Re: Paris archaeologically dates from around 4200 BC

Archaeotype wrote:
On 19/04/2008 Tom McDonald wrote:
Archaeotype wrote:
On 18/04/2008 21:20 David wrote: on, :
On Apr 18, 3:12 pm, Archaeotype <k...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 18/04/2008 David wrote:
On Apr 18, 12:15 pm, Peter Alaca <p.al...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 18/04/2008 David wrote:

Mairie de Paris. Paris, Roman City - Chronology
http://www.paris.culture.fr/en/ow_chrono.htm

So?

The serious student would collect the archaeological data
for major cities of Europe and see whether the dates compare
with the stone cities mentioned in OT Genesis. At first
blush the dates are comparable.

What an excellent show of stupidity.

You're not so hot yourself. From where did you blow in?

Please tell us, Mr. David
- Where in Genesis is Paris mentioned?
- Where are the remains of a neolithic city Paris?
- When did the first European cities emerge?
- When were the first stone buildings in Europe built?
- Why are you posting in sci.archaeology?


You may be new. If so, it might be useful to you to know that Carl (or David as he now prefers to be called) does not answer questions.

At least, he doesn't answer them directly in his own words and with his own personal thoughts. Though he may occasionally provide links to others' thoughts that may or may not (the latter is the way to bet) give you an answer.

Unless you enjoy head-butting solid brick structures, it's best to ignore him. There is plenty to discuss of actual archaeological merit, so it isn't important to try to tease anything useful out of Carl/David.

YMMV. (But it almost certainly won't.)

I am surpised that this nonsense is posted in a
science forum. It is no archaeology, no science
at all. It realy is a show of gross ignorance.

And he is proud of it.

--
Holding Israel to western standards is antisemitic.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3972
http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml a2
.

Quantcast