| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"maff" |
| Date: |
11 Jun 2005 04:07:33 AM |
| Object: |
David Keys |
Found: Europe's oldest civilisation
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=645976
By David Keys, Archaeology Correspondent
11 June 2005
Archaeologists have discovered Europe's oldest civilisation, a network
of dozens of temples, 2,000 years older than Stonehenge and the
Pyramids.
More than 150 gigantic monuments have been located beneath the fields
and cities of modern-day Germany, Austria and Slovakia. They were built
7,000 years ago, between 4800BC and 4600BC. Their discovery, revealed
today by The Independent, will revolutionise the study of prehistoric
Europe, where an appetite for monumental architecture was thought to
have developed later than in Mesopotamia and Egypt.
David Keys
http://news.google.com/news?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+%22David+Keys%22&sa=N&tab=gn
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+%22David+Keys%22&sa=N&tab=nw
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=+%22David+Keys%22&sa=N&tab=wd&cat=gwd%2FTop
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=David%20Keys&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: David Keys |
11 Jun 2005 08:01:05 AM |
|
|
maff wrote:
Found: Europe's oldest civilisation
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=645976
By David Keys, Archaeology Correspondent
11 June 2005
Archaeologists have discovered Europe's oldest civilisation, a network
of dozens of temples, 2,000 years older than Stonehenge and the
Pyramids.
This is a bit of a cheat, since the small print admits Egypt has
archaeology that's 2,000 years older than the Pyramids.* And the BBC
doesn't have the story. On the other hand, if they have
dendrochronology going back longer than 6,000 years, it should be one
in the eye for you-know-who.
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=645972
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: David Keys |
11 Jun 2005 08:56:01 AM |
|
|
wrote:
maff wrote:
Found: Europe's oldest civilisation
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=645976
By David Keys, Archaeology Correspondent
11 June 2005
Archaeologists have discovered Europe's oldest civilisation, a network
of dozens of temples, 2,000 years older than Stonehenge and the
Pyramids.
This is a bit of a cheat, since the small print admits Egypt has
archaeology that's 2,000 years older than the Pyramids.* And the BBC
doesn't have the story. On the other hand, if they have
dendrochronology going back longer than 6,000 years, it should be one
in the eye for you-know-who.
Why? We already have dendrochronology going way beyond that.
The response will be either to ignore it, or come up with facile
reasons why dendrochronology is not reliable.
If this were a matter to be decided on evidence, there would be no
issue.
RF
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=645972
.
|
|
|
| User: "Boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: David Keys |
11 Jun 2005 12:42:10 PM |
|
|
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1118498161.861694.254310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
rja.carnegie@excite.com wrote:
maff wrote:
Found: Europe's oldest civilisation
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=645976
By David Keys, Archaeology Correspondent
11 June 2005
Archaeologists have discovered Europe's oldest civilisation, a network
of dozens of temples, 2,000 years older than Stonehenge and the
Pyramids.
This is a bit of a cheat, since the small print admits Egypt has
archaeology that's 2,000 years older than the Pyramids.* And the BBC
doesn't have the story. On the other hand, if they have
dendrochronology going back longer than 6,000 years, it should be one
in the eye for you-know-who.
I can't be sure, but I think the "one in the eye for you-know-who" refers to
one in the eye for Zahi Hawass, Head of the Supreme Counsel for Antiquities.
Why? We already have dendrochronology going way beyond that.
I believe we have for bristlecone pines, which is good fro calibrating C14
clockage, but how extensive is the dendrochronology for eastern and central
europe?
The response will be either to ignore it, or come up with facile
reasons why dendrochronology is not reliable.
If this were a matter to be decided on evidence, there would be no
issue.
RF
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=645972
Boikat
--
<42><
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: David Keys |
11 Jun 2005 07:55:47 PM |
|
|
Boikat wrote:
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1118498161.861694.254310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
rja.carnegie@excite.com wrote:
maff wrote:
Found: Europe's oldest civilisation
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=645976
By David Keys, Archaeology Correspondent
11 June 2005
Archaeologists have discovered Europe's oldest civilisation, a
network of dozens of temples, 2,000 years older than Stonehenge and
the Pyramids.
This is a bit of a cheat, since the small print admits Egypt has
archaeology that's 2,000 years older than the Pyramids.* And the BBC
doesn't have the story. On the other hand, if they have
dendrochronology going back longer than 6,000 years, it should be one
in the eye for you-know-who.
I can't be sure, but I think the "one in the eye for you-know-who" refers
to one in the eye for Zahi Hawass, Head of the Supreme Counsel for
Antiquities.
