There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[Hans Blaster]

lol I forgot there are certain trigger words. Like a word suddenly is what makes reality. Just mention the word and it all reality becomes the word. Like the word has magic powers.

Not about "trigger words" its about you sloppy writing. If you don't mean "new age sprituality" don't use the term "newage" in a context where it could be confused with what you mean. Read your posts.

Never considering that the word obviously has more than one meaning and when spoken was not necessarily the meaning the reciever thought. Which suggests that words themselves are just the subjective beliefs of the sender and reciever. Nothing objective.

Bad writing is your problem. Do better.

What I meant by Newage was the religions of today. Not some mystical meaning 20 years ago like those of Mother earth and crystals lol. Though the core of the belief has similar aspects like turning nature into spirits or gods.

I'm willing to bundle them in the same rejected pile (oh, wait I have) and dismiss their claims. Are you?

I meant that people still make spirits and gods today of nature and reality. Whether its a new religion, a modernised pagan belief, worshipping Gurus or whatever thing that is made spirit or ideol worship or god. Its inherent in humans and real. These are all expressions of the same phenomena.

So you really did mean "New Age" after all. Sigh.

I don't think I can reply to any more of this unending post.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Have you found the gun yet we know what sort of gun and even the bullets from the hole in the wall it went though and the marks it left. Just havn't found that gun yet. Oh well I guess we will just have to conclude there never was a gun.

But, as @Stopped_lurking points out, we have no gun to compare it to. If such advanced tech existed before it should have, how can it be compared to something except only to something that exists today? Again: if you want to make the claim for advanced technology that shouldn't have existed back then, your so-called and aptly named 'smoking gun', then we need the evidence of the technology itself existing. The tech needs to be physically found before anyone in the wider scientific community or even the layman's world can even accept what you say on the matter as something worth considering.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I was looking backward for something else you posted and this reminded me of my favorite fictional exploration of this theme:

• Fry: Incredible. This place is just like the Ancient Egypt of my day.
  High Priest: That is no coincidence. For our people visited your Egypt thousands of years ago.
  Fry: I knew it! Insane theories, one; regular theories, a billion.
  High Priest: We learned many things from the mighty Egyptians, such as pyramid-building, space travel and how to prepare our dead so as to scare Abbott and Costello.

Single best joke in Futurama.

 

[sjastro]

Ok so theres one piece of advanced knowledge that is out of place. Way earlier than the orthodox narrative was saying. I think the same study found similar molded blocks on earlier pyramids. So this could go back even earlier. Now we can find other examples.

Since this will not go away lets look at this forensically which I know a thing or two about in the automotive industry.

​

The casing stone has a visible front and side face and the immediate question which arises if it is composed of a moulded piece of limestone concrete why is the front face smooth and the side face coarse? It is possible their casting tool produced this type of finish but why would the ancient Egyptians go to all this trouble? From an engineering design perspective it serves no useful purpose.

If however the casing was abrasion cut, stone pounded, chiselled with copper tools and abrasion smoothed it makes perfect sense, the front face underwent a final smoothing process with finer grit as it is the visible face to convey the aesthetic value of the pyramid, the side faces remained coarse as they are not visible.

The next point is the hydrochloric drop test which I mentioned in an off the cuff way in a previous post. It turns out to playing a major factor in refuting the moulded limestone concrete hypothesis.

Did the Egyptians cast the casing stones like concrete?​

Joseph Davidovits (1970s–2000s) proposed that the outer casing blocks of the Great Pyramid were not quarried but cast in place from a kind of limestone geopolymer, a reconstituted “concrete” made by dissolving soft limestone with natron and lime, then moulding it into blocks.


That hypothesis has been tested many times by geologists, mineralogists, and Egyptologists.

---

1. HCl Reactivity Test – Direct Evidence for Natural Limestone​

Observation	Geopolymer Expectation	Actual Observation
Reaction with dilute HCl	Weak or uneven fizzing — geopolymers are bound by aluminosilicate gel, not pure CaCO₃	Vigorous, uniform effervescence, identical to natural calcite-rich limestone
Result	Suggests synthetic binding matrix (if artificial)	Shows crystalline calcite structure, not amorphous binder

Explanation:
If the casing stones were made from a chemically recombined limestone slurry, the calcium carbonate would not crystallize in the same interlocking matrix found in natural sedimentary limestone. Instead, it would have amorphous or microcrystalline binding phases, with much weaker and patchier HCl reaction.
Geologists have applied the HCl drop test on both casing fragments and core samples — all respond exactly like natural limestone from the nearby Tura quarries.

---

2. Petrographic and Mineralogical Studies​

Independent geologists (notably Dietrich & Rosemarie Klemm, 1993, 2008) performed thin-section microscopy and X-ray diffraction:

• The grain structures, fossils, and cementation within the pyramid limestones match the stratigraphy of the Tura and Giza formations perfectly.
• They show biogenic microfossils, foraminifera, and oolitic textures typical of Eocene marine limestone — impossible to reproduce by chemical reconstitution.
• No evidence of amorphous aluminosilicate binder or reaction rims typical of geopolymers.

