Crystal skull impossible to duplicate in the here and now. Why?

[Bombila]

Speaking of missing the point, how about the way they are carved? Against the grain, or with it??

Dad. Go back and read my post, the part where it says:

"Yes, parts of these objects are carved 'against the grain'. It is more difficult to do this because you run the risk of the stone shearing, but it can be and was done by thousands of artisans in the past, and it can also be achieved without electric tools today."

 

[agentorange20]

Who cares what you think would follow? The fact is we don't know. Deal with it.

Well, if we don't know, then...well, we don't know. 'Not knowing' doesn't' equate to making round about assumptions like yours about some 'split' though.

Now, if you can make these things without shattering them, against the grain, maybe we could look at what you have to say.

Why do I have to be the one making them? We have evidence of plenty of these skulls being made in the present, something you scoffed at and dismissed.

IF you also establish that they never had the things in the Mayan or ancient times as well!

This is moot as per the whole 'fraud' thing.

Because they are not aware that a greater change on earth and in the universe happened after the flood.

Evidence for any of this?

Easy, because your dates are wrong! Look at the basis for them, and you will see same state past dating methods.

Evidence the dates are wrong please. The dates are equated using many techniques, one of which being writing styles and given records of major events. I think it's fair that the records of the worlds archeologists agree on the dates. if you propose the pyramids were built pre flood, by your advanced population of superior people with negative gravity and other nonsense, then why oh why weren't all the pyramids wiped out in the great flood?

Theeey are what they are, yes. But what was what it was and will be what it willl be?

If you have evidence physics in the past didn't behave as it does now, by all means state your case.

Precisely!!!!!! Evidence that gravity, and laws of the universe as we know them existed??? = zero.

But you're stating a negative claim, this is a logical fallacy. We have absolutely no evidence in the here and now and from anything we've been able to ever test to suggest that physics didn't operate as it does now. You're offering a negative and entirely unsupported claim based on vacuous evidence, all you have is a hunch, an assumption.

Without a force in place to govern the universe, whatever state it is, you would have a probllem. Relax, God always has rules in place for whatever state universe exists.

Ok, so did gravity exist, or didn't it? You said IF it was less strong or didn't exsit, evidence for any of this?

What sort of tools would be needed in heaven?

No, we're talking about man made tools which helped to build the pyramids on Earth.

In any point on earth almost, we can see phases of the mooon.

At any rate, the the phases of the moon have no impact on the effect of gravity, thus negating your earlier other IF presumption that the moon's phases would/could affect it. Pfffffffffffffftttttttttt. You hear that? That's your argument deflating.

In Egypt, is there some reason you have that they woulld not see moon cycles??? What, it was hovering?

Uhhh, no. Don't try to save yourself, you're just making yourself look worse. I never said anything about Egyptians not being able to witness anything. My statment was on how the phases of the moon have no effect on the gravity felt on earth, what part of that can't you comprehend?

We need no evidence foor how a different state works,

Well, I think we're done here. No evidence, then nothing can be concluded, welcome to logic 101.

nor can we have any in the here and now, at least direct evidence.

Nor indirect apparently.

We are limited to the laws and state of our present universe.

Well no duh, no one was saying we weren't. You on the otherhand were claiming that in the past some undescribed feature changed how gravity worked. You can't explain the feature, nor can you explain how it directly effected gravity and why it changed back as you have no evidence in the first place.

There is evidence in history that men belived spirits were right here among us. Also other differences that are imppossible in a present state. Yes.

So? There are 1000's of mythical gods and there stories and no one adheres to them simply for they don't follow them in particular anymore. Todays religion is tommorows mythology. These stories don't substantiate how Jupiter was born for instance, it's called mythology for a reason.

Why would grandious tools be needed there?

They made a carved skull crystal, you don't honestly think they formed it by kicking it around? I am not saying grandious, but they required some advanced tools. Such precise and carefully use require tools, and unfortunately for you we find no such advanced tools anywhere in archological records suffuicent to create such things.

False. No one tells us to look for squat.

True. It's in your book and it tells you guys exactly where to look for both the Ark and the Tower of Babal., so you have no exucses there. So far, nothing, nada, zip.

The evidence of different tongues seem to be here.

?? No, the ancient chinese empire existed many 1000's of years ago, as did others and this in no way is consistant as there wasn't enough time for new languages to form in such a short time. Lanuages evolve over time, go review the KJV bible and its 16th century English and its obvious.

 

[agentorange20]

How would you know that the spirits they spoke of, or other things were not real??

And HOW do you know they WERE? Absence of evidence isn't evidence for much. How do you know with no evidence for Santa Clause he's not real!? See the problem there? It requires supportive and consistent evidence, something neither Santa or the spirits have.

So you accept some boooks on spirits??? Or is this a silly self righteous tirade masking the fact you accept none at all!!???

None at all, I was making a point that in such times ignorant men wrote of all kinds of things in supernatural sense as they were far too brutish to understand anything. Them not knowing X = supernatural/magic as their explanation. Is it any wonder it took so long for humanity to stumble onto a process like science?

Speaking of testable, please test the same state past now for us!!! What's sa matter, lost your nerve???

We can test how gravity and other processes work by examining the evidence they left in the past, just coincidentally they are identical, suggesting nothing in terms of any physical laws or properties were different at any time, let alone in the recent past.

Spiritual things have tested well all through history.

Evidence for this?

Of course they never used your labs, and physical only limited tests.

Of course not, this is b/c when science attempts to study the supernatural every single time it comes back as unfalsifiable and it's utterly worthless as its untestable. Why you subject your thinking to magic and supernaturalism which can't be adequately tested and critiqued is beyond me, but by all means enjoy your dillusion.

The skull is a fraud because..... the Mayans didn't have the wherwithall to carve them.

Ah, but don't let that sort of logic be applied to your presumed 'pre-flood population' which you alledge created them.

The Mayans, if these were pre flood relics, found them. Not carved them. Get it??

Evidence for the non-mayans who made them then? We know with our current technology we can do it, but nothing suggests any previous culture (say nothing of the mayans or you presumed pre-flood folk) could have made such things. And if they did there should be other such evidence consistent with such works, perhaps their tools, records. So far, nothing, nada. Again, no evidence. You're presuming, and it's so apparent with all of your IF's, Maybe's and colorful talk.

Neither do you make it wrong.

I wasn't saying I in myself make it wrong, I am stating that you doing a SINGLE SAMPLE from one site is hardly credible, this is cherry picking. Especailly given how its not cited or sourced at all. Surely if you sampled enough articles you'd find those which don't support your presumption, but hey don't let that get in the way of your fantasy.

If you claim they are fakes, or modern now would be a good time to shoow your stuff. Otherwise we will have to resort to smelling your stuff.

Wiff this...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=9005853

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7414637.stm

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/080523_crystal.htm

How is God fallse unless you had some proof???

Quid pro quo, how is God real unless you had some proof?

You expect me to explain how God changed the created state to what we now have??? Ridiculous.

I don't really expect you to explain how, you and I know you can't as you have no evidence for it in the first place nor how if it all it occured. Since you're the one making the positive claim of X, the burden of proof is on our to provide supportive evidence for it. If you're going to claim a proposition you must support it with evidence, this is elementary logic son.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

But the bible happpens to have that strange 120 year dire warninng from God. I kid you not.

And the evidence for the flood in the here and now to support it? Oh yeah, zip!

There is a differnece between honest ignorance of how God did it, and the false claims of so called science, pretendingthey know.

No, you can't even support of explain via evidence or testing how god supposedly did it or anything in the first place, thus we have nothing to test or examine and so it's entierly useless as it can't be falsified and refuted. You invoking 'goddidit' is thus empty rhetoric, science on the other hand is usefull for it can make testable predictions which result in new knowledge which is applicable.

Magical pixies were not witnessed rising from the dead by many.

I guess not, though Pixies are supernatural right, so for all we know or don't know they are invisable. Yes, that is the sort of horrid logic you're using.

Matthew 27:52-54 is the only one making claims about the walking dead while none of the others nor any contemporary historians recorded such an event. Get a clue...

No. I mean that, after the different state universe, building even a small one took more labor, Get it???

You can't show it at any rate, what you're stating as fact and as presumed is hypothetical based around the nonsense of phases of the moon effecting gravity and such. Total rubbish.

Try to test that with physics. Or not.

What part of 'the supernatural cannot be directly tested by science' don't you understand?

The flood was more than a century before the split. Subduction and uplift were at work.

Evidence for the dates of the split prior to flood? Thought not.

quote=dad;49101350]You need to look at the particular painting, and area.

Which ones, there are many dozens of caves all with many dozens of paintings. Again they tend not to be consistent with your flood myth.