Why? We already have dendrochronology going way beyond that.
I believe we have for bristlecone pines, which is good fro calibrating C14
clockage, but how extensive is the dendrochronology for eastern and
central europe?
Actually pretty good.
The problems are areas where the ice age ice sheets covered
Northern Europe, and areas of the Near East where wood samples
weren't well perserved except spottily.
Egypt for example was pretty much deforrested by 6,000
years ago. By 2,500 BCE large parts of what is now the Negev and Judea
became dry and desolate. Cities were abandoned there and good
wood samples are hard to come by.
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: David Keys |
12 Jun 2005 04:35:01 AM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
Boikat wrote:
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1118498161.861694.254310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
rja.carnegie@excite.com wrote:
maff wrote:
Found: Europe's oldest civilisation
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=645976
By David Keys, Archaeology Correspondent
11 June 2005
Archaeologists have discovered Europe's oldest civilisation, a
network of dozens of temples, 2,000 years older than Stonehenge and
the Pyramids.
This is a bit of a cheat, since the small print admits Egypt has
archaeology that's 2,000 years older than the Pyramids.* And the BBC
doesn't have the story. On the other hand, if they have
dendrochronology going back longer than 6,000 years, it should be one
in the eye for you-know-who.
I can't be sure, but I think the "one in the eye for you-know-who" refers
to one in the eye for Zahi Hawass, Head of the Supreme Counsel for
Antiquities.
Why? We already have dendrochronology going way beyond that.
I believe we have for bristlecone pines, which is good fro calibrating C14
clockage, but how extensive is the dendrochronology for eastern and
central europe?
Actually pretty good.
The problems are areas where the ice age ice sheets covered
Northern Europe, and areas of the Near East where wood samples
weren't well perserved except spottily.
Egypt for example was pretty much deforrested by 6,000
years ago. By 2,500 BCE large parts of what is now the Negev and Judea
became dry and desolate. Cities were abandoned there and good
wood samples are hard to come by.
Dry isn't good for this? Just making conversation. I take it you mean
there weren't people cutting down trees and using wood for construction
and preserving a record there. Or there were no more trees, or few.
So if there's a record in older relics, it stops?
And joining together tree-ring bar codes from neighbouring areas is
tricky?
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: David Keys |
12 Jun 2005 09:56:37 AM |
|
|
wrote:
wcb wrote:
Boikat wrote:
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1118498161.861694.254310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
wrote:
maff wrote:
Found: Europe's oldest civilisation
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=645976
By David Keys, Archaeology Correspondent
11 June 2005
Archaeologists have discovered Europe's oldest civilisation, a
network of dozens of temples, 2,000 years older than Stonehenge
and the Pyramids.
This is a bit of a cheat, since the small print admits Egypt has
archaeology that's 2,000 years older than the Pyramids.* And the
BBC
doesn't have the story. On the other hand, if they have
dendrochronology going back longer than 6,000 years, it should be
one in the eye for you-know-who.
I can't be sure, but I think the "one in the eye for you-know-who"
refers to one in the eye for Zahi Hawass, Head of the Supreme Counsel
for Antiquities.
Why? We already have dendrochronology going way beyond that.
I believe we have for bristlecone pines, which is good fro calibrating
C14 clockage, but how extensive is the dendrochronology for eastern and
central europe?
Actually pretty good.
The problems are areas where the ice age ice sheets covered
Northern Europe, and areas of the Near East where wood samples
weren't well perserved except spottily.
Egypt for example was pretty much deforrested by 6,000
years ago. By 2,500 BCE large parts of what is now the Negev and Judea
became dry and desolate. Cities were abandoned there and good
wood samples are hard to come by.
Dry isn't good for this? Just making conversation. I take it you mean
there weren't people cutting down trees and using wood for construction
and preserving a record there. Or there were no more trees, or few.
So if there's a record in older relics, it stops?
In dry areas trees are sparse. They usually don't perserve all
that well. They do last in areas with water, boggy areas with oxygen free
mud. Cold areas where termites are scarce.
Lots of Eastern Europe is like that in parts.
And joining together tree-ring bar codes from neighbouring areas is
tricky?
--
When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: David Keys |
12 Jun 2005 05:03:35 AM |
|
|
wrote:
wcb wrote:
Boikat wrote:
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1118498161.861694.254310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
wrote:
maff wrote:
Found: Europe's oldest civilisation
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=645976
By David Keys, Archaeology Correspondent
11 June 2005
Archaeologists have discovered Europe's oldest civilisation, a
network of dozens of temples, 2,000 years older than Stonehenge and
the Pyramids.
