22 Jul 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipI'd like to see those ancient maps for validity of his claims. South America and Africa in the correct longitude. BTW, the video repeats itself around 13 minutes in. (the bit about Antarctica shifting south 2000 miles in a geological instant, endorsed by Einstein) Is there independent evidence of this?
This video for the mindset that always assumes people of long ago had to be religious because of lack of scientific knowledge. We underestimate sophistication of knowledge in pre-history civilization.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCxWUkaar5k
If all of that is true, what kind of technology did they have to give correct longitudes? And what kind of boats did they have to be able to map the entire continent of Antarctica? Could they have flown?
The main question though, is why is this post not in science?
22 Jul 13
Originally posted by sonhouseBecause only idiots post in "science."
I'd like to see those ancient maps for validity of his claims. South America and Africa in the correct longitude. BTW, the video repeats itself around 13 minutes in. (the bit about Antarctica shifting south 2000 miles in a geological instant, endorsed by Einstein) Is there independent evidence of this?
If all of that is true, what kind of technology did ...[text shortened]... rctica? Could they have flown?
The main question though, is why is this post not in science?
22 Jul 13
Originally posted by sonshipUFOTV
This video for the mindset that always assumes people of long ago had to be religious because of lack of scientific knowledge. We underestimate sophistication of knowledge in pre-history civilization.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCxWUkaar5k
He starts of by saying we have no idea how Stonehenge was built!!
Many, many re-enactments have shown various methods could have been
used and while we cannot know which method was used we certainly can
say it was possible. Likewise the pyramids etc. etc.
Originally posted by sonshipNice strawman. I have never heard anyone claim that people of long ago 'had to be religious'. In fact, here in Africa, religion arrived with the Europeans, so they clearly didn't 'have to be religious'.
This video for the mindset that always assumes people of long ago had to be religious because of lack of scientific knowledge.
However, what is true is that to be religious nowadays, you have to lack scientific knowledge. This is even demonstrated by the type of youtube video religious people such as you post showing your total lack of education.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, what is true is that one shows his intolerant bias when he starts assuming that everyone in a certain group he doesn't like (the religious, in this example) shares the traits of another group he doesn't like (the ignorant, in this example). This is called being prejudiced.
However, what is true is that to be religious nowadays, you have to lack scientific knowledge. This is even demonstrated by the type of youtube video religious people such as you post showing your total lack of education.
22 Jul 13
Originally posted by SuzianneSo similar to the intolerant bias you have for every post I make in this forum?
No, what is true is that one shows his intolerant bias when he starts assuming that everyone in a certain group he doesn't like (the religious, in this example) shares the traits of another group he doesn't like (the ignorant, in this example). This is called being prejudiced.
Yes, you are right for once, there are some well educated religious people that show a remarkable ability to simultaneously hold conflicting views/beliefs.
What is your opinion of the contents of the youtube video sonship posted?
What do you think about his comment, do you think its a strawman or have you heard people make that claim?
22 Jul 13
Originally posted by sonshipScience as we know it has a linear way of looking at everything.
This video for the mindset that always assumes people of long ago had to be religious because of lack of scientific knowledge. We underestimate sophistication of knowledge in pre-history civilization.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCxWUkaar5k
It assumes that people from ancient history were less intelligent and knew less about the world than modern people do.
Also modern thinking assumes that "futuristic" means technologically advanced, ie. if we were to see some historical people reject say oil driven cars in preference to walking then they must be not be advanced as us today.
IF there were some ancient civilizations that were more advanced and sophisticated than we imagine them to be then it was only in some regions of the world. The different parts of the civilized world were not linked like they are today. Perhaps some of the more destructive, war mongering societies were to be left alone by the more advanced societies.
After all, in our European history (which most of the western world adheres to) we have centuries of war and intolerance, library/book burning, the Dark Ages (where no real tangible information seems to have survived), just to start with.
Pockets of civilizations such as the Tibet, which was shielded from the rest of the world by insurmountable geological obstacles, developed their own society complete with their own ideas of the world which could only have evolved in a peaceful society.
Apparently nearly all ancient societies had a very advanced understanding of astronomy (as a common link), despite astronomy not being necessary for survival.
22 Jul 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59I've come across the 'ramp method' as the most likely way the pyramids were built. (Where lengthy ramps were built so that the huge (upto 400tonnes) stones could be put into place. )
UFOTV
He starts of by saying we have no idea how Stonehenge was built!!
Many, many re-enactments have shown various methods could have been
used and while we cannot know which method was used we certainly can
say it was possible. Likewise the pyramids etc. etc.
There are a few problems with this, but the one that gets me is the fact that this way of building the pyramids, with only man power to push and pull huge stone blocks to get them into place, would have taken at least 5 or so generations to build. Given this it would seem very un-pharaoh like to undertake this venture where the reigning pharaoh would have only lived to see one-fifth of his pyramid built, leaving future pharaohs to enjoy the fruits of his labor ?. I dont think so.
I believe they had help either directly or indirectly, perhaps via some unknown technology. Those that have seen the pyramids up close say that the edges of the blocks are so precisely cut that no known tools of that era could have cut them so smoothly.
Originally posted by karoly aczelThe 'no known tools' theory is bullox. There have been found metal cutting tools that use sand as an abrasive and just saws right through stone, and one they found with multiple blades where 6 or more cuts could be made with the same tool so it was a mass production machine from 4000 years ago.
I've come across the 'ramp method' as the most likely way the pyramids were built. (Where lengthy ramps were built so that the huge (upto 400tonnes) stones could be put into place. )
There are a few problems with this, but the one that gets me is the fact that this way of building the pyramids, with only man power to push and pull huge stone blocks to ...[text shortened]... blocks are so precisely cut that no known tools of that era could have cut them so smoothly.
Here is one link showing saw marks on ancient stone:
http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/egypt/articles/hrdfact2.php
22 Jul 13
Originally posted by karoly aczelScience assumes that? Where do you get that from?
Science as we know it has a linear way of looking at everything.
It assumes that people from ancient history were less intelligent....
... and knew less about the world than modern people do.
I think that depends on what you mean by 'about the world'. I think most of us know perfectly well that ancient peoples probably knew more about hunting and nature in general than most modern people do. But they sure didn't know about all the continents, or quantum physics, or pluto.
Pockets of civilizations such as the Tibet, which was shielded from the rest of the world by insurmountable geological obstacles, developed their own society complete with their own ideas of the world which could only have evolved in a peaceful society.
Actually Tibet has long had contact with both India and China and been influenced by both and had influence on both. I believe Buddhism came from India and got to China via Tibet, but I could be wrong.
Apparently nearly all ancient societies had a very advanced understanding of astronomy (as a common link), despite astronomy not being necessary for survival.
Astronomy was very useful for time keeping, and time keeping was very useful for many things.
Also astronomy is complicated but follows patterns, I think makes it really attractive to study.
And finally, the ability to predict is valued in humans, so someone who can predict what the stars or planets will do next, is revered, whether that prediction has any survival value or not.
22 Jul 13
Originally posted by sonhouseOk thanks
The 'no known tools' theory is bullox. There have been found metal cutting tools that use sand as an abrasive and just saws right through stone, and one they found with multiple blades where 6 or more cuts could be made with the same tool so it was a mass production machine from 4000 years ago.
Here is one link showing saw marks on ancient stone:
http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/egypt/articles/hrdfact2.php
22 Jul 13
Originally posted by karoly aczelHow did you make this estimate? According to Wikipedia:
.... would have taken at least 5 or so generations to build.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques
...to suggest the Great Pyramid was completed from start to finish in approximately 10 years.
I must note that some European Cathedrals took hundreds of years, but I suspect that pyramids were built within the lifetime of the builder for the reason you give.
22 Jul 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadIs it not true that in order to come up with a reasonable theory we must first make assumptions?
Science assumes that? Where do you get that from?
[b]... and knew less about the world than modern people do.
I think that depends on what you mean by 'about the world'. I think most of us know perfectly well that ancient peoples probably knew more about hunting and nature in general than most modern people do. But they sure didn't know about all ...[text shortened]... s or planets will do next, is revered, whether that prediction has any survival value or not.[/b]
I think science needs to assume a lot to get answers. Just as Newton no doubt assumed that the apple that hit him was solid.
Perhaps 'were connected to the world' is more apt than 'about the world'.
You are right about Tibet being connected to the world. Again, to re-phrase - the landscape surrounding Tibet and it's basic location helped maintain it's sovereignty better than other lands. Surely they inherited Buddhism from India.
As regards to astronomy I cant see one blanket reason for why different ancient cultures were proficient in astronomy.
Stone Henge has already been mentioned, but why such large, surely difficult to move stones were used is often overlooked.
The pyramids of Giza were also built along very prominent constellations, which would have taken extra time to plan with such precision. But why?
I've read that not long ago (last 100 years) a so-called primitive tribe (the Dogon tribe ?) was discovered in Africa who seemed to live like tribal cultures from thousands of years ago. They had the bare minimum for survival except for an excellent knowledge of astronomy . They said there was a second planet circling the star called Sirius which could not be detected by the science of the time. Subsequent advancements in astronomy have revealed their knowledge to be true.
Anyway it seems that different ancient cultures had totally different reasons for knowing astronomy and to say that it was good for measuring cycles of time is a fair reason, but why the pyramids were built to mirror huge constellations is still a mystery.
22 Jul 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadI believe one researcher followed the 'ramp theory' , factoring in slave labor, 200-400tonne blocks and the tools used at that time, including the lifespan of people of the time, and came up with that figure.
How did you make this estimate? According to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques...to suggest the Great Pyramid was completed from start to finish in approximately 10 years.
I must note that some European Cathedrals took hundreds of years, but I suspect that pyramids were built within the lifetime of the builder for the reason you give.