Are you an atheist? (1 Viewer)

[Libre]

Even if there are examples where science got it completely wrong then science has corrected those errors.

Very different from saying it's never happened.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I think it funny how science knows more about what's going to happen then what's already happened. Just a couple examples, Puma Punku and machu picchu. Science seems to know more about the moon or mars then what's happened in their backyard a few thousand years ago.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Archaeology is a discipline where it's FAR harder to figure out what's happening, because it's much, much more difficult to test hypotheses. Additionally, unlike physics, archaeology is subject to data being destroyed (by both human and natural causes), distorted, and just lost to time.

We can send equipment to Mars and the moon to take and test samples and run experiments. With archaeology, you can't just go look up a convenient ruin and dig up 'why this or that was done'.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Archaeology is a discipline where it's FAR harder to figure out what's happening, because it's much, much more difficult to test hypotheses. Additionally, unlike physics, archaeology is subject to data being destroyed (by both human and natural causes), distorted, and just lost to time.

We can send equipment to Mars and the moon to take and test samples and run experiments. With archaeology, you can't just go look up a convenient ruin and dig up 'why this or that was done'.

While I agree with everything you mentioned above, it took a great knowledge of of physics to pull off what you see in the above examples. Second these examples are well preserved, so testing is not an issue.

How is it we devolved? Where is the science? Will we grow fins and crawl back into the oceans?

 

[Rabbie]

Very different from saying it's never happened.

Congratulations on your grasp of the English language I have not expressed an opinion on whether there have been any errors. I was trying to reinforce the point that Science when not constrained by religious dogmas does correct its mistakes. But scientific advances must go hand in hand with technological ones.

 

[Frothingslosh]

How is it we devolved? Where is the science? Will we grow fins and crawl back into the oceans?

Okay, you lost me on this one.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Okay, you lost me on this one.

LOL, lost it myself. If we can't explain this type of ancient architecture, with modern science. Have we really evolved. We can split the atom, but nobody has a clue how ancient peoples placed 100 ton boulders. It seems like a paradox.

 

[Libre]

Congratulations on your grasp of the English language I have not expressed an opinion on whether there have been any errors. I was trying to reinforce the point that Science when not constrained by religious dogmas does correct its mistakes. But scientific advances must go hand in hand with technological ones.

Edit
Sorry - my mistake. Thought you were taking Galaxiom's position - or that you somehow thought you were. What you wrote was quite clear but I still misconstrued.

 

[Libre]

LOL, lost it myself. If we can't explain this type of ancient architecture, with modern science. Have we really evolved. We can split the atom, but nobody has a clue how ancient peoples placed 100 ton boulders. It seems like a paradox.

Like Frothy said, reconstructing human events from the past is a very different matter from understanding the forces in the universe.
I took some anthro courses in college and they do have a clue how they placed the boulders, by the way. With ramps. But science is not going to fully explain ancient human activity, any more than a detective can totally reconstruct a crime scene. Past events are not observable or testable.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I agree, although the method they used does not have endless possibility's. The laws of physics were used. They were under the same restraints we are. So that narrows the options considerably. Ancient man must have been smarter.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Like Frothy said, reconstructing human events from the past is a very different matter from understanding the forces in the universe.

When we look at the universe are we not reconstructing the past?

 

[Frothingslosh]

I agree, although the method they used does not have endless possibility's. The laws of physics were used. They were under the same restraints we are. So that narrows the options considerably. Ancient man must have been smarter.

Or ancient man didn't worry about working slaves to death.

It is quite possible to move several-ton rocks long distances. It's just a LOT of work. Also, people today tend to underestimate what can be done without high tech.

 

[Libre]

When we look at the universe are we not reconstructing the past?

If we're trying to reconstruct the past we're guessing and estimating.
They can narrow things down to 500,000 years +/- or even a billion years is a rough estimate on the scale of the BIG BANG. Ancient human history can maybe be estimated to within 500-1000 years depending on what evidence they have.
But you can observe and measure an event in a laboratory to the picosecond.
The laws of physics were the same in ancient times, but what does that tell us? We know what they could NOT have done. They couldn't have just beamed boulders from one place to another with teleportation. But exactly HOW they DID move them is another matter.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Or ancient man didn't worry about working slaves to death.

It is quite possible to move several-ton rocks long distances. It's just a LOT of work. Also, people today tend to underestimate what can be done without high tech.

I suppose that theory would work with the large stones but, how do we explain this. Could you beat slaves to produce thousands of exact duplicates?

 

[Frothingslosh]

Short answer: Yes.

Do you realize you're posting something from Ancient Aliens?

Primitive, non-technological people did quite a number of amazing things. The Easter Islanders made and buried gigantic statues. All sorts of cultures all over the world built structures that allowed them to predict solstices and equinoxes perfectly. The greeks developed a liquid sticky fire that we STILL can't reproduce, the chinese managed to create this weird mixture of sulfur, charcoal, and bat crap that explodes when you expose it to fire, and the vikings may well have been able to navigate using a sundial.

And those lines WERE created, and by civilizations that were known to be in the bronze age at BEST. It's not hard to create straight lines with a work crew, and we already know the people living then were capable of building. People have done crazier things for, say, religion, than creating the Nazca lines.

Or do you think stonecutters were unable to cut straight lines without modern technology?

 

[speakers_86]

What is your point Access Blaster? Because we can't explain it the bible is right? I'm content not knowing everything, but I will strive for it anyway.

 

[AccessBlaster]

What is your point Access Blaster? Because we can't explain it the bible is right? I'm content not knowing everything, but I will strive for it anyway.

No religious link, sorry to disappoint. Just curious about skills and techniques once known now lost forever.

 

[Libre]

Ancient and prehistoric people were just as smart as we are. We may have more facts at our disposal but other than that, a person living 75,000 years ago would be as smart as anyone today - minus the formal education. The tendency to think of early homo sapiens as knuckle draggers is a result of stereotyping - cartoons, movies, TV commercials. Doesn't seem as harmful as racial stereotyping - and cavemen aren't really complaining about it (except for the Geico caveman, that is).
The iconic "caveman" is the BC comic strip guy - loin cloth, club in hand, dragging cave woman by hair, whatever. We need a placeholder in our minds for every abstract concept (PREHISTORIC MAN) in our consciousness. That's so when somebody says PREHISTORIC MAN I get this image and know what the speaker is referring to, and the conversation moves on.
But this image we get - and not only for cavemen but for EVERYTHING - they are just tiny icons. They're like Monopoly tokens to move around the board. Placeholders. This is where stereotyping comes in. We forget the Monopoly pieces aren't really spinning wheels, sports cars and thimbles. We forget they're just icons that represent something much larger because it takes effort and because we have a thousand other things on our minds and we need these icons to keep things organized in our minds or we'd go crazy - which we do anyway.

So after all that - yes, ancient people could certainly have devised ways of carving stone and moving boulders. For carving the stone, a template or a stencil would work nicely. Not really all that intricate a design.

Don't underestimate our ancestors. If they weren't damned smart we wouldn't be here.

 

[Galaxiom]

Could you beat slaves to produce thousands of exact duplicates?

Because it is clearly arduous labour, it had often been assumed that slaves were used to create ancient megastructures. However recent research shows that to be unlikely in the case of Egypt's Pyramids.

Most ancient structures were monuments to religion in one way or another and religion is a powerful motivator.

Moreover they had no television to keep them entertained.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I agree, I believe it was a privileges or honor to work on such structures. I think these artisans were well taken care of. Just my opinion.