There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[AV1611VET]

For the record, guys:

Recent findings suggest a settlement at Göbekli Tepe, with domestic structures, extensive cereal processing, a water supply, and tools associated with daily life. This contrasts with a previous interpretation of the site as a sanctuary used by nomads, with few or no permanent inhabitants.

SOURCE

Anyone here want to step up to the plate and confirm or deny this?

It's awful quiet around here all of a sudden.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then you must really keep up on those sources.

Yes.............................................................. I do.

Do they put out monthly publications?

Else how do you know things haven't changed from the time you last learned something new?

You really don't think I've studied, do you? On the one hand, you'd be right that I couldn't possibly know everything there is to know about the Bible or World History or Science. But the various scholars I've been studying for the last 40 years know a hell of a lot, for heaven's sake.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For the record, guys:

Recent findings suggest a settlement at Göbekli Tepe, with domestic structures, extensive cereal processing, a water supply, and tools associated with daily life. This contrasts with a previous interpretation of the site as a sanctuary used by nomads, with few or no permanent inhabitants.

SOURCE

Anyone here want to step up to the plate and confirm or deny this?

It's awful quiet around here all of a sudden.

What the History Channel needs to stop doing is presenting interpolations of Göbekli Tepe as either a former Alien base or as Noah's reserve for his ship building project.

If they could stop doing that off the cuff for the sake of views (......sales!......), that would go a step or two toward more scholarly, and credible, media presentation.

 

[AV1611VET]

It should be obvious to everyone that I was posting the video from the History Channel up as an example of what NOT to do with Historical assessment, especially of an archaeological site like Göbekli Tepe (and others like it).

So those structures, and that man's testimony about finding something sticking out of the ground, and so on and so forth are all just a bunch of hooey?

So, I don't want to here much claptrap from the peanut gallery. Unless you want to get owned.

I'd say you're the one who got owned.

You kind of do "add" to the Bible,

I'd stay away from Biblical movies then.

They show things like the weather, the landscape, specific conversations, facial expressions, skin color, length of hair, perfect teeth, and anything else they can cram into a passage of scripture.

... and the fact that there are subtractors (or detractors, per say) ...

LOL

I'll stick with subtractors.

If I'm an adder, their religion is a subtractor.

... of the Bible doesn't mean your additions are sound. Some of them might even hurt the potential for others to find faith because what you say is sometimes so outlandish.

Um ... ever notice these movies contradict each other in weather, landscape, specific conversations, etc?

Perhaps these people who are sensitive to "unsound additions" should stay away from them?

I'll not concerned about him at the moment. bro.

Yes, I know.

You never get on him about "the potential for others to find faith."

In fact, you keep silent about that potential while others here go on and on and on about how the Bible is myth.

And that's your prerogative, of course.

But I suspect I'm challenging your beliefs, and you're getting tired of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes.............................................................. I do.



You really don't think I've studied, do you? On the one hand, you'd be right that I couldn't possibly know everything there is to know about the Bible or World History or Science. But the various scholars I've been studying for the last 40 years know a hell of a lot, for heaven's sake.

Well, for the record, I am impressed with your level of knowledge.

But when someone -- anyone -- starts talking about how the History Channel -- or any channel -- is so inaccurate, I have to wonder how they would know that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So those structures, and that man's testimony about finding something sticking out of the ground, and so on and so forth are all just a bunch of hooey?



I'd say you're the one who got owned.



I'd stay away from Biblical movies then.

They show things like the weather, the landscape, specific conversations, facial expressions, skin color, length of hair, perfect teeth, and anything else they can cram into a passage of scripture.



LOL

I'll stick with subtractors.

If I'm an adder, their religion is a subtractor.



Um ... ever notice these movies contradict each other in weather, landscape, specific conversations, etc?

Perhaps these people who are sensitive to "unsound additions" should stay away from them?



Yes, I know.

You never get on him about "the potential for others to find faith."

In fact, you keep silent about that potential while others here go on and on and on about how the Bible is myth.

And that's your prerogative, of course.

But I suspect I'm challenging your beliefs, and you're getting tired of it.

You assume way too much, on all counts in this post of yours. That's what I'm getting tired of, Mr. "Mad Magazine"!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, for the record, I am impressed with your level of knowledge.

But when someone -- anyone -- starts talking about how the History Channel -- or any channel -- is so inaccurate, I have to wonder how they would know that.

It's called education. In Philosophy. You might try it sometime rather than merely reading off the list of the dozen approved books made by your pastor.

 

[AV1611VET]

What the History Channel needs to stop doing is presenting interpolations of Göbekli Tepe as either a former Alien base or as Noah's reserve for his ship building project.

LOL -- figures.

You don't care that the "Cradle of Civilization" just fell, do you?

You're concentrating on what they think.

A major archaeological paradigm busted to pieces, and you're wanting to know who built it?

If they could stop doing that off the cuff for the sake of views (......sales!......), that would go a step or two toward more scholarly, and credible, media presentation.

Well here's an example where I'm thankful for their "sake of views".

And I wonder too if archaeologists didn't know about this Göbekli Tepe all along and were trying to keep it hush-hush.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Steve,

You keep providing us more and more links, text, and pictures from questionable sites. It doesn't help

This is the best I can find. The video is quite informative and though I know you will find it hard to watch it is worth a watch even if you disagree as the logue and arguements made are pretty powerful I think.

Ancient Egyptian Stone Technology - Saw Marks

Ancient Egyptian Stone Technology - Saw Marks - Spirit & Stone

www.theglobaleducationproject.org

Dunn's crank site.

The Evidence is Cut in Stone: A Compelling Argument for Lost High Technology in Ancient Egypt

The Evidence is Cut in Stone: A Compelling Argument for Lost High Technology in Ancient Egypt

Most people know of the great construction achievements of the dynastic Egyptians such as the pyramids and temples of the Giza Plateau area as well as the Sphinx. Many books and videos show depictions of vast work forces hewing blocks of stone in the hot desert sun and carefully setting them...

www.ancient-origins.net

We've talked about the crankiness of this site in the past. (Oh post #26, please don't come true.)

Origin of the saw marks on the Great Pyramid's basalt pavement
The only feasible explanation of this piece is that it was produced by a circular saw. The main examples of sawing at Gizeh are the blocks of the great basalt pavement, and the coffers of the Great, Second, and Third Pyramids, - the latter, unhappily, now lost'.

Origin of the saw marks on the Great Pyramid's basalt pavement

If you approach the high black platform from the eastern side of the Great Pyramid, which is also the surviving pavement of basalt blocks, you can see numerous marks left by saws on their side walls. The presence of too many marks and their

www.academia.edu

I am unfamiliar with "academia . edu", but it would seem that they are some mixture of new publications and links to other publications. This one, which I skimmed over a bit of, was full of invective that was entirely unbecoming of any amateur who wants to claim the dignity of research work. I've seen real amateur scholars and scientists make real contributions and they always write in ways that aren't about attacking or denigrating the work of others. (And when you do attack someone in the journals, it needs to be "professional" and "contained" and not look like it, my right honorable friend.) I see no reason to consider the "work" of a "researcher" who relies on obvious invective rather than making a solid evidence based claim as this "paper" does.

 

[AV1611VET]

You assume way too much, on all counts in this post of yours. That's what I'm getting tired of, Mr. "Mad Magazine"!

Maybe I am, but I'd say there's evidence to show it; viz. your posting style.

And again, that's your prerogative and none of my business.

Mr. "PhiloVoid."

(I guess one has to create a void before they can fill it, eh?)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

LOL -- figures.

You don't care that the "Cradle of Civilization" just fell, do you?

I wouldn't call a set of pillars a sign of "advanced" civilization.

You're concentrating on what they think.

Huh? No, I'm not concentrating on what "they" think, whoever you think "they" is. I concentrate on assessing what has been found and not jumping to conclusions about its meaning.

A major archaeological paradigm busted to pieces, and you're wanting to know who built it?

It's not 'busted to pieces.' You and Steve are jumping to conclusions that you think are going to somehow play into your favor. I'm not afraid to eat crow since academic praxis is front and center to me. And when the crows start flying in, which they haven't yet, then I'll get my fork, spoon and cooking pot out so I can have a meal of "new knowledge."

Well here's an example where I'm thankful for their "sake of views".

And I wonder too if archaeologists didn't know about this Göbekli Tepe all along and were trying to keep it hush-hush.

You do a lot of wondering. How about doing a lot of research instead?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I was wondering what set of "Void" so I peaked. THen I found this...

Sounds like someone's in denial.

Denial about what? The sustained quality of the "History Channel". It is a sewer.

So this older "cradle of civilization" is not nearly as old as they think it is?

Than who thinks? "Academia"? The nut jobs in that video?

"Academia" has decided (based on GT, but also other sites like Jehrico) that "civilization" (permanent settlements) go back at least 10,000 years and have for many decades.

The "History" channel Atlanteans (and they all are clearly Atlanteans), just want to make insinuations about how GT ~~changes things~~ (for example by doubling the age of the earliest civilization, though that is nuts since settled occupation of Jehrico at ~10000 years ago has been known for longer than GT has). They did not make any actual claims about how old things are outside GT (and their insinuated advanced [Atlantean] society that must have built it, because they clearly want to lure us in before they spring Xenu on us.)

Unlike my usual practice, I will check tonight for any reply you make. Cheers.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Maybe I am, but I'd say there's evidence to show it; viz. your posting style.

And again, that's your prerogative and none of my business.

Mr. "PhiloVoid."

(I guess one has to create a void before they can fill it, eh?)

You just can't help yourself with your gaslighting of others, can you?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's called education.

Your "education" then should have taught you to respect the findings of others.

And when a major paradigm gets pwned so badly, your education should cause you to agree with them -- not disagree.

But I think those who disagree with this Göbekli Tepe being so old, do so for the very same reason Galileo was placed under house arrest.

Namely, there's usually what I call a "probationary period" between a major paradigm shift.

A period where the scientific community accepts one thing, then has to wait for the religious community to catch up.

And during that period of waiting, the scientific community has very little patience with the religious community holding back while they "search the Scriptures diligently."

When science says "this is the way we've come to believe," then, Boy George, you'd better believe it or else.

In Philosophy.

Ya ... no comment.

You might try it sometime rather than merely reading off the list of the dozen approved books made by your pastor.

I'll pass.

 

[AV1611VET]

You keep providing us more and more links, text, and pictures from questionable sites.

How do you know they're questionable?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Your "education" then should have taught you to respect the findings of others.

And when a major paradigm gets pwned so badly, your education should cause you to agree with them -- not disagree.

But I think those who disagree with this Göbekli Tepe being so old, do so for the very same reason Galileo was placed under house arrest.

Namely, there's usually what I call a "probationary period" between a major paradigm shift.

.................. you really don't pay attention, do you? That's part of your problem.

Don't start talking to me about 'paradigms,' AV. You're in my Copernican wheel-house, and you're going to step up to the plate and cite "Galileo!!!!" like I wouldn't understand anything about such shifts, especially over the past 500 years???????????????

See, this is the problem. You just start hobbling different and sometimes inchoate ideas together and lobbing them like mud pies. You think you're making some 'stark point,' but all you're doing is making folks think you're........................................... well, Alfred E. Neuman.

A period where the scientific community accepts one thing, then has to wait for the religious community to catch up.

And during that period of waiting, the scientific community has very little patience with the religious community hold back while they "search the Scriptures diligently."

When science says "this is the way we've come to believe," then, Boy George, you'd better believe it or else.

Boy George????????????

Ya ... no comment.



I'll pass.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Boy George????????????

Oh, you've gotta faith, faith, faith. Baby...

Sorry, that was George Michael, not Boy George.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How do you know they're questionable?

Because I've taken time to examine them in the past. (And "questionable" was kind.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Boy George????????????

Chameleons.

Adapting to each other and creating a consilient database.

But ... but then later ... insulting each other:

 

[AV1611VET]

Because I've taken time to examine them in the past. (And "questionable" was kind.)

What did you compare them to?

Current paradigms? or outdated ones?

One just got shattered to pieces, didn't it?