the Latin versus the Teutonic Brain

Warden_of_the_Storm · Sep 7, 2025

Ligurian said:
Outdated science superceded with "actual evidence"... as given by a handful of wikipedia writers and rewriters? Do you think for yourself at all? How else but by the Sayce quote do you explain the Aryan etymology and Aryan gods showing up in Hurrian lands? Look, I read all this from several people who published in journals... not just armchair wikipedia folks who nitpick each other into compliance... have you ever read one of their writing pages? If so, I don't know how you can fling poo at a Christian man like Sayce when he tells you what he found.

I sincerely wish you had been sincere when you said you were done with me, and I said back that I doubted it. Because you bear all the earmarks of someone just argueing to argue.

At least I'm not a racist using 19th century writings to attempt to justify their views as scientific.

The Barbarian · Sep 7, 2025

Ligurian said:
Amorites and Hitittes and Palestinians et al were also of "ancient Middle Eastern origin".

Well, no. The original Palestinians were Phillistines, speaking an Indo-European language. Not culturally related to today's Palestinians. Hittites were also Indo-European speakers, likely from Central Asia. Amorites were a western Semitic-speaking group.

Ligurian said:
How are we able to know who was who without running the risk of making the classical mistake of misnaming the archological layers...

We have texts and translations for Hittite, for example. If you want to learn more, I suggest Proto by Laura Spinney.

apollosdtr · Sep 7, 2025

The Barbarian said:
I don't think you know what "genes" are, if you think it's based on "personal memories."

And there is this...

In 1903, researchers excavating a cave in Cheddar Gorge, Somerset, in the UK, stumbled upon a surprising discovery. A Homo sapien skeleton who lived around 10,000 years ago and is one of the oldest modern humans in Britain. Known today as “Cheddar Man,” the ancient gentleman has recently made the news again. Scientists utilizing modern DNA techniques believe the Mesolithic human had light blue eyes and a dark complexion. As remarkable as resurrecting the face of this ancient Briton is the fact that Cheddar Man's modern-day descendant lives less than a mile from the caves where his remains lay for millennia.

10,000-Year-Old Skeleton Found in Britain Has a Modern-Day Descendant Living Close By

“It seems that pale eyes entered Europe long before pale skin or blond hair, which didn't come along until after the arrival of farming.”

mymodernmet.com

It appears that each wave of Indo-Europeans into Western Europe were relatively few, assuming control of a more ancient population.

If you can say that modern NW Europeans came from NW Europe originally... and it's to them that the Neanderthal genes belong... then personal memories are the only thing that puts them there in the first place. If you're saying that NW Europe is where the Neanderthal genes are today, then maybe they didn't start there but came from the Middle East and beyond. I've seen genetic maps that show the spread and I can't figure out how the areas of least density is where they came from, and not actually where they were going to.

Because people actually move out in small blocks and leap-frog over the ones that went before them, leaving the mass of people behind. They generally don't move out as a group unless disaster is driving them. And since the IE people probably didn't bring the wife and kids to the bloody invasion, the men took local wives and the wives taught the half-breeds the local language.

It is said that the Roman army Romanized the language of the indigenous. I don't buy it. The original language of the Romans was Latin... spoken by the indigenous Ligurians who covered Northern Italy and France and Spain. And Ligurian is said to be a mixture of Latin and Celtic. The Silurians were a Ligurian tribe at Marsailles, and they were the Druids and the followers of Druidism and worshippers of Apollo, aka Dis Pater (I have the references for this if you can't find them). Apollo's temple was apparently Stonehenge which the stone-breakers tried to pull down. And what they couldn't break, they repurposed... as though the Gods can be fooled. If it's true that the First-Cause/Creator gave his lesser-gods the lands that the ancients all know, then some of the lesser-gods/angels have gone rogue...

Chedderman: Ever wonder why so many Celtic-named people have black hair and blue eyes?

Hans Blaster · Sep 7, 2025

Ligurian said:
It is said that the Roman army Romanized the language of the indigenous. I don't buy it. The original language of the Romans was Latin... spoken by the indigenous Ligurians who covered Northern Italy and France and Spain. And Ligurian is said to be a mixture of Latin and Celtic. The Silurians were a Ligurian tribe at Marsailles, and they were the Druids and the followers of Druidism and worshippers of Apollo, aka Dis Pater (I have the references for this if you can't find them). Apollo's temple was apparently Stonehenge which the stone-breakers tried to pull down. And what they couldn't break, they repurposed... as though the Gods can be fooled. If it's true that the First-Cause/Creator gave his lesser-gods the lands that the ancients all know, then some of the lesser-gods/angels have gone rogue...

That is quite a mess.

1. the Silures (Silurians) were a Celtic tribe from southern Wales. They have nothing to do with southern France.
2. Druids were priests, not an ethnic group, tribe or religion.
3. Apollo is a *Greek* god and has nothing to do with Stonehenge.

The Barbarian · Sep 7, 2025

Ligurian said:
If you can say that modern NW Europeans came from NW Europe originally... and it's to them that the Neanderthal genes belong... then personal memories are the only thing that puts them there in the first place.

No, genes, artifacts, and remains put them there.

Ligurian said:
If you're saying that NW Europe is where the Neanderthal genes are today,

Not exclusively. Some Northern Asian populations have even more Neanderthal genes. More Denisovans farther East.

Ligurian said:
then maybe they didn't start there but came from the Middle East and beyond.

They got as far as Mt. Carmel, at least. A key is that early Neandertals looked more like us than later ones.

Ligurian said:
I've seen genetic maps that show the spread and I can't figure out how the areas of least density is where they came from, and not actually where they were going to.

The data we have suggests that they didn't move around a lot. And anatomically modern humans did.

AV1611VET · Sep 7, 2025

The Barbarian said:
Ironically, Northwestern Europeans have a substantial amount of Neanderthal genes.

Neanderthals were [what you would call today] Homo sapiens.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Sep 8, 2025

AV1611VET said:
Neanderthals were [what you would call today] Homo sapiens.

No we wouldn't. We call them Neanderthals for a reason.

AV1611VET · Sep 8, 2025

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
We call them Neanderthals for a reason.

You sure do.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Sep 8, 2025

AV1611VET said:
You sure do.

Do you know what that reason is?

AV1611VET · Sep 8, 2025

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Do you know what that reason is?

You can't claim evolution unless you have something that evolved.

So anything and everything that doesn't look like us, but walks on two feet, gets labeled differently.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Sep 8, 2025

AV1611VET said:
You can't claim evolution unless you have something that evolved.

So anything and everything that doesn't look like us, but walks on two feet, gets labeled differently.

So no, you don't know.

AV1611VET · Sep 8, 2025

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
So no, you don't know.

Evolution is like a variety store.

Putting different products on each shelf and expecting its customers to buy them.

Complete with advertising.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Sep 8, 2025

AV1611VET said:
Evolution is like a variety store.

Putting different products on each shelf and expecting its customers to buy them.

Complete with advertising.

So you say.

AV1611VET · Sep 8, 2025

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
So you say.

Darwin's Tree vs God's Orchard

From AI Overview:

"Darwin's tree" represents evolution, suggesting all life descended from a single common ancestor, while "God's orchard" represents creationism, where God created separate "kinds" of organisms that diversified within those limits, without descending from a single point. The tree model shows extensive branching and variation stemming from one origin, whereas the orchard model portrays multiple separate origins, like different trees, with limited variation within each.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Sep 8, 2025

AV1611VET said:
Darwin's Tree vs God's Orchard

From AI Overview:

"Darwin's tree" represents evolution, suggesting all life descended from a single common ancestor, while "God's orchard" represents creationism, where God created separate "kinds" of organisms that diversified within those limits, without descending from a single point. The tree model shows extensive branching and variation stemming from one origin, whereas the orchard model portrays multiple separate origins, like different trees, with limited variation within each.

... and...? That has what relevance regarding Neanderthals or the quagmire that is the OP?

AV1611VET · Sep 8, 2025

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
... and...? That has what relevance regarding Neanderthals or the quagmire that is the OP?

I can't believe you asked that.

Neanderthals are one branch of the tree, Homo sapiens are another.

Whereas in God's Orchard, man came first, and what you call Neanderthals were humans being judged.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Sep 8, 2025

AV1611VET said:
I can't believe you asked that.

Neanderthals are one branch of the tree, Homo sapiens are another.

Whereas in God's Orchard, man came first, and what you call Neanderthals were humans being judged.

And that last bit is only a claim based on your singular and myopic interpretation of the Bible and science.

Ergo, it is worthless to this thread and overall pointless.

AV1611VET · Sep 8, 2025

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
And that last bit is only a claim based on your singular and myopic interpretation of the Bible and science.

Ergo, it is worthless to this thread and overall pointless.

Speaking of claims, there's no proof your early Homonyms had hair.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Sep 8, 2025

AV1611VET said:
Speaking of claims, there's no proof your early Homonyms had hair.

.. what does that have to do with anything?!

AV1611VET · Sep 8, 2025

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
.. what does that have to do with anything?!

You said you called them Neanderthals for a reason.

I just thought you'd might like to know what that reason was.

the Latin versus the Teutonic Brain

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Beardo

Crabby Old White Guy

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads