There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-31T01:21:05-0500

stevevw said:
The first that I want to point out is how this is a double standard and hypocracy. You have been harping on about the sources, about individual presenters being crack pots. Now you link one yourself. It seems the rules apply to me and not yourself.

Second the presenter acknowledges Brian Forrester who mentions some of these alternative methods as doing good scientific work. So he actually supports Forrester.

Third your presenter acknowledges there was more than one method. The original works at the bottom are out of the bedrock. They are shaped directly out of the existing bedrock and called Hanan Pacha. The second type and method are the megalith blocks laid on top of the bedrock that came later which are the polygonal masonry at Sacsayhuamán for example and pre Inca. They are called Uran Pacha.

The last type are the loose stone walling that is at the very top made by the Inca much later and others who came along in repeairing and adding to the original works. This is called Ukun Pacha

So the methods are not the same.

View attachment 381902 View attachment 381903 View attachment 381904
Hanan Pacha, Uran Pacha and Ukun Pacha

Here is an example of the large megalith stone walls (Uran Pacha) and how they show that these may have been softened to allow for the very tight fits. Where the weight of the stones being softened sank into each other as they hardened.

Otherwise are you saying the ancient Purvians shaped each and every surface to fit. Spent so much time making the sharp angles and squeezed up sufaces that look like they compressed between gaps. That this was all shaped by hand. Why bother when they would never be seen. Just a rough shape would be enough. Not very flat and sharp corners and edges.

View attachment 381905

And remember this one from Egypt and how it shows that edge of the stone block protruding out as a tine edge as though the botton of the block spread between the gapsand under the ajoining stone. Why would they grind and shape such edges when they would never be seen. Just but the blocks against each other. This would only happen if the stone was softened.

View attachment 381900
What about the obvious protrusions of what looks like imprints of another surface layer of stone being pressed into the soften surface. Are you saying they spend time finding all the indents on the back surfaces of the facia stones so they could perfectly match the protusions of the softer stone they were butted up against.

View attachment 381901

Yes are you saying that is what they did. These ancients kept taking away the stones and putting them back over and over again to make these imprints that match perfectly the two layers of stone that would never be seen.

According to you everything was achieved by manula labor. Never giving any credit that they may have been smarter than that and did not just rely on brute strength and time.

Because there's no reason to accept or believe that it wasn't done by manual labour. Your claims are nothing but incredulity from you; you personally cannot believe it was done manually, despite all the evidence in the world that everyone in the past knew what manual labour was, so you have to say it was 'advanced technology'. It's bad logic.

stevevw · 2026-07-31T02:18:09-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
If you want to say they were advanced, you need to show they were advanced.

First lets qualify what "advanced" means. What do you say is advanced knowledge and tech.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
And, as Hans pointed out, you seem adverse to the idea that the ancients knew what manual labour was. Do you know what a stone mason is? It's an ancient job that still exists even today.

Yes and stone masons use machines now as they know its too hard and time consuming to do it by hand. Humans have always been smart. I think you are underestimating their ability and want to confine them to the hard and time consuming way. Relegating them to primitive ways when they were smarter than that.

Some posters even acknowledged that some of the cuts in granite looked like modern circular saws. Had the exact same signatures. Why is it a conspiriacy to admit what something looks like. Rather than try to force something that does not look like it can achieve it. They acknowledge it looks more like a modern circular saw cut than some primitive hand saw. How is that a crazy idea ?

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-31T02:25:04-0500

stevevw said:
First lets qualify what "advanced" means. What do you say is advanced knowledge and tech.

I don't know. You're the one making the claim that there was advanced technology; you qualify it.

stevevw said:
Yes and stone masons use machines now as they know its too hard and time consuming to do it by hand. Humans have always been smart. I think you are underestimating their ability and want to confine them to the hard and time consuming way. Relegating them to primitive ways when they were smarter than that.

No, stonemasons don't just use machines nowadays, they also still rely on tools like hammers and chisels just like they used in the 1700s, the 1500s, the 1200s, the 600s, 100s, and even going into the BCs. You know why they use those tools? Because they give the best results for their job. Stone masonry is labour and time intensive, and it always will be, because it has to be.
Here's a video of what a stone mason with 30 years of experience is capable of with the historic tools of his trade:

Your insistence on saying that ancient people couldn't have used these 'primitive' tools is just an insult to every stonemason who existed and worked because you're too intellectually lazy to imagine anyone not use them.

stevevw · 2026-07-31T02:58:23-0500

Hans Blaster said:
I did not mention your god. Evolution (not "darwinism") has nothing to do with a god of any kind.

But it has something to say about how God came about Hans doesn't it.

Hans Blaster said:
Nope.

Ok so God is a distinct possibility and should not be discounted or fobbed off.

Hans Blaster said:
Nothing, because this thread is not about your god. I was still replying to your comments related to Mr. Button's 'humans were more advanced earlier" claims. That includes how humans had cognitive faculties to make fire 0.5 million years ago.

This thread about all the above and I am rescuing it back from those who forced a particular narrative that it was only about scientific materialism and evolution.

The mention of humans discovering fire 500k ago is part of the idea that humans were much more cognitively advanced than we gave credit for. Which relates to how sophisticated they were in thinking with such ideas like creative art and belief in God and transcedent ideas that helped shaped who we are.

Hans Blaster said:
You should go read @2PhiloVoid 's post more carefully. I said nothing about your god. This thread is not about your god.

It does relate to belief and culture as its the same worldview that dismisses alternative views of human history that dismisses ideas such as God and the bible. Button does include religion. He often refers to it as a big part of human history. I mean all those you mock all agree with the so called myths of some sort of world flood or disaster that wiped out these ancients and their knowledge.

All the stories from all ancients are about gods and their belief. So of course this thread includes religious belief and gods. Otherwise you doing exactly what I am saying these ancients complain about. That you force your worldview onto them and dismiss their own lived reality.

Hans Blaster said:
If you really know what etiology, then you'll know what I think about the biblical tales about the origins of various peoples (and what real bible scholars say too). None of this is the topic of the thread.

Ah the good old "real bible scholars according to Hans. Is this another one of those situations where your references hold the truth and all others don't. Your doing it again and citing people without one ounce of support. Your word is not gospel Hans.

Hans Blaster said:
You already have my answer. (Which you claim to understand.)

I am sure you started this thread again as you really wanted to preach to us lesser knowlegable humans.

Hans Blaster said:
No. A better translation (NRSV, Updated Ed.):

When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

The earth and waters already existed. Creation ex nihlio is (as I recall) orginated when Judaism (and then Christianity) are influenced by Greek philosophy. (As I recall, also the tri-omni nature of Yahweh, the "Logos", and a few other things. But none of that is relevant to this thread in the slightest.)

Give me a break. Now your a biblical scholar. It is well acknowledged that Gods creation is at the beginning and out of nothing material. The verse you cite is a contradition. On the one hand it says the earth was created. On the other it says it already existed. How can the earth be created if it already existed.

Plus you forget all the other verses that do speak of Gods creation being from no material precursor. The material world was what God brought into existence ie John 1:1 " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." and verse 3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made".

Hebrews 11:3: States that the universe was formed by God's word so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

That is literally saying that what is visible (particles, matter, genes, mountains, the quantum vacumn) was not made for the same stuff as particles, matter, genes, mountains, the quantum vacumn.

Hans Blaster said:
The bible is way after the period covered by this thread which is mostly about pre-history, plus a bit of pre-Israelite civilizations like Sumer and Egypt.

yes and the Sumer culture speak of the same events as the bible. Which shows that they both mention the same events happening in human history. In fact just about all ancient cultures do. At what point do we treat these stories are part of real historical events ?

Hans Blaster said:
Irrelevant to thread.

Its my thread Hans. I will say what is relevant or not.

Hans Blaster said:
You are lost. This is not the thread for it, nor does either your opinion or mine relevant to any of the discussion we've had here.

Its my thread Hans and you are lost. I included all aspects of our history including religion and culture. In fact culture is mentioned all throught the thread. You cannot understand human history without religion and culture.

stevevw · 2026-07-31T03:24:42-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I don't know. You're the one making the claim that there was advanced technology; you qualify it.

yet you have made claims as to what is counted and what is not.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
No, stonemasons don't just use machines nowadays, they also still rely on tools like hammers and chisels just like they used in the 1700s, the 1500s, the 1200s, the 600s, 100s, and even going into the BCs.

Yet did not you or someone claim that the ancient vases are modern machines forgeries even going back to the late 1800's and early 1900s. You can't have it both ways. The fact is modern tools and machinary are used as part of doing stone works.

In fact the masons around the Pyramids today in workshops display the use of modern grinders.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You know why they use those tools? Because they give the best results for their job. Stone masonry is labour and time intensive, and it always will be, because it has to be.

Then why are CNC lathed works held up as the best examples.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Here's a video of what a stone mason with 30 years of experience is capable of with the historic tools of his trade:

I am not saying stone masons are not good artisans. Simply that we have tools and equipment that can produce similar results and if not better. The CNC vases are better than the hand made ones. Polishing a bit of granite by hand holds nothing compared to the mirror like finish of a machined polished piece.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Your insistence on saying that ancient people couldn't have used these 'primitive' tools is just an insult to every stonemason who existed and worked because you're too intellectually lazy to imagine anyone not use them.

I am not saying they did not use these more primitive tools and that they could produce very good products. This is a silly arguement and defeated by the Egyptians own history of tools.

We have examples of inferior products used by certain methods depending on the tools used. A rudimentary potters wheel does not produce as good a stone product as say a Crank or Bow Drill. A crank drill is not as good as a primitive lathe. So we already have varying degrees of quality with the existing tools. And we know a modern lathe and CNC produces much better results then all these primitive methods. So the tool in hand does make a difference.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-31T04:06:14-0500

stevevw said:
yet you have made claims as to what is counted and what is not.

No, it's not. It's me not accepting your claims without evidence.

stevevw said:
Yet did not you or someone claim that the ancient vases are modern machines forgeries. You can't have it both ways. The fact is modern tools and machinary are used as part of doing stone works.

I linked to a study, A metrological method for manufacturing quality assessment and classification of ancient Egyptian stone vessels, which shows that many of the 'Egyptian' vases you touted as being contemporary and authentic evidence of them using advanced tools were forgeries.

Modern tools were used, but in the modern day.

stevevw said:
In fact the masons around the Pyramids today in workshops display the use of modern grinders.

Yes... in the modern day.

stevevw said:
Then why are CNC lathed works held up as the best examples.

For the modern day, they are the best tool. That does not mean something like that existed in past unless you can provide evidence.

stevevw said:
I am not saying stone masons are not good artisans. Simply that we have tools and equipment that can produce similar results and if not better. The CNC vases are better than the hand made ones. Polishing a bit of granite by hand holds nothing compared to the mirror like finish of a machined polished piece.

Wow. Still not evidence of similar tools existing historically.

stevevw said:
I am not saying they did not use these more primitive tools and that they could produce very good products. This is a silly arguement and defeated by the Egyptians own history of tools.

We have examples of inferior products used by certain methods depending on the tools used. A rudimentary potters wheel does not produce as good a stone product as say a Crank or Bow Drill. A crank drill is not as good as a primitive lathe. So we already have varying degrees of quality with the existing tools. And we know a modern lathe and CNC produces much better results then all these primitive methods. So the tool in hand does make a difference.

Yes, you aren't saying that, because somehow you refuse to accept it despite the evidence existing before you. You are literally refusing evidence pointblank in favour of your own narrative.

stevevw · 2026-07-31T05:15:01-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Because there's no reason to accept or believe that it wasn't done by manual labour.

What do you mean by manual labor.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Your claims are nothing but incredulity from you; you personally cannot believe it was done manually, despite all the evidence in the world that everyone in the past knew what manual labour was, so you have to say it was 'advanced technology'. It's bad logic.

How is it incredulous when you have not even refuted what I said. You first have to refute this before saying its false.

Tell me how the surface of the stones is molded to the exact face of the stones that butt into them. Was this done by grinding and rubbing the surface to make the matching shapes. If so provide me with evidence for this. Otherwise what you claim is unsubstanciated.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-31T05:19:27-0500

stevevw said:
What do you mean by manual labor.

... there is no other definition of manual labour apart from manual labour.

stevevw said:
How is it incredulous when you have not even refuted what I said. You first have to refute this before saying its false. Tell me how the surface of the stones is molded to the exact face of the stones that butt into them. Was this done by so called manual labor in grinding and rubbing the surface to make the matching shapes. if so provide me with evidence for this. Otherwise what you claim is false.

No, the onus is on you to present evidence that it was done any other way. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I've got no reason not to accept the generally accepted methods of Inca stonemasonry, but I've got every reason to not accept whatever you're peddling BECAUSE YOU'VE NOT PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE FOR WHAT YOU CLAIM.

How do you not understand this after nearly 100 pages of this thread? If you make a claim, you need to present evidence. You have repeatedly failed and refused to do so. Therefor, no-one at all has any reason to accept what you say against the mainstream views and the evidence those views are supported by.

AV1611VET · 2026-07-31T05:55:38-0500

I have a feeling that, should academia take Michael Button's video seriously, all they will do is push their timeline back.

They're good at that.

Academia: There was a cognitive revolution 50,000 years ago.
Button: We found evidence it occurred 100,000 years ago.
Academia: Okay. There was a cognitive revolution 100,000 years ago.

By the same token:

Academia: There are no rabbits in the Precambrian.
Paleozoologist: We found rabbits in the Precambrian.
Academia: Okay. We'll move the start of the Cambrian back to cover your find.
Academia: Moves the start of the Cambrian period back further.
Academia: There are no rabbits in the Precambrian.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-31T05:57:51-0500

AV1611VET said:
I have a feeling that, should academia take Michael Button's video seriously, all they will do is push their timeline back.

Well it's a good thing that no-one of intellect does take it seriously. Nor you.

AV1611VET · 2026-07-31T06:19:49-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Well it's a good thing that no-one of intellect does take it seriously. Nor you.

From AI Overview:

Scientific discoveries have repeatedly pushed back key milestones in Earth's history,

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-31T06:21:28-0500

AV1611VET said:
From AI Overview:

Scientific discoveries have repeatedly pushed back key milestones in Earth's history,

To the shock of no-one who actually knows what they're talking about. But that does not negate my point.

Stopped_lurking · 2026-07-31T06:35:35-0500

stevevw said:
First lets qualify what "advanced" means. What do you say is advanced knowledge and tech.

You are the one claiming it, you will have to explain what you mean with it. I asked you about it already in post #1849. While you're at it please explain what advanced tech derived from a different method you were alluding to in post #1840.

stevevw said:
Yes and stone masons use machines now as they know its too hard and time consuming to do it by hand. Humans have always been smart. I think you are underestimating their ability and want to confine them to the hard and time consuming way. Relegating them to primitive ways when they were smarter than that.

Some posters even acknowledged that some of the cuts in granite looked like modern circular saws. Had the exact same signatures. Why is it a conspiriacy to admit what something looks like. Rather than try to force something that does not look like it can achieve it. They acknowledge it looks more like a modern circular saw cut than some primitive hand saw. How is that a crazy idea ?

2PhiloVoid · 2026-07-31T08:09:23-0500

stevevw said:
At least you acknowledged the video for what it is. Some don't even do that. Just dismiss it all out of hand as bunk

Wow introducing Darwinism. That has not been introduced as yet. Interesting but I don't think is a good way to see this as even Darwinism is under dispute. Especially when it comes to cultural beliefs and human agency. Can Darwiniam refute God. Can it account for the cultural and religious practices as being purely material behaviours derived from genetics and natural selection.

The point is that all the OP video insinuates is .................... more gradualism. That's it. Nothing more.

stevevw said:
Yes and thankyou for agreeing. We have constantly revised our understanding and still we don't fully know. We keep discovering new info that causes us to revise what we thought of how humans evolved and developed.

Yes according to the materialist view through evolution all religion is a myth. Yet still the ancients themselves and people today continue to claim it was so.

I'm not a sheer materialist, so please don't include me in the sweeping statement you're making here. I'm not of the view that "all religion is a myth" and I wasn't representing that position when I said what I said in my previous post.

stevevw said:
The bible offers an alternative history. It speaks about the table of nations and how humans developed into tribes and cities that defied God and how some of these were destroyed.

Genesis speaks of the creation of the material world by God. Science and evolution speak of existence and human life as being self created and out of nothing. Which one is more a myth. Neither can be verified.

Steve, the point of my earlier post to you is that the OP video alone (which is all you asked folks to consider here) doesn't provide clarity or support for any proposition other than that homo sapiens have had technical inclinations at whatever level for longer than has thus far been theorized.

That's basically it. You asked us to watch the video. From that video alone, what is it that you think we should be inferring from it?

AV1611VET · 2026-07-31T08:29:27-0500

2PhiloVoid said:
From that video alone, what is it that you think we should be inferring from it?

They want to know how and when Homo sapiens got smart.

(I've been wondering that myself.)

2PhiloVoid · 2026-07-31T08:33:35-0500

AV1611VET said:
They want to know how and when Homo sapiens got smart.

(I've been wondering that myself.)

Fortunately for me, neither my view of science nor my view of theology requires that I figure out 'when' homo sapiens became sapient enough to worship God via Truth. For me, it's a tertiary issue (there could be a pun in there somewhere, but I refuse to disambiguate

)

AV1611VET · 2026-07-31T08:37:24-0500

2PhiloVoid said:
Fortunately for me, neither my view of science nor my view of theology requires that I figure out 'when' homo sapiens became sapient enough to worship God via Truth. For me, it's a tertiary issue.

Since I don't consider myself a "Homo sapiens," I can easily ascertain when and how we got our brains.

4004 BC

stevevw · 2026-07-31T09:03:04-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
... there is no other definition of manual labour apart from manual labour.

Manual labor can be lugging bricks in a wheel barrow or operating a road grader or dump truck. One requires manpower to lift the barrow and move the bricks. The other requires working the steering wheel and levelrs. Both are manual labor.

I was thinking in relation to the ancients that grinding or polishing stone is manual labor. But so is lifting an obeliske out of the ground or cutting a giant slab of granite. Manual labor can still involve tools and methods that make it easier and more efficent.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
No, the onus is on you to present evidence that it was done any other way. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I will use your logic. We have not found any tools from the pre dynastic Egyptians that match and account for the giant cuts in granite. So therefore there is no evidence that the orthodox tools were used due to absense of these tools. Until these tools are found there is no evidence and you will need to show me those tools before they are verified.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I've got no reason not to accept the generally accepted methods of Inca stonemasonry, but I've got every reason to not accept whatever you're peddling BECAUSE YOU'VE NOT PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE FOR WHAT YOU CLAIM.

You use a Wiki link to support your claim after complaining that I use weak support. This is double standards.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
How do you not understand this after nearly 100 pages of this thread? If you make a claim, you need to present evidence. You have repeatedly failed and refused to do so. Therefor, no-one at all has any reason to accept what you say against the mainstream views and the evidence those views are supported by.

Once again I will use your own logic on your arguement that the tools claimed in the mainstream record are what caused the predynastic works. Until those tools are found there is no evidence that these tools were used.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-31T09:08:25-0500

stevevw said:
Manual labor can be lugging bricks in a wheel barrow or operating a road grader or dump truck. One requires manpower to lift the barrow and move the bricks. The other requires working the steering wheel and levelrs. Both are manual labor.

I was thinking in relation to the ancients that grinding or polishing stone is manual labor. But so is lifting an obeliske out of the ground or cutting a giant slab of granite. Manual labor can still involve tools and methods that make it easier and more efficent.

That's so stupidly pedantic I'm not even responding to it.

stevevw said:
I will use your logic. We have not found any tools from the pre dynastic Egyptians that match and account for the giant cuts in granite. So therefore there is no evidence that the orthodox tools were used due to absense of these tools. Until these tools are found there is no evidence and you will need to show me those tools before they are verified.

And that's just stupid logic since you've still not presented any evidence for your claims.

stevevw said:
You use a Wiki link to support your claim after complaining that I use weak support. This is double standards.

It's miles better than yours! It even gives contemporary sources from people who were actually there to see what the Incas did! You've presented nothing!

stevevw said:
Once again I will use your own logic on your arguement that the tools claimed in the mainstream record are what caused the predynastic works. Until those tools are found there is no evidence that these tools were used.

And once again it's stupid logic because you've not presented any evidence at all for your claims of advanced tech.

stevevw · 2026-07-31T09:20:12-0500

2PhiloVoid said:
The point is that all the OP video insinuates is .................... more gradualism. That's it. Nothing more.

I'm not a sheer materialist, so please don't include me in the sweeping statement you're making here. I'm not of the view that "all religion is a myth" and I wasn't representing that position when I said what I said in my previous post.

Steve, the point of my earlier post to you is that the OP video alone (which is all you asked folks to consider here) doesn't provide clarity or support for any proposition other than that homo sapiens have had technical inclinations at whatever level for longer than has thus far been theorized.

That is one part and I am glad you mentioned that the video does support that the orthodox narrative has under estimated the level of tech and knowledge we humans have had in the past. This is one aspect that the skeptics denied. Or at least minimised.

2PhiloVoid said:
That's basically it. You asked us to watch the video. From that video alone, what is it that you think we should be inferring from it?

The video mentions the development of creative and religious thinking. Such as the burial of people with their possessions happening very early around 400,000 years ago.

This idea has been developed throughout the thread as how humans have been engagining in this level of thought for much longer than realised. Thus the emphasis on the very high level of such thinking in the last 50,000 years. Examples like Gobekli Tepe was used showing the level of sophistication in culture and belief. The arguement being it was belief and culture that brought people together well before the traditional narrative of farming and agriculture.

The point being that humans have already peaked in tech and knowledge before and then they lost this only to rise up again. That there is an alternative story to our history from the orthodox one of gradual evolution from simple to complex as we understand today. that humans have built civilisations and a world before only to lose it and the knowledged.

I used the idea of Indigenous knowledge and how this is seen as lost knowledge or that the knowledge is being lost to westernised material sciences. So magnify this level of knowledge to may 10,000 years ago and the knowledge was much greater. An advanced knowledge different from todays knowledge. But advanced none the less.

The video is actually about human cognition and though specific tooling relates is only one aspect. Culture and belief were the main thinking patterns and there was no enlightenment. Everything was religious and spiritual in nature. So of course culture and belief comes into it. That is a major part of our cognition and knowledge in how we behaved in the world.

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

What goes around comes around!

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

What goes around comes around!

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Similar threads