It's as simple as that.
==
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal ~ ~
Amsterdam _____________ ~ ~
mcv@pi.net |_____________|||
========================== Ce .sig n'est pas une .cig
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 10:50:55
In article <591j0s$qfg@fridge-nf0.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet) writes:
>
>>WHy Mari and Babylon during the Jemder Nasr period?
>The Elamites eventually reached Babylon, but not so far as I know,
>Mari. Consider the fact that this occurs seven millenia after the
>period in which Miguel proposed a wave of advance reached Pakistan.
>If there were one radial wave of advance from Susa and it was
>supposed to reach Pakistan c 8000 BC, how come it never managed
>to reach Mari?
This is the kind of nonsense that makes it impossible to follow all of this
pile of disconnected, factually incorrect pile of "facts." What is meant by
such writing? Elamites "reached" Babylon? When, what? 8000 BC there was no
Babylon and certainly no Mari!
>>What are you trying to say about Mari and Susa?
>Mari is not reached by a proto Elamite/Dravidian wave of advance
>some seven millenia after it is supposed to have reached Pakistan
>so either such a wave never existed or it is directionally focused
>toward Pakistan.
>>What time period are you talking about?
>I am talking about the mid third millenium BC.
So now we are in the third millennium. Babble.
>>and what are you trying to prove?
>That Mallory, in citing McAlpins idea of a proto Elamite/Dravidian
>intermediary language is looking in the wrong place and at the wrong
>time to find any such connection. (Esfhan, Iran in the 8th millenium BC)
Why? There is absolutely no way that you can prove one way or another that
such a "proto-language" did not exists, especially as you asserted boldly that
it never existed just a while back and then refused to offer any evidence,
even though pressed rather strongly by a number of us!
>>Now it turns out that you are only interested in Proto-Elamites.
>>Fine, then say something cogent about them. What, to you, is
>>Proto-Elamite culture and what does it have to do with your
>>imaginary "chlorite culture" and all the other
>>squid ink and amoeba stuff you have been peddling here.
>The linguistic theory seems to be that there was a
>proto-elamite/dravidian intermediary language which
>explains the similarity between modern languages in
>Pakistan and Iran.
Proto-Elamite is an archeological term and has nothing to do with the
arguments over the classification of Elamite.
>>Most archaeologists have a pretty good idea of what they mean
>>when they use the term Proto-Elamite and there is no mystery there.
Once again you are confusing archeological and linguistic terminology. So
much for your generalist interdisiplinary model. Please figure these basic
things out before you post.
> As for language, once again, would it be too much to ask to
>>say that linguistic arguments need some linguistic facts?
>First put some men on the gameboard, then we will open their
>mouths and have them tell us where they want to go.
That is an answer to a request for evidence?
>
>>
>>Whjat evidence do you have of Frankincense, as you call it, in the third
>>millennium in India, or for that matter in Mesopotamia? I do know know of
>>any, and would be happy for the references.
>I believe the recent TV documentary on the lost city of Ubar
>indicated that Juris Zahrins had found pottery there dating
>to the 3rd millenium BC from all the major neighboring
>civilizations. There have been many finds of Harrapan pottery
>in Oman.
>http://www-dial.jpl.nasa.gov/kidsat/exploration/Explorations_TEAM
>/Russell_Moffitt/ubarpage/index.html
We all know about Ubar. That is not the point, although his claims have not
been without opponents. No one is discussing his finds here, only the
evidence for the trade in aromatics that you asserted. Are they attested
somewhere? Until you can find evidence that they were traded in this period,
it is all fantasy/
(snip)
>>I know alot about Mesopotamian ritual and there were various
>>aromatics used (mainly from Iran, received overland, I am afraid),
>>but nothing in the early periods from Arabia. In fact, just
>>recently a fascinating texts was published that describes what
>>might be the first known major caravan coming from there to
>>Mesopotamia, and there is no mention at all of this famous item.
>I would like to see more of this site myself, as I recall the
>pottery found included some dated to c 3000 BC.
>>
This is an answer to a statement about a text??????
>>>>
>A trade connection in the 3rd millenium is at least as viable a
>mechanism for the diffusion of language as a proto-elamite/dravidian
>wave of advance in the 8th millenium.
OK, OK.
Now show what the linguistic consequences are, especially since you do not
believe that such a language existed.
Subject: WHO/WHAT is Ed Conrad?
From: edconrad@prolog.net (Ed Conrad)
Date: 16 Dec 1996 14:20:07 GMT
EJ wrote:
>Greetings from Iceland
> My name is Eir�kur J�nsson (EJ), I'm from Iceland. I am very new at
>this newsgroup but I would like to know a few things
> Who/What is Ed Conrad? I mean I'm new at this newsgroup thing (just
>few days sins I came on the net, I'm figuring this out as I go along)
>But I thought anthropology was something relaited to,,,, well how should
>I put this.... ANTHROPOLOGY??????
> I don't understand!
>Would someone (not Ed Conrad) please contact me (not on the newsgroup)
>and help my understand this Newsgroup buisness. My adress is
>ej@vortex.is
>
>ps. This is my first message on the Internet :)
>
> Eir�kur J�nsson
Eirikur:
I'm Ed Conrad and I figured I'd sneak right in -- and fast! -- to let
you know Who/What I am before your email gets jammed by an
excess of incoming cow manure.
Quite simply, I have discovered petrified human remains in
Carboniferous strata between coal veins. This means man undoubtedly
existed in almost our present form multi-multi-millions of years
before the earliest date presented by the evolutionary theory of our
emergence from a prehuman ancestor.
Some of my evidence can be seen by calling up
http://www.access.digex.net/~medved/conrad/conmain.htm
which, of course, not only proves that man had existed back then
but that other large land animals had existed as well.
This is contrary to what all of the science books ever printed have
had to say about life during the Carboniferous (a minimum opf 280
million years ago).
On the other hand, you must understand -- because it's as factual a
fact as you'll ever run into -- that not one single shred of
conclusive evidence is available to back up the scientific
establishment's contention that man's most remote ancestor was a
cat-size, monkey-like primate -- called an insectivore -- whose
presence on earth reportedly (?) can be traced no farther back than
60-65 million years ago.
My evidence indicates that man existed on earth in our present form
during a period of time that the lowly insectivore wasn't even yet a
gleam in some prehistoric amoeba's eye.
I'd like to note that the petrified human skeletal remains and
petrified soft organs which I've discovered between coal veins seem to
indicate that man was at least seven-eight feet tall, based on the
size of many of the various human remains.
The adverse hostile reaction to these coal-age petrified human fossils
is due to the fact that they seriously threaten the very founation of
the scientific establishment's totally erroneous theory of man's
origin and ancestry.
If we didn't evolve from a lowly inhuman primate, then WHERE did we
come from? THAT is the question!
Meanwhile, Eirukir, I'd like to mention that man who lived during the
time period of the coal formations apparently was at least seven feet
tall, since just about all of my human fossils seem to be larger that
that of a large adult.
I have been defending my position for some 15-16 years against a
torrent of deceipt, dishonesty, corruption and collusion perpetrated
by the highest-placed individuals and institutions in the scientific
establishment.
Prior to the arrival of the Internet, the scientific establishment
always had the final say -- that I am dead wrong -- because of its
awesome power and incredible influence.
Fortunately, however, this computer age and its Instant Messages to
Everywhere has heralded a return of the Free Press.
And I've always believed that in a Free Press -- same as the message
of Christmas -- it is much better to give than to receive.
And this, I suppose, explains why my name is plastered all over this
news group.
Subject: Re: puzzle of the negrito: isolated archaic populations
From: dbarnes@liv.ac.uk (Dan Barnes)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:46:31 GMT
In article <58sf76$dtl@news.sdd.hp.com>, geroldf@sdd.hp.com says...
>I'm wondering about your second point: why would you expect sexual
>selection to play a role?
It was just a side point really but it is known to have affected melanin levels in
Tazmania and the Andes.
>He
>|> examined the width of fossil Apiths and H.e. (admittedly a very small sample
>as
>|> pelvises, which he used, are rare) and showed that they fit into a general
>|> climatic distribution of moderns. Since, in the generalisation of the human b
>ody
>|> (a cylinder), there is no change in surface area to volume ratios with increa
>sing
>|> height he came to the conclusion that the difference in height correlated to
>the
>|> greater volume need for water storage that a savannah dwelling hominid
would
>|> need.
>
>Risky conclusion; human morphology ranges over a wide spectrum of
>area/volume ratios. It's one of the primary evolutionary responses to
>climatic conditions. The yahgan of tierra del fuego, who probably
>represented the most advanced physiological adaptation to cold among any
>modern humans, had very truncated extremities. Some of the nilo-sudanese
>peoples, such as the watutsi, represent the other extreme; they are
>extremely tall and slender, with proportionately longer arms and legs. I
>haven't seen any data of how the area/volume (A/V) ratio of the pygmies
>compares with their taller neighbors, but they may be similar. Pygmies
>are not nearly as gracile as the watutsi, but because they are so much
>smaller, their A/V ratio is boosted. (Note: if the human body type is
>approximated as a cylindar, A/V is inversely proportional to size.)
Ruff also deals with the issue of adaptation of distal limb proportions which
show a similar climatic adaptation. The full ref for the article is:
Ruff, C.B. (1994) Morphological adaptation to climate in modern and fossil
hominids. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology. 37. 65-107.
>|> From these results it is not suprising that a people who have spent a long
>|> time living exclusively in rain forests would develop a decrease in height.
>
>Right, though the relative importance of temperature regulation and
>mobility in tangled overgrowth is unclear to me; both seem to be
>significant.
But (esp. with the last point) difficult to test for - I would have thought.
>It
>|> would seem that if Ruff's analysis is valid that it is an example of parallel
>
>|> evolution - with two groups of people adapting to similar environmental
>|> conditions.
>
>Entirely possible. The question then would be, from which ancestral
>population did the negrito evolve?
>
I would assume they evolved from African ancestors.
Subject: Re: puzzle of the negrito: isolated archaic populations
From: dbarnes@liv.ac.uk (Dan Barnes)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 14:54:26 GMT
In article <58s45k$con@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu says...
>
>geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl) wrote:
>
>>The polynesian settlements are *very*
>>recent, and open-ocean technology is viewed with scepticism anywhere
>>beyond 40,000 b.p. or so. Java, on the other hand, had residant
>>hominids a million years ago
>
>True, but the fossile record dries up after that and I'm not even sure
>that there were non-HS hominids in this subequatorial region when the
>75K - 50KY migrants came across. There is the belief that somewhere
>along the way there was a 60 mile stretch of water that had to be
>crossed, and the best evidence suggests that it was first crossed 50
>to 45 KYA. The latest dating for Peking man puts him at 400 KY old and
>there is little evidence from that period to the present suggesting HE
>presence (And I agree it seems odd that there shouldn't be). So unlike
>what has been discovered in europe, which can be summerized as
>evidence for interspecies cultural exchange (with a lack of any
>genetic exchange) in southeast asia there is simply no evidence for
>temporal territorial overlap. In addition there is no reason, based on
>genetic studies, to suggest that these ancient southeast asians are
>not out of africa.
>
Of course the new dates for H.e. (27 to 53 ka) in Java throws a different light on
this. There may have been a degree of temporal overlap. I have also heard
suggestions, although I have no ref for them, that H.e. had colonised at least one
island (c. 700 ka) that would have needed boats - even at low sea levels.
However, you are right in concluding a lack of evidence for genetic continuity.
Subject: Re: White tribes of Olde America
From: dolmen1@ix.netcom.com(Leonard M. Keane)
Date: 16 Dec 1996 16:44:57 GMT
In <32b532b6.2785692@betanews.demon.co.uk> dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk
(Douglas Weller) writes:
>
>On 14 Dec 1996 19:46:42 GMT, dolmen1@ix.netcom.com(Leonard M. Keane)
wrote:
>
>>In <32b5dc30.238767996@betanews.demon.co.uk>
>>dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk (Douglas Weller) writes:
>>>
>>>On 13 Dec 1996 18:41:05 GMT, dolmen1@ix.netcom.com(Leonard M. Keane)
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In <32c57aef.82775737@news.demon.co.uk> dweller@ramtops.demon.co.uk
>>>>(Douglas Weller) writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>Agreed. Any excavation needs to have a very good reason (a new
road
>>>>going
>>>>>through the site is such a reason). Far too many excavations have
>>>>destroyed
>>>>>valuable, sometimes vital evidence.
>>>>
>>>>And I've heard about a number of sites that have been found by
>>>>construction people and plowed under to avoid a disruption in the
>>work.
>>>I'm sure that is true. That's why in the UK we have built into our
>>planning
>>>legislation the various bits about archaeological watching briefs,
>>etc. But it
>>>isn't a good argument for digging into a mound.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
>>>Submissions to:sci-archaeology-moderated@medieval.org
>>>Requests To: arch-moderators@ucl.ac.uk
>>>Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
>>>
>>Doug:
>>
>>I assume an "archeological watching brief" in the UK is some sort of
>>regulation requiring contractors to immediately report discovery of a
>>suspected important archeological site.
>
>I don't have the details in my head, but it starts at the time someone
makes a
>planning application -- archaeological input may be required, the
developer
>required to allow and pay for a rescue dig, etc. Not at all perfect,
but much
>more positive.
>--
>Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
>Submissions to:sci-archaeology-moderated@medieval.org
>Requests To: arch-moderators@ucl.ac.uk
>Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
>
Doug:
That seems to coincide well with the laws we have in the U.S. I have
read several archeological assessment reports on proposed development
sites. Usually an "independent" professional archeologist is hired to
do this work. He come to the site, digs a few potholes, and amazingly
usually comes up with some "flint chips", bird points, charcoal, etc.,
concludes there was an ancient American Indian activity of some sort,
then declares the site's archeological potential has been competently
exploited and the bulldozers roll.
This seems to be the norm in areas where numerous large lithic features
with sunrise/sunset alignments, apertures, long distance geometrical
inter-relationships, ancient boulder-lined pathways, walls barely
protruding above the surface, and numerous carved surface artifacts of
various sizes(including the U.S. "Universal Stone"!) exist in
abundance. Yet I've never heard of any such feature ever being
evaluated or noted, much less explained or publicized, in connection
with any archeological assessment of an area under development.
This is why I am cynical of the role being played by professional
archeology, especially after they have been advised of the existence of
these sites.
Len.
Subject: Re: inbreeding incest of Adam's children
From: Saida
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:01:42 -0600
R. Gaenssmantel wrote:
>
> In article <32B2C7A8.10B1@PioneerPlanet.infi.net> you wrote:
> [...]
> : > The sheer insanity of the Jews and the Pallistinians in the Middle
> : > East is proof enough for me.
> : >
> : > Gei
>
> : Make that the Palestinians.
Let's put this thing back into context. Here:
geo@3-cities.com wrote:
>
> Saida wrote:
>
> >geo@3-cities.com wrote:
> >>
> >> Eliyah wrote:
> >>
> >> >You use incest as a dirty word.
> >>
> >> In most states it is not only a dirty word, it is illegal.
> >>
> >> >Abram was married to his half-sister.
> >>
> >> Which proves the mental instability in his progeny.Saida:
> >I don't think the mental stability (or agility) of the progeny of
> >Abraham has been much called into question over the millenia.
>
> You're not much of a student of Middle Eastern history, are you?
>
> The sheer insanity of the Jews and the Pallistinians in the Middle
> East is proof enough for me.
>
> GeiSaida:
Make that the Palestinians.
Ralf:
>
> Do you really believe there's much of a difference as far as the politics in > the Middle East is concerned?
> The ones claim land where they haven't been in centuries their own - using > terrorism. > The others complain and react - using terrorism.
> The ones don't talk to terrorists (don't they talk amongst themselves?). > The others reject violence.
> New splinter groups form continueing, because they don't want to talk to the > other terrorists (now reformed).
> Talkes begin - everyone sighs a big sich of relief - and then after a election > the new government doesn't feel bound by contracts their
predecessor entered.
>
> I'd say one is just as bad as the other - with the difference, that the ones > have the upper hand and the others don't.
>
> Quite sad actually.
>
> Ralf
Since I found this in my mailbox, I assume you are trying to involve me
in a political discussion. World politics is not my thing. I don't see
much point in someone like me trying to solve the problems of the Middle
East in the comfort of my North American home.
On the other hand, it looks like both the Israelis and the Palestinians
missed a bet. I don't see why they should even have bothered to think
about negotiating when they could have simply asked old Ralf
Gaenssmantel to decide the problem. From his post, it is obvious Ralf
would be a FAIR and IMPARTIAL arbitrator, a man well able to understand
the desperation and frustration of both sides.
Just one question: What the devil DO you do at Cambridge, Ralf?
