Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 09-13-2006, 11:55 PM

praxeus: have you taken into account Anat's post here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

Some information on camels vs donkeys as pack animals in the Near East:

From The Frankincense Story:

Quote:

All along the 65 staging posts of the route they had to pay for accommodation, food, camel fodder, water, special protection money to local chieftains, as well as a gratuity to the Roman customs officials at Alexandria. These 'travel expenses' were slightly lower on other routes, but they all reflected the length and dangers of the journey. Small wonder that incense was valued as highly as gold. Originally the overland transport was accomplished by donkeys and mules, which needed frequent rest and watering, But from the 11th century B.C. they were substituted by large caravans of camels, which could plod along all day and part of the night without stopping, and didn't require fresh water every day. Soon the caravans grew in size and up to 2,000 to 3,000 camels in one caravan became a frequent sight! road posts with soldiers and places for lodging and food were needed, and thus the famous caravanseras grew up along the Incense Road.

From Transportation: (Bold mine)

Quote:

Domesticated animals such as donkeys and mules were the most common load carriers in Ancient Egypt and were used for farming. Donkeys were domesticated in the fourth millennium BC and were used almost exclusively for land travel up to the Persian period.

Horses were brought to Egypt by the army of the Hyksos invaders at the end of the Middle Kingdom. Horses were generally used to pull two-wheeled chariots rather than ridden. By the New Kingdom, Egyptians began horse breeding and horses belonged to the military elite and ruling class.

Occasional and infrequent mention of the one-humped camel or dromedary may be encountered in connection with the Early Dynastic Period. But not until after the foreign conquerors of Assyrians, Persians, and Alexander the Great were these animals brought in larger numbers into Egypt. By the Ptolemaic period, camels were used as the main animals for transportation across the desert.

From Voyages of Exploration

Quote:

Henenu
The Egyptians undertook major journeys from very early times. The oldest record of a journey to Punt is on the Palermo stone, dated to the 5th dynasty [1]. During the 11th Dynasty, Henenu with three thousand men transported the materials for building ships through Wadi Hammamat to the coast of the Red Sea.

I left Koptos on the road set by his majesty. The soldiers I had with me came from the south. All the king's officials, the men from the city and the village, marched behind me. The scouts opened up the road ahead repulsing the king's enemies. All the officials obeyed me. They were in constant touch with the runners...

The Red Land they had to cross was desert and the provisioning of such a large army difficult. This was exacerbated by the fact that camels were unavailable until Persian times and donkeys had to be used.

To every man I gave his rations, a water-bottle, a staff, two jars of water, twenty loaves of bread. The donkeys carried the jars. When one of them tired, another was substituted. I excavated twelve holes in the wadi, two holes at Idahet, twenty cubits wide and thirty deep. One hole at Idahet ten cubits in every direction, at a place where water sprang.

On reaching the Great Green they assembled the ship and after sacrificing wild bulls, African oxen and small livestock, they sailed south along the Arabian peninsula.

I did as the king had ordered and brought him all I had found on both coasts of God's Land ...

This is evidence that donkeys were used, despite their huge need for water and fodder. Surely camels would have been preferred had they been available?

From Nomads and Pharaohs:

Quote:

Mining resulted in such extensive recruitment of Medjay into the Egyptian army that by the time of the New Kingdom in the late second millennium, some 500 years after the Semnah Dispatches, an entire army corps was called "Medjay." Gold prospecting missions also employed Medjay as mercenaries and guides. One such massive operation, sponsored by Ramses III in 1180 BC, included 5000 soldiers, 2000 state slaves and 800 foreign captives—quite a few people to be supported while they wandered the desert. The services of knowledgeable guides would have been essential. In addition, Medjay soldiers often escorted the donkey caravans that served the mines. (Domesticated camels would not reach the Medjay for another 1000 years.) Southbound trade caravans similarly relied upon the Medjay's knowledge of the lands beyond the Nile Valley.

