Originally posted by madtitan
Compelling that this became a great debate about the nature and accuracy of carbon dating when in reality one could state the carbon dating is very
real and quite effective.. but also that it contains a variable margin of error. Now when dating things VERY VERY old that margin really doesn't
much matter but when only a few thousand years is the determining factor.. then that margin leaves a pretty reasonable window of doubt.
The margin isn't all that great. It's tiny for anything within the last 10,000 years or so. It increases for older samples.
Originally posted by madtitanAll that aside you really cannot carbon date rocks.. or rather you can but the data doesn't really mean
anything. If you carbon date these stones you'd probably find that they are millions of years old (yea rocks are pretty old). What was carbon dated
would have certainly been tools or artifacts left behind and of course those will date in the accepted range.
Only materials that are organic can be carbon dated. There are other dating methods for other types of samples. Thermoluminescence, for example.
Stone cannot be dated by C14 analysis. Organic material under stone can be and has been at Puma Punku.
Originally posted by madtitan1.) Puma Punku does NOT seemingly show these types scientific and social advancements. In ruins of the
many tribes spread all over the continent we find these advancements. We would believe that the maya could build something like this based on those
things and thusly we are not surprised to find their great temples. They had the math, geometry, and the tools that would be required. Where are
they at Puma Punku?
The capabilities of the people that built the site can be seen in the site itself. We know they had these capabilities for the same reasons we know
the capabilities of the Maya. We see it in their architecture.
Originally posted by madtitan Not more than small "carry-able" artifacts are found (something any human could bring from elsewhere.)
Where are the massive fancy artworks, carvings, statues, and written histories we'd expect to see?
As far as is known, there was no written language there. So, we see no writings.
Regarding the rest of what you consider to be missing, Puma Punku and Tiahuanaco were both robbed over centuries by natives as well as explorers. We
cannot speculate as to what was once there because of this.
BTW, that is why both ruins are in such terrible shape. Stone was taken for other uses and, of course, anything valuable was stolen and sold.
Originally posted by madtitan That we DO see in other structures dated around or shortly after Puma Punku's so called carbon dating?
Why no carving of great chief so and so on the wall and so forth? Why no statues of god what's his name riding the sun and moon?
Apparently, you are unaware that Viracocha appears there. You do know that Tiahuanaco and Puma Punka are at the same location, right?
Here's a link to a site with some pics of the artwork to be found at the site. It's a
fringe website that is full of garbage about the dating of the site, but the (limited number) of pics are real enough.
Originally posted by madtitan
2.) Humans.. particularly those of early man.. did not heedlessly settle anywhere... and yet why settle Puma Punku? Egyptians as a society (no
matter when you contest that they "started") built their great empire around the Nile River. It provided food, water, transportation, irrigation
and everything else needed for man to live. Why would humans take GREAT pains (by great I mean generation upon generation of people laboring
literally to death to settle there?) There are more suitable locations even within (relatively) close proximity to Puma Punku's location. Even
while making comparisons to the pyramids one must accept that while the Egyptians had a huge and powerful empire with millions of subjects upon (yes
at very very harsh cost) such a thing could be built. Puma Punku would have been at MOST a city of thousands.. and those thousands would have been
spread out.. with most certainly only a certain smaller percent living in the "city". This is also seen among the other ancient cultures of south
america.
Maybe you're unaware that the entire area around the city, for miles around, in fact, was occupied at the time.
The C14 information concerning the site includes hundreds of C14 dates for artifacts and burials found all over the entire area.
Originally posted by madtitan
3.) If you take a conservative approach to this as science always does you still come to impossible numbers. These aren't the Egyptians.. we are
talking a tribal people.. few in number. Of those FEW we'd find only likely a handful of master craftsmen capable of this level of work and even if
you put 100% of them to working on nothing but this structure (ancient peoples rarely would have such a luxury) it would have taken them 20
generations to build. Maybe more. All so they could live for there for less generations than it took to build before departing?
The culture that built the site lived there for more than a few generations. The site itself was only occupied for around 500 years though. It is
thought that environmental changes caused the desertion. The culture had developed quite a bit - we have found an irrigation system encompassing 30
square miles in the area - indicating extensive agricultural activity
Originally posted by madtitanThe biggest issue I see with Puma Punku is not the fact that humans absolutely couldn't have built
it.
This is an argument from incredulity - a logical fallacy we see all over this forum.
Originally posted by madtitan From a scientific/structural perspective it would have been (literally) the first wonder of the world..
but they could have done it (albeit for the life of me I can't suggest how tribesmen move a 150 ton piece of stone without a river/boats/simple
machines/beasts of burden/ect (all things the Egyptians had)).
How is it you assume these people had no boats? They lived right on Lake Titicaca. You should also be aware that "simple machines" include ramps
and levers, both of which they no doubt possessed knowledge of.
Originally posted by madtitan
If you want me to come out and speculate on how it got there.. well.. my best guess would be that it WAS built by humans.. but possibly well before
the folks we credit with it's creation. My thought there is that the people who did build it had access to the types of science, tools, and
equipment that would be needed to build it. We know that within a couple thousand years pretty much everything goes away except the good hard stone
that now remains.
The problem is, this is a scientific impossibility given the extensive C14 information available concerning the site and the surrounding area.
Originally posted by madtitan
When it comes to our history we like to do exactly like physicists do.. justify one theory based on the fact that if it's true it would justify
another theory which would be "close enough" to yet another theory.. and therefore all three become "fact". This is in my opinion.. utter
foolery. For all we know humans as a people HAVE been on this planet for at least 100k years. If we made much advancement in the first 90k how would
be even know? Literally EVERYTHING but very hard stone's like these would be dust.
There are thousands of artifacts dating to 100k years (and earlier) that we have found. They all indicate exactly what you've heard - stone tools
and hunter-gatherer societies.
There is no assumption made about early humans concerning these things. All theories regarding early human cultures are based on artifacts found.
Originally posted by madtitanWe find cavemen that are frozen or petrified and date to what we feel is the beginning and then go hey..
that was the time of the cave people. Not always a solid assumption in my idea of logic. Just because a caveman was frozen sometime prior to X and
WE don't see advancement Y until year Z doesn't conclusively state that man was a caveman until date Z. It just means that any who weren't are now
dust.
You
might have a point if human remains were all that we had to go on. However, there are a thousand times as many artifacts found than human
remains. If we were so advanced, why were we using hammer stones to pound things?
Originally posted by madtitanIf it doesn't hit close enough to get.. think about it like this.. if it rains Nukes tomorrow and all but
the smallest pockets of humans are destroyed.. in as little as 5000 years pretty much all trace of our "grand" human existence would be gone. The
achievements, knowledge, possessions, and stories of our time.. would be gone. If our few surviving descendants are as good at failing to remember
the past as we are today then literally nothing would remain of our time. People would have rebooted completely save for possibly a handful of very
curious relics that they simply would not be able to explain (much like us with Puma Punka.. or even the various so called antediluvian artifacts we
ourselves have found upon and within.. the earth.)
While you might be right about what would happen to the people, evidence of our current civilization would never,
never disappear. We have
found remains of huts built on beaches tens of thousands of years old. Huts. Imagine how easily we could find the remains of a roadway bed, or a
foundation of a skyscraper that extends forty or fifty feet below the ground.
Harte