Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-30-2017 10:47 AM
392 online now:
Coyote, Davidjay, Dawn Bertot, Faith, JonF, PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (8 members, 384 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,812 Year: 10,418/21,208 Month: 3,505/2,674 Week: 48/873 Day: 48/76 Hour: 11/10

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2324
25
26272829Next
Author Topic:   Evolution. We Have The Fossils. We Win.
Percy
Member
Posts: 15563
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 361 of 429 (775170)
12-29-2015 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by Big_Al35
12-29-2015 10:34 AM


Big_Al35 writes:

Percy writes:

It *is* your place to provide evidence. From the Forum Guidelines


No - it is not my place to provide evidence. And on this point I am quite happy to be barred if this is so.

I switched from moderating this thread to a regular participant some time ago. I guess if you persist in flouting the Forum Guidelines for a little longer that will force me to shift back to a moderator role (after withdrawing from participation for two days), but I'd really rather not do that.

So just let me beg upon your integrity to follow the Forum Guidelines that you agreed to follow when you registered for EvC Forum.

And even though it is not my place to provide evidence I have done so. Which I notice you have ignored - again.

I think everyone would be happy to discuss actual evidence, but the "evidence" you've presented so far has already been considered and found to be obvious concoctions like fabricated images of giant skeletons and claims where the evidence is held secret. Real evidence differs from the kind of "evidence" you've been presenting in that it has actual tangible existence. If you have any tangible evidence, please present it.

But first figure out if you're making the point you intend. For instance, if fossils of giant humans actually exist then we'd all have to accept that giant humans once roamed the Earth and begin work on how it fits into the human evolutionary bush, but it would only reinforce the main claim of this topic: Evolution. We have the fossils. We win.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Fix garbled grammar in 1st sentence of last para.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Big_Al35, posted 12-29-2015 10:34 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18260
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 362 of 429 (775174)
12-29-2015 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 358 by Big_Al35
12-29-2015 10:34 AM


so bad too sad
And even though it is not my place to provide evidence ...

Repeated denial is not an argument. Evidence is required to justify a position or it is just hearsay blind opinion. Evidence can convince others that your view has merit, lack of it is grounds for mockery. Thus you are the only who benefits from evidence that substantiates your position -- that is what puts the onus on you to provide it.

... I have done so.

Curiously a single word is not evidence.

Sacsayhauman

quote:
The Inca used similar construction techniques in building Saksaywaman as they used on all their stonework, albeit on a far more massive scale.[10]The stones were rough-cut to the approximate shape in the quarries usingriver cobbles.[19]They were dragged by rope to the construction site, a feat that at times required hundreds of men.[20]The ropes were so impressive that they warranted mentiodn byDiego de Trujillo(1948:63 [1571]) as he inspected a room filled with building materials. The stones were shaped into their final form at the building site and then laid in place.[21]The work, while supervised by Inca architects, was largely carried out by groups of individuals fulfilling their labor obligations to the state. In this system ofmitaor "turn" labor, each village or ethnic group provided a certain number of individuals to participate in such public works projects.[10]

In other words there are known and observed construction techniques that explain the structure without the need for fabricating giants who magically leave no trace of their existence.

Or, more succinctly, this is not evidence of giants, but evidence that a posited existence of giants is not required to explain the structure ... meaning that you still have not provided (objective empirical) evidence to support your position.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Big_Al35, posted 12-29-2015 10:34 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by herebedragons, posted 12-29-2015 2:26 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15803
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 363 of 429 (775184)
12-29-2015 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by Big_Al35
12-29-2015 9:04 AM


Actually I have - but you chose to ignore it. Megalithic structures eg the Sacsayhauman.

You know that normal-sized people can move rocks, right? So why are rocks evidence of giants rather than of normal people, or for that matter aliens as you would doubtless be insisting if you were a different sort of kook?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Big_Al35, posted 12-29-2015 9:04 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1298
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


(10)
Message 364 of 429 (775187)
12-29-2015 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by RAZD
12-29-2015 11:24 AM


Re: so bad too sad
I looked up that page as well and noticed this:

quote:
The ropes were so impressive that they warranted mention by Diego de Trujillo [1571] as he inspected a room filled with building materials.

and

quote:
Cieza de Len, who visited Saksaywaman two times in the late 1540s, mentions the quarrying of the stones, their transposition to the site, and the digging of foundation trenches.

So, two eye witnesses who failed to mention giants although they made notes about several other impressive features.

Weird huh?

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by RAZD, posted 12-29-2015 11:24 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5762
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


(4)
Message 365 of 429 (775188)
12-29-2015 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by Big_Al35
12-29-2015 9:04 AM


I did the research, it is not evidence.

I'm not sure why you need proof or evidence.

So you think people should accept what you spout unquestioningly? Such hubris.

I only offer it in case you are interested and I certainly wouldn't provide it to those who demand it.

Then why are you here? This is a discussion forum where we discuss evidence. If you want to preach, find a church.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Big_Al35, posted 12-29-2015 9:04 AM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15803
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(5)
Message 366 of 429 (775195)
12-29-2015 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by Big_Al35
12-29-2015 9:04 AM


Actually I have - but you chose to ignore it. Megalithic structures eg the Sacsayhauman.

Fun fact, when Anglo-Saxons saw Roman remains they identified them as entageweorc --- "the work of giants". But there was some excuse for their confusion --- the Roman remains were indeed beyond anything they could build, and so they might be excused for attributing its construction to superhumans.

But we, Big Al, we can build skyscrapers literally half a mile high, and yet you look at this ...

... and convince yourself that it couldn't have been done by ordinary humans like us, who can only do stuff like this:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Big_Al35, posted 12-29-2015 9:04 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by Big_Al35, posted 01-01-2016 7:12 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 367 of 429 (775437)
01-01-2016 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by Dr Adequate
12-29-2015 7:07 PM


Dr Adequate writes:

Fun fact, when Anglo-Saxons saw Roman remains they identified them as entageweorc --- "the work of giants".

Compare the Statue of Liberty with the ancient monoliths.

Following its completion in France it was shipped to the U.S; broken down into 350 pieces that were packed into 214 crates.

The steel and copper construction has a combined weight of 250-tons. Two and half million stones went into the Great Pyramid and the estimated weight is 6 million tons! The largest stone blocks in the pyramid weigh about 70 tons. However, there are numerous 40, 100, 200 and a few 400-ton blocks of precisely cut stones in Peru that had to be hauled a considerable distance and then fit into place at various sites.

The weight of the stones rather than the height or the complexity appears to be the main issue here.

Source --> http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_wh3.htm


This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-29-2015 7:07 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by Percy, posted 01-01-2016 7:42 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 369 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-01-2016 9:24 PM Big_Al35 has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15563
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 368 of 429 (775439)
01-01-2016 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Big_Al35
01-01-2016 7:12 PM


Hi Al,

It's great that you're seeking evidence of the giant humans that you obviously believe once roamed the Earth, but your evidence is about the Statue of Liberty and the stone blocks of pyramids. This thread is about fossils. If you want to discuss evidence of giant humans, in this thread the evidence has to be fossils.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Big_Al35, posted 01-01-2016 7:12 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by NoNukes, posted 01-02-2016 1:59 PM Percy has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15803
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(3)
Message 369 of 429 (775442)
01-01-2016 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Big_Al35
01-01-2016 7:12 PM


Compare the Statue of Liberty with the ancient monoliths.

Following its completion in France it was shipped to the U.S; broken down into 350 pieces that were packed into 214 crates.

The steel and copper construction has a combined weight of 250-tons. Two and half million stones went into the Great Pyramid and the estimated weight is 6 million tons! The largest stone blocks in the pyramid weigh about 70 tons. However, there are numerous 40, 100, 200 and a few 400-ton blocks of precisely cut stones in Peru that had to be hauled a considerable distance and then fit into place at various sites.

The weight of the stones rather than the height or the complexity appears to be the main issue here.

Source --> http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_wh3.htm

The largest monolith ever transported is the Thunder Stone, weighing 1500 tons. As it was moved in the late eighteenth century, we know exactly how it was done. Here's a picture. Note the absence of giants.

