Why 7 days for Creation?

If you know the errors, fix them so that it will be all positive.

I think they built great buildings aligned on astronomical positions so they could track the stars so accurately that modern man couldn't match it till the 1960's. Or, do you think they held up their thumb on their stretched out arm and measured star locations?

There is no credible evidence for your claims, and as I've pointed out elsewhere, monumental buildings to not require a high level of technological development. Finding a north-south alignment takes no more than a long string and sticks with which shadows can be compared on mid-summer day. Like just about everyone one else among the credulous, you're eager to attribute a great sophistication to people who pile large stones on top of other large stones. It's bullshit.

Their buildings were built for astronomy and astrology. Astronomy understood at the level they did took technological advancement.

Sorry, but I'm not going to take your statements from authority, because I know of no reason to consider you an authority. Naked eye astronomy was really, really primitive, and in no way represented a technological advancement. Even the Greeks called our companions in the solar system planets--wanderers--because they didn't understand their relationship to the earth or the sun. You really should not try to peddle this sort of thing when you so obviously do not know what you're talking about.

That sounds like Bulldoody from guys like David Childress who make lots of showtime money peddling their "ancient astronauts" crap.
If you really believe that astral surveying didnt match the Mayans until 1960, rread the notebooks of Charles Mason and how surveyors, in the 1760's established positions on earth nd directions nd cuttoffs of other land claims . I think Childress counts on people in his viewing audiences being as dumb as a slab of bacon. He never lets mere history get in the way of a good tv show.

And that's it in a nutshell.

You could be right and more than likely are. But there is evidence to suggest a devolution of man or interference by beings with higher intelligence in prehistoric times. There are some very ancient structures and technologies that hard to explain.

Like the technologies known to have existed in Atlantis.

I don't think there's any evidence for devolution or interference by anyone. That we have lost some ancient wisdom or advanced knowledge is a romantic fantasy.
That we were visited by "beings with a higher intelligence", whether you call them aliens or angels or gods, is a science-fiction based romantic fantasy.
Ancient technology hard to explain? Like those precisely carved stones in South America or the Pyramids in Egypt?
I'll explain them for you.
People are smart and inventive.
If they take their time and are careful, why couldn't they carve stones with precision? Why couldn't they build great structures?

I see that there is a shallow "Acceptance threshold" for lots of things that are presented in these "science" TV shows that are run on cable stations. When someone sees a second hand picture of a site like Puma Puncu , where the tight fitting and complex stone patterns are seen as "evidence" of alien assistance, they employ their threshold of acceptance filter an sorta say'Hey, its a science TV show and these narrators are real "Alien technology theorists".
All I can say is that one should spend a weee bit more time in what we accept as facts of someone elses conclusions and try to assess,
"What do these guys on TV have to gain by deception?"

The answer, PLNTY. For one they build ratings and get their shows renewed. Ive noticed, (I have to admit these guys like van Deniken, Childress, or some of the others, are well directed and only jump in with what sound like intelligent "Statement Questions".
They make statements of "fact" by asking qustions of some secondary fatures like

">>>When the aliens invaded earth many centuries ago, did they use their technology to teach the Incas about how to make ignals only een from waaaay up in space???..."

Its like starting with the assumption that the moon IS made of green cheese , everything else that follows is easy...

I was at puma punku yars ago when we took some vaca time as I was in Argentina too long. If you concentrate on the stone foundations and how well they were crafted you can see how someone cpould be convinced that this tchnology was beyond these native people. Actually thats total bullshit bcause the time period of the site (600AD) was well within the bulk of native technology up and down the central and south america areas. Puma punku has ampl supplies of soft sandstones (the wall rocks) and club stones (Andesite and dense quartz ) and lots and lots of sand piles. Evidence at the site is rather clear as to how tasks were divvied up and how some folks got good at polishing and detail carving rock by chipping and polishing. The rock and polishing sand pits were all over as were half-finished pieces lying around. Instead the TV shows leave us with a focused shot of one small wall segment and we are asked to buy some crap about alien overlords. We can just as easily see that industrious not so ancient people were as capable as Greeks or Egyptians in carving walls and bas relief

people need to better define hat they think is "Knowledge"

No there are not. Have you ever seen a dry-stone wall? Here's an example:



Walls like this are found all over the world. Some are thousands of years old, some are centuries old, and some were just built last year. This isn't high-technology, this is just the patient use the human ability to organize their memories (of shapes and sizes) and their metaphorical ability (imagining what would go where) to accomplish the task. They're called dry stone walls because they don't use any mortar. Many have stood for thousands of years. At Glendalough in Ireland. . .



. . . monks built such buildings over decades, and used them over centuries. Sure the roof fell in when it was no longer maintained, but you could put a roof up and use the building again tomorrow.

Claims about high technology beyond the abilities of "primitive" humans are always based on an implied assumption that humans thousands of years ago were somehow not too bright. That they didn't have the intellectual abilities which we have. That's horseshit. (Maye you think your ancestors were stupid, but I don't think mine were.) Homo sapiens sapiens (it means man who knows he knows, and refers to self-conscious intelligence) has been around for many tens of thousands of years. Humans weren't a bunch of plodding dopes who suddenly got smart a few centuries ago. Maybe you're OK with this inferential insult, but it doesn't appeal to me at all.

Monumental architecture does not require high technology. It requires the patient application of intelligence, time and labor--like dry stone walls--on a larger scale than a farmer building a wall. Naked-eye astronomy (which you mentioned elsewhere) is not evidence of any technology at all, and it has almost always been wrong throughout the ages--such as not understanding the "stars that go backwards" which the Greeks called planētēs, meaning a wanderer. They simply had no frame of reference to see how those "stars" moved in relation to earth and the sun. As soon as they had reliable telescopes, humans began to connect all kinds of dots.

All this crap about high technology is a dog and pony show from people like Erich von Däniken. He was convicted of theft at age 19, and published a bullshit story about ancient astronauts in a minor publication in German before being convicted of fraud and embezzlement. Then he got smart and published his ancient astronauts bullshit in English, and made a fortune. Now he didn't need to defraud and steal. Plenty of other people since that time have picked up that ball and run with it. Our ancestors were not a pack of stupid, clumsy monkey-men who needed ancient astronauts to accomplish big things. They needed time, patience and a lot of labor.

The usually got the latter by suckering people with religious bullshit.

How about explaining how the 50 ton rocks were placed in the ceiling of the grand gallery of the great pyramid.

Brian,
In repairing a barn many years ago, I replaced a very heavy and very long beam. I did this by myself. It took me a long time and took a lot of round-about work but in the end I got it done. Looking at it afterwards, anyone would have thought that it would have taken three or four men to put that beam into place.
I don't know in particular how a certain stone was placed in the pyramid, but I do know that with careful planning and determination and a little creativity, people are capable of amazing things.
Remember, in order to raise a heavy stone, the whole thing doesn't have to be lifted. Only one corner at a time and only enough to place a wedge. Then the other corner is lifted a little. Rinse and repeat.
Have you ever moved furniture or appliances? A little leverage, a little tilting, one stair at a time.....
Look into how the Rapanui moved their giant statues into place; no alien technology needed!

How about doing your own f*cking research, by which I do not mean watching some idiot television program by huksters who want to sell their books?

From the Wikipedia article on pyramid construction, the account by Herodatus:



You know, more than 2400 years ago, they weren't trying to peddle that ancient astronaut bullsh*t.

Here's an image of a cradle which has been proposed as a means of moving the stones:



People who buy that old bullsh*t are pathetically gullible . . .

. . . say, you wouldn't like to buy a bridge, would ya?

People who make extraordinary claims assume an extraordinary burden of proof. From now on, don't expect me to disprove your bullsh*t claims--if you expect to be taken seriously, then you prove your claims, 'K, Slick?

The forensic history of Egyptian pyramids is anything but demonstrating "alien" intelligence. One need only look at the several examples of "great" pyramids that were constructed in the 3rd through 5th dynsasties and one can see that pyramid tech developed over a 100 + year time period with plenty examples of mistakes or trials in construction. Its a classic example of developmental archeology.

The problem with many of the Cable networks that purport to be "history" or science centered, they are driven by sensationalism.
They all do it, some way more than others. The History Channel is almost a title which is counter to its content. It features all these guys,
DvidChildress, Eric von Deniken,R. SChoch, or the guy with the dumb hair, "George Tsoukalos. They call themselves ancient alien technology "Theorists". Yet theyve never presented a credible piece of real evidence that these aliens even existed.

jakub is a prime example of how one gets roped into a belief system without ever questioning it.

I did the research. I can’t find any comments on how the 50 ton blocks were placed at a very precise angle in the ceiling. I am not saying ancient aliens did it. I am wondering how the Egyptians did it. It we can’t explain it maybe they knew something we don’t.

I asked a simple question farmer. I did not frame the question in any belief system. In my previous post I said you guys were probably right in your assumptions and That meant I was trying to see how the evidence supports your point of view.

so youve read the development of the lrge pyramids over time nd how they "evolved" including mistakes and earlier internal structures?? AND you were not impressed at how humans learned how they arrived at the pyramid of Khufu over time?

I think that evidence is fairly compelling if read critically.

. Are you simple? youve been asserting that alien beings helped us develop n possible were incharge of our creation. How does that not constitute a belief system???