Subject: Re: Information on Pyramids wanted
From: solos@enterprise.net (Adrian Gilbert)
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 96 18:39:20 GMT
In article ,
grenvill@iafrica.com (Keith Grenville) wrote:
>On 11/12/1996 17:31, in message
><19961211153100.KAA25158@ladder01.news.aol.com>, Brockstroh
> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone-
> >
> > I'm looking for information on the Egyptian pyramids. I get conflicting
> > information from just about everyone, it seems. One book says they're
> > built by the Egyptians, another says there's no evidence to support
that
> > (such as carvings, hieroglyphs, some vague references to "pyramid
texts",
> > etc). Is there a definitive source I can go to that will give me
objective
> > information on the Egyptian pyramids? Anything will be helpful. Thanks
> > everyone
> > Bryan
>
>
>Yes. I.E.S. Edwards "The Pyramids of Egypt" published by Penguin available
>in paperback
>
What do you call objective Bryan? Even Professor Edwards, whom others are
understandably recommending to you was not "objective" in the sense that he
was promulgating the views of contemporary Egyptology. The are lots of
different ideas about why, how and by who the pyramids were built. There is a
spectrum of ideas, if you like, from the numbingly orthodox (just big tombs
for megalomaniac pharaohs built by sweating slaves pulling ropes etc.) to the
really way out (cosmic batteries for alien lighthouses to guide in
space-craft). People tend to regard the views they hold themselves as being
correct and all others wrong. I guess that's human nature. You'll just have to
read around a bit and make your own mind up where you stand in the spectrum.
Meantime, perhaps you would like to pay a visit to the Solos site that I
set up for just this purpose. It has lots of information about the pyramids.
Natually it has a "view", which is that the pyramids were built not just as
tombs but as symbolic architecture. I'll leave you to judge. The solos site is
at
http://www.netlink.co.uk/users/solos
Happy reading, Adrian Gilbert (co-author of "The Orion Mystery".)
Subject: Re: Pyramid "Ventilation" Shaft
From: solos@enterprise.net (Adrian Gilbert)
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 96 18:58:18 GMT
In article <58n45f$j2p@bignews.shef.ac.uk>,
Martin Stower wrote:
>100714.1346@compuserve.com (GuR) wrote:
>
>>You may excuse my intrusion, but in the German Paperback Edition of
>>"The Orion Mystery" page 201 I found the dates as follows:
>>
>>
>>Shaft Gantenbrink Epoch
>>
>>Southern s. king�s chamber 45� 15' 00" 2450BC
>>Northern s. king�s chamber 32� 15' 00" 2445BC
>>Southern s. queen�s chamber 39� 15' 00" 2450BC
>
>These I gather are the angles as adjusted by Bauval, to allow for an
>error of +/- 15' in the alignment of the shafts.
>
>I tried my `sekhed' calculation - see my post in reply to Alford - taking
>these to be the `correct' angles, i.e. the altitudes originally observed.
>
>Results:
>
>KC south sekhed = 27.7567 fingers
>KC north sekhed = 44.3773 fingers
>QC south sekhed = 34.2702 fingers
>
>Rounding these to the nearest finger gives
>
>KC south sekhed = 28 fingers (= 1 cubit)
>KC north sekhed = 44 fingers
>QC south sekhed = 34 fingers
>
>and hence
>
>Tangent Calculated Gantenbrink Correction
>
>28/28 45 00' 00" 45 00' 00" NONE
>28/44 32 28' 16" 32 28' 00" 16"
>28/34 39 28' 20" 39 30' 00" 1' 40"
>
>Which by itself will account for the small chronological discrepancy
>implied by Gantenbrink's figures.
>
>
Martin, I'm not clear about this. Are you suggesting that the shafts have a
purely geometric meaning or are you in agreement with the star-shaft theory? I
personally find no inconsistency in the idea that both are correct. It seems
to me that the Egyptians built the pyramids as a "tour de force" of all their
sciences: Engineering, Mathematics, Astronomy and indeed Astrology. The slight
deviations that people are noting concerning the angles between the individual
stars of Orion's Belt and the alignment of the three pyramids of Giza I would
account for by saying that compomises had to be made between two ideals: the
mathematical model they were adhering to and the actual pattern of the stars
in the sky. I would compare this with the way Egyptian sculpture follows a
canon of proportion that though distorted from a representative point of view,
brings out certain mathematical relationships. The angles of the square and
double square seem to have had some sort of deep religious importance, note
the near double cubic King's Chamber. However, the alignment of the shafts
towards certain stars is also clearly not an accident either in my view. What
do you think? As you righly say, the 10,500 date is another issue and should
not be confused with the date of building of the pyramids at C.2500 (we think
2450 BC is probably nearer the truth). Also I hope you don't think "The Orion
Mystery" is cod-archaeology. Whatever might be said about the conspiracy
theories of Bauval and Hancock's joint effort in "Keeper of Genesis", the work
in "The Orion Mystery" is based on as exact measurements, datings etc. as we
could find. The theory is serious.
