Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Prehistoric Desert Town Found In Western Sahara (15,000 Years Old)
Reuters ^ | 8-19-2004 | Reuters

Posted on 08/20/2004 9:10:09 AM PDT by blam

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-133 last
To: DannyTN
For sure, you didn't read this link carefully either. It is not what you cite it to be.
101 posted on 08/22/2004 5:42:08 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
That article presented no real evidence that the city was 15,000 years old. It's a date picked because of popular opinion, not hard evidence.

Again, I think 15,000 is out of the mainstream just now. From the evidence of a very sketchy article, the age of 15,000 for this Arabian settlement looks to me like some eccentric's W.A.G. (The first and last letters of that acronym are "wild" and "guess.")

102 posted on 08/22/2004 5:51:21 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Arabian settlement

North-African Berber settlement.

103 posted on 08/22/2004 5:52:11 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Fedora
"It's a date picked because of popular opinion, not hard evidence." - Danny TN

The frustrating thing is that those Ethiopian and Mexican dates and all the others, probably had no more basis for the date than this one. But they build on each other, until some evolutionists will say "there are dozens of cultures known to be 15,000 years old, so the Bible must be wrong.

I for one remain unconvinced. I don't buy the Ethiopian dates, or the Mexican dates, or the Saharan dates.

I don't buy the date for the 150,000 year old fossil. At least they had Argon dating. But then you already know I consider Argon dating to be junk science because of the assumption of the starting amount of Argon, (which has been proven false with 16 different recent volcanic flows), and no way to measure contamination from non-atmospheric Argon.

Of course there are no shortage of opinions. Here is a link to a professor from a Catholic Jesuit university talking about 500,000 year old hand axes in India. He has no problem throwing out the Bible because the axes were probably dated using radiometric techniques.

Meanwhile, I think he's an idiot. I think the radiometric dating is flawed. I think the fossil records and artifacts that would be found had tool bearing humans roamed the earth for 500,000 years would be SERIES HUGH. Thus this professor's misplaced faith in radiometric dating has left him STEWNED.

Creighton Prof on India

104 posted on 08/22/2004 5:53:40 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
"I think you're using Google too robotically."

Well, I didn't start out looking for 15,000. I ran across the number at least twice on Friday while looking for oldest human fossils to resolve the 300,000 vs millions debate. It was after I had seen it a couple of times that I realized there was enough support for the 15,000 year date that that may well have influenced these guy's dating this city.

105 posted on 08/22/2004 5:55:41 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
There was no predisposition for the current consensus (whatever it is). It was arrived at by following a preponderance of evidence. It has changed over time as the evidence picture changed. Nineteenth-century writers on Egyptian Dynastic history used chronologies which yield older dates than those now given for things like the initial unification of Egypt, etc.

I dunno, I'm not getting into the creationist-evolutionist debate here, but just speaking strictly within a historical framework, I think there's a predisposition, in that there are a lot of a priori assumptions from the 18th-19th century that continue to underlie current theory. You mention Egyptology above, so to take that as an example, there is a problem with circular dating because Manetho's chronology is used to date finds in Palestine which are then used to support Manetho's chronology. To cite some other examples that are pet peeves of mine (i.e., this isn't directed at you, I'm just ranting, LOL!), the Bering Strait hypothesis has long been used as an assumption without any empirical justification; and C.J. Thomsen's Stone-Iron-Bronze Age progression was an a priori framework based more on Hegelian-era methodological assumptions than empirical data. I think there is a problem with some things like that which predispose the academic establishment towards certain hypotheses and against others. The problem IMO is that historians often mix methodological and empirical assumptions without realizing that they're doing so, so their intepretation of the empirical data is often premised on unsubstantiated and sometimes unconscious methodological assumptions.

106 posted on 08/22/2004 5:57:28 PM PDT by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
You don't buy the age of the Earth at all, anything much over 6000, and that's ridiculous. To do this, one has to find one excuse or other to throw out most of what we know. Your Sunday School teachers are asking too much of society.
107 posted on 08/22/2004 5:59:48 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
"For sure, you didn't read this link carefully either. It is not what you cite it to be."

LOL Busted!!!

My apologies to any Negroes or Non-Negroes that might have been offended by that link. I still haven't read it well, I keyed in on the following sentence....

"Mr. Wells alludes to this early civilization in his Outline of History, and dates its beginnings as far back as 15,000 years B.C. "

108 posted on 08/22/2004 6:00:46 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Throw out the radiometric dating and what do we really know?


109 posted on 08/22/2004 6:02:39 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Fedora
Biased thinking of course exists, but I know of no better example than creationism. All the others are doing relatively better.

... and C.J. Thomsen's Stone-Iron-Bronze Age ...

I have a problem with this, too. Thomsen seems to have the Iron Age before the Bronze Age. ;)

110 posted on 08/22/2004 6:03:26 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Fedora; VadeRetro

Fedora said it much better if a little longer than I did.

The dating's hokey.


111 posted on 08/22/2004 6:05:01 PM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN; VadeRetro
Beat ya, see post 96.

LOL! But Fagan's "15,000" reference there is alluding to the date of the climactic trends he's talking about, not to the rise of civilization. "Civilization" would be referring to walled settlements on the scale we find at places like Sumer, which Fagan wouldn't acknowledge as existing 15,000 years ago. Fagan is a pretty conventional archaeologist who spends a lot of his time defending the established consensus on the Bering Strait hypothesis, and as such he follows the established academic view on the date of the rise of civilization.

112 posted on 08/22/2004 6:06:59 PM PDT by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Throw out the radiometric dating and what do we really know?

1) Light takes a long time to get from quasars to us, but we see them.

2) Early geological estimates for the age of the geologic column based entirely upon rates of sedimentation were still far, far over 6,000 years. Well over 100,000, IIRC.

3) Lines of evidence from molecular biology tend to produce age estimates for things like the emergence of reptiles from amphibians, etc., in line with (but usually even older than) evidence from paleontology.

The Earth is obviously old, period.

113 posted on 08/22/2004 6:08:15 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

Thomsen seems to have a typo, LOL! I think I just introduced some unintentional historical revisionism :)


114 posted on 08/22/2004 6:08:43 PM PDT by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Fedora said it much better if a little longer than I did.

Your reading skills need work. Exorcize your Morton's Demon! The world is not getting through to you, really. I'm not kidding.

115 posted on 08/22/2004 6:09:43 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: blam

Wasn't that area more of a grassland or savanna than a desert 15,000 years ago?


116 posted on 08/22/2004 6:11:06 PM PDT by edwin hubble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Wells is H.G. You could look him up.
117 posted on 08/22/2004 6:11:55 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Wells, himself dead a long time, is citing such authorities as Flinders Petrie. You can certainly look HIM up.
118 posted on 08/22/2004 6:17:33 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
300,000 or a million. It's still not believable that man was smart enough to use tools but not smart enough to realize that plants grow from seeds and start planting what he liked.

Read this book and then get back to us:

It examines the factors that influenced the discovery and spread of agriculture, writing, animal domestication, steelmaking, nationstates, and so on. It does an excellent job of explaining why these developments occurred at certain times and places, and not others.

As for agriculture, the condensed version is that kickstarting an agricultural society from scratch is a lot harder than it sounds, and at the beginning the future benefits don't look all that great compared to the amount of effort and risk involved. Plus, only a few places on the planet had both a suitable climate, *and* a suitable mix of adaptable crops (and domesticatable animals), to make it possible to subsist on a reliable, steady, nutritionally workable agriculture.

Yet another hurdle is the fact that in their original natural form, even the best of today's crop plants (e.g. wheat, corn, etc.) were barely suitable for use -- it was only after thousands of years of selective breeding (first by accident, later on purpose) were they eventually refined into crops that could truly sustain farming communities.

Figuring out that you could plant seeds and make something grow was the *easy* part, and was undoubtedly recognized for tens of thousands of years before the first real "farming community" managed to make a successful go of things after solving the many other obstacles involved.

119 posted on 08/22/2004 6:30:02 PM PDT by Ichneumon ("...she might as well have been a space alien." - Bill Clinton, on Hillary, "My Life", p. 182)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
One thing I can use your link for is to prove that I'm black, a thing people might not otherwise suspect, through my "Black Irish" ancestry:

Most readers of history know about the Celts, ancient inhabitants of Europe, whose priests were known as the Druids. It is generally thought that these Celts were Caucasoids, but Sir Godfrey Higgins, after much study came to the conclusion that they were a Negroid people. Higgins wrote a ponderous volume entitled The Celtic Druids. In the following passage from his Anacalypsis he modestly refers to it as an essay: "In my essay on the Celtic Druids, I have shown that a great nation called Celtae, of whom the Druids were the priests, spread themselves almost over the whole earth, and are to be traced in their rude gigantic monuments from India to the extremity of Britain. The religion of Buddha of India is well known to have been very ancient." (Higgins is here referring to the first Buddha, who is supposed to have lived between 5,000 and 6,000 years ago, and not to Gautama Buddha who lived about 600 years B.C. There were at least ten Buddhas mentioned in the sacred books of India.) "Who these can have been but the early individuals of the black nation of whom we have been treating I know not, and in this opinion I am not singular. The learned Maurice says Cuthies (Cushites), i.e. Celts, built the great temples in India and Britain, and excavated the caves of the former; and the learned mathematician, Reuben Burrow, has no hesitation in pronouncing Stonehenge to be a temple of the black curly-headed Buddha." (Anacalypsis, Vol. I, Book I, Chap. IV, New York, 1927.)

120 posted on 08/22/2004 6:32:49 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: edwin hubble
"Wasn't that area more of a grassland or savanna than a desert 15,000 years ago?"

Yes.

121 posted on 08/22/2004 6:46:31 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
"1) Light takes a long time to get from quasars to us, but we see them."

Scripture says 16 or 17 times that God "stretched the heavens". What exactly that means I don't know, but I know when scripture tends to repeat something, it's usually very important. My understanding is that only the distance to the nearest stars have actually been calculated using trigonometry. The rest of the distances are inferred from the red shift. But might there be other reasons for red shifts???

And it is also possible that God created the stars complete with light in transit. While the standard evo claim is that such an act is inherently deceptive, that is not so. Scripture records that God created the stars to provide light for the earth. If creating light in transit is within God's power, why should He wait billions of years before enjoying that benefit? Why should He wait just because some men will assume that He couldn't have created it thus and thus come to a false conclusion about the age of the universe? Should God anticipate every act of arrogance of man and proactive take steps to keep him from reaching false conclusions?

New Theory on Red Shift
Continuing Saga of Speed of Light and Quantized Red Shifts
More on Red Shifts
Red Shift assumptions proven wrong

"2) Early geological estimates for the age of the geologic column based entirely upon rates of sedimentation were still far, far over 6,000 years. Well over 100,000, IIRC."

Using a "uniformitarian" approach and completely discounting the global flood. That's a long earth age approach assuming a long earth age.

"3) Lines of evidence from molecular biology tend to produce age estimates for things like the emergence of reptiles from amphibians, etc., in line with (but usually even older than) evidence from paleontology."

Again, a "uniformitarian" and "evolutionistic" approach assuming evolution.

The conclusions of 2 and 3 are based on the world view you've already adopted.

The light explanation is a little harder, but there are many possibilities. 2) Early geological estimates for the age of the geologic column based entirely upon rates of sedimentation were still far, far over 6,000 years. Well over 100,000, IIRC. 3) Lines of evidence from molecular biology tend to produce age estimates for things like the emergence of reptiles from amphibians, etc., in line with (but usually even older than) evidence from paleontology.

"The Earth is obviously old, period"

The Earth is obviously young, period"

122 posted on 08/23/2004 7:23:33 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
"One thing I can use your link for is to prove that I'm black, a thing people might not otherwise suspect, through my "Black Irish" ancestry:"

Well, I'm Scott-Irish. Does that make me a Mulatto?

123 posted on 08/23/2004 7:32:07 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
My understanding is that only the distance to the nearest stars have actually been calculated using trigonometry. The rest of the distances are inferred from the red shift. But might there be other reasons for red shifts???

The disparate techniques were bridged and calibrated by cepheid variable stars. A number of other techniques have since been developed to measure astronomical distance. This site mentions water masers and analysis of star clusters. The more measures we have giving agreeable answers, the more confidence we have.

You keep your understanding too simple so that what you understand can stay wrong. In short, wilfull ignorance.

124 posted on 08/23/2004 7:59:12 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Well, I'm Scott-Irish. Does that make me a Mulatto?

No. You're Celt on both sides and pure Negroid. I'm an Irish-German mulatto.

125 posted on 08/23/2004 8:00:11 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
wilfull

Willful. Must ewes spell checker!

126 posted on 08/23/2004 8:13:43 AM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
"You keep your understanding too simple so that what you understand can stay wrong. In short, wilfull ignorance."

"Exorcize your Morton's Demon!"

My understanding may be simple in some cases. It's been over 20 years since I had college astronomy, and I only had the one course in that field. I don't remember Cepheid stars being discussed. But I will admit it sounds logical. It's still based on assumptions that we know how light acts over long distances and thus difference in magnitude is an adequate surogate for distance.

The problem here is not the long distances. It's the assumption that long distances prove that God didn't make the heavens and the earth, in a 7 day period like He claimed.

The very first lesson on deception in scripture was that of Eve in the Garden. Satan flat out contradicted God and told her that she wouldn't die, followed by a lot of things that were true. Instead of focusing on the contradiction, Eve focused on the things that Satan had told her that were true and it made the lie palatable.

The long distances evolutionists point out are probably reasonably accurate, the constancy of the speed of light may be true too. However, they do not negate what God said about His making the universe when He said He did. There is an explanation for why things appear as they do. I'll look for the flaws in your observations and logic where I can find them. But at the end of the day, I'm going to believe God.

That's different than Morton's demon. I don't filter the evidence. But the evidence and man's understanding of what he sees is not strong enough to negate what God said.

Morton's problem wasn't the filter. It was that he had no absolute truth to measure by. Thus when Morton finally bypassed the filter and saw observations that at first glance contradicted his world view, he changed his world view. Convenient, yes, but he has no firm foundation. He'll be blown about by every change in the wind. He doesn't know who he is or where he came from. Is he Neanderthal's child?, or Cro Magmon's? or Lucy's? or trunkmoney's? He's got no clue. He's counted his Creator a liar based on things he doesn't fully understand.

I, on the otherhand, know the Creator of the Universe. If He says His written word is true, and His written word appears to say the earth is young, then my money is on a young earth. There's always the possibility I misunderstood something. But just because light as we understand it would take millions of years to get from where we understand the stars to be, using the physical laws as we understand them, does not in any way convince me that we fully understand the how and why and timing of God's creation.

The very first lesson on deception in scripture was that of Eve in the Garden. Satan flat out contradicted God and told her that she wouldn't die, followed by a lot of things that were true. Instead of focusing on the contradiction, Eve focused on the things that Satan had told her that were true and it made the lie palatable.

127 posted on 08/23/2004 11:38:50 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
"Must ewes spell checker!"

I grew up in Louisiana, home of America's illterate in two languages. I have a lifetime excuse for both grammar and spelling.

128 posted on 08/23/2004 11:40:18 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

Just updating the GGG information, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
Gods, Graves, Glyphs PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)

129 posted on 07/22/2006 9:21:46 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (updated my FR profile on Wednesday, June 21, 2006. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Oldest Jewelry? “Beads” Discovered in African Cave
National Geographic News | April 15, 2004 | Hillary Mayell
Posted on 04/16/2004 8:58:13 AM PDT by balrog666
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1118872/posts

Egypt’s Oldest Known Art Identified, Is 15,000 Years Old
National Geographic | 7-11-2007 | Dan Morrison
Posted on 07/13/2007 8:12:36 AM PDT by blam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1865401/posts


130 posted on 05/28/2008 8:34:26 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_______________________Profile updated Monday, April 28, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic ·

 
Gods
Graves
Glyphs
Just updating the GGG info, not sending a general distribution.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.
GGG managers are Blam, StayAt HomeMother, and Ernest_at_the_Beach
 

· Google · Archaeologica · ArchaeoBlog · Archaeology magazine · Biblical Archaeology Society ·
· Mirabilis · Texas AM Anthropology News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo ·
· History or Science & Nature Podcasts · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·


131 posted on 05/28/2008 8:35:36 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/_______________________Profile updated Monday, April 28, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Junior

Hell life was iffy just 150 years ago. It was nothing to lose a family to cholera or smallpox or bubonic not to mention stillborn or short lived infants. Then there was war, starvation, and outright genocide on top of that.


132 posted on 10/03/2008 5:22:38 PM PDT by Free Vulcan (No prisoners. No mercy. Fight back or STFU!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

domestication of horse site:freerepublic.com
Google

133 posted on 04/17/2009 1:17:48 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________ Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-133 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson