Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why do people say intelligent design is not scientific?

page: 23
7
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by dodadoom
 


Junk DNA hypothesis isn't really a case for ID and if I'm not mistaken, we were discovering that junk DNA wasn't junk DNA after all well before the creationists started with their ID tactic of getting God into school, so by them adopting that argument is essentially moot and worthless. As your link suggests, perfect design would be the ultimate proof of a designer, and yet genetics is a very very imperfect coding system very prone to errors. The human body is very imperfect and not at all suited for a lot of different environments that exist on our planet. DNA and 'perfectness' arguments are perhaps the most ridiculous arguments that creationists can claim as proof.




posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by dodadoom
 


Junk DNA hypothesis isn't really a case for ID and if I'm not mistaken, we were discovering that junk DNA wasn't junk DNA after all well before the creationists started with their ID tactic of getting God into school, so by them adopting that argument is essentially moot and worthless. As your link suggests, perfect design would be the ultimate proof of a designer, and yet genetics is a very very imperfect coding system very prone to errors. The human body is very imperfect and not at all suited for a lot of different environments that exist on our planet. DNA and 'perfectness' arguments are perhaps the most ridiculous arguments that creationists can claim as proof.
Ever considered that we did not evolve here on earth? Guess not.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by theEXxman
Here's another logical question. Why is there a growing consenses in this country back to saying evolution is not scientific. Why not teach both. I don't think that it'll confuse kids anymore than the internet already does. We are already in an information overload. Why not just lay all the cards on the table and let the school kids decide. Tell them the truth that evidence points to both. It's the logical thing to do.


Actually, your so called "...growing consenses in this country back to saying evolution is not scientific” is really another ruse invented by the discovery institute.

Remember, the courts determined that Intelligent Design was a ruse made up by the discovery institute in an attempt sneak religion into public schools and told Delaware to cease and desist teaching Intelligent design as science.

The discovery institute realized that ID turned into a liability to them. They have actually stopped "preaching" ID

They shifted to a new tactic they named "teach the controversy."

They started a campaign to attempt to make it appear to the public that there is a raging controversy within the scientific community on weather or not Evolution is a valid scientific proposition. The discovery institute wanted to sow the seeds of doubt in the publics mind about the scientific validly of evolution.

The problem is, in the scientific community, there is no controversy concerning evolution. Evolution is the most studied phenomena in science. It is an observable process with OVERWHELMING evidence to support it. Very few genuine scientists doubt the validity of evolution as a sound scientific theory.

The only people who believe there is a controversy regarding the scientific validly of evolution is from people who have bought into he discovery institute's most recent tactic to try and force science to become a religious organization.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 



First, you have to consider what type of information is stored inside the nucleus of a cell. It turns out to be a genetic language—equipped with a four-letter digital alphabet and even grammatical rules—vastly superior to any computer language ever designed by man. Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, the world's largest software company, stated that "DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created" (The Road Ahead, 1995, p. 188).

Inside the nucleus of each human cell are found thousands of carefully codified instructions (called genes) that have to be translated, transported and reproduced. Information, scientists have realized, is not made of matter—it has no mass, length or width—but it can be conveyed by matter. Neither has it been shown that information can evolve or be improved through mutations.

Each human DNA molecule contains some three billion genetic letters—and, incredibly, the error rate of the cell, after all the molecular editing machines do their job, is only one copying mistake (called a point mutation) for every 10 billion letters!

Your argument is false.
www.gnmagazine.org...
Are you serious with that signature? Wow....


[edit on 14-11-2009 by dodadoom]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by dodadoomAre you serious with that signature? Wow....
Exactly what I was thinking..



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 10:44 AM
link   
If you cop out and say that the creator "just is" you then have to explain its point of origin - leaving you with the same Point-0 quandary that is puzzling Cosmology and molecular biology. Mind, those are the point-0 quandaries that lead ID adherents to laugh at these schools of science.

interesting.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by dodadoom
 



Your argument is false.
www.gnmagazine.org...


Technically your article is false. Arguing against the observed occurrence of evolution using an outdated theory of the process is erroneous and an exercise of futility. Darwin was the first to theorize on that process, but neither is he an end all for arguing against the process itself. We observe evolution occurring in nature and in the labs today. You can't just run around and use old theories to argue against new discoveries. It's like you want to argue against gravity or atomic theory because the ancient Greeks idea's on the matter were woefully wrong and inaccurate with what we know today.


Are you serious with that signature? Wow....


What's wrong with my signature?



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



Ever considered that we did not evolve here on earth? Guess not.


To claim that is to claim that all life on Earth throughout history was somehow implanted here at various times in the history of this planet. Highly improbable and immensely illogical as time travel doesn't exist nor ever will.

Considering the history of our planet, the fossilized record of life and the same genetic code utilized by all life on our planet, there is no reason to assume that we evolved elsewhere and then came to this planet. Evolution is not in question, it's a proven observable trait that occurs within all life on our planet. The theory of that process may be called into question, but only because we still don't understand nor know all the intricate complex variable involved in the process of evolution.


Exactly what I was thinking..


What about my signature?



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
Maybe they don't, but if they discover how to do it, it does not mean they are scientific. Learning how to create fire is not science. Learning how to crack nuts is also not science..


It is, in fact. Technology is an outgrowth of science. These critters do not use their tools instinctively. It has taken several generations of experimentation for chimpanzees to figure out how to use their tools to the best effectiveness, and there are different tool "cultures" within the species.

I get the impression that you don't believe anything is science unless it has a guy in a white labcoat mixing fluids in beakers.

Sirnex,

They're all "OMG SATAN!" - They can't make an argument about what you're saying, so they'll try to base their next approach off of your signature and how you're clearly not "full of the spirit" and "opposed to god"

You know how the penis-mutilating sorts are.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by vasaga
 



Ever considered that we did not evolve here on earth? Guess not.


To claim that is to claim that all life on Earth throughout history was somehow implanted here at various times in the history of this planet. Highly improbable and immensely illogical as time travel doesn't exist nor ever will.

Considering the history of our planet, the fossilized record of life and the same genetic code utilized by all life on our planet, there is no reason to assume that we evolved elsewhere and then came to this planet. Evolution is not in question, it's a proven observable trait that occurs within all life on our planet. The theory of that process may be called into question, but only because we still don't understand nor know all the intricate complex variable involved in the process of evolution.
@ Bold part: That's an extraordinary claim.. And who said it should be based on time travel? That's a clear statement based on an assumption that might or might not be true, and that's not the only one from your side.. And that's exactly your limitation in your way of thinking..

@Italic part: And considering the history of our planet talking about all those Gods that are supposedly "made up" by belief, consider all the myths that are supposedly just Myths and legends, that somehow all have the same structures and beliefs while none of those civilizations supposedly came in contact with each other, consider all the artifacts that are hardly reproducible today like Baalbek, PumaPunku etc and also have a lot of similar technological traits even when they are on the other side of the world, and you got a solid background to support those claims, and yet, no one looks at it, because if they do, they'll get ridiculed, just like you will ridicule me (or at least think that what I say is absurd) for stating this.

And, that underlined part can also be applied to your bold part..



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
@Italic part: And considering the history of our planet talking about all those Gods that are supposedly "made up" by belief, consider all the myths that are supposedly just Myths and legends, that somehow all have the same structures and beliefs while none of those civilizations supposedly came in contact with each other, consider all the artifacts that are hardly reproducible today like Baalbek, PumaPunku etc and also have a lot of similar technological traits even when they are on the other side of the world, and you got a solid background to support those claims, and yet, no one looks at it, because if they do, they'll get ridiculed, just like you will ridicule me (or at least think that what I say is absurd) for stating this.


You're not very familiar with the assorted religions and mythologies of the world, are you? They're not particularly similar - even cultures that clearly borrowed back and forth from each other - say, Etrucia, Rome, and Greece - have very different mythologies, mythological structure, and religious traditions. It's easy enough to say "Innana and Freya were both fertility goddesses, so they must be the same" - Wiccans basically base their entire "religion" around this - but you'd be absolutely wrong.

Baalbek and Puma Punku are very easy to reproduce today. ANd they likely weren't too terribly difficult to achieve at the time they were made, either. Rather than adhering to the "brown people can't stack rocks" variety of pseudohistorical nonsense, maybe you could accept that these people had mastered basic tools such as the lever and some variety of pulley. Humans are surprisingly ingenius critters, no matter their age or location.

Also, "let's carve rocks and arrange them" doesn't imply a common culture, any more than "I like reverse cowgirl" does. Basic ideas are pretty easy to come up with. You have rocks, you have people, something's gonna get done with the rocks.

Do I ridicule you? Only if you insist on maintaining your ignorance on this subject.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by vasaga
Maybe they don't, but if they discover how to do it, it does not mean they are scientific. Learning how to create fire is not science. Learning how to crack nuts is also not science..


It is, in fact. Technology is an outgrowth of science. These critters do not use their tools instinctively. It has taken several generations of experimentation for chimpanzees to figure out how to use their tools to the best effectiveness, and there are different tool "cultures" within the species.

I get the impression that you don't believe anything is science unless it has a guy in a white labcoat mixing fluids in beakers.
And science is an outgrowth of philosophy..

en.wikipedia.org...

And also this:


Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any SYSTEMATIC KNOWLEDGE-BASED or PRESCRIPTIVE practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.


Something being experimentation in itself does not mean it's science. It needs to be systematic, one needs to be aware of the laws that are being followed. If you find out that if you throw a flat stone in the see and it bounces, that's hardly science, until you ask WHY it bounces and THEN you go experimenting to find it out and confirm it. That last part is science. If you go experimenting with no goal at all, and then find out something that you weren't planning to find in the first place, that in itself is NOT science, until you actually begin experimenting AFTER you found it out to confirm if it's true. And as soon as you set that goal, then it can be called science. NOT before. That's why the discovery of penicillin is an accident, and not science. The usage of it for our benefit followed by the experimentation of something we found by accident, THAT can be called science. But before the usage, research had to be done, and that ORGANIZED research is called science..

If you find out that fire exists, or if monkeys find out how to use tools, that is not science, because you simply found something by accident.

This is the last time I'm going to say this. I can't explain it more clearly, and if you still don't understand, well, I don't care. I'm done with this discussion.


Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by vasaga
@Italic part: And considering the history of our planet talking about all those Gods that are supposedly "made up" by belief, consider all the myths that are supposedly just Myths and legends, that somehow all have the same structures and beliefs while none of those civilizations supposedly came in contact with each other, consider all the artifacts that are hardly reproducible today like Baalbek, PumaPunku etc and also have a lot of similar technological traits even when they are on the other side of the world, and you got a solid background to support those claims, and yet, no one looks at it, because if they do, they'll get ridiculed, just like you will ridicule me (or at least think that what I say is absurd) for stating this.


You're not very familiar with the assorted religions and mythologies of the world, are you? They're not particularly similar - even cultures that clearly borrowed back and forth from each other - say, Etrucia, Rome, and Greece - have very different mythologies, mythological structure, and religious traditions. It's easy enough to say "Innana and Freya were both fertility goddesses, so they must be the same" - Wiccans basically base their entire "religion" around this - but you'd be absolutely wrong.

Baalbek and Puma Punku are very easy to reproduce today. ANd they likely weren't too terribly difficult to achieve at the time they were made, either. Rather than adhering to the "brown people can't stack rocks" variety of pseudohistorical nonsense, maybe you could accept that these people had mastered basic tools such as the lever and some variety of pulley. Humans are surprisingly ingenius critters, no matter their age or location.

Also, "let's carve rocks and arrange them" doesn't imply a common culture, any more than "I like reverse cowgirl" does. Basic ideas are pretty easy to come up with. You have rocks, you have people, something's gonna get done with the rocks.

Do I ridicule you? Only if you insist on maintaining your ignorance on this subject.
My ignorance? Hahaha..




[edit on 14-11-2009 by vasaga]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



@ Bold part: That's an extraordinary claim.. And who said it should be based on time travel? That's a clear statement based on an assumption that might or might not be true, and that's not the only one from your side.. And that's exactly your limitation in your way of thinking..


It's the only way I can think of reconciling the fossil record and DNA evidence for life on Earth not evolving on Earth. Clearly if we hadn't evolved on our good old planet Earth, then obviously somehow whomever designed us also possessed magical time traveling technology to transplant various species in a clear transitional form at various point in time on this planet. Unless you have a better suggestion, this is the only one I can think of at the moment.


@Italic part: And considering the history of our planet talking about all those Gods that are supposedly "made up" by belief, consider all the myths that are supposedly just Myths and legends, that somehow all have the same structures and beliefs while none of those civilizations supposedly came in contact with each other, consider all the artifacts that are hardly reproducible today like Baalbek, PumaPunku etc and also have a lot of similar technological traits even when they are on the other side of the world, and you got a solid background to support those claims, and yet, no one looks at it, because if they do, they'll get ridiculed, just like you will ridicule me (or at least think that what I say is absurd) for stating this.


Ah OK, so your of the camp that thinks aliens from Tau Ceti created humans and built stone monuments?

There are many methods for moving stone, I even posted a video of one man effortlessly moving a stone block weighing in at nine tonnes and he admits to having no scientific knowledge on how to do so, he just figured it out all on his own one day.

This ridiculous claim that ancient man was somehow inherently more stupid than modern man is somewhat insulting to our own species. Ancient man had the same intellect that we possess today, they were far from stupid and certainly were capable of moving stones as is evident from the many monuments that they rightfully designed and built all on their own. We can definitely reproduce many of their architectural feats today, that man I was discussing is in the process of building his own Stonehenge monument all on his own without help of others and without modern technology. Sticks and stones is all he's using for that project.

The claim that different sites around the world *mind you also dated at different times as well* are similar and yet separated by vast distances is kind of ... pushing the imagination a bit to far. These similarities aren't really that remarkable if you think about it. There is no logical argument that because someone came up with a pyramidal design that no one else could have done so without having contact with those who initially did.

A french architect also thinks he may have figured out how the pyramids were built based on something Herodotus said about the building of the pyramids. If he's right, we should find a spiral ramp inside the pyramids. Yes, the stones were two and a half tonnes, but like the video shows, one man alone is capable of moving up to 30 tonnes without modern technology using his method. The french architect also suggested that counter weights could have been used for some of the more heavier stones.

I really dislike ridiculous and erroneous attempts at claiming that ancient man was more dumb than we are today. They were even the first to discover the Earth was round only later to lose that knowledge thanks to monotheistic religion. There are a lot of thing's we have today that were already discovered long ago. I forget which ancient historian it was, but he even discussed basically lightning rods erected to protect temples. Even electricity was known back in ancient times, by our own ancestors, not Gods from above.

The other problem I have is with claims that all mythologies are depicting the same thing. I've read many mythologies and accounts for creation and I haven't seen any remarkable similarities at all amongst the whole of them all. Some from the same regions are similar and with good reason considering they all had contact. Yet mythologies from regions that never had contact are no where near the same at all. Another ridiculous claim from the I am special camp.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



Something being experimentation in itself does not mean it's science. It needs to be systematic, one needs to be aware of the laws that are being followed.


How are these laws discovered in order that they be known first? Without science, you can't discover the laws that govern the universe that would lead to what you just stated.


If you find out that if you throw a flat stone in the see and it bounces, that's hardly science, until you ask WHY it bounces and THEN you go experimenting to find it out and confirm it. That last part is science.


So religion is science? I invoke the Rain God here as an example.


If you go experimenting with no goal at all, and then find out something that you weren't planning to find in the first place, that in itself is NOT science, until you actually begin experimenting AFTER you found it out to confirm if it's true.


So primitive man accidentally rubbed two sticks together and accidentally discovered that fire was a result and then accidentally discovered that not all sticks are created equal for fire making purposes? Wow, we've accidentally discovered a lot!


And as soon as you set that goal, then it can be called science.


Ah, so there was no goal set for learning how to make and control fire then? It was all just a big giant accident?


The usage of it for our benefit followed by the experimentation of something we found by accident, THAT can be called science. But before the usage, research had to be done, and that ORGANIZED research is called science..


Wow, that makes no sense considering you've already stated that learning how a particular plant cures a particular ailment is NOT science.


If you find out that fire exists, or if monkeys find out how to use tools, that is not science, because you simply found something by accident.


How did the monkeys accidentally discover that using certain things in different ways?


This is the last time I'm going to say this. I can't explain it more clearly, and if you still don't understand, well, I don't care. I'm done with this discussion.


I've heard that one before!


My ignorance? Hahaha..


Yes, still your ignorance. I've watched that documentary and I didn't see any indication that they were pushing that documentary off as proof of ancient aliens, but more or less using those sites as speculation to a possibility of.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
@ Sirnex:

1st: Post/link that precious video of yours

2nd:

- Discovery --> Coincidence
- Questioning --> Philosophy
- Testing --> Science
- Conclusion --> Philosophy



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



1st: Post/link that precious video of yours


LINK

LOL I love how you worded the request as if there was a slight chance that it possibly might not exist! You should become a comedian! lol



2nd:

- Discovery --> Coincidence
- Questioning --> Philosophy
- Testing --> Science
- Conclusion --> Philosophy


*yawn* I told you we already understood your view that only philosophy is science and that everything else is an accident.



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   
they think they are performing science, while science truly is that which is within to be perfomed in the world. then again, I am wrong.

kisses



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by vasaga
 



1st: Post/link that precious video of yours


LINK

LOL I love how you worded the request as if there was a slight chance that it possibly might not exist! You should become a comedian! lol



2nd:

- Discovery --> Coincidence
- Questioning --> Philosophy
- Testing --> Science
- Conclusion --> Philosophy


*yawn* I told you we already understood your view that only philosophy is science and that everything else is an accident.
Lol If that last sentence you wrote is what you think I said you understood nothing xD But never mind ^_^

And interesting video. Some other things to take into account though:

- His stones are perfectly symmetric, which eases his work a lot. That does not mean it would be impossible, since in the past they might have worked with more people, and have time to spare, so I'll give it that.
- The question still remains WHY the ancient would do something like that..
- Precision is important. Apparently some of the entrances are aligned with the sunrise in a certain time period. Maybe that was the purpose as well, but that's Stonehenge only. How can one explain a pyramid being aligned with the north pole? Or, having something aligned perfectly with the spring equinox so that some features are seen with the effect of the sun, like Chichen Itza? (and in the last case also, why a snake?)
- Then there's the height feature. Sure, he can do it for a large and heavy stone on the ground. Can he do it for a stone at 200+ft/100+meters?
- He does not cut his own stones, which means, there's no way to clarify how they made their own stones so precise that a needle doesn't fit between the two in a lot of constructs, without our current technology..



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
en.wikipedia.org...

And also this:


Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any SYSTEMATIC KNOWLEDGE-BASED or PRESCRIPTIVE practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.


Something being experimentation in itself does not mean it's science. It needs to be systematic, one needs to be aware of the laws that are being followed. If you find out that if you throw a flat stone in the see and it bounces, that's hardly science, until you ask WHY it bounces and THEN you go experimenting to find it out and confirm it. That last part is science. If you go experimenting with no goal at all, and then find out something that you weren't planning to find in the first place, that in itself is NOT science, until you actually begin experimenting AFTER you found it out to confirm if it's true. And as soon as you set that goal, then it can be called science. NOT before. That's why the discovery of penicillin is an accident, and not science. The usage of it for our benefit followed by the experimentation of something we found by accident, THAT can be called science. But before the usage, research had to be done, and that ORGANIZED research is called science..

If you find out that fire exists, or if monkeys find out how to use tools, that is not science, because you simply found something by accident.

This is the last time I'm going to say this. I can't explain it more clearly, and if you still don't understand, well, I don't care. I'm done with this discussion.


So I just want to make sure I get you correct. Your firm belief is that there was absolutely no science in the entire world prior to the rise of Athens as the dominant Greek power?


My ignorance? Hahaha..




[edit on 14-11-2009 by vasaga]


That is a hilarious video. I was cracking up at 30 seconds in. Seventeen thousand years old? Seventeen thousand years old?! Oh... Oh goddamn, cracking up again...

Okay, let's take this idiocy point by point. First, you seem to believe that The History Channel is a credible source. It's not. Honestly, it's not. it's an entertainment channel that has an annoying habit of fad-chasing.

Next...

"It is, in fact, SO ANCIENT that it defies modern dating techniques. It is estimated to be over seventeen thousand years old"

It's been dated easily. Pottery, wood, human remains, fiber, spectrometry, it's all there, and it all points to Tiwanaku rising to power around AD 400, becoming a predatory state by AD 700, and then crashing and burning in AD 1000 due to a severe drought.

Seventeen thousand years... Holy henry horse.

"And somehow, the sculptures at Tiwanaku were constructed with hte same style, and with the same enigmatic expressions, as their distant cousins on easter island"

The hilarious thing here? It would seem the segment of this episode prior to Tiwanaku was about Rapa Nui and the Moai on its shores. Presumably with plenty of footage and pictures. even if not, this particular portion cuts to a picture of a few of the things. Anyone with eyeballs can see that the style and expressions of the Tiwanaku sculptures and the moai are nothing alike. About the closest you can get is "they're based on the human form".

Then we get Arthur Demarest telling us that you can find a lot of Tiwanaku's patterns and iconography in earlier civilizations in Peru, "even back into the centuries BC" he says. And he's right. Hopefully he's pretty annoyed at being included in something asserting Tiwanaku is seventeen thousand years old. Andean civilizations have a very similar culture, which is understandable, as they spring from the same ancestral population and had a habit of conquering one another.

"A Puma Punku, we have these megalithic structures which just lie about this entire site, as if ripped apart by some great force"

Well, it's the Andes. Earthquakes are pretty common. That aside, the Rulers of Tiwanaku had a funny way of putting their wealth and power on display - they were constantly tearing apart and reconstructing the city, so that each season f pilgrim would be entering a newly constructed city. It's actually a pretty common Andean trait - The Inka emperers, for instance, demanded roads be built, just to say "I'm building all these big roads, look at me".

Given the constant construction going on, and the region's nasty penchant of conducting human sacrifices of anyone who displeased the rulers, I imagine that masonry became a very skilled profession very swiftly!

...They have the author of "Chariots of the Gods?" in this production? And you're telling me you're not ignorant? He tells us there are no trees to use as rollers. yeeeah. There aren't now. The region kind of had, you know, over a million people living in it, with constant construction, and they of course liked to have fire to cook their fish and qinoa, and there was that whole drought thing...

Silly hair man who's name is earlier in the video calls the ruins inexplicable and inachievable. Which as we all know is argument from personal incredulity - he can't believe that the people who did it, did it, so he has a little freakout about it. It's quite explicable, as proven by me explaining it. And it was clearly achievable, because there it is. To what purpose was it done? So the priests of Tiwanaku could show off the size of their johnsons without having to lift their robes.

And now he gets offensive. "Mainstream archaologists all agree that puma Punku was put together by the Aymara indians. And we would all have to agree, that in order to build something like puma punku, you need writing, you need planning, and you need some idea of where which piece goes and how it all ultimately fits together. And there's one thing the mainstream archaologists all agree on - the Aymara didn't have any writing!"

Ahhh, good ol' Brown People Can't Stack Rocks, I knew it had to be in here somewhere. The Aymara did have writing - it's called qipu. Qipu havethe archaological disadvantage of being readily decomposable, however, and each wave of successive conquering states had a naughty habit of burning the qipu of the people they conquered.

Even if we pretend that the Aymara didn't have the qipu, work of mouth is perfectly useful in constructing complex structures. Maybe not as effective as written plans, but it can still get the job done. And since the people making the decisions weren't especially known for their tolerance of deviation, it was probably pretty easy to follow the plans by rote.

"And htey were using machine tooooooooools to cut these bloooooooocks" - sorry, he just sounds so annoying when he says that. Amusingly the footage cuts to some irregular holes in a block as he's saying this.

Point of fact, no, they weren't. They were using the "scthone agthe zhthizzles" that the Chariot of the Gods guy is griping about in the next segment, along with grit files and drills.

"it's as if only master builders were allowed to work there"

Well, yeah. As i pointed out, given the culture, and the probable penalty for screwing up, i think i'd have to agree with goofy hair guy here. However he probably thinks there were relatively few master builders. Which I obviously disagree with.

"Everything is so precise, everything is so perfect" - cut to footage of nicely done, though lumpy blocks, arranged in an uneven row.

"They're granite and diorite" - yeeeeah, you're in the andes. They mountains are made of that stuff.
"The only stone that's harder than diorite... IS DIAMOND" - OMGWTFBBQ!?!?! Ahem. Yeeeah. Actually on the Mohs scale of mineral hardness, diorite is 7, and many of its components are as soft as 2.5. Diamond's a 10. So you still have two grades.
Diorite can be used to cut diorite. And truthfully, any prolonged friction will take a toll on anything it's applied to. The Mohs scale is a useful tool, but it's not absolute law.

"Eet's implossthible to reconsthtrukt poomupoonku eeths implossthible!" - Point of fact, it's not. It'd be nice if Chariot of the Gods Guy would site his sources here, but... he doesn't.

George Noory? Really?



So out of that whole thing... you get two scientists - one who I'm almost certain is unaware of his inclusion in this particular piece - and not one, not two, but FOUR goofy "ALIENS WHUT DUNNIT!" personalities, none of whom have any education in the subject at hand...



You might want to not repeat this exercise, friend.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by TheWalkingFox]



posted on Nov, 14 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by vasaga
 



- His stones are perfectly symmetric, which eases his work a lot. That does not mean it would be impossible, since in the past they might have worked with more people, and have time to spare, so I'll give it that.


Interesting, considering that a lot if not most or all of these sites are claimed to have stones that are simply 'too perfect'.


- The question still remains WHY the ancient would do something like that..


Why not? Pretty much most of what we take for granted today we don't need to survive, so why have it? Because we can.


- Precision is important. Apparently some of the entrances are aligned with the sunrise in a certain time period. Maybe that was the purpose as well, but that's Stonehenge only. How can one explain a pyramid being aligned with the north pole? Or, having something aligned perfectly with the spring equinox so that some features are seen with the effect of the sun, like Chichen Itza? (and in the last case also, why a snake?)


If you look at prehistory, we've been studying the night sky thousands of years prior to civilizations. It's really not that amazing that they aligned religious buildings towards the very stars those religions were created from.


- Then there's the height feature. Sure, he can do it for a large and heavy stone on the ground. Can he do it for a stone at 200+ft/100+meters?


"Give me a lever big enough ... and I can lift the world." —Archimedes


- He does not cut his own stones, which means, there's no way to clarify how they made their own stones so precise that a needle doesn't fit between the two in a lot of constructs, without our current technology..


Early man was a master at using stone in my opinion. Before the discovery of metals, early man developed methods of working stone in very efficient ways. LINK One link on primitive methods for stone cutting, and I think there might be videos on youtube or google that show this being done. I'd have to find them again if you need visual evidence that the methods work.





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join