Best wishes
Adrian Gilbert.
>Martin Stower
>http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/
>
Subject: Re: Artifact Attribute Software
From: rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:31:02 -0600
On Fri, 13 Dec 1996, Darin R. Molnar wrote:
> Anyone know of any good software out there that tracks artifact
> attribute information?
I don't know exactly what you mean by `track', but there's a company in
Goleta, California, called Archaeomation, and most of their sutff is
"electronic measuring, weighing, and data acquisition systems." They have
your basic lab hardware, but also software such as "Lab Assistant...a
data entry and editing program designed to aid the researcher in the task
of accurately entering large and small amounts of laboratory data into a
computerized database system." The program goes for about USD 200, but
you can get packages that include software and computer-connectable
hardware for about USD 1150. (I'm waiting to get a grant so I can buy that).
For more info, you can contact Archaeomation at info@archaeo.com, or use
snailmail at PO Box 1091, Coleta, CA, 93116-1091, USA.
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn Johnson
Ph.D. stud., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
Hatrack ratcatcher to port weapons...brickbat lingerie!!
-- Cdr. Susan Ivanova, B5
Subject: Re: Bogart: Haggis crossed the Bering Strait?
From: rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:39:52 -0600
On Sat, 14 Dec 1996, Larry Caldwell wrote:
> Ach, Robbie, the Archaeology of the Haggis being in the sad state that it is,
Question is, would archaeohaggal analyses fall under the purview of
faunal analysts? Personally, I think the analysis of archaeohaggises
should belong to the coprolysts.
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn "HA HA! I ain't got no exams this term!" Johnson
Ph.D. stud., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
Hatrack ratcatcher to port weapons...brickbat lingerie!!
-- Cdr. Susan Ivanova, B5
Subject: Oetzi the Austro-Italian Ice-Dude
From: rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:07:37 -0600
Sorry to people who find this inappropriate to their group -- I don't
know where Ms. Jubran hangs out, and I want her to have a fair chance of
seeing this....
> >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.
If you can get to a research library, or a kick-ass public library (like
a major-city one), look in the British archaeology journal _Antiquity_.
Sometime in the last couple of years there was a pretty interesting
article with good B/W photos. I don't remember the title or the author,
but since there are only 4 issues a year, a two-year browse won't take
very long. Just to be safe you might want to look back as far as 1994,
but I'd bet that it was a 1995 article.
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn "HA HA! I ain't got no exams this term!" Johnson
Ph.D. stud., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
"Hatrack ratcatcher to port weapons...brickbat lingerie!!"
-- Cdr. Susan Ivanova, B5
Subject: Re: Bullshit as text
From: rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:47:05 -0600
On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, Paul Thibaudeau wrote:
> Here is a reply to Ed Conrad's constant ravings:
>
> Of course, you will then say that they are corrupt and are trying
> to cover up the conspiracy. What I can't understand is why? Actually, I
> can understand. The main problem is that you can't handle the fact that
> you know little or nothing about archaeology, but rather than sit down and
> go through it piece by piece, you'd rather take center stage and crap on
> anyone that dares go against your (and only your) version of the truth.
Aww, you give him too much credit. He's just put out because he tried to
join the International Science Conspiracy (tm) and we...oops, I mean they
wouldn't take him. But trying to expose conspiracies is, of course, the
act of a paranoid.
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn "HA HA! I ain't got no exams this term!" Johnson
Ph.D. stud., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
"Hatrack ratcatcher to port weapons...brickbat lingerie!!"
-- Cdr. Susan Ivanova, B5
Subject: Re: What did the first Organic Thingamadoodle eat?
From: rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:29:18 -0600
On 14 Dec 1996, R. Gaenssmantel wrote:
> Robert S. Carlsen (rcarlsen@macconnect.com) wrote:
> [...]
> : How about photosynthesis for starters.
>
> I don't think so. As far as I understand the first organic 'cells' were
> probably formed in great depths (of water) under hot and anaerobe conditions.