This is a bit of a cheat, since the small print admits Egypt has
archaeology that's 2,000 years older than the Pyramids.* And the BBC
doesn't have the story. On the other hand, if they have
dendrochronology going back longer than 6,000 years, it should be one
in the eye for you-know-who.
I can't be sure, but I think the "one in the eye for you-know-who" refers
to one in the eye for Zahi Hawass, Head of the Supreme Counsel for
Antiquities.
Why? We already have dendrochronology going way beyond that.
I believe we have for bristlecone pines, which is good fro calibrating C14
clockage, but how extensive is the dendrochronology for eastern and
central europe?
Actually pretty good.
The problems are areas where the ice age ice sheets covered
Northern Europe, and areas of the Near East where wood samples
weren't well perserved except spottily.
Egypt for example was pretty much deforrested by 6,000
years ago. By 2,500 BCE large parts of what is now the Negev and Judea
became dry and desolate. Cities were abandoned there and good
wood samples are hard to come by.
Dry isn't good for this? Just making conversation. I take it you mean
there weren't people cutting down trees and using wood for construction
and preserving a record there. Or there were no more trees, or few.
So if there's a record in older relics, it stops?
And joining together tree-ring bar codes from neighbouring areas is
tricky?
Bogs are best. Good for human bodies as well - just look at Tollund
Man.
And yes, joining tree-ring bar codes is tricky, and relies on quite
sophisticated statistical techniques.
RF
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: David Keys |
12 Jun 2005 11:20:07 AM |
|
|
On 12 Jun 2005 03:03:35 -0700, "Richard Forrest"
<richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote:
rja.carnegie@excite.com wrote:
wcb wrote:
Boikat wrote:
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1118498161.861694.254310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
rja.carnegie@excite.com wrote:
maff wrote:
Found: Europe's oldest civilisation
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=645976
By David Keys, Archaeology Correspondent
11 June 2005
Archaeologists have discovered Europe's oldest civilisation, a
network of dozens of temples, 2,000 years older than Stonehenge and
the Pyramids.
This is a bit of a cheat, since the small print admits Egypt has
archaeology that's 2,000 years older than the Pyramids.* And the BBC
doesn't have the story. On the other hand, if they have
dendrochronology going back longer than 6,000 years, it should be one
in the eye for you-know-who.
I can't be sure, but I think the "one in the eye for you-know-who" refers
to one in the eye for Zahi Hawass, Head of the Supreme Counsel for
Antiquities.
Why? We already have dendrochronology going way beyond that.
I believe we have for bristlecone pines, which is good fro calibrating C14
clockage, but how extensive is the dendrochronology for eastern and
central europe?
Actually pretty good.
The problems are areas where the ice age ice sheets covered
Northern Europe, and areas of the Near East where wood samples
weren't well perserved except spottily.
Egypt for example was pretty much deforrested by 6,000
years ago. By 2,500 BCE large parts of what is now the Negev and Judea
became dry and desolate. Cities were abandoned there and good
wood samples are hard to come by.
Dry isn't good for this? Just making conversation. I take it you mean
there weren't people cutting down trees and using wood for construction
and preserving a record there. Or there were no more trees, or few.
So if there's a record in older relics, it stops?
And joining together tree-ring bar codes from neighbouring areas is
tricky?
Bogs are best. Good for human bodies as well - just look at Tollund
Man.
I have seen him a couple of times. He is truly amazing. His face is
very well preserved. He looks exactly as if he were sleeping. Of
course he is "only" 2000 years old.
Talking about well-preserved, we also have in Denmark a wooden arrow
dated to be about 12000 years old; which would place it at the time
the ice began to retreat from the region now known as Jutland.
And yes, joining tree-ring bar codes is tricky, and relies on quite
sophisticated statistical techniques.
RF
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: David Keys |
12 Jun 2005 11:31:32 AM |
|
|
<snipped>
Bogs are best. Good for human bodies as well - just look at Tollund
Man.
I have seen him a couple of times. He is truly amazing. His face is
very well preserved. He looks exactly as if he were sleeping. Of
course he is "only" 2000 years old.
He makes me very uneasy. There's a rather fine line between a body as
an exhibit in a museum, and a dead human being lying there and being
gawked at. When I look at him, it feels like an intrusion into
something personal and private.
Talking about well-preserved, we also have in Denmark a wooden arrow
dated to be about 12000 years old; which would place it at the time
the ice began to retreat from the region now known as Jutland.
And yes, joining tree-ring bar codes is tricky, and relies on quite
sophisticated statistical techniques.
RF
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: David Keys |
13 Jun 2005 01:34:38 PM |
|
|
On 12 Jun 2005 09:31:32 -0700, "Richard Forrest"
<richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote:
<snipped>
Bogs are best. Good for human bodies as well - just look at Tollund
Man.
I have seen him a couple of times. He is truly amazing. His face is
very well preserved. He looks exactly as if he were sleeping. Of
course he is "only" 2000 years old.
He makes me very uneasy. There's a rather fine line between a body as
an exhibit in a museum, and a dead human being lying there and being
gawked at. When I look at him, it feels like an intrusion into
something personal and private.
I think that that feeling is probably normal and common enough. That
is also interesting. We recognize his humanity; he is one of us.
Many people have said that they were very moved the first time they
saw him.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: David Keys |
11 Jun 2005 02:29:28 PM |
|
|
Boikat wrote:
"Richard Forrest" <richard@plesiosaur.com> wrote in message
news:1118498161.861694.254310@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
rja.carnegie@excite.com wrote:
maff wrote:
Found: Europe's oldest civilisation
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=645976
By David Keys, Archaeology Correspondent
11 June 2005
Archaeologists have discovered Europe's oldest civilisation, a network
of dozens of temples, 2,000 years older than Stonehenge and the
Pyramids.
This is a bit of a cheat, since the small print admits Egypt has
archaeology that's 2,000 years older than the Pyramids.* And the BBC
doesn't have the story. On the other hand, if they have
dendrochronology going back longer than 6,000 years, it should be one
in the eye for you-know-who.
I can't be sure, but I think the "one in the eye for you-know-who" refers to
one in the eye for Zahi Hawass, Head of the Supreme Counsel for Antiquities.
Why? We already have dendrochronology going way beyond that.
I believe we have for bristlecone pines, which is good fro calibrating C14
clockage, but how extensive is the dendrochronology for eastern and central
europe?
Bog oak from various parts of Northern Europe takes it back to about
10,000 BP
The response will be either to ignore it, or come up with facile
reasons why dendrochronology is not reliable.
If this were a matter to be decided on evidence, there would be no
issue.
RF
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=645972
Boikat
--
<42><
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: David Keys |
11 Jun 2005 09:16:23 AM |
|
|
Richard Forrest wrote:
rja.carnegie@excite.com wrote:
maff wrote:
Found: Europe's oldest civilisation
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=645976
By David Keys, Archaeology Correspondent
11 June 2005
Archaeologists have discovered Europe's oldest civilisation, a network
of dozens of temples, 2,000 years older than Stonehenge and the
Pyramids.
This is a bit of a cheat, since the small print admits Egypt has
archaeology that's 2,000 years older than the Pyramids.* And the BBC
doesn't have the story. On the other hand, if they have
dendrochronology going back longer than 6,000 years, it should be one
in the eye for you-know-who.
Why? We already have dendrochronology going way beyond that.
The response will be either to ignore it, or come up with facile
reasons why dendrochronology is not reliable.
I suppose this was all already done, then?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: David Keys |
11 Jun 2005 12:22:48 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Richard Forrest wrote:
wrote:
maff wrote:
Found: Europe's oldest civilisation
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?story=645976
By David Keys, Archaeology Correspondent
11 June 2005
Archaeologists have discovered Europe's oldest civilisation, a network
of dozens of temples, 2,000 years older than Stonehenge and the
Pyramids.
This is a bit of a cheat, since the small print admits Egypt has
archaeology that's 2,000 years older than the Pyramids.* And the BBC
doesn't have the story. On the other hand, if they have
dendrochronology going back longer than 6,000 years, it should be one
in the eye for you-know-who.
Why? We already have dendrochronology going way beyond that.
The response will be either to ignore it, or come up with facile
reasons why dendrochronology is not reliable.
I suppose this was all already done, then?
The argument goes as follows:
We know that under some circumstances trees can produce more than one
ring in a growing season.
If we conveniently ignore the fact that dendrochronologists are fully
aware of this fact, know the circumstances under which this occurs, and
can use statistical methods and other means of corroboration to take
this phenomenon into account, the creationist inferrence is that all
dates produced by dendrochronology are unreliable.
Of course, if you point out that the dates can be cross-checked using
radiometric methods, you are told that radiometric methods are also
unreliable.
When you ask them how come C-14 dates and dendrochronology give similar
dates for material, and that the study of radiocarbon dates from tree
rings shows fluctations in the production of C-14 in the atmosphere
consistent with the 11-year cycle of solar activity which has been
recorded over three hundred years, and longer astronomical cycles which
can be very acurately measured, they run away.
But I suppose that if you know that you're right, you can ignore the
data.
RF
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
