Ansigisel of Metz, Mayor of the Palace of Austrasia - Sources?

uhhhh, the universe is 14.1 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion yo. 42,000 years ago we were long out of the trees and beginning civiliations/languages/false gods, etc

drsjp

I looked at page 88. It's a text page; all I can say with reasonable certainty (due to my bad French) is that I don't see a description of what source he was using at the time.
Do you have a translation?

Which page had "Table six"? I found a few tables nearby, but it seems the scanning process has broken them.

The "one day is a thousand years" theory, besides not giving nearly enough time, would have all the birds starve to death.

Sorry, but that was the time it took to create the universe, not how old it is. It did not take seven days, but 49000 years to create.

The Creation of the universe took 49000 years, according to the bible it took one day for each creation, so he created the birds and animals during 7000 years..

It says Table II P. 6 at the top of the page regarding Clovis, the copy on google has not marked it With a pagenumber, when I caount including book covers I came to number 18.

holy crap, you're a creationist. no wonder arguing with you is lie talking to a wall.

drsjp

two Things: it is as simple as this. Either you belive or not. You Call me a creationist, Ok mabye but without creation you stand still.
The science can't say that it's not true, or do you belive the claim about the big bang or the aliens, just as much crap becaus there are no evidence to support this either. This makes it a question of what you belive, just as a religion.

actually, the big bang has evidence. astronmers can observe galaxies moving away from one another at a given rate, take that rate and calculate when they were all together. and before you bring up the whole "its just a theory" - the germ theory (just a theory that we get diseases from tiny germs (malaria actually means bad air in french, b/c it was named before the germ theory), the cell theory (the theory that the body is made up of cells that have certain characteristics), the theory of gravity (not really a law, b/c of the problems with quantum mechanics, but still a theory). do you disbelieve in these other theories?

i dont believe or disbelieve in aliens. no proof against and statistically, given the nmber of planets, there are almost certainly forms of life out there. they're either too far away for contact or have observed us and think there are too many idiots to bother interacting with us.

i dont believe in theories, i know what they state and look at the evidence for and/or against them and make a rational decision. no leaps of faith required.

drsjp

The theory about the big bang, says that there must have been something befor it happened. They talk about a black hole that exploded, OK, to create a black hole it takes planets/materie to be consumed by the hole, they imploed into it and create it. To do that there must have been soemthing before it took Place, it does not create from nothing.
The movement of planets, would make it possible to intergalactic flying at a speed that could get us further than today, but we're not there yet. More forms of life out there, possible. There are also theorys about a parallell univers, that also ca explain some of it. If you take a peek on the discussion here, everyone says it's BC because a lack of evidence, I do not see any to the theory about a big bang or the other Things. Is it possible, maybye. Just like the agument that there are more findings out there than we know and because of that ther is wrong to say we are right. It is similare to this discussion about the origin of everything. none has the answer yet.
.

Someone is about to do charlemagne's DNA project, so we will slowly, but surely find out. Let's hope curators don't have 6 monbths of work day and night to put things back if the results go against their lacks of proofs. DNA can't lie.

Because in the end, charlemgane is supposed to descend from jesus. And jesus is supposed to be linked to pharaohs and the DNA is being regularly ecxtracted by archeologists. So with or without the priam line, this i going to get exciting.

the singularity at the big bng is as far as we can measure. before it the laws of physics breakdown, but i wasnt there to see it so it mustn't have happened. something isnt coming from nothing. however, we don't know, nor will we probably ever know what occured right before the big bang. i do know that science has a much better answer/theory than "the sky magician who looks like gandalf said poof and it was." for me, believing in that kind of make believe ended just around age 10 when i thought to myself "well this sounds like bullshit (i have older siblings so i knew that word at 10.)

drsjp

Whoever created mankind must regret it.

If you shut up truth and bury it under the ground, it will but grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way.

EMILE ZOLA, attributed, Dreyfus: His Life and Letters

Truth has power. And if we all gravitate toward similar ideas, maybe we do so because those ideas are true ... written deep within us. And when we hear the truth, even if we don't understand it, we feel that truth resonate within us ... vibrating with our unconscious wisdom. Perhaps the truth is not learned by us, but rather, the truth is re-called ... re-membered ... re-cognized ... as that which is already inside us.

DAN BROWN, The Lost Symbol

Ephesians 4:25 Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another.

wow, quoting dan brown, well know theologian and physicist. logically thinking people aren't burying the "truth" as you refer to it, of religion. we've been dealing with this crap for thousands of years. we're trying to undo so, so many wrongs. religion shouls be out there for everyone to really look at and go-hmm, why the hell did i believe that whan there's is now a more logical, physical explanation. its why everywhere but the US numbers of people believing in creation and some god are plummetting. hell, its even dropping in isreal. its going down slowly here, too slowly. the only places its stable or increasing is the muslim world. i'm sure you love being lumped in with them.

here's why religions were started by those in power.

if there was something not understood, god did it. oh, by the way, god talks to me so do what i say. then we started thinking. zeus doesnt create lightning and nothing created man, we evolved from a common ancestor as the chimpanzee and bonobo.
drsjp

> Let's hope curators don't have 6 monbths of work day and night to put things back if the results go against their lacks of proofs.

Is that a roundabout way of saying you hope we don't end up with proof when none existed before??

What a truly bizarre thing to hope for!

> charlemgane is supposed to descend from jesus. And jesus is supposed to be linked to pharaohs

No one ever suggested such a thing until the 1970s. How strange that someone would prefer modern myth even over ancient make believe.

What you say hears like BS. I d not agree With muslims and I do not agree With Darwin either. I am what you cal a christian until proven otherwise. Darwins theory lacks sme links and the theory that aliens came Down to Earth and did ge babies are just fetched as the theory of Zevs. The ancient gods we talk about might just be ordinary People that knew a little bit more than most People. The Things thy said or did might work and they were dclamed as gods. You do not have a lot of faith in humans but archeologys have prven that a lot of the Things we have today has been here before. There isa lot of Things we can't explain, but it migt just be human who had the knowledge to do Things, that were lost, somehow.
The christianity was made of the pople With Power, tha Depends on what you mean. The jews had Power in the time of Jesus (according to the bible), the Catholic had power at th same time, jesuitts where poor witno powe in sociity. Later all religion have Power and Money.
The Bible just gives us some gidlines on how we should live and behave to eachother.
The old testament tells us about history, and had guidlines too. The guidlines from the old testament were put asid, With the New testament.
The guidlines are necessary because we're gettingcloser to Sodoma an Gomorra than to Eden.
By th way Eden was the eath not a spesific Place.
You have hard about theHoly Graal, it is anothe story to about Lucifers Crown who helost when he was kicked out of heaven, the crown felt to te Earth and lost a Diamond, it i said to have landed in France. Many People have looked for tat too, just like the Holy Graal, this shows the gread of humans, like the treasurhunt for gold dublones or any other treasure.
The reason for religion and aliens and the big bang is for us to belive, nowdays we do not belive, we need evidnce, so did on of the diciples Thomas.
Religion is the most used excuse to start war, exept ww2 that was revenge and narsisisme.

Oh dan brown is quoted. Read his bio, he is actually pretty clever and his father even more and his mom very religious. You know, As I said, a team is about to start putting DNA together as they did for the conquror and niall of the nine hostages. I quoted brown because what he said is exactly what someone from the Vatican told me 20 years ago. About our DNA possessing a conscious and sub conscious memory of all our ancestors.
You kept brown without thinking about what he said. It's a shame.

I also think it's uncommon to look at these genealogies with a laic point of view. I hear you guys wanting proof, but we're talking of times when blood and religion were tied tight and faith a main element of daily life.

When Edlizabeth II was crowned, she was with words refering to Patriarch Abraham.
Even to this day, monarchs are representents of God on earth.

um, 1st - re-read the bible, catholics didnt have any power at the time of jc (if he even existed, and if he did, there was actual divinity and not shit made up by monks). i know this b/c catholics were the followers of christ who spread his message. meaning they werewn't around with him, christians/catholics are the result of jc (if you believe).