> This environment would not allow any photosynthesis. However, would assume that
> certain organic molecules would have been been able to get through the 'skin'
> of these 'cells'.
Ralf, you give them too much credit. Note that the question was about
Organic Thingamadoodles, not cells. In the absence of a definition of
Thingamadoodle, we must infer from the modifier "first" that they were
asking about, well, the first organic thing(amadoodle). That would have
been an organic chemical, and a chemical does not a cell make. I didn't
take orgo, so I don't know the technical difference, but I do know that
"organic" and "inorganic" refer to characteristics of compounds --
presumably having something to do with carbon. In any event, the First
Organic Thingamadoodles were compounds that involved carbon, and even
that kind of compound doesn't have to eat.
So the answer is...nothing, because it didn't get hungry, because it
wasn't alive.
The answer to the next obvious question (what did the First Living
Thingamadoodle eat), I would guess, would be First Organic Thingamadoodles.
BTW, I just heard on the radio that a Federal Gov't study recommends
doing away with the 12th grade...given the general scientific ignorance
epitomized by Ed, that is a truly terrifying thought. I guess
the Feds figure that high school grads generally aren't stupid enough yet.
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn "HA HA! I ain't got no exams this term!" Johnson
Ph.D. stud., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
Hatrack ratcatcher to port weapons...brickbat lingerie!!
-- Cdr. Susan Ivanova, B5
Subject: Re: puzzle of the negrito: isolated archaic populations
From: pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu (Philip Deitiker)
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 21:40:21 GMT
dbarnes@liv.ac.uk (Dan Barnes) wrote:
>In article <58s45k$con@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu>, pdeitik@bcm.tmc.edu says...
>>
>>geroldf@sdd.hp.com (Gerold Firl) wrote:
>>
>>>The polynesian settlements are *very*
>>>recent, and open-ocean technology is viewed with scepticism anywhere
>>>beyond 40,000 b.p. or so. Java, on the other hand, had residant
>>>hominids a million years ago
>>
>>True, but the fossile record dries up after that and I'm not even sure
>>that there were non-HS hominids in this subequatorial region when the
>>75K - 50KY migrants came across. There is the belief that somewhere
>>along the way there was a 60 mile stretch of water that had to be
>>crossed, and the best evidence suggests that it was first crossed 50
>>to 45 KYA. The latest dating for Peking man puts him at 400 KY old and
>>there is little evidence from that period to the present suggesting HE
>>presence (And I agree it seems odd that there shouldn't be). So unlike
>>what has been discovered in europe, which can be summerized as
>>evidence for interspecies cultural exchange (with a lack of any
>>genetic exchange) in southeast asia there is simply no evidence for
>>temporal territorial overlap. In addition there is no reason, based on
>>genetic studies, to suggest that these ancient southeast asians are
>>not out of africa.
>>
>Of course the new dates for H.e. (27 to 53 ka) in Java throws a different light on
>this. There may have been a degree of temporal overlap.
About 20 minutes after I sent the posting in I read about this in the
newspaper. As usual I have 2 responses to the new find and
datings,(without debating the quality of the find)
1. The initial datings are usually off the value, tend to overdate
artifiacts, probably in the next 6 mos to a year a correct date will
be found.
2. Even without correct dating the new find demonstrates the
differences between ancient and modern forms indicating that
interbreeding was unlikely. If the new finds showed an intermediate
form then a strong case for argumentation would be present.
> I have also heard
>suggestions, although I have no ref for them, that H.e. had colonised at least one
>island (c. 700 ka) that would have needed boats - even at low sea levels.
My personal opinion is that the working mental abilities of ancient
hominids has, in general, been greatly underestimated. Thus travel by
boat or other means does not strike me as impossible even for H.
neaderthalensis of H. erectus. What is apparent is that erectus was
not very competitive in a variety of other ways and in this regard
what strikes me as the most likely cause of low population numbers is
the ability to fight and fend off predators. The loss of two species
(neaderthals and erectus) indicates that modern humans must have been
pretty good in doing-in competitors. Modern history remains a good
example of this behavior.
>However, you are right in concluding a lack of evidence for genetic continuity.
The real intriquing question is why after several 100K years of
presence that this hominid did not dominate the region, to the extent
that H. Sapiens would be challenged upon arrival? The overlap with
neaderthalensis was apparently much longer. Why didn't neaderthals
move into the region before humans and overtake the territory?
Philip
