Archaeology and Origins, A scientific view

I am here today to defend the true, scientific theory of the origin of ancient buildings. Recently, some so-called 'scientists' have been putting forth the notion that an intelligent force (perhaps even humans!) has acted in the past to 'create' the various types of architecture we see around us. What nonsense! It is plain to anyone that all buildings, from the tepee's of the Great Plains to the 'Aztec' and and 'Mayan' temples in South America, to the so-called 'Roman' architecture in Europe is all similar, they all share many characteristics. Walls, ceilings, methods of entrance....it is simply too much to deny that they all look frighteningly alike. With this reminder, I shall go over the true theory of how they came to be, and I urge you all to keep in mind that it is solid, proven fact. We shall start in the distant past, with the first building. While we do not know how it sprang to life, we have several very good theories in the work that deal with clay and other materials present in the primordial earth. Anyway, this first building was very simple, having perhaps one wall and only a small window, it scarcely provided enough of an advantege to its occupants for them to keep it. Nevertheless, it obviously did provide its inhabitants with an impetus to keep it, as we still see buildings today. As the ancestor of all modern architecture reproduced and began to populate the earth with its descendents, it became clear that the children were not identical to their parents. Mutations were found. If during the standard gestation time of a building, the mother was induced to excess labor or exertion, 'mistakes' could occur in the offspring. While generally harmful to the building, the occasionaly bestowed some sort of benefit upon it. As time wore on, the buildings who had beneficial mutations began to thrive, as the weaker, less functional ones took their place. A building which evolved an extra wall became larger, and therefore more likely to be chosen and maintained by humans. Ones without many walls were rejected, fell into disrepair, and finally perished. The population began to grow high, and the various building populations began to migrate. As humans in varying habitats require different shelters, the buildings obligingly began to mutate into the forms that would most adequately fit the humans' needs. And now, we have modern times. Countless buildings exist all throughout the world, from majestic skyscrapers to lowly cabins. All these are the wonderful products of mutations and human selection.Granted, we do have several problems in this theory that still need to be ironed out, the reproduction problem for instance. Although buildings have never been seen to reproduce, this is quite obviously insufficient grounds to call in some ethereal 'human' to be the creator of the building, an argument of this nature is called 'humans of the gaps'. Also, we have no real evidence of mutations occuring. However, this theory predicts that eventually some method of mutation will be found, and that this will revolutionize the scientific world. Until then, problematic as this theory may seem, you must remember that it is established fact. We see the vast array of buildings, from the past to the present, progressing gradually upwards just as this theory had predicted. Because of such wonderful evidence such as this, we must continue to search for the exact method of building evolution. Remember: buildings evolve, we just aren't yet sure exactly how.In conclusion, I would like to remind all of you gathered here today that problems in a theory are not enought to simply hand wave in a designer of some sort, especially a human. That is a fallacy known as 'humans of the gaps', and is never used by any true scientist.I will now take any questions you may have.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JtG:

I will now take any questions you may have.

---

Can you now construct an argument that is not one giant false analogy?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 10-25-2002]

I am horrified that you would consider this theory in any way an analogy to anything, could you perhaps point out where I stated that?

I can vouch for the mutation of buildings, as I have witnessed this myself. Despite having a detailed set of plans, when my house was finally occupied, er, born, it had a number of minor and a few major mutational differences from those plans. --Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by JtG:
I am horrified that you would consider this theory in any way an analogy to anything, could you perhaps point out where I stated that?

---

You mean that the similarity of your theory to a particular genre of creationist argument is accidental? Mere coincidence?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by JtG:
I am horrified that you would consider this theory in any way an analogy to anything, could you perhaps point out where I stated that?

---

Then what, exactly, is your point?You are comparing ancient buildings to fossil/morphological homologies, aren't you? If not, you went to a lot of effort for nothing. If yes, then there is the analogy John was referring to.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

I think JtG is hilarious. His first post was rather a large and silly stretch, and then he followed it with a beautiful caricature of typical ad hominem argument as ridiculous and overstated as his first. He leaped in a single step from detailed presentation to empty and illogical rhetoric. Whether the irony was intentional or not, how could one help but be amused?JtG didn't even bother to register. Unless he's going to continue to provide entertainment, I wouldn't waste your time.--Percy

If God left behind His tools and the graves of His builders then maybe ID could be a science just as archeaology is.

Again, I am merely presenting a scientific explanation for building reproduction, nothing more. Are there any actual questions with the theory itself?

quote:

---

Originally posted by JtG:
Again, I am merely presenting a scientific explanation for building reproduction, nothing more. Are there any actual questions with the theory itself?

---

JtG,Then present a testable hypothesis with supporting evidence that buildings reproduce. Or perhaps it's not scientific after all.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Again, I must remind you that scientific theories have problems, they always have and always will. We may never know how buildings reproduce, but that gap in our knowledge is still no reason to reject the theory in favor of human design. To repeat my oft-said statement, that is a human of the gaps fallacy, and untenable to true scientists.

[QUOTE][B]We may never know how buildings reproduce[/QUOTE][/B]Unlike living things of course.Why don't you come out from behind that ridiculous bad analogy and debate?

quote:

---

Originally posted by JtG:
Again, I must remind you that scientific theories have problems, they always have and always will. We may never know how buildings reproduce, but that gap in our knowledge is still no reason to reject the theory in favor of human design. To repeat my oft-said statement, that is a human of the gaps fallacy, and untenable to true scientists.

---

They are still far better than; Puff, GODDIDIT! Scientists never claim perfection. This is why scientific theories can evolve when new data comes in. What I think you're trying to put forth is what may be called a pseudo-scientific theory which is when the theory is perfect and the evidence is flawed.The only way that I could see a building reproduce is if one of them is a brothel.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JtG:
Again, I must remind you that scientific theories have problems, they always have and always will. We may never know how buildings reproduce, but that gap in our knowledge is still no reason to reject the theory in favor of human design. To repeat my oft-said statement, that is a human of the gaps fallacy, and untenable to true scientists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JtG:
Again, I am merely presenting a scientific explanation for building reproduction, nothing more.

---

You misunderstand. You are claiming you have a scientific theory. In order to have a scientific theory, you need to present a testable hypothesis to post 1, namely, that buildings reproduce at all.Fire away.........I think you will find that you don't have anything that meets the standards of the scientific method, ergo, it's not scientific. I feel sure you know this, anyway. So, one wonders, why post at all? As John points out, it's a HUGE false analogy.MarkMark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Predictions made by the theory of building descent:
1. General similarity of all buildings
2. Specific similarities between closely related buildings
3. Evidence of human activity on buildings
4. General trend towards more complex buildings
5. Common building materials found in deposits from the early earth
6. Small, contained beginning of buildings
7. Differentiation within buildings caused primarily by habitat
8. Variation of construction materials used in buildings
9. Reproducibility of buildings by humans in controlled conditions
10. 'Transitional buildings' sharing the characteristics of two or more general types of building
11. No clear distinction between most building typesHere are just some of the many predictions made by building theory. If you notice, every single one of them has been proven correct. Building theory consists of the general evidence pointing towards common descent of buildings, a plausible mechanism (human selection), and a general progression towards perfection. The only real piece of evidence missing is building reproduction, we are not completely sure how that works yet. However, the theory predicts that in some way buildings are able to reproduce, so we shall keep on looking for that method. To do otherwise, to consider buildings a product of human design just because of the improbability of building reproduction, is horribly unscientific. A natural method for everything must always be sought, no matter how nice it may seem to chalk everything up to a human or similar intelliegent being.