Thus, the stones are unmistakably natural.

---

⚗️ 3. Stable Isotope Analysis (δ¹³C and δ¹⁸O)​

Geopolymer fabrication using dissolved limestone and natron would reset isotopic signatures due to recrystallization.
Yet isotope ratios of casing samples match those of unaltered natural limestone from Tura — showing no sign of chemical reformation.

---

4. Textural and Tool Evidence​

• Quarry tool marks remain visible at the Tura quarry faces where casing stones were cut and removed.
• Some unfinished casing blocks at Giza show chisel dressing, wedge marks, and lever sockets, not mould seams.
• The Great Pyramid’s casing blocks are dimensionally consistent with quarry-cut blocks, not cast pours — each with bedding orientation consistent with quarry strata.

---

5. Conclusion: HCl Tests and Geology Refute the Geopolymer Claim​

Evidence Type	Prediction if Cast	Actual Result	Verdict
HCl reactivity	Weak/non-uniform fizz	Strong, uniform	Natural limestone
Petrography	Amorphous binder, no fossils	Sedimentary fabric, fossils	Natural limestone
Isotopes	Reset by dissolution/reprecipitation	Unaltered natural ratios	Natural limestone
Quarry traces	Absent	Abundant	Quarried
Structural orientation	Random	Matches geological bedding	Quarried

---

Scholarly Sources​

1. Klemm, D. & Klemm, R. The Stones of the Pyramids: Provenance of the Building Stones of the Old Kingdom Monuments in Egypt. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2008) — detailed petrographic and isotopic data confirming Tura limestone origin.
2. Harrell, J.A. “Archaeological Geology of the Giza Plateau.” Geoarchaeology (2004).
3. Stocks, D.A. Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology (2003) — demonstrates quarrying and dressing with copper tools.
4. Davidovits, J. (1990, 2009) — proposes the opposing geopolymer theory, but data inconsistent with observed mineralogy.

---

✅ Summary Statement:

The simple HCl acid test, combined with petrographic, isotopic, and field evidence, conclusively demonstrates that the Great Pyramid’s core and casing stones are natural limestones quarried and dressed, not moulded geopolymers or artificial concrete. The effervescent reaction with hydrochloric acid alone is one of the clearest and earliest field indicators confirming their carbonate, sedimentary origin.

---

 

[Hans Blaster]

The appropriate response to this post would be to just rank it with the LOL emoji and ignore it, but the board doesn't like it when unfunny posts are given laugh emoji ratings. So, I'm going to have to be more specific about what is seriously wrong with your post and thread.

[removes gloves]

Because you were not keeping up. I jumped to the natural follow on that the same belief you have that those who speak of advanced ancient knowledge are promoting conspiracies. Because this does not meet the evidence criteria.

I don't think they are promoting conspiracies, because they aren't. They are promoting (and in some cases grifting) psuedoscience ancient tech nonsense, but not conspiracies. (And no, complaining that the "mainstream science" won't give you the time of day isn't conspiracy thinking, just standard pseudosciencffe whinging.)

I used the alternative knowledge of belief in God as an extreme example of how all alternative knowledge that does not meet the scientific criteria are non verifiable and hense unreal, Woo, conspiracies, evolutionary byproducts. Whatever it is you relegate them to as not being anything reliable or credible that gives any real knowledge about the world.

That's where these ideas belong, relegated to the trash because they aren't reliable or credible. (Again, not conspiracies, not "evolutionary byproducts", but since you think "woo" is an appropriate term, I'll give that a try.)

Yes this is really the spectulating part. Though we can form some hypothesis. But its more along the lines of anthropology or cultural studies. How religion or transcedent cultures gained knowledge.

Here you acknowleged that the "advanced/lost tech" is just unfounded speculation. As such its value is at best zero, and more likely negative. Before you can speculate you need evidence. You have none. Quit speculating based on nothing. Since you now clearly state that unfounded speculation is your medium, we can take that into consideration when you make it in the future.

All I know is that there was a completely different paradigm in the ancient world far away from todays scientific enlightenment that came aling in the last few hundred years.

Why should we care what the medieval people thought about the ancient Egyptians? Or the Greeks or Romans?

They must have been doing something right.

Who? The ignorant state of medieval "Egyptology"? Get real. You keep bashing The Enlightenment, but it not only brought modern science, but the same ideas built the modern historical analysis apparatus. We know all kinds of things they didn't as we can read the Egyptian texts and the text of their neighbors.

They could not have been that restricted to doing things the hard way. I think they knew some secrets of nature.

Flag on the play: Unwarranted speculation

Messing around with chemicals, and energy and waves and particles.

LOL. There is no evidence of any of this. Your use of "energy and waves" reads straight from the woo-woo play book. As for particles --- are you kidding me? Keep that nonsense to yourself and quit wasting our time with it.

I reckon they could have taught todays chemists some lessons lol.

LOL indeed. The Egyptians didn't even know what atoms were.

And I think this deeper knowledge could only come by some sort of transcedent or spiritual experience with nature.

Unwarranted speculation. You are just projecting your supernatural preferences on things you don't understand. It also has absolutely NOTHING to do with ancient technologies. If you mean magic, spells, and interventions from Thot, then say so. Don't beat around the bush with euphemisms like "transcendent" and "spiritual".
I wrote something in reply to an earlier comment from you. In my reply I simply noted that the thing you were referencing must have been in a book of the Bible that I hadn't read. Your reply to that comment about not reading that book was this pile of irrelevancy:

Whereas as others are engrosssed in its great insights and revelations of life and who we are. Whats even better is we can go and find the places on the ground and do research and find even greater insights into our past and who we are. And reality itself I think.

I don't even know what it means and it certainly does not help my comprehension to see what it was I had written because this rambling nonsense has nothing to do with anything that I had written. When you read people's posts with the reply window open, are you just waiting to insert any old ramble?

Not just any changes. We want the unusual ones. The ones that defy the orthodoxy.

Even for the supernatural effects you want the unusual ones? SMH.

Which is sort of tied metaphsyically to the material sciences.

Just "Science" no need for "material sciences". If it isn't "material" IT AIN'T SCIENCE.

More importantly, we are talking about archeology, which is ... a science. It doesn't deal in the metaphysical or unphysical.

So ones that defy what the material sciences would have expected at that time. If its showing sophisticated chemistry or manipulation of sound or energy for such an ancient time then its out of place.

These sources of possible alternative knowledge had a real effect on rocks. They just were not done the conventional way for that time and may even point to knowledge even beyond what we thought possible today.

You *want* the weirdest pseudoscientific woo? SMH. The this is the wrong board for you my friend. You should move to the same board where the flerfers are sent to talk about the disk of the Earth and the ice wall. This section is for discussions involving real science.

Think Tesla lol.

Failing car companies have nothing to do with pseudoarcheology.

Similar results , energy creation.

ENERGY CANNOT BE CREATED. You can't break the laws of physics anymore than Mr. Scott.

Just an outside the box way of doing it that required a deeper understanding of nature itself. Some minds were ahead of their time. Now I have opened a can of worms. But hey its fun.

There is no virtue of being outside reality.

Not really. I think you will find the OP video is referring to a lot of different lines of evidence. Including culture and the beliefs of the ancients themselves as part of the evidence that aligns with the megaliths for example. Thus giving a testimony from those actually there and experiencing this.

But also its taking a overview of the level of knowledge for that time and how knowledge peaked and disappeared and then reemerged again with a different set of knowledge and methods. Finding the peaks which happen to map onto the culture and stories and the overall view.

We only went to the vase as a specific example to look at. Like the saw cuts or the logistics in moving megaliths or scooping them out of the bedrock. All to see if there is any knowledge beyond the orthodox. This can be expressed in many ways. Its still alternative advanced knowledge thats been lost.

Again, your write a response that has nothing to do with what I had written. How far over your head are you? you can't hold a coherent conversation on this.

As for what you wrote, it is nothing more than pile of nonsense promoted by a gaggle of pseudoscience "ancient tech" grifters, frauds, and delusional fools. Every. Last. One of them. All tied to the racist ancient tech/ lost civilzation fantasies of Ignatius Donnelly through the ancient aryans, ancient aliens, Chariots of the Gods, ancient astronauts, and Graham Hancock.

All of them:

Ben "UnchartedX"
Chris Dunn
Karoly what's his names
Matt Beale
Adam Young
Dr. Max
That OP video guy.
and many others.

I tried to get you to engage in discussion about your sources and how problematic they were in post #1004 and you have repeatedly ignored that offer. I don't care how many time you fling "ad hom" at me. Everytime you mention any of them or their "work" in a post to me I will remind you of what giagantic demented frauds and fools they are.

I refer to the idea that say acoustic sound waves can alter the physical environment. A knowledge of stones and acoustic aspects of building. Perhaps for a real purpose that actually altered some state of the physical environment.

Now you bring in some fantasy about sound waves. The pile of excrement is getting higher.

I don't think all this geometry, alignments, particular stones and relationships to other stones, electromagnetism within the sites and other mineral and chemical signatures within the sites.

Incomplete sentence filled with a vomited series of science words that mean nothing.

That this was all just coincidental and superstition. Something outside the box was going on and I think we are getting new discoveries with modern tech showing this now.

What?

In fact I think I am actually trying to ground the alternative knowledge to a physical reality.

And failing spectacularly.

To naturalism. In that I am not trying to say the physical changes are not the result of magic.

It is woo woo that you invoke.

They are a manipulation and deeper knowledge of nature itself which has a physical effect. Its just a different way its achieved and understood. More from an immersion in nature than looking from the outside in as science does.,

An inferior methodology.

 

[stevevw]

Finally we get to some stuff about Egypt...

Egypt was in the same place it is today -- the delta and the flood plain of the Nile, surrounded by the desert. It was a thoroughly agricultural place then and now just as the central valley of California is today. This talk about some primative connected to nature talk you keep invoking does not resemble ancient Egyptian agricultural civilization of 6000 years ago. (The people who made the vases, and the one ones who 1000 years later made the pyramids.)

Have you ever been anywhere *NEAR* agriculture? Agriculture is about planting things and caring for them until they can be harvested. It doesn't matter how many times you pray for rain or to avoid locusts or hail, if you don't plant and don't harvest you get nothing. Framers know this and they have always known this. Demonstraing they sacrificed ibex to their gods for good crops (or any other religious activity) doesn't make agriculture based on spirits or gods.

Agriculture is one of the practices used to measure the progression of civilisation. The very thing that moved cultures away from nature. This is making an either /or fallacy. It could be that their world was more spiritually orientated while they also progressed into unnatural practices as populations grew. Obviously today we still practice agriculture but don't use the natural ways people use to plant crops when they first began.

You keep saying things like this and I wonder something....

We both live lands where the native populations were not technologically advanced and not that long ago, invaders came and wiped many of them out. They were demonized as "primitive savages" to justify the atrocities.

Proving my point that their knowledge was seen a primitive and outdated and needed colonising. Thus losing their knowledge.

Recent movement of guilt about what happened triggered a counter-myth the in the US is called "the good Indian" about how the natives lived in peace and harmony with nature in egalitarian societies.

Or the good native. This was a widespread belief during colonialism of all natives of the land.

There is talk of "indigenous knowledge" and it gets treated as superior.

Yes the realisation that they knew about nature more than we realised. This is an example of the difference in say modern agriculture and ancient practices which integrated crops into nature knowing the way nature and plants worked.

To be clear the natives, being local, knew the landscapes, rivers, climate, resources, and fauna and how to use them for living and survival had "indigenous knowledge" of these things. They had their own cultures, societal organization, political systems, and religion and spirituality. It was not inherently better or wore. Some of the things they did were worth copying, others not.

Well those things western science thought good at the time. There was much they did not understand and are still discovering. Practices 1,000s of years old being more advanced than all the tech and knowledge we gathered over 100s of years. We discovered they knew better all along. And of course why not as they have lived with the land for more time than we had.

But none of this has relevance to our discussions of ancient Egyptian stone working and construction techniques. The "alternative methodologies" you have put forward are technological methods. They are not spiritual or based on a knowledge of the local nature (like an herbal medicine). Until you can *show* why they would be relevant, I will continue to dismiss these "spiritual" and "indigenous" claims in Egypt with: "who cares?"

Just like in plants they may have known about medicine and other applications (evidence of a plant ingredient that softens stone). They can aid in working with changing stone. The indigenous knowledge of the land change the land.

If we say that there was some knowledge about manipulating nature as in messing around with nature elements and chemicals that changed the consitution of stone. Then we may have the exact same physical appearence of the end result (a precision vase).

Then wonder how on earth they could have done this in a time when there was no big devices that machined stone. But it was the knowledge of manipulating the material that allowed the use of convential tools that achieved the result. So a conbination of both methods. But the knowledge and manipulation of nature is what gave the advantage compared to other culture who did it the hard way. Its not always a case that this or that method was solely used.

Ancient knowledge, nah, but your claims of them -- you betcha.

Theres a lot of sorting to do and the more data the better. Like I said only in recent times are we discovering how deep this knowledge may be with how the pyramids may have been used for chemical and engergy production. Like a scientific lab nearly 5,000 years ago, Thats advanced knowledge for that time.

The same with many things like the position and locations of the sites themselves and the stones within them all having some representation of the sites not just being architecture but had some specific application. We are still discovering this with research.

There population was around 1 million at the time period we are discussing, but this "are the peaks" thing would be from the study of cultural anthropology of religion. Have you read that literature on the subject of who was the most spiritual civilization of all time? (I suspect they would actually dismiss the notion of measuring it, but tell me what it says.)

The study of religion and spirituality is really a recent area of research. I have read much literature on the subject. Like I said all cultures were spiritual. It was a world thing. Then as you progress cultures moved away from this at varying levels. Until there were patches of cultures who were still immersed in the spiritual.

Its just different expressions of the same thing. Studies show religion and spirituality are the natural default position. It actually takes material sciences to indoctrinate this out of humans. The other way around. So if you imagine that without that enlightenement and science humans naturally lived in the spiritual paradigm.

So there will be varying levels of spirituality. Or rather different expressions. Like the Tibetians would be very spiritual to the point that they are still heavily immersed in spirituality. Then we can look at say the US in the 50s had a degree of religious belief and spirituality. While at the same time losing that as materialism took over due to science and tech.

I would put most ancient cultures in the Tibetian level of spirituality as the entire world was like that when you go way back. Everything was about gods and spirits. Then as progression happened and especially colonisation things changed. There are still pockets where cultures are very immersed but its becoming rarer.

So it is just your speculation.

Yes, I mentioned this earlier. An attempt to explain what the alternative knowledge was based on. The paradigm it existed in which was at its most different from today.

Because it is lost in the mists of time, if not mythology.

Mythology is part of it and thats what makes it interesting. I guess if a culture peaked and had great knowledge where they could create great megaliths and works that legends would be made of them.

Thats exactly what we see. That these works had such an impact of the world that most cultures made them into legends of the gods. In some ways they are saying we also see these works as out of place. They are so great that they stand out and must be from the gods.

A thousand or more years later.

Yes in Egypt. But the spiritual basis was the same all along. Sooner or later someone was going to come along and actually want to be the god they were worshipping. The fight between the gods and humans as gods is a natural rebellion. I think the Greek gods compromised and made gods in the heavens with human traits.

But at the time the pharoah made himself a god this was still the same spiritual paradigm. Perhaps the idea of humans being gods was a later idea as cultures progressed and became more powerful and worldly.

Are there gift tags: "To Ra"? Are there texts on the walls stating the purpose as gifts to their gods? My recollection of Egyptian grave goods is that they are placed in the tomb with the body so that the deceased can use them in the after life which is why they include foods, cosmetics, etc.

This is suppose to go back 120,000 years when Neanderthals buried the persons favorite tool or possession with the body. So even then everything was becoming about the spirit world. There was no divide. Imagine 115,000 years of spirituality up to the time of the Megaliths. Thats a lot of knowledge.

Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens buried their dead differently, study suggests

Neanderthals tended to bury their dead in caves, while early modern humans buried their dead in the fetal position, new research finds.

www.livescience.com

 

[BCP1928]

Actually I am pointing out how methological naturalism (science method) becomes metaphysical or philosophical naturalism when someone uses science to refute alternative know. Defeat it as not being knowledge at all in relation to fundemental reality.

What would be the reasonable answer would be yes science tells us about a certain aspect or reality. That is one paradigm of knowlege. But there are other ways of knowing that science cannot measure that may be involved. Thus science cannot even comment on the validity of this knowledge. Only to say it does not conform to methological naturalism.

How do you know science has refuted "alternative knowledge" when you don't know what that "alternative knowledge" is?

As I said I used this example as the extreme example. The fact is for Christians there is an aspect of reality that is supernatural and even if it has physical effects its still beyond the material worldview. This is about a metaphysical belief and not science.

But I think that same kind of knowledge from God, based on a spiritual paradigm can be expressed in many different ways. Its all basically phenomenal and transcedent. Its the spiritual aspect that immerses ancients at a deeper level that they can know nature and reality to be able to manipulate it.

Whether that be stone manipulation to achieve the great megalths and works. Or the many other achievements we see and are really only beginning to discover. So it may be a combination of ancients messing around with nature and using conventional tools.

I like Dr John Lennox

Just behind Dr Jordan Peterson

Dr. Jordon Peteraon is a charlatan with no theological training.

Dr. John Lennox is an eminent theologion with whom I agree--he believes that methodological naturalism does not inherently exclude God.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Agriculture is one of the practices used to measure the progression of civilisation. The very thing that moved cultures away from nature.

The Egyptians we are talking about had agriculture.

This is making an either /or fallacy. It could be that their world was more spiritually orientated while they also progressed into unnatural practices as populations grew. Obviously today we still practice agriculture but don't use the natural ways people use to plant crops when they first began.

They didn't have tractors, but they still disturbed the soil to plant seeds.

Proving my point that their knowledge was seen a primitive and outdated and needed colonising. Thus losing their knowledge.

Or the good native. This was a widespread belief during colonialism of all natives of the land.

All taking place *LONG* after the period we are talking about and there for irrelevant.

Yes the realisation that they knew about nature more than we realised. This is an example of the difference in say modern agriculture and ancient practices which integrated crops into nature knowing the way nature and plants worked.

We are discussing stoneworking not crop rotations.

Well those things western science thought good at the time. There was much they did not understand and are still discovering. Practices 1,000s of years old being more advanced than all the tech and knowledge we gathered over 100s of years. We discovered they knew better all along. And of course why not as they have lived with the land for more time than we had.

If you want to talk about ancient tech you must name it. Otherwise we don't care.

Just like in plants they may have known about medicine and other applications (evidence of a plant ingredient that softens stone). They can aid in working with changing stone. The indigenous knowledge of the land change the land.

Name it. Speculation is pointless.

If we say that there was some knowledge about manipulating nature as in messing around with nature elements and chemicals that changed the consitution of stone. Then we may have the exact same physical appearence of the end result (a precision vase).

The evidence for this is????

Then wonder how on earth they could have done this in a time when there was no big devices that machined stone. But it was the knowledge of manipulating the material that allowed the use of convential tools that achieved the result. So a conbination of both methods. But the knowledge and manipulation of nature is what gave the advantage compared to other culture who did it the hard way. Its not always a case that this or that method was solely used.

We've led you to water, we can't make you drink. If you haven't seen enough replication of actual Egyptian stone working technology to think it was even possible, why should I bother trying again?

Theres a lot of sorting to do and the more data the better. Like I said only in recent times are we discovering how deep this knowledge may be with how the pyramids may have been used for chemical and engergy production. Like a scientific lab nearly 5,000 years ago, Thats advanced knowledge for that time.

LOL. No evidence of this.

The same with many things like the position and locations of the sites themselves and the stones within them all having some representation of the sites not just being architecture but had some specific application. We are still discovering this with research.

What was that?

The study of religion and spirituality is really a recent area of research. I have read much literature on the subject. Like I said all cultures were spiritual. It was a world thing. Then as you progress cultures moved away from this at varying levels. Until there were patches of cultures who were still immersed in the spiritual.

Its just different expressions of the same thing. Studies show religion and spirituality are the natural default position. It actually takes material sciences to indoctrinate this out of humans. The other way around. So if you imagine that without that enlightenement and science humans naturally lived in the spiritual paradigm.

So there will be varying levels of spirituality. Or rather different expressions. Like the Tibetians would be very spiritual to the point that they are still heavily immersed in spirituality. Then we can look at say the US in the 50s had a degree of religious belief and spirituality. While at the same time losing that as materialism took over due to science and tech.

I would put most ancient cultures in the Tibetian level of spirituality as the entire world was like that when you go way back. Everything was about gods and spirits. Then as progression happened and especially colonisation things changed. There are still pockets where cultures are very immersed but its becoming rarer.

Not relevant.

Yes, I mentioned this earlier. An attempt to explain what the alternative knowledge was based on. The paradigm it existed in which was at its most different from today.

Mythology is part of it and thats what makes it interesting. I guess if a culture peaked and had great knowledge where they could create great megaliths and works that legends would be made of them.

Thats exactly what we see. That these works had such an impact of the world that most cultures made them into legends of the gods. In some ways they are saying we also see these works as out of place. They are so great that they stand out and must be from the gods.

Yes in Egypt. But the spiritual basis was the same all along. Sooner or later someone was going to come along and actually want to be the god they were worshipping. The fight between the gods and humans as gods is a natural rebellion. I think the Greek gods compromised and made gods in the heavens with human traits.

But at the time the pharoah made himself a god this was still the same spiritual paradigm. Perhaps the idea of humans being gods was a later idea as cultures progressed and became more powerful and worldly.

Not relevant.

This is suppose to go back 120,000 years when Neanderthals buried the persons favorite tool or possession with the body. So even then everything was becoming about the spirit world. There was no divide. Imagine 115,000 years of spirituality up to the time of the Megaliths. Thats a lot of knowledge.

Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens buried their dead differently, study suggests

Neanderthals tended to bury their dead in caves, while early modern humans buried their dead in the fetal position, new research finds.

www.livescience.com

A grave from 100,000 years before writing clearly indicates spirtual practices. I don't buy that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How do you know science has refuted "alternative knowledge" when you don't know what that "alternative knowledge" is?

Exaxtly.

Dr. Jordon Peteraon is a charlatan with no theological training.

Peterson is not only not trained in theology, he is extremely squirilly about answering the "do you believe in god" question.

Dr. John Lennox is an eminent theologion with whom I agree--he believes that methodological naturalism does not inherently exclude God.

Lennox is a mathematician and public apologist. I don't know of any training or scholarship from him on theology.

 

[BCP1928]

Exaxtly.

Peterson is not only not trained in theology, he is extremely squirilly about answering the "do you believe in god" question.

Lennox is a mathematician and public apologist. I don't know of any training or scholarship from him on theology.

An Oxford Don and lay theologian by hobby. Well regarded in ecclesiastical circles as I understand it, but the point is, he rejects Steve's position on science

 

[Hans Blaster]

An Oxford Don and lay theologian by hobby. Well regarded in ecclesiastical circles as I understand it, but the point is, he rejects Steve's position on science

He also rejects mine as he obnoxiously ties science to his religion. I can't stand either Lennox or Peterson. (What's an Oxford Don? SOunds like a mafia boss.)

 

[stevevw]

How do you know science has refuted "alternative knowledge" when you don't know what that "alternative knowledge" is?

We know the alternative knowledge lies outside methological naturalism. Its all contained within the causual closure of the physical. This is the prior assumption of the science method.

Alternative knowledge is beyond the science method. So every time someone uses the science method to refute alternative knowledge as unreal fundementally then it becomes a belief about what constitutes true fundemental reality.

Dr. Jordon Peteraon is a charlatan with no theological training.

So immediate you are dismissing someone based on a ad hominem. You provide no evidence for this and in fact many think the opposite. So what now. We have two opposing beliefs about what Peterson represents. By the fact you label everything he represents as a charlatan which is underservin g shows your bias.

Dr. John Lennox is an eminent theologion with whom I agree--he believes that methodological naturalism does not inherently exclude God.

That God can be proven by science. I never knew that.

What if Lennox and Peterson agree on stuff. Does that make Lennox a charlatan as well.

 

[stevevw]

He also rejects mine as he obnoxiously ties science to his religion. I can't stand either Lennox or Peterson. (What's an Oxford Don? SOunds like a mafia boss.)

Out comes the vicious ad hominems lol. The bias is showing. Not being able to "stand someone" doesn't seem like an objective fact. More a personal and emotional opinion and belief.

So millions of Christiand agree with Lennox beliefs. I suppose you can't stand them either. Or is it something personal against Peterson and Lennox you can't stand.

