KotA said:
My argument is that this stone:
http://www.paleoseti.com/bilder/puma...20Punku011.jpg
Was NOT carved or chiseled.
Saying it WAS, without providing proof, is a claim without evidence.
No. Saying it was without providing EVIDENCE is a claim without evidence. Tautology, sure, but such is life. However, 1) no one said that the stone was carved or chiseled (it could have been sawed, or broken via hyrdolic fracturing with wooden rods, or polished), and 2) this isn't your argument. Your argument is "I don't know of any evidence, therefore there isn't any evidence, therefore I'm right". If you actually cared about evidence you'd do more than "skim a few pages" of the references people have sent you. Furthermore, you have openly ignored evidence when it was presented to you, dismissing it as "found techniques", meaning that at least you are a highly biased observer and have demonstrated an inability to adequately evaluate what constitutes evidence.
I am ONLY asking that the methodology to recreate this work be demonstrated.
Not even close. You're demanding that we perform experiments which you will set up and evaluate, and have demonstrated that you will evaluate them as valid or invalid depending not on the quality of the experiment, but on whether or not they support your preferred outcome. Furthermore, you're demanding that we ignore a few hundred years of scientific research (which is what you're doing) and pretend that no one has ever asked these questions before, Finally, you have continuously demanded that, should we fail to produce final products to YOUR specifications, we admit that a vast industrial system, for which there is absolutely no evidence, is the only viable alternative, ignoring the repeated arguments from many others that the abilities of amateurs are not adequate tests of the abilities of professionals and experts (which, incidently, goes back my previous argument that you will evaluate any evidence not on the quality of the evidence but on whether or not it supports your pet idea).
Why would anyone who BELIEVES it was done with bronze, copper, or stone tools NOT want this "myth" tested?????????
First, you have no idea if it's been tested or not. Stop pretending that you do. It could be something that first-year archeology students do to show off for girls at parties and you'd never have heard about it because you simply haven't done the research to know what's known and what's unknown in the field you're pretending to be an expert in (and yes, declaring what's known and what's unknown is pretending to be an expert). And in fact several of these methods HAVE been tested, and evidence presented to you. Because you evaluate evidence based on whether it supports your pet theories or not, you have dismissed it as either insufficient or irrelevant, contrary to the opinions of actual researchers who have bothered to learn the subject. Second, you've seriously misunderstood the perspective of myself, and most likely many others here. Simply put, we see no myth. We have tools. We have stone carvings. We assume, in the absence of any other data, that said tools were used to carve said stones. Until you present actual evidence (and you've demonstrated yourself incapable of evaluating evidence) to the contrary, this is a reasonable assessment. Third, we have stated many times (myself and others) that there were stone tools as well at the time. Your continued argument that only copper, brass, and bronze tools existed in the Americas is, quite simply, a lie. Any person educated enough to use a computer has undoubtibly run across a stone projectile point. That's a stone tool. Which makes your statement false. Now, I'll grant you that a projectile point won't carve stone, but stone axes and hammers, of which there are numerous examples all over the Americas, certainly will. As I stated before, your ignorance is by no means proof of anything.
