Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

King of the Americas said:
The 'depth' of the corner being cut IS in the chisel's ability or not.

A big chisel can't make a small corner.
Click to expand...

Now you're assuming that it was a big chisel. Who says that they couldn't have used more than one size?

Please review the PDF file link above, therein it notes that the 'lines' weren't hammered in, but rather were the result of abrasion.
Click to expand...

Yes. I read it. So? Still doesn't imply that it couldn't have been made by humans. You personally cannot think of a way that it could have, so you assume that it wasn't. This is called the argument from ignorace/personal incredulity. It's a logical fallacy.
 
Andrew Wiggin said:
I've already carefully read the article I posted, and I predict based on that, that the response will be a cherry picking nitpick of several particular facts and lines. First, that there are some things, specifically how the long stones were quarried, that Protzen doesn't claim to know. Second, that Protzen disagrees with the prior authority on breaking stone by expansion of wooden wedges, but is not himself certain how the stone was cracked, and third, that the regional style at ollantaytambo isn't identical to the regional style at the pumupunkku site KoA is going on about, and fourth, that the stone here, while equally hard and difficult to work, isn't identical to the other site's stone.

There. They're preempted. Lack of perfect explanation is not proof of lack of explanation. Wooden tools wouldn't survive, so there's no proof that they were or were not used, but that technique is known, and so are others, and all are within the grasp of 'primitives'. Both regional variations in architecture are dependent on the ability to work stone to close tolerances and straight lines. If one could be done by 'primitives' so could the other. Both stones are similar in working characteristics, as would be known to a geologist, if not necessarily a pseudoscientist.

A.
Click to expand...

Let's SEE the "saws" the author proposes made the 'cuts'...?

While I appreciate the link, it most certainly does not explain the stonework at Pumapunku.
 
Just in case KotA starts going on about my post "Who says that saws were necessary?", I'm going to pull out a line from one of your posts, Andrew. For emphasis, you know; I doubt he'd read through all that.

Andrew Wiggin said:
On the other hand, abrasion lines can be made by scratching repeatedly with a rock, and the article I linked to does discuss them in context with the rest of the stonework.

A.
Click to expand...

^-this-^
 
Just as a 'by the way', decorative straight lines on stone, bone, and wood were carved by various pre-historic people using a 'scratch stock' which is a wooden guide for a metal or stone point, allowing that point to be repeatedly guided down the same path over and over again to wear a line into the workpiece. All it takes is a straight edge to work off of, and if the stone itself doesn't provide one, then one can clamp a board down. Straight lines are marked by a string powdered with stone dust, stretched tight and 'snapped', as even modern stonemasons, carpenters, and shipwrights could tell you.

A.
 
Pure_Argent said:
Now you're assuming that it was a big chisel. Who says that they couldn't have used more than one size?
Click to expand...

Well, were are these chisels capable of cutting squares out of diorite? The article noted that the 'lines' weren't hammered out, but rather were the result of abrasion, or did you miss that part?

So, let's see some 2200 year old saws? Better yet make one, with materials they'd of had access to, THE cut one piece of diorite with it to match the Pumapunka stones, and I'll take that as proof that we could have done it.

I am not married to any theory or stance, but I DO require evidence that I am wrong, before I'll abandon my planks.

Pure_Argent said:
Yes. I read it. So? Still doesn't imply that it couldn't have been made by humans. You personally cannot think of a way that it could have, so you assume that it wasn't. This is called the argument from ignorace/personal incredulity. It's a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

AGAIN, I never said it couldn't have been made by humans. I said there's no evidence of it- when it happened, or how the task was accomplished.

We don't KNOW who built Pumapunku. The "evidence" is lacking, so far.
 
Pure_Argent said:
Just in case KotA starts going on about my post "Who says that saws were necessary?", I'm going to pull out a line from one of your posts, Andrew. For emphasis, you know; I doubt he'd read through all that.



^-this-^
Click to expand...

Then PROVE it.

Get a piece of diorite, and start scratching. Let me know when you've duplicated one of the stones there.

When you do I'll concede the point.

Show me "proof" that this is how those stones were fashioned...
 
If given a suitable workforce of unskilled labor, such as has always been available to construct temples in 'primitive' societies (such as england, for example, with its cathedrals), no tools but what could be scrounged in the local area, and several educated, motivated primitive skills enthusiasts besides myself who were willing to be foremen/slave drivers, I believe that I could demonstrate these techniques rather handily. Failing that labor force arriving any time soon, I think I'll just see if I can link you to another primitive skills geek, who's building stonehenge in his back yard, one stone at a time, by HIMSELF with no additional labor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRDzFROMx0

A
 
Andrew Wiggin said:
Just as a 'by the way', decorative straight lines on stone, bone, and wood were carved by various pre-historic people using a 'scratch stock' which is a wooden guide for a metal or stone point, allowing that point to be repeatedly guided down the same path over and over again to wear a line into the workpiece. All it takes is a straight edge to work off of, and if the stone itself doesn't provide one, then one can clamp a board down. Straight lines are marked by a string powdered with stone dust, stretched tight and 'snapped', as even modern stonemasons, carpenters, and shipwrights could tell you.

A.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know how to make a straight line, with a little chalk and string, AND that you can scratch lines.

I'll concede that human built those structures at Pumapunku, just as soon as someone "proves" they DID.
 
King of the Americas said:
Then PROVE it.

Get a piece of diorite, and start scratching. Let me know when you've duplicated one of the stones there.

When you do I'll concede the point.

Show me "proof" that this is how those stones were fashioned...
Click to expand...

Now you're just being vile. You're actually denying that one stone can leave a scratch mark on another, if it's necessary to hold onto your ill conceived debating position. You're demonstrating that no amount of evidence will convince you. If I spend my day scratching stone and post pictures, you'll just say 'Well, those aren't identical scratches, so it doesn't count.' I've complied with your goalpost moving several times in the past few minutes, and the fact that there's enough evidence out there to comply with goalpost moving in such an easy manner should say something. In this case, it answers my question, which was 'Is KoA an honest debator, or is he just in it to win it, no matter what?'. You're in it to win it, no matter how you have to crap all over it to do so, and now that this has been so clearly demonstrated, there's not really any point in debating further with you. Have a nice day...

A.
 
Andrew Wiggin said:
If given a suitable workforce of unskilled labor, such as has always been available to construct temples in 'primitive' societies (such as england, for example, with its cathedrals), no tools but what could be scrounged in the local area, and several educated, motivated primitive skills enthusiasts besides myself who were willing to be foremen/slave drivers, I believe that I could demonstrate these techniques rather handily. Failing that labor force arriving any time soon, I think I'll just see if I can link you to another primitive skills geek, who's building stonehenge in his back yard, one stone at a time, by HIMSELF with no additional labor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRDzFROMx0

A
Click to expand...

Yeah, I started a thread featuring this guy a few weeks ago. REALLY impressive stuff. I plan to employ his techniques with a piece of limestone I was gifted.

But right here and now we are talking about "shaping" not moving stones.
 
Andrew Wiggin said:
Now you're just being vile. You're actually denying that one stone can leave a scratch mark on another, if it's necessary to hold onto your ill conceived debating position. You're demonstrating that no amount of evidence will convince you. If I spend my day scratching stone and post pictures, you'll just say 'Well, those aren't identical scratches, so it doesn't count.' I've complied with your goalpost moving several times in the past few minutes, and the fact that there's enough evidence out there to comply with goalpost moving in such an easy manner should say something. In this case, it answers my question, which was 'Is KoA an honest debator, or is he just in it to win it, no matter what?'. You're in it to win it, no matter how you have to crap all over it to do so, and now that this has been so clearly demonstrated, there's not really any point in debating further with you. Have a nice day...

A.
Click to expand...

How's this argument not a straw man?

---

'I' haven't demonstrated anything, other than the fact that I too require "proof" before I will abandon my position.

Scratch me out a Pumapunka stone, and I'll concede.
 
I'm reminded of some of the Yuri Geller camp-followers, who clung to the notion that their guru could work magic long after the debunking had been done and done well, by saying 'well, the fractures on the spoons when Randi bends them aren't quite identical to the fractures when Geller bends them', even after everyone knew that Geller was just bending them by hand.

A.
 
King of the Americas said:
Well, were are these chisels capable of cutting squares out of diorite? The article noted that the 'lines' weren't hammered out, but rather were the result of abrasion, or did you miss that part?
Click to expand...

No, I didn't. I just don't accept the fact that they were made by abrasion rather than hammering as evidence that it was not human handiwork.

So, let's see some 2200 year old saws? Better yet make one, with materials they'd of had access to,
Click to expand...

KotA, think about this. What's a saw? A sharp cutting edge. What's sharp? Chiseled stone.

QED.

THE cut one piece of diorite with it to match the Pumapunka stones, and I'll take that as proof that we could have done it.

I am not married to any theory or stance, but I DO require evidence that I am wrong, before I'll abandon my planks.
Click to expand...

Oh, come on. You're just being childish now.

There were stone carvers in ancient times. Stonemasons, sculptors, etc. all existed. To say "I won't believe it until you yourself do it for me" is just idiotic. It's the argument from personal incredulity. And anyway, if you're going to be like that, prove that it couldn't have been done by humans. Then I'll believe that it wasn't.
 
King of the Americas said:
How's this argument not a straw man?

---

'I' haven't demonstrated anything, other than the fact that I too require "proof" before I will abandon my position.

Scratch me out a Pumapunka stone, and I'll concede.
Click to expand...

You are demanding that someone duplicate, EXACTLY, one of these stones, rather than just demonstrating that it could be done by known means. As Andrew said, you aren't here to learn or even to debate intelligently. You're here to preach. I don't know if I'm going to walk out yet (every time I vow to leave a thread to never return, I end up coming back), but I've certainly lost hope of making any progress with you.
 
Pure_Argent said:
There were stone carvers in ancient times. Stonemasons, sculptors, etc. all existed. To say "I won't believe it until you yourself do it for me" is just idiotic. It's the argument from personal incredulity. And anyway, if you're going to be like that, prove that it couldn't have been done by humans. Then I'll believe that it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Then DEMONSTRATE this hypothesis, and "PROVE" it's possible.

Until you do, I have ZERO reason reason to believe ancient Inca built the site.

Why is asking for "proof" childish?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom