There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

stevevw · 2026-07-30T04:22:03-0500

In going back to check the OP I notice this from post 5. This is actually a good article as a general idea on this topic. I know Bradskii is not sold on The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. But its worth a look.

The Dawn of Everything - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-30T04:25:13-0500

stevevw said:
I am questioning your assumption as to what is the "advanced technology". I suspect you think its what we have today such as machining, the logistics of movement ect. Whereas I mentioned several times in the thread that "advanced technology" could mean a number of things.

I gave the example of how 'indigenous knowledge' was seen by western material science as myth. But in recent decades we have come to understand this knowledge was well ahead of our thinking. More in harmony with nature. The ancients had a different kind of advanced tech that was derived fron a different method. Or a combination of methods. We don't fully know.

But they were able to build cities and rule the world and had great power in their own way. A big part of that was religious belief. How can we exclude beliefs from understand our past when up until 5 minutes ago humans have been living within the religious and god believing realm. If you exclude this you are virtually wiping out our history.

The fact that you've never once explained what this 'advanced tech' is yourself, despite being the main person to put it forward repeatedly, say so much.

Either present evidence of this advanced tech, or stop saying it was used.

stevevw · 2026-07-30T04:26:45-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Steve, why are you using outdated works to justify your claims? Do you not know how much we've learnt in the century since 1923?

Man here we go again. This is what happened to Flinders Petrie who was the original archeologist on several Egyptian digs. His pioneering work was fobbed off as an old man who did not know what he was talking about. Nuh not having it. Deal with the old link. If you think its wrong prove it.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-30T04:28:04-0500

stevevw said:
In going back to check the OP I notice this from post 5. This is actually a good article as a general idea on this topic. I know Bradskii is not sold on The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. But its worth a look.

The Dawn of Everything - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The book is suspect because it approaches history from an Anarchist point of view, actively ignores and downplays the historical spirituality of historical peoples, and is general considered to have cherry-picked evidence and archaeology.

Not helping your case when I asked if you'd believe anything anyone told you.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-30T04:29:43-0500

stevevw said:
Man here we go again. This is what happened to Flinders Petrie who was the original archeologist on several Egyptian digs. His pioneering work was fobbed off as an old man who did not know what he was talking about. Nuh not having it. Deal with the old link. If you think its wrong prove it.

Steve, again, do you not understand how much evidence has been found and gathered since the century Engelbech and Petrie did their work? You are committing the fallacy of appeal to authority here in such a blatant and transparent way here it's just sad. It does not suggest that you want to learn, and does reinforce my view that you will accept anything that anyone tells you no matter what.

stevevw · 2026-07-30T04:32:06-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
The fact that you've never once explained what this 'advanced tech' is yourself, despite being the main person to put it forward repeatedly, say so much.

Either present evidence of this advanced tech, or stop saying it was used.

Thats another lie. See I will call them out now. I have explained 100 times throughout the thread. How about you spend some time searching my own words rather than putting yours in my mouth.

In fact not only did I explain what I thought it could be (besides your ideas of computers and lazer jet cutters) like today. Heres a task. Go and find one of the alternative ideas I suggested. See how good your investigation skills are. But I also explained that the insistence of wanting an explanation or otherwise its all just nonsense is a big fat logical fallacy. I have to say it this way now because you did not listen the first 10 times.

Don't you remember the saying "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-30T04:36:10-0500

stevevw said:
Thats another lie. See I will call them out now. I have explained 100 times throughout the thread. How about you spend some time searching my own words rather than putting yours in my mouth.

In fact not only did I explain what I thought it could be (besides your ideas of computers and lazer jet cutters) like today. Heres a task. Go and find one of the alternative ideas I suggested. See how good your investigation skills are. But I also explained that the insistence of wanting an explanation or otherwise its all just nonsense is a big fat logical fallacy. I have to say it this way now because you did not listen the first 10 times.

I remember the drills tipped with something (I won't say diamond because it definitely wasn't that), but again, you presented no evidence for that existing, just commentary from Petrie that it existed so therefor it existed. I have never once said that it was computers or laser jet cutters, that's you putting words in my mouth and lying.