From there:

Quote:

It was also during the Ptolemaic period that the nomads of the Eastern Desert experienced a four-legged—and often bad-tempered—revolution: the camel. The exact date of the domesticated camel's appearance in Egypt is uncertain, but it is generally agreed that it became part of the Blemmyes' and Trogodytes' husbandry during the final centuries BC.

The camel provided a newly dependable means of long-distance travel as well as a new source of nourishment and wealth. After its arrival, the desert tribes increased in size and vigor. Rock drawings—like all art, a product of leisure—reappeared throughout the region after a millennium or more during which little had been created. In addition to depictions of fauna, the abundance of tribal symbols reflects a new level of identity, perhaps derived from the nomads' growing sense of their strength—strength the Blemmyes would use against Rome.

From Stockbreeding and the Hunt:

Quote:

Wild camels were probably known to the Egyptians from the distant past. There is a camel's grave in the Helwan cemetery (1st and 2nd dynasties) and camel-shaped vases have been found at the Old Kingdom site of Abusir el-Meleq. The Bedouin of northern and central Arabia are credited with having domesticated camels in the latter half of the second millennium BC. Authors differ in dating the first occurrence of domesticated camels in Egypt - theories range from 525 BC to the turn of the millennium. With its proverbially modest requirements of food and water, both being stored in its fatty hump, the camel enabled long desert treks to be accomplished much faster and more safely than before.

IOW the evidence for the early presence of camels may have been from wild ones.

gregor · 09-14-2006, 06:24 AM

prax

<edit>

Sven has asked on numerous occasions for you to defend your speed of light changes = 6,000 year-old universe argument.

Steven Avery · 09-14-2006, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregor

Sven has asked on numerous occasions for you to defend your speed of light changes = 6,000 year-old universe argument.

You can always PM me, or bump up whatever thread he is on, rather than try to hijack other threads. Sven tried the hijack route earlier, now Gregor.

And we were actually talking more about overall theories of physics and the big bang and singularity and whether c as constant is an innate objective truth or a physics construct of convenience. However you would like to take this all over the map, even though what we touched on are already huge fields of interest.

Whether I want to make that my interest for the next days or weeks is my decision. And mine alone.

As an example, yesterday I dedicated my research time to the Johannine Comma. Evolution is not my religion and it doesn't consume me the way it does the evo-posters. I have noticed that on creation-evolution forums that evolutionists have little philosophy/religion/faith to defend except protozoa-to-man (or whatever the current theory is). For myself those issues are almost like play-things, and many of the evo theories are in the realm of absurdity. No more, no less. And occasionally I will discuss that from a probability standpoint. And/or try to point out that the root issue is spiritual.

However if someone is truly interested in comparing conceptions of universe origins that would be kewl. (And has more legitimacy). When Sven turned out to take the view that the current Big Bang theories didn't have really huge difficulties I lost interest for now. That was a bit of a surprise. So it would take hours and hours of discussion to work with even the most elemental issues, with likely little result.

Do I really have to demonstrate that there are problems. Do we do Halton Arp and red-shift ? String theory ? Not-So-Constant Constants? http://physics.about.com/b/a/007369.htm
Stephen Hawking -"If the laws of physics could break down at the beginning of the universe, why couldn't they break down anywhere?"

Do you and Sven really claim to have a comprehensive and consistent theory of the creation of the universe that you can demonstrate ? You have put togther all the links now and space/time/gravity etc all fits like a glove ? Congrats. Contact Nova. They are still semi-lauding string theory

.

In fact if I was going to post on the science realms here, I might go first back to the plate tectonics/orogeny issues. I think over in that realm there is some presentation to view and respond to and I have found that to be interesting. Maybe I could do a bit with both when I feel that is the proper direction on this forum.

However I found that many evos really only have one agenda... let's fight YEC. They really are not that interested in probing the worlds of physics and mathematics and biology for understanding.

==

Now in contrast when I study the Bible text, results are daily and gratifying.

So if I decide that certain posters don't interest me (Johnny onenote for rabbittrails or Spin for various reasons or Sven for his belligerent approach) that is my decision to make. And likewise if someone ignores my posts that is their decision to make.

Although Sven's contribution here, giving the Pascal's Wager link, was appreciated and noted.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Sven · 09-14-2006, 09:14 AM

First: Gregor, please calm down. This is something between me and praxeus. I have time to wait until he gets back to this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Evolution is not my religion

And I know no one else whose religion it is, by any reasonable definition of "religion".

Quote:

I have noticed that on creation-evolution forums that evolutionists have little philosophy/religion/faith to defend except protozoa-to- man (or whatever the current theory is).

Yeah, of course.

There are loads of different topics discussed there. Common descent is only one of them. And if it is defended, then people there use science, not "philosophy/religion/faith".

Quote:

For myself those issues are almost like play-things, and many of the evo theories are in the realm of absurdity. No more, no less. And occasionally I will discuss that from a probability standpoint.

Emphasis mine: Talk about absurdities. I've never seen an argument against evolution involving probabilities which made the slightest sense.

Quote:

And/or try to point out that the root issue is spiritual.

Whatever.

Quote:

When Sven turned out to take the view that the current Big Bang theories didn't have really huge difficulties I lost interest for now. That was a bit of a surprise.

It surprises you that I don't think that the Big Bang has huge difficulties? Well, maybe this is because I actually know something about the topic?

Quote:

Do I really have to demonstrate that there are problems. Do we do Halton Arp and red-shift ? String theory ? Not-So-Constant Constants?

1. Regarding Arp: He's actually someone one could take seriously. Until just last year. Try this: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=17911

2. String theory isn't part of the Big Bang theory.

3. The not-so-constant-constants issue was settled in my long answer to you - the most precise measurements show that if they changed, the changes were tiny.

Quote:

http://physics.about.com/b/a/007369.htm

Thanks for myking my point: "The data analysis shows a difference of 0.002%, which could mean that when the spectrum left the quasar 12 billion years ago the ratio was different."
2*10^-5 change in 12 billion years. I'm flabbergasted.

Quote:

Stephen Hawking -"If the laws of physics could break down at the beginning of the universe, why couldn't they break down anywhere?"

I'd like to have the context of this quote.

Quote:

Do you and Sven really claim to have a comprehensive and consistent theory of the creation of the universe that you can demonstrate ?

No. And here you demonstrated quite thoroughly that you have no clue of the BBT: It isn't a theory of the creation of the universe.

Quote:

You have put togther all the links now and space/time/gravity etc all fits like a glove ? Congrats. Contact Nova. They are still semi-lauding string theory

.

Intentional strawman or just ignorance? I bet on the latter.

[snip]

Quote:

However I found that many evos really only have one agenda... let's fight YEC.

:huh: Did it ever occur to you that people have this attitude because YEC attacked them first?

Quote:

They really are not that interested in probing the worlds of physics and mathematics and biology for understanding.

I see. So the professional scientists posting at Ev/Cr are all just a bunch of liars.

[snip]

Steven Avery · 09-14-2006, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

I'd like to have the context of this quote...I see. So the professional scientists posting at Ev/Cr are all just a bunch of liars.

Look up the context and let us know.

And don't put words in my mouth. Lots of folks have agendas, blindnesses, and such without being a 'bunch of liars'. And folks are sincerely wrong all the time.

And yes there is lots of time, by God's grace, as we live and breath each day, to go into this more. However I find you write too much stuff like the "bunch of liars" and "fantasy" stuff.

And I was referring to 'many evos' and this is what I have seen in posting on creation/evolution forums. What a I actually said applies to a certain dedicated cadre.

This thread now returns to camel domestication anachronism.

Shalom,
Steven

Amaleq13 · 09-14-2006, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

This thread now returns to camel domestication anachronism.

I would certainly appreciate that.

Toto · 09-14-2006, 11:25 AM

Hi praxeus - could you please respond to the points that I reprinted from Anat on the other thread?

Thank you so much.

Steven Avery · 09-14-2006, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Hi praxeus - could you please respond to the points that I reprinted from Anat on the other thread? Thank you so much.

Toto, there is little to respond too. Much of that is secondary material that is clearly trumped by the primary archaeological sources as above ...

http://www.bga.nl/en/articles/camel.html
Domesticated Camels in the Book of Genesis
rock painting .. a man pulling along a dromedary on a rope, plus seven hieroglyphic characters...G. Möller dated the inscription to the period of the sixth dynasty (2320-2150 B.C.)

Or from Joseph Free, an early ..
"terra cotta tablet with men riding on and leading camels"

And the camel hair rope and more.

And the bulk of those quotes has to do with the rarity of camels at certain times and places, as eg. for military usage. I don't think anybody contests that and the Glenn Miller article goes into that in some depth as Younker some as well.

And it isn't the anachronism claim anyway.

First I would have to know precisely what anachronism you are now proposing ? Are you (or anyone) actually going to take the stance that those mostly secondary sources demonstrate no archaeological evidence for camel domestication around 2000 BC ?

Then you would have to explain away each and every contrary evidence. Paul Tobin in fact gives us a facade of doing that by using a hand-waving selectivity (critique the weakest evidence only) and bravado ('fatal flaw') technique.

And that is why his site (which I actually had respected some before) now has no credibility that I can see. Not when he leaves up an article as above without directly responding to the strong and major contrary evidences.

And not when his own logic is so transparently non-functional (the leap).

Granted he is following the footsteps of Finkelstein and Silberman which is a good hint to be cautious of anything they assert as well.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

gregor · 09-14-2006, 07:28 PM

prax

So the source you site purports to be an objective and neutral compilation? Please feel free to post your site's presupposition, found on the "about" link.

"The Bible is the true Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. This holds equally for all historical accounts the Bible gives us."

Sven · 09-15-2006, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Look up the context and let us know.

Talk about shifting the burden of proof. You did not even give a reference!

Nevertheless, I did your homework for you. A bit more context (but not the following discussion of this problem, likely containing a solution) can be found here:
http://www.rdegraaf.nl/index.asp?sND_ID=516682

What we see is that Hawkings simply points out that general relativity isn't able to describe the universe completely. Surprise, surprise. This does not change the fact at all that the "theory of everything" which will replace GR in the future has to incorporate GR as a special case (just as classical mechanics is incorporated as a special case in both quantum mechanics and relativity). Our view of the origin of the universe up to a Planck second might be modified greatly by the new theory - but it will have absolutely no effect on the fact that the universe is billions of years old. So we just have another red herring. Again: surprise, surprise.

Quote:

And don't put words in my mouth. Lots of folks have agendas, blindnesses, and such without being a 'bunch of liars'.

Having an agenda and lying isn't different for me. And having a blindless is lying to oneself. So I don't see your point.

Quote:

And folks are sincerely wrong all the time.

Are you really suggesting you meant this? Especially in the light of some of your recent comments here? Who exactly do you think you are fooling with your back-pedalling?

[snip]

Quote:

And I was referring to 'many evos' and this is what I have seen in posting on creation/evolution forums. What a I actually said applies to a certain dedicated cadre.

I see no difference in the posts of the professional scientists I mentioned and the ones of other people there.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-14-2006, 06:24 AM	#12
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	prax <edit> Sven has asked on numerous occasions for you to defend your speed of light changes = 6,000 year-old universe argument.

09-14-2006, 11:25 AM	#17
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Hi praxeus - could you please respond to the points that I reprinted from Anat on the other thread? Thank you so much.

09-14-2006, 07:28 PM	#19
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	prax So the source you site purports to be an objective and neutral compilation? Please feel free to post your site's presupposition, found on the "about" link. "The Bible is the true Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. This holds equally for all historical accounts the Bible gives us."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.