FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Science & Skepticism > Evolution/Creation
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-02-2008, 04:19 PM   #31
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clinical View Post
But Arabia has never been subjected to archaeological excavations like Canada and Australia, if at all.
If you mean geological exploration, then you are just plain wrong. Arabia's oil fields were found with the help of a *lot* of geological exploration, and the Arabian-Nubian Shield has been researched a lot for clues as to how continents form. Since the continental basement rock is close to the surface there instead of being overlaid by thick layers of sedimentary rock, it's relatlvely easy to find such clues.

In fact, I did some searching, and it is rather easy for me to find geological maps of the Arabian peninsula.
I mean for religious/historical purposes. Just few days ago some temples of the size of the pyramids were discovered underground in northern Saudi Arabia.
Clinical is offline  
Old 10-02-2008, 04:21 PM   #32
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthrosciguy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
If you mean geological exploration, then you are just plain wrong. Arabia's oil fields were found with the help of a *lot* of geological exploration, and the Arabian-Nubian Shield has been researched a lot for clues as to how continents form. Since the continental basement rock is close to the surface there instead of being overlaid by thick layers of sedimentary rock, it's relatlvely easy to find such clues.

In fact, I did some searching, and it is rather easy for me to find geological maps of the Arabian peninsula.
Archaeology too. I don't know where Clinical got the idea that that area hasn't been archaeologically explored.
Patricia Crone says archaeology is still in its baby phase in Arabia. At least it is not as extensively researched as Egypt, Persia etc...
Clinical is offline  
Old 10-02-2008, 05:19 PM   #33
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,642
Default

Clinical:
Quote:
Patricia Crone says archaeology is still in its baby phase in Arabia. At least it is not as extensively researched as Egypt, Persia etc...
Usually around here we prefer actual quotes backed up by a reference to the source of the statement, as opposed to loose paraphrases. Where and when did she say this, in what book, publication, on what date, on what page...?

I note that Patricia Crone is more in the nature of a historian of the rise of the Islamic religion than an archaeologist. Which doesn't necessarily mean that she doesn't know what she's talking about -- though, given her interests, she could be talking about archaeological investigations of the period surrounding and since the rise of Islam, and not Saudi archaeology generally.
Quote:
I mean for religious/historical purposes. Just few days ago some temples of the size of the pyramids were discovered underground in northern Saudi Arabia.
Again, a little more detail would be appreciated -- a link to the announcement of this find. My google-fu could easily be failing me, but searching for terms like "Saudi Arabia," "archeology," and "temple" does not seem to locate a recent find.
Steviepinhead is offline  
Old 10-03-2008, 09:46 AM   #34
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the west
Posts: 3,295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clinical View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by anthrosciguy View Post

Archaeology too. I don't know where Clinical got the idea that that area hasn't been archaeologically explored.
Patricia Crone says archaeology is still in its baby phase in Arabia. At least it is not as extensively researched as Egypt, Persia etc...
Few places are as extensively researched (in archaeology) as Egypt and (the former) Persia. By that standard there is little archaeological research anywhere.
anthrosciguy is offline  
Old 10-04-2008, 05:32 PM   #35
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 16,829
Default

She may be talking about the Hijaz region, where Mecca and Medina are. That area may not have been archeologically researched as intensively as Egypt and Iraq and the Levant.

But I'd have to see a more detailed quote before I can conclude something one way or another.

In any case, Mecca cannot reasonably be claimed to be humanity's oldest city, another claim that Muslim apologists might want to make.

The honor likely goes to Jericho, with Damascus being a close competitor.
lpetrich is offline  
Old 10-04-2008, 06:07 PM   #36
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London UK
Posts: 3,165
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
In any case, Mecca cannot reasonably be claimed to be humanity's oldest city, another claim that Muslim apologists might want to make.

The honor likely goes to Jericho, with Damascus being a close competitor.
I thought it was Ur (?)

or are only counting currently inhabited cities?
Draconis is offline  
Old 10-04-2008, 06:08 PM   #37
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London UK
Posts: 3,165
Default

Also he claims Mecca is at the centre of the world. This is impossible since nobody could survive there. 8000 degrees is a bit warm for most people.
Draconis is offline  
Old 10-04-2008, 07:26 PM   #38
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 199
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draconis View Post
Also he claims Mecca is at the centre of the world. This is impossible since nobody could survive there. 8000 degrees is a bit warm for most people.


And who needs the pressure? :banghead:
SevenSafari is offline  
Old 10-04-2008, 09:23 PM   #39
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, UK
Posts: 3,181
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draconis View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
In any case, Mecca cannot reasonably be claimed to be humanity's oldest city, another claim that Muslim apologists might want to make.

The honor likely goes to Jericho, with Damascus being a close competitor.
I thought it was Ur (?)

or are only counting currently inhabited cities?
Jericho was built, as a walled city, surrounded by a rock-cut moat 30 foot wide and 7 foot deep and a tower, the construction technique used indicating that it could have been well-over 100 foot high, around ... 8,000 bc (date disputed by some authorities). The pyramids were built around 2,500 bc.
Newton's Cat is offline  
Old 10-06-2008, 10:12 AM   #40
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Lebanon, OR, USA
Posts: 16,829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Draconis View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
In any case, Mecca cannot reasonably be claimed to be humanity's oldest city, another claim that Muslim apologists might want to make.

The honor likely goes to Jericho, with Damascus being a close competitor.
I thought it was Ur (?)

or are only counting currently inhabited cities?
Ur and Uruk are Sumerian cities, and Sumer was in southeastern Iraq rather than in the Levant. They have the oldest decipherable writing, around 3200 BCE, but they go back to only about 5500 BCE.


I also crunched some numbers about the Earth's exposed land area, and I found:

It is about 29% of the Earth's total area.

Its centroid is about 2200 km / 1400 mi from the Earth's center, and its closest surface point is in western Serbia, halfway between Novi Sad and the Croatian border (45.14 N, 19.51 E). And that point is halfway from the bottom to the top of the Earth's outer core, which is liquid iron/nickel.
lpetrich is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:05 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.