Free Dating Site    

Current archaeological theory was set in concrete before we had the internal combustion, never mind the jet engine. When we thought the steam engine was the height of engineering marvels the ancient cuneiform tablets were translated.

The MadFiddler,


are you a professional skeptic?

You make yourself a self proclaimed expert on what little you know. I think you should investigate Velikosky more Especially with the Venus expedition and conferred all Velikosky stated. I think you should start with "Velikosky Revised" it will stun you, the expert

Confers Stitchens credentials.

Before you make a comment on a issue, I think you should know more about it. The society of the Sumers where only realized at a time frame of 4000 BCE, but there knowledge of the universe is much more than what we know even now. A society that live 4000 BCE

I think you should investigate Velikosky more Especially with the Venus expedition and conferred all Velikosky stated. I think you should start with "Velikosky Revised" it will stun you, the expert.

Criticism of Worlds in Collision
Velikovsky's bestselling and consequently most-criticized book is Worlds in Collision. Astronomer Harlow Shapley, along with others such as Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, were highly critical of Macmillan's decision to publish the work. The fundamental criticism against this book from the astronomy community was that its celestial mechanics were physically impossible, requiring planetary orbits which do not conform with the laws of conservation of energy and conservation of angular momentum.

Velikovsky tried to protect himself from criticism of his celestial mechanics by removing the original Appendix on the subject from Worlds in Collision, hoping that the merit of his ideas would be evaluated on the basis of his comparative mythology and use of literary sources alone. However this strategy did not protect him: the appendix was an expanded version of the Cosmos Without Gravitation monograph, which he had already distributed to Shapley and others in the late 1940s – and they had regarded the physics within it as absurd.

By 1974, the controversy surrounding Velikovsky's work had permeated US society to the point where the American Association for the Advancement of Science felt obliged to address the situation, as they had previously done in relation to UFOs, and devoted a scientific session to Velikovsky, featuring (among others) Velikovsky himself and Carl Sagan. Sagan gave a critique of Velikovsky's ideas (the book version of Sagan's critique is much longer than that presented in the talk, see below). His criticisms are available in an essay in the book Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science. Sagan's arguments were aimed at a popular audience and he did not bother to remain to debate Velikovsky in person, facts that were used by Velikovsky's followers to attempt to discredit his analysis[27]. Sagan rebutted these charges, and further attacked Velikovsky's ideas in his PBS television series Cosmos, though not without reprimanding scientists who attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas.

It was not until the 1980s that a very detailed critique of Worlds in Collision was made in terms of its use of mythical and literary sources, when Bob Forrest published a highly critical examination of them (see below). Earlier in 1974, James Fitton published a brief critique of Velikovsky's interpretation of myth that was ignored by Velikovsky and his defenders whose indictment began: "In at least three important ways Velikovsky's use of mythology is unsound. The first of these is his proclivity to treat all myths as having independent value; the second is the tendency to treat only such material as is consistent with his thesis; and the third is his very unsystematic method."[28] A short analysis of the position of arguments in the late 20th century is given by Dr Velikovsky's ex-associate, and Kronos editor, C. Leroy Ellenberger, in his A Lesson from Velikovsky.

More recently, the absence of supporting material in ice-core studies (such as the Greenland Dye-3 and Vostok cores) have removed any basis for the proposition of a global catastrophe of the proposed dimension within the later Holocene period.


[edit] Criticism of the Revised Chronology
Velikovsky's "Revised chronology" has been rejected by nearly all mainstream historians and Egyptologists. It was claimed that Velikovsky's usage of material for proof is often very selective. In 1965 the leading cuneiformist Abraham Sachs, in a forum at Brown University, discredited Velikovsky's use of Mesopotamian cuneiform sources. Velikovsky was never able to refute Sachs' attack.[29]