It 't hard to conceive that people ran to the nearest height, even, if, in the big picture of today, it is pretty low.

And only earlier you'd stated they ran up to caves up in the hills/mountains, get your talking point straight.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Dad. Go back and read my post, the part where it says:

"Yes, parts of these objects are carved 'against the grain'. It is more difficult to do this because you run the risk of the stone shearing, but it can be and was done by thousands of artisans in the past, and it can also be achieved without electric tools today."

I am interested in this because as far as i know quartz does not have a grain, that's why it fractures conchoidally.

That is quart has a very weak cleavage, which is what I would consider the grain.

Transparent "rock crystal" quartz. This specimen shows the conchoidal fracture (fracture that produces curved surfaces) that is characteristic of the mineral. Specimen is about four inches (ten centimeters) across and is from Minas Gerais, Brazil.


Just like common glass, which also has no grain.

Conchoidal fractures in man made glass, which has no grain.

 

[Bombila]

I am interested in this because as far as i know quartz does not have a grain, that's why it fractures conchoidally.

That is quart has a very weak cleavage, which is what I would consider the grain.

Transparent "rock crystal" quartz. This specimen shows the conchoidal fracture (fracture that produces curved surfaces) that is characteristic of the mineral. Specimen is about four inches (ten centimeters) across and is from Minas Gerais, Brazil.


Just like common glass, which also has no grain.

Conchoidal fractures in man made glass, which has no grain.

I'm tending to speak for artisans/artists/carvers who make these things. In most cases, for large objects like vases and carved lion dogs and such, it would be difficult to find a perfect rock of the size needed that would not include features/flaws/inclusions that might cleave off.

Also, I am a glass artist. Conchoidal fractures are the most common 'edge' accident in hand-cutting glass along a line (straight or curved), but there are other qualities in art glass which cause the glass to be easier to cut without accident in one direction or shape than another.

Most of the glass I work with is hand-made, either drawn, blown or poured.

Blown glass includes directionally aligned bubbles which are more prominent on one side of the glass. Cutting in alignment with these bubbles is less likely to result in a mis-cut than cutting across or at angles across the bubbles. A good cutter will be able to do this, but it is still more risky.

Drawn glass also has directionally aligned bubbles, but usually much fewer. Care must still be taken to note the directionality.

Poured glass comes in a variety of types, some easier and some more difficult for the cutter. The easier kind is uniform in thickness, has few bubbles, but one side (which would be the side in contact with the pour bed material) will be smoother. Thicker art glass of this type often includes two or more colours; the colours are made by mineral additions to the glass, and these change the nature of the glass in terms of cutting ease, so that sometimes the glass will break at the edge of a colour area. The standard approach to cutting this glass is to do it from the rough side: less breakage.

Glass can be very peculiar material to work with. The standard explanation for why one can cut glass by running a tiny hard-edged wheel over the surface, barely scoring a line, then cleanly breaking the piece out, is that the molecules under the score briefly align. The longer you leave a score line without breaking the piece out, the less likely you will get a clean break (this definitely happens).

I could go on about working with glass, but I was just making the point that there are often features of materials not particularly pertinent except to the artisan working with it. Quartz will appear to have a 'grain' due to inclusions, flaws, and other features. Also, once you start carving quartz, any conchoidal fractures that occur become a 'grain' feature, in that care has to be taken not to introduce more fractures lifting/shearing off the initial ones.

What Dad or his source thinks is 'grain' is another thing entirely.

 

[dad]

Dad. Go back and read my post, the part where it says:

"Yes, parts of these objects are carved 'against the grain'. It is more difficult to do this because you run the risk of the stone shearing, but it can be and was done by thousands of artisans in the past, and it can also be achieved without electric tools today."

So, what parts, and how many? Sounds like the old ones are done that way from the article, not just some edge somewhere. Moot.

On a side note, there is a skull in the legend of believers that might have started the trend! Some say that the skull of Adam was taken on the ark, and later put in the hill called Golgotha!! (Where Jesus was crucified, 'place of the skull?!)

We seem to be the source and trendsetters. If that was true, the crystal skulls may be post floood, but still in the different state?

 

[dad]

Well, if we don't know, then...well, we don't know. 'Not knowing' doesn't' equate to making round about assumptions like yours about some 'split' though.

Science, poor cousin that it is, cannot know some things. It is not making stuff up if we use God's words to man to fill in the void, the turkeys left.


