Archaeologica.org

[quote="Donna"]Leona,
Thanks for the welcome. Yes, I'm sure things will be stirred up with the find of the little one. I had originally asked where this little one fits into the big picture. As I wrote in my first post I have a great interest in archaeology just don't have a lot of expertise. I am curious about anything from the past.
Donna[/quote]

I think our little girl is going to cause a lot of discussion in the field of archaeology/anthropology. It will probably be some time before anyone can fit her into the family tree.

Like you, I don't have a lot of expertise in this area. I did major in anthropology in college, way back before laptops. My daughters like to tease me about how noisy the classrooms must have been with all of us chipping away at our stone slabs. So much of what I learned back then has been changed, added to or forgotten. But this is a good place to learn, provided you read only those posts of the ones who know what they are talking about. You'll quickly discover who they are, if you haven't already.

Archy.

For the adoption of Mesopotamian legend into the Old Testament I'd direct you to a book rather than a website - Testament, by John Romer. If you go to your library you may be able to find a tape of the TV series adapted from it. You want the first episode, or chapter - appropriately titled "Genesis".

Science is not in the same stream as myth, I think you will agree they are two very different things employing two very different methods of explaining the world around us. So while we can say that one myth grows from or incorporates another older myth, we cannot say that science grows from myth because myth is older, so your Gilgamesh - Noah / Genesis - Darwin chronological argument does not hold up.

My daughters like to tease me about how noisy the classrooms must have been with all of us chipping away at our stone slabs.

Now that's funny!

oldarchystudent wrote:Archy.

For the adoption of Mesopotamian legend into the Old Testament I'd direct you to a book rather than a website - Testament, by John Romer. If you go to your library you may be able to find a tape of the TV series adapted from it. You want the first episode, or chapter - appropriately titled "Genesis".

Science is not in the same stream as myth, I think you will agree they are two very different things employing two very different methods of explaining the world around us. So while we can say that one myth grows from or incorporates another older myth, we cannot say that science grows from myth because myth is older, so your Gilgamesh - Noah / Genesis - Darwin chronological argument does not hold up.

Oh, didn't Arch tell you? He demands evidence but he won't read anything that discredits the fairy tales.

Found this tidbit whilst following links posted on a different thread:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060920/sc ... 0920143923

Seemed like it should be here, considering the recent find.

The trip will be Lucy's first overseas visit for exhibition purposes since she was discovered by American paleontologists Donald Johanson and Tom Gray in 1974 in Ethiopia's northern Afar region.

I hope she makes it to Canada too - I'd like to see that exhibit.

I hope it comes within range of Knoxville. The McClung Museum at the UT campus here, has a replica of Lucy and it's quite impressive to see just how much of her they found and how tiny she was. They also have a replica of Turkana Boy and it's interesting to see the difference in size.

For the adoption of Mesopotamian legend into the Old Testament I'd direct you to a book rather than a website - Testament, by John Romer. If you go to your library you may be able to find a tape of the TV series adapted from it. You want the first episode, or chapter - appropriately titled "Genesis".

you are assuming such items are readily available in english here. now that i know you are culturally illiterate i can ignore you. per your train of thought in another thread.

once again, there is no proof nor can it be proven that the old testament came from other myths. that is just wishful thinking on the part of those who donot want the Bible to be true.

Science is not in the same stream as myth, I think you will agree they are two very different things employing two very different methods of explaining the world around us

i can do both as science is merely a fallible tool used by fallible people to determine the validity of something they have no right or authority to decide its truthfulness or not. given the restrictions placed on science there is no hope of them stumbling across the truth. the book 'origins: 14 billions years of cosmic evolution', illustrates that point quite well. (quotes were used in another thread)

So while we can say that one myth grows from or incorporates another older myth,

you can't say that because you have no direct proof of that taking place especially in the case of the Bible. you want it to be so but it is not.

***if you want me to view that series you would have to send it to me as shipping costs are not that attractive either and i have other commitments for my money.

archaeologist wrote:

For the adoption of Mesopotamian legend into the Old Testament I'd direct you to a book rather than a website - Testament, by John Romer. If you go to your library you may be able to find a tape of the TV series adapted from it. You want the first episode, or chapter - appropriately titled "Genesis".

you are assuming such items are readily available in english here. now that i know you are culturally illiterate i can ignore you. per your train of thought in another thread.

once again, there is no proof nor can it be proven that the old testament came from other myths. that is just wishful thinking on the part of those who donot want the Bible to be true.

You don't seem to have trouble quoting other books in English.

archaeologist wrote:[

Science is not in the same stream as myth, I think you will agree they are two very different things employing two very different methods of explaining the world around us

i can do both as science is merely a fallible tool used by fallible people to determine the validity of something they have no right or authority to decide its truthfulness or not. given the restrictions placed on science there is no hope of them stumbling across the truth. the book origins: 14 billions years of cosmic evolution illustrates that point quite well. (quotes were used in another thread)

Then what possible interest do you have in posting in a forum dedicated to a scientific discipline?

So while we can say that one myth grows from or incorporates another older myth,

you can't say that because yu have no direct proof of that taking place especially in the case of the Bible. you want it to be so but it is not.

***if you want me to view that series you would have to send it to me as shipping costs are not that attractive either and i have other commitments for my money.

If you are genuinely interested, check out your library - I expect you will find it in English or in translation.

I hope it comes within range of Knoxville.

How close is that to Dayton? There'd be a certain irony to exhibiting her in the court house!

once again, there is no proof nor can it be proven that the old testament came from other myths. that is just wishful thinking on the part of those who donot want the Bible to be true.

Denial is a terrible thing.

If you are genuinely interested, check out your library - I expect you will find it in English or in translation

do you have any idea what other countries are like or are you simply just being annal for the sake of argument?

you obviously have no clue to what non-english speaking countries do or what they present and you do not want to know what they consider to be english texts.

archaeologist wrote:

If you are genuinely interested, check out your library - I expect you will find it in English or in translation

do you have any idea what other countries are like or are you simply just being annal for the sake of argument?

you obviously have no clue to what non-english speaking countries do or what they present and you do not want to know what they consider to be english texts.

There's only one "n" in anal.

archaeologist wrote:

If you are genuinely interested, check out your library - I expect you will find it in English or in translation

do you have any idea what other countries are like or are you simply just being annal for the sake of argument?

you obviously have no clue to what non-english speaking countries do or what they present and you do not want to know what they consider to be english texts.

Judging by your blanket condemnation of all Canadians living in proximity to Toronto, I wouldn't be banging the cultural sensitivity drum if I were you. I was just directing you to a book. If you can't find it, I guess you won't have to read it. Relax.....

do you have any idea what other countries are like or are you simply just being annal for the sake of argument?

There's only one "n" in anal.

Annal - a record of events, esp. a yearly record, usually in chronological order.

being Annal is correct scientific procedure Arch

its being anally retentive like you thats pointless