There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

Hans Blaster · Monday at 4:15 PM

AV1611VET said:
And denial is a river in Egypt ... right?

No, denial is your modus operandi.

Platte · Monday at 4:16 PM

AV1611VET said:
We're talking fallen angels here.

They came and took our women.

Ge 6:1 ¶ And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

I don’t see where it says anything about fallen angels here

AV1611VET · Monday at 4:57 PM

Platte said:
I don’t see where it says anything about fallen angels here

Job 38:4 ¶ Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Jude 1:6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

Ge 6:1 ¶ And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

Platte · Monday at 5:00 PM

AV1611VET said:
Job 38:4 ¶ Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Ge 6:1 ¶ And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

I’ve never heard of angels being referred to as sons of God. Humans who follow God are who I see referred to as Gods children. And the sons of God. Genesis is referring to humans (men) who followed God, not Angels

AV1611VET · Monday at 5:25 PM

Platte said:
I’ve never heard of angels being referred to as sons of God.

Now you have.

Platte said:
Humans who follow God are who I see referred to as Gods children.

I understand.

Platte said:
And the sons of God.

I understand.

I don't agree, but I understand.

Platte said:
Genesis is referring to humans (men) who followed God, not Angels

Negative

Platte · Monday at 7:19 PM

AV1611VET said:
Now you have.

I understand.

I understand.

I don't agree, but I understand.

Negative

I think if you plug in what I said it will make much more sense and ties into the corruption of man that led to the flood. It also removes the fantasical explanation required in this thread. Angels sleeping with humans make no sense. Sons of God (human men followers of God) begin sleeping with worldly woman lead to promiscuity and then Life away from God. At least that’s how I see it.

The Barbarian · Monday at 8:57 PM

And again, how do fallen angels, who are spirits, use technology or mate with physical beings?

AV1611VET said:
And I'm sure they can transform themselves into a physical body as well.

Absent any scriptural support, it's just a man-made doctrine. We see that God has sometimes given angels physical bodies. But nowhere does it say that they can do it themselves. Not sure finding women attractive is something He would send them to do.

And angels lack sexual characteristics:
Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married; but shall be as the angels of God in heaven.

AV1611VET · Monday at 9:48 PM

The Barbarian said:
And again, how do fallen angels, who are spirits, use technology or mate with physical beings?

Could they drive a chariot? ride a horse? dig a well? play baseball? climb a ladder? walk and chew gum?

In your opinion?

The Barbarian said:
Absent any scriptural support, it's just a man-made doctrine.

Then you tell me what it's saying.

Please interpret this for me as you see it ...

Ge 6:1 ¶ And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

The Barbarian said:
We see that God has sometimes given angels physical bodies.

Okay.

The Barbarian said:
But nowhere does it say that they can do it themselves.

So they couldn't do it themselves?

The Barbarian said:
Not sure finding women attractive is something He would send them to do.

Let me get this straight.

Are you saying the population was split up into two groups: the godly offspring of Seth and the ungodly offspring of Cain?

And after that, the godly men of Seth preferred to marry the ungodly women of Cain?

Seriously?

Didn't these godly men of Seth have their own godly women?

I'm not buying it.

stevevw · Wednesday at 3:50 AM

Hans Blaster said:
It's not clear what you mean by "large cities", but this is what I said.

This was the language from the articles on recent discoveries by Lidar. Its hard to tell. But considering that the experts claimed nothing was there and that this is the opposite of what we would expect for nomads.

Its not really just about size as no gathering of people back then will ever match the cities today. But they are like cities for that time. They have the same cognitions that come with humans gathering in one spot culturally.

Hans Blaster said:
Because it is lazy and subject to source bias.

Actually it depends how you use it. You are making a one sided assumption that Ai is used on its own. Yes that would be lazy as its the only source. Assuming Ai itself is only one source. I agree any good investigation needs more than one source. This is exactly what I do. Bit it seems even that is not good enough for some.

Hans Blaster said:
YouTube videos and an iffy site. ~~~ Great references there, steve.~~~

Its hilariously ironic that you make a claim with absolutely no independent support. No even a source anyone could mock apart from yourself. Are you the reference for your claims.

I find it hypocritical that you even dare make claims without support after going on some moral high horse about all my supports being discredited, whacko or biased. How do we know you are not the same. We don't because you never give anything. Just your own it seems truthful and factual words alone. Like God spoke them Himself.

Maybe that is the point of this thread. Whose words are the truth and fact.

Hans Blaster said:
The problem Steve, is that we are revisiting things that were refuted months ago, several times, and you are just too stubborn to admit.

Or is it the other way around. I can admit that some podcasters have over done it on the vases for example. But we still give the vases for that early time much credit for being advanced for that time. We can quibble about the methods but the standards are still there.

But for much of the other stuff you have not shown anything. I presented evidence that the so called dolerite pounders made the obeliskes. The scoop marks don't match tests done for small pounders. No one has refuted this.

I showed this same evidence for the sarcophagi which had machine level cuts. Heck I showed close up imagines of the cuts, the circular cuts Hans. A hand saw don't make circular cuts Hans. So stop lying.

There's a lot more but I am not going there again. This time I want you to prove to me that I am wrong. Show me evidence where it states that these were done with the traditional tools in the records. Then I will refute that with what I have already linked.

Hans Blaster said:
If you want to see this rebutted, go find the last few times you posted this and read the replies for real this time.

Hans you don't even have to use that detailed test. They showed ergonomically that you cannot swing a dolerite ball in the small spaces. if you cannot even deal with this obvious fact then how can you possibly be unbiased in the details. The actual micron tests that show a different pattern to the scoops that a dolerite pounder would make. For one they are uniform over and over again. Almost like just random pounding itself creates art itself. Uniform patterns in the hardest stone.

Which we all know from science itself that uniformity comes from the same shaped tool taking out the stone in one scoop. Three even walls making 90 degree angles and one entry point slanted down into the impression and back out at the end. They have made the same shapes in tests Hans. You like tests don't you.

stevevw · Wednesday at 3:53 AM

I can see the worm hole opening up again. Like the fiery Eye of Sauron in Lord of the Rings. Be careful once you go in you can never retirn the same again.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Wednesday at 3:55 AM

stevevw said:
I can see the worm hole opening up again. Like the fiery Eye of Sauron in Lord of the Rings. Be careful once you go in you can never retirn the same again.

The Eye of Sauron wasn't a wormhole; it was a physical manifestation of Sauron's disembodied soul on the physical planes of Middle-Earth.

Stopped_lurking · Wednesday at 4:07 AM

stevevw said:
This was the language from the articles on recent discoveries by Lidar. Its hard to tell. But considering that the experts claimed nothing was there and that this is the opposite of what we would expect for nomads.

Its not really just about size as no gathering of people back then will ever match the cities today. But they are like cities for that time. They have the same cognitions that come with humans gathering in one spot culturally.

Actually it depends how you use it. You are making a one sided assumption that Ai is used on its own. Yes that would be lazy as its the only source. Assuming Ai itself is only one source. I agree any good investigation needs more than one source. This is exactly what I do. Bit it seems even that is not good enough for some.

Its hilariously ironic that you make a claim with absolutely no independent support. No even a source anyone could mock apart from yourself. Are you the reference for your claims.

I find it hypocritical that you even dare make claims without support after going on some moral high horse about all my supports being discredited, whacko or biased. How do we know you are not the same. We don't because you never give anything. Just your own it seems truthful and factual words alone. Like God spoke them Himself.

Maybe that is the point of this thread. Whose words are the truth and fact.

Or is it the other way around. I can admit that some podcasters have over done it on the vases for example. But we still give the vases for that early time much credit for being advanced for that time. We can quibble about the methods but the standards are still there.

But for much of the other stuff you have not shown anything. I presented evidence that the so called dolerite pounders made the obeliskes. The scoop marks don't match tests done for small pounders.

Which article was that? Not this one, they never say that it is impossible to make the marks with a small pounder. Don't mistake their estimate of the time needed, for an analysis of if pounders (small or large) could be used to create the marks.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212054823000292

By the way, with the numbers given in that article it is still possible to do it in the timeframe claimed. Calculate it for yourself. The authors are the ones using a small pounder slowly whilst also limiting the work hours. The earlier estimates used larger pounders.

If you mean some other articles, please reference them.

stevevw said:
No one has refuted this.

I showed this same evidence for the sarcophagi which had machine level cuts. Heck I showed close up imagines of the cuts, the circular cuts Hans. A hand saw don't make circular cuts Hans. So stop lying.

There's a lot more but I am not going there again. This time I want you to prove to me that I am wrong. Show me evidence where it states that these were done with the traditional tools in the records. Then I will refute that with what I have already linked.

Hans you don't even have to use that detailed test. They showed ergonomically that you cannot swing a dolerite ball in the small spaces. if you cannot even deal with this obvious fact then how can you possibly be unbiased in the details. The actual micron tests that show a different pattern to the scoops that a dolerite pounder would make. For one they are uniform over and over again. Almost like just random pounding itself creates art itself. Uniform patterns in the hardest stone.

Which we all know from science itself that uniformity comes from the same shaped tool taking out the stone in one scoop. Three even walls making 90 degree angles and one entry point slanted down into the impression and back out at the end. They have made the same shapes in tests Hans. You like tests don't you.

Do you have any articles you can reference?

stevevw · Wednesday at 4:13 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I refuse to accept that as an answer, especially when we have lesser quality tools that exist from the time period that Steve and the people he supports say the supposed advanced tech existed. A definitive statement requires definitive evidence, or an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.

No evidence, no reason to accept what he is saying at all.

You don't even know what I am saying. You seem to think I am saying that the ancients must have has modern day devices to produce similar results.

I am saying we don't fully know how they did what they did. Why it has become a talking point of contention has and always has been the fact that what they produced surprises us in the level of advancement for that time.

Always has and we can track examples throughout history where the so called experts have had to keep walking back their claims and adjusting how advanced humans were in the past.

all the specific or one particular speific example is not going to change this. verall the vase examples show a higher degree of quality for such an early period. On its own perhaps not strong evidence of advanced people with lost knowledge. But certainly it highlights a significant achievement above most other achievements when its combined with the first dynasties and all they achieved. Perhaps a pinnacle of human knowledge that then began to disappear.

But then step back and broaden the search to the rest of the world and we begin to see this level repeated in other places. That have also and in some cases disappear relatively quickly. I could imagine this as a world where there were great megalith cities commanding great power and what those people believed was just as real today that they were the best and greatest at the time.

The point is humans gather knowledge and themselves and build cities and lord over the people. They rise to a peak and then disappear again. Only to rise again. What we have right now is really only 300 years young as far as knowledge and power. Past civilisations lasted 1,000s of years.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Wednesday at 4:21 AM

stevevw said:
You don't even know what I am saying. You seem to think I am saying that the ancients must have has modern day devices to produce similar results.

I am saying we don't fully know how they did what they did. Why it has become a talking point of contention has and always has been the fact that what they produced surprises us in the level of advancement for that time.

Always has and we can track examples throughout history where the so called experts have had to keep walking back their claims and adjusting how advanced humans were in the past.

all the specific or one particular speific example is not going to change this. verall the vase examples show a higher degree of quality for such an early period. On its own perhaps not strong evidence of advanced people with lost knowledge. But certainly it highlights a significant achievement above most other achievements when its combined with the first dynasties and all they achieved. Perhaps a pinnacle of human knowledge that then began to disappear.

But then step back and broaden the search to the rest of the world and we begin to see this level repeated in other places. That have also and in some cases disappear relatively quickly. I could imagine this as a world where there were great megalith cities commanding great power and what those people believed was just as real today that they were the best and greatest at the time.

The point is humans gather knowledge and themselves and build cities and lord over the people. They rise to a peak and then disappear again. Only to rise again. What we have right now is really only 300 years young as far as knowledge and power. Past civilisations lasted 1,000s of years.

I'm not saying 'modern day devices', I'm just saying advanced tools, evidence of which you cannot provide. We have tools that exist, ergo by simple logic, we know those tools were used because of civilizations developed those tools independently, used them independently and those same tools are still used.

And no-one questions the fact that civilizations rise and fall. Anyone who studies history knows that for a fact, but your description of what these civilizations were capable of is flawed and unevidenced. In fact, there are only three cultures that can be claimed to have existed for literally thousands of years: Mesoamerica, China and Egypt. And yet it says so much about you and yours that you refuse to claim the same things about China as you will about the Mesoamericans and the Egyptians.

stevevw · Wednesday at 4:30 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
The Eye of Sauron wasn't a wormhole; it was a physical manifestation of Sauron's disembodied soul on the physical planes of Middle-Earth.

Thankyou for that. That somehow makes it even scarier. Whatever a disembodied soul is. Seems closer to what the ancients were trying to get at. I think every single person believed in some sort of soul or spirit. That was who we were.

But come to think of it I think maybe 'Alice in wonderland' rabbit hole is probably a better fit. With the White Rabbit who leads Alice astray down the worm hole and always freaking out about 'time'. Who meets characters like a mischievous disappearing Cheshire Cat who gives crazy TikTok advice, a Mad Hatter who gets drunk on tea and thinks life is a riddle and a hookah-smoking Caterpillar who questions Alice about her identity. Who knows what reality we will end up in.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Wednesday at 4:31 AM

stevevw said:
Thankyou for that. That somehow makes it even scarier. Whatever a disembodied soul is. Seems closer to what the ancients were trying to get at. I think every single person believed in some sort of soul or spirit. That was who we were.

But come to think of it I think maybe 'Alice in wonderland' rabbit hole is probably a better fit. With the White Rabbit who leads Alice astray down the worm hole. Who meets a mischievous disappearing Cheshire Cat who gives crazy TikTok advice, a Mad Hatter who gets drunk on tea and thinks life is a riddle and a hookah-smoking Caterpillar who questions Alice about her identity. Who knows where this will end up.

Do you just outright believe everything and anything that people tell you, regardless of what it is?

stevevw · Wednesday at 6:17 AM

Stopped_lurking said:
Which article was that? Not this one, they never say that it is impossible to make the marks with a small pounder. Don't mistake their estimate of the time needed, for an analysis of if pounders (small or large) could be used to create the marks.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212054823000292

How about we go back one step if we are trying to avoid mistakes. It was not about the scoop marks but whether the discoveries by Lidar in recent times has changed our view about human history where many places we thought there was nothing due to be more primitive.

We are finding vast areas where people gathered and were more civilised than we thought. The South and Central American discoveries under jungles is one example. But we are finding similar all over the world.

Stopped_lurking said:
By the way, with the numbers given in that article it is still possible to do it in the timeframe claimed. Calculate it for yourself. The authors are the ones using a small pounder slowly whilst also limiting the work hours. The earlier estimates used larger pounders.

I think we can get caught up with the maths. It needs X times pounds which then deminish due to human ability. Then add expertise and take away Y and Z and you get T. When they actually try to swing a heavy stone ball in the tiny space you realise this is unreal.

But thats usually the stock standard explanation for scientific materism. It will always come down to reducible bits that can be measured quantitively. Thats all that counts.

Stopped_lurking said:
If you mean some other articles, please reference them.

I did. It was an article I linked a few pages back on the first point I was referring to. About the discoveries by Lidar. But not just Lidar but generally modern equipment has massively increased our understanding of human history. But also that we have literally discovered more stuff and then updated original finds. The discovery of the most recent (last 50 years) with better science has caused us to rethink human evolution and especially cognition relating to culture and socialisation.

Stopped_lurking said:
Do you have any articles you can reference?

Like I mentioned I don't want to get into going down that path again as it leads or rather ends in nowhere land. There is nothing you can use as a specific example that you could 100% by correct and I will concede you have proven your case. That will actually prove anything about the over all point of whether there have been humans with great and if not greater knowledge than today in our past that have disappeared. They were in their own rights and way an advanced civilisation.

They rose to great power and made stuff that we can marvel at that people have really never been able to do again. We all agree these are amazing feats. If they did it bit by bit with man power then its still amazing feats. Its still an amazing feat for that time in our history and that is why we are in awe with them. Or any other ancient people that creates these amazing works back then.

I think that was the point and why it is more advanced. Its not just about man made objects but building for the gods. That is what makes them great and ever lasting. Well lasting a pretty long time apart from earthquakes or natural disasters. We can still see some of them 15,000 years or so later. Many 6,000 plus years ago of another world seems to have disappeared except for the reminents we find. And are still finding.

stevevw · Wednesday at 6:23 AM

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Do you just outright believe everything and anything that people tell you, regardless of what it is?

No. I don't believe anything anyone tells me. Until I can think about it and assess whether it is the case. But heres the difference. I don't limit that assessment to material measures. You can tell me 1,000 times there is evidence there is no God and I will never agree or believe you. In fact I would be thinking the complete opposite. That it is you my friend who is decieved.

There is only one truth I believe. If others choose not to believe and put their faith and trust in some other worldview that explains everything. Then that is their choice. But its also a belief. So it comes down to which way you want to believe. Thats ok. But then when the same people may say that all human history and the vast majority for the vast majority of time are believing in fairy tales and myths I will speak up and ask "whose zooming who".

Stopped_lurking · Wednesday at 7:25 AM

stevevw said:
How about we go back one step if we are trying to avoid mistakes. It was not about the scoop marks but whether the discoveries by Lidar in recent times has changed our view about human history where many places we thought there was nothing due to be more primitive.

No, you definitely were talking about scoop marks, pounders and obelisks.

First, the LIDAR article https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi6317 doesn't talk about scoop marks, obelisks or dolerite pounders in conjunction.

ETA: It doesn't talk about any of the three words at all.

Second, I quoted this:

stevevw said:
But for much of the other stuff you have not shown anything. I presented evidence that the so called dolerite pounders made the obeliskes. The scoop marks don't match tests done for small pounders. No one has refuted this.

Which was a response to this:

Hans Blaster said:
The problem Steve, is that we are revisiting things that were refuted months ago, several times, and you are just too stubborn to admit. If you want to see this rebutted, go find the last few times you posted this and read the replies for real this time.

Which was a response to this:

stevevw said:
The problems of the obelisk revisited: Photogrammetric measurement of the speed of quarrying granite using dolerite pounders
Engelbach's experiment consisted of directly quarrying in one of the characteristic line segments in the trench around the Unfinished Obelisk, which he compared to a series of parallel and equidistant vertical cuts, as if it had been made by a gigantic cheese-scoop (Engelbach, 1923).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212054823000292

Which you and I already had started a discussion on, that you left hanging.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Wednesday at 10:20 AM

stevevw said:
No. I don't believe anything anyone tells me. Until I can think about it and assess whether it is the case. But heres the difference. I don't limit that assessment to material measures. You can tell me 1,000 times there is evidence there is no God and I will never agree or believe you. In fact I would be thinking the complete opposite. That it is you my friend who is decieved.

There is only one truth I believe. If others choose not to believe and put their faith and trust in some other worldview that explains everything. Then that is their choice. But its also a belief. So it comes down to which way you want to believe. Thats ok. But then when the same people may say that all human history and the vast majority for the vast majority of time are believing in fairy tales and myths I will speak up and ask "whose zooming who".

Stop bringing up God into this. God is not part of this discussion. This is about evidenced archeology.

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

Returning from Wilusa

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads