Originally posted by Terapin
I believe Marduk means well, but isn't very socially well adapted. He aims to be exact with the facts, which is commendable, but seems to jump on people who make errors.

[edit on 15-4-2007 by Terapin]

We all aim to be exact, but everyone does miss on occasion and Marduk is no exception as I have learned over the past few days of studying other threads in addition to this one. I was under the impression that we were supposed to treat each other with respect and there are far more diplomatic ways to correct errors. I have come to the conclusion that the price paid for his periodic pearls of wisdom is too high.

Originally posted by Terapin
X-tal, so you made a few errors, no big deal, but your aim was one of discovery, which is what ATS is all about.

Actually I think the two of you would get along just fine if things were a bit less heated. You seem to be basically on the same page give or take a few minor details. I hope the future holds better conversations for you two. My recommendation ... stick to discussing the material, and not each other.
[edit on 15-4-2007 by Terapin]

Yes, I did make a mistake and then I took responsibility for it. That is what growing up is supposed to teach us. I cannot say why it is so hard for some people to do this and it may not be their fault but at the same time, I realize that I cannot fix someone else's problems.

For now, I think it is best that Marduk and I do not speak for a while. He is, of course free to toss as much acid my way as he likes but since I am currently ignoring him, I will not see it. I am certain that when he does make wise contributions, others will paraphrase his findings in a manner that does not distract me from the topic at hand. Likewise, quotations by others in their rebuttals will also reach me.

Since I believe this started over my contradiction to his translation of hieroglyphs, I will refrain from commenting directly on his quoted/referenced postings until he shows signs of accepting constructive criticism.

This will be my last posting about Marduk since I came here to discuss Ancient Civilizations, not personal issues. I am simply expressing the reasons for my actions. I wish I did not have to ignore anyone because I believe everyone has something to contribute and no matter how small those missing pieces are, they are still missing from the "big picture" we are building here.

Originally posted by Terapin
As for me, I'm done with this thread as the topic is a Hoax and not worth discussion. There are far better threads on ATS to discuss than a spark plug in mud.

[edit on 15-4-2007 by Terapin]

Yes, the spark plug does seem pretty silly, doesn't it? However, I can see why some might mistake it for something more. As far as I can tell, it would be possible to generate a fairly convincing fake using biomimetic techniques (i.e., "sol-gel method"). For those who have never heard of this, it is a chemical method for polymerizing mineral or metal subunits over a lipid (micelle) or peptide (sponges use a protein called silicatein and microbes also do this as evidenced by the magnetite, pyrite and calcium carbonate deposits they leave behind; look up "stromatolite") scaffold. It would, in theory be possible to coat the modern sparkplug in one of these organic substances and coat it in, say mica, pyrite, silica... etc. The result would be something that looks like a rock with the sparkplug embedded inside. Dating could be a problem because you would be dating diagenesis (time when the crystals that make up the mineral coating) actually formed naturally. Thus, dating the rock would not be sufficient and depending on the materials used to manufacture the sparkplug, you may not even be able to date it. I would like to know whether or not these organics were found in proximity to the plug (or if anyone has bothered to look).

err lets get something straight here
you posted a link to a site which you claimed was helpful which stated that Camels evolved 600,000,000 years ago before marine life on this planet and then you criticised me for saying that the world population at the end of the ice age precluded there being an advanced civilisation and claimed that there was no proof of that

you were very very wrong on both counts
not once have you apologised and you are now posting further criticism of me because you've been proven incorrect
so please feel free to carry on posting in ignorance
and I will feel free to go on pointing out the fallacy in your arguments
for someone who is now attempting to claim the moral highground you arent doing very well

btw we're still waiting for the evidence that you went to Harvard and are a member of Mensa which if I recall you posted as evidence that you knew what you were talking about
tell me
does everyone at Mensa and Harvard believe the Camel evolved 600,000,000 years ago before marine life on this planet ?
how are they on the world population at the end of the ice age
laughable


and in case you didn't notice
I did apologise for causing you any offence
lets see what your Harvard educated mensa level brain can do about that shall we ?

lets look at this simplisticly.....old spark plug,not very efficiant.Has exteme carbon build up problems,ie the heap of crap ford that surrounded it.Simple!

just a hint for the future, and Marduk I have seen you do this on numerous occasions, wiki is not a good source. It does not help your case to keep citing it. That is all

Originally posted by Marduk
l
so there goes your argument
along with your flagging credibility
care to try for double jeopardy where the scores can really count
I'd love to know what number of people your imagination told you were present without you needing to resort to the facts ?
gonna come clean and tell us ?

Marduk, you are great at finding quality data to clear up misinformation. I chose this quote, as an example of where I think you may be going wrong. The first line is fine, "there goes your argument".... The rest of the quote is totally unnecessary. It is simply inflammatory insults. Keep pointing out relevant data, but perhaps it would be best to omit the snide comments.

Originally posted by Terapin
As for me, I'm done with this thread as the topic is a Hoax and not worth discussion. There are far better threads on ATS to discuss than a spark plug in mud.

Terapin, welcome back!! Seems you still have that nagging doubt that there's something more to that spark plug!! So you keep coming back!!

Originally posted by Xtal_Phusion
I would like to know whether or not these organics were found in proximity to the plug (or if anyone has bothered to look).

Can you answer Xtal's query?

Cheers!

[edit on 18-4-2007 by mikesingh]

Originally posted by Xtal_Phusion
... I was under the impression that we were supposed to treat each other with respect and there are far more diplomatic ways to correct errors. I have come to the conclusion that the price paid for his periodic pearls of wisdom is too high...

...For now, I think it is best that Marduk and I do not speak for a while. He is, of course free to toss as much acid my way as he likes but since I am currently ignoring him, I will not see it....

Sort of like sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALALALALALA...!!!" isn't it?

Originally posted by Marduk
btw we're still waiting for the evidence that you went to Harvard and are a member of Mensa which if I recall you posted as evidence that you knew what you were talking about...

Personally, I found Marduk's response about Camels to be quite amusing. I'm gratified that there are people here willing to argue with these "true believers" like Xtal_Phusion who swallow anything Michael Cremo or Graham Hancock have to offer, but insist on some kind of uberconspiracy or personal vendetta being behind what actual, knowledgeable scholars have to say on the subject.

The "Coso Artifact" is just one example of this sort of thing. There are thousands of others.

Why would anyone prefer the word of a creationist, Hindu or Christian, over the word of antique spark plug collectors, when it comes to an "artifact" exactly resembling an antique spark plug?

Marduk:

fingers in My Ears aNd SAying lalalalalala..



Harte

I posted a serious query. Yet, someone continued goofing around, ignoring the fact that I have yet to conclude anything and moved right along to the personal attacks. Did you completely miss the method I outlined for making a FAKE? Don't you think that implied I deemed this item a HOAX?

Hey, if certain members grew up, I wouldn't have to put them in time-out like naughty children.
To everyone else, I am sorry about the way this thread turned out but it is apparent to me that there is no turning back now that the train has permanently come off the tracks.

Everyone could learn a lot to learn from Terapin; a true diplomat who weighs the evidence and always manages to reach logical conclusions in a mature, intelligent, and civil fashion. I am certain you were just observing the social dynamics to see how it would turn out before abandonning the thread. I agree with your conclusion that it is definitely time to leave. There are plenty of other threads on the site where members are actually having serious discussions without personally attacking each other; people who, like you I hold in the highest regard.

Just had to hop in with a comment here:

Originally posted by mikesingh
So what do you make of this particular line which does mention something about light?

Resomtus is alive with gloss in the sky (and) lives at the day of the New Year celebration. He lights up in its house in the night of the child in his nest, by donating the light to the country from the birth bricks.

Now that's what needs to be deciphered!! Does it have any relationship with the light bulb?

"Resomtus" is not an Egyptian name... if anything, it's Roman in origin. I'll check on the Egyptology forums, but this would imply a date for the text within the time that the Romans ruled Egypt... so if there was any significance there other than the festival, Romans would have adopted the technology and used it and written about it.

You know what my problem with dating techniques is? They are overly presumptive.

First we presume that carbon decays ALWAYS at a predetermined rate (or any other isotope, for that matter).

We also build dating up on top of other presumably known benchmarks. For example, the Clovis people MUST be the first civilization in america (precluding any provable data, which gets swept under the "Anomoly" rug) since the "Out of Africa" theory is what millions of dollars of textbooks have printed in them.

We presume evolution is slow, and that you can predict genetic drift rates.

I mean...it is all a house of cards.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
You know what my problem with dating techniques is?...we presume that carbon decays ALWAYS at a predetermined rate (or any other isotope, for that matter)...also build dating up on top of other presumably known benchmarks. For example, the Clovis people MUST be the first civilization in america (precluding any provable data, which gets swept under the "Anomoly" rug) since the "Out of Africa" theory is what millions of dollars of textbooks have printed in them...presume evolution is slow, and that you can predict genetic drift rates.

Well! Looks like it's safe to come back now...

You make an excellent point and that is exactly why more than one isotopic technique is used when possible; a way to guage how accurate the measurement is. Each isotope decays at a different rate and in some cases, the period of time you are trying to measure can be covered by two different isotopes.

Similar to using a yard-stick and a meter stick to measure a football field, there is going to be some error as the sticks flip over as they make their way across the field to measure it's length. Having extra sources for fresh isotopes (i.e., someone dumps a chunk of uraninite in your study site) is similar to dealing with irregularities in the field, like a boulder in your path. The bigger the boulder (more fresh isotopes), the longer your path to the end of the field (as you flip your stick over the surface of the boulder). Having your other stick on a flat path can be used to guage the added length (or fresh isotopes flooding your system) throwing off your measurement. The more fresh isotopes you have invading your area, the younger everything in it will appear.

You also mentioned the Clovis artifact, other sites have since exceeded this age and supporting data has been found in through molecular clock genetic studies investigating the migratory patterns of Native Americans. Another interesting fact about the Clovis point, that technology is thought to have come from a region in Northern Spain/Southern France where similar points were found. Asian points use a different technology altogether. The genetic trail from Europe leads to the modern Ojibwe as the X haplotype (mt DNA linked to modern Basque and Altaic groups); 4 other trails from Asia haplotypes A-D pre-dated Clovis by as much as 20,000 years. Perhaps you already know this but I just think it's so fascinating! There was a PBS special about it not too long ago and that's what triggered my interest in ancient civilizations in the first place.

Evolution is only slow in the absence of obvious environmental changes (relegating mutation which drives diversity, to random errors in replication or mutagenesis via cosmic rays or ambient radioactivity from the surrounding geology). Sudden environmental change, creates population bottlenecks that kill off members which do not possess advantageous traits for surviving in that environment long enough to breed and pass on their genes. It cuts diversity quite suddenly in areas of morphology crucial to survival.

Given the number of natural disasters our hominid ancestors were subjected to (as physically inferior beings), it is little wonder that intelligence became that crucial factor in determining who lived long enough to contribute to our ancestry, and who died, leaving a phylogenetic dead end in the hominid family tree. I find it difficult to believe that our 30,000 year-old species, or even previous Homo species (250,000 years) failed to emerge from a nomadic existence until just 5-6,000 years ago. Population is often cited as the primary supporting factor for this time frame, but remains are not as durable as most assume. Where else can we look?

Originally posted by X-tal_PhusionI find it difficult to believe that our 30,000 year-old species, or even previous Homo species (250,000 years) failed to emerge from a nomadic existence until just 5-6,000 years ago. Population is often cited as the primary supporting factor for this time frame, but remains are not as durable as most assume. Where else can we look?

The Levant.

Settlements and attempts at herding and farming are much older than the dawn of formal civilizations some 6,000 years ago. Villages emerge in the Levant up to 10,000 years ago and I believe there are still older examples of villages in Europe. I do know there were attempts to domesticate antelopes in the Levant.

I would like you to show some proof to back up what you just stated early man hadn't even appeared 120 million years ago!
The only thing on the planet at that time was dinosaurs they were the only creatures on Earth before us at that time, and before them there was primitive plant and fish life, and before that basic sea based organisms and jelly fish etc...

Originally posted by Vixion
could well be from an ancient advanced civilization, they foiund a map 120 million years old, i belive it is on a rock or some thing like that, but it shows there were people,creatures, demons, gods or what ever before us.

if anyone is wondering this is the comment i was replying to

What do you guys have to say about this?

techjosh.blogspot.com/search/label/Technological%20Evidences

Look also at my thread on this.

Originally posted by X-tal_Phusion
...You also mentioned the Clovis artifact, other sites have since exceeded this age and supporting data has been found in through molecular clock genetic studies investigating the migratory patterns of Native Americans. Another interesting fact about the Clovis point, that technology is thought to have come from a region in Northern Spain/Southern France where similar points were found. Asian points use a different technology altogether.

Saying that Soultrean points are "similar" to Clovis points is a bit of a stretch. The Anthropologist that originally made this connection himself only asserted the possibility that the Clovis point might be an evolution of the Soultrean. No Soultrean points have ever been found in the Americas to this date. For this sort of hypothesis, at least a few must be found or the hypothesis will die of old age - except on message boards like this one!

Originally posted by X-tal_PhusionThe genetic trail from Europe leads to the modern Ojibwe as the X haplotype (mt DNA linked to modern Basque and Altaic groups);

That ain't necessarily so either. There are Asiatic X haplogroups that more closely resemble the Ojibwe one you're talking about (the X haplogroup in the Ojibwe is still a small minoroty of the tribe, BTW.) The "Altaic groups" you mention are Siberian, in case you didn't know that.


Harte

X-tal_Phusion, and Harte,

I gotta hand it to you guys! (x-tal_Phusion is a gal?? ) Darn! Reading your posts gives me an inferiority complex, to say the least! Shows how little I really know! Very informative stuff. Except for a couple of warts that Marduk exposed!!

Cheers!

xtal fusion
The genetic trail from Europe leads to the modern Ojibwe as the X haplotype (mt DNA linked to modern Basque and Altaic groups);

its not as simple as that
there is no mtdna x all on its own which is found all over the world
they are divided into seperate groups by specific mutations at numbered nucleotide positions
4) X2a is characterized by mutations at 200 and 16213 (+ others listed in the Reidla paper. This is the haplotype found in Amerindians

5) In Europe you have haplotypes X2b and X2c which are characterized by the ABSENCE of 200 and 16213 but both do have a mutation at 225. X2b has a mutation at 226 and X2c at 227.

6) The Siberian Altaians are X2e they also do NOT have 200 and 16213. They do have 225 like X2b and X2c.

the best you could say is that all groups originated in an X parent group in Africa some 30,000 years ago

it is clear Xtal that you have not been reading the right references
the last time I heard someone claim that X was the same between indians and the basque was at an A.R.E. conference when they were making it up as they went along to try to prove to the "true believers" that Atlantis sank and all its population who were apparently mtdna x (which of course doesnt exist) spread to the surrounding continents
they placed Atlantis in between America and Europe
this Atlantis location information is extremely valid coming as it does from a man who by his own admission was asleep at the time that he said it
i.e. Edgar Cayce

Actually, I saw this on a PBS documentary about 2 months ago. There was no mention of Edgar Cayce whatsoever (complete kook!). I'll be the first to admit that I am neither an anthropologist nor an archaeologist. I was merely intrigued by the possibility that whaling boats could have led these tribes to hopscotch across the Atlantic ice floes (no Atlantis mentioned either). I have seen 2 variations of migrations routes, given the more specific (and more recent) genetic information at our disposal now. I do not know how old the documentary was but perhaps that information is obsolete now. It was interesting to me from a purely genetic perspective. As an Ojibwe descendant myself, there are some unusual characteristics in our family one would normally not expect to see unless European hybridization was higher; their ancestral geographic isolation made interbreeding with European settlers unlikely and it has always been somewhat of a mystery for us. Of course, if Atlantis was discovered, I would be extremely interested but I really don't think that will ever happen. I don't give a hoot about what the new-agers say. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but right now, there's isn't any evidence to speak of so... what's the point in squabbling over it? Mythology outlining migratory origins (westward) may not be accurate or perhaps they only outline the second half of an older tale (southeast first, northwest second). I was just sharing the spark that ignited my initial interest; nothing more. No Atlanteans here! You? In the meantime, I'll see if I can dig up a website about that show. I see that the current PBS website now shows all Native Americans crossing from Siberia (yes, I did know where the Altaics were ). Sci-fi/New-Age or not, I still plan to keep reading about all the possibilities (minus Cayce, et al.). New data continues to surface and I don't think we've heard the last of this issue.

[edit on 13-5-2007 by X-tal_Phusion]