There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

Stopped_lurking · Wednesday at 8:17 AM

stevevw said:
Just like the images I gave of clear machine like cuts which were ignored. I gave plenty of examples of melted and softened stone that was clearly not the result of anything natural or from some accidental lightening strike.

I asked about vitrification. Why shift the subject?

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 10:50 AM

Part I. In which Steve responds to Herr Doktor Blaster's reminder of the subject of his inquiries.

stevevw said:
No it was you who changed the goal posts. I was talking about the Mind/body aspect in relation to transcedent knowledge and you interject agriculture which has nothing to do with this.

Oh, to be so wrong...

You've been asserting that ancient peoples, including specifically the ancient Egyptians, had this esotaric/transcentdental knowledge *BECAUSE* they were immersed in nature. Since I KNOW we aren't going to see eye-to-eye on the existence of those things, I chose instead to address your supporting claim that they were immersed in nature. That's why their existence as an agricultural and urban civilization is RELEVANT. My point has been that the agricultural society I grew up in (everything farms except a few scattered woods, wetlands, and towns) is certainly no less connected to nature as they were. I used Egypt specifically because it is so clear with Egypt (being confined by deadly deserts) and Egypt has been a primary subject of this thread and a place where you have specifically made this "immersed in nature" claim.

(and yet again, my attempt to keep the conversation focused on a sub-point until it was finished fell victim to the expansion impulse)

stevevw said:
You were trying to claim somehow that agricultural knowledge equals or negates transcedent knowledge.

Nope, didn't make that claim. It's strictly about your "Egypt was immersed in nature" argument to your claim about "transcendent".

stevevw said:
This is the whole point I have been making. You obviously don't believe in transcedent beliefs or knowledge fullstop. So your rejecting this based on your belief. When you ask for evidence you are demanding that the very material method that discounts transcedent knowledge be the only method we should use epistemically. Thats not science. Show me the science that says we must use your method of evidence to prove or disprove transcedent knowledge.

Irrelevant. Not the point I am making. You are arguing against the straw man. (Here's a hint for good conversation, just because you know something about the other person, does not mean you should focus your response on that aspect of them when it is not the subject. What is it we call an argument that focuses on the opponent instead of the argument?)

Part II. In which Hans asks Steve to provide evidence that the ancients, particularly the Egyptians, were immersed in the transcendent. [Me: Based on what evidence? (Subject is EGYPT.) ] To which he replies a full page. Does he answer the question? Let's see...

stevevw said:
You can't because the method dismisses that epistemics in the first place. But that is not justified scientifically.

I'm not the subject.

stevevw said:
As I said there are ways we can know the world and reality besides material sciences. These are the direct conscious experiences whether through phenomenal belief or direct transcedent experiences.

This kind of evidence comes direct from the experiencer. So we look at the ancients and their stories and their culture and beliefs. We look at all this aspect of humans under the heading of religion or belief in transcedent spirits. Whatever you want to call it.

I'm not asking for general claims about "transcendent spirts". I want evidence on how we know Egypt was immersed in them.

stevevw said:
The difference is that skeptics, material science and atheists disregard this as make believe and unreal. Whereas the ancients themselves and many others like those who are open to transcedent ideas see this as evidence.

I'm not asking for your opinion of skeptics. I know how much you despise us.

stevevw said:
Now if you disagree then thats a matter of belief because no amount of material science can say one thing about whether its truth or not.

I didn't ask for you to tell me what I believe. I know what that is and you don't. One more paragraph, will you respond to the question?

Nope. He won't.

stevevw said:
That does not mean its not real and in fact those who believe in this alternative way of seeing and measuring the world claim you have got it back the front. It is material science that is the deluded ones and the transcedent reality is the real stuff lol. And theres not a thing you can do about it.

I'm not asking for some more ranting about "material science" or the back of your front (whatever that is about).

In summary, you didn't answer a simple question.

[end of part II response to question "Based on what evidence? (Subject is EGYPT.) "]

Part III In which Steve valiantly avoids answering questions about Egypt and agriculture.

Question the first: [ I literally just told you that Egypt was an agriculture and urban culture. How is agriculture and cities "immersed in nature"?] The response:

stevevw said:
Its a logical fallacy.

No "how is ag and cities "immersed in nature" question and a very reasonable one given your claims.

stevevw said:
Having agriculture does not mean the ancients were not immersed in nature and gained deeper knowledge.

Not the claim I was making. I was asking how being agriculturalists meant Egypt was "immersed in nature" as you have been asserting.

stevevw said:
Your making an either/or fallacy that either the entire culture is either an agricultural society and has no transcedent beliefs and knowledge. Or vice versa.

I didn't make that claim here. I asked you a question about agriculture and nature. Transcendentalism wasn't the subject of the question.

stevevw said:
I told you that knowledge does not work this way. It may be that only a certain section of that culture possessed that knowledge or that both forms of knowledge were at play at the same time.

We have two different forms of knowledge. Two different paradigms or more at play over time and at the same time sometimes. This is part of the problem. Every time I propose alternative and transcedent knowledge you then bring it back to your material belief about what knowledge is. Thats an epistemic belief and not science itself.

Somewhere about three paragraphs back you walked completely past the point of the question.

Question the second: In which I had asked sarcastically if the Egyptians knew nature well because they were hunter-gathers (they obviously weren't) [Me: Did the Egyptians spend their days hunting on the savanna for meat and hides to sew into simple clothing?] Will the response reflect the question?

Nope. Not even close.

stevevw said:
If I knew that I would be famous lol.

School children know the answer. The answer is "No. They didn't. They had farms and cities."

stevevw said:
Some are trying to understand this knowledge such as the tests done on the pyramids and casting of stones and have learn some new tech as a result.

When you are reading our posts and have them up in the edit box, are you just waiting to dump whatever floats into your mind onto the screen. As with every other part of this "reply" to the second question of part III, this is not relevant in the slightest.

stevevw said:
But how can you know if its within a completely different paradigm. Except that the end result is out of place for that time and more advanced.

It's weird that you seem to be denying that Egypt was agricultural. Why is that?

stevevw said:
I look at it this way. Lets say conscieness beyond brain is real. Some scientists say consciousness acts a lot like the quantum physics observations being indeterminant. Anyway that doesn't matter as its a hypothetical.

Your mal-understanding of QM isn't even close to the topic.

stevevw said:
But if it were the case and as we have acknowledged today that these aspects are within a different realm of knowing such as material science cannot tell us about the experience of the color Red or a sunset or the awe of the night sky that brings transcedent knowledge

Then what would you even look for that was physical to measure. You cannot measure an experience or a conscious state that may bring knowledge in the first place to know.

Thats because its a state of being in that moment and experiencing the phenomena and then the knowledge comes from this. Like the Red experience. It was not until Mary could see colors and then experience Red that gave her the new knowledge of the world with that Red experience.

So if there is other knowledge that comes from direct experiences of nature then how can we measure this. If we cannot measure Marys experience of that knowledge except ask her directly. How on earth could we even measure this kind of knowledge unless we ask the ancients directly.

Oh boy, this is not only not a reasonable answer to anything I've asked, but I also don't care.

The third sub-part in which to the statement "On the other hand the nature of Egyptian agriculture is well established." Steve replies.

stevevw said:
Yes and that comes under a different paradigm from material sciences. I guarentee that the ancients have a different version of what agricultural knowledge means and represents and how they come to know this which is based on a transcedent belief about their immersion in nature.

The use of the seasons, the sun, moon and stars, the movement of nature, the tiny aspects that we miss by dismissing experiences that gives them a deeper knowledge. Because they transcended the surface and material view of agriculture in the material science sense. They had a holistic understanding including the spiritual.

I take it you've never been near a farm. We were all very connected to the seasons, the full moon and the sun, the ebb of nature, etc. Nothing has changed here. You're starting to sound like one of those urban interlopers that come out to our open farm lands to "experience nature" and get "holistic understandings" of everything. We hated those guys.

Now to question the final ["What has that got to do with Egyptian urban and agricultural society?"] to which Steve replies

stevevw said:
I explained this above. Go and ask the ancients themselves. Stop forcing your belief about what agriculture means and represents in the transcedent sense for others who hold this alternative knowledge.

Don't you believe the ancients themseves or do you want to force your belief onto them.

SMH.

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 10:50 AM

Stopped_lurking said:
I asked about vitrification. Why shift the subject?

Habit.

sjastro · Wednesday at 4:12 PM

Hans Blaster said:
Part I. In which Steve responds to Herr Doktor Blaster's reminder of the subject of his inquiries.

Oh, to be so wrong...

You've been asserting that ancient peoples, including specifically the ancient Egyptians, had this esotaric/transcentdental knowledge *BECAUSE* they were immersed in nature. Since I KNOW we aren't going to see eye-to-eye on the existence of those things, I chose instead to address your supporting claim that they were immersed in nature. That's why their existence as an agricultural and urban civilization is RELEVANT. My point has been that the agricultural society I grew up in (everything farms except a few scattered woods, wetlands, and towns) is certainly no less connected to nature as they were. I used Egypt specifically because it is so clear with Egypt (being confined by deadly deserts) and Egypt has been a primary subject of this thread and a place where you have specifically made this "immersed in nature" claim.

(and yet again, my attempt to keep the conversation focused on a sub-point until it was finished fell victim to the expansion impulse)

Nope, didn't make that claim. It's strictly about your "Egypt was immersed in nature" argument to your claim about "transcendent".

Irrelevant. Not the point I am making. You are arguing against the straw man. (Here's a hint for good conversation, just because you know something about the other person, does not mean you should focus your response on that aspect of them when it is not the subject. What is it we call an argument that focuses on the opponent instead of the argument?)

Part II. In which Hans asks Steve to provide evidence that the ancients, particularly the Egyptians, were immersed in the transcendent. [Me: Based on what evidence? (Subject is EGYPT.) ] To which he replies a full page. Does he answer the question? Let's see...

I'm not the subject.

I'm not asking for general claims about "transcendent spirts". I want evidence on how we know Egypt was immersed in them.

I'm not asking for your opinion of skeptics. I know how much you despise us.

I didn't ask for you to tell me what I believe. I know what that is and you don't. One more paragraph, will you respond to the question?

Nope. He won't.

I'm not asking for some more ranting about "material science" or the back of your front (whatever that is about).

In summary, you didn't answer a simple question.

[end of part II response to question "Based on what evidence? (Subject is EGYPT.) "]

Part III In which Steve valiantly avoids answering questions about Egypt and agriculture.

Question the first: [ I literally just told you that Egypt was an agriculture and urban culture. How is agriculture and cities "immersed in nature"?] The response:

No "how is ag and cities "immersed in nature" question and a very reasonable one given your claims.

Not the claim I was making. I was asking how being agriculturalists meant Egypt was "immersed in nature" as you have been asserting.

I didn't make that claim here. I asked you a question about agriculture and nature. Transcendentalism wasn't the subject of the question.

Somewhere about three paragraphs back you walked completely past the point of the question.

Question the second: In which I had asked sarcastically if the Egyptians knew nature well because they were hunter-gathers (they obviously weren't) [Me: Did the Egyptians spend their days hunting on the savanna for meat and hides to sew into simple clothing?] Will the response reflect the question?

Nope. Not even close.

School children know the answer. The answer is "No. They didn't. They had farms and cities."

When you are reading our posts and have them up in the edit box, are you just waiting to dump whatever floats into your mind onto the screen. As with every other part of this "reply" to the second question of part III, this is not relevant in the slightest.

It's weird that you seem to be denying that Egypt was agricultural. Why is that?

Your mal-understanding of QM isn't even close to the topic.

Oh boy, this is not only not a reasonable answer to anything I've asked, but I also don't care.

The third sub-part in which to the statement "On the other hand the nature of Egyptian agriculture is well established." Steve replies.

I take it you've never been near a farm. We were all very connected to the seasons, the full moon and the sun, the ebb of nature, etc. Nothing has changed here. You're starting to sound like one of those urban interlopers that come out to our open farm lands to "experience nature" and get "holistic understandings" of everything. We hated those guys.

Now to question the final ["What has that got to do with Egyptian urban and agricultural society?"] to which Steve replies

SMH.

As you are aware @stevevw's answers are based on a standard template, it doesn't matter what you post his responses will always be the same.
The sheer stupidity of using a template is that despite a myriad of peer reviewed articles and tests which clearly debunk Egyptians using stone softening techniques, tools producing machined surfaces etc is automatically judged as nonexistent otherwise it contradicts the template.

This leads to @stevevw's fallacious reasoning assertion transcendental knowledge is a product of his refusal to even acknowledge the role of science and the evidence in reconstructing the world the ancients lived in.

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 4:41 PM

sjastro said:
As you are aware @stevevw's answers are based on a standard template, it doesn't matter what you post his responses will always be the same.
The sheer stupidity of using a template is that despite a myriad of peer reviewed articles and tests which clearly debunk Egyptians using stone softening techniques, tools producing machined surfaces etc is automatically judged as nonexistent otherwise it contradicts the template.

Tempates? Not sure what those are in this context. I thought his neurons were repeatedly firing in the same wrong way.

There are posters who get caught in loops and obsessions (mr. thalidomide comes to mind) and keep coming back to the same things even when not applicable.

sjastro said:
This leads to @stevevw's fallacious reasoning assertion transcendental knowledge is a product of his refusal to even acknowledge the role of science and the evidence in reconstructing the world the ancients lived in.

It is so weird, since even the video in the first post is about physical evidence of civilization and settlement earlier than previously appreciated plus a bit of speculation.

sjastro · Wednesday at 7:18 PM

Hans Blaster said:
Tempates? Not sure what those are in this context. I thought his neurons were repeatedly firing in the same wrong way.

There are posters who get caught in loops and obsessions (mr. thalidomide comes to mind) and keep coming back to the same things even when not applicable.

It is so weird, since even the video in the first post is about physical evidence of civilization and settlement earlier than previously appreciated plus a bit of speculation.

Maybe @stevevw shows a bit more more variety in his responses to you but in my case the template is the same tired old script, images presented as evidence when in reality they do not even represent what he thinks they are and the absence of peer reviewed reports refuting his pseudoscience.
What we are observing is classic cognitive dissonance, he retreats into delusion when his faith based arguments are brought into question.

sjastro · Wednesday at 8:00 PM

stevevw said:
View attachment 374292

The snake shape is melted into the stone. See those little scoop marks. They are man made and not from grinding. See the glaze this is all over the indent showing the stone was softened and melted to create this into the stone.

Let's look at your snake image, if the rock has been reduced to a melted paste why not shape the snake in a single scoop instead of segmented scoops?
The reason is quite simple, this is a relief cut where a series of overlapping holes were drilled which were then chiselled out and gives the segmented appearance. This was explained to you but alas due to cognitive dissonance it didn't register.

As an AI exercise I asked it how it was produced.

This photo shows a series of round, shallow holes forming a vertical line in a stone block, with a larger cavity or notch at the top. This type of feature is commonly found on ancient or historical stonework — and it is not a natural formation but the result of stone quarrying or shaping techniques.

Likely Identification

This is most likely an example of feather and wedge or plug and feather holes — a method of stone splitting.

How It Was Produced

Drilling: A line of small, evenly spaced round holes was drilled into the stone using a hand chisel, iron drill, or later, percussion drill.

Each hole was typically 2–4 cm in diameter and spaced 3–6 cm apart.

Inserting Tools: Into each hole, two metal shims ("feathers") and a wedge ("plug") were inserted.

Splitting: Workers hammered the wedges in sequence, applying even pressure until the stone split cleanly along the drilled line.

The top cavity visible in your image may be where a lifting clamp or pry point was used after the split, or where erosion has enlarged the uppermost drill hole.

Typical Contexts

Such features can be seen in:

Quarries (unfinished blocks or extraction faces)

Ancient monuments or construction sites

Abandoned stone blocks where the cut was never completed

Geological Note

The stone in your image appears to be volcanic tuff, limestone, or a similar soft rock, consistent with materials quarried and dressed in ancient Mediterranean or Andean contexts.

If you’d like, I can narrow down which site or culture this resembles most (e.g., Roman, Inca, Egyptian) — would you like me to do that?

The difference in my response to AI is I based it on the Egyptian method of drilled overlapping holes whereas for AI the holes are not overlapped but the manufacturing principles are similar.
Even if AI is a dumb language model why is there no reference to stone softening and scooping, since you rather disingenuously try to portray this as established science it should have fallen within the range of an AI response.

BCP1928 · Wednesday at 8:02 PM

stevevw said:
And I explained this several times. I did not begin with the physical sciences. It was more philosophical about how the orthodoxy was flawed. Thats a epistemic issue of philosophy of science and not physical science.

It just occurred to me after all this time we have spent talking about ancient esoteric knowledge and stonecutting--to put the two concepts together. And what tradisition combines ancient esoteric knowledge and stonecutting? Freemasonry! You need to look into Freemasonry to find your answer.

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 10:12 PM

sjastro said:
Maybe @stevevw shows a bit more more variety in his responses to you but in my case the template is the same tired old script, images presented as evidence when in reality they do not even represent what he thinks they are and the absence of peer reviewed reports refuting his pseudoscience.
What we are observing is classic cognitive dissonance, he retreats into delusion when his faith based arguments are brought into question.

I thought you meant he was using some sort of pre-prepped text or algorithm.

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 10:14 PM

BCP1928 said:
It just occurred to me after all this time we have spent talking about ancient esoteric knowledge and stonecutting--to put the two concepts together. And what tradisition combines ancient esoteric knowledge and stonecutting? Freemasonry! You need to look into Freemasonry to find your answer.

Or Stonecutters.

BCP1928 · 2025-12-11T07:46:43-0600

Hans Blaster said:
Or Stonecutters.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-12-11T07:56:02-0600

Hans Blaster said:
Or Stonecutters.

Hans Blaster · 2025-12-11T08:25:16-0600

BCP1928 said:
View attachment 374345

The chosen one.

sjastro · 2025-12-11T15:36:51-0600

sjastro said:
Let's look at your snake image, if the rock has been reduced to a melted paste why not shape the snake in a single scoop instead of segmented scoops?
The reason is quite simple, this is a relief cut where a series of overlapping holes were drilled which were then chiselled out and gives the segmented appearance. This was explained to you but alas due to cognitive dissonance it didn't register.

As an AI exercise I asked it how it was produced.

The difference in my response to AI is I based it on the Egyptian method of drilled overlapping holes whereas for AI the holes are not overlapped but the manufacturing principles are similar.
Even if AI is a dumb language model why is there no reference to stone softening and scooping, since you rather disingenuously try to portray this as established science it should have fallen within the range of an AI response.

As a further AI exercise I asked if the snake shape could have been the result of melting and scooping.

Could this shape have been produced by melting and scooping?

No. The physical features visible in the image are all consistent with mechanical removal of material, not melting.

1. The depressions are circular and uniform

The small cavities in the vertical line are true circles of similar diameter.

Melted and scooped material does not naturally form repeated, identical, circular holes.

Circular holes are a known outcome of drilling or repeated percussion with a fixed-diameter tool.

2. The holes follow a straight axis

The depressions form a straight line, with consistent spacing.

Thermal softening or erosion does not create a straight sequence of evenly spaced depressions.

Straight, evenly spaced holes are diagnostic of a deliberate mechanical technique used to weaken stone along a line so it can be split.

⚒️ 3. The interior texture shows brittle fracture, not flow

A melted-and-scooped surface would show:

smoothed or glassy interiors

sagging, flowing forms

soft edges

Instead, the walls show:

granular fracture

chipped edges

powdery or micro-flaked surfaces

These occur when stone is struck or drilled, not heated.

4. The upper cavity does not match melted shapes

The larger cavity above the row of holes has:

uneven edges

mechanical chipping

no signs of fused or softened material

If material were melted and removed, we would expect:

rounded, fluid margins

continuous curvature

a unified flow texture

Instead, we see something that is more consistent with mechanical hollowing or later weathering of a mechanically made recess.

️ 5. Weathering can make the pattern look organic

Wind, rain, and mineral oxidation can soften the edges of already-existing mechanical tool marks.

This can make a row of holes resemble:

a snake-like figure

a stylized groove

an organic form

But the underlying geometry—repetition, circularity, straight alignment—reveals a mechanical origin.

6. Summary: Why melting is ruled out

Evidence in the photo What it indicates
Repeated circular holes Mechanical drilling/percussion
Straight alignment A deliberate split line
Consistent diameter A fixed-size tool, not melting
Granular fractured surfaces Impact or drilling
No fluid textures Not melted
Organic look only after weathering Appearance, not origin

All diagnostic features match mechanical tool action, not thermal alteration.

If you want, I can also redo this in a short bullet list, show how this compares to real melted stone, or explain how the tool method works.

stevevw · 2025-12-11T20:14:13-0600

Hans Blaster said:
No. Not about "atheism" at all. Non-belief in gods has nothing to do with this topic or my position.

OK materialism. The belief in an only material or physical epistemics and by extention ontology that fundemental reality is only material in nature.

Hans Blaster said:
Woo is you word, but none of that stuff is relevant here.

What I was saying is that I am not claiming that all knowledge is about the fundamental physical forces. But... here we are discussing physical systems and objects. I'm not interested *ON THIS SUB-FORUM* about things that are not physical. No "spiritual" no "transcendental" no "feelings".

And I gave you the logical arguement that under this same belief the (physical effects) of all spiritual phenomena and knowledge including miracles and Gods creation are unreal.

That in itself is a belief and not science. Therefore the possibility that the physical effects found could have come from a similar kind of knowledge. That something in this alternative knowledge which also may occupy the same realm as the supernatural effects of miracles because it comes from within the same realm as the spiritual or transcedent beliefs and experiences of the ancients.

Its the logical possibility based on the same logic that I am argueing. Remembering that this is spectualting how the effects happened. Science does not tell us the why or how. Just the what. Just describing the effects.

Hans Blaster said:
Is "woo" you favorite (science board) persecution word? All of us methodological naturalist not willing to tolerate your made up nonsense.

No Woo or psuedoscience has been referreed to many times on this thread by skeptics to account for everything that is being claimed as alternative and advanced knowledge. Its the skeptics favorite persecution tool over those who believe in alternative knowledge.

Hans Blaster said:
I am not "triggered", I just don't find argumentum ad YT to be very compelling. You clearly do.

Hum enough to spend weeks if not years in an almost religious fashion to promote your belief and expose others showing that their beliefs equate to some YT video.

Hans Blaster said:
Math is just math. Sure someone might find it important or even "enlightening", but that doesn't make it anything more than math.

Give me a break. Maths often forms the basis for theories that have yet to be verified. yet they are believed and promoted as though they are fact.

A universe of nothingness
There is no charge in the universe, and no energy. Mathematics is the key to understanding how something spring forth from this nothing, and is the thread from which the fabric of reality is woven.

A universe of nothingness | Peter Atkins » IAI TV

The mathematical fabric of reality

iai.tv

Hans Blaster said:
If you expressed less dogma, I'd have to dispell less of it.

What is the dogma I have said exactly. Are you saying the mere claim that there is lost alternative and advanced knowledge is dogma. That persisting with this belief for 1,000s of years is dogma.

Hans Blaster said:
Evidence, facts, and physical plausibility. That's all I ask from anything presented here.

So how do we give that if the knowledge exists outside the facts and physical plausibility. You can't just dismiss it because it does not meet your beliefs in a physical ontology. You can't then force your epistemics onto others who disagree and believe the complete opposite.

This stels back to the dogmatic way the scientific material worldview has been forced over everyone. To the point where just expressing alternative knowledge is dogmatically dismissed as make believe and unreal. The demand to prove this by material science is the dogma.

Hans Blaster said:
If it has evidence, then your "belief" is irrelevant.

There you go you just literally proved my point. Any belief or claim about alternative knowledge is dismissed and made irrelevant. So how can we even prove it if its already dogmatically dismissed.

According to this belief all belief in religious knowledge including the bible is irrelevant to how the world is, what is true knowledge. What if the bible is right and this physical world is but an illusion that will pass away. That God created life, not from a physical ontology but whatever it is that God is.

Is this the hill you are going to die on.

Hans Blaster said:
Lot's of nonsense in that article. (also not the topic.)

Hans Blaster · 2025-12-11T21:24:47-0600

stevevw said:
OK materialism. The belief in an only material or physical epistemics and by extention ontology that fundemental reality is only material in nature.

"Materialism" is also not relevant to this thread.

stevevw said:
And I gave you the logical arguement that under this same belief the (physical effects) of all spiritual phenomena and knowledge including miracles and Gods creation are unreal.

Not relevant.

stevevw said:
That in itself is a belief and not science. Therefore the possibility that the physical effects found could have come from a similar kind of knowledge. That something in this alternative knowledge which also may occupy the same realm as the supernatural effects of miracles because it comes from within the same realm as the spiritual or transcedent beliefs and experiences of the ancients.

Its the logical possibility based on the same logic that I am argueing. Remembering that this is spectualting how the effects happened. Science does not tell us the why or how. Just the what. Just describing the effects.

If you want to talk about ancient religion, spiritual beliefs, or such, go find a better place for it. This ain't it.

stevevw said:
No Woo or psuedoscience has been referreed to many times on this thread by skeptics to account for everything that is being claimed as alternative and advanced knowledge. Its the skeptics favorite persecution tool over those who believe in alternative knowledge.

You bring up the word "woo" before we do, overall in this thread, in your discussions with me in this thread, and virtually every other time it comes up on this 1500-post thread it is *you* that brings up "woo", usually while complaining that we are calling your claims "woo".

stevevw said:
Hum enough to spend weeks if not years in an almost religious fashion to promote your belief and expose others showing that their beliefs equate to some YT video.

What belief is that? This statement make no sense. This thread isn't about my beliefs and I have no interest in discussing them.

stevevw said:
Give me a break. Maths often forms the basis for theories that have yet to be verified. yet they are believed and promoted as though they are fact.

I'm not sure what universe you are getting this from. It isn't anyone that I've been to.

stevevw said:
A universe of nothingness
There is no charge in the universe, and no energy. Mathematics is the key to understanding how something spring forth from this nothing, and is the thread from which the fabric of reality is woven.

A universe of nothingness | Peter Atkins » IAI TV

The mathematical fabric of reality

iai.tv

Ahh, the philosophical noodlings of a chemist. No thanks.

stevevw said:
What is the dogma I have said exactly. Are you saying the mere claim that there is lost alternative and advanced knowledge is dogma. That persisting with this belief for 1,000s of years is dogma.

The bits about "transcendental knowledge" and the attacks on philosophical naturalism, etc., etc., etc.

stevevw said:
So how do we give that if the knowledge exists outside the facts and physical plausibility. You can't just dismiss it because it does not meet your beliefs in a physical ontology. You can't then force your epistemics onto others who disagree and believe the complete opposite.

Of what use is "knowledge outside the facts"? you're not making sense.

stevevw said:
This stels back to the dogmatic way the scientific material worldview has been forced over everyone. To the point where just expressing alternative knowledge is dogmatically dismissed as make believe and unreal. The demand to prove this by material science is the dogma.

You don't have to create threads in the physical science section. That one is on you.

stevevw said:
There you go you just literally proved my point. Any belief or claim about alternative knowledge is dismissed and made irrelevant. So how can we even prove it if its already dogmatically dismissed.

Nope, that's just what your failed reading comprehension erroneously concluded. Let me state it even more clearly: If you have evidence you don't need belief. (Because evidence is better than belief every time.)

stevevw said:
According to this belief all belief in religious knowledge including the bible is irrelevant to how the world is, what is true knowledge. What if the bible is right and this physical world is but an illusion that will pass away. That God created life, not from a physical ontology but whatever it is that God is.

Are you running Pascal's wager? Seriously, that's a loosing hand every time.

stevevw said:
Is this the hill you are going to die on.

That evidence is better belief? That hill? Yes, absolutely! I will stand proudly on that hill (and twice on Sunday) and anyone who puts belief over fact and evidence is a fool.

BCP1928 · 2025-12-11T22:04:19-0600

stevevw said:
According to this belief all belief in religious knowledge including the bible is irrelevant to how the world is, what is true knowledge.

Seems an odd take on it, given that the Bible purports to be an account of persons and events taking place in physical reality.

stevevw said:
What if the bible is right and this physical world is but an illusion that will pass away. That God created life, not from a physical ontology but whatever it is that God is.

What Bible is that? According to the Bible I have, the physical world is real and God created life from earth and water and human life from dust and a rib.

sjastro · 2025-12-12T01:03:31-0600

stevevw said:
According to this belief all belief in religious knowledge including the bible is irrelevant to how the world is, what is true knowledge. What if the bible is right and this physical world is but an illusion that will pass away. That God created life, not from a physical ontology but whatever it is that God is.

And l suppose the following list of foreigners mentioned in the Old Testament that have been archaeologically attested to were also illusions in their respective cultures.

Name	Role / Nation	Biblical References	Archaeological Evidence	Type of Evidence
Shishak (Shoshenq I)	Egyptian Pharaoh	1 Kings 14:25–26; 2 Chr. 12:2–9	Bubastite Portal (Karnak) lists his Judah campaign towns	Direct inscription
Pharaoh Necho II	Egyptian Pharaoh	2 Kings 23:29–35; 2 Chr. 35:20–24	Numerous Egyptian inscriptions and monuments	Direct inscription
Tiglath-Pileser III	Assyrian King	2 Kings 15–16; 1 Chr. 5:26	Royal annals describing campaigns in Israel and Judah	Direct inscription
Shalmaneser III	Assyrian King	2 Kings 17:3	Kurkh Monolith; Black Obelisk (shows Jehu)	Direct inscription
Shalmaneser V	Assyrian King	2 Kings 17:3–6	Assyrian king lists and Babylonian Chronicle	Direct inscription
Sargon II	Assyrian King	Isaiah 20:1	Extensive palace inscriptions at Khorsabad	Direct inscription
Sennacherib	Assyrian King	2 Kings 18–19; Isaiah 36–37	Taylor Prism (siege of Hezekiah), palace reliefs	Direct inscription
Esarhaddon	Assyrian King	2 Kings 19:37; Ezra 4:2	Prism inscriptions listing vassal kings	Direct inscription
Ashurbanipal	Assyrian King	Ezra 4:10 (as Asnappar)	Palace inscriptions and library tablets	Direct inscription
Merodach-baladan	Babylonian King	Isaiah 39:1; 2 Kings 20:12	Babylonian king lists and inscriptions	Direct inscription
Nebuchadnezzar II	Babylonian King	2 Kings 24–25; Daniel 1–4; Jeremiah	Thousands of inscriptions confirming his reign	Direct inscription
Evil-Merodach (Amel-Marduk)	Babylonian King	2 Kings 25:27; Jer. 52:31	Babylonian king lists; inscriptions	Direct inscription
Belshazzar	Babylonian Regent	Daniel 5	Nabonidus Cylinders naming Belshazzar as his son	Direct inscription
Cyrus the Great	Persian King	Ezra 1; Isaiah 45	Cyrus Cylinder; other inscriptions	Direct inscription
Darius I (the Great)	Persian King	Ezra 4–6; Daniel 6	Behistun Inscription and many others	Direct inscription
Xerxes I (Ahasuerus)	Persian King	Book of Esther	Persepolis and other Persian royal inscriptions	Direct inscription
Artaxerxes I	Persian King	Ezra 7; Nehemiah 2	Persian royal inscriptions	Direct inscription
Tattenai	Persian Governor (“Beyond the River”)	Ezra 5–6	Darius’ administrative records mentioning Tattannu	Direct inscription
Sanballat	Samaritan Governor	Nehemiah 2–6	Elephantine papyri mentioning “Sanballat the governor”	Direct inscription
Ben-Hadad (Bar-Hadad)	Aramean Kings (several)	1 Kings 15:18–20; 20:1–34	Zakkur Stele; Tel Dan Stele references	Likely identification
Hazael	King of Aram-Damascus	1 Kings 19:15; 2 Kings 8–13	Tel Dan Stele; Assyrian annals of Shalmaneser III	Direct inscription
Mesha, King of Moab	King of Moab	2 Kings 3	Mesha Stele (Moabite Stone)	Direct inscription
Balaam son of Beor	Non-Israelite prophet	Numbers 22–24	Deir Alla Inscription (“Balaam son of Beor”)	Direct inscription

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-12-12T03:22:46-0600

The Simpsons video was my own real contribution to this thread in a long time but I've been following this thread daily, and I have a few take aways:

Firstly: @sjastro and @Hans Blaster, you guys are either incredibly patient people or gluttons for punishment.

Secondly: can any of this even be considered an actual scientific conversation if there's so much non-scientific, unevidenced, 'just so' claims made by the OP that it gets to the point that we've gone from well evidenced works of stone masonry that are truly universal to such pointless and ridiculous claims as non-physical reality being the reason behind the Egyptians building the pyramids?

Evidence in the photo	What it indicates
Repeated circular holes	Mechanical drilling/percussion
Straight alignment	A deliberate split line
Consistent diameter	A fixed-size tool, not melting
Granular fractured surfaces	Impact or drilling
No fluid textures	Not melted
Organic look only after weathering	Appearance, not origin

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

Well-Known Member

Stonecutter no. 51

Stonecutter no. 51

Newbie

Stonecutter no. 51

Newbie

Newbie

Likely Identification​

How It Was Produced​

Typical Contexts​

Geological Note​

Well-Known Member

Stonecutter no. 51

Stonecutter no. 51

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Stonecutter no. 51

Newbie

Could this shape have been produced by melting and scooping?​

1. The depressions are circular and uniform​

2. The holes follow a straight axis​

⚒️ 3. The interior texture shows brittle fracture, not flow​

4. The upper cavity does not match melted shapes​

️ 5. Weathering can make the pattern look organic​

6. Summary: Why melting is ruled out​

inquisitive

Stonecutter no. 51

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Likely Identification

How It Was Produced

Typical Contexts

Geological Note

Could this shape have been produced by melting and scooping?

1. The depressions are circular and uniform

2. The holes follow a straight axis

⚒️ 3. The interior texture shows brittle fracture, not flow

4. The upper cavity does not match melted shapes

️ 5. Weathering can make the pattern look organic

6. Summary: Why melting is ruled out