World History and Bosnian Pyramids 2011, page 2

reply to post by Cancerwarrior

---

I'm just going to point out that a large number of these people are proponents of punctuated equilibrium. Thus the emphasis they place on gradual evolution. They still support evolution. Just not the gradual process that Darwin described. As for your last comments I suggest checking out this thread. For about a hundred pages or so we have been arguing with someone who has also proposed that humans are the only animals that don't fit with their environment.

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
Oh really? First I've ever heard of the fossil record being complete. And I guess all these people as well.Here's a start for you pal.

Who said the fossil record was complete? It's not complete and never will be. That doesn't mean we can't learn from what we have found and see several transitions through the hominid evolutionary tree.

[imgwww.theistic-evolution.com...[/img]

en.wikipedia.org...

Let me guess. They're all fake.

Quote mining doesn't prove your case, sorry.

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by Cancerwarrior
Oh really? First I've ever heard of the fossil record being complete. And I guess all these people as well.Here's a start for you pal.

Who said the fossil record was complete? It's not complete and never will be. That doesn't mean we can't learn from what we have found and see several transitions through the hominid evolutionary tree.

[imgwww.theistic-evolution.com...[/img]

en.wikipedia.org...

Let me guess. They're all fake.

Quote mining doesn't prove your case, sorry.

I did not say it was complete if you read what i posted. Hominid evolution still does not account for the fact that there is a significant gap missing between humans and primates. Darwin always assumed that in the future these fossil gaps would be found and filled. Try as they might, nobody ever has. There has been several people over the years try to make a missing link fossil that I know of like piltdown man. Also the fact that we share almost 99 percent of our DNA, yet look so different. So what was the catalyst that created us? Evolution try as it might does not fully explain it and imho never will because there is no fossil that exists between us.

Fact is that mankinds true origins has been hidden from the public by the establishment. Anyone who looks into ancient societies like the Sumerians, Egyptians, etc. will see that they sprang up seemingly overnight according to what history says. So we went from being cavemen, to having civilization suddenly, to where we are today worshipping our cellphones and Ipods and all the other technological gadgets that make us feel like the smartest people that ever existed. Ok, so lets go by what the history book says for a moment. According to them, we've been here roughly 250,000 years or so. Since they say that we have gone from cavemen to cellphones in roughly 6,000 years, why is it so far-fetched to believe that many civilizations have developed and collapsed that might have even been superior to ours. If knowledge is power and a select few know the truth, then ultimately who has the power? Pyramids have been found on every continent except Antartica. And I believe that once the ice melts they will find pyramids there too. So how did primitive people all over the world start building pyramids in almost the exact same precise manner with hammers and mallets and no way of talking to each other? Or maybe there was a global civilization that was very advanced with engineering and arhitecture.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Heres a pretty decent thread on pyramids everywhere if you would like to look.

Also another interesting read on Puma Punku, they make the pyramids look like kids blocks.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Cancerwarrior

---

Fact is that mankinds true origins has been hidden from the public by the establishment. Anyone who looks into ancient societies like the Sumerians, Egyptians, etc. will see that they sprang up seemingly overnight according to what history says.

No, that is just not the case. You should really look into history and look up some basic terms, your statement is akin to arguing that one day you just "appeared out of nowhere" from your mother. While that could be said to be true the fact is you were not a baby before you were born, you were a fetus. So with ancient civilizations, the transition period is somewhat long and unclear, when does it stop being a group of people who develop agriculture and start being refereed to as a civilization? The timeline of Egypt is pretty well laid out too
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by JoshF

---

So then where is the progression? The Sumerians, who history says was the oldest civilization, were a very advanced people. It may seem plausible to you that there was a gradual progression from caveman to a full-fledged advanced civilization with nobody recording anything about it, but to me its not. These people kept meticulous records on everything, even their tax records. That is one reason so much is known on them today. I may have sprang from my mothers womb "out of nowhere". But there is a gradual documented progression from fertilized egg to fetus to newborn. Where is the establishments documented information on this? Easy. There is none.

reply to post by Cancerwarrior

---

Alright, i did not plan on giving a history lesson today but here we go. Sumer was founded by Ubaidans who went down from northern Mesopotamia which was made up of the Samarra. And there you have it, they did not "pop up" out of nowhere. You should look up things like Pre-Pottery Neolithic A, if you just read about the Sumerians the focus will be more on them than where they came from.

reply to post by Cancerwarrior

---

Civilization did not just pop out of nowhere. We have evidence of things like art and music for almost the entirety of humanity's existence. We examples of proto-language going back almost 50,000 years and examples of actual language going back potentially 15,000-20,000 years ago. Artificial structures have existed longer than humans. Forest gardening has existed since prehistory and small-scale agriculture has existed since at least 7000 BCE. So everything that went in to making civilization had existed for thousands of years before Sumer emerged.

As for the pyramids, the simple answer is that it is the most basic structure to construct. In those days the simplest way to move blocks to higher levels was to use ramps. Using ramps is going to give something a pyramidal shape. It's that simple.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Cancerwarrior

---

As for the pyramids, the simple answer is that it is the most basic structure to construct. In those days the simplest way to move blocks to higher levels was to use ramps. Using ramps is going to give something a pyramidal shape. It's that simple.

edit on 1/25/2012 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)

If it is so simple and basic to construct, then why is it that nobody can seem to duplicate them even today? Why is it that the Giza pyramids which are supposed to be roughly 4,500 years old are more advanced structures than later examples of Egyptian pyramid building? If you start off with something like the pyramids af Giza, should'nt you get better andd better at pyramid building? Instead of getting worse at it?

reply to post by Cancerwarrior

---

If it is so simple and basic to construct, then why is it that nobody can seem to duplicate them even today?

We could do it today we just don't have a reason to.

Why is it that the Giza pyramids which are supposed to be roughly 4,500 years old are more advanced structures than later examples of Egyptian pyramid building?If you start off with something like the pyramids af Giza, should'nt you get better andd better at pyramid building? Instead of getting worse at it?

Well their central government collapsed at the end of the old kingdom for one, and the pharaoh's self worship was a huge contributing factor in that. That gave way to the first intermediate period where egypt was more or less not longer "egypt" but groups of more or less independent provinces. They would no longer have resources or the manpower to achieve something like the great pyramids again, the intermediate period was horrilbe, people were starving and there were small civil wars going on and the Pharaoh was powerless really.

reply to post by Cancerwarrior

---

You're forgetting the pyramids that came before the Great Pyramid. It's not like they made that first shot out. There are plenty of examples of pyramids that are of the same or lower quality as those found in later kingdoms. You must also remember that the pyramids at Giza were built during the 4th dynasty which is pretty much Egypt's Golden Age. They were experiencing a time of peace and prosperity which gave them the time and resources to invest in greater monuments that the later dynasties did not have.

Originally posted by JoshF
reply to post by Cancerwarrior

---

If it is so simple and basic to construct, then why is it that nobody can seem to duplicate them even today?

We could do it today we just don't have a reason to.

Why is it that the Giza pyramids which are supposed to be roughly 4,500 years old are more advanced structures than later examples of Egyptian pyramid building?If you start off with something like the pyramids af Giza, should'nt you get better andd better at pyramid building? Instead of getting worse at it?

Well their central government collapsed at the end of the old kingdom for one, and the pharaoh's self worship was a huge contributing factor in that. That gave way to the first intermediate period where egypt was more or less not longer "egypt" but groups of more or less independent provinces. They would no longer have resources or the manpower to achieve something like the great pyramids again, the intermediate period was horrilbe, people were starving and there were small civil wars going on and the Pharaoh was powerless really.

edit on 25-1-2012 by JoshF because: (no reason given)

Several attempts to duplicate them have been made. Just to see if its plausible for primitive means to build such a sophisticated structure. I know for a fact that a team of Japanese tried to duplicate them at 1/4 scale and failed in the early 90's. As well as a greek team that tried later on and failed. They even tried to erect a one-ton obelisk using a sandpit like what the Egyptians supposedly did to erect their many more ton obelisks and made no progress at all.

And while they did not have the resources to construct another Giza like pyramid as you said, they did build many more smaller pyramids after the ones at Giza. None of them match the engineering and sophistication of the Giza pyramids. To me, this does not make sense. They should get better and better at it, not worse and worse. Its like starting off with a Dodge Charger and progressing to a model T.


William Hart who has studied them for decades has this site.

www.world-mysteries.com...

In fact, several well-documented attempts over the past 30 years have actually failed to replicate what the builders achieved. In the 1970s a Japanese team funded by Nissan tried to build a one-third, scale model of the Great Pyramid using the methods Egyptologists claim the ancient engineers employed. They could not duplicate a single step of the process.

They gave up and called on modern technology. Even with the aid of trucks and helicopters they could not position the stones accurately and the finished pyramid turned out to be a haphazard mess. Then in the 1990s NOVA filmed another effort aimed at proving that Egyptologists were right. It was nowhere near as ambitious as the Japanese project. This time a team of experts tried set about the task of quarrying a 35-ton obelisk -- rather small by Egyptian standards -- using dolorite hammers, then transporting it on wooden skids and lifting it into place via a dirt ramp.

The NOVA team gave up rather quickly so slow was the quarrying process. They soon realized that the ancient method of transport was also hopeless and they called in a bulldozer to quarry the stone and a truck to carry it to the site. The first difficult steps having been performed with the aid of modern machinery they tried to lift the obelisk into place using their primitive scheme. That also failed.

Now consider that the blocks of granite forming the ceiling of the King's Chamber weigh 50-tons and they had to be lifted to that height and precisely manoeuvred into a difficult position. Furthermore, the largest obelisk in Egypt weighs ten times as much as the one the NOVA team struggled with unsuccessfully. We have to keep in mind that the only tools and sources of power that Egyptologists are willing to allow were primitive. They had no steel hammers or chisels, no pulleys and no horse drawn wheeled vehicles. The builders had to quarry the blocks with stone hammers and haul them using ropes, wooden sleds and manpower.

Many modern day engineers, physicists and other scientists have scratched their heads in wonder when they have come face-to-face with the problem. Some have been willing to publicly voice their doubts as to whether the ancients could have built the pyramid and raised the obelisks using primitive methods. Independent researchers have raised a number of serious questions and several have posed alternate theories.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Cancerwarrior

---

You're forgetting the pyramids that came before the Great Pyramid. It's not like they made that first shot out. There are plenty of examples of pyramids that are of the same or lower quality as those found in later kingdoms. You must also remember that the pyramids at Giza were built during the 4th dynasty which is pretty much Egypt's Golden Age. They were experiencing a time of peace and prosperity which gave them the time and resources to invest in greater monuments that the later dynasties did not have.

I never said the Giza complex came first, but it is certainly one of the oldest examples of Egyptian pyramid building correct? And what of the Giza Pyramids and the Mayan Pyramid of the sun halfway across the world in the Yucatan having used the same methods of construction and almost exactly the same dimensions? Is that a coincidence as well?

reply to post by Cancerwarrior

---

In fact, several well-documented attempts over the past 30 years have actually failed to replicate what the builders achieved. In the 1970s a Japanese team funded by Nissan tried to build a one-third, scale model of the Great Pyramid using the methods Egyptologists claim the ancient engineers employed. They could not duplicate a single step of the process.

They were probably suffering from retardation or the "team" consisted of too few people. You realize at quarter scale you still get 2.5 years, 3,600-10,000 men and 1,250 lbs blocks right? That is the same as saying there is no way 2,000 men could not find a way to lift a car.

Then in the 1990s NOVA filmed another effort aimed at proving that Egyptologists were right. It was nowhere near as ambitious as the Japanese project. This time a team of experts tried set about the task of quarrying a 35-ton obelisk -- rather small by Egyptian standards -- using dolorite hammers, then transporting it on wooden skids and lifting it into place via a dirt ramp.

The NOVA team gave up rather quickly so slow was the quarrying process. They soon realized that the ancient method of transport was also hopeless and they called in a bulldozer to quarry the stone and a truck to carry it to the site. The first difficult steps having been performed with the aid of modern machinery they tried to lift the obelisk into place using their primitive scheme. That also failed.

Again, you just do not see the numbers. The NOVA project DID build a pyramid.
www.pbs.org...
And the NOVA team did succesfully errect an obelisk after failing a few times. But even the Egyptians with all of their "advanced" technology still managed to screw up
www.tripadvisor.com...
www.pbs.org...
The use of modern machinery does not disprove anything as it does not change the basic mechanics of how something works, the team did not have the thousands of people to do the experiment, they had 130.

Now consider that the blocks of granite forming the ceiling of the King's Chamber weigh 50-tons and they had to be lifted to that height and precisely manoeuvred into a difficult position.

Now consider you have thousands and thousands of men to move the stones. They would not have to be "lifted" they would just have to be pushed up a ramp and into place.

Furthermore, the largest obelisk in Egypt weighs ten times as much as the one the NOVA team struggled with unsuccessfully. We have to keep in mind that the only tools and sources of power that Egyptologists are willing to allow were primitive. They had no steel hammers or chisels, no pulleys and no horse drawn wheeled vehicles. The builders had to quarry the blocks with stone hammers and haul them using ropes, wooden sleds and manpower.

Exactly they had a massive ammounts of manpower. And they had those wooden sleds but you left out their copper tools.

Many modern day engineers, physicists and other scientists have scratched their heads in wonder when they have come face-to-face with the problem.

Ones that actually read up on Egyptology don't see the problem.

Most of your arguments so far have been jumping around from subject to subject based on your ignorance of the things you speak of. There are pictures inside the pyramids that show men pulling large objects using ropes and wooden sleds.

But we have no pictures of the aliens moving blocks for them

en.wikipedia.org...

Look!! Modern Technology could not screw up as perfectly as they did!

reply to post by JoshF

---

There no need for me too obviously. There is thread upon thread here about man's true origins that have good info to sites other than wikipedia. Just search and you will find thread upon thread on these subjects here. And you have succeeded in debunking nothing. I have provided evidence by people who actually study this field that things aren't right. Only for you to just say nah....."Wiki says"... Or "nah, 1,000s of guys can move these massive stones perfectly into place 2 a minute for 20 years." or just nah...they were probably retarded.....lol. Theres evidence everywhere all over the planet for humans having "help" in places. And you've offered nothing except what the mainstream says, which is impossible for me to believe. Nothing to think about here people.....chimps had us as babies, and primitive, simple people can build structures with stone tools so sophisticated that they cannot be duplicated today, even though we are the most advanced people ever to walk the earth.......riiiiight.

How Are Plants Aware of the World Around Them?
  Posted 4 days ago with 5 member flags

The Genesis Code
  Posted 11 days ago with 4 member flags

Explain Diversity Reloaded
  Posted 11 days ago with 3 member flags

Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge
  Posted 6 days ago with 3 member flags

The carrot (chicken or egg , vegetable version)
  Posted 5 days ago with 3 member flags

A theory of proof of a God
  Posted 12 days ago with 2 member flags

Eden: The Double Sided Coin
  Posted 6 days ago with 2 member flags

We are all connected with nature and The Universe IMO
  Posted 5 days ago with 2 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: