Navigation
Disclaimer
Authors are solely responsible for the content of their articles on PandasThumb.org. Linked material is the responsibility of the party who created it. Commenters are responsible for the content of comments. The opinions expressed in articles, linked materials, and comments are not necessarily those of PandasThumb.org. See our full disclaimer.
Recent Comments
- Marek14 on April 15, 2005 03:21 PM
- Marek14 on April 15, 2005 03:19 PM
- LeeFranke on April 15, 2005 12:47 PM
- Marek14 on April 14, 2005 01:16 AM
- LeeFranke on April 12, 2005 12:17 PM
- Steve F on April 12, 2005 05:21 AM
- Ed Darrell on April 11, 2005 10:25 PM
- PZ Myers on April 11, 2005 05:06 PM
- Russell on April 11, 2005 04:32 PM
- Ed Darrell on April 11, 2005 04:17 PM
Recent Trackbacks
Recommend this entry to a friend
Site Traffic
Posted by Richard B. Hoppe on April 11, 2005 04:11 PM
Since PZ is apparently too shy to suggest this himself, I will do so on the chance that there’s a smidge of non-overlapping readership between here and Pharyngula. Those who have not yet done so, go to Pharyngula and read this essay. It’s also on The American Street. It’s a keeper.
RBH
Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/951
Comment #24326
Posted by Russell on April 11, 2005 04:32 PM (e) (s)
I was going to say something similarly laudatory, but Pharyngula commenters have pretty much covered it. I may have it rendered in calligraphy, frame it, and put it on the wall.
Comment #24337
Posted by PZ Myers on April 11, 2005 05:06 PM (e) (s)
My becoming modesty is only one of my multitude of exemplary traits.
Unfortunately, it’s a weblog essay, which doesn’t quite fit the style of any newspaper or magazine. At about 1600 words, I don’t know that it could go anywhere else.
Comment #24365
Posted by Ed Darrell on April 11, 2005 10:25 PM (e) (s)
Sunday opinion pieces frequently run double the usual 800 words that most opinion pieces must be smaller than. If National Review still had anyone of half the wit of Bill Buckley editing it, it would run the piece. New Republic could easily.
I was actually hopeful someone at the Star-Tribune might read one of these blogs and be inspired.
Comment #24379
Posted by Steve F on April 12, 2005 05:21 AM (e) (s)
Good to see Dave Scot chipping in at the end of the coments.
Comment #24416
Posted by LeeFranke on April 12, 2005 12:17 PM (e) (s)
Amazing post.
I have a question that is only somewhat related to this topic. Someone here might accidently know the answer.
It is hard to phrase the question that actually makes sense. My wife and I were talking about it over dinner so I have to translate it from spouse speak to internet speak ;)
Is there anything recorded that dates prior to what would be the biblical begining?
Or maybe…when does recorded history start? If not before Adam/Eve why not?
thanks,
Comment #24843
Posted by Marek14 on April 14, 2005 01:16 AM (e) (s)
Since nobody is answering, I would volunteer (although by no means an expert) that oldest writings are about 5000 years old. However, myths can reach even further back in time (as an extreme case, vedic creationism believes that the humans lived in this world for billions of years).
Or put another way: You can have myths set in “prehistoric times”. But you can’t have recorded history from prehistoric times. So I would answer your question with “No”, there is no recorded history before young earth date of Adam/Eve, and for a while after that, too., and the reason is that myths can (and often are) be antedated, i.e. set in distant past you already have no other information about to prove you wrong.
Of course, if you’d accept cave paintings (reaching LONG before young earth date of Adam and Eve) as “recorded history”, the answer to your question would be different.
Comment #25156
Posted by LeeFranke on April 15, 2005 12:47 PM (e) (s)
The first paragraph answers the question. We were wondering how far back the oldest writings went.
What prompted the discussion was the petroglyphs we saw while vacation around Albequerque.
Comment #24322
Posted by Ed Darrell on April 11, 2005 04:17 PM (e) (s)
Keeper! There’s an understatement.
It’s near poetry. I’ve already forwarded the link, and I’ve gotten thank-yous from bone folk who I didn’t know and bone folk who I didn’t know were bone folk, and lots of others in between.
PZ should submit it to the NY Times, or maybe the New Yorker. (Is there any chance the St. Paul Pioneer-Press or the Minneapolis Tribune would publish such a gem from their own backyard?)