[quoote]
Why do I have to be the one making them? We have evidence of plenty of these skulls being made in the present, something you scoffed at and dismissed.[/quote] The grain, man, the grain, don't go agin it.

Evidence the dates are wrong please. The dates are equated using many techniques, one of which being writing styles and given records of major events. I think it's fair that the records of the worlds archeologists agree on the dates. if you propose the pyramids were built pre flood, by your advanced population of superior people with negative gravity and other nonsense, then why oh why weren't all the pyramids wiped out in the great flood?

Post flood. The split went over a century post flood! So the early pyramid may be post flood. After the death age descended, they got smaller, and built a lot of tombs. The radioactive decay only came to exist with the present state! Thereefore your dates are religion only, nothing to do with real time!

If you have evidence physics in the past didn't behave as it does now, by all means state your case.

Google 'lovecreates split merge'


History is evidence as is the bible record.

But you're stating a negative claim, this is a logical fallacy. We have absolutely no evidence in the here and now and from anything we've been able to ever test to suggest that physics didn't operate as it does now. You're offering a negative and entirely unsupported claim based on vacuous evidence, all you have is a hunch, an assumption.

How could you if science came to exist in this state?

Ok, so did gravity exist, or didn't it? You said IF it was less strong or didn't exsit, evidence for any of this?

How would I know??? It likely did not exixt as it now is, I can say that much.

No, we're talking about man made tools which helped to build the pyramids on Earth.

That depends om which ones you mean. The later ones took a lot of tools, and men! The great pyramid, and possibly the sphinx(?) may be pre split.


At any rate, the the phases of the moon have no impact on the effect of gravity, thus negating your earlier other IF presumption that the moon's phases would/could affect it. Pfffffffffffffftttttttttt. You hear that? That's your argument deflating.

Uhhh, no. Don't try to save yourself, you're just making yourself look worse. I never said anything about Egyptians not being able to witness anything. My statment was on how the phases of the moon have no effect on the gravity felt on earth, what part of that can't you comprehend?

That depends, what part of it deals only in this present state universe""

Well, I think we're done here. No evidence, then nothing can be concluded, welcome to logic 101.

Excellent! Then no evidence exists for a same state past, so we are done here. Don't assume one, or claim one, or believe there was one, and expect to be treated as more than a myth. A fourth rate myth, by the way.

Well no duh, no one was saying we weren't. You on the otherhand were claiming that in the past some undescribed feature changed how gravity worked. You can't explain the feature, nor can you explain how it directly effected gravity and why it changed back as you have no evidence in the first place.

Changed back???? You lost me there. Are you claiming the universe changed states since the split now???

They made a carved skull crystal, you don't honestly think they formed it by kicking it around? I am not saying grandious, but they required some advanced tools. Such precise and carefully use require tools, and unfortunately for you we find no such advanced tools anywhere in archological records suffuicent to create such things.

Advanced in a different state is not the same as advanced in this state.

If some things were child's play tio do, they would not need advanced gadgets of the here and physical only now!

True. It's in your book and it tells you guys exactly where to look for both the Ark and the Tower of Babal., so you have no exucses there. So far, nothing, nada, zip.

Say what???? Where Exactly is the ark??? Or the tower??

?? No, the ancient chinese empire existed many 1000's of years ago, as did others and this in no way is consistant as there wasn't enough time for new languages to form in such a short time. Lanuages evolve over time, go review the KJV bible and its 16th century English and its obvious.

Languages never even STARTED to evolve till Babel!! That leaves PLENTY of time. Get a grip.

 

[Bombila]

So, what parts, and how many? Sounds like the old ones are done that way from the article, not just some edge somewhere. Moot.

On a side note, there is a skull in the legend of believers that might have started the trend! Some say that the skull of Adam was taken on the ark, and later put in the hill called Golgotha!! (Where Jesus was crucified, 'place of the skull?!)

We seem to be the source and trendsetters. If that was true, the crystal skulls may be post floood, but still in the different state?

Dad, you are failing to understand that there is nothing special in the carving of crystal skulls, now or three thousand years ago. The article you referenced was written by someone with no knowledge of the history of stone carving.

Who says that stuff about the 'skull of Adam'? This is one of the reasons it is hard to take you seriously; you mix scripture up with largely unreferenced mythology, fables, fictional writings, folklore, and then mix in your unevidenced 'split' idea.

 

[dad]

How would you know that the spirits they spoke of, or other things were not real??

Apparently they are still alive, though not living here, ask the majority of mankind!

And HOW do you know they WERE? Absence of evidence isn't evidence for much. How do you know with no evidence for Santa Clause he's not real!? See the problem there? It requires supportive and consistent evidence, something neither Santa or the spirits have.

Science evidence we can't have, no, not for a same state past, or spirits. There are other evidences like records of real people.

So you accept some boooks on spirits??? Or is this a silly self righteous tirade masking the fact you accept none at all!!???

I believe in spirits, good and bad. So??

None at all, I was making a point that in such times ignorant men wrote of all kinds of things in supernatural sense as they were far too brutish to understand anything. Them not knowing X = supernatural/magic as their explanation. Is it any wonder it took so long for humanity to stumble onto a process like science?

Don't flatter yourself, they would think you are brutish. I recognize devolution, as well as evolution!!!

We can test how gravity and other processes work by examining the evidence they left in the past, just coincidentally they are identical, suggesting nothing in terms of any physical laws or properties were different at any time, let alone in the recent past.

EXCELLENT!!! Now share this evidence with us, and you win! Gotcha.

Evidence for this?

The record of man, and his encounters, and history. Spirits are a big part. I don't make thii stuff up.

Of course not, this is b/c when science attempts to study the supernatural every single time it comes back as unfalsifiable and it's utterly worthless as its untestable. Why you subject your thinking to magic and supernaturalism which can't be adequately tested and critiqued is beyond me, but by all means enjoy your dillusion.

Since it is a physical only discipline by nature, it deals only with


the physical. It's foolish tools cannot detect spirits. This is news?

Ah, but don't let that sort of logic be applied to your presumed 'pre-flood population' which you alledge created them.

I simply raise the possibility that the different past could solve the mystery. Have you evidence they were carved present state???

Evidence for the non-mayans who made them then? We know with our current technology we can do it, but nothing suggests any previous culture (say nothing of the mayans or you presumed pre-flood folk) could have made such things. And if they did there should be other such evidence consistent with such works, perhaps their tools, records. So far, nothing, nada. Again, no evidence. You're presuming, and it's so apparent with all of your IF's, Maybe's and colorful talk.

The proof is in the pudding. If you can't carve crystal againt the grain, someone had to be able to do so. Since there was universal change, and a flood, continental separation, etc, I don't expect much trace would be left of them. At least not where we think there ought to be.

I wasn't saying I in myself make it wrong, I am stating that you doing a SINGLE SAMPLE from one site is hardly credible, this is cherry picking. Especailly given how its not cited or sourced at all. Surely if you sampled enough articles you'd find those which don't support your presumption, but hey don't let that get in the way of your fantasy.

Well, if the popular mystery site was such a loose with the facts site as you suggest, I woulld imagine it should be easy to shed the truth and proper knowlege on ant error?? Or do you just like to talk??

Wiff this...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=9005853

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7414637.stm

http://www.world-science.net/othernews/080523_crystal.htm


From your link

"A detailed analysis of the crystal skull's surface has revealed that it was cut and polished with the sort of rotating wheel common in the jewellery houses of 19th Century Europe but absent in pre-Columbian America."

Whoopee do! Maybe the pre split folks had wheels. Simpple. Your conjecture, and common misconceptions need to have evidence, or they are dismissed out of hand. Get that through your skull.

Quid pro quo, how is God real unless you had some proof?

[/quote[ Or not, unless you do?? The billions of people that have claimed He has permeated their beings, and affected their lives counnts as something. You got nothin. Work on that. A lot.

I don't really expect you to explain how, you and I know you can't as you have no evidence for it in the first place nor how if it all it occured. Since you're the one making the positive claim of X, the burden of proof is on our to provide supportive evidence for it. If you're going to claim a proposition you must support it with evidence, this is elementary logic son.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

So if you claim a same state, that applies to you. OK.

And the evidence for the flood in the here and now to support it? Oh yeah, zip!

Flood stories worldwide. the recoorrd of the bible, and the population of earth, and the different languages, and the known spiritual factor.

No, you can't even support of explain via evidence or testing how god supposedly did it or anything in the first place, thus we have nothing to test or examine and so it's entierly useless as it can't be falsified and refuted. You invoking 'goddidit' is thus empty rhetoric, science on the other hand is usefull for it can make testable predictions which result in new knowledge which is applicable.

How He created is not science of the present! Don't blame God, science is too limited to have a clue! Your same state past is empty rhetoric, and bad religion.

Magical pixies were not witnessed rising from the dead by many.

True. Jesus was. So??

I guess not, though Pixies are supernatural right, so for all we know or don't know they are invisable. Yes, that is the sort of horrid logic you're using.

I don't know. What, you'd feel better if I pretended I did, and made a false science claim on pixies?? If science knew squat about the creation state, or spiritual, they would have a voice in the debate.

Matthew 27:52-54 is the only one making claims about the walking dead while none of the others nor any contemporary historians recorded such an event. Get a clue...

jesus was seen by us believers, many of us. We touched Him, ate aith Him drank with Him, talked with Him, etc. The four gospels and New Testament record this. Pagan records can no more be expected to be in the loop of knowledge tan present science, so called, could!

You can't show it at any rate, what you're stating as fact and as presumed is hypothetical based around the nonsense of phases of the moon effecting gravity and such. Total rubbish.

You are guessing. The logical pattern for a changed state universe and laws is a greater effort needed, and smalller pyramids being built. This is what we see. Don't blame me.

What part of 'the supernatural cannot be directly tested by science' don't you understand?

No part. I agree. So it is not a player in the creation debate, or able to even comment intelligently on any state of the past unniiverse!!!!

Evidence for the dates of the split prior to flood? Thought not.

Noone. The split was after the flood. Focus.

Which ones, there are many dozens of caves all with many dozens of paintings. Again they tend not to be consistent with your flood myth.

Show us an example??

And only earlier you'd stated they ran up to caves up in the hills/mountains, get your talking point straight.

Must be a typo. In other words, if all there was was a little hill in the area, they would run to it. Get it??

 

[pgp_protector]

...snip...
The split was after the flood. Focus
....snip....

Date ?

 

[dad]

I am interested in this because as far as i know quartz does not have a grain, that's why it fractures conchoidally.

That is quart has a very weak cleavage, which is what I would consider the grain.

Transparent "rock crystal" quartz. This specimen shows the conchoidal fracture (fracture that produces curved surfaces) that is characteristic of the mineral. Specimen is about four inches (ten centimeters) across and is from Minas Gerais, Brazil.


Just like common glass, which also has no grain.

Conchoidal fractures in man made glass, which has no grain.

No carbon dating can be done on quartz. How can we know when it was carved??

 

[dad]

I'm tending to speak for artisans/artists/carvers who make these things. In most cases, for large objects like vases and carved lion dogs and such, it would be difficult to find a perfect rock of the size needed that would not include features/flaws/inclusions that might cleave off.

Also, I am a glass artist. Conchoidal fractures are the most common 'edge' accident in hand-cutting glass along a line (straight or curved), but there are other qualities in art glass which cause the glass to be easier to cut without accident in one direction or shape than another.

Most of the glass I work with is hand-made, either drawn, blown or poured.

Blown glass includes directionally aligned bubbles which are more prominent on one side of the glass. Cutting in alignment with these bubbles is less likely to result in a mis-cut than cutting across or at angles across the bubbles. A good cutter will be able to do this, but it is still more risky.

So maybe the skulls were pre split.

Drawn glass also has directionally aligned bubbles, but usually much fewer. Care must still be taken to note the directionality.

And quartz is harder than glass, no??

" Because of some of the properties of quartz it is used for many things. One of those proerties is that quartz is a very hard substance - harder than a steel file. Also most quartz dosent split eaisily. Glass can't transmit ultraviolet light, but quartz can. "
http://www.geocities.com/quartz_project/uses.html

What Dad or his source thinks is 'grain' is another thing entirely.

[/quote]

Dad doesn't know. The many googled sites seem to indicate that quartz requires some care in the carving.

 

[dad]

Dad, you are failing to understand that there is nothing special in the carving of crystal skulls, now or three thousand years ago. The article you referenced was written by someone with no knowledge of the history of stone carving.

Then why do they claim the Mayans could not have done it??

Who says that stuff about the 'skull of Adam'? This is one of the reasons it is hard to take you seriously; you mix scripture up with largely unreferenced mythology, fables, fictional writings, folklore, and then mix in your unevidenced 'split' idea.

"
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

TThe name "Golgotha" is derived from the Aramaic word gulgulta. Matthew 27:33, Mark 15:22, and John 19:17 give its meaning as "place of the skull." When Saint Jerome translated these verses into Latin, he used the Latin word for skull, calvaria, which was later converted into the English word Calvary.

The gospels don't say why Golgotha was called the "place of the skull". One common suggestion is that the site was on a hill or near a rock that had the shape of a skull. Another suggestion, first made by the third-century scholar Origen, is that the name referred to the burial place of Adam's skull, traditionally believed to have been interred at Jerusalem. An association with burials does seem likely, because John 19:41-42 indicates that Jesus' body was carried only a short distance before it was placed in the tomb."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080605143332AAgoxOx


Thought I was making this stuff up??

 

[Bombila]

Then why do they claim the Mayans could not have done it??


"
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

TThe name "Golgotha" is derived from the Aramaic word gulgulta. Matthew 27:33, Mark 15:22, and John 19:17 give its meaning as "place of the skull." When Saint Jerome translated these verses into Latin, he used the Latin word for skull, calvaria, which was later converted into the English word Calvary.

The gospels don't say why Golgotha was called the "place of the skull". One common suggestion is that the site was on a hill or near a rock that had the shape of a skull. Another suggestion, first made by the third-century scholar Origen, is that the name referred to the burial place of Adam's skull, traditionally believed to have been interred at Jerusalem. An association with burials does seem likely, because John 19:41-42 indicates that Jesus' body was carried only a short distance before it was placed in the tomb."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080605143332AAgoxOx


Thought I was making this stuff up??

They claim the Mayans couldn't have done it because they are referring to the skulls which have obvious signs of modern tools. Skulls which are older and could have been made by Mayans have obvious signs of simpler tools.

But most of the tested skulls are modern, thus have modern tool marks on them, visible under magnification. There is no good reason to think they are particularly old, just that they were/are popular objects among certain segments of society.

No, and it turns out it is just as I said. There is no good reason to think Golgotha contained Adam's skull other than Origen's speculations, and no evidence whatever of Noah keeping Adam's skull.

Skulls understandably played a part in the superstitions and beliefs of many cultures, containing as they do the senses and the mind of living people. But to my knowledge, skull worship has never been a feature of Christian theology, and that seems to be where you are headed.

 

[dad]

They claim the Mayans couldn't have done it because they are referring to the skulls which have obvious signs of modern tools. Skulls which are older and could have been made by Mayans have obvious signs of simpler tools.

Correction, rotary tools may also have been pre split!

But most of the tested skulls are modern, thus have modern tool marks on them, visible under magnification. There is no good reason to think they are particularly old, just that they were/are popular objects among certain segments of society.

What makes therm modern, is the question!?

No, and it turns out it is just as I said. There is no good reason to think Golgotha contained Adam's skull other than Origen's speculations, and no evidence whatever of Noah keeping Adam's skull.

Well, we don't really know, but that would explain what you can't explain, the origin of the fad!

Skulls understandably played a part in the superstitions and beliefs of many cultures, containing as they do the senses and the mind of living people. But to my knowledge, skull worship has never been a feature of Christian theology, and that seems to be where you are headed.

I have no use for death, or skulls. Thank you very much. But there is a legend that says that the first man's skull eneded up right at the central place in human history, Golgotha! Then, we have the little fad crystal skulls that may be pre split. If the ark did carry Adam's skull, it would place the scene of the crime right at the right time. Elementary.

 

[Bombila]

Correction, rotary tools may also have been pre split!
What makes therm modern, is the question!?
Well, we don't really know, but that would explain what you can't explain, the origin of the fad!
I have no use for death, or skulls. Thank you very much. But there is a legend that says that the first man's skull eneded up right at the central place in human history, Golgotha! Then, we have the little fad crystal skulls that may be pre split. If the ark did carry Adam's skull, it would place the scene of the crime right at the right time. Elementary.

What makes them modern is the use of modern tools to make them, dad. No split necessary, which means you can believe what you like, but the skulls will never prove your belief.

Not a legend, just a made from whole cloth musing of a third century scholar.

I already noted that interest in skulls/heads is widespread and is explained by the importance of heads on live people. The eyes, ears, noses, mouths are our major connection between brain/mind and world. It isn't hard to figure out why people have always thought skulls to be important without having to imagine some vanished myth about one skull from an Abrahamic religion being an influence.

The early Celts collected heads of their enemies, carried them around, built them into the doorframes and lintels of their houses. The Aztecs made pyramids of heads and skulls of sacrificed and battle-killed enemies. South Sea Islanders who were headhunters collected, processed and displayed the heads of their enemies. Skulls feature in eastern religions. All these people have in common the idea that heads/skulls contain the spirit or strength of the dead, and keeping your enemies' skull gives you some of his strength.

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

No carbon dating can be done on quartz. How can we know when it was carved??

Even if quartz could be isotopically dated, this would give the age since the quartz formed, not the time it was carved.

Quartz and other crystals can be dated by using inclusions trapped inside the crystal.

We now these crystal skulls are modern, because they were tooled with modern silicon carbide rotary tools.

 

[dad]

They claim the Mayans couldn't have done it because they are referring to the skulls which have obvious signs of modern tools. Skulls which are older and could have been made by Mayans have obvious signs of simpler tools.

You have no way of saying what is older!! That is your problem. Rotary action does not mean modern!!! Not unless you prove that pre flood, or pre split man had no spinning tools. Another question is how fast would they need to spin in a different state uniiverse to get the joob done!!?

But most of the tested skulls are modern, thus have modern tool marks on them, visible under magnification. There is no good reason to think they are particularly old, just that they were/are popular objects among certain segments of society.

You can't know that. Why pretend??

No, and it turns out it is just as I said. There is no good reason to think Golgotha contained Adam's skull other than Origen's speculations, and no evidence whatever of Noah keeping Adam's skull.

Or not. So why make like you know??? Have you any reason to doubt the origin of the name of Golgotha?

Skulls understandably played a part in the superstitions and beliefs of many cultures, containing as they do the senses and the mind of living people. But to my knowledge, skull worship has never been a feature of Christian theology, and that seems to be where you are headed.

Not at all. And we can be sure if Noah did drop a crystalized skull of Adam, or whatever on what is now called the place of the skull, he never worshipped it at all. Ridiculous.

 

[dad]

Even if quartz could be isotopically dated, this would give the age since the quartz formed, not the time it was carved.

Great, so you admit absolute and total ignorance of possible dates. OK.

Quartz and other crystals can be dated by using inclusions trapped inside the crystal.

No, actually, that is a misconception. All that is done is cook up a maybe date, based on what iffing the present state where we can't know it belonged.

We now these crystal skulls are modern, because they were tooled with modern silicon carbide rotary tools.

No, in no way is the remotely close to being loosely related to the shadow of a truth. They were made with somrthing that went round and round. Whoopee do!!!

 

[dad]

What makes them modern is the use of modern tools to make them, dad. No split necessary, which means you can believe what you like, but the skulls will never prove your belief.

I do not need proof, since you coulld never have any either for your lurid so called science claims! Your whole case has been exposed here as resting on the bellief that there was no pre split or flood peoples, and that they had no tools that coulld go round and round!!! Patently absurd, unfalsifiable, and godless wild claims. Thanks for that.

Not a legend, just a made from whole cloth musing of a third century scholar.

You lost me there. What, someone buffed a crystal with cloth?

I already noted that interest in skulls/heads is widespread and is explained by the importance of heads on live people.

Balderdash. That is a weak, and one sided take on the issue, and without merit, or substance.

The eyes, ears, noses, mouths are our major connection between brain/mind and world. It isn't hard to figure out why people have always thought skulls to be important without having to imagine some vanished myth about one skull from an Abrahamic religion being an influence.

Golgotha is not imagination, and the geneologies go to a guy named Adam. Since God breathed on him the spirit of life, and formed him from the earth, how would I know if it was possible his skull crystalized after death?? Since God chose that area for the sacrifice of Abraham, the place to put the ark of the covenant, and the place to build the temple, and the place the Lamb of God was to be sacrificed to save all mankind, and the future capitol of the world, why would I be surprised if Adam's crystal skull was put there also?? Who knows?

The early Celts collected heads of their enemies, carried them around, built them into the doorframes and lintels of their houses. The Aztecs made pyramids of heads and skulls of sacrificed and battle-killed enemies. South Sea Islanders who were headhunters collected, processed and displayed the heads of their enemies. Skulls feature in eastern religions. All these people have in common the idea that heads/skulls contain the spirit or strength of the dead, and keeping your enemies' skull gives you some of his strength.

Superstitious twottle doesn't not make a conclusive case, sorry.