Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The PBS science program, "Nova", once devoted an hour exclusively to debunking Erich Von Daniken. They went through his claims one by one and established that they were devoid of merit. Among them was Von Daniken's assertion that the statues on Easter Island could only had been erected via alien technology.
The Nova folks rounded up a crew of natives and these guys, using only the most primitive tools, homemade ropes and sleds, in no time at all were quite impressively moving these huge rocks around. Nothing miraculous was required, no alien technology needed.
Well, it wasn't quite that definitive an answer.
For instance, as well as other objections....
"And the replica the team moved is on the small side for statues — some of which are up to 40 feet (12 m) tall and weigh 75 tons. It's not clear the method would work for something much larger, Stevenson said." Easter Island Statues Walking Theory Stirs Debate
[i]"And the replica the team moved is on the small side for statues — some of which are up to 40 feet (12 m) tall and weigh 75 tons. It's not clear the method would work for something much larger, Stevenson said."
Therefore ancient aliens is the only possible explanation?
As usual, your posts are interesting, and I mean that sincerely.
Who was it? Heyerdahl maybe who "proved" that it was "possible" that Egyptians "could" have reached the western hemisphere way back when?
In roughly 5000 BCE there was a trans Atlantic seafaring culture. We have archaeological proof of this. Sorry. Unable to provide a link, and I have searched. I recall this from my reading a number of years back.
During the last great ice age, sea levels were some 300-400 feet lower, leaving a LOT of land exposed, and making navigation relatively safe for close shore sailing.
Yes, he crossed the ocean with a Polynesian raft, I believe he did it or nearly with an Egyptian style reed boat 'Ra' and I believe he had a go with a Sumerian type craft.
However there is no real evidence that the Egyptians crossed the Atlantic, let alone the Sumerians, or that they ever went further than Lebanon one way and Somalia the other, The Aegeans and Phonecians traded widely. For some reason they don't catch the imagination and so we don't get books about Phonecian traders in south America.
There were some about Minoans founding Atlantis but ocean sounding maps showed a rather disappointing lack of anything like a sunken island, and I must say that Thera is a much better story than a midway atlantic island where somehow Greek seagoing refugees have to morph into Egyptians showing the Maya how to shape stone to microscopic accuracy.
I recall that Edgar Cayce saw the Bimini road as Atlantis resurfacing. Of course it still hasn't and those still peddling his books studiously don't mention it. Dainiken's alien scientists posing as gods made a case for inexplicably advanced early technology (some quickly debunked and some still a puzzle today) and it wasn't long before YHWH was mooching around in a space - helmet, lasering the sinners and the Nephilim, Annunaki and Giants and other alien lifeforms were cohabiting with the daughters of man, who couldn't have looked all that fair as the product was Ape man out of ape.
The fall out of this stuff was an unholy mix of Genesis literalism and ancient alien astronauts and whether Eusebius realizes it or not, this is the legacy that is providing him with his material.
That is why South American stonework - remarkable and even inexplicable as it is, is pressed into service to prove high levels of sophisticated ..well, if they could do rocks, they could do Arks..with hints of seagoing trade in opium, even though it is conceded it wasn't the Egyptians doing it.
Which is why we got that 10,000 year old figure for Tiahuanaco when it was actually 6 -500 AD. It has to support a technological culture around the supposed time of the flood.
Poor research or lying for Jesus (as the saying goes) I don't know.
"If we all end up being saved anyway, what difference does it make if I use poor arguments?" (Brilliant quote)
I just know that it makes Noah worthwhile case.
I do enjoy this stuff, just as it is fascinating reading about the origins of the Mormons or scientologists.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-09-2015 at 12:55 PM..
That what has that got to do with anything? You see, you are making random pointless points and just trying to make it seems as though you are making a case.
In fact some of this stuff is quite interesting, but it just looks absurd if it is all tossed at random to make some sort of 'science has it all wrong about antiquity' argument in hopes that genesis will come out looking credible.
The way things are is that talking about Noah's math is pointless when the whole Noah story looks unfeasible.
Arq, let's just boil this all down to a simple question for you:
Given all the massive monuments around the world built by ancient civilizations would you say they were built using deer antlers by cave dwellers or do you believe they were built by highly advanced civilizations expert in math, science, geometry etc.?
Arq, let's just boil this all down to a simple question for you:
Given all the massive monuments around the world built by ancient civilizations would you say they were built using deer antlers by cave dwellers or do you believe they were built by highly advanced civilizations expert in math, science, geometry etc.?
Neither. You are using the fallacy of false dichotomy. Quite apart from an implied hidden suggestion that they were all about the some time (ancient civilizations) when they range from 2,500 BC (Pyramids) through to mesoamerica 1,000 AD up to the 15th c, it isn't a question of either cavemen with deer antlers (though that was the main tool at Stonehenge) or sawing up pyramid block with carbon -steel circular saws and nothing in between.
Given the indication of the materials and methods they used in both cases, ropes, sand, wood, stone tools, the work is amazing and shows a command of mathematics that amazes me as well. But there is no real support for ironworking, let alone power tools. Nor of course is there any indication at all for a comparable culture c 8,000 BC, even though arguably the Egyptians (1) and Aztecs could probably have built large wooden ocean -going boats if they had wanted to. But they did not (so far as evidence goes) and of course the 400 foot limit for purely wooden built ships can't be ignored. I know about the claimed treasure ships of 15th c China, but we know nothing about them apart from the claimed length, and the problem of that size in Ming Junk -building means that we have to be skeptical about the claimed size.
So all the peripheral chat and problems means that you are stuck with Genesis and no support for it. You may believe it as it is in the Bible, but there is no reason whatsoever why I should.
(1) while they built large riverine sailing ships for the trade to Punt, and the great Pyramid had a buried wooden royal yacht, they were really not ocean going.
Arq, let's just boil this all down to a simple question for you:
Given all the massive monuments around the world built by ancient civilizations would you say they were built using deer antlers by cave dwellers or do you believe they were built by highly advanced civilizations expert in math, science, geometry etc.?
Oooh, I can answer! <waves hand>
Yes.
There are massive monuments that were made in very primitive ways ( stone "hammers", sand grinding, etc..) and there are massive monuments that were made by later civilizations who were highly advanced (compared to the earliest builders). There are even massive monuments that we made in the last hundred years, that are even more amazing that stone heads, pyramids, and henges.
I have no doubt that "primitive" man was more creative and intelligent than popular culture might give him credit for. But airplanes, lasers, power tools, spaceships, and the like... No, there is no credible evidence for these things.
I think there seems to be some confusion over the descriptive power of mathematics and the actual engineering of things using mathematics. Let's take a much simpler example... Gabriel's horn.
Gabriels Horn is a bit of a mathematical paradox but we can use it as an excellent example since it wasn't discovered, mathematically, until the 17th century.
For those, unfamiliar with Gabrial's horn, here is a picture of it:
Now, alone, this is a fairly primitive looking horn. It is not beyond the construction capabilities of many of the ancient civilizations people have been talking about. I think we could all agree on that, right?
But, Gabriel's horn, described mathematically, is quite beautiful, in my opinion. Put very simply, it is the equation 1/x rotated around the x-axis, from x =0 to x = 10 (in the case of the above drawing).
Look more closely at the 2D Graph 1/x:
Again, if you take that blue line and revolve around the x axis, you'll end up with the first image I posted above.
You can find the volume of such a horn by multiplying 2pi by the integral from 0 to 10 (if x is from 0 to 10) of [1/x]^2. And you can do all sorts of other interesting calculus tricks with it too.
Now, if we dug up a horn of similar size and shape from, say, 4000 years ago, does that mean that the civilization understood the mathematics behind Gabriel's horn? No. Absolutely not. The math we use, DESCRIBES the nature of Gabriel's horn. Whatever that ancient society did does not mean they needed to understand the descriptive nature of the mathematics behind it.
The same goes for the pyramids (and, no, the base is not perfect to pi like many claim). Just because an ancient civilization built a pyramid, does not mean they understood the mathematics of the pyramid any more than a child trying to fit a square peg into a square hole understands the mathematics behind the surface area of that peg!
I think there seems to be some confusion over the descriptive power of mathematics and the actual engineering of things using mathematics. Let's take a much simpler example... Gabriel's horn.
Gabriels Horn is a bit of a mathematical paradox but we can use it as an excellent example since it wasn't discovered, mathematically, until the 17th century.
For those, unfamiliar with Gabrial's horn, here is a picture of it:
Now, alone, this is a fairly primitive looking horn. It is not beyond the construction capabilities of many of the ancient civilizations people have been talking about. I think we could all agree on that, right?
But, Gabriel's horn, described mathematically, is quite beautiful, in my opinion. Put very simply, it is the equation 1/x rotated around the x-axis, from x =0 to x = 10 (in the case of the above drawing).
Look more closely at the 2D Graph 1/x:
Again, if you take that blue line and revolve around the x axis, you'll end up with the first image I posted above.
You can find the volume of such a horn by multiplying 2pi by the integral from 0 to 10 (if x is from 0 to 10) of [1/x]^2. And you can do all sorts of other interesting calculus tricks with it too.
Now, if we dug up a horn of similar size and shape from, say, 4000 years ago, does that mean that the civilization understood the mathematics behind Gabriel's horn? No. Absolutely not. The math we use, DESCRIBES the nature of Gabriel's horn. Whatever that ancient society did does not mean they needed to understand the descriptive nature of the mathematics behind it.
The same goes for the pyramids (and, no, the base is not perfect to pi like many claim). Just because an ancient civilization built a pyramid, does not mean they understood the mathematics of the pyramid any more than a child trying to fit a square peg into a square hole understands the mathematics behind the surface area of that peg!
So are you saying people had no concept in units of measurements.
I almost laughed out loud..Just kinda chuckled to myself..
I have cousins that are physicist and know better.
Ok seriously. A bunch of people coreyographed and built a civilization by sheer hand eye "Coordination".
I like that word 7 rope cord.
If that were true wow look out.. That would be freakin awesome..I am a pretty talented craftsman but that would be a feat..The sheer intellect and skill of a leader like none today.
So are you saying people had no concept in units of measurements.
I almost laughed out loud..Just kinda chuckled to myself..
I have cousins that are physicist and know better.
Ok seriously. A bunch of people coreyographed and built a civilization by sheer hand eye "Coordination".
I like that word 7 rope cord.
If that were true wow look out.. That would be freakin awesome..I am a pretty talented craftsman but that would be a feat..The sheer intellect and skill of a leader like none today.
That is NOT what I am saying. What I am saying is that if you dug up a horn from an ancient civilization with the characteristics of the one I posted above, that does not imply that the ancient civilization knew the descriptive mathematics of said horn. If you dig up a wheel from 7000 years ago, it doesn't mean that the civilization rolling the wheel around used the unit circle to design the wheel. There is a difference between using mathematics to engineer something (like a bridge or air foil) and simply building something that can be described mathematically.
Yes, ancient cultures had some knowledge of mathematics but that doesn't mean the things they invented were a result of advanced engineering with mathematics not yet discovered. To wit, the invention of fire does not insinuate that ancient man had a scientific and mathematical understanding of chemistry.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Neither. You are using the fallacy of false dichotomy. Quite apart from an implied hidden suggestion that they were all about the some time (ancient civilizations) when they range from 2,500 BC (Pyramids) through to mesoamerica 1,000 AD up to the 15th c, it isn't a question of either cavemen with deer antlers (though that was the main tool at Stonehenge) or sawing up pyramid block with carbon -steel circular saws and nothing in between. 
