Ancient technology

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Is it not true that in order to come up with a reasonable theory we must first make assumptions?

Yes, probably, but how does it follow that science 'assumes that people from ancient history were less intelligent'?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
As regards to astronomy I cant see one blanket reason for why different ancient cultures were proficient in astronomy.

I gave several blanket reasons. Which part did you not understand?

Stone Henge has already been mentioned, but why such large, surely difficult to move stones were used is often overlooked.
Its not easy to overlook. What makes you think it is often overlooked? I thought it was one of the first questions anyone asks when they see such monuments. And there are various good possible answers, the main one being status/prestige. Witness how many statutes/iconic buildings we have in the modern world probably for more or less the same reasons.

The pyramids of Giza were also built along very prominent constellations, which would have taken extra time to plan with such precision.
References? Remember that writers about such monuments typically greatly exaggerate precision and alignment to astronomical observations.

I've read that not long ago (last 100 years) a so-called primitive tribe (the Dogon tribe ?) was discovered in Africa who seemed to live like tribal cultures from thousands of years ago. They had the bare minimum for survival except for an excellent knowledge of astronomy . They said there was a second planet circling the star called Sirius which could not be detected by the science of the time. Subsequent advancements in astronomy have revealed their knowledge to be true.
References? And what about the first planet? Wikipedia says Sirius is a double star and that no planets have been detected around either, and that there is a third star behind the pair that is unrelated.
As I said, exaggeration is common, so check your sources.

Anyway it seems that different ancient cultures had totally different reasons for knowing astronomy and to say that it was good for measuring cycles of time is a fair reason, but why the pyramids were built to mirror huge constellations is still a mystery.
Odd then that Wikipedia does not have 'constellation' anywhere on the page on the Great Pyramid of Giza. Maybe the mystery is where you got that information, not why they did it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, probably, but how does it follow that science 'assumes that people from ancient history were less intelligent'?

Um, actually no. I don't agree with that. [That its a requirement that you make
assumptions].

And science certainly doesn't assume that people from ancient history were less
intelligent.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, probably, but how does it follow that science 'assumes that people from ancient history were less intelligent'?

By taking a linear approach to things.

Just like the montage at the start of "The Big Bang Theory"

Originally posted by karoly aczel
By taking a linear approach to things.

Just like the montage at the start of "The Big Bang Theory"

The Big Bang Theory is a comedy. A good one, but still not to be taken as a source of good science.
As far as I know, no study has shown that any race of humans is inferior in intelligence to any other race. This suggests that human intelligence reached more or less its current level prior to the migration out of Africa which happened long before any of the ancient civilizations under discussion, and I would say that 'science' is well aware of this.
I suspect it is you doing the linear approach thing and making assumptions and not science.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Um, actually no. I don't agree with that. [That its a requirement that you make
assumptions].

There are many ways to interpret the statement, hence my 'probably'.
When making a hypothesis its common to say 'well what if this were true, then what' then the 'assumptions' are tested to see if they fit with reality.
One could also interpret it as saying that we generally assume things like apples being solid based on day to day experience, but then I am not sure that 'assume' is the right word, given that our experience constitutes evidence.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I gave several blanket reasons. Which part did you not understand?

[b]Stone Henge has already been mentioned, but why such large, surely difficult to move stones were used is often overlooked.
Its not easy to overlook. What makes you think it is often overlooked? I thought it was one of the first questions anyone asks when they see such monuments. ...[text shortened]... t Pyramid of Giza. Maybe the mystery is where you got that information, not why they did it.[/b]

No references at this time.

You think maybe my source that said that the Dogon tribe knew about a planet (it may have been a star, I'm not completely sure about that), was possibly an "exaggeration"?
I mean either they predicted an formerly unknown celestial object or they didn't.

I have mentioned to you before that the stories I put forward here fit in with other facts which implies more credibility.
I accept Christians biblical references and also scientific "facts" the way the poster has put them forward, but somehow I am accused of twisting stories by some here.

I have also mentioned that the spirituality I adhere to in no way contradicts established science. So why the big brush off?

Originally posted by twhitehead
The Big Bang Theory is a comedy. A good one, but still not to be taken as a source of good science.
As far as I know, no study has shown that any race of humans is inferior in intelligence to any other race. This suggests that human intelligence reached more or less its current level prior to the migration out of Africa which happened long before any of ...[text shortened]... .
I suspect it is you doing the linear approach thing and making assumptions and not science.

How am I doing the linear approach thing?

As regards to "the Big Bang Theory" I was just referring to the pictorial montage at the start credits which implies that since the Big Bang and the subsequent advent of human life, that all human achievements ,etc. have started simple and become more complex.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
No references at this time.

You think maybe my source that said that the Dogon tribe knew about a planet (it may have been a star, I'm not completely sure about that), was possibly an "exaggeration"?
I mean either they predicted an formerly unknown celestial object or they didn't.

I have mentioned to you before that the stories I put forward he ...[text shortened]... rituality I adhere to in no way contradicts established science. So why the big brush off?

The fact that you assert that your 'spirituality' doesn't contradict established
science doesn't mean that your spirituality doesn't contradict science...
Just that you don't think it does.

Your posts that talk about science however contradict this as what you are claiming
is highly unscientific and does contradict science.

This gives the impression that you only think that your philosophy/religion doesn't
contradict science because you don't understand the science.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
You think maybe my source that said that the Dogon tribe knew about a planet (it may have been a star, I'm not completely sure about that), was possibly an "exaggeration"?

Yes.

I mean either they predicted an formerly unknown celestial object or they didn't.
They didn't.

I have mentioned to you before that the stories I put forward here fit in with other facts which implies more credibility.
I am not sure what you mean. What other facts would make the stories above more credible?

I accept Christians biblical references and also scientific "facts" the way the poster has put them forward, but somehow I am accused of twisting stories by some here.
I have not accused you of twisting stories, I am saying that you need to take all stories with a bit of skepticism especially when they make extraordinary claims.

I have also mentioned that the spirituality I adhere to in no way contradicts established science. So why the big brush off?
Not only does the spiritually you adhere to most definitely contradict established science, but I haven't brushed off any of your spirituality in this thread, I have merely pointed out errors in some of the stuff you have said. The supposed alignment of the pyramids to some constellation has nothing to do with your spirituality does it? Or the time it might take to build one? Or the claim that science thinks ancient people were less intelligent? Which of my posts do you see as brushing off your spirituality?
You may think aliens helped build the pyramids, but that is no reason to believe every exaggeration anyone has ever made about them. If you are mistaken about them being perfectly aligned to some constellation, it should not impact your beliefs one bit.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The fact that you assert that your 'spirituality' doesn't contradict established
science doesn't mean that your spirituality doesn't contradict science...
Just that you don't think it does.

Your posts that talk about science however contradict this as what you are claiming
is highly unscientific and does contradict science.

This gives the imp ...[text shortened]... ilosophy/religion doesn't
contradict science because you don't understand the science.

You can think what you want.

I think it has been firmly established by quantum that on an extremely small scale, 'normal' laws of physics break down and a new theory has had to be found. So as reliable as Newtons and einsteins physics may be, those theories do not account for all observed phenomena.

Again, I wonder why my credibility is questioned here so often.
I understand science well enough. I do not speculate unless I say so.
My worldview derives directly from my experience, which is extremely difficult to put into words. Nevertheless I will try to understand what spirituality means to me unless you can show me where I have erred.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
How am I doing the linear approach thing?

You claimed your statement was based on the linear approach of science. I am saying that it is you making the claim not science, so it must have been you using the linear approach.

As regards to "the Big Bang Theory" I was just referring to the pictorial montage at the start credits which implies that since the Big Bang and the subsequent advent of human life, that all human achievements ,etc. have started simple and become more complex.
Note that achievement is not equivalent to intelligence, not by a long shot. Just look at what G W Bush achieved. 🙂
Human achievement has generally advanced over time due to the fact that advances build upon each other. There have however been many cases of advances being lost and civilizations being destroyed etc.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
How am I doing the linear approach thing?

As regards to "the Big Bang Theory" I was just referring to the pictorial montage at the start credits which implies that since the Big Bang and the subsequent advent of human life, that all human achievements ,etc. have started simple and become more complex.

That only asserts that our achievements have become more complex, not that our intelligence has increased.

As we have discovered more about the universe and our environment, that new knowledge and ability allows the same level of intelligence to gain still more knowledge and ability.

As Newton said: "If I have seen further, it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants"

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I believe one researcher followed the 'ramp theory' , factoring in slave labor, 200-400tonne blocks and the tools used at that time, including the lifespan of people of the time, and came up with that figure.

Yes, but that 10 year figure also supposes that, using 16,000 to 40,000 workers, 2 million 2.5 ton blocks could have been placed at a sustained rate of 180 per hour, or 3 per minute (!), in 10-hour workdays for those 10 years. And this is ONLY the Great Pyramid. You tell me if that sounds reasonable.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes.

[b]I mean either they predicted an formerly unknown celestial object or they didn't.
They didn't.

I have mentioned to you before that the stories I put forward here fit in with other facts which implies more credibility.
I am not sure what you mean. What other facts would make the stories above more credible?

I accept Christ ...[text shortened]... m being perfectly aligned to some constellation, it should not impact your beliefs one bit.

Um.. Yes..Yes they did predict a celestial object that was only later confirmed with telescopes.

When someones stories fit in with established science and/or can be cross-referenced in other books , does this not make them more plausible?

You have implied that I was using an exaggerated story, which would be like twisting the meaning of some story.
I do take all stories with a bit of skepticism. I guess we differ on what is 'extraordinary'.

Oh but you do give me the big brush off by seeking to undermine my claims. Aliens may have helped build the pyramids, I'm not entirely sure.
I just cant understand why they would use such enormous blocks , so big that even modern day cranes would have trouble lifting them, to build a so-called burial chamber?