2nd, the whole missing link thing is bs. there are many transition species through out the fossil record, religious types just say "it was a dead end" or "i dint com from no monkey" (no one of intelligence is saying that. darwinian evolution states that modern man, chimps, and bonobos all descended from the same animal that may have looked more like one than the other, but we dont know yet. (incidentally, evolution just is. it is happening around you right now. darwins theory of evolution is our attempt to explain a natural phenomenon.

ho.ly grail, devil's crown, hell the devil's haircut, 2 are absolute myth and one is a decent song. just because people look for something doesnt mean its there.

never said i thought aliens had enything to do with earth. that's jut a halfassed attempt to explain something we don't understand completely yet.

you'll note i repeatedly use the word "yet". not knowing it now doesnt mean it wont be known eventually. just like the immune system was never really an idea til after edward jenner injected people with puss from cowpox sores on cows and basically cured small pox.

drsjp

well, we have many complete genomes and not even in the ballpark of translating them in to consciousness. that is because the memory is mde by conections between neurons forming anew, not something in the dna.

drsjp

Sorry thought about the chief Priests at the time of jc 'cause it was actually them who crusified him.
You can't mate across species, 'cause they will not be able to reproduce.
Then there are evelution, it is posible but not proven.
I also belive that the bible is not to be taken litterally but spiritually. there are some parables in the bible liketelling a history of what will or has happened.
Like the hebrew bible which are written in figures not Word, most of the figures means more than one specific thing,s it is possible to intepret this according to what we nowdays think but actually we do not know what the writer ment or what his thoughts were. Just like today we have Words that mean different Things according how we put tem together, because we life at the same time it is easier to get the meaning of a statement corect than if we should try to do the same 1700 years from now.
maybye we will find out more or maybye not it is still to see.

nope, evolution just is, like gravity. its our theory to try and exlain it you might not but. that's your right. the moral stajdards the bible teached were mostly from hammurabi's law code (except that whole slavery thing).

the bible slips in points of history (sort of) to lend credence to its veracity. which is exactly what i would do to get people to buy into the bs parts.

hebrw letters are charcters as much as cyrillic or latin letters. they form words, the interpretation of which can be controversial. but its all moot, since it was made up by the "intelligensia" of the era to form a system of control over the people that standard govt had lost. remember, leaders in the decades and centuries before christ was supposed to be around were god kings and ruled absolutely. the roman power had lost the god part, so - poof- religion

drsjp

There actually may be some truth in what Jessica says. Just think aot the chrest of US. In God we Trust.
There may be that we do have deep insie a memory that we can't explain.
I can a least tell you (from Scientific enquieries) that everybody that live on the Earth today have memory about their own birth. We all have a possbility to do Extreme efforts when it is necessary, even if we did not think that we could do it. Ther are a lot of Things about Our self we can't explain and one of them is Our brain. We use approxemaly 30% of the bran when we strive. What about the other 70%.

2 things.

we absolutely do not remember our births. we don't have the neural capacity at that point. what you're "remembering" come from pictures taken around the time of the event. the only true memories (not from stories or pics) that we form dont start until around 4-5 yo, not counting extreme physical trauma.

we don't just use 30% of our brain (congratulations, most people say only 10%, you're evolving) . we only use 10-30% of our brain at any given instant. look at an fMRI, depending on the task or thought the subject is having, every part of the brain lights up at some point. that only use % argument is an old attempt to show our closeness to god, i.e. if we use closer to 100% of our brain we might meet with god.

we can't explain our brain, YET.

drsjp

Our sbconscion have the memoies, even if we don't remember,
We all have this ability to do this. Not everything can be explained by science.
I also know for a fact that when we are about to die, weremember a lot we didn't know we could, Ican say this because I had a heart that was empty for blood, 30 min more and I would have died.
Science can give us some answers but maybye not on the biggest questions.

i dont even know what that means.

i quit. live in your fantasy world (technically a world of lies) & keep the blinders on.

starve troll.

drsjp

That shows me Your skills, when you don't know what almost de mans, seems to me Your just arguing without thinking about what get as answers. That shows me that it's not me who are blind and that you are a follower of science With no questions.

We're getting pretty far afield here. A bit of philosophy doesn't hurt when it helps us understand why someone accepts or doesn't accept the majority opinions about history. Let's not get so far afield we forget the point here is genealogy.

OK, this is taken from from a book written in 1838, the same text appear in a book from 1833, and yet in another in 1835, these books refer to (among others) Gregory of Tours.
On lui done pour femme Blitilde ,
fille du Roi Clotaire ï. dont ces Auteurs prétendent que
naquit Arnottd ou Arnodd , qu'on nome aufli Buggi/e , puissant
Seigneur sur l'Escaut , qualifié Comte Palatin dans la Généa
logie de saint Arnoul Evêque de Metz , & qui sut mari d'u
ne Ode de Souabe. De ce mariage sortirent , suivant eux ,
saint Arnoul , Evêque de Metz , aycul de Pépin à'Heriflal ,
Madvald , Archevêque de Trêves en l'an 616. & mort en
656. & itte femme de Pépin de Landen.

A primary source is a source that was created at or near the time of the event by someone with personal knowledge.

Do you believe that a book written in 1838 could be a primary source for events that took place a thousand years earlier?

"A primary source is a source that was created at or near the time of the event by someone with personal knowledge."

And yet some of you curators seems to not be willing to accept Icelandic skald's with their skilled oral tradition despite the fact that they knew how to preserve facts without heavy distortions, and why, because the oral tradition was finally preserved in a text much later after the first depicted profiles had lived. For each king and chief there have been a contemporary skald, what is not more contemporary with that?

King lists and historiography: Old Swedish and old Icelandic sources on Swedish history. http://www.historisktidskrift.se/fulltext/2015-2/pdf/HT_2015_2_201-...

"The article discusses historiography of the 13th century about the history of Sweden with a focus on king lists. It analyzes and establishes the relationship between the Icelandic and the Swedish lists of Swedish kings, written in the 13th century. The accepted opinion among scholars has been that the Icelandic Langfeðgatal, which includes a list of Swedish kings, is dependent on the Swedish king list of the so-called Uppsala type. Here this idea is rejected and the article argues that the king list in Langfeðgatal – as well as the similar list in Hervarar saga – is independent of both of the two types of Swedish king lists, the Uppsala- and the Västgöta type. The article further argues that there is an influence from Langfeðgatal on one of the later versions of the king list of the Uppsala type, which is preserved in ms C92, where some additions seem to be directly influenced by the Icelandic work. The last part of the article investigates what kinds of sources 13th-century Icelandic historians had for earlier Swedish kings and Swedish history. It argues that Langfeðgatal is mainly based on written Norse works (kings’ sagas etc.), but also that there existed a vital oral tradition on Iceland about the history of Sweden and its kings. This is supported by the evidence of Yngvars saga, an Icelandic work from ca 1200. Yngvars saga treats events in 11th-century Sweden that feature in inscriptions on contemporary rune stones but were never recorded in Swedish written sources. Knowledge of these events must have been transmitted orally until they were written down, for the first time ever, on Iceland ca 150 years later. How this oral transmission worked is discussed by an analysis of Skáldatal, a mid-13th-century work where Icelandic skalds from the Viking Age to the 13th century are listed in connection with the kings and jarls they praised. One part of Skáldatal concerns the skalds of Swedish kings. The article argues both that Skáldatal is evidence of the oral tradition about Swedish kings that existed on Iceland independent of Swedish written sources and that it provides one explanation of the sources of Icelandic knowledge about Swedish kings and history: the many skalds in Skáldatal’s list are continuously active informants, from the Viking age to the 13th century, with knowledge direct from the Swedish court.
Keywords: Sweden, historiography, Iceland, Middle Ages, sagas"