Open mind Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't see what I said that warrants your
> reaction. India's pretty old. Not really sure
> how old it is.

I am no expert on the thousands of temples in India. The providence of some of them are well documented , others not, however those with records tend to be late or end of 1st millennium AD or mid 2nd millennia AD (CE).

Brihadisvara Temple : The 82 ton capstone is described in old records as being dragged on a huge earthen ramp by elephants. The marvellous horse granite columns apparently was made later as part of a new kings extension.
These all made not just in 'iron age' but India had long had steel.

Of course the Indus Valley (now in Pakistan) has been dated to 2nd or 3rd millennia BC. They achieved marvellous things with stone too (no evidenced 'steel').

The point is if you want to "follow the evidence" or offer conjecture, then at least first research what IS known.

Further, there are mysteries associated with all of this (including Racho vid of Egypt) however the tendency for alternative amateurs is to push the dating back to some unknown way earlier period, as IF that somehow solves the problem.
IT doesn't, it only creates more scope for vague unevidenced fantasy.

Consider, apparently the justification for such conjecture is a Younger Dryas catastrophe that removed all traces of a 'lost advanced civilization'? Look at the pics Thanos posted (in particular the granite horse pillars) and ask how such catastrophe wiped out all trace but managed not to destroy such pillars or indeed thousands of similar temples?????



I'd love to have your confidence
> in the age of this stuff, but the quality of the
> work doesn't match up with the mainstream idea's
> of the 'ability' of those who are supposed to have
> made them. Its not an unreasonable caution. That
> one main discrepancy forces me to more closely
> evaluate the quality of the conclusions that are
> made.

Well first step is to actually more closely evaluate by researching the known facts.
>
> On closer inspection, I struggle with this kind of
> stuff: (Inference from absence: the case of
> archaeology)
>
> [www.nature.com]


This is central to this whole alt mysteries fanaticism.

Archaeology is viciously criticised for piecing together conclusions from limited known facts.

However the reverse is true, the alternative have no facts or evidence , and therefore make up all sorts of wild fantasies., and sell books to even less knowledgeable naïve folk in search of such exciting fantasy.
>
> Lots of stuff is in doubt whether you want to
> believe it or not. Pull yourself together.

It is in doubt. However it does not justify criticism of those that look for tangible evidence, from those that do not!, but rather just make shit up! (or base a whole hypothesis on a limited segment of evidence, without considering all known information)

Cheers



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 23-Feb-20 19:54 by Corpuscles.