It follows that moving big rocks is not evidence of giants, since it can be done without giants.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Big_Al35, posted 01-01-2016 7:12 PM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 370 by Big_Al35, posted 01-02-2016 11:23 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 370 of 429 (775518)
01-02-2016 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 369 by Dr Adequate
01-01-2016 9:24 PM


Dr Adequate writes:

It follows that moving big rocks is not evidence of giants, since it can be done without giants.

Here are some interesting facts I got from Wikipedia. (controlled by globalists)

1,250 t[19] Thunder Stone Boulder, Statue pedestal Saint Petersburg, Russia Russian Empire, 1770 Moved 6 km overland for shipment,[19] and cut from 1,500 t to current size while on transport[20]

1,000 t[21][22] Ramesseum Statue Thebes, Egypt Ancient Egypt Transported 170 miles (270 km) by ship from Aswan

You can see the ancient stones (in some cases) are comparable in size. You will notice that the ancient stones have been transported much further distances. The thunder stone was only transported 6km and probably only to show that it is possible in the modern age to do so. How the ancients did so again and again, rock after rock is a mystery. Even your picture shows that hundreds of regular sized people are needed and I am not sure of its validity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-01-2016 9:24 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-02-2016 12:17 PM Big_Al35 has responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15803
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


(1)
Message 371 of 429 (775528)
01-02-2016 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 370 by Big_Al35
01-02-2016 11:23 AM


You will notice that the ancient stones have been transported much further distances.

And that they're smaller, and that the one you cite was transported by ship. Ships work without giants. Cargo ships have been built that can transport over 200,000 tons, all without any giants being involved.

How the ancients did so again and again, rock after rock is a mystery.

Only to you.

Even your picture shows that hundreds of regular sized people are needed and I am not sure of its validity.

Yes, hundreds of regular-sized people are needed. 'Cos of rocks being heavy.

Why are you "not sure of its validity"? Do you think the Russians secretly used giants to move the Thunder Stone but didn't tell anyone?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 370 by Big_Al35, posted 01-02-2016 11:23 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Big_Al35, posted 01-02-2016 4:13 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9456
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 372 of 429 (775538)
01-02-2016 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by Percy
01-01-2016 7:42 PM


If you want to discuss evidence of giant humans, in this thread the evidence has to be fossils.

I disagree. If Big Al wants to argue that non-fossil evidence contradicts and is superior to the fossil evidence, that would seem to be a viable approach -- at least hypothetically. Al is considerably short on the execution, but at least what he is doing is better than making up stories about mind controlling illuminati are hiding the evidence.

Let's let him lose the argument on his own terms.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Percy, posted 01-01-2016 7:42 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by Percy, posted 01-02-2016 3:12 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15563
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 373 of 429 (775546)
01-02-2016 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by NoNukes
01-02-2016 1:59 PM


I think you've got a good handle on how to take what has captured Al's fascination and connect it to the topic, but Al doesn't. If you want to connect the necessary dots then the thread could be poised to take the turn toward woo that you seem to want, but you don't really expect Al to do this himself, do you? Or even follow along while you do it?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by NoNukes, posted 01-02-2016 1:59 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by Big_Al35, posted 01-02-2016 4:21 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 374 of 429 (775556)
01-02-2016 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by Dr Adequate
01-02-2016 12:17 PM


Dr Adequate writes:

Why are you "not sure of its validity"? Do you think the Russians secretly used giants to move the Thunder Stone but didn't tell anyone?

Why do you trust the information provided by the globalists without question?

And I notice you haven't even mentioned the giant tools. Why not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-02-2016 12:17 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by caffeine, posted 01-02-2016 5:04 PM Big_Al35 has not yet responded
 Message 377 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-02-2016 8:45 PM Big_Al35 has responded

    
Big_Al35
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 375 of 429 (775559)
01-02-2016 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by Percy
01-02-2016 3:12 PM


Percy writes:

but you don't really expect Al to do this himself, do you? Or even follow along while you do it?

Ahhh yes, I had missed off 'personal attacks' on my globalist strategy list.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Percy, posted 01-02-2016 3:12 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
2324
25
26272829Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017