What the Mayan Elders are Saying About 2012

reply to post by artistpoet


It is customary to introduce videos and links. That means stating what you think is of value.

I do not watch videos. There are reasons such as bandwidth. So what is in this video that is of interest?

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by artistpoet

 

It is customary to introduce videos and links. That means stating what you think is of value.

I do not watch videos. There are reasons such as bandwidth. So what is in this video that is of interest?

Knew you would have some excuse for not wanting to watch. Why re introduce ideas we are already discussing.
there are 2 more post by me for you to answer also

reply to post by artistpoet


It is customary to introduce links.

Under evidence the following laughable claims are made:
1. The percentage of sedimentary rock on land indicates that percentage must have been under water. This does not address aeolian deposits or that the sediments cover over a billion years of time or that metamorphic rocks may be from sedimentary rocks.
2. Sufficient water does not address isostacy
3. Rapid burial does not address the issue of microfossils, nor the most common fossil the brachiopod
4. Fossil fuels does not have anything to do with a global flood nor fast burial since acidic conditions in bogs are an example of unburied material accumulating
5. Rock strata do not imply rapid deposition. Layers often imply episodic deposition
6. Pure sedimentary layers indicate continuous processes. Rapid depositions such as from glacial outwashing reveals a jumble. Flooding causes a jumble.
7. Submarine canyons demonstrate that during glacial periods large amounts of freshwater are locked up as ice
8. Plato's tale is story, not fact
9. Plate tectonics describes the world. The bible does not
10. Total destruction is a meaningless section
11. 2350BC. That means one of pharoah drown along with his entire population. None did therefore this was a waste of time
12. The common criticisms leaves out almost all of the important evidence

reply to post by artistpoet


Tat was your cue to properly introduce the video. I did read the idiocy posted at the conservapedia.

I commented on that. Now go introduce this video.

reply to post by artistpoet

And I never said a global flooD ie one that covered the entire globe.

Once again someone wants to misuse a term. A global flood is one that covers the entire globe. Are you now referring to a local flood.

You are the one making the claims. It is your burden to support your claims. I do not need to introduce any evidence. You need to support your claims.

Originally posted by artistpoet
reply to post by stereologist

 

topdocumentaryfilms.com...

In this Timewatch special, historian Bettany Hughes unravels one of the most intriguing mysteries of all time.

She presents a series of geological, archaeological and historical clues to show that the legend of Atlantis was inspired by a real historical event – the greatest natural disaster of the ancient world.


Now answer my other post

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by artistpoet

 

And I never said a global flooD ie one that covered the entire globe.

Once again someone wants to misuse a term. A global flood is one that covers the entire globe. Are you now referring to a local flood.

You are the one making the claims. It is your burden to support your claims. I do not need to introduce any evidence. You need to support your claims.

YES you most certainly do need to back up what you say - I am calling you out - Your a liar come on where is your evidence also

reply to post by artistpoet


You copied and pasted the blurb. An introduction is what you want to point out.

For those that have limited bandwidth you might want to say something like at xx:xx the following facts support that ...

reply to post by stereologist


Everything I have posted so far you have called non sense or words to that affect
Without saying why you think so or backing up with evidence

So I ask - Where is your evidence to support that the pyramids were built as tombs for Pharoahs by people with hand tools.

reply to post by artistpoet


I never said that the pyramids were built as tombs. You said that. Please do not misrepresent what I posted.

The question was for you to support your claim that advanced civilization existed in the past. You have provided no evidence for that claim. Furthermore you have repeatedly tried and failed to get on tangents such as this issue.

Where is the evidence for your claim of an advanced civilization in the past? There is ZERO.

reply to post by artistpoet


The onus is on those making the claims to support their claims. I have no need to provide evidence that shows anything at all.

PS It is spelled you're, not your.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by artistpoet

 

The onus is on those making the claims to support their claims. I have no need to provide evidence that shows anything at all.

PS It is spelled you're, not your.

Are you talking about his use of the possessive form of "you" in the sentence below? It looks proper to me. You may want to apologize, grammar Nazi! lol...

"So I ask - Where is your evidence to support that the pyramids were built as tombs for Pharoahs by people with hand tools."

There may not be a ton of accepted evidence that the pyramids were built by an earlier civilization but there is plenty of evidence to support a belief that the tools and technologies employed were far more advanced than is accepted by the archeological community.

Extreme Egyptian Masonry

I speak from experience when I say that the cuts and marks on some of the stones found in the Giza complex bear evidence of cutting by a circular, rotating blade. The basalt stones that the marks are found on are extremely hard. Basalt can be as hard as 8-9 on the MOHs scale and can only be cut using a harder material such as diamond. Even Carbon Steel is softer than Basalt.

I cut stones using a 12" diamond sintered saw blade. The markings left behind on stones cut with my saw look exactly like some of the markings left on Egyptian pyramid stones. Not to mention the precision with which those cuts are made.

Another example of precision stone cutting can be found at Pumapunku. Modern stone cutters would find it very difficult, if not impossible to reproduce the complex cuts found in those stones.

The evidence is there, but some just choose to ignore what doesn't fit into their beliefs....

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by artistpoet

 

The onus is on those making the claims to support their claims. I have no need to provide evidence that shows anything at all.

PS It is spelled you're, not your.

What is the point as you poo poo anything that does not agree with you as being unworthy of consideration.
This is miles off topic as you must be aware
"What the Mayan Elders are Saying About 2012"
I posted pages back that I agreed to disagree with you yet you persist in side tracking from the main topic.
I will not now respond unless you wish to keep on topic

reply to post by Blarneystoner


Basalt has a hardness much less than the 8 to 9 which would place it closer to corundum than the spars it is composed of.
www.cst.cmich.edu...

The evidence is circumstantial at best since there is only marks that are used to imply a situation. Where are the saws, the blades, trace metals on the surface, left over abrasives, broken pieces left at the work sites, or the manufacturing processes to make that equipment? The ancient Egyptian was smart. They could develop successful methods with the available technology. Maybe the problem is that modern man isn't as smart or as willing to learn how the ancients were able to solve problems using less sophistocated technologies.

reply to post by artistpoet


You have made many claims and never done little to nothing to substantiated your claims.

Instead of posting evidence for an advanced civilization you make excuses or attempt to shift the discussion.

The onus is on you to support your claims. If you make a claims you will be challenged to support those claims.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

Basalt has a hardness much less than the 8 to 9 which would place it closer to corundum than the spars it is composed of.
www.cst.cmich.edu...

The evidence is circumstantial at best since there is only marks that are used to imply a situation. Where are the saws, the blades, trace metals on the surface, left over abrasives, broken pieces left at the work sites, or the manufacturing processes to make that equipment? The ancient Egyptian was smart. They could develop successful methods with the available technology. Maybe the problem is that modern man isn't as smart or as willing to learn how the ancients were able to solve problems using less sophistocated technologies.

You're right... it's circumstantial evidence.

But even William Petrie realized that the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming:

"That the Egyptians were acquainted with a cutting jewel far harder than quartz, and that they used this jewel as a sharp pointed graver, is put beyond doubt by the diorite bowls with inscriptions of the fourth dynasty, of which I found fragments at Gizeh; as well as the scratches on polished granite of Ptolemaic age at San. The hieroglyphs are incised, with a very fre-cutting point; they are not scraped or ground out, but are ploughed through the diorite, with rough edges to the line. As the lines are only 1/150 inch wide (the figures being about .2 long), it is evidence that the cutting point must have been much harder than quartz

~ William Matthew Flinders Petrie

I know that you will not be convinced but I'm not really trying to... convince you that is....

reply to post by Blarneystoner


A lot has been learned since Petrie began a more rigorous approach. There is a lot of testing going on right now in all sorts of research to understand ancient manufacturing techniques. One is the manufacture of pottery in the Americas. It tells you if a method was exported or if the pots themselves were exported.

I have seen many fine rock columns and other architectural features turned on lathes.

One of the interesting objects to manufacture is a telescope mirror. The grinding process is done by hand and forms a very precise spherical mirror without using a lathe. I'm unsure as to how far back in time such grinding goes. I'll bet that the earliest telescope mirror makers borrowed a process already in use for other reasons.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Legend121

 

well said... Im still waiting for the explanation on ancient maps etc despite providing sources a few times, the same excuse of source plz bounces back. He seems to avoid anything that doesnt fit in the box. Seems very selective also, only providing sources if it suits the purpose... Sigh! If it were so easy to replicate the pyramides, then why have todays archetechs clearly stated that with thats at their disposal today, ie lasers, tools, equipment, knowledge etc they would be unable to accomplish the same feat in todays world, and the precision of accuracy still has them baffled let alone being able to replicate it. I think you have raised some good points that are supported by some of the worlds leading archetechs. Thumbs up!!

Please provide any architect that says we cannot duplicate the pyramids

no soup for you! How about you first answer the question that you are still dodging - explain the ancient maps that pre date the ice age... If you cant explain it with source evidence its ok to simply admit it. Theres still much to learn about our world, and we cant know it all. So what about the ancient maps?

reply to post by Legend121

no soup for you! How about you first answer the question that you are still dodging - explain the ancient maps that pre date the ice age... If you cant explain it with source evidence its ok to simply admit it. Theres still much to learn about our world, and we cant know it all. So what about the ancient maps?

How can I comment other than to say there are NO maps that predate the ice age.
As I asked you before show me any paper that old let along a map.
Back to corner for you for not reading.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Legend121

 

no soup for you! How about you first answer the question that you are still dodging - explain the ancient maps that pre date the ice age... If you cant explain it with source evidence its ok to simply admit it. Theres still much to learn about our world, and we cant know it all. So what about the ancient maps?

How can I comment other than to say there are NO maps that predate the ice age.
As I asked you before show me any paper that old let along a map.
Back to corner for you for not reading.

i provided the source article location as such your responce is redundent. Simply saying you dont believe it can exist simply dont cut it. The maps were real enough for columbus to use so still no soup for you - try again!