Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But if we found something similar that we have not made then we don't need another example to say high tech and precision was involved. Like for example the so called UAF's described by military as tech beyond humans. We only have to see one to know it involves high tech.

Besides just because we know that the watch is high precision doesn't change the fact that the one watch we find is high precision. Having other examples, even 10 others just adds to the evidence for high precision. We have 1,000s of vases of high precision.

Ok going back to the watch. If we found that watch and only found basic tools with that culture we would say those tools were insufficent to make the watch. Same thing with the vases and megaliths. The tools don't fit the signatures in the works. Hense the speculation that something else must have been used or the tech was lost and a later culture inherited the works and not the tech.

Going back to the watch example. If we know the watch requaired advancerd tech but we only find simple tools we can still say the watch required advanced tech despite the absense of the mechanism.

The watch is meaningless in this conversation since we're not talking about a watch! Bringing up a watch, a device that was only made around the 1500s, just means that you don't know how to argue at all.

We're talking about ancient cultures supposedly having advanced technology which we have no evidence for, but we have tonnes of evidence, both contemporary and modern, of them using the technology we expect them to have, both in the tools themselves and the things they were used to create.

If you want to claim evidence of advanced technology, you need to ACTUALLY SHOW evidence of the technology existing. You are making an extraordinary claim, so you need to present extraordinary evidence. You claim that advanced technology was use, so show us the advanced technology. Not what you claim it was used to build, but the technology itself. Do that, then anyone will take you seriously.

 

[BCP1928]

Unguided as not having any fixed reference point to follow. Like a template. But this would be a 3D one. We use computers amd machines to produce that level of precision because humans can't. Well I am not going to say they can't but it goes against what we know so far. They say we only use 1/10 of our brain.

But wouldn't that still be advanced and amazing.

Yes that is a good idea. I think that is already being done. Like I said they have done mathmatical analysis and found all different ratios like the Sacred and Golden Ratio and Pi. Could be more so more work needs to be done. The handles are not centre and slightly forward but is a common design feature.

The numbers relate to nature I think as the Sacred and Golden ratios are found in structures of nature. Maybe they were more into nature back then. I know other cultures were into atrology. The pyramids are supposed to be aligned with Orion's belt I think.

What is your personal background and experience in using tools to make things?

 

[stevevw]

But how did they do it? You could make one of those vases with hand tools but not without measuring tools. Even knowing geometry wouldn't help.

I don't know. I think the main problem is creating a 3D object that aligns with every reference point at the same time. If you get one part even a micro misalignment you throw the rest out. So as they are shaping the vase in one small section they have to keep checking all the reference points to see that it keeps within that all at the same time.

I mean stone masons and artist have guides such as certain shapes as used as the basisfor creating faces or vases but they are basic. We are talking about complex geometry and maths incorporated into the works.

 

[stevevw]

What is your personal background and experience in using tools to make things?

Lol why is that relevant. You ask a stone mason or whoever is the expert of that particular works. Ash a stone mason about some of those precision works and they just look in wonder at how they did it.

The videos I have linked from UnchartedX use an Egyptian stone mason of many years named Yousef Awyan.

 

[stevevw]

The watch is meaningless in this conversation since we're not talking about a watch! Bringing up a watch, a device that was only made around the 1500s, just means that you don't know how to argue at all.

Actually its good logic. A watch has a signature of precision and so do some of the Egyptian works. We can look at the signature and say they are high tech. Full stop without any further investigation because we know what the signature for precision and tech looks like from stuff we have made.

We're talking about ancient cultures supposedly having advanced technology which we have no evidence for, but we have tonnes of evidence, both contemporary and modern, of them using the technology we expect them to have, both in the tools themselves and the things they were used to create.

If you want to claim evidence of advanced technology, you need to ACTUALLY SHOW evidence of the technology existing. You are making an extraordinary claim, so you need to present extraordinary evidence. You claim that advanced technology was use, so show us the advanced technology. Not what you claim it was used to build, but the technology itself. Do that, then anyone will take you seriously.

If there is any faulty reasoning it is this. What you are more or less saying is that if we see a precision and high tech works but no evidence of how it was made its therefore not precision and high tech.

If we see a precision and high tech works and see tools that are known not to create such works then the tools must have created the works because thats all we have found. Its making massive assumptions and jumps to the conclusion because if the tools don't produce such results then its illogical to say they can produce results they can't.

You may as well say a rock and chisel was used to make a watch because its the same logic, A good example is the sleds found to move so called blocks looks like it can only withstand maybe 100 tons.

Yet we have 1,000 to 2,000 ton blocks being moved. But because only a small sled was found that must be the tool. and because we have not found anything else then that must be the tool even though its grossly inadequate.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Actually its good logic. A watch has a signature of precision and so do some of the Egyptian works. We can look at the signature and say they are high tech. Full stop without any further investigation because we know what the signature for precision and tech looks like from stuff we have made.

No, it's horrendous logic because we're not talking about something as advanced as a watch. We're talking about pieces of stone that can easily be shown to have been carved by hand and simple tools, but which you claim could not have been done, even though all of the evidence points away from what you say.
And unlike your claims, even if we indulge your fantasy with watches being analogous for ancient Egyptian stoneworks, we can present the tools needed for making watches, modern and historical. You can't do such a thing for your claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

If there is any faulty reasoning it is this. What you are more or less saying is that if we see a precision and high tech works but no evidence of how it was made its therefore not precision and high tech.

If we see a precision and high tech works and see tools that are known not to create such works then the tools must have created the works because thats all we have found. Its making massive assumptions and jumps to the conclusion because if the tools don't produce such results then its illogical to say they can produce results they can't.

You may as well say a rock and chisel was used to make a watch because its the same logic.

The labels of 'precious and high tech' are being applied post hoc to items that we clearly and explicitly know to have been carved by hand with simple tools. You're the one who's claiming advanced tools and tooling, so the onus is on you to present actual evidence of the tools themselves. @sjastro has already presented multiple lines of evidence of simple and historically accurate tools. You have presented squad. Again: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[BCP1928]

Lol why is that relevant. You ask a stone mason or whoever is the expert of that particular works. Ash a stone mason about some of those precision works and they just look in wonder at how they did it.

The videos I have linked from UnchartedX use an Egyptian stone mason of many years named Yousef Awyan.

I ask because it has to do with how well you understand the responses from those experts. You hsven't shown much personal knowledge or experience of making things with tools yourself, yet you flat out contradict people who have that personal experience, based on your understanding of "experts"--one the of the reasons we are annoyed with you.

 

[stevevw]

I will still respond to your posts where necessary.

If you stopped treating posters like garbage as you put it there would be no need for reciprocation.

Show me exactly where I said this. I have done no such thing.

You show total disrespect to posters by not having the courtesy of responding to what they are actually stating, instead you go off on lengthy personal diatribes which has very little relevance as exemplified in your posts.

I have responded to posters. I have responded to your posts. I made reasoned arguements why your assumptions and conclusions were not necessarily what you claimed. How is that disrespect. I have not personally derided anyone with such language as I must have comprehension problems or am ignorant, stupid, a spin doctor and engaging in fantasy.

Presenting the evidence and questioning the status quo is not being disrespectful. Its actually part of finding the facts and truth. I have had pushback just for simply suggesting such things. That to me suggests its more than just evidence but a personal thing because it should not upset people that much.

I honestly don't care either way what the end results show. But I am not going to pretend something is not there when it is and many people think the same. We have two sides with different beliefs about the evidence so we have to go through the evidence to work out who is right.

There is also the case of not understanding the comments being made which is why I have queried your comprehension skills, which can be addressed by learning some basic science and engineering like the role of statistics in evaluating data or the relationship between pitch and feed rate in a drilling tool.

OK such as what. Here is my situation. I can read and look at the evidence. So I have on one side experts saying the signatures in the rocks don't match the tools found. They have tests and analysis which question the method of tools found. I see with my own eyes that the tools don't match the end results and most people agree.

But on the other side people just go along. Oh that must be the way they did it because they are the tools we found. No questions ask and just assumptions. I look at their evidence and though some impressive they still don't account for the results. I have some people attacking me personally for mentioning this who claim I am all wrong and its fantasy.

So what am I to do. Pretend that the evidence is see before my eyes is wrong. See I agree expert opinion is important especially looking back at these ancient works. But everyone is a scientist in a way. We can observe things with our own eyes, touch them and measure them. I can see that the tools said to have made these works is inadequate. I don't need an expert to tell me that.

Instead you choose to remain in a state of wilful ignorance and are unable to understand the fundamentals flaws in the reasonings of Dunn and others.

What is the fatal flaw in their reasoning. Lets get down to it. Reasoning is good.

What you are basically doing is preaching, you are not interested in a discussion about the science but turning this into a conspiracy/pseudoscience thread.

No I have not preached but reason. Its just my reasoning has become greater to explain and overcome the many logical fallacies thrown my way. Someone said on this issue that sooner or later you begin to realise theres no arguing with skeptics. They have a set worldview that history must follow a certain narrative and won't be open.

As I mentioned I am open to all the evidence. You presented your modern works example and while impressive is not going to win me over and nor should it. I explained why it doesn't work. THis is all part of sorting the facts and truth. We may never find the truth satisfactory to either of us. BUt we have to go through the process and cannot just dismiss things and deny them.

 

[stevevw]

I ask because it has to do with how well you understand the responses from those experts. You hsven't shown much personal knowledge or experience of making things with tools yourself, yet you flat out contradict people who have that personal experience, based on your understanding of "experts"--one the of the reasons we are annoyed with you.

I think thats a misrepresentation. When you make your claims or objections I go and research. I check things. I don't just say it off the top of my head. I think its an appeal to authority to say that the only person who can comment is an expert on this thread. Otherwise we would have 2 people debating.

People have brains and eyes and they can research. They can get to know what a stone mason thinks. I put all that together and then reason out the arguement. Yes in some ways I learn as I go. But you can't use an appeal to authority to dismiss everything or because someone disagrees.

 

[stevevw]

No, it's horrendous logic because we're not talking about something as advanced as a watch. We're talking about pieces of stone that can easily be shown to have been carved by hand and simple tools, but which you claim could not have been done, even though all of the evidence points away from what you say.

But the point I am making is that we cannot show that its easy to do with those tools. Thats begging the question. Your assuming we can easily show this and theres not evidence to the contrary. But I am presenting evidence to the contrary. So it doesn't point to what you claim. We have to deal with that first.

Like recent scans show absolutely no traces of copper embedded in the granite. Even at the micron level in the identified tool marks. So if this evidence is found to9 be the case in many vases then a copper chisel could not be the tool.

They have found signatures of the vase being turned. So if this continues then this suggests some other methods besides the tools found. Its a bit early to be just putting it down to what we have found in the past. Thanks to new tech and many new discoveries things are changing fast.

And unlike your claims, even if we indulge your fantasy with watches being analogous for ancient Egyptian stoneworks,

Theres the fallacy again. My logical comparison is fantasy now.

we can present the tools needed for making watches, modern and historical. You can't do such a thing for your claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

But that doesn't follow that we cannot determine if its precision and tech made. What you are saying is if in the future people find a watch but only find basic tools such as a hammer and chisel that the watch must have been made by the hammer and chisel.

That because we cannot find any tools that go with the tech and precision in the watch we therefore cannot determine the watch is precision and high tech.

This example perfectly matches the ancient works if we imagine that the watch is found like the precision vases with certain basic tools like a hammer and chisel in the distant future in some location, Or it may be any modern device or artifact.

The labels of 'precious and high tech' are being applied post hoc to items that we clearly and explicitly know to have been carved by hand with simple tools.

They can only be applied post hoc like everything ancient. That doesn't change the facts that we find precision and other tech that is hard to explain with the tools found. We don't want to just assume this especially when the evidence points beyond the tools. I have given you many examples. You can't just say they are nothing. Thats not being reasonable.

You're the one who's claiming advanced tools and tooling, so the onus is on you to present actual evidence of the tools themselves.

So your more or less saying that what defeats the evidence of advanced tech and preciusion beyond the existing tools found is the lack of alternative tools. Therefore even though the signatures in the stone point to methods beyond those tools we must assume they were the only tools.

@sjastro has already presented multiple lines of evidence of simple and historically accurate tools. You have presented squad. Again: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

See this is just another misrepresentation. Now your making appeals other others to show me wrong and not actually citing the example of how exactly this is the case.

I suggest you go back and look at my replies. I may not have got to all the examples but there is enough there to show that no one has made a concrete arguement that supports their case. But you keep claiming yours is 100% truth and mine is fantasy. That speaks more about an assumption based on belief of how things happned than facts.

 

[stevevw]

Anyway nearly up to page 50 so time to move on lol. Agree to disagree.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Anyway nearly up to page 50 so time to move on lol. Agree to disagree.

Heck no, no-one is going to agree to disagree with you. You have done nothing but beg the question the entire thread and refused to accept what evidence anyone has presented to you.

Occam's Razor - the simplest solution is more often the correct one. The simplest solution is that the ancients built what we find from them with the tools they had, which we have evidence for. If you continue to claim advanced tech was used, you need to show the advanced tech itself before you can even think of anyone taking you seriously.

 

[stevevw]

Heck no, no-one is going to agree to disagree with you. You have done nothing but beg the question the entire thread and refused to accept what evidence anyone has presented to you.

Occam's Razor - the simplest solution is more often the correct one. The simplest solution is that the ancients built what we find from them with the tools they had, which we have evidence for. If you continue to claim advanced tech was used, you need to show the advanced tech itself before you can even think of anyone taking you seriously.

Fair enough but I still disagree and so do many experts. But of course we are all living in fantasy.

By the way an non explanation or accepting weak evidence is not Occam's Razor. That just complicates it with more unknowns and questions.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Fair enough but I still disagree and so do many experts. But of course we are all living in fantasy.

That's just insipid.

 

[stevevw]

That's just insipid.

lol, I am not sure what you mean. Is it the definition of being 'tasteless and weak' which seems more subjective and therefore not relevant to fact.

Because it can't be the other definition of lack of vigor and interest because the most vigorous and interested people I have seen on this topic is the very people I am linking. They have done more for finding out about these works than any other scientist or organisation at the moment.

I think we all agree that there is a heap of discoveries and research to be done on these ancient works. But with lack of funding and interest from mainstream its left to independents to do the work. So no they are not disinterested or lack vigor as they are continually researching and testing when hardly anyone else is.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

lol, I am not sure what you mean. Is it the definition of being 'tasteless and weak' which seems more subjective and therefore not relevant to fact.

It's the closest thing I can say without breaking forum rules for what I think of your commentary.

By the way an non explanation or accepting weak evidence is not Occam's Razor. That just complicates it with more unknowns and questions.

Your commentary and 'findings' is weak evidence, not mine and others.

 

[stevevw]

It's the closest thing I can say without breaking forum rules for what I think of your commentary.

So apart from the personal jibes why can't you just reason out things. Go through the evidence and explain how it fits the observations or not.

Your commentary and 'findings' is weak evidence, not mine and others.

OK I will try one more time as I think these are important issues to work out. You tell me how these issues are not worth considering and reasoning about to work out the truth.

1) The first is as posted evidence is showing no trace of copper embedded in the vases. You would think if copper tools were used there would be some copper at the micron level.

2) Scans show patterns on the vases like they have been turned.

3) Drill core 7 has been proven to have a spiral cut rather than a horizontal one meaning we can calculate the feed rate which is way faster than a copper pipe with abrasion. It also means a fixed cutting point on the side digging in and spiraling downwards rather than an even abrasion at the end of the pipe.

Thats just 3 which I don't think have been answered sufficently. Why do you think we should just dosregard these anamelies and just assume the status quo.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So apart from the personal jibes why can't you just reason out things. Go through the evidence and explain how it fits the observations or not.

Since we have mass evidence of ancient peoples using ancient tools as demonstrated by modern day historians and reconstructionists, I have no reason to lend any credence to the claims of advanced technology until I see the actual advanced technology.

OK I will try one more time as I think these are important issues to work out. You tell me how these issues are not worth considering and reasoning about to work out the truth.

1) The first is as posted evidence is showing no trace of copper embedded in the vases. You would think if copper tools were used there would be some copper at the micron level.

2) Scans show patterns on the vases like they have been turned.

3) Drill core 7 has been proven to have a spiral cut rather than a horizontal one meaning we can calculate the feed rate which is way faster than a copper pipe with abrasion.

Thats just 3 which I don't think have been answered sufficently. Why do you think we should just dosregard these anamelies and just assume the status quo.

All of which begs the question: WHERE IS THE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY? Until that question can be answered, yes, those 'findings' should not be given any credence because they're unevidenced claims.

Do you understand how this works?

 

[stevevw]

Since we have mass evidence of ancient peoples using ancient tools as demonstrated by modern day historians and reconstructionists, I have no reason to lend any credence to the claims of advanced technology until I see the actual advanced technology.

But your not considering all the evidence. Your not answering the hard questions and explaining or reasoning how this is the case and how the conflicting evidence has no basis. I have not seen any of this.

The reconstructions have not shown all the existing methods account for the results. That is just plain fact. To pretend otherwise is misrepresentation.

All of which begs the question: WHERE IS THE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY? Until that question can be answered, yes, those 'findings' should not be given any credence because they're unevidenced claims.

Do you understand how this works?

So we can't say test a vase to find whether copper tools were used on it like claimed. Why can't we do that test.

If the tests bring into question the claimed method is not that worth considering. We use this same method of deduction in all issues like this. We start with finding out if the tools match the signatures in the works to understand how they did it.

We never just assume a certain way. We do tests to check if that is the case and when the data starts contradicting we have to take notice. Thats science. Your more or less saying forget the science and just accept the questionable assumption that the status quo is fact.

The reality is this is not just about people proving some unknown tech that produced the results. Its about proving that the current tools and methods attributed could have done the results.

So both can be done at the same time and both go hand in hand.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But your not considering all the evidence. Your not answering the hard questions and explaining or reasoning how this is the case and how the conflicting evidence has no basis. I have not seen any of this.

The reconstructions have not shown all the existing methods account for the results. That is just plain fact. To pretend otherwise is misrepresentation.

But there is no other evidence to consider. All it is claims from you and so-called experts who you even misrepresent and bad post-hoc logic from you.

You have presented nothing so there is nothing to consider.

So we can't say test a vase to find whether copper tools were used on it like claimed. Why can't we do that test.

If the tests bring into question the claimed method is not that worth considering. We use this same method of deduction in all issues like this. We start with finding out if the tools match the signatures in the works to understand how they did it.

We never just assume a certain way. We do tests to check if that is the case and when the data starts contradicting we have to take notice. Thats science. Your more or less saying forget the science and just accept the questionable assumption that the status quo is fact.

And even if they do bring into question, which they don't, until any evidence for the supposedly advanced tools is presented, then the current methods are still the most likely and most accurate methods used.

The only questionable assumption here is yours, which cannot be backed up anything despite what you think. You have presented nothing, therefore there is nothing to consider.

Again: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Until you present it, then there is nothing more to discuss.