Incredible Roseau Stone Reveals 200,000-Year-Old Writing And Can Re-Write History!

a reply to: nighthawk1954

I'm just glad OP didn't have more to say about this magnificent
world changing event. That prolly had buffalo crap on it.

a reply to: MysterX

Vedic Sanskrit morph into Classic Sanskrit

Article on reconstructing the oldest version of Sanskrit

The oldest stage of the language, Rigvedic Sanskrit, the language of the hymns of the Rigveda.

Recovering

I am having trouble piecing together the legitimate sources. Often times this does happen when the original sources are so old, but it definitely hurts the overall case. I found a German Wiki entry that didn't really provide any information, although it led me to a site where I did not see the reference to the stone being destroyed with acid, but rather that the stone "mysteriously" disappeared at some point.

Now this in itself would not be unheard of, as there are actually other intriguing scientific finds that have been documented in some manner that turned out to just disappear. Sometimes this occurs at reputable museums. Now there are two possibilities when this happens. Either they are being destroyed because some super-secret cabal is trying to protect some secret history, which is extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely, or it is due to negligence. Or perhaps some actually make money by sending such artifacts to "private" collections. Now super-rich people might just pay for some extremely rare and/or controversial artifact, and could very well keep the thing from the rest of the world. A conspiracy of that nature is not far-fetched at all in my opinion. But there is no evidence to suggest this occurred. I think most of the time, at least where museums and universities are concerned, the artifacts simply get lost. They get misplaced. I would be willing to bet if the Smithsonian went through everything they had in boxes and storage, they would unearth some earth-shattering stuff. If everything were released for study.

In fact, I bet that releasing all this stuff for various types of study, even if just translation work, would keep a large part of the archaeological community busy for decades. And we would learn a lot. That is just stuff we already have, but has been forgotten. I should say that I am not sold on the idea of this stone. However, I do believe the Kensington stone is a real centuries-old artifact and not a 20th century recreation. There are some other artifacts that have been unearthed in the same general region that also suggest that the history of North America be rewritten. Some artifacts found further west are also interesting. Take something like the Tucson artifacts. There very well might have been nothing to the claims, but it is intriguing. I remember the America Unearthed episode detailing this find, and I remember thinking that the conclusions drawn were in now way supported by fact.

And there really was a sect of Jews in New Mexico which could have left Jewish artifacts. They were "crypto-Jews" who put on a veneer of Catholicism because they were citizens of Spain who had sailed for the New World. But that show did bring to light some artifacts that are generally unknown to the American public. I particularly like Viking artifacts found in North America. Anyway, my point is that there are a lot of claims, yet many of them are unsubstantiated. The stone in question is quite intriguing for a number of reasons, and it deserves whatever study can be done at this time. There is not a whole lot that can be done without the stone itself, obviously, but analyzing the writings should be fairly straightforward, and a general consensus among scientists could be reached. Even if they didn't believe the stones to be genuine artifacts, the translating work could still be done. It has been done of course, but I do not think a consensus has been reached. There probably is not enough experts who have given the idea the time of day. Especially not modern experts. If you do an online search for this artifact you will find that most of the results are non-scientific sites.

a reply to: MysterX
Even IF Sanskrit was unchanging, which it isnt, that would only be 4000 years unchanging. Not 200,000. I dont even think homo sapiens existed 200,000 yrs ago, but I could be wrong.

“You read books and find statements that such and such a society or archeological site is (claimed to be) 20,000 years old. We learn rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known (speculations and imaginative guesses); in fact, it is about the time of the First Dynasty in Egypt that the last (earliest) historical date of any any real certainty has been established.”
Willard Libby, Nobel Laureate for development of radiocarbon dating

www.icr.org...
"According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas."

a reply to: Verum1quaere

Your link is hilarious and suitable only for fanatics or the gullible.

I'm no astro physicist and really cant be bothered to search for a debunk on the above claim that you quote, but i'll check a couple of others from your page for sheer humour's sake.

12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.

Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.

Yeah, firstly were have not archaeologically excavated the entire globe. It will be the most miniscule fraction of 1%. Like we dig up every element of the past. Pathetic.
Secondly Bones only survive buried underground for long periods in the most perfect of conditions. A bone can turn to mush when buried for less than a couple of years in the right conditions. As if there is unlimited Archaeological funding to dig endlessly without restrictions. It's just lunacy.

13. Agriculture is too recent.

The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.

Firstly this point being made relies on archaeological evidence to make it in the first place, ie that archaeological evidence shows that stone age men were intelligent as we are, then distrusts archaeologists in their rejection of the biblical flood, length of the stone age and so forth. Make your mind up on who is covering things up and who to trust will you, please.
What this so clearly ignores is that stone-age men were not in some headlong rush towards agriculture. The Hunter-Gatherer lifestyle was actually very attractive and often plentiful - many groups have been demonstrated as having resisted the onset of the agricultural lifestyle, and it's proven that ancient farmers lived less healthy sedentary lives with poorer nutrition and more diseases. Agriculture can also be argued to have been introduced by force in some areas.

These sites like ICR rely on the reader knowing very little about the particular discipline being discussed.

And i'm not even an atheist.

a reply to: skalla

Hunter gatherers still exist, the vast majority of ancient people were HG when the first civilizations and semi-sedentary cultures formed; after which there was a slow evolution into farmers, pastoralists, fisherman, and all levels of mixed subsistence strategies. A change that had begun before the formation of those outstanding groups.

You're right accusations are easy to make. As a regular visitor to the Smithsonians in DC, I have spoken to people creating exhibits about it.

The answer my group got was It came down to professional opinions of what was fraud being destroyed due upholding accidemic integrety. Now an item would be labeled as a fraud and still kept and labeled for further study. But, don't hold me to exact phrasing.

Museums are great places to get the kids involved in their own education. I adore them when there is staff on hand its even better. I admit I'm a very boring person.


a reply to: Hanslune

a reply to: Hanslune

Quite, resistance to the agricultural lifestyle is on-going

originally posted by: Ridhya
a reply to: MysterX
Even IF Sanskrit was unchanging, which it isnt, that would only be 4000 years unchanging. Not 200,000. I dont even think homo sapiens existed 200,000 yrs ago, but I could be wrong.

You are... maybe. Evidence points to H. sapiens popping up ~250,000 to 200,000 y.a. or so. That all being said, this silly 200k year old stone is in a pretty strange place to be that old. That all aside, one could theorize that said stone was the work of some other species of Human (Neanderthal, or a really lost Denisovan), but those guys have no supporting evidence saying they did any writing. So we have to go off the assumption that, if real, this is a Homo sapiens creation. And Homo sapiens didn't exist in the Americas back then.

So not only is Sanskrit not a static language, but the location of the artifact just doesn't make any sense at all. If this had been "found" in Africa, the Middle East, Europe, parts of Asia... yeah ok. The Americas though? Probably not.

a reply to: Verum1quaere

all that quote shows is that much more of the sky and milky way need to be surveyed as conservative estimates are that the Milky Way has about 100 Billion stars residing within it. Or the quote is just absolute crap because there have only been around 20 or so Super Novas witnessed have been witnessed in recorded history.

originally posted by: Verum1quaere
www.icr.org...
"According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years.

Half that:

How often do supernovae pop off in our galaxy? Using the European Space Agency's Integral satellite, an international team estimates that one of the Milky Way's massive stars explodes about every 50 years on average. This estimate agrees rather well with previous studies, but the earlier work relied on more indirect methods. - See more at: www.skyandtelescope.com...

originally posted by: Verum1quaereThe gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas."

Crapola.

YECs claim that not as many SNRs are observed as would be expected in an old universe. Davies uses a value of one million years for the lower end of the typical visible lifetime of a SNR and assumes that all SNRs last this long. He gets this figure from Ilovaisky & Lequeux (1972b). However, on reading the original paper it is noticeable that this value is actually for the theoretical lifetime of the remnant, not the observable lifetime of the remnant. Why is there a difference? Quite simply, SNRs are actually hard to detect. Factors that seriously hinder our ability to detect SNRs (and which Davies almost completely ignores) are:
•SNRs can only be observed in a small proportion of our Galaxy - our view of most of the Galaxy is blocked by large amounts of dust and interstellar matter. Only some younger, radio emitting SNRs would be visible through this dust (Sramek et al. 1992; Gray 1994). This largely explains why there has been no observed Galactic supernovae in the last 300 or so years (Clark et al. 1981; Dawson & Johnson 1994; Hatano et al. 1997), even though we would have expected perhaps 5-10 to have occurred (McKee 2000).
•It is also difficult to identify much older remnants as they either have faded beyond our ability to detect them (they may have merged with the ISM), they have merged with other remnants, or they have faded into the general background "noise" (Nousek et al. 1981; Matthews et al. 1998; Braun et al. 1989; Landecker et al. 1990; Normandeau et al. 2000). Younger SNRs, or SNRs which are still interacting with gas expelled by their progenitors are much more likely to be detected (Jones et al. 1998; Slavin & Cox 1992). Shull et al. (1989) carried out a statistical analysis of SNRs, and found that with isolated SNRs, less than 1% last for longer than 100,000 years, and only 20% are still intact after 50,000 years.
•The make-up of the local ISM that the supernova occurs in is critical to the observability of the resulting SNR (Dohm-Palmer & Jones 1996). SNRs in regions where the density of the ISM is low (Henning & Wendker 1975; Gaensler & Johnson 1995b) or there is little ionised gas present (Heiles et al. 1980) may not be readily visible. Indeed, it may be the case that as few as 15-20% of supernova events cause observable SNRs (Clark & Stephenson 1977; Clark 1979; Kafatos et al. 1980).
•Some young SNRs can be intrinsically faint at radio wavelengths and thus unusually difficult to detect (Gray 1994; Duncan & Green 2000).
•SNRs are obscured by and can be indistinguishable from other interstellar emission nebulae, and their spectra can be similar to powerful distant radio galaxies and quasars (White & Becker 1990; Inglis & Kitchin 1990; Caswell & Stewart 1991, 1992; Williams et al. 2000). In other words, there is a lot of clutter out there, and finding SNRs is often a tricky and difficult task. Indeed, only a minority of SNRs are visible at optical wavelengths (Long et al. 1990).
•The limits of the equipment used to detect SNRs (usually radio telescopes) impinge upon our ability to observe supernova remnants (Green 1991; Kassim 1992; Frail et al. 1994). As this gets better in the future, the numbers of SNRs detected will rise. This can be illustrated by the way astronomers have detected more and more SNRs in our own galaxy over the last few decades - in 1984, there were only 174 Galactic SNRs known, and back in 1971, only 113 (Downes 1971).
•Not all the sky has been surveyed to the same degree - there are still large areas of the sky (mainly in the southern celestial hemisphere) waiting to be surveyed with more powerful instruments (Case & Bhattacharya 1998).
As a result, Davies vastly overestimates the actual number of observable SNRs. Berkhuijsen (1984) suggested that there might be 1,000 to 10,000 SNRs in our Galaxy (depending on the lifetime of SNRs), but this is the only estimate I'm aware of that provides a figure anywhere near Davies', but even then, Berkhuijsen's estimate is for the total number of SNRs, and not for the observable SNRs.

Talk Origins

Pretending there is any reliable supernova remnant count at all is pure prevarication, as is pretending such remnants will ALL last at least a million years, when it's known they last a tenth of that on average (the ones that are visible from here).

It always makes me wonder why Bible thumpers think it's okay to lie for God.

Do they really think He needs (or wants) that?

Harte