One mans trash is anothers treasure. Strange how that works.

 

[stevevw]

An Oxford Don and lay theologian by hobby.

Listen to you like your a expert determining who is lay and who is not. Like your above them all to tell lol. Show me how Peterson is a hobby theologian. I bet you can't. Because its a blantant horrible brush to tar anyone who has at least academic credibility and spent much time on studying the bible and applying psychology with theology.

It is a simple fact that Peterson is at the academic level in theology and psychology. Well past a hobbyist who is part time and an amateur.

But then thats all we have got in this thread. Constant belittling of anyone I suggest. All tared with the same brush because it was already decided that this is all rubbish and conspiracy. I can go back and show you. Even Petrie was made into a stupid old man who did not know what he was talking about.

This is only proving my point that this is not about science facts but belief.

Well regarded in ecclesiastical circles as I understand it, but the point is, he rejects Steve's position on science

No he doesn't. You literally made a strawman. Show me how Lennox says science can include God in its methodology. Good luck.

In fact his main point is that science and maths points to a creator God and not material naturalism. Thus supporting my point that fundementally this is spiritual. That reality is immersed in the spiritual and phenomenal experiences like belief in God or gods.

Because its natural. Thus those in the past who were immersed in the spiritual were actually closer and aligned to Gods natural laws and gained a deeper knowledge of how they worked. They did not attenuate the spiritual with material sciences that assumed naturalism was itself the creator. But laws of the creator that went beyond the material. Thus a deeper knowledge.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

We know the alternative knowledge lies outside methological naturalism. Its all contained within the causual closure of the physical. This is the prior assumption of the science method.

Alternative knowledge is beyond the science method. So every time someone uses the science method to refute alternative knowledge as unreal fundementally then it becomes a belief about what constitutes true fundemental reality.

You have previously alluded to aboriginals using ancient knowledge today, but when questioned about it you didn't give any inkling on what they actually do. What do they do, and if it influences reality, why couldn't we measure it?

Even if we disagree about the cause, why can't we measure the effect?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Out comes the vicious ad hominems lol.

Learn what an "ad hom" is, Steve. I was not attempting to defeat an argument from Lennox or Peterson based on their personal characteristics. I don't even know why they were mentioned in this thread as they have no relevance. ln fact is the other way around. I dislike Peterson and Lennox *because* of their positions and how they argue them.

The bias is showing. Not being able to "stand someone" doesn't seem like an objective fact. More a personal and emotional opinion and belief.

So millions of Christiand agree with Lennox beliefs.

I doubt that many Christians have even heard of some mathematician.

I suppose you can't stand them either. Or is it something personal against Peterson and Lennox you can't stand.

You already read my statement. Peterson sells philosophical and psychological woo while stringing along the suckers by implying, but never stating, that he is a Christian. Lennox makes unfounded claims that science "proves God". Both are also ridiculously arrogant and condescending.

One persons trash is anothers treasure. Strange how that works.

I do not know why you keep picking through the trash.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Listen to you like your a expert determining who is lay and who is not. Like your above them all to tell lol. Show me how Peterson is a hobby theologian. I bet you can't. Because its a blantant horrible brush to tar anyone who has at least academic credibility and spent much time on studying the bible and applying psychology with theology.

If a theologian is not ordained, they are a lay theologian are they not.

Does Peterson work as a theologian nowadays? His academic work is in clinical psychology if I remember correctly.

 

[stevevw]

You have previously alluded to aboriginals using ancient knowledge today, but when questioned about it you didn't give any inkling on what they actually do. What do they do, and if it influences reality, why couldn't we measure it?

Even if we disagree about the cause, why can't we measure the effect?

I was rejecting the idea that we have to prove Indigenous knowledge. We know there is such a thing. Its called knowledge and its different to material sciences. So it exists and the Indigenous peoples tell us so. Its like defending their language as a real thing from the past.

Aboriginals are one of the most interesting and complex cultures. Steeped in the Dreamtime which is sort of the equivelant of the Creation story.

Only in recent times are we discovering their knowledge. They now lead most of the environments programs caring for the land. That includes working science and tech with Indigneous knowledge. Or redirecting science and tech into Indigenous applications.

I mean they were not a building culture so theres no vases or megaliths. The giant natural rocks and other natural sites are the megaliths. Their culture is much more ancient . I mean the Boomerang is pretty cool. So is the Didgeridoo.

They are good at sustainable living, sustainable crops. Blending in crops to thive with their natural environment without disturbing the land. Unlike modern tech that destroys nature despite its advanced tech. Which shows that Indigenous knowledge is a deeper knowledge that knows nature and how it works. Where actually material science is dumb in that sense.

The use of fire is another practice that helps regrowth, hunting, and maintaining the land. They manage to control the bush pretty good and then we come along and stop all the knowledge and wonder why we get mega bush fires that wipe out growth the size of a small nation destroying homes and people.

There are many ways. Too many to name.

Western science and traditional knowledge: Despite their variations, different forms of knowledge can learn from each other
For example, some authors (Freeman, 1992; Iaccarino, 2003) have suggested that traditional knowledge systems can be helpful in dealing with complex systems: “The understanding of complex systems remains a major challenge for the future, and no scientist today can claim that we have at hand the appropriate methods with which to achieve this. Thus, we cannot discuss the future of science without taking into account the philosophical problems generated by the study of complexity.

Modern, or Western, science may not be best suited to fulfil this task, as its view of the world is too constrained by its characteristic empirical and analytical approach that, in the past, made it so successful. We should therefore remember the contributions of other civilizations to the understanding of nature. […] Such traditional or indigenous knowledge is now increasingly being used not only with the aim of finding new drugs, but also to derive new concepts that may help us to reconcile empiricism and science” (Iaccarino, 2003).

Western science and traditional knowledge: Despite their variations, different forms of knowledge can learn from each other - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Science Must Embrace Traditional and Indigenous Knowledge to Solve Our Biodiversity Crisis

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259033222030350X

It’s taken thousands of years, but Western science is finally catching up to Traditional Knowledge

It’s taken thousands of years, but Western science is finally catching up to Traditional Knowledge

A double standard exists concerning the acceptance of Traditional Knowledge by practitioners of Western science.

theconversation.com

 

[Stopped_lurking]

I was rejecting the idea that we have to prove Indigenous knowledge. We know there is such a thing. Its called knowledge and its different to material sciences. So it exists and the Indigenous peoples tell us so. Its like defending their language as a real thing from the past.

Aboriginals are one of the most interesting and complex cultures. Steeped in the Dreamtime which is sort of the equivelant of the Creation story.

Only in recent times are we discovering their knowledge.

Give me an example then, and explain why it is outside the scope of science.

Western science and traditional knowledge: Despite their variations, different forms of knowledge can learn from each other
For example, some authors (Freeman, 1992; Iaccarino, 2003) have suggested that traditional knowledge systems can be helpful in dealing with complex systems: “The understanding of complex systems remains a major challenge for the future, and no scientist today can claim that we have at hand the appropriate methods with which to achieve this. Thus, we cannot discuss the future of science without taking into account the philosophical problems generated by the study of complexity.

Modern, or Western, science may not be best suited to fulfil this task, as its view of the world is too constrained by its characteristic empirical and analytical approach that, in the past, made it so successful. We should therefore remember the contributions of other civilizations to the understanding of nature. […] Such traditional or indigenous knowledge is now increasingly being used not only with the aim of finding new drugs, but also to derive new concepts that may help us to reconcile empiricism and science” (Iaccarino, 2003).

Western science and traditional knowledge: Despite their variations, different forms of knowledge can learn from each other - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Science Must Embrace Traditional and Indigenous Knowledge to Solve Our Biodiversity Crisis

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259033222030350X

It’s taken thousands of years, but Western science is finally catching up to Traditional Knowledge

It’s taken thousands of years, but Western science is finally catching up to Traditional Knowledge

A double standard exists concerning the acceptance of Traditional Knowledge by practitioners of Western science.

theconversation.com

Do any of these articles make the case that its use would not be possible to study scientifically? Getting inspiration and tips and tricks and generating hypothesis from the local population is all fine and dandy. I'm sure imperialistic and colonial worldviews have caused distress, pain, even outright murder historically so I'm all for giving the Sami people a place at the table when planning science experiments in Sapmi. If they present a method or a result or natural phenomenon we can study it with scientific methods and try to explain it as well as giving their description a voice.

 

[stevevw]

Give me an example then, and explain why it is outside the scope of science.

Do any of these articles make the case that its use would not be possible to study scientifically? Getting inspiration and tips and tricks and generating hypothesis from the local population is all fine and dandy. I'm sure imperialistic and colonial worldviews have caused distress, pain, even outright murder historically so I'm all for giving the Sami people a place at the table when planning science experiments in Sapmi. If they present a method or a result or natural phenomenon we can study it with scientific methods and try to explain it as well as giving their description a voice.

But your trying to explain this in scientific material terms which defeats the whole idea of alternative knowledge to the scientific paradigm.

The best way I can relate it to consciousness and phenomenal experiences like belief and material sciences. They belong in different paradigms or the lens by which someone sees fundemental reality. Whether its something transcedent or the causal closure of the phycial is all there is to understanding the world and reality.

Some theories in Quantum Consciousness posit that Mind is fundemental and actually creates the objective world we see. So obvious there are two ways to see the evidence. One measures the physical and the other the Mind or the phenomena beyond the mind.

Already we see a major difference where science could not even measure the transcedent aspect of reality. Therefore if there is a transcedent aspect then this must connect with the objective aspect fundementally. Thus being immersed in the transcedent or spirit gives a deeper knowledge behind what we see. Thus being able to manipulate or transcend the material world.

Its from this basis that I think ancient knowledge could be more advanced because its more aligned with fundemental reality. We can see how modern physics is now toying with the idea that Mind or consciousness is fundemental and could unlock the physical world.

But remember this is spectualtion and an hypothesis. I am not saying this is exactly the case. I don't know. I am just attempting to explain a possibility.