You thought they thought that.....

[putts]

Almost every kid in America is taught the story of C Columbus.

He went to the king and queen and said, I can prove the earth is round by sailing west to get to the Indes to bring back spices....and then the rest, as they say, is history.

So, we are all taught that back in the 1400's, the commonplace thought is that the Earth was flat......right?

Well, apparently (as my Phil. prof informed myself) that's where we're wrong.

Noone ever thought the Earth was flat - it was common knowledge since ancient Egypt and Greece that the Earth was round.


Here's some good reading to prove to you that Putts is right and all those lying teachers you had in Elementary and HS were wrong....
http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/flat_earth.htm

[Horus_Kol]

well, yes and no...

a lot of the knowledge the Ancient Greeks and Romans had was lost to Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire...
which is why we had the Dark Ages.

A lot of that knowledge only resurfaced in the 1800's (heck, the Sphinx and the Pyramids were practically unheard of until Napoleon went to Egypt).


So Western Europeans still believed in an edge to the world in the 1400's - and it still featured in popular mythos until about a 100 years ago...

[n8thegreat]

I was the one that discovered America! Columbus is the devil!

[mettebe]

I thought the Asians discovered America from the landbridge in Alaska.

Hmmm...

[putts]

Originally posted by Horus_Kol
well, yes and no...

a lot of the knowledge the Ancient Greeks and Romans had was lost to Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire...
which is why we had the Dark Ages.

A lot of that knowledge only resurfaced in the 1800's (heck, the Sphinx and the Pyramids were practically unheard of until Napoleon went to Egypt).


So Western Europeans still believed in an edge to the world in the 1400's - and it still featured in popular mythos until about a 100 years ago...

Maybe, but even Aristotle knew of it and had published and it appears that the Dark Ages had access to such papers....


Medievals regularly cited with approval Aristotle's statement that the earth is round. An example is Adam de Wodeham: terra rotunda est. This example comes from Wodeham's theology lectures (Lectura secunda, d.1 q.3) where he is discussing the question whether the same conclusion can be proved in different sciences. The physicist and the astolog both prove that the earth is round; the physicist by reference to gravity.

[afterburn]

Actually it was proven mathmatically in the 8th century. (No name off hand) but seen the shadow of the poll was longer in the winter solictice(typo there I know). So he send a person south to measure the shadow of a flag poll on that date, while he did the same in italy.

Doing the math he actually was off on the radius of the earth by only a few hundred meters. This math is still used today in games for calculating the cast of a shadow or reflection based on the light origin.

[afterburn]

Originally posted by putts
Maybe, but even Aristotle knew of it and had published and it appears that the Dark Ages had access to such papers....

To counter that I would say the first is correct about most of it being lost, or temporarly misplaced. Actually there were few people who could read and write the old language, more so few who were scholars that actually taught anything already learned form that time period.....

[putts]

Originally posted by afterburn
To counter that I would say the first is correct about most of it being lost, or temporarly misplaced. Actually there were few people who could read and write the old language, more so few who were scholars that actually taught anything already learned form that time period.....

that was the reason for the quote :D

[CBrown]

interesting stuff.
way to go guys, you tought me something.

[Leonisknovo]

actually Eric the something rather,
a viking (I think) discovered America
round the 1000s or so...but since he didn't
leave any settlements, y'know how it is :rolleyes:

[CBrown]

the way i remember it in history was that leif ericson discovered america but didn't think much of it so he went back to norway, later he decided he didn't like norway anymore so he sailed back to what he thought was america to make a settlement but it turned out to be iceland.

[Leonisknovo]

God only knows where I read this, but didn't
he and his father find either Iceland or Greeland,
then he went searching for America, found
the other one (Iceland or Greeland) and
then accidently found America sailing back to Norway??

[putts]

Originally posted by Leonisknovo
God only knows where I read this, but didn't
he and his father find either Iceland or Greeland,
then he went searching for America, found
the other one (Iceland or Greeland) and
then accidently found America sailing back to Norway??

if memory serves me properly, Leif Erickson found it on accident after a planned trip to Greenland, but landed someplace around Newfoundland in the dead of winter so only stayed as long as necessary.

Not sure on all that - suppose a quick google would suffice :P

[Pegasus]

Norse ruins predating Columbus' arrival have been found in Newfoundland, Labrador and Nova Scotia, as well as in parts of Manitoba, Quebec, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.

Peg

[Horus_Kol]

the newest story i've heard based on archaeological evidence is that a settlement was actually built at newfoundland and sustained for a short time.

however, because newfoundland was at the "edge of the world", and a severely bad winter, the settlement was abandoned...


Iceland, then Greenland were both settled before Newfoundland. Greenland was called to entice settlers to move there... :)



And as for "access" to material in the dark ages - it would have been in Latin or Greek, which only a handful of people would have known.

[putts]

Originally posted by Horus_Kol
And as for "access" to material in the dark ages - it would have been in Latin or Greek, which only a handful of people would have known.

but, even if that was true, it doesn't mean that the majority of people in the Dark Ages would have believed the Earth to be flat either.

[fredricknish]

Originally posted by putts
Almost every kid in America is taught the story of C Columbus.

He went to the king and queen and said, I can prove the earth is round by sailing west to get to the Indes to bring back spices....and then the rest, as they say, is history.



The reason why he sailed west was becasue he thought it was a shoter and easier route to reach India.He dint sail west to prove that the earth is round.

He never wanted to bring back spices.He told the Queen that he can sail west and reach India.Back then India was one of the richest countries on earth and Columbus was attracted by India's wealth,he also wanted to get some new lands for Spain.

Originally posted by mettebe
I thought the Asians discovered America from the landbridge in Alaska.

Hmmm...

Your right .:rocker:

Native Americans are the ones who first discovered America.The reason why some of the native Americans look like East Asians is becasue they are from Asia.

[putts]

Originally posted by fredricknish
The reason why he sailed west was becasue he thought it was a shoter and easier route to reach India.He dint sail west to prove that the earth is round.

Right - that's sorta my point - people say he held up this "radical globe" of the earth to prove to the Queen that it could be done - which is just some sort of myth

Originally posted by fredricknish
He never wanted to bring back spices.He told the Queen that he can sail west and reach India.Back then India was one of the richest countries on earth and Columbus was attracted by India's wealth,he also wanted to get some new lands for Spain.

I thought part of the agreement was he would have to return to Spain with something (spices) from India to prove that it could be done and then he could go back.




Originally posted by fredricknish
Native Americans are the ones who first discovered America.The reason why some of the native Americans look like East Asians is becasue they are from Asia.

I would lean toward the thought that they were always here - the similarities in characteristics are just that - similarities.
Much like, say, the Native tribes of Australia versus the native tribes of Africa - the similarities don't necessarily mean that Australians came from Africa.

Don't have hard facts on either of those claims so if you have some, I'm definitely up for hearing them - I just don't believe in saying "these people look like those, so it must be this way" :D

[Horus_Kol]

but based on the limited evidence before them...

1. there is an horizon - an edge...

2. if the world is round, then how do the people on the bottom stay on? (this is before gravity was sussed).


With the big bad Atlantic to the west, and the big blue Pacific to the east - although not so many people would have known about that one - it did seem that the earth was flat and the land was girdled by a giant body of water spilling over the edge.

Maybe not everybody thought the earth was flat...

Columbus famously used a map that showed the earth to be round, and that Asia was only a few thousand miles away (this was based on the Greek experiment, but was flawed as it undestimated the circumference of the earth by 6,000 miles! - thankfully for Columbus, America appeared in about the right spot for where he thought Asia was).

Columbus didn't actually discover "America" as such - he just landed on an island in the Carribean - which is why they are called the West Indies...

I can't remember which European was the first to get to what is now the US - I don't think the Pilgrims were truly the first...

[fredricknish]

Originally posted by putts

I thought part of the agreement was he would have to return to Spain with something (spices) from India to prove that it could be done and then he could go back.


Much like, say, the Native tribes of Australia versus the native tribes of Africa - the similarities don't necessarily mean that Australians came from Africa.

Rite,spices were also on the list of promises he made to the queen.My appologies for not doing a google search before posting :D

Native people in Australia must have come from Africa.

I believe the first human/humans must have lived somewhere in Africa or Asia...so there is no way that we can say that these people were always there.Genetic studies have also shown that Native Americnas have links with Asians.

[Pegasus]

Amerigo Vespucci, I think. Or a similar name.

Peg

[afterburn]

that is correct, and Iceland is a volcanic island, the temp from the lava keeps it nice water around 70-80 year round....

[RobRoyRogers]

Originally posted by Pegasus
Amerigo Vespucci, I think. Or a similar name.

Peg That'd be correct, Peg, from what I can remember.

A funny fact I learned recently. Vespucci really wasn't much of a mariner in the way Columbus or Magellan was. He was able to buy his way onto a boat because of his reputation as--are you ready?--a pickler. Sounds funny, but pickled vegetables--or at the very least, vinegar--were essential for sea voyages to prevent scurvy. :P

[putts]

Originally posted by fredricknish

Native people in Australia must have come from Africa.


I dont understand or believe that statement at all.

From either a Creationist or Evolutionist theory, there's plenty of reasoning behind people in Australia NOT being descendants of Africans.

Evolutionists could say that there was a chain of primates there in Aus. that has since died out but not before evolving into what are now the native Australians.

Creationists could say that it was from the dispersement at the Tower of Babel - this would make them "relatives" but in Creationism everyone is a "relative" because of Adam and Eve.

[Horus_Kol]

well, genealogical and archealogical evidence points to the Australian Aborigines as being descendents of a migrating tribe.

evidence of this can be found all along the route they took from Africa, through the middle east, india, and indonesia...

i think the rough date for arrival in Australia is about 40,000 years ago...

[afterburn]

Originally posted by putts
I dont understand or believe that statement at all.

From either a Creationist or Evolutionist theory, there's plenty of reasoning behind people in Australia NOT being descendants of Africans.

Evolutionists could say that there was a chain of primates there in Aus. that has since died out but not before evolving into what are now the native Australians.

Creationists could say that it was from the dispersement at the Tower of Babel - this would make them "relatives" but in Creationism everyone is a "relative" because of Adam and Eve.

Actually this is correct. Evolution shows that there are spears and skulls dating 100,000 years ago in the cave sea region in Africa along the eastern coast line. Thought to be the earliest humans found to date that walked upright. With language showing up shortly there after with cave paints and other items that show communication.

Darwins theory of evolution holds more water than creationist. weight the evidence you can see that humans and other animals and plants adapt or die out. Humans are not the exception to this, as we will kill ourselves with greenhouse gases, making way for a new species to take the role at the top of the food chain with inteligence.

[putts]

Originally posted by Horus_Kol
well, genealogical and archealogical evidence points to the Australian Aborigines as being descendents of a migrating tribe.

evidence of this can be found all along the route they took from Africa, through the middle east, india, and indonesia...

i think the rough date for arrival in Australia is about 40,000 years ago...

I guess I would wonder why none of them stopped along the way :D

I would also like to know their "evidence" on this though also - sometimes it's like one skull of a person that might have been of a particular heritage.

All the same, it is possible by both means of belief that the Aborigines are just that and not some African descendant.

[Horus_Kol]

http://www.duerinck.com/migrate.html

read the section on "Mungo Man"...


more reading:
http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/AusOrigins.html

http://www.raceandhistory.com/Science/AboriginesOrigin2.htm

http://www.edmitchellapollo14.com/old_discgroup3/00000f6d.htm

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=aborigine+origins+migration+evidence&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N


interesting actually...

it seems they are talking about 2 migrations into Australia...

[putts]

Originally posted by Horus_Kol
http://www.duerinck.com/migrate.html

read the section on "Mungo Man"...


more reading:
http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~pbrown3/AusOrigins.html

http://www.raceandhistory.com/Science/AboriginesOrigin2.htm

http://www.edmitchellapollo14.com/old_discgroup3/00000f6d.htm

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=aborigine+origins+migration+evidence&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&start=10&sa=N


interesting actually...

it seems they are talking about 2 migrations into Australia...

Ummmmmmmm, Horus, this is a quote from that first reading...

Australian National University researchers published the results of mtDNA testing on Lake Mungo 3. The DNA did not match that of living humans. Either the Mungo lineage evolved in Australia, not Africa, or it could mean that the Mungo lineage went extinct.


It seems the only binding "fact" in it is their dating of him - there doesn't seem to be any empirical evidence he was from Africa according to that report.

[Horus_Kol]

oops - missed that bit....

but did you read the other documents...

there appears to also be linguistic evidence, socio-anthropological evidence, and others...


and if Mungo Man doesn't match any living human mtDNA, then he doesn't match current Aboriginal mtDNA either....

which means that he probably is an extinct branch of hominid (or possibly hominoid).

[torrent]

THE EARTH IS ROUND?

*faints*

[fredricknish]

Originally posted by Horus_Kol
well, genealogical and archealogical evidence points to the Australian Aborigines as being descendents of a migrating tribe.

evidence of this can be found all along the route they took from Africa, through the middle east, india, and indonesia...

i think the rough date for arrival in Australia is about 40,000 years ago...

I agree :rocker:

There is a small chain of islands to the east of India called the Andaman and Nicobar islands and there are small groups of tribes who live there who look like Africans.After a few years of research by Indian and British scientists its now said that the tribes living there would have reached the islands 60,000 years ago - http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4185600,00.html

This supports the theory that the Australian tribes moved from Africa through Asia.

Originally posted by torrent
THE EARTH IS ROUND?

*faints*

Ahhhh.....you must be a member of the Flat Earth Society (http://www.flat-earth.org/) :D