In 1978, following the much-postponed publication of further volumes in Velikovsky's Ages in Chaos series, the UK's Society for Interdisciplinary Studies organised a conference in Glasgow specifically to debate the revised chronology.[30] The ultimate conclusion of this work, by names including Peter James, John Bimson, Geoffrey Gammonn, and David Rohl, was that the Revised Chronology was untenable.[31] Specifically, Michael Jones contended that it was impossible to separate the 18th, 19th and 20th Dynasties by centuries as Velikovsky proposed, presenting evidence from genealogies of construction workers which spanned the three dynasties contiguously. However, inspired by Velikovky's original premise that the Manethian chronology of Egypt was flawed, James, Rohl and several other authors have gone on to publish their more conservative chronological revisions, which have also failed to find any acceptance in the mainstream academic community. Historian Emmett Sweeney has published works supporting the Revised Chronology, but these, too, have not found mainstream acceptance.[32]


[edit] "The Velikovsky Affair"
Such was the hostility directed against Velikovsky from some quarters (particularly the original campaign led by Harlow Shapley), that some commentators have made an analysis of the conflict itself. The most prominent of these was a study by American Behavioral Scientist magazine, eventually published in book form as The Velikovsky Affair.[33] This framed the discussion in terms of how academic disciplines reacted to ideas from workers from outside their field, claiming that there was an academic aversion to permitting people to cross inter-disciplinary boundaries. More recently, James Gilbert, professor of history at University of Maryland, challenged this traditional version with a more nuanced account focused on the intellectual rivalry between Harlow Shapley and Horace Kallen, Velikovsky's ally.[34] Earlier, Henry Bauer challenged the traditional view that the Velikovsky Affair illustrated the resistance of scientists to new ideas by pointing out "the nature and validity of Velikovsky's claims must be considered before one decides that the Affair can illuminate the reception of new ideas in science...."[35]

The scientific press generally denied Velikovsky a forum to rebut his critics. Velikovsky claimed that this made him a "suppressed genius", and he likened himself to Giordano Bruno, who was burnt at the stake for preaching heliocentrism.[36][37][38]

The storm of controversy created by Velikovsky's publications may have helped revive the catastrophist movement in the second half of the 20th century; however it is also held by some working in the field that progress has actually been retarded by the negative aspects of the so-called Velikovsky Affair.[39]

But what he has written was COLLABORATED

Hard to understand seeing the community he is trying to impress or relate to seem to be caught up in cement shoes

Dankien

Mean while all the scholars tend to put him aside because he may not have the RIGHT STUFF such as a degree

Does that take away form someones intelligence

Kramer himself writes of a kingship line in the book that dates back over 250,000 yrs

and offer assasinations on various other NON EXPERTS.

Abraham, was born in Noahs 700th yr, Noah died at his 900 yr or so. Abraham knew Noah. His Grand pappy

Seeing that, if there was a flood, then the truth of it must have been known by Abraham.

Thus the line of Jesus was created

Interesting, almost as if it was followed as a genetic experiment.

After all the Bible is about One line of People. Adam to Jesus. What ever you think about religion, for get it. This is not a religious idea or statement

My question on this is that, why is the bible so forthright in understanding this line of birth and ancestory.

By the way I don't have a degree either

According to the Sumers, a race of beings from another planet, called Planet X or Nibiru, altered Homo Erectus into Homo Sapien

According to research in evolution there is a 3 million yr development that allows a spieces to develop into another spieces.

But Homo Erectus had a 300,000 yrs to develop into Homo Sapiens

It does not fit with the program

plus the fact that the kingship line was 250,000 yrs. I find that interesting.

I also find it interesting that Israel is a combination of names, such as Isis, Ra, El. Aman Ra and Elhoim.

According to Gene-Isis

According to Jordan Maxwell who has investigated all of this, Elohim could represent up to as many as 10 Gods. The book of Enoch which is not in the OT confers this with a heirachy of Gods and angels. I find that interesting. I am sure many others do as well without a degree.

actually was created by this race called the Sumers

Again, they would have been the race that survived in that area after a massive flood or Tidal wave.

The ark was created with bitumen

And if it is true, then a tidal wave of such proportion could destroy all manners of a society that could have been well advanced,

as the idea of sacred Geometry to use to build the perfect structures

to use to build the perfect structures of the Pyramids and Mud Pyramids,

there would have been nothing left even technological

I can drive a car, I cannot build one

Now for Planet X. Its believed that this planet circumnavigates the solar system every 3600 yrs.

the Sumers advanced, create civilization. I wonder with whose help

Lets go back some more. 10,800 yrs, now believed to be the original time of the building of the Sphinx. The age of LEO. A little Astrology for you. Oh Yea, the Sumers knew this, they knew about Pluto, Uranus and Neptune, 6000 yrs ago

The Flood according to the Sumers, and the flood was the Ice Cap off the Antarctic melting and falling into the Ocean

and adding CO2 to the air in massive amounts creating what we believe to be Global warming, you know Dry Ice)

So I will tend to try to understand more

To shuttle someone off as a kook is not the way to understand things or events.

Modern Science is based on assumptions of what little we know, we call it theory" JC McCanney

All of this is still theory,

there is no Facts in Archeology except for the lifestyle people lived

We still cannot understand Mythology which was the language of the time

I think we should try to understand why and what source that the information is compiled.

I think the man was incredible to put what he believed together in such a manner

In Science its important to look at all aspects.

The south american history from the natives down there have alot of similar pyramids

Do your research beyond looking at Sumerian

In certain areas of Science sure, experimentation is the process of gaining Facts. But in Archelogy what experimentation is there, only speculation and with the limited amount of info and the ability to try to decipher there mythological writings takes training.

--reflects lack of critical reading skills?--

Now thats funny--I get a kick out of people who think they have a gyst on who I am, another Generalization.

The ancient race of Sumerians died in the "Evil Wind" what ever that is over 4000 yrs ago, so what Sumerians are you talking about. Sumer is in lower Iraq now, a province are you talking about them.

So I can say that you have the real facts. To make false claims or unsupported claims must have hindered Enstien also. Eventually he was proven right. I figure that you really ment was unsubstantial claims that connot be Proven thus a Theory of the Events. But because you are so sure, prove it.

Isn't that what a massive Tidal Wave could do, And if you really research these claims of floods you will see that its mostly coastal areas effected

In Israel they uncovered a Christian church that is believed to be 2000 yrs old, before the council of Nicea Cannonized the bible.

hey uncovered the Nag Hammadi with writings in them by the Apostles themselves not cannonized into the Catholic Bible.

So by that reasoning then there is no proof that Plato or any other histroical figure was not just a front for some other objective.

No evidence of 6000 yrs. That makes the rest of yours statement rather foolish. Your combining religion with Archeology and the Sumers. I made the connection of the possible interply of Sumer Knowledge and Egyptian knowledge. Thats all, I am not pushing a religious agenda here. I get you must be an athiest therefore anything that comes from a Bible is a lie, your beef is with religion not me.

All I posted is based on Critical thinking and with out prejudice. I have been researching the Sumers for over 5 yrs now, I read everyting I can get. I also accept theory by others and try to associate there findings with others who write about them. Now if that is not critical thinking, to be unbiased, to use all resources possible than what is. Even the Bible.

Oh I finally got it, this is a personal attack on me, because I wrote something off the wall for you. You'd think some people would find better things to do than playing little assination games on a chat group.

And of course, being a novice at Archeology slightly above neophyte but not an expert, you think that I would not have something to say or any kind of imput.

In Archeology the Program is the established belief, unless you get support from other experts in your theory or belief it cannot be classified as fact or science. Generally if a theory lives on long enough then in time it would be accepted. So in all reality what we must do is wait, but untill then why condemn a person for his theory.

I got my sources too and I bet there better than yours.

If 12,000 yrs went by in a society that was build from stone and or cement eventually the structures would decay and fall apart. Structure like Stonehenge would last longer because its Rock.

Basically your offended at the fact that you do not know what is being discussed by my brief.

You make it look like Stitchen is trying to alter a tree, you don't know what your talking about.

How can a theory be a fact. Is not speculation the same as assumption.

Read some of Joesph Cambells stuff and get an education.

Astrology was before Astronomy, people planted and harvested by the Moon long before they even knew of Saturn or Jupiter or any other planet. They lived by the seasons.

If the earth has a wobble than how can we have millions of yrs of Ice on the Anarctic. From a previous statement above.