The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
To all those who insist in following the Cult that is "evolution" here are yet more of the infinite flaws in the fairy tale. This is the side the evolutionist scientists of course don't tell you.
I DID NOT WRITE THIS, BUT JUST AS THE EVOLUTIONISTS ONLY BELIEVE DARWIN, I BELIEVE THE LORD AND ALL THOSE WHO STRESS HOW REDICULOUS EVOLUTION IS.
Doughboy writes the following from
http://www.netaxs.com/~doughboy/montana.htm
Hi there!
I am very happy to receive your mail.
I believe that this dialogue began with a question of whether evolution is legit. My argument is that I think it deceives students; going directly in opposition to testable science.
1. the laws of nature
The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics is the law of energy conservation. As you know, this is an empirical or testable law of science. This law states while energy can be converted from one form to another, it can not be created or annihilated. It has been considered the most powerful or most fundamental generalization of the universe that scientists have ever been able to make. This would mean that mass nor energy can appear from nothing. If there were that would be a free lunch. Some have suspected black holes, but I believe that one has not been observed. Today, matter does not spring out of nothing. If I were to tell someone that something appeared or reappeared, they'd say it were a lie, fairy tale, or legend.
The question seems to choke many evolutionists when one tests the theory of evolution with the first law of thermodynamics. There are all sorts of untested hypothesis of how something could come from nothing and that something that people hypothesis about is actually something. If it exists, it is something.
This reminds me of the 19th century concept of spontaneous generation. Flies can't come from rotten meat. At that time, people speculated how flies came about or how some sort of growth came about and it was believed that spoiled foods caused it. We later found out that there was a much different mechanism occurring. Science at one point was clueless, and we now know insects and other living things don't come from dead ones. In the time of Darwin, scientists believed that "simple organisms" came from inanimate objects. Just put millions of years in between and an open system, and you have life beginning on Earth.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
As you know that the law of entropy is this. Without any intelligence acting on a system, entropy is always increasing and order is decreasing. Entropy is that free energy or energy lost.
For example, after I straighten up my room, it is a natural process that it will start becoming chaotic over time. It will not get clean or straight on its own, but I will have to do it. Entropy in the big bang/evolution theory moves from disorder (a soupy primordial slime), to order (man, plants, and animals). Supposedly, there is no intelligent being acting on the young Earth and the world then moves from disorder and chaos, to order and complexity. It is that "blind random chance" that makes it impossible for life to be created in this order. It is amino acids, to amoebas, to apes, and then to astronauts.
This is not true because the energy of the earth flows from hot to cool bodies. Evolution requires constant violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Some evolutions then try to dogmatically defend their position of getting past the second law.
One argument is that it is only speaking of energy relationships of matter, while evolution deals with complex organisms arising from simpler ones. This is false.
Contemporary information theory deals with information entropy and militates against evolution on a genetic level. While in an energy conversion system, entropy dictates that energy will decay. In an informational system, entropy dictates that information will be distorted. It is certain that there is a conceptual connection between information and second law of thermodynamics.
Some evolutionists also say that entropy can't prevent evolution because the Earth was an open system heated by the rays of the sun. This is nonsense.
the sun's raise have never produced an upswing in complexity without teleonomy (ordering principal of life).
Energy from the sun doesn't produce an orderly structure of growth and development without information and an engine.
I may be incorrect in my analogy, but it reminds me of poring gas on a heap of junk that used to be a car. If the junk doesn't know how to use the gas, there is no way it will drive down the street. If the sun beats down on a dead plant, it does not produce growth, but rather speeds up decay!
If the sun beats on a live plant, it produces a temporary increase in complexity in growth.
Evolutionists sometimes also say that entropy did not occur in the past. Well, hey, I wouldn't say that if I was an evolutionist, because that would suggest some supernatural occurrence. *wink*
This is just the first topic on the long list of flaws that the theory of evolution has.
I'm not doubting that evolution is the best theory that scientists can come up with, but biology, anthropology, psychology, chemistry, and other science students are not told of the weaknesses of the theory. (As Phillup Johnson put it, Evolution is a “half-baked theory.” And guess what? Scientists nor students have to accept it.)
Sincerely,
The Doughboy
DOUGHBOY WROTE THIS LETTER TO AN EVOLUTIONIST, AND NEVER GOT A RESPONSE. THIS IS A COMMON PATTERN, WHEN THE CREATIONIST WINS THE POINT, THE EVOLUTIONIST BACKS DOWN.
I DID NOT WRITE THIS, BUT JUST AS THE EVOLUTIONISTS ONLY BELIEVE DARWIN, I BELIEVE THE LORD AND ALL THOSE WHO STRESS HOW REDICULOUS EVOLUTION IS.
Doughboy writes the following from
http://www.netaxs.com/~doughboy/montana.htm
Hi there!
I am very happy to receive your mail.
I believe that this dialogue began with a question of whether evolution is legit. My argument is that I think it deceives students; going directly in opposition to testable science.
1. the laws of nature
The First Law of Thermodynamics
The first law of thermodynamics is the law of energy conservation. As you know, this is an empirical or testable law of science. This law states while energy can be converted from one form to another, it can not be created or annihilated. It has been considered the most powerful or most fundamental generalization of the universe that scientists have ever been able to make. This would mean that mass nor energy can appear from nothing. If there were that would be a free lunch. Some have suspected black holes, but I believe that one has not been observed. Today, matter does not spring out of nothing. If I were to tell someone that something appeared or reappeared, they'd say it were a lie, fairy tale, or legend.
The question seems to choke many evolutionists when one tests the theory of evolution with the first law of thermodynamics. There are all sorts of untested hypothesis of how something could come from nothing and that something that people hypothesis about is actually something. If it exists, it is something.
This reminds me of the 19th century concept of spontaneous generation. Flies can't come from rotten meat. At that time, people speculated how flies came about or how some sort of growth came about and it was believed that spoiled foods caused it. We later found out that there was a much different mechanism occurring. Science at one point was clueless, and we now know insects and other living things don't come from dead ones. In the time of Darwin, scientists believed that "simple organisms" came from inanimate objects. Just put millions of years in between and an open system, and you have life beginning on Earth.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics
As you know that the law of entropy is this. Without any intelligence acting on a system, entropy is always increasing and order is decreasing. Entropy is that free energy or energy lost.
For example, after I straighten up my room, it is a natural process that it will start becoming chaotic over time. It will not get clean or straight on its own, but I will have to do it. Entropy in the big bang/evolution theory moves from disorder (a soupy primordial slime), to order (man, plants, and animals). Supposedly, there is no intelligent being acting on the young Earth and the world then moves from disorder and chaos, to order and complexity. It is that "blind random chance" that makes it impossible for life to be created in this order. It is amino acids, to amoebas, to apes, and then to astronauts.
This is not true because the energy of the earth flows from hot to cool bodies. Evolution requires constant violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Some evolutions then try to dogmatically defend their position of getting past the second law.
One argument is that it is only speaking of energy relationships of matter, while evolution deals with complex organisms arising from simpler ones. This is false.
Contemporary information theory deals with information entropy and militates against evolution on a genetic level. While in an energy conversion system, entropy dictates that energy will decay. In an informational system, entropy dictates that information will be distorted. It is certain that there is a conceptual connection between information and second law of thermodynamics.
Some evolutionists also say that entropy can't prevent evolution because the Earth was an open system heated by the rays of the sun. This is nonsense.
the sun's raise have never produced an upswing in complexity without teleonomy (ordering principal of life).
Energy from the sun doesn't produce an orderly structure of growth and development without information and an engine.
I may be incorrect in my analogy, but it reminds me of poring gas on a heap of junk that used to be a car. If the junk doesn't know how to use the gas, there is no way it will drive down the street. If the sun beats down on a dead plant, it does not produce growth, but rather speeds up decay!
If the sun beats on a live plant, it produces a temporary increase in complexity in growth.
Evolutionists sometimes also say that entropy did not occur in the past. Well, hey, I wouldn't say that if I was an evolutionist, because that would suggest some supernatural occurrence. *wink*
This is just the first topic on the long list of flaws that the theory of evolution has.
I'm not doubting that evolution is the best theory that scientists can come up with, but biology, anthropology, psychology, chemistry, and other science students are not told of the weaknesses of the theory. (As Phillup Johnson put it, Evolution is a “half-baked theory.” And guess what? Scientists nor students have to accept it.)
Sincerely,
The Doughboy
DOUGHBOY WROTE THIS LETTER TO AN EVOLUTIONIST, AND NEVER GOT A RESPONSE. THIS IS A COMMON PATTERN, WHEN THE CREATIONIST WINS THE POINT, THE EVOLUTIONIST BACKS DOWN.
Page:
Forest Fan wrote:
> So how come we have evidence of civilisations dating back to before
> 7000BC (thats 9000 years ago)?
>
> Except that's a little porkie, isn't it Tallan?
>
> The oldest human remains are that of Otzi, the Ice man.
>
Quote:
"Marine scientists in India say an archaeological site off India's western coast may be up to 9,000 years old.
The revelation comes about 8 months after acoustic images from the sea-bed suggested the presence of built-up structures resembling the ancient Harappan civilisation, which dates back around 4,000 years.
The Harappan civilisation is the oldest in the subcontinent.
Although Palaeolithic sites dating back around 20,000 years have been found on the coast of India's western state of Gujarat before, this is the first time there are indications of man-made structures as old as 9,500 years found deep beneath the sea surface. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1763950.stm
> So how come we have evidence of civilisations dating back to before
> 7000BC (thats 9000 years ago)?
>
> Except that's a little porkie, isn't it Tallan?
>
> The oldest human remains are that of Otzi, the Ice man.
>
Quote:
"Marine scientists in India say an archaeological site off India's western coast may be up to 9,000 years old.
The revelation comes about 8 months after acoustic images from the sea-bed suggested the presence of built-up structures resembling the ancient Harappan civilisation, which dates back around 4,000 years.
The Harappan civilisation is the oldest in the subcontinent.
Although Palaeolithic sites dating back around 20,000 years have been found on the coast of India's western state of Gujarat before, this is the first time there are indications of man-made structures as old as 9,500 years found deep beneath the sea surface. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1763950.stm
Memorandum! wrote:
> Again, if you believe that God came from nowhere, you can believe that
> matter came from nowhere.
But GOD DOESN'T come from nowhere.
> Again, if you believe that God came from nowhere, you can believe that
> matter came from nowhere.
But GOD DOESN'T come from nowhere.
Tallan wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Tallan wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> The thing these
> people can't understand is the concept of time. Out lifespan is on
> average 70 years. Once you try to compare that with, say, 40 million
> years, or approximately 580,000 times our lifespan, its
> incomprehensible.
>
> Oh, how I have tried to make him realise this!
>
> It doesn't prove a thing, all it proves it that you don't realise
> man
> has only been alive 6000 years!
>
> So how come we have evidence of civilisations dating back to before
> 7000BC (thats 9000 years ago)?
Except that's a little porkie, isn't it Tallan?
The oldest human remains are that of Otzi, the Ice man.
Would you please help me find an example of a man of the Neolithic Age?
Dr. dig responds:
Here is just the Neolithic man for you! He is called the Ice Man and his frozen remains were recently discovered in the Alps. A lot of research has been done on his remains and of the items he was carrying before his unfortunate death on the snow-covered mountains.
There are now several books on the Ice Man that you should be able to find in your school or public library. The books are well illustrated and will tell you all about his discovery and conservation. To find him in your library look in the card catalogue under the heading "ICE MAN" or search for him on the web.
Where did Otzi come from?