You haven't presented any evidence for the claim of advanced technology when asked, so therefore it does not exist. Again: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No evidence of the tech existing, therefore it does not exist. It's really simple.

ETA: In fact, doing a search of this thread using this site's search function, you have claimed the existence of advanced tech existing in ancient times, and the only one you could say was the lathe. And yet you still insisted on claiming that advanced technology existed without any explanation or description of what it could have been. Which is even worse!

Stopped_lurking · 2026-07-30T04:43:13-0500

stevevw said:
Ok I understand now. This was also about words and meanings. Hans said smething along the lines that the marks on the unfinished obeliske were caused by dolerite pounders. I mentioned the scoop marks show evidence of a different method to the traditional pounders or chisels. Hans claimed they were not scoop marks. I linked the quote from Marians article from (Engelbach) who studied the Unfinished Obelisk.

He compared deep marks around the unfinished obeliske to a "series of parallel and equidistant vertical cuts, as if it had been made by a gigantic cheese-scoop" (Engelbach, 1923).

Engelbach thought it done with pounders.

stevevw said:
The debate is still out as to how the obeliskes were dug out of the bedrock. But I don't want to get into the specifics as this has already happened. I think regardless of how they created these amazing works it was a peak in human endeavours. Their world was every bit a metropolis and civilisation where people thought they were gods ruling the world.

So don't make this claim then:

stevevw said:
The scoop marks don't match tests done for small pounders.

Stopped_lurking · 2026-07-30T04:58:34-0500

stevevw said:
I am questioning your assumption as to what is the "advanced technology". I suspect you think its what we have today such as machining, the logistics of movement ect. Whereas I mentioned several times in the thread that "advanced technology" could mean a number of things.

I gave the example of how 'indigenous knowledge' was seen by western material science as myth. But in recent decades we have come to understand this knowledge was well ahead of our thinking. More in harmony with nature.

stevevw said:
The ancients had a different kind of advanced tech that was derived fron a different method.

This is the claim you are being asked to support. What technique and from what different methods was it derived?

stevevw said:
Or a combination of methods. We don't fully know.

Why do you first make a claim, and follow it with saying we don't fully know? Why aren't the generally accepted explanations sufficient? It is also unclear what you mean with advanced in this context.

stevevw said:
But they were able to build cities and rule the world and had great power in their own way. A big part of that was religious belief. How can we exclude beliefs from understand our past when up until 5 minutes ago humans have been living within the religious and god believing realm. If you exclude this you are virtually wiping out our history.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-30T05:00:42-0500

Stopped_lurking said:
This is the claim you are being asked to support. What technique and from what different methods was it derived?

Why do you first make a claim, and follow it with saying we don't fully know? It is perfectly possible that they didn't have any to us unknown advanced tech. It is also unclear what you mean with advanced in this context.

Even looking through this thread with the search function, you see he repeatedly brings up advanced technology but has never once clarified what he means by it.

stevevw · 2026-07-30T05:26:34-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Steve, again, do you not understand how much evidence has been found and gathered since the century Engelbech and Petrie did their work? You are committing the fallacy of appeal to authority here in such a blatant and transparent way here it's just sad. It does not suggest that you want to learn, and does reinforce my view that you will accept anything that anyone tells you no matter what.

But are you not then appealing to an authority that you are claiming is a better authority than the one I linked.

Just deal with the evidence they present. Don't just dismiss it out of hand. Tell me why their evidence does not stand.

You do realise Petrie is the pioneer of the same measuring methods used today. His original work has been verified. he is one of only a handful of archeologists to have worked on site recording finds. Museums have many of his finds. In fact an entire museum is named after him. If you want to play the authority game I think he wins.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-30T05:29:32-0500

stevevw said:
But are you not then appealing to an authority that you are claiming is a better authority than the one I linked.

Just deal with the evidence they present. Don't just dismiss it out of hand. Tell me why their evidence does not stand.

You do realise Petrie is the pioneer of the same measuring methods used today. His original work has been verified. he is one of only a handful of archeologists to have worked on site recording finds. Museums have many of his finds. In fact an entire museum is named after him. If you want to play the authority game I think he wins.

You're just doubling down on the appeal to authority here and that's just sad on so many levels.

It's not an appeal to authority to point out that we have learnt significantly more in the century since Petrie. It's a statement of fact you choose to ignore.

Hans Blaster · 2026-07-30T06:58:19-0500

stevevw said:
Actually its not. Archeology is just one part of it. Religion is also a big part of it. As I mentioned the reason some of these megaliths and other works are so great is because they made them for the Gods. That was their inspiration.

We are aware that people built monuments and temples for their gods. For most of these monuments we have no textual evidence of their beliefs. There is no point in speculating about the nature of these believed-in gods.

Hans Blaster · 2026-07-30T07:02:07-0500

stevevw said:
Ok I understand now. This was also about words and meanings. Hans said smething along the lines that the marks on the unfinished obeliske were caused by dolerite pounders. I mentioned the scoop marks show evidence of a different method to the traditional pounders or chisels. Hans claimed they were not scoop marks. I linked the quote from Marians article from (Engelbach) who studied the Unfinished Obelisk.

He compared deep marks around the unfinished obeliske to a "series of parallel and equidistant vertical cuts, as if it had been made by a gigantic cheese-scoop" (Engelbach, 1923).

The debate is still out as to how the obeliskes were dug out of the bedrock. But I don't want to get into the specifics as this has already happened. I think regardless of how they created these amazing works it was a peak in human endeavours. Their world was every bit a metropolis and civilisation where people thought they were gods ruling the world.

Steve:

"as if it was" and "as it was" are two different phrases with VERY different meaning. The one you quote from this century-old paper written before the mechanisms for quarrying stone in ancient Egypt had been thouroughly investigated is using the form that says something *looks* like something happened, not that it did. Even Engelbach did not think a cheese-scoop had been used on the granite.

2PhiloVoid · 2026-07-30T08:38:46-0500

stevevw said:
The short video speaks for itself. Is this possible. If so what are the implications for the mainstream view of human evolution and history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi4gFfjzKck&ab_channel=MichaelButton

Steve, I watched the video in your first OP post. The only implication that Michael Button's video seems to suggest is that the evolution of significant human cognitive development is [could be, really] even older than what the more common theories in history, paleontology, archeology, and anthropology have thus far concluded.

I'm not sure what this, if true, establishes other than that Darwinian gradualism is still relevant where human cognitive development is a focus of study.

As someone who has been a student of the historical and scientific disciplines for quite some time, I've always assumed that the current general framework about the cognitive development of human beings in pre-history goes back further than what we have clearer traces of.

But then, to me, this isn't significant where religious considerations are being thought about and it definitely doesn't contribute to believing the Biblical account in Genesis. If anything, it's less so. Forgive me if I shrug my shoulders after having watched Michael Button's video.

AV1611VET · 2026-07-30T09:47:26-0500

2PhiloVoid said:
I'm not sure what this, if true, establishes other than that Darwinian gradualism is still relevant where human cognitive development is a focus of study.

But are human cognitive skills sudden? or gradual?

2PhiloVoid · 2026-07-30T10:51:42-0500

AV1611VET said:
But are human cognitive skills sudden? or gradual?

According to the video that Steve chose to start this thread off with, those skills are gradual.

Laodicean60 · 2026-07-30T10:54:06-0500

AV1611VET said:
But are human cognitive skills sudden?

I believe we are a different breed with our cognitive skills intact. As soon as this breed of animal came onto the earth, we started devouring the earth and everyone on it.

AV1611VET · 2026-07-30T11:06:33-0500

2PhiloVoid said:
According to the video that Steve chose to start this thread off with, those skills are gradual.

Well, for the record, we came on the scene instantly with reading, writing, and arithmetic skills.

AV1611VET · 2026-07-30T11:08:35-0500

Laodicean60 said:
I believe we are a different breed with our cognitive skills intact.

That's not my question though.

These intact cognitive skills that we have ... did we get them suddenly or gradually?

Laodicean60 said:
As soon as this breed of animal came onto the earth, we started devouring the earth and everyone on it.

Animal diet aside ... suddenly or gradually?

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Your turn, Atlanta!

Your turn, Atlanta!

What goes around comes around!

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

What goes around comes around!

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads