I've read though your answer and I can see a number of points that -
in my opinion - clearly justify the post notice. I'm not saying the
examples here are exhaustive, but they should help clarify the
problem.
There is no "problem" with the original answer. Reasoning: The "problem" is with the biases of the moderators who evidently think they are tenured professors at a college, users are their students, and answers are to be graded by them. Moderators are just people with ideas, the same as any other person.
Firstly, it is not at all clear from your answer why you think that
the date of printing the modern Bible has anything to do with the date
that the Book of Ezekiel was written, or its historical veracity.
It is even less clear to me why you think the story of Noah and the
flood has anything at all to do with this question.
From the context, I suspect that the point you are trying to make is
simply that the Bible is, at best, an unreliable historical source.
If that is the case, then I'd suggest that you simply say so and pick
one of the many available reliable sources to cite and support your
case. If your point is supposed to be something different, then I'd
suggest that this part of your answer probably needs to be re-written
with clear and reliable sources that support the point you are trying
to make.
The Bible is mythology, fables, and cult stories created for political purposes, see Original Torah: The Political Intent of the Bible's Writers by S. David Sterling
of Abraham, Rebecca, Jacob, and Leah in Hebron originated as cult
sites of Canaanite gods and goddesses
The Bible is not a historical document, period. The Bible, including all of its content is completely historically worthless, without exception. Reasoning: The story of Noah's Flood is completely inconsistent and irreconcilable with the actual historical record left by the African Ancient Egyptians. The Temple of Seti I at Abydos proves that the unbroken lines of "kings" of Ancient Egypt spans before, during and after the fable of the flood of Noah.
We then come to some rather more specific and problematic cases.
Your claim that
"The Ancient Egyptian civilization is at least 25,000 years old, as
reflected in the procession of the equinoxes encoded into the
so-called "Giza complex", where the Great Pyramid of Khufu still
stands"
is entirely unsupported by the sources that you cite. As far as I can
see, not one of your 3 sources actually makes that claim.
As far as you can see is not the entirety of what is capable of being seen by others. You can be myopic in your perception, which you have been in your answer to this question.
The first humans did not know how long a solar year was until the first solar year that they observed completed. The same reasoning applies to procession of the equinoxes being encoded into the so-called "Giza complex".
That is, the only way for the African Ancient Egyptians to accurately or approximately calculate the procession of the equinoxes, or the Great Year, is the have actually have observed the entire cycle.
Since there has been confusion as to the reasoning for drawing the above conclusion, to avoid such confusion, attribute that portion of this answer to this user: guest271314.
[As an aside, I'd generally recommend that if you're going to cite
multiple sources in that way, you should at least do your readers the
courtesy of placing them on seperate lines, so that it is easy to see
they are, actually, seperate sources.]
A comma or semi-colon suffices to separate sources.
In fact, the Ancient Egyptian civilisation is generally accepted to
have originated in the Neolithic with the Faiyum A culture in Lower
Egypt (with evidence dating back to about 6000 BCE), and the Badari
culture, which has given us the earliest evidence of agriculture and
permanent settlement in Upper Egypt dating to around 5000 BCE. These
were followed by the more-familiar Naqada cultures.
If you wish to make the claim that "The Ancient Egyptian civilization
is at least 25,000 years old", you are going to need to support that
claim with some fairly solid evidence. As it stands you have presented
no such evidence. A citation of some sort (preferably something
reliable) is therefore required for this assertion.
"genreally accepted" does not preclude the possibility that what is "generally accepted" is simply inaccurate; wrong; or intentionally misleading misinformation.
In this case, the above simple reasoning establishes the fact that one cannot accurately or approximately calculate the procession of the equinoxes without actually observing the complete cycle of the procession of the equinoxes at least once: approximately 26,000 years.
You then state that:
"At some point western academia states that those original African
people mated with the different species Neanderthal, and Denisovan."
However, you don't cite a source for this claim. Again, this is a
problem.
Since western academia states that all human life originated in Africa, those first humans who traveled "out of Africa" were still indigenous Africans, and remained so. That is, until they mated with another species. Else, those original humans, and indeed, all humans today are all still African.
Now, I'm fully aware of the current debate about whether Neanderthals
should be considered a sub-species of Homo Sapiens, Homo sapiens
neanderthalensis, or an entirely separate species, Homo
neanderthalensis. I'm not at all sure that everyone who visits this
site and reads your answer will also share that awareness.
That debate is ongoing and as yet is not settled, so if you wish to
make this claim then you are going to have to back it up with
evidence.
[In fact, those who wish to argue that they are separate species face
a problem in that, part of the definition of a species is that:
"... organisms within a species produce fertile offspring".
Since we now have DNA evidence that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens did
in fact produce fertile offspring (even if that turns out to have been
limited to the female line), that means that they must have been the
same species by the current definition of the term "species".
Now, it may well be that the definition of species actually needs to
be refined in the light of new evidence from sources like DNA.
Eventually, it may come down to a simple matter of semantics, but in
any event, the debate is ongoing. What is clear is that the new
evidence is revealing a more nuanced reality through the research
efforts of modern western academia and modern western science.]
We do not need to and are not required to wait for other scholars to settle their debate to draw our own conclusions from the available facts. Again, those who are still engaged in their "debate" are just people with ideas. All humans are just people with ideas. Western academias ideas are of not more or less value than the ideas of people who refute western academic ideas - without waiting for those western academics to settle their internal debates.
I was under the impression that we had dealt with the claims that you
make about DNA evidence and Ramesses III in my answer to your previous
question.
In short, the article by David Sepuya Kalanzi does not accurately
reflect the report by DNA Tribes. What they actually said in their
Digest, dated 1 February 2013, was:
These results indicate that both Ramesses III and Unknown Man E
(possibly his son Pentawer) shared an ancestral component with present
day populations of Sub-Saharan Africa. This preliminary analysis based
on eight STR markers does not identify the percentages of Sub-Saharan
African ancestry for these ancient individuals. This preliminary
analysis also does not exclude additional ancestral components (such
as Near Eastern or Mediterranean related components) for these ancient
pharaonic Egyptians.
In addition, these DNA match results in present day world regions
might in part express population changes in Africa after the time of
Ramesses III. In particular, DNA matches in present day populations of
Southern Africa and the African Great Lakes might to some degree
reflect genetic links with ancient populations (formerly living closer
to New Kingdom Egypt) that have expanded southwards in the Nilotic and
Bantu migrations of the past 3,000 years.
No impression was given that the African Ancient Egyptians did not have their origin in sub-Saharan Africa.
Genetic Analysis
Geographical analysis of Ramesses III and Unknown Man E (possibly
Ramesses’ son Pentawer) was performed using their autosomal STR
profiles based on eight tested loci.9,10 Results are summarized in
Table 1 and illustrated in Figure 2-3.
Discussion: Results in Table 1 indicate that the autosomal STR
profiles for both Ramesses and Unknown Man E are most frequent
in present day regions of Sub-Saharan Africa and also found in Near
Eastern regions at lower frequencies.
Among present day world populations, Ramesses III’s autosomal STR profile is most frequent in the African Great Lakes region, where it
is approximately 335.1 times as frequent as in the world as a whole
(see Table 1 and Figure 2). Unknown Man E’s autosomal STR profile is
most frequent in the Southern Africa region, where it is approximately
134.6 times as frequent as in the world as whole (see Table 1 and Figure 3). Both autosomal STR profiles are also found in the Levantine
region that includes populations of present day Egypt, but are
substantially more frequent in regions of Sub-Saharan Africa (see
Table 1). Specifically, both of these ancient individuals inherited
the alleles D21S11=35 and CSFIPO=7, which are found throughout
Sub-Saharan Africa but are comparatively rare or absent in other
regions of the world. These African related alleles are different from
the African related alleles identified for the previously studied
Amarna period mummies (D18S51=19 and D21S11=34).11 This provides
independent evidence for African autosomal ancestry in two different
pharaonic families of New Kingdom Egypt.
Though Ramses DNA only reflects their DNA, not the actual origin of the Nile Valley culture.
Now, the post notice states,
Please edit to add citations to reliable sources that support the
assertions made here.
- my emphasis In this context, the source used by a journalist will always be considered to be more reliable than any article they write.
Given my answer to your previous question, it might be considered
disingenuous at best to cite the same (unreliable) source here in the
same context.
In fact, the latest DNA analysis that I'm aware of (involving 166
samples from 151 mummified individuals), which provides:
"the first reliable data set obtained from ancient Egyptians using
high-throughput DNA sequencing methods and assessing the authenticity
of the retrieved ancient DNA via characteristic nucleotide
misincorporation patterns and statistical contamination tests to
ensure the ancient origin of [the] data"
found that the ancient Egyptians actually most closely resembled
ancient and modern Near Eastern and European populations, especially
those in the Levant.
Now, this is entirely consistent with the claims made in the actual
report from DNA Tribes, given the caveats I quoted above, but would
seem to make a complete nonsense of the article that you have cited as
your source. Again, a reliable citation would be required to support
your claim.
The culture and deities of the African Ancient Egyptians reflect an sub-Saharan origin which spread down north from up south, not up south from down north.
If there is a scholarly disagreement as to the facts and interpretation relevant to the DNA analysis, then so be it. The study of history is rife with disagreement and different interpretation of facts. No one is under the compulsion to accept your interpretation of facts. Especially when your interpretation is being construed here as inherently biased towards a non-sub-Sarahan origin of the African Ancient Egyptians, or the view that people need to "wait" for some other group of people to "settle" their own disagreements; and to be direct, your analysis of the available data relevant to the subject matter is substantially incorrect and historically inaccurate.
There are also some other less-glaring instances that, in my opinion,
would benefit from additional (reliable) citations - more for the
benefit of those less familiar with the subject than because the
points are particularly contentious. However, in my experience
instances like these would not usually result in the answer being
flagged by our users, and so receiving a post notice from a moderator.
I hope you find this feedback helpful.
No, your feedback is not helpful relevant to the defacing label you and the group of users and moderators who have decided to pursue your agenda of defacing users' posts with ridiculous defacing labels. Just stop doing it.
Perhaps your question does raise one important point though. It is
possible that the wording of the post notice should be made more
clear. Maybe the final sentence should read something like:
"Unsourced material, or assertions supported by only unreliable or
dubious sources, may be disputed or deleted".
Do you think that would be an improvement?
The defacing label should be immediately removed from this users' answer and not be used at all in the future. An inherently flawed and horrible idea, as detailed here, cannot be improved. The idea to deface users' answers with a so-called "notice" should be abandoned completely.
