Slashdot Mirror

... and if you have any doubt, take a look at this.

Always right on top of things, eh, editors?

First: The Bosnian "pyramid" (a roughly four-sided hill where they've found nothing but a mound of dirt so far) hit the news last year, in Early November IIRC.

Second, the fellow cho claims it a pyramid ranks right up there with Uri Gellar as far as credibility goes, according to Archaology last week.


So +5 for topical, but minus a million for reporting on entirely the wrong end of the issue. They didn't just discover it, they just debunked the discovery.

I joined the International Afar Research Expedition in 1972, and it was two years later that I discovered Lucy. I was 31 years old then, had just finished my Ph.D., and was absolutely bullheaded about finding something.

explain how this is different from other sciences that are taught in public schools, such as physics and chemistry?

When afghanistan destroyed ancient budhist statues not a single muslim cried out.

"Muslim nations have also condemned the Taliban's actions, insisting that the cultural heritage of other religions must be respected. Pakistan's leading daily paper, The Dawn, wrote, "Islam is a religion of harmony and peaceful coexistence...Buddha was an apostle of peace and non-violence. Certainly he deserves better treatment than what he has hitherto received at the hands of blind zealots in Afghanistan."" (from http://www.archaeology.org/0105/newsbriefs/afghan. html)

Yep, archeology is all WAG (Wild Arsed Guesses). As are many other sciences. Then there is religion...

It's not necessarily speculation. There is signifcant evidence to the contrary, though it has not been ruled out completely.

Except it wasn't just one stone, but over a thousand, see http://www.archaeology.org/9907/newsbriefs/clovis. html

The idea of amateurs only was foisted by the British gentile society as a way to keep professional laborers from competing in the sports (no day laborers could wrestle for example, working rivermen could not compete in rowing, etc.)

I think A&E had a good story about the whole thing recently...

A snippet of some Olympic myths (I like the one about the wine...) http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/olympic s/games.html

I'd have to say they were wrong, or that mitochondrial DNA can't be used. try these links: here
and here
and here
So you see, I have just as much evidence you have to refute me. Plus the archaelogical record backs me up.

To clarify: it doesn't matter how long you live as long as you reproduce before you die. You can be either better adapted, or a better breeder to survive. The idea that a particular species flourished because it was better adapted to its environment is just as plausible as that of being a better breeder.

The better an individual is adapted to it's environment, the more offspring it will produce.. 'Better adapted' and 'Better breeder' are part of the same thing!

According to palentologists, humans didn't begin to use tools until sometime around 10,000 to 50,000 years ago

Perhaps you should learn to use Google before posting something so incorrect.. the first homonid tool use dates back to 2.6 or so Million years ago.

yet as a species we are supposedly 50 million years old

Again, this takes just seconds to check; the Genus Homo is around 2.3-2.5 million years old. The species Homo Sapiens is much younger than this. A cynic might suggest that you were just making up numbers to suit your argument and hoping no one would check them.

In December, 2002, the Arcaeological Institute of America reaffirmed its standing resolution calling upon all governments to "protect ancient sites, monuments, antiquities, and cultural institutions in the case of war." Unfortunately, the U.S. is not a signatory to the Hague Convention which explicitly provides for such protection.

A few years ago, Archaeology Magazine also ran an excellent story on the problem of looting since the Gulf War -- Stolen Stones: The Modern Sack of Nineveh. It's worthwhile reading about how the chaos of war led to widespread sacking of these archaeological sites.

In December, 2002, the Arcaeological Institute of America reaffirmed its standing resolution calling upon all governments to "protect ancient sites, monuments, antiquities, and cultural institutions in the case of war." Unfortunately, the U.S. is not a signatory to the Hague Convention which explicitly provides for such protection.

A few years ago, Archaeology Magazine also ran an excellent story on the problem of looting since the Gulf War -- Stolen Stones: The Modern Sack of Nineveh. It's worthwhile reading about how the chaos of war led to widespread sacking of these archaeological sites.

'"Sept. 11 heightened fears that we could lose this thing -- along with other high-profile American icons -- to cultural terrorism," said Glenn Hill, an architecture professor at Texas Tech who heads the scanning team.'

What's cultural terrorism?

The real God is only Allah, and all other false gods should be removed." This statement from the one-eyed cleric Mullah Omar sent a chill through the international community following an edict issued by Afghanistan's fundamentalist Taliban regime announcing that all pre-Islamic statues in the country were to be destroyed. That edict, and the resulting destruction, has been universally condemned as "cultural terrorism."

If stuff like this is cultural terrorism, wouldn't it mean that America was founded on terrorism? (relating to native Americans)

If Neandertals made a significant genetic contribution to modern humans, similarities should exist between DNA of Neandertals and that of people from Europe, where the Neandertals persisted the longest. Pääbo and his colleagues compared the Neandertal DNA to that from five modern populations, but it proved no closer to DNA from modern Europeans than to that from four other groups. While this does not rule out the possibility of Neandertal and modern human mixing, it suggests that the Neandertal genetic contribution to modern gene pools, if any, was small.

If Neandertals made a significant genetic contribution to modern humans, similarities should exist between DNA of Neandertals and that of people from Europe, where the Neandertals persisted the longest. Pääbo and his colleagues compared the Neandertal DNA to that from five modern populations, but it proved no closer to DNA from modern Europeans than to that from four other groups. While this does not rule out the possibility of Neandertal and modern human mixing, it suggests that the Neandertal genetic contribution to modern gene pools, if any, was small.

That has been debated! Scientists tend to be pigheaded about their pet theories and thus the subject of Homo Sapient/Neandertalis hybrids has become the cause of full blown trench warfare among scientists.

But enaugh about the bonfies of (scientific) vanity. Geneticists claim they have extracted Homo Sapiens Neandertalis DNA from fossils. Now..... some of the people who evaluated these results claim that interbreeding was impossible or at best extremely unlikely. Critics of this assertion point out that if Camels and Guanacos (30-40 million years of genetic isolation) can produce viable hybrid offspring the same should be the case with Homo Sapiens Sapiens and and Homo Sapiens Neandertalis where the Genetic isolation was much, much, smaller. This seems to be born out by evidence from Israel (debated) and especially new discoveries in Portugal . Some of the aversion to the possibility of Neandertal/Cromagnong hybrids seems to be almost Eugenic with some people which is probably due to the Neandertals undeserved reputation of being a primitive hominid when, at least in my humble opinion, they fully deserve the title "Sapiens". Personally I would not be at all disappointed to find I had some Neandertal DNA. There is a legion of worse possibilities when it comes to embarrasing ancestors than Neandertals. Feel free to make fun of me for saying that, I'm sure some of you can will not be able to resist it.

Ps. I am not an anthropologist and I may be misusing the term Homo Sapiens Sapiens, these hominids are also sometimes referred to as Homo Sapiens Cromagnon.

Another article, with pictures of the pyramid rover, and also some background on the Rudolf Gantenbrink controversy. He's the robotics engineer who (some argued) was left uncredited and uninvolved (not even invited to the opening?). I don't know the whole story.

CNN blurb on this special (with video clip)

The ananova take on the special.

The Times (UK) take. Pretty good.

A little on Zahi Hawass

Superb argument. It is equally true that you only find support for evolution on an evolutionists website. And don't quote some dribble about most scientists believing evolution - I have only been made aware of one study of beliefs, and it seems that it's split pretty much down the middle
Read question 4, and follow the footnote for the results of the study. Your hordes of evolutionary counterparts are probably just domestic science teachers and ignorant parents.

Wrong. The mitochondrial "Eve" lived somewhere around 200,000 years ago, according to archaeology.org [archaeology.org]. Shocked?

Arg! You are the second person to give that exact article, and the third person to give an article like that. I'll say to you what I said to the others:
Your article is out of date. A new discovery was made in 1997 that demonstrated mutation rates in mtDNA up to 20 times faster! Your article is dated 1996, therefore was written before this new discovery, therefore outdated! This just gets repetitive and annoying. Here is the article for your reference

Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the moon. But anyway, the old chestnut about depth of moon dust has been debunked quite thoroughly. Well, I can't say much of this except that evolutionists appeared to scramble for an argument, by saying that beneath the thin layer of dust is rocks, or by coming up with their own measurements for the intake of dust. I would love to read the article in which the new evolutionist supporting dust intake rates were calculated, and compare it with the creationist ones. You may be interested to read this article.

Wrong. Learn something about dominant and recessive traits. (Are you listening carefully?)

Ooh, great argument, I'm now convinced I was wrong!
Seriously though, where was I wrong about dominant and recessive traits?

However, you've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt one of two things: 1) that you get all your information from creationist tracts, and outdated ones at that or 2) you are a troll.

Unlike you, who gets his information from outdated evolutionist websites

Creation arguments are very well founded in evidence.

Only if you read creationist websites.

Let's look at one evolutionary assumption:
prediction: Language began as simple grunts

Biological evolution has nothing to do with language.

Using these mutation rates, all women on the earth have a common ancestor around 6000 years ago. Shocked?

Wrong. The mitochondrial "Eve" lived somewhere around 200,000 years ago, according to archaeology.org. Shocked?

Ooh, here's a good evolutionary assumption:
prediction: since the moon is millions of years old, there should be a thick layer of dust on it (after all, there is no wind or erosion for the dust to settle).

Biological evolution has nothing to do with the age of the moon. But anyway, the old chestnut about depth of moon dust has been debunked quite thoroughly.

Now (are you listening carefully? I'm about to destroy a common evolutionists misunderstanding of evolution in action) the one that had all white fur genes would have a much better chance of surviving in a snowy environment.

Wrong. Learn something about dominant and recessive traits. (Are you listening carefully?)

Just so you know, I've barely touched on the surface of overwhelming evidence for creation and overwhelming evidence for the complete irrational nature of evolution

However, you've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt one of two things: 1) that you get all your information from creationist tracts, and outdated ones at that or 2) you are a troll.

I did a google search and came up with this and this. It is unfortunate that the image link in the second one appears to be broken, however, because I'd really like to see what this thing looks like. Quoting from this latter:

Inspired by a diorite stela inscribed with the laws of the great eighteenth-century B.C. Babylonian king Hammurabi, now in the Louvre, thousands of small warning tablets will be randomly buried throughout a wide area, each bearing warnings in one of seven languages (the six official United Nations languages plus one Native American language). Like Hammurabi's stela, the messages are expected to remain legible for at least 4,000 years. A roofless, 15-foot-high granite "information center" will be built at the site center, with symbols and detailed written warnings engraved on the walls and floor.

To me, putting nasty sharp scary-looking things all over a a desolate part of the wilderness seems likely to say to future treasure-seekers "Yo, don't dig here because these here fantastic riches belong to ME!"

Now I'm beginning to wonder what might be buried beneath Stonehenge...

The maddening thing about that article is that it contained no useful links. Typical Salon sloppy journalism.

A (dull) report on warning signs at a New mexico facility is here.

The Archaeology Magazine article (more of a blurb) is here.

Excerpts from "Expert Judgement on Markers to Deter Inadvertent Human Intrusion into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant"

A design exhibition of warning markers.

-adso

Well... if I recall correctly, people didn't believe Troy existed either until Schliemann said he'd dug it up. (though there seems to be dispute over whether that really was Troy.) Some things don't change much, eh.

A lot is made of the fact that almost every culture has some version of the Noah myth. (There's an interesting exception, that I'll talk about in a moment.) But why is this suprising? Cultures from this period tended to grow up around small (a few thousand people) cities built in flood basins. The river was source of life -- it provided topsoil, transportation and food. It was often considered divine (the Latin word for "priest" originally meant "bridge-keeper").

But life on the river has its downside, as everybody who lives near one knows. One major flood, and there goes your urban center. Not cataclymisic if you're one river town in a bigger culture. But suppose that town contains your entire government, economic establishment, and cultural elite? Obviously, the River God has decided to mod your civilization down in a big way.

The exception is very interesting -- sub-Saharan Africans don't have a Noah myth. Which is hardly suprising. Altough the pre-colonial Africans did build a few cities none of them were on flood plains.

Other things can wipe out a small civilization too. It can outstrip its resources, be decimated by plague, or simply get sloppy about maintaining its source of wealth. We need to consider the mundane before we start worrying about the exotic.

The preservation is so good that when the occasional bog body is found, it is usually the police who get the first call, because the discoverers think they've found a recent murder victim.

Actually mammoths didn't die off as long ago as everbody thought. There was an isolated group on an island that survived until only 5000 years ago. The thinking is that being on a remote island protected them from hunting by man which is why they survived so long. Details here, including the quote: "...surprisingly recent dates on woolly mammoth remains from Wrangel Island in 1990, ranging between 7390-4740 BP. The finds were remarkable for two reasons: they indicated mammoth survival on Wrangel Island for as much as 5000 years after the last known date of mammoths on the Eurasian continent, and they documented the evolution of a distinct dwarf mammoth population on Wrangel Island." Other theories include a virus induced extinction , but I think it was man... To me, even more interesting is whether or not man killed off Neandertals. These guys were all over Europe for a very long time, and they were smart enought to fight back. A war with them would have truly been "World War One". There is so far only one possible example of a possible human-Neandertal hybrid , so their disappearance probably wasn't from interbreeding...Let's take a poll, did humans deliberately destroy neandertals or were they the original Homer Simpsons that just died out???

• Cholula is apparently the site of the Temanapa Pyramid, a "major religious center before the Spanish arrived".
• Apparently this involves Chihuahuas somehow. "Drop the Chalupa-cabra! Don't be a fool!"
• Apparently Cholula was a holy city
• And there's a volcano there.
• And Chewbaca is a wookie
• Therefore, my client is an alien!