Re: Dar-win-ists, Get up,Bet and Falsify the fossil handle and Baalbek monoliths
- From: Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 03:58:59 GMT
On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 16:56:17 -0700, in talk.origins , "Glenn"
<glennsheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
<glennsheldon-6MGZe.73$Wm4.1903@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
>in message news:ah6ej1pp7tfs96ii7umeo8gdjemd41grah@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 12:42:47 -0700, in talk.origins , "Glenn"
>> <glennsheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
>> <glennsheldon-s2DZe.32$Wm4.833@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote
>> >in message news:m21dj11rfd3drmmjmvi5sn1joj3ocmi48b@xxxxxxxxxx
>> >> On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 22:40:16 -0700, in talk.origins , "Glenn"
>> >> <glennsheldon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> in
>> >> <glennsheldon-CIqZe.31$kd4.2152@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >wrote in message
[snip]
>> Transported across the Mediterranean. And it does not particular
>> stretch my imagination to think that they could have moved something
>> larger than the largest we know of, particularly if that one was
>moved
>> across the ocean. The question I have is what is the largest we know
>> of that was moved? We know of a large one still connected to bed
>rock,
>> we know of one 1/3 the size shipped across the ocean. That brackets
>> the position.
>
>I think the largest are the 8 to900 monoliths that were moved from the
>quarry. But I'm curious to know at what point your imagination would
>be stretched.
It is not an straight linear response. The question is where are the
limits of a technology. I would find it not unreasonable that they
could do 3x what we know they did, 10x would make me look for some
other mechanism. Just a rule of thumb.
>>
>> >>Do we have anything that says that larger stones were actually
>> >> moved in Bekka? The largest Moai on Easter Island are unfinished
>in
>> >> the quarry. It is not surprising that we would find that, the
>> >largest
>> >> stones tend to break or you can't move them, and so they stay in
>the
>> >> quarry.
>> >
>> >Are your thought processes often this chaotic? My opinion is that
>the
>> >builders did intend to use the stone, and it is not broken.
>>
>> The article referenced originally talks of the unfinished obelisk
>> which was broken.
>
>Why are you referrring to the Unfinished Obelisk?
Because that was presented as the problem item for some reason. But we
have established that there are some in between, so we can discuss
them.
>>I agree that they intended to use it, but that does
>> not mean they could have move it. According to this article,
>> http://www.sacredsites.com/middle_east/lebanon/baalbek.htm, the
>temple
>> has several 450 ton stones (the size transported across the ocean)
>and
>> the 1200 ton one is still in the quarry. This article,
>> http://www.ozfactors.com/Baalbek.html, seems to say that there are
>> 1000 ton stones at the temple, transported 3/4 of a mile. (That
>said,
>> and I believe the size claim, I think it is better that we all
>ignore
>> an article that says: "Could it be that the truth is better left
>> unsaid, and could possibly even be detrimental to our quid pro
>quo.")
>
>No more than we should dismiss everything in any article which
>contains portions we don't agree with.
Not because I disagree with it, because it is such a stupid statement.
They used "quid pro quo", I assume, because Latin sounds neat, not
because the meaning fits in any way. That sentence is not coherent
enough to be wrong.
>> >It is
>> >unknown why it was left unfinished, and unknown what the finished
>size
>> >may have turned out to be. But clearly the builders intended to use
>> >the stone and put much effort into it, and thought that they could
>> >have moved it.
>>
>> So they thought they could. Does not mean that they could. People
>tend
>> to stop this kind of thing when they reach their limits. But, as I
>> said above, it does seem that they moved stones of some 1000 tons.
>
>Do you think you know who "they" are, and how stones this big were
>moved?
For sure? Nope. There is a Roman temple there and likely there were
others there before that. From the style it looks to me pre-Roman, so
I would guess sometime within a few centuries of the common era.
Rollers and rope and lots of people can move very heavy rocks. Moving
800 tons a half a mile seems easier than moving 400 tons a hundred
miles and then standing it on end.
>> >> >> >Amazing! 1200*2000 = 2.4 million pounds
>> >> >> >I doubt they were "carried".
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I am willing to bet that no humans carried any megalith still
>> >attached
>> >> >> to the bedrock.
>> >> >
>> >> >You'll notice I said "they", clearly in reference to "other
>stones
>> >of equal
>> >> >grandeur" as opposed to characterizing one monolith as "they".
>> >Perhaps you missed
>> >> >that, since *you* seem quite comfortable with making claims
>about
>> >"we".
>> >>
>> >> And I bet that "equal grandeur" does not mean "equal weight".
>> >
>> >No, and you've lost sight of the point.
>>
>> What point was that? That somehow some ancient people had some
>magical
>> ability unknown today to move large stones? So we are trying to
>> determine here, among other things, what is the largest stone
>actually
>> moved.
>
>Matt, the point was that it was an amazing feat to move the stones
>that are up the hill from the quarry, not the one still attached to
>bedrock.
And I was trying to determine the size of the largest ones moved, not
the largest ones not moved. Other references were able to provide
numbers for that.
>This was in response to the "original reference": "2. The
>Baalbek monoliths,weighing over 2 million pounds and 1.2 million
>pounds, were made by a civilization higher than Darwin's.
I think we have established agreement that this is not so.
>The stones
>are perching now 26 feet above the substructural base of the "Temple
>of Jupiter" located between Beirut and Damascus."
>
>
[snip]
>> Who said anything about a granite ship. You can read better and more
>> carefully than that when you try. The claim was that it is
>impossible
>> today to move something that large. I said I have seen people move
>> things much larger. I never said I saw them move larger pieces of
>> granite. Do you think that there is something about granite that
>> matters here other than the weight?
>
>Uh, yea. It will break easier than you think. Do you think a wood
>crane could be built to support a thousand tons?
Yeah, but I doubt they used a crane to lift it up. Assuming they moved
it with rollers or a skid all they need to do is lift it onto the
rollers/skid.
>>The only question for what I saw
>> is whether or not there is room for the jacks. But that is not
>really
>> a problem, when you move heavy dense objects you put them on a
>> platform of some sort and then move that. So, to repeat, I have seen
>> people move objects considerably larger than 1200 tons. There are
>> cranes today that can life more than 1200 tons on their own.
>
>I'm not disputing that, and I've not claimed that the article is
>correct. What I'm saying is that if the particular event has not been
>demonstrated, we don't know how it was done.
If that was what you were saying I did not see it. I agree that it
would be an interesting question to try to figure out how it was done.
This is done for the Moai and the pyramids and so on.
> I've never heard of a
>1200 ton granite slab being moved, and unless you have, you don't know
>how it would turn out even with todays technology.
I think I can extrapolate pretty well.
> From personal
>experience, I know that there is sometimes, oftentimes, some guesswork
>as well as a whole lot of planning involved in moving large stones
>from natural environments. And there are sometimes surprises when
>things don't go as *planned*.
Sure. I don't think anyone was suggesting that we go out right now and
start moving monoliths. There is, however, a big difference between
not knowing the details, not knowing the general technology, and not
knowing if it is even possible. The simplest and overwhelmingly most
likely answer is that it was moved by people living in the area using
technology appropriate for the time, technology that pretty much fits
our understanding of the time. It is astoundingly unlikely that they
had electricity or gas engines or anti-gravity or any of the other
kooky claims. It is overwhelmingly unlikely, by an astounding
preponderance of evidence, that no one at the time had "a civilization
higher than Darwin's". Unlike us, the did have experience moving
granite blocks and so knew some specific details we don't know.
[snip]
>> What am I wrong about? You mean that we do move large objects on
>dirt,
>> I suppose so. Not like the ships I had in mind. The largest dump
>truck
>> in the world can move 380 tons, so, again, 1200 is not out of the
>> question.
>
>Name one quarry that paves it's roads, Matt.
That was why I mentioned the dump truck.
>I don't see any
>foundational support at that quarry site. What it appears to be is a
>rock outcrop jutting up through topsoil, although that likely was
>different thousands of years ago. Suffice to say that foundational
>support would be a rather important element with regard to how these
>stones were moved.
True. Though while it was different 2,000 years ago, it was likely not
a swamp or soft mushy dirt. And there are ways to make temporary
pavement for the rollers and moving it as you move the stone.
[snip]
>I find triple the weight quite remarkable. As the weight increases,
>the difficulties increase, perhaps exponentially. But I'm not sure
>that it is fact that the 400 ton stone was moved, or even that the
>Baalbek monoliths originated in that quarry. I think a lot of
>assumptions are made by everyone.
Again, we know of 400 ton stones that started out in Egypt and ended
up in Rome. They were moved quite a distance.
[snip]
>You don't "propel" a crane under a load, Matt. They can be moved from
>place to place, just as a wood structure could be in ancient times. In
>a way, they would have been "self"-propelled. I wold agree with your
>first consideration, not for the fact that moving a stationary
>structure around would be prohibitive (why would it, if you can build
>it once, you can build it again), but because I don't think it was
>possible to pick up the stone and put anything under it, as a crane
>does, and in that area I disagree with your concept of "picking up"
>the stone. Wedging it up, moving it horizontally, is what appears to
>be what the prevailing belief is, along with rollers moving over laid
>down foundations of flat rocks being pulled one way or the other.
You brought up cranes, mentioning that you knew about them and they
could not do the job. Now you complain because I wrote that cranes
could pick it up. If cranes are not the issue you should not have
brought them up.
> I
>haven't heard the idea of skids or platforms, and don't see the sense
>in considering that possibility.
I have seen skids used to move heavy weights. You used things like
sand as mini-rollers so to speak. But I have no idea what technology
they used.
>There is a limit to any technology,
>whether the amount of men you can put to pulling on ropes, or the
>ropes themselves, or rollers, or anything else imaginable. I just
>don't think that it has been demonstrated to be possible. That it was
>obviously done does not provide us with the explanation of how it was
>done.
Sure it was possible. The stones are there. It is astoundingly more
likely that they moved it using human/animal power than that they had
some hidden advanced technology or that aliens were involved or that
the Gods moved them.
[snip]
>> It is the alternative suggestion, but I am glad you cleared up this
>> question. It is, of course, an interesting question on how this was
>> done. But it is pretty reasonable to suggest that it was done using
>> natural means, human technology, and likely human and other animal
>> power.
>>
>Why? Assumptions are always "reasonable" until you find out
>differently.
Why? Because that is the way all of the evidence we do have points.
Because if they had some advanced technology we would have other
evidence of its existence. Because we have no evidence of any aliens.
Because once you say that Gods did it then you step outside evidence
based discussions.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Either there is a God of infinite intelligence
- Next by Date: Re: Laughable worldview of atheists
- Previous by thread: Re: Dar-win-ists, Get up,Bet and Falsify the fossil handle and Baalbek monoliths
- Next by thread: Re: Dar-win-ists, Get up,Bet and Falsify the fossil handle and Baalbekmonoliths
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
