Re: Robert Best - a moral lesson touching on nobody-can-make-me-open-my-closed-mind prejudice


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:huep83128m3ciddm6c4tvtsa3q5qifg1r4@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 07:40:13 +0200, "Uwe Müller"
<uwemueller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:lf4o835tniuamenv7up6d7jjfdts56c4d0@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 14:47:52 +0200, "Uwe Müller"
<uwemueller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:80gl831ph5dd74nl9ta0q8a89k8mqu8pg2@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:22:17 -0700, Carl <pchristainsen@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Jul 3, 11:40 am, "Peter Alaca" <p.al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
...
Saying 'Here I am, now ask me questions' will not work.
And when nobody shows interest or worse tells you to
get lost, there is no reason to hold on, or to come back
over and over again with what nobody is interested in.

And for posting in this group you first of all you have to
figure out what 'science' means, and 'archaeology'.
So far, you clearly have not managed that.
...

Hint: key - "Tel Fara" Shuruppak - Google Scholar and Webcrawler,
if
necessary

First rate; scholarly; relevant archaeology well sourced...

Noah's Flood, the Archaeological and Geological evidence for its
3rd
Millennium B.C. occurrence



http://www.bibleorigins.net/NoahsArkillustrationPictureSumerianShuruppak.
h
t
ml

"The city of Shuruppak has been identified as being the
ruin-mound
of modern Tell Fara (south of Babylon) and when excavated a
flood
sediment was found dating to circa 2900 BC. This is the _only_
flood layer at the site, and this layer does not exist at other
Mesopotamian sites, so it was very restricted in its locality."

"circa 2900 BC" is remarkably close to Masse's 2807 BC.

Even circa 2500 BC would be remakably close to Masse's circa 2900 BC,
except
for two wrong digits, they are identical.

Neither is a serious scientific dating, identical once more, the basis
for
both dates is not given, identical again.

It's more than remarkable close. Could there be a common basis for
both
dates?

I doubt it. I don't know exactly how the flood deposits were dated in
1931/32 but MacDonald almost certainly relied on the conventional
methods of stratigraphy etc.

With respect to Masse's date, I have already quoted him as writing:

"In fact, a precise date for the hypothesized comet impact, 10-12
May 2807 BC, was ascertained [125] from the concordance within
the mythologies of calendrical, seasonal, and verifiable
astronomical indicators (i.e., lunar phase, the presence of solar
and lunar eclipses, and the presence of planetary conjunctions
within ascribed constellations). "

I know nothing of the detail of his workings but it is unlikely from
this that he relied upon the estimated ages of flood deposits.

That looks like a common basis to me. Half of it seems to be nothing more
than an assertion, fitting the proposed theory, and the other half would
be
picking out a date that fits, at random from scientific literature,
without
any apparent connection to the 'evidence' presented.

Uwe,

You are welcome to have it your own way, but I think you are being
less than fair. MacDonald's identification of the flood deposits don't
rely on assertions or preconceived theories. Layer's of clay cannot be
the product of speculation, let alone a figment of the imagination.

Flooding is in most places a natural phenomenon, that happens twice a year.
Layers of clay can occur for quite a number of reasons, artificial as well
as natural.

There was a book in Germany in the early 60s, where three occurrences of
clay on a river bank (all together something like 8 m²) were sold as being
proof for a world wide flood. The data was from the 30s, results from later
excavations, that had no clay to show, were simply omitted.

Is that a fair treatment?


Similarly, Masse's analysis of existing legends (compiled by others)
does not rely on flood deposits or the assertion of preconceived
theories. I may be wrong on the last but if you want to argue that I
am you will have to identify the persons who have come up with similar
theories prior to Masse or who have on some other basis come up with a
scientific basis for arguing much the same date for a similar event.
In short, I do not think Masse is following a theory developed by
others.

I never said he did. All I said was, that both theories could share a common
basis for their dating: pure invention.

Research is poor for the date given, I agree. But if you want to argue a
world wide phenomenon at that time, why choose areas as evidence, that stand
out as being especially poor in controlled excavations? Because the best
researched regions do not show anything out of the ordinary. So they are
simply omitted.

Is that fair treatment of the reader?

have fun

Uwe Mueller


.

Loading