mongrel

I just stumbled upon an article(while Googling for things related to the fishing practises of Tasmanian aboriginal people before British colonisation- it's amazing how little there is in cyberspace about these people, that is not written with an obvious agenda, one way or another- but I digress...) which seems to rebuke the YEC view of things, and I'm interested to see what others here think of it. It was certainly written by a xian, but one who, to me, seems to accept evolution as fact. However, I think his argument goes much further than he intended- not only rebuking the idea of the flood being 4000-6000 years ago(or whenever the YEC crowd believe), but I feel rebuking the idea of the flood ever happening at all.

Anyway, here's the article- whadya think?

BTW, as a sidenote, in the off chance anyone has any links to any info about Tasmanian aboriginal life, whether you think they're reliable or not, please post them here. I'm trying to find out as much as I can, but everything I see seems to be the extreme view, from both the black and white sides of the story. I guess if I read everything I can, I may be able to get an idea of what really went on.

Doctor X

You mean like this:



?

Thanks for the link; will check out.

--J. "Why for You Bury Me in the Cold, Cold Ground?" D.

mongrel

Actually, Taz looks like how I've felt a few times, after waking up from a hard night on the booze...

But seriously, I should also point out a couple of inaccuracies I found in that article.

1) It states that Tasmania is 68000 square miles and has a cold climate- it's actually ~68000 sq km/~27000square miles and has a cool maritime climate(although some parts, inland at higher altitude, can be considered cold, I guess, but the aborigines, being semi-nomadic, migrated away from these areas in winter).

2) It claims the transport of tools was limited to 100km becuase of the size of the island- the island's size would not limit transport to that short a distance. It'd be more like 300+km, or say from the Bruny Island(which, at it's closest point, is only around 1/4 mile across sheltered water from mainland Tasmania- a crossing which was regularly made by the inhabitants)/D'entrecasteaux Channel area in the far south, to Smithton/Marrawah in the far north west. It seems to be well known that all the groups of people here had communications with all other areas of Tasmania.

Neither of these points, however, effect how I view the arcticle.

butswana

Ten years ago at a funeral, my daughter(4 at the time) asked me,"why are they putting a suitcase in the cold, cold ground?"

JGreen

Speaking of the Great Flood, the BBC has just put together a program debunking the myth.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...%2Fnnoah07.xml

Doctor X

It will be nice if some of the British readers see this and comment.

Of course we cannot really trust the English since, as Mel Gibson demonstrates, they killed Jesus. . . .

--J.D.

MadMez

I'm a Brit. Well, an ex-pat Brit anyway.

Growing up, and even going to Baptist Sunday School, I cannot ever remember speaking to anyone who considered the Flood Story anything other than at least partly made-up. As far as its global nature goes, I can't think of anyone at home I know thinking of that being true. And I don't think even the Monster Raving Loony Party would try to pretend it was based on fact, let alone spend ages etching out pseudo-scientific bollocks to try to "support" so laughable an idea.

I'm also a British Army vet(eran), a Revolutionary War re-enactor and wargame the Roman Army in the Jewish revolt. So, acording to Mel, I actually am directly responsible for Jesus' death. This troubles me much less than the genocide of the Tazmanian aboriginies does, for some wierd reason.

Doctor X

So are you one of the guys who stands in a well-discipline square and mows down the drunken settlers running at you?

--J.D.

MadMez

One only forms square, good Doctor X, when threatened by cavalry. Drunken "yankee doodle rebels" cannot be considered such. Disciplined Redcoats don't have a problem, as you can see:

Boston 1770, 9 redcoats (29th Foot):
A total of 8 rounds fired, 5 killed.

Kent State 1970, 166 State Guardsmen:
A total of 67 shots were fired, 4 killed.

Doctor X

Not to totally hijack this--but perceptions of history and actual history are relevant--but it is a BIG disappointment to visit Lexington and Concord and realize the settlers got drunk at the Inn and then tried to go after the Brits.

Similar is Paul Revere's portrait of the Boston Masacre where the EVIL British gun down hapless settlers--with the officer egging them on.

Until you realize it was--surprise--drunk settlers throwing snowball with rocks and cobble stones at the Brits, and their officer tried to stop them! So obvious was this that John Adams defended the Brits in court. His brother, Samuel, toured Massachusetts with the "bloody shirts" of the Masacre victims!

Thus, just because it is written down, had a woodcut made of it, or a Hollywood picture does not necessarily make it so!

--J.D.