Dr. dig responds:
Ötzi the Ice Man was found near Hauslabjoch in the Ötzal Alps in September 1991 by two walkers. The Ice Man died approximately 5200 years ago. At death he was between 40 and 50 years old and suffered from a number of medical conditions. He turned into a mummy accidentally almost immediately by the freezing weather conditions that turned him into the Ice Man. Scientists believe that Ötzi was caught in a heavy snowfall, fell asleep, and froze to death. Scientists have concluded this because there were no signs of predator attacks. They believe that the body must have been covered with snow almost immediately.
How old was Ötzi?
Dr. dig responds:
If Ötzi were alive today, he would be about 5,300 years old! Archaeologists have determined that Ötzi was an adult male between 25 and 40 when he died.
How can you tell that the "iceman" is about 5,300 years old?
Dr. dig responds:
The first clues to how old the Ice Man was came from many of the tools and objects found with him. The stone ax and stone knife found with him were similar to other stone tools found elsewhere and which are thousands of years old.
A more exact date was given using a scientific test called Carbon 14 dating that can tell the age of almost anything that ever lived - dead animals, dead people, plants, or things like cloth, which comes from living matter. The Carbon 14 dating test showed that the Ice Man must be about 5,300 years old.
How cold was it when the iceman was found?
Dr. dig responds:
The iceman was found at the end of a warm summer in the Alps. Usually the Alps are covered in snow, even in summer, but it had been an especially warm year and a great deal of the snow and ice had melted. Temperatures, therefore, must have been above freezing (32 degrees fahrenheit or above) for numbers of weeks in order for him to have been exposed.
I do not actually know what the temperature was on the day he was found, but the temperatures must have remained around freezing because the ice mummy did not rot and he had to be extracted from the ice with a jack hammer!
Are Ötzi's internal organs still intact or have they taken him apart to study him? Does the ice man have any legs? What is the coolest looking artifact?
Dr. dig responds:
Archaeologists have not taken the ice man apart to study him, although they have examined the contents of his stomach and other internal organs by taking tiny samples of his body and looking at the remains under the microscope. The ice man's legs are still intact.
Ötzi's ax was made of copper which provided archaeologists with the best clue in determining the age of Otzi's body. The Ice Man and his big copper ax were more than 5,000 years old!
Why was the "iceman" so well preserved?
Dr. dig responds:
We put food in the freezer to help it keep longer. Freezing slows down the rotting process. Our home freezers aren't very cold though, and after six months or so, the frozen food eventually goes off - or begins to rot. But inside glaciers and in some very, very cold places where the temperature is really cold and the ice never melts, remains of plants and animals are preserved, sometimes for thousands of years. As long as the remains are kept completely frozen, the process of decay cannot take place. When Otzi was removed from the ice, his body quickly began to rot and scientists had to put him into a deep freezer. His remains are now on display in a museum in Italy - but bring your coat - the room where he is kept is climate controlled and cold to keep him from decaying any further.
What messages does the evidence of multiple types of Moss and Plants give us about the Iceman?
Dr. dig responds:
From an analysis of the plant remains in his little satchel, the moss stuffed in his boots, the contents of his stomach, archaeologists have been able to make some pretty good guesses about where he comes from, what he ate, his health, and more generally about the ancient environment of the Alps. From an identification of the mosses, for example, archaeologists believe that he came from a nearby valley in Italy where these mosses grow in abundance today.
You can find out even more if you go to the following resources:
Jim Dickson, the archaeobotanist who studied the plant remains recovered from Ötzi's body wrote these two very informative websites, though they are somewhat scholarly. www.gla.ac.uk/Acad/IBLS/DEEB/jd/otzi.htm and www.gla.ac.uk/Acad/IBLS/DEEB/jd/iceman.htm
Nova Online: www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/icemummies/iceman.html
How are you going to find out how the Ice Man died?
Dr. dig responds:
Archaeologists believe that the Ice Man died from the cold and his frozen body lay where it died until it was found in 1991.
We cannot ever know the exact circumstances of his death because the Ice Man can't tell us himself! But we can make some good guesses based on where he was found, what he was wearing, the condition of his body, and even the contents of his stomach which tells us what he last had to eat.
How do they know what he looked like?
Dr. dig responds:
Archaeologists can guess what Otzi may have looked like from the shape of his skull, his teeth and jawline, the color of his hair which survives and any other remaining features. The way archaeologists are able to recreate the likenesses of ancient people from their remains is called forensic archaeology. Forensic archaeology is based on methods used by policemen when they need to identify murder victims.
How tall was the Ice Man?
Dr. dig responds:
Judging from the remains of his body and the size and strength of his bones, the ice man was approximately 5 feet 2 inches tall - about the size of most of your sixth graders, in fact!
What do you think is the best book about Otzi the ice man?
Dr. dig responds:
Frozen Man (1994) by David Getz is a well-researched book about Ötzi for children. Five chapters take the reader through the Ice Man's discovery in the Ötzal Alps near the Italian-Austrian border, the dating of the body, the first autopsies and tests of the body, his clothing and equipment, and an imagining of his last day. The only problem is that it is somewhat out-of-date (mostly the last chapter on his imaginary last day--since new findings have put this scenario in doubt). Still, it is the best book about Ötzi for children. Well-written and easy to follow, the book is most suited for children in grades 3-6. Four color photos and many line drawings and charts. With glossary and pronunciation guide, bibliography, and index.
So much has happened to Ötzi in the last few years that many books are out of date. Recent findings have altered scientists original impression. Keep on the look out for newer books that rely on up to the minute information to find out more about this remarkable mummy!
A list of resources will be found on the website of The Mummy Tombs when you go to www.mummytombs.com. You may also want to visit Nova Online to read a reporters account of the discovery at www.pbs.org.
Who were the people that stumbled on Ötzi and did they get any money for finding him?
Dr. dig responds:
The Iceman was discovered by accident by hikers in the Alps. Though they received a lot of attention for their discovery, they did not receive any money for finding him. I do not know for certain whether or not newspapers paid them for interviews.
Why is Otzi the ice man's discovery important to the world?
Brandon, Web Post
Dr. dig responds:
Otzi is the earliest man to have been discovered who died as a result of a deliberate burial or sacrifices. Otzi therefore offers us a snapshot of daily life 5,300 years ago, and we know that the clothes and tools which were found with him were typical everyday items. The nature of his preservation by freezing ensured that a large amount of organic material (leather garments, a wood and fur backpack, a yew bow) were preserved with him. This information is all too often missing from archaeological sites.
Who Killed the Iceman?
Mary, Lynnfield, Massachusetts
Dr. dig responds:
You've read about the 5,300-year-old frozen man found in the mountains on the border of Austria and Italy (see DIG June/July 2001). Named Ötzi, after the Ötzal Alps where hikers found him melting out of a glacier in 1991, he is also known as the Iceman. Most people thought the Iceman was a shepherd or hunter who got lost during a heavy snowstorm and simply froze to death. No longer. Scientists at Italy's South Tyrol Museum, where Ötzi is kept, have found the real reason: an inch-long arrowhead [actually 0.83 inches] buried in his left shoulder. Ötzi was shot.
How did the arrowhead escape detection even though CT (computerized tomography) scans and X rays of the body were made soon after it was found and again this past April? The arrowhead was sandwiched between the Iceman's shoulder blade and ribs. Scans and X rays taken from his front or back wouldn't have had a clear view of it through the bone. The new X-ray image was made from the side.
After the arrowhead was discovered, the scientists re-examined the Iceman's back and found a small wound, which had been missed because of the skin's dried and wrinkled-up condition. The arrowhead, they now believe, went through the left shoulder blade, cutting blood vessels and nerves. TheIceman probably died from a loss of blood. Now the question isn't how Ötzi died, but who killed him and why did they do it.
The text above was taken from various parts from this website [URL]http://www.digonsite.com/[/URL]
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Tallan wrote:
> Pandaemonium wrote:
> The thing these
> people can't understand is the concept of time. Out lifespan is on
> average 70 years. Once you try to compare that with, say, 40 million
> years, or approximately 580,000 times our lifespan, its
> incomprehensible.
>
> Oh, how I have tried to make him realise this!
>
> It doesn't prove a thing, all it proves it that you don't realise
> man
> has only been alive 6000 years!
>
> So how come we have evidence of civilisations dating back to before
> 7000BC (thats 9000 years ago)?
Except that's a little porkie, isn't it Tallan?
The oldest human remains are that of Otzi, the Ice man.
Would you please help me find an example of a man of the Neolithic Age?
Dr. dig responds:
Here is just the Neolithic man for you! He is called the Ice Man and his frozen remains were recently discovered in the Alps. A lot of research has been done on his remains and of the items he was carrying before his unfortunate death on the snow-covered mountains.
There are now several books on the Ice Man that you should be able to find in your school or public library. The books are well illustrated and will tell you all about his discovery and conservation. To find him in your library look in the card catalogue under the heading "ICE MAN" or search for him on the web.
Where did Otzi come from?
Dr. dig responds:
Ötzi the Ice Man was found near Hauslabjoch in the Ötzal Alps in September 1991 by two walkers. The Ice Man died approximately 5200 years ago. At death he was between 40 and 50 years old and suffered from a number of medical conditions. He turned into a mummy accidentally almost immediately by the freezing weather conditions that turned him into the Ice Man. Scientists believe that Ötzi was caught in a heavy snowfall, fell asleep, and froze to death. Scientists have concluded this because there were no signs of predator attacks. They believe that the body must have been covered with snow almost immediately.
How old was Ötzi?
Dr. dig responds:
If Ötzi were alive today, he would be about 5,300 years old! Archaeologists have determined that Ötzi was an adult male between 25 and 40 when he died.
How can you tell that the "iceman" is about 5,300 years old?
Dr. dig responds:
The first clues to how old the Ice Man was came from many of the tools and objects found with him. The stone ax and stone knife found with him were similar to other stone tools found elsewhere and which are thousands of years old.
A more exact date was given using a scientific test called Carbon 14 dating that can tell the age of almost anything that ever lived - dead animals, dead people, plants, or things like cloth, which comes from living matter. The Carbon 14 dating test showed that the Ice Man must be about 5,300 years old.
How cold was it when the iceman was found?
Dr. dig responds:
The iceman was found at the end of a warm summer in the Alps. Usually the Alps are covered in snow, even in summer, but it had been an especially warm year and a great deal of the snow and ice had melted. Temperatures, therefore, must have been above freezing (32 degrees fahrenheit or above) for numbers of weeks in order for him to have been exposed.
I do not actually know what the temperature was on the day he was found, but the temperatures must have remained around freezing because the ice mummy did not rot and he had to be extracted from the ice with a jack hammer!
Are Ötzi's internal organs still intact or have they taken him apart to study him? Does the ice man have any legs? What is the coolest looking artifact?
Dr. dig responds:
Archaeologists have not taken the ice man apart to study him, although they have examined the contents of his stomach and other internal organs by taking tiny samples of his body and looking at the remains under the microscope. The ice man's legs are still intact.
Ötzi's ax was made of copper which provided archaeologists with the best clue in determining the age of Otzi's body. The Ice Man and his big copper ax were more than 5,000 years old!
Why was the "iceman" so well preserved?
Dr. dig responds:
We put food in the freezer to help it keep longer. Freezing slows down the rotting process. Our home freezers aren't very cold though, and after six months or so, the frozen food eventually goes off - or begins to rot. But inside glaciers and in some very, very cold places where the temperature is really cold and the ice never melts, remains of plants and animals are preserved, sometimes for thousands of years. As long as the remains are kept completely frozen, the process of decay cannot take place. When Otzi was removed from the ice, his body quickly began to rot and scientists had to put him into a deep freezer. His remains are now on display in a museum in Italy - but bring your coat - the room where he is kept is climate controlled and cold to keep him from decaying any further.
What messages does the evidence of multiple types of Moss and Plants give us about the Iceman?
Dr. dig responds:
From an analysis of the plant remains in his little satchel, the moss stuffed in his boots, the contents of his stomach, archaeologists have been able to make some pretty good guesses about where he comes from, what he ate, his health, and more generally about the ancient environment of the Alps. From an identification of the mosses, for example, archaeologists believe that he came from a nearby valley in Italy where these mosses grow in abundance today.
You can find out even more if you go to the following resources:
Jim Dickson, the archaeobotanist who studied the plant remains recovered from Ötzi's body wrote these two very informative websites, though they are somewhat scholarly. www.gla.ac.uk/Acad/IBLS/DEEB/jd/otzi.htm and www.gla.ac.uk/Acad/IBLS/DEEB/jd/iceman.htm
Nova Online: www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/icemummies/iceman.html
How are you going to find out how the Ice Man died?
Dr. dig responds:
Archaeologists believe that the Ice Man died from the cold and his frozen body lay where it died until it was found in 1991.
We cannot ever know the exact circumstances of his death because the Ice Man can't tell us himself! But we can make some good guesses based on where he was found, what he was wearing, the condition of his body, and even the contents of his stomach which tells us what he last had to eat.
How do they know what he looked like?
Dr. dig responds:
Archaeologists can guess what Otzi may have looked like from the shape of his skull, his teeth and jawline, the color of his hair which survives and any other remaining features. The way archaeologists are able to recreate the likenesses of ancient people from their remains is called forensic archaeology. Forensic archaeology is based on methods used by policemen when they need to identify murder victims.
How tall was the Ice Man?
Dr. dig responds:
Judging from the remains of his body and the size and strength of his bones, the ice man was approximately 5 feet 2 inches tall - about the size of most of your sixth graders, in fact!
What do you think is the best book about Otzi the ice man?
Dr. dig responds:
Frozen Man (1994) by David Getz is a well-researched book about Ötzi for children. Five chapters take the reader through the Ice Man's discovery in the Ötzal Alps near the Italian-Austrian border, the dating of the body, the first autopsies and tests of the body, his clothing and equipment, and an imagining of his last day. The only problem is that it is somewhat out-of-date (mostly the last chapter on his imaginary last day--since new findings have put this scenario in doubt). Still, it is the best book about Ötzi for children. Well-written and easy to follow, the book is most suited for children in grades 3-6. Four color photos and many line drawings and charts. With glossary and pronunciation guide, bibliography, and index.
So much has happened to Ötzi in the last few years that many books are out of date. Recent findings have altered scientists original impression. Keep on the look out for newer books that rely on up to the minute information to find out more about this remarkable mummy!
A list of resources will be found on the website of The Mummy Tombs when you go to www.mummytombs.com. You may also want to visit Nova Online to read a reporters account of the discovery at www.pbs.org.
Who were the people that stumbled on Ötzi and did they get any money for finding him?
Dr. dig responds:
The Iceman was discovered by accident by hikers in the Alps. Though they received a lot of attention for their discovery, they did not receive any money for finding him. I do not know for certain whether or not newspapers paid them for interviews.
Why is Otzi the ice man's discovery important to the world?
Brandon, Web Post
Dr. dig responds:
Otzi is the earliest man to have been discovered who died as a result of a deliberate burial or sacrifices. Otzi therefore offers us a snapshot of daily life 5,300 years ago, and we know that the clothes and tools which were found with him were typical everyday items. The nature of his preservation by freezing ensured that a large amount of organic material (leather garments, a wood and fur backpack, a yew bow) were preserved with him. This information is all too often missing from archaeological sites.
Who Killed the Iceman?
Mary, Lynnfield, Massachusetts
Dr. dig responds:
You've read about the 5,300-year-old frozen man found in the mountains on the border of Austria and Italy (see DIG June/July 2001). Named Ötzi, after the Ötzal Alps where hikers found him melting out of a glacier in 1991, he is also known as the Iceman. Most people thought the Iceman was a shepherd or hunter who got lost during a heavy snowstorm and simply froze to death. No longer. Scientists at Italy's South Tyrol Museum, where Ötzi is kept, have found the real reason: an inch-long arrowhead [actually 0.83 inches] buried in his left shoulder. Ötzi was shot.
How did the arrowhead escape detection even though CT (computerized tomography) scans and X rays of the body were made soon after it was found and again this past April? The arrowhead was sandwiched between the Iceman's shoulder blade and ribs. Scans and X rays taken from his front or back wouldn't have had a clear view of it through the bone. The new X-ray image was made from the side.
After the arrowhead was discovered, the scientists re-examined the Iceman's back and found a small wound, which had been missed because of the skin's dried and wrinkled-up condition. The arrowhead, they now believe, went through the left shoulder blade, cutting blood vessels and nerves. TheIceman probably died from a loss of blood. Now the question isn't how Ötzi died, but who killed him and why did they do it.
The text above was taken from various parts from this website [URL]http://www.digonsite.com/[/URL]
Again, if you believe that God came from nowhere, you can believe that matter came from nowhere.
Tallan wrote:
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Where did the space, the area of the universe come from, it couldn't
> have evolved from nothing, so where did it come from?
>
> I have already told you, the entire matter in the universe was at one
> point condensed into a singularity. Do you know the effect gravity
> can have on spacetime? If you did, (and this has been proven through
> experiments, not belief), then you would realise that that amount of
> matter in such a small space creates so much gravity that the entire
> space and time (see spacetime) is pulled in by the gravity and is
> therefore wrapped in on itself.
You still have failed to answer where this matter, whether compressed or otherwise came from. Please stop avoiding the question and just answer it.
> Forest Fan wrote:
> Where did the space, the area of the universe come from, it couldn't
> have evolved from nothing, so where did it come from?
>
> I have already told you, the entire matter in the universe was at one
> point condensed into a singularity. Do you know the effect gravity
> can have on spacetime? If you did, (and this has been proven through
> experiments, not belief), then you would realise that that amount of
> matter in such a small space creates so much gravity that the entire
> space and time (see spacetime) is pulled in by the gravity and is
> therefore wrapped in on itself.
You still have failed to answer where this matter, whether compressed or otherwise came from. Please stop avoiding the question and just answer it.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Where did the space, the area of the universe come from, it couldn't
> have evolved from nothing, so where did it come from?
Where did God come from? He couldn't just have appeared out of nothing, could he?
> Where did the space, the area of the universe come from, it couldn't
> have evolved from nothing, so where did it come from?
Where did God come from? He couldn't just have appeared out of nothing, could he?
ßora† §agdiyeV wrote:
> "Advance in science comes by laying brick upon brick, not by
> sudden erection of fairy palaces."
>
> - J. S. Huxley
I like that quote! So very, very true.
> "Advance in science comes by laying brick upon brick, not by
> sudden erection of fairy palaces."
>
> - J. S. Huxley
I like that quote! So very, very true.
"Advance in science comes by laying brick upon brick, not by sudden erection of fairy palaces."
- J. S. Huxley
- J. S. Huxley
forest fan, our 'religion' doesn't have a god, that's the whole point.
don't twist words to make yourself sound as though you are clever, you're failing miserably.
don't twist words to make yourself sound as though you are clever, you're failing miserably.
Forest Fan wrote:
> Evolution is a religion, just like being a CREATIONIST. Except your
> GOD is sea slime, but my GOD is JESUS.
NO! Sea slime was not here first! It evolved here! Before the primordial soup there was the earth with no life, before that the sun with no planets, before the birth of the sun other suns had already lived and died. Other galaxies had lived and died.
> Evolution is a religion, just like being a CREATIONIST. Except your
> GOD is sea slime, but my GOD is JESUS.
NO! Sea slime was not here first! It evolved here! Before the primordial soup there was the earth with no life, before that the sun with no planets, before the birth of the sun other suns had already lived and died. Other galaxies had lived and died.
Page: