The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Soul Winner

J C wrote: »

... saying that you are "being saved as long as I stay connected to God through daily acts of faith in His Word of promise"... is Salvation through (good) works!!!!

Jesus Saves all who believe on Him through grace ... i.e. unconditionally!!!

... if Salvation is not gained through works ... it is not lost through works ... or lack thereof either!!!

... like I have said, good works are a symptom of Salvation ... and not it's cause!!!

Good works are produced by, and are the result & fruit of the indwelt spirit of God. But you cannot get His spirit in you unless you are trusting in His Word. Trusting in God's Word is acting in faith. Acting in faith is believing in a promise of God and acting as though its true until it is realized in reality. The acting in faith itself is not the good works, but good works will result if the action is maintained because this type of action is the only thing that can get God's spirit in you and God's spirit in you is the only thing that can make you produce true good works, but even so, these resulting good works are not the reason for your salvation, it's your faith that connects you to God and puts you in Christ and nothing else, it is by grace that we are saved through faith and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast. This is the New covenant between God and man, the old one having passed away. Righteousness by the Old Covenant meant keeping up a perfect performance. Righteousness by the New covenant is attained by keeping faith in His Word of promise. It is in fact how all the faith heroes of old attained a good report before God. Read Hebrews 11 for more details on them. Righteousness best defined is keeping covenant. And "The righteous will live by faith." Galatians 3:11

marco_polo

Soul Winner wrote: »

J C I will respond to your posted later just a quick reply to Antiskeptic here, have to dash out shortly.

The Temple in Jerusalem was built two to three thousand years ago and the stones that were used in this temple were quarried not far from site, plus the andesite was uphill from the Temple site making the transport of these stones difficult but nothing compared to Tiahuanaco because the nearest andesite to that site was 50 miles away, an equivalent distance of say from Dublin to Arklow. Plus the Temple builders had the help of Greek craftsmen, technology and builders. Tiahuanaco was supposedly built 14,000 years ago by primitive people with primitive tools who quarried their stones and carried them for over 50 miles and then up hill for over 12,000 feet above sea level. How did they do it and who were they?

Soul Winner wrote: »

One big frickin lorry. Anyway, I'll grant you that, but how were these primitive savages supposedly able to do it?

And just to give us some scale of what we are talking about. The pics below shows what 500+ tonnes in weight looks like. How were they able to haul these blocks over mountainous terrain for over 50 miles and then up a mountain over 12,000 feet above sea level?



For scale:

Can't believe I am even replying but where are you getting these facts like 14000 years ago from?

Modern archeologists agree that while it was settled as a small village from about 400 BC, Tiwanaku only existed as a large city from around A.D. 200-300 to 1000 AD. The largest sandstone slab came from a quarry 10 kilometers away have been best estimated at weighting about 131 tonnes. With an estimated population of some 30,000+ I cannot see how that would be much of a problem, given that similar feats were achieved elsewhere around the world.

The green andesite ornamental stones, the largest of which are estimated to weight about forty tonnes did indeed come from a quarry some 50 mile away across Lake Titicaca, however the entire region also lies on the Altiplano some 12,000 odd feet above sea level so there no mountains to be scaled.

Nothing mysterious to see here I'm afraid.

PDN

marco_polo wrote: »

Can't believe I am even replying but where are you getting these facts like 14000 years ago from?

Modern archeologists agree that while it was settled as a small village from about 400 BC, Tiwanaku only existed as a large city from around A.D. 200-300 to 1000 AD. The largest sandstone slab came from a quarry 10 kilometers away have been best estimated at weighting about 131 tonnes. With an estimated population of some 30,000+ I cannot see how that would be much of a problem, given that similar feats were achieved elsewhere around the world.

The green andesite ornamental stones, the largest of which are estimated to weight about forty tonnes did indeed come from a quarry some 50 mile away across Lake Titicaca, however the entire region also lies on the Altiplano some 12,000 odd feet above sea level so there no mountains to be scaled.

Nothing mysterious to see here I'm afraid.

If you have a large enough supply of slaves then you can move pretty well any size of stones over any distance.

J C

Soul Winner wrote: »

Good works are produced by, and are the result & fruit of the indwelt spirit of God. But you cannot get His spirit in you unless you are trusting in His Word. Trusting in God's Word is acting in faith. Acting in faith is believing in a promise of God and acting as though its true until it is realized in reality. The acting in faith itself is not the good works, but good works will result if the action is maintained because this type of action is the only thing that can get God's spirit in you and God's spirit in you is the only thing that can make you produce true good works, but even so, these resulting good works are not the reason for your salvation, it's your faith that connects you to God and puts you in Christ and nothing else, it is by grace that we are saved through faith and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast. This is the New covenant between God and man, the old one having passed away. Righteousness by the Old Covenant meant keeping up a perfect performance. Righteousness by the New covenant is attained by keeping faith in His Word of promise. It is in fact how all the faith heroes of old attained a good report before God. Read Hebrews 11 for more details on them. Righteousness best defined is keeping covenant. And "The righteous will live by faith." Galatians 3:11

... OK ... so you're not Saved then???

Soul Winner

marco_polo wrote: »

Can't believe I am even replying but where are you getting these facts like 14000 years ago from?

Some have dated the site using astronomical methods and have come to this conclusion. I don't know how old the site really is, I can only tell you why some consider it to be 14,000+ years.

From Crystallinks.com

Determining the age of these ruins has been a focus of researchers since the site's discovery. Currently archaeologists date the beginning of the Tiwanaku culture to some time around 1500 BC, and the construction of the Pumapunku complex to around 200 BC.

Previously, in the early 1900s, Bolivian engineer Arthur Posnansky, based on astronomical alignments, concluded that Tiwanaku was constructed as early as 15,000 BC (17,000 BP), possibly even older and was not an original construction of the Tiwanaku.

In the 1930s, German astronomers from the University of Bonn; Rolf Muller, Hanns Lundendorff, Friederich Becker, and Arnold Kohlshutter came to conclusions similar to Posnansky's estimate. However, as noted by Kolata subsequent archaeological research has found a complete lack of any physical evidence, including prehistoric tools and dated midden deposits, for any occupation of the Tiwanaku site as old as argued by Posnansky and the German astronomers either at the Tiwanaku Site, near it, or in direct association with the Pumapunku complex despite decades of intensive excavation and research.

The processes and technologies involved in the creation of these temples are still not fully understood by modern scholars. Our current ideas of the Tiwanaku culture hold that they had no writing system and also that the invention of the wheel was most likely unknown to them.


Lack of physical evidence to support this theory is not proof that the theory is false.

A snippet from a HC docu about it below.

marco_polo wrote: »

Modern archeologists agree that while it was settled as a small village from about 400 BC, Tiwanaku only existed as a large city from around A.D. 200-300 to 1000 AD.

But what solid evidence are their conclusions based on?

From GrahamHancock.com

An Archaeological Perspective:

In the early 1990s Marius S Ziolkowski, a Professor in Archaeology at Warsaw University, set out to bring together and catalogue a Radiocarbon Database for Bolivia Ecuador and Peru. In 1994 he and his colleagues published a 604-page document listing and discussing their results. Today it is very hard book to track down which is a shame as it is a first class piece of scholarly work and remains the authoritative publication in this area.
To complete this work Ziolokowski et al had to wade their way painstakingly through numerous scientific and archaeological publications spanning four decades. They comment:

"In some papers the radiocarbon dates are quoted without laboratory codes and dating errors and a common practice, especially in older papers, is to quote the dates as calibrated dates without indicating the calibration method and specific calibration curve used" /I][URL="http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockS2-p1.htm#ftn3"][COLOR=#0000ff][I]3[/I][/COLOR][/URL][I

This is not science. A result is scientific when the procedure is scientific in that it is consistent and clear. A scientific result is also a testable one. How can you test a result when you are at a loss as to how that result came about? Ziolokowski et al wanted to make this clear - they were not happy with the quality of the data they were working with.
Of the two thousand eight hundred dates listed for Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru only twenty-nine of them derive from samples excavated from Tiahuanaco. The standard of the documentation method employed to record the radiocarbon dates from Tiahuanaco by the various laboratories involved, did not live up to my expectations. Sometimes the nature of the sample is given sometimes it is not; sometimes the depth at which the sample was excavated is given sometimes it is not; sometimes the sample is put into an archaeological context, sometimes it is not. It is very difficult data to interpret as you might imagine. It seems that communications between archaeologists and scientists in these instances were not good.

For a radiocarbon date to be taken into archaeological consideration all of the above must be clear. Ziolokowski et al point out that the nature of a sample must be defined so that it can be put in its cultural context - its association with the prehistory of the site must be quantifiable /I][URL="http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockS2-p1.htm#ftn4"][COLOR=#0000ff][I]4[/I][/COLOR][/URL][I. For about a third of the radiocarbon dates for Tiahuanaco it is not clear what depth the samples were excavated. Why?

For example, the oldest radiocarbon date arrived at for Tiahuanaco is dated to 3530 BP /I][URL="http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockS2-p1.htm#ftn5"][COLOR=#0000ff][I]5[/I][/COLOR][/URL][I, or 1530 BC. This sample was taken from the Kalasasaya region of Tiahuanaco. The archaeological comment that accompanies this sample reads:

"layer 6.Unexpectedly old compared with Gak-52" /I][URL="http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockS2-p1.htm#ftn6"][COLOR=#0000ff][I]6[/I][/COLOR][/URL][I.

Gak-52 refers to another sample tested by the laboratory from the same cultural strata. Sample Gak-52 was dated to 240 BC. Unfortunately no archaeological comment accompanies this sample so we must assume that this is the accepted date of occupation for this archaeological stratum. It would seem that the former sample is "archaeologically unacceptable'. If you look at the date lists published in the journal Radiocarbon you will find that this kind of rejection of dates is commonplace. If the dates don't fit the archaeological hypothesis they are simply ignored. Sheridan Bowman, the author of Radiocarbon Dating - Interpreting The Past, argues:

"These 'unacceptable' results perhaps more than any others, need careful consideration" /I][URL="http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockS2-p1.htm#ftn7"][COLOR=#0000ff][I]7[/I][/COLOR][/URL][I

Why no explanations for the discrepancy of 1340 years, and why comment on one date and not the other? An explanation for the discrepancy can be postulated. Dating errors aside what if this cultural layer (and possibly others) at Tiahuanaco has been contaminated by the organic composite of other layers? Ziolkowski et al state:

"Admixture of material of different ages may result from activity of small animals, which may transport organic matter between cultural layers or form channels or holes, which are then filled by foreign organic matter of different age" /I][URL="http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockS2-p1.htm#ftn8"][COLOR=#0000ff][I]8[/I][/COLOR][/URL][I

They go on to explain that the only way for archaeologists to avoid dating foreign material is for them to recognize such patterns of contamination in the field. The two samples in question were excavated in the late 1950s and no debate about the archaeological significance of mixed cultural layers accompanies them. This represents shabby work. Indeed, Philip Barker in his book Techniques of Archaeological Excavation states:

"It must be established that the object (sample) is not intrusive, that it has not been taken down an animal hole, or slipped down the interstices between the stones of a wall. If there is any doubt about this the object should be rejected for dating purposes". /I][URL="http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockS2-p1.htm#ftn9"][COLOR=#0000ff][I]9[/I][/COLOR][/URL][I

Therefore, when analysing radiocarbon dates for ancient sites it is important to scrutinise the collection procedure for the samples. Trenches are dug and samples are collected from different archaeological layers but can we be sure that these layers have not been mixed? Archaeologists would of course argue yes! They say that radiocarbon dates are analysed in their archaeological context. What do they mean exactly by "their archaeological context'?

Garret Fagan in his public attack on Graham Hancock's treatment of radiocarbon evidence for Tiahuanaco states:

"Archaeological context is usually sealed strata of occupation, layer upon layer from the bottom (oldest) levels of a site to the upper (most recent) strata" /I][URL="http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockS2-p1.htm#ftn10"][COLOR=#0000ff][I]10[/I][/COLOR][/URL][I

The presence of neat archaeological layers (a requirement for sample association) is not always the case at Tiahuanaco. Above we saw how two samples from the same cultural strata differed in age by 1340 years. The archaeological comment that accompanies another sample tagged P-146 reads:

"A mixed surface level, with classic Decadent, and later pottery" /I][URL="http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockS2-p1.htm#ftn11"][COLOR=#0000ff][I]11[/I][/COLOR][/URL][I

So the situation is this: the samples used to date Tiahuanaco have been inconsistently recorded, anonymously calibrated and come from a site that exhibits evidence of mixed cultural layers. And yet they are cited as a solid basis for dating the planning and construction of Tiahuanaco to around the time of Christ /I][URL="http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockS2-p1.htm#ftn12"][COLOR=#0000ff][I]12[/I][/COLOR][/URL][I. Is it "scientific" to form such bold and certain deductions from such uncertain and unstable evidence?
Looking at the other side of the coin there are instances when the radiocarbon dates for Tiahuanaco are internally consistent. We do not want to be accused of ignoring this fact. Sample Hv-17 was taken from a depth of 50cm under or beside (this is not made clear) the ceremonial platform of Kalasasaya. It was dated to AD 1710. Sample Hv-19 was excavated from the same pit but from a depth of 180cm. Hv-19 was dated to AD 305. Therefore, parts of Tiahuanaco do seem to qualify for radiocarbon analysis - the archaeological conditions are right and there is a satisfactory graduation between the deeper (older) sample and the shallower (more recent) sample.


More here

marco_polo wrote: »

The largest sandstone slab came from a quarry 10 kilometers away have been best estimated at weighting about 131 tonnes. With an estimated population of some 30,000+ I cannot see how that would be much of a problem, given that similar feats were achieved elsewhere around the world.

Even transporting just one 130 tonne block of stone for over 10Km over relatively even ground between the years of 400 BC and 200 AD in this region of the world was an astonishing piece of engineering and planning. How could such primitive people have accomplished this?

From thestoneage.org

The Astonishing Remains in the City of Tiahuanaco

At about 4,000 meters (13,000 feet)above sea level, in the Andes Mountains between Bolivia and Peru, the city of Tiahuanaco is full of ruins that stun visitors. The region is regarded as one of the archaeological marvels of South America, indeed, of the entire world.

One of the most astonishing remains in Tiahuanaco is a calendar that shows the equinoxes, the seasons, and the position of the Moon at every hour and its motions. This calendar is one of the proofs that the people living there possessed a highly advanced technology. Among the other astonishing remains in Tiahuanaco are monuments made out of huge stone blocks, some of them weighing as much as 100 tons.

A Reader's Digest author wrote, ". . . the best engineers of today still ask themselves whether they could cut and move huge masses of rock such as those used to build the city. The giant blocks look almost as though a die were

More here

marco_polo wrote: »

The green andesite ornamental stones, the largest of which are estimated to weight about forty tonnes did indeed come from a quarry some 50 mile away across Lake Titicaca

Using primitive methods it took these guys a month to transport just one 9 tonne block from Copacabana peninsula across Lake Titicaca, then to carve it and put it in place.

More here




The primitives were able to do with 40 tonne blocks which as you point were on the smaller end of the scale. So how? Considering that these modern guys had a traditional reed boat which was 14 meters long, five meters wide, and two meters high, and used 3,000 bundles of totora reeds. Were the primitive people also master boat builders?

marco_polo wrote: »

however the entire region also lies on the Altiplano some 12,000 odd feet above sea level so there no mountains to be scaled.

Except the aforementioned 12,000 feet mountain you just alluded to.

marco_polo wrote: »

Nothing mysterious to see here I'm afraid.

If there's nothing mysterious then you must obviously be able to tell us how they did it so. Can you?

Soul Winner

PDN wrote: »

If you have a large enough supply of slaves then you can move pretty well any size of stones over any distance.

To get an army of slaves to move just a 40 tonne block you would need roughly 500 men and that's just to pull it horizontally. It would take many many more to pull it uphill. If that is the case then you cannot have them all bunched together, so how do you strategically place these men and also get the optimum pulling power on the stone in an uphill direction? And then how does one do it with 100 tonne blocks? Or 500 tonne blocks?

Soul Winner

J C wrote: »

... OK ... so you're not Saved then???

Think of it this way. You find yourself stranded on a boat in the middle of nowhere with no way of reaching shore without the aid of outside guidance. And one day you get a precious call on your radio giving you just that. A way to get home. They give you coordinates and distances and so forth, tell you were to avoid etc. You are guaranteed to get home as long as you follow the instructions given to you, but if you deviate from those instructions it could spell disaster. So like this once stranded boat I am being saved, but I have to daily make sure I am going in the right direction. I can only do this if I make it my business to do so. If after receiving this call I just sit down and relax and pay no attention to the directions and presume that I am already saved, what do you think the outcome would be?

If I was actually saved then I wouldn't have to work out my salvation (i.e. saved-ness) with fear and trembling would I? Like I said, I am being saved, and will one day be actually saved, but I must, as the New Testament says, keep the faith and faint not as long as I'm in this world, even though I'm not of it.

gosplan

Soul Winner wrote: »

Lack of physical evidence to support this theory is not proof that the theory is false.

Awesome. Does that apply to other scientific theories?

Soul Winner

gosplan wrote: »

Awesome. Does that apply to other scientific theories?

Like which ones? I mean, there is no evidence that they used boats to transport the stones over water and yet all agree that this is what must have happened, otherwise they must have transported them by an even more difficult route i.e. around the lake. So even though there is no hard boat evidence as such to back up the theory, everyone agrees that they must have used them, which is another example of lack of hard evidence not disproving a theory. Get what I mean now? If they could all agree on hard evidence to disprove the astronomical evidence then we'd be getting somewhere, but in the absence of any such agreeable hard evidence I think the strong argument from astronomy should stand until it can be shot down, that is how science works isn't it?

Bus77II

Soul Winner wrote: »

To get an army of slaves to move just a 40 tonne block you would need roughly 500 men and that's just to pull it horizontally. It would take many many more to pull it uphill.

I suppose it would be easier to roll a block over that terrain.

Soul Winner

Bus77II wrote: »

I suppose it would be easier to roll a block over that terrain.

But once you get it to the site, how do you then roll it up-hill to 12,000+ feet above sea level?

marco_polo

What part of the entire region is 12,000 feet above sea level (the second largest plateau in the world after Tibet) do you not understand?

Bus77II

Soul Winner wrote: »

But once you get it to the site, how do you then roll it up-hill to 12,000+ feet above sea level?

I don't know. But as another poster pointed out the region itself is 12,000 above sea level. That doesn't meen the lake is at sea level or that the mountain is 12,000 feet from tip to ground.

marco_polo

Soul Winner wrote: »

Some have dated the site using astronomical methods and have come to this conclusion. I don't know how old the site really is, I can only tell you why some consider it to be 14,000+ years.

From Crystallinks.com

Determining the age of these ruins has been a focus of researchers since the site's discovery. Currently archaeologists date the beginning of the Tiwanaku culture to some time around 1500 BC, and the construction of the Pumapunku complex to around 200 BC.

Previously, in the early 1900s, Bolivian engineer Arthur Posnansky, based on astronomical alignments, concluded that Tiwanaku was constructed as early as 15,000 BC (17,000 BP), possibly even older and was not an original construction of the Tiwanaku.

In the 1930s, German astronomers from the University of Bonn; Rolf Muller, Hanns Lundendorff, Friederich Becker, and Arnold Kohlshutter came to conclusions similar to Posnansky's estimate. However, as noted by Kolata subsequent archaeological research has found a complete lack of any physical evidence, including prehistoric tools and dated midden deposits, for any occupation of the Tiwanaku site as old as argued by Posnansky and the German astronomers either at the Tiwanaku Site, near it, or in direct association with the Pumapunku complex despite decades of intensive excavation and research.

The processes and technologies involved in the creation of these temples are still not fully understood by modern scholars. Our current ideas of the Tiwanaku culture hold that they had no writing system and also that the invention of the wheel was most likely unknown to them.


Lack of physical evidence to support this theory is not proof that the theory is false.

A snippet from a HC docu about it below.

But what solid evidence are their conclusions based on?

From GrahamHancock.com

An Archaeological Perspective:

In the early 1990s Marius S Ziolkowski, a Professor in Archaeology at Warsaw University, set out to bring together and catalogue a Radiocarbon Database for Bolivia Ecuador and Peru. In 1994 he and his colleagues published a 604-page document listing and discussing their results. Today it is very hard book to track down which is a shame as it is a first class piece of scholarly work and remains the authoritative publication in this area.
To complete this work Ziolokowski et al had to wade their way painstakingly through numerous scientific and archaeological publications spanning four decades. They comment:

"In some papers the radiocarbon dates are quoted without laboratory codes and dating errors and a common practice, especially in older papers, is to quote the dates as calibrated dates without indicating the calibration method and specific calibration curve used" /I][URL="http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockS2-p1.htm#ftn3"][COLOR=#0000ff][I]3[/I][/COLOR][/URL][I

This is not science. A result is scientific when the procedure is scientific in that it is consistent and clear. A scientific result is also a testable one. How can you test a result when you are at a loss as to how that result came about? Ziolokowski et al wanted to make this clear - they were not happy with the quality of the data they were working with.
Of the two thousand eight hundred dates listed for Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru only twenty-nine of them derive from samples excavated from Tiahuanaco. The standard of the documentation method employed to record the radiocarbon dates from Tiahuanaco by the various laboratories involved, did not live up to my expectations. Sometimes the nature of the sample is given sometimes it is not; sometimes the depth at which the sample was excavated is given sometimes it is not; sometimes the sample is put into an archaeological context, sometimes it is not. It is very difficult data to interpret as you might imagine. It seems that communications between archaeologists and scientists in these instances were not good.

For a radiocarbon date to be taken into archaeological consideration all of the above must be clear. Ziolokowski et al point out that the nature of a sample must be defined so that it can be put in its cultural context - its association with the prehistory of the site must be quantifiable /I][URL="http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockS2-p1.htm#ftn4"][COLOR=#0000ff][I]4[/I][/COLOR][/URL][I. For about a third of the radiocarbon dates for Tiahuanaco it is not clear what depth the samples were excavated. Why?

For example, the oldest radiocarbon date arrived at for Tiahuanaco is dated to 3530 BP /I][URL="http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockS2-p1.htm#ftn5"][COLOR=#0000ff][I]5[/I][/COLOR][/URL][I, or 1530 BC. This sample was taken from the Kalasasaya region of Tiahuanaco. The archaeological comment that accompanies this sample reads:

"layer 6.Unexpectedly old compared with Gak-52" /I][URL="http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockS2-p1.htm#ftn6"][COLOR=#0000ff][I]6[/I][/COLOR][/URL][I.

Gak-52 refers to another sample tested by the laboratory from the same cultural strata. Sample Gak-52 was dated to 240 BC. Unfortunately no archaeological comment accompanies this sample so we must assume that this is the accepted date of occupation for this archaeological stratum. It would seem that the former sample is "archaeologically unacceptable'. If you look at the date lists published in the journal Radiocarbon you will find that this kind of rejection of dates is commonplace. If the dates don't fit the archaeological hypothesis they are simply ignored. Sheridan Bowman, the author of Radiocarbon Dating - Interpreting The Past, argues:

"These 'unacceptable' results perhaps more than any others, need careful consideration" /I][URL="http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockS2-p1.htm#ftn7"][COLOR=#0000ff][I]7[/I][/COLOR][/URL][I

Why no explanations for the discrepancy of 1340 years, and why comment on one date and not the other? An explanation for the discrepancy can be postulated. Dating errors aside what if this cultural layer (and possibly others) at Tiahuanaco has been contaminated by the organic composite of other layers? Ziolkowski et al state:

"Admixture of material of different ages may result from activity of small animals, which may transport organic matter between cultural layers or form channels or holes, which are then filled by foreign organic matter of different age" /I][URL="http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockS2-p1.htm#ftn8"][COLOR=#0000ff][I]8[/I][/COLOR][/URL][I

They go on to explain that the only way for archaeologists to avoid dating foreign material is for them to recognize such patterns of contamination in the field. The two samples in question were excavated in the late 1950s and no debate about the archaeological significance of mixed cultural layers accompanies them. This represents shabby work. Indeed, Philip Barker in his book Techniques of Archaeological Excavation states:

"It must be established that the object (sample) is not intrusive, that it has not been taken down an animal hole, or slipped down the interstices between the stones of a wall. If there is any doubt about this the object should be rejected for dating purposes". /I][URL="http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockS2-p1.htm#ftn9"][COLOR=#0000ff][I]9[/I][/COLOR][/URL][I

Therefore, when analysing radiocarbon dates for ancient sites it is important to scrutinise the collection procedure for the samples. Trenches are dug and samples are collected from different archaeological layers but can we be sure that these layers have not been mixed? Archaeologists would of course argue yes! They say that radiocarbon dates are analysed in their archaeological context. What do they mean exactly by "their archaeological context'?

Garret Fagan in his public attack on Graham Hancock's treatment of radiocarbon evidence for Tiahuanaco states:

"Archaeological context is usually sealed strata of occupation, layer upon layer from the bottom (oldest) levels of a site to the upper (most recent) strata" /I][URL="http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockS2-p1.htm#ftn10"][COLOR=#0000ff][I]10[/I][/COLOR][/URL][I

The presence of neat archaeological layers (a requirement for sample association) is not always the case at Tiahuanaco. Above we saw how two samples from the same cultural strata differed in age by 1340 years. The archaeological comment that accompanies another sample tagged P-146 reads:

"A mixed surface level, with classic Decadent, and later pottery" /I][URL="http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockS2-p1.htm#ftn11"][COLOR=#0000ff][I]11[/I][/COLOR][/URL][I

So the situation is this: the samples used to date Tiahuanaco have been inconsistently recorded, anonymously calibrated and come from a site that exhibits evidence of mixed cultural layers. And yet they are cited as a solid basis for dating the planning and construction of Tiahuanaco to around the time of Christ /I][URL="http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockS2-p1.htm#ftn12"][COLOR=#0000ff][I]12[/I][/COLOR][/URL][I. Is it "scientific" to form such bold and certain deductions from such uncertain and unstable evidence?
Looking at the other side of the coin there are instances when the radiocarbon dates for Tiahuanaco are internally consistent. We do not want to be accused of ignoring this fact. Sample Hv-17 was taken from a depth of 50cm under or beside (this is not made clear) the ceremonial platform of Kalasasaya. It was dated to AD 1710. Sample Hv-19 was excavated from the same pit but from a depth of 180cm. Hv-19 was dated to AD 305. Therefore, parts of Tiahuanaco do seem to qualify for radiocarbon analysis - the archaeological conditions are right and there is a satisfactory graduation between the deeper (older) sample and the shallower (more recent) sample.


More here




Even transporting just one 130 tonne block of stone for over 10Km over relatively even ground between the years of 400 BC and 200 AD in this region of the world was an astonishing piece of engineering and planning. How could such primitive people have accomplished this?

From thestoneage.org

The Astonishing Remains in the City of Tiahuanaco

At about 4,000 meters (13,000 feet)above sea level, in the Andes Mountains between Bolivia and Peru, the city of Tiahuanaco is full of ruins that stun visitors. The region is regarded as one of the archaeological marvels of South America, indeed, of the entire world.

One of the most astonishing remains in Tiahuanaco is a calendar that shows the equinoxes, the seasons, and the position of the Moon at every hour and its motions. This calendar is one of the proofs that the people living there possessed a highly advanced technology. Among the other astonishing remains in Tiahuanaco are monuments made out of huge stone blocks, some of them weighing as much as 100 tons.

A Reader's Digest author wrote, ". . . the best engineers of today still ask themselves whether they could cut and move huge masses of rock such as those used to build the city. The giant blocks look almost as though a die were

More here



Using primitive methods it took these guys a month to transport just one 9 tonne block from Copacabana peninsula across Lake Titicaca, then to carve it and put it in place.

More here




The primitives were able to do with 40 tonne blocks which as you point were on the smaller end of the scale. So how? Considering that these modern guys had a traditional reed boat which was 14 meters long, five meters wide, and two meters high, and used 3,000 bundles of totora reeds. Were the primitive people also master boat builders?




Except the aforementioned 12,000 feet mountain you just alluded to.



If there's nothing mysterious then you must obviously be able to tell us how they did it so. Can you?

When is blindly copying and pasting from the website of a pseudoarchaeologist with no archaeological qualifications whatsoever, and a UFO / CT / lost Atlantis type websites classified as debate nowadays?

It is amusing that you find moving a 130 tonnes stone 10 km to be a superhuman feat when far heavier stones have been moved much greater distances throughout human history.

Bus77II

Soul Winner wrote: »

Previously, in the early 1900s, Bolivian engineer Arthur Posnansky, based on astronomical alignments, concluded that Tiwanaku was constructed as early as 15,000 BC (17,000 BP), possibly even older and was not an original construction of the Tiwanaku.

This is very interesting. I assume he did this by looking at carvings on the stones and matching them to what is known of the 'calender' they used.

marco_polo

Bus77II wrote: »

This is very interesting. I assume he did this by looking at carvings on the stones and matching them to what is known of the 'calender' they used.

This passage from a book by an actual archaeologist, Gareth Fagan sums it up nicely I think.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=sIYpx9mzd4gC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=by+Garrett+Fagan+Tiwanaku&source=bl&ots=TFhEo9UO2S&sig=hmcBEEe95lIWxCSfKaXIbJg3GRY&hl=en&ei=6o4RTJPIApCI0wSAzKnxAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

The basic formula of Mr Hancock adopted across numerous ancient sites including this and others like the Sphinx in Egypt
1) Ignore dozens of in depth scientific studies of the site in question.
2) Put forward widely discredited unscientific dating as fact.
3) Whinge about conspiracy and oppression by the establishment.

Soul Winner

Obelisk erecting experiments from Wiki

Roger Hopkins and Mark Lehner teamed up with a NOVA (TV series) crew to erect a 25-ton obelisk in late summer of 1999. This was the third attempt to erect a 25-ton obelisk; the first two ended in failure. There were also two successful attempts to raise a two-ton obelisk and a nine-ton obelisk. In 1994 and again in the spring of 1999 Roger Hopkins, Mark Whitby and Mark Lehner teamed up to attempt to erect a 25-ton obelisk but were unable to complete the job. Finally in Aug–Sep of 1999 after learning from their experience they were able to erect one successfully.
First Roger Hopkins and Rais Abdel Aleem organized an experiment to tow a block of stone weighing about 25 tons. They prepared a path by embedding wooden rails into the ground and placing a sledge on them with a megalith weighing about 25 tons on it. Initially they tried to tow it with over 100 people but were unable to budge it. Finally with well over 130 people pulling at once when Roger Hopkins yelled "Allah Akbar" and an additional dozen using levers to prod it forward they moved it. Over the course of a day they were able to tow it 10 to 20 feet.

More here

It took over 130 men a whole day to move a 25 tonne obelisk 10 to 20 feet. Which works out that it would take 260 men to move a 50 tonne obelisk the same distance i.e. 10 to 20 feet in one day. Which means that in order to move stones of this size over a 10Km distance of just flat land you would need 260 men working flat out every day for over 4 years. 260 men working flat out for over 4 years 7 days a week? And lets say we give them weekends off, then that would increase the time period somewhat to a least five and half years. Then we still have the problem of how primitive copper tools were able to quarry rock which is harder than granite in the first place. Then to shape and polish the obelisk and then once transported to its new location to then lift it into place. How could they afford such a labour intensive workforce in such challenges times for mere survival? If they used slaves then they would have had to keep them very healthy for this work. 3 square meals a day I'd say. Plenty of rest too. How could they afford to do this? From whence comes this advancement in organizational skills over such long periods of time at such an early time in mankind's developemen? At this rate it would have taken over a hundred years to complete Tiwanaku. It boggles the mind, and that just Tiwanaku, not to mention the Pyramids in Egypt or the 800 tonne stones used to build the terrace of Baalbek in Lebanon.

marco_polo

Soul Winner wrote: »

Obelisk erecting experiments from Wiki

Roger Hopkins and Mark Lehner teamed up with a NOVA (TV series) crew to erect a 25-ton obelisk in late summer of 1999. This was the third attempt to erect a 25-ton obelisk; the first two ended in failure. There were also two successful attempts to raise a two-ton obelisk and a nine-ton obelisk. In 1994 and again in the spring of 1999 Roger Hopkins, Mark Whitby and Mark Lehner teamed up to attempt to erect a 25-ton obelisk but were unable to complete the job. Finally in Aug–Sep of 1999 after learning from their experience they were able to erect one successfully.
First Roger Hopkins and Rais Abdel Aleem organized an experiment to tow a block of stone weighing about 25 tons. They prepared a path by embedding wooden rails into the ground and placing a sledge on them with a megalith weighing about 25 tons on it. Initially they tried to tow it with over 100 people but were unable to budge it. Finally with well over 130 people pulling at once when Roger Hopkins yelled "Allah Akbar" and an additional dozen using levers to prod it forward they moved it. Over the course of a day they were able to tow it 10 to 20 feet.

More here

It took over 130 men a whole day to move a 25 tonne obelisk 10 to 20 feet. Which works out that it would take 260 men to move a 50 tonne obelisk the same distance i.e. 10 to 20 feet in one day. Which means that in order to move stones of this size over a 10Km distance of just flat land you would need 260 men working flat out every day for over 4 years. 260 men working flat out for over 4 years 7 days a week? And lets say we give them weekends off, then that would increase the time period somewhat to a least five and half years. Then we still have the problem of how primitive copper tools were able to quarry rock which is harder than granite in the first place. Then to shape and polish the obelisk and then once transported to its new location to then lift it into place. How could they afford such a labour intensive workforce in such challenges times for mere survival? If they used slaves then they would have had to keep them very healthy for this work. 3 square meals a day I'd say. Plenty of rest too. How could they afford to do this? From whence comes this advancement in organizational skills over such long periods of time at such an early time in mankind's developemen? At this rate it would have taken over a hundred years to complete Tiwanaku. It boggles the mind, and that just Tiwanaku, not to mention the Pyramids in Egypt or the 800 tonne stones used to build the terrace of Baalbek in Lebanon.

Yes it would have taken a long time and required alot of labour, tens of thousand in the case of the Pyramids.

You seem to be labouring under the ignorant and incorrect assumption that people from a couple of thousand years ago were idiots of some kind, when they were just as intelligent as you or I. Modern technological advancement is a cultural phenomenon largely as a result of the accumulation of written knowledge over thousands of years.

Arguing with a building creationist is a new one for me I must say.

Soul Winner

marco_polo wrote: »

This passage from a book by an actual archaeologist, Gareth Fagan sums it up nicely I think.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=sIYpx9mzd4gC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=by+Garrett+Fagan+Tiwanaku&source=bl&ots=TFhEo9UO2S&sig=hmcBEEe95lIWxCSfKaXIbJg3GRY&hl=en&ei=6o4RTJPIApCI0wSAzKnxAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

The basic formula of Mr Hancock adopted across numerous ancient sites including this and others like the Sphinx in Egypt
1) Ignore dozens of in depth scientific studies of the site in question.
2) Put forward widely discredited unscientific dating as fact.
3) Whinge about conspiracy and oppression by the establishment.

Garrett Fagan is not an archaeologist. He has little to no experience in this field. According to his CV he did 1 year of study in this area and in 1985 was awarded a B.A. for Ancient History & Archaeology and Biblical Studies all in the same year. Not much time to study archeology. He Participated in archaeological excavations in Sicily (September 1983) and at Carthage (May-June, 1996). That's it!


From ghramhancock.com

'Why do people so desperately want to believe in Atlantis-style tales?' moans Archaeology Editor Peter Young, unable to comprehend why people are turned away from the 'real' archaeology featured in his magazine. Bogus Archaeology expert Garrett Fagan, Assistant Professor of Classics and author of the epic, best-selling, modern-day scholarly classic Bathing in Public in the Roman World 2 explains,

There is little doubt that presenting science (and archaeology) on television is a difficult business. The slow pace of change in scientific thinking .the habitual lack of consensus among academics about details (ital. mine, jaw), and the often complex nature of the arguments involved place pressures on producers ... The unspectacular and painstaking nature of the discipline does not make for particularly spectacular television. For how long will viewers sit through scenes of dirt sifting through knee- high ruins?

That may sound plausible but it's claptrap. Interest in archaeology is no more dependent upon sifting through dirt than interest in baseball is dependent upon spring training or bat manufacture. Like baseball fans, archaeology fans revel in the game -- which in this case is not dirt-sifting, but uncovering and interpreting the past. It is the significance and the relevance of those discoveries that generate interest. The key word here is 'significance'.

The audience will sit through plenty of 'dirt sifting' if the stakes are high and valid Your prize winning selection for Worst Television Archaeology' had its obligatory patina of network glitz but most of that show was devoted to a complex scientific geological argument. The audience was riveted, and still is. It is not that 'people want so desperately to believe in Atlantis-style tales', it is that they are smart enough to recognize the comic triviality of your petty discipline. Again, Fagan inadvertently supplies the clue (just about everything Fagan supplies is inadvertent) Those heated arguments over 'detail' (i.e., the Big Picture is agreed upon by the 'experts; only 'details' remain) appeal to no one but yourselves. The archeologically uninitiated cannot be made to warm to furious debates over how many asps killed Cleopatra (Serpent in the Sky, p.9). Especially when profound mysteries, self-evident to all acquainted with the problems involved, go unexplored, their very existence left doggedly unsifted by archeological consensus.

E.g., we do NOT know how the pyramids were built, we do NOT know why they were built (there is NO evidence, none, that the pyramids of Giza and Dahshur ever served as tombs, though other pyramids did. They may have been tombs, but there is NO evidence that they were - got it? Science is supposed to be based upon evidence, not inference.) We do NOT know how the 200 tons blocks of the Sphinx and Valley temples and the paving blocks surrounding the Khafre pyramid were moved and put into place, etc., etc., etc., etc. People are not as stupid or as gullible as you think they are. They don't buy your version of the Big Picture. Simple as that. Unfortunately, they are also not very discriminating. They tend not to distinguish between, say, a Von Daniken and an R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz. But then, neither do you."

More here

marco_polo

Hmm usually a BA from Trinity takes at 4 years, perhaps he bribed them. Or the more obvious conclusion would be that his CV just lists the year he was awarded his degree like anybody else does.

Either way the are than ample qualifications to expose pseudoscience.

And that link is essentially step three, whinging about a conspiracy as I outlined above.

Soul Winner

marco_polo wrote: »

Yes it would have taken a long time and required alot of labour, the tens of thousand in the case of the Pyramids.

You seem to be labouring under the ignorant and incorrect assumption that people from a couple of thousand years ago were idiots of some kind, when they were just as intelligent as you or I. Modern technological advancement is a cultural phenomenon largely as a result of the accumulation of written knowledge over thousands of years.

Arguing with a building creationist is a new one for me I must say.

These constructions reveal that they were a lot more advanced than we are led to beleive which is the point I've been making all be it in a a sarcastic kind of way. For instance the builders of the Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt were not only able to construct this massive monument but were able to incase within its dimencions aspects which reavel that they knew Pi and Phi and knew how to find true north etc. It has air shafts uilt into its so called King's Chamber which disqualifies it as being a tomb. So if it wasn't built as a tomb then what was it built for? I know what i thnk it is, what do you think it is?

marco_polo wrote: »

More than ample qualifications to expose pseudo science. And that link is essentially step three, whinging about a conspiracy as I outlined above.

Where is he whinging about conspiracy? He just doesn't buy into Fagan's view of how he thinks we should see things, that does not mean that he thinks Fagan is hiding behind some big conspiracy, that is all your own head and possibly Fagan's too.

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

Lack of physical evidence to support this theory is not proof that the theory is false.

Really, is it that difficult to read about the meaning of a word ? A kitten just died.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

J C

Soul Winner wrote: »

Think of it this way. You find yourself stranded on a boat in the middle of nowhere with no way of reaching shore without the aid of outside guidance. And one day you get a precious call on your radio giving you just that. A way to get home. They give you coordinates and distances and so forth, tell you were to avoid etc. You are guaranteed to get home as long as you follow the instructions given to you, but if you deviate from those instructions it could spell disaster. So like this once stranded boat I am being saved, but I have to daily make sure I am going in the right direction. I can only do this if I make it my business to do so. If after receiving this call I just sit down and relax and pay no attention to the directions and presume that I am already saved, what do you think the outcome would be?

If I was actually saved then I wouldn't have to work out my salvation (i.e. saved-ness) with fear and trembling would I? Like I said, I am being saved, and will one day be actually saved, but I must, as the New Testament says, keep the faith and faint not as long as I'm in this world, even though I'm not of it.

... so you're not Saved then !!!

... a more correct analogy would be a person at imminent risk of drowning in a lake, who makes a call to a rescue service ... the person will then be saved by the rescue service without any further input or payment from the drowning person and the rescue service wil not judge them even if it was their own fault that they got into difficulties, in the first place ... they will simply rescue them anyway once they are called upon to do so!!!!
Equally, once they are brought onto dry land ... they can never be drowned, no matter what they do ... the conditions necessary for drowining no longer exist for them!!!
... of course, it is a different story for all of the others still up to their necks in the lake ... and paddling away against an overwhelming current that is threatening to drown them ... while steadfastly maintaining that the 'can save themselves' ... and refusing to allow the rescue service to save them!!!!
Because the saved person will be grateful to the rescue service for saving them, they may make subsequent voluntary donations to the organisation involved as well as encouraging others to call the rescue service if they also need to be saved!!!
Equally, please also bear in mind that making donations to the rescue service or praising it, will not save a drowning person ... unless they make that call !!!

... so, are you ready to make that call ... in humility as an undeserving sinner ... to Jesus Christ to Save you???

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by Soul Winner
Lack of physical evidence to support this theory is not proof that the theory is false.

... this would relegate such a 'theory' to the realm of fantasy!!!

... BTW I came across this interesting of the last words of famous people You Tube ... seems a pity that there was no Christian present to tell them that they could end the darkness there and then by believing on Jesus to Save them :-

monosharp wrote: »

Really, is it that difficult to read about the meaning of a word ? A kitten just died.

... the cat seems to also have died !!!!!:D

MrPudding

marco_polo wrote: »

The basic formula of Mr Hancock adopted across numerous ancient sites including this and others like the Sphinx in Egypt
1) Ignore dozens of in depth scientific studies of the site in question.
2) Put forward widely discredited unscientific dating as fact.
3) Whinge about conspiracy and oppression by the establishment.

These three points seem oddly familiar... Where have I seen this kind of behaviour before...

Oh yes! Evolutionists:D:D:D;);)!!!:o:o:o:):):):p:p:p

MrP

Soul Winner

J C wrote: »

... so you're not Saved then !!!

... a more correct analogy would be a person at imminent risk of drowning in a lake, who makes a call to a rescue service ... the person will then be saved by the rescue service without any further input or payment from the drowning person and the rescue service wil not judge them even if it was their own fault that they got into difficulties, in the first place ... they will simply rescue them anyway once they are called upon to do so!!!!
Equally, once they are brought onto dry land ... they can never be drowned, no matter what they do ... the conditions necessary for drowining no longer exist for them!!!
... of course, it is a different story for all of the others still up to their necks in the lake ... and paddling away against an overwhelming current that is threatening to drown them ... while steadfastly maintaining that the 'can save themselves' ... and refusing to allow the rescue service to save them!!!!
Because the saved person will be grateful to the rescue service for saving them, they may make subsequent voluntary donations to the organisation involved as well as encouraging others to call the rescue service if they also need to be saved!!!
Equally, please bear in mind that making donations to the rescue service, will not save a drowning person ... unless they make that call !!!

I wonder what Paul would make of that??

He'd probably say something like this:

"But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus. All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. (I pray this for you J C) Only let us live up to what we have already attained. Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern (if they were already saved they wouldn't need a pattern to live by) we gave you. For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things. But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will (future tense) transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body."

Philippians 3:7-20

That does not sound like Paul thought he was actually saved either. That does not sound like Paul is lying on the beach glorying in his already saved state. He thanks and praises God always for opening the door whereby he might be saved, but even that great apostle of our LORD did not view himself as already saved. Thet text above proves that without question. So although I don't consider myself as already saved yet, I'm in good company as you can see.

J C wrote: »

... ... so, are you ready to make that call ... in humility as an undeserving sinner ... to Jesus Christ to Save you???

Do you honestly think that somebody like me could come on here and express what I express about God's Word and Jesus could do that without already haven taken that very very basic step in Christ at some point and who continues to do it on daily basis? I fear for your spirit of discernment sometimes.

"Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." 1 Corinthians 12:3

Jesus is LORD!!!

Soul Winner

MrPudding wrote: »

These three points seem oddly familiar... Where have I seen this kind of behaviour before...

Oh yes! Evolutionists:D:D:D;);)!!!:o:o:o:):):):p:p:p

MrP

OK, then what hard evidence do we have that shows that inflation took place in the early universe? Inflation is just assumed to have happened by science because it fits in with what we are observing today and explains a few things, but there is no hard evidence for it. BTW I've no problem with this approach at all, but the smart arse jibes at others who, for other reasons, adopt this type of approach to things that science is at a loss to explain in scientific terms is starting to annoy me. If you want to enage in this discussion then please put forward your explanations as to how these stones were quarried, transported and lifted into place by people using primitive equipment or just keep out of it.

marco_polo

Soul Winner wrote: »

OK, then what hard evidence do we have that shows that inflation took place in the early universe? Inflation is just assumed to have happened by science because it fits in with what we are observing today and explains a few things, but there is no hard evidence for it. BTW I've no problem with this approach at all, but the smart arse jibes at others who, for other reasons, adopt this type of approach to things that science is at a loss to explain in scientific terms is starting to annoy me. If you want to enage in this discussion then please put forward your explanations as to how these stones were quarried, transported and lifted into place by people using primitive equipment or just keep out of it.

Perhaps you could put forward your own explaination as to how these ancient monuments got there, if it wasn't the egyptians?

Soul Winner

marco_polo wrote: »

Perhaps you could put forward your own explaination as to how these ancient monuments got there, if it wasn't the egyptians?

In the case for the Great Pyramid of Giza I believe it was built with instructions from God to Enoch who had a labour force of supernatural beings called the Watchers. Just as God gave Moses the dimensions of the Tabernacle and Solomon the dimensions of the Temple I believe that God gave the dimensions for this particular structure to Enoch. If that theory is wrong then some super intelligent race built it, possibly aliens but definitely not primitive man. It would be to difficult a feat for modern day man to achieve let alone men at that time. This pyramid has dimension in it that show that they knew how long the solar, anomolistic and sidereal years were. They knew Pi and the Golden Section. They were able to orient this massive monument to True North. They used units of measure that are the same as the measures used in the Scriptures. The Egyptian book of the dead call this Pyramid 'The Pillar of Enough'. It lies on the point of the earth that divides all the land mass of the earth. If we use the base of this pyramid as the diameter of a circle, the top of the pyramid will hit certain point above the circle. If use that point as the center of another circle that wold tangent the larger circle below it then we end up the two spheres that have the same relation in size as the earth does to the moon. There are many many other examples within this great monument that shows that whoever the architect was He knew the heavens in way that boggles the mind.

As for the other monoliths around the world I can't rightly say that I have a theory on who the builders of those were with the exception of stone henge, that also has relationships to the Great Pyramid but too much to go into here. As for the others I do believe that they had to be superhuman, a race for which we have no surviving information about. I do not believe that primitive men were able to plan and engineer such feats of stone moving and quarrying with the tools that were available to them at the time these monuments were built.

Who do you think built them?

robindch

marco_polo wrote: »

This passage from a book by an actual archaeologist, Gareth Fagan sums it up nicely I think.

1) Ignore dozens of in depth scientific studies of the site in question.
2) Put forward widely discredited unscientific dating as fact.
3) Whinge about conspiracy and oppression by the establishment.

Funny, that could be about creationists too!