Susan Doris Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whoever laid the blocks of the monuments you
> mention was, unless you have evidence to the
> contrary, an ancestor of ours, one in a long,
> continual, unbroken line of life...

You are making a claim which you must be able to back up with physical evidence. The burden of proof is incumbant on those who make such claims. On the other hand, those of us who challenge such claims are not required to produce any evidence ot disprove those claims made by others.

However, as Audrey pointed out, the evidence is indeed there in the stonework and its contradiction to a 3rd millennium BC provenance must be reconciled. You have not done so. You simply continue to reiterate the age-old claim that has never been substantiated with evidence.



> ...and those who
> think they must have been some forgotten
> xcivilisation with amazing technical abilities, or
> who for some reason disappeared completely, always
> fail to provide the facts upon which ob jective
> evidence can be based.

Your "for some reason" hand waving of the principle shows that you do not understand the principles behind the advent and demise of civilizations throughout the ages and that you do not appreciate how Nature differentially handles durable vs. non-durable materials over the millennia. The well-established pattern of finding a decreasing amount of non-durable evidence the farther back in time a civilization existed does not require any "wonderfully evolved human imagination". The enigmatic durable evidence in stonework is there, and it follows the logic based on known scientific principles of the absorption and resorption of non-durable components of ancient civilizations. It allows human civilization to be older than the post-hoc estimate of Bishop Ussher. In fact, I don't think it's necessary to invoke a "lost civliization" or "adanced technology" (although certainly quite possible), at least nothing that transcends what we are capable of doing today. One look at the timeline shows the unlikelihood of its veracity. It does not require the advent of a "lost civilization" if the current timeline truly can reconcile the contradictions it is currently confronting. Otherwise, invoking a "lost civilization" is certainly fair game if it does a better job accommodating the evidence while reconciling the current contradictions to a 3rd millennium BC provenance.


> There are many unknown
> facts, but they are 'don't knows' not assignable
> to a race or group for which facts are missing.
>
> Susan

Susan, you don't seem to realize that your statement applies to any attempt to attribute that megalithic stonework to the 3rd millennium BC. While there is an enormous volume of artifacts and documentation from the 3rd millennium BC about every walk of life, including bean counts, cattle counts, contracts, personal debts, crimes, punishments, etc., there is a complete lack of evidence of any firsthand testimony of the tools and methods used to achieve that massive volume of stonework. No document or artifact from any designer, mason, architect, or public official attesting to the original construction of any pyramid. No example, or even description, of any industrial tool or process to produce all that stonework within a 200 year time period. No artifact, or even an engraving, of such tools used in the construction. The entire paradigm absolutely requires what you characterize as "wonderfully evolved human imagination".

Meanwhile, your insistence that such human imagination must be true unless proven otherwise is not only a textbook example of handwaving denial, it is, frankly, an expression of arrogance in the absence of evidence to substantiate your claim. Meanwhile, you have not addressed all the evidence that is there which contradicts a 3rd millennium BC provenance.




Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04-Jan-17 13:57 by Origyptian.