Merged Skeptics vs. Knowers/Believers

[Andrew Wiggin]

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.

You are unfortunately very likely correct: he's not here to debate, just to preach. I know that I can't make an identical copy to an arbitrary, moving standard of 'identicalness', so I'm not going to comply with unreasonable demands to do so. A thinking being would accept seeing the techniques, and realize that if primitive people could carve stone to the level of precision necessary for fitted ashlar masonry, that cases of fitted ashlar masonry from the same time period become non-mysterious. It's like denying the existence of desks because the carpenter you were watching only made a table and some cabinets with drawers, since you can argue that a table isn't a desk, and a chest of drawers isn't a desk, even though between them they encompassed all the necessary skills and design.

A.

 

[Nonpareil]

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

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

It has been shown to be possible. There have been studies done to show that it is. People have done stone carving for thousands of years, and you denying this doesn't make it false.

Why is asking for "proof" childish?

It's not, but you're not asking for proof. You're ignoring all the proof that's been put in front of you and saying, "Yes, but this is very microscopically different, so that doesn't apply".

"Aliens"...?

...

...I don't believe in "aliens".

Yes. You do. You just believe in terrestrial aliens rather than EXTRA-terrestrials. We've been over this.

 

[Nonpareil]

You are unfortunately very likely correct: he's not here to debate, just to preach. I know that I can't make an identical copy to an arbitrary, moving standard of 'identicalness', so I'm not going to comply with unreasonable demands to do so. A thinking being would accept seeing the techniques, and realize that if primitive people could carve stone to the level of precision necessary for fitted ashlar masonry, that cases of fitted ashlar masonry from the same time period become non-mysterious. It's like denying the existence of desks because the carpenter you were watching only made a table and some cabinets with drawers, since you can argue that a table isn't a desk, and a chest of drawers isn't a desk, even though between them they encompassed all the necessary skills and design.

A.

Thank you for expressing my argument much more eloquently than I am capable of.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

Thank you for expressing my argument much more eloquently than I am capable of.

Thank you very kindly. I am going to quit while I'm still doing OK though. It's going on noon local time, and I'm afraid I have to work tonight. Have fun. It is starting to feel a bit like the old adage about wrestling with a pig though.

A.

 

[Nonpareil]

Thank you very kindly. I am going to quit while I'm still doing OK though. It's going on noon local time, and I'm afraid I have to work tonight. Have fun. It is starting to feel a bit like the old adage about wrestling with a pig though.

A.

Starting to?

 

[King of the Americas]

It has been shown to be possible. There have been studies done to show that it is. People have done stone carving for thousands of years, and you denying this doesn't make it false.

People HAVE carved, hammered, sanded, and otherwise shaped stone indeed for thousands of years.

But what we DON'T know is who did what, when, and how.

"Humans carved stone a long time ago." does NOT equal "Humans carved ALL the stone structures on Earth."

It's not, but you're not asking for proof. You're ignoring all the proof that's been put in front of you and saying, "Yes, but this is very microscopically different, so that doesn't apply".

"Microscopically different"... One doesn't need instrumentation to decipher the difference between a cube fashioned 'out of' stone, and a square cut 'into' stone.

That said, I'd LOVE to see the microscopic differences the Pumapunku stones cuts show, if any.

Yes. You do. You just believe in terrestrial aliens rather than EXTRA-terrestrials. We've been over this.

Indeed, so use a term I am comfortable with to describe MY beliefs.

How about terrestrial non-human sentient beings...?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I believe they COULD have been built by someone besides 'us'...

I wouldn't attempt to say who or what that was.

Then why say it?

It's obvious to everyone that you're simply trying to dance around from making a positive assertion. If you were to make such a positive assertion, then you would have to defend it with actual compelling evidence and you know that there isn't any. There's plenty of evidence for someone with a strong will to believe but you know it won't pass the rigor and scrutiny of critical thinking.

You're too dishonest to admit it. You want there to be aliens among us. You want someone here to validate your belief so you can feel better about accepting it yourself. Here's what you're really saying:

"Hey everyone, lower your standards of evidence so that I can get this crap accepted. Then, with all that evidence, you'll have to acknowledge that there are aliens among us just like I already believe."

 

[King of the Americas]

Then why say it?

It's obvious to everyone that you're simply trying to dance around from making a positive assertion. If you were to make such a positive assertion, then you would have to defend it with actual compelling evidence and you know that there isn't any. There's plenty of evidence for someone with a strong will to believe but you know it won't pass the rigor and scrutiny of critical thinking.

You're too dishonest to admit it. You want there to be aliens among us. You want someone here to validate your belief so you can feel better about accepting it yourself. Here's what you're really saying:

"Hey everyone, lower your standards of evidence so that I can get this crap accepted. Then, with all that evidence, you'll have to acknowledge that there are aliens among us just like I already believe."

Why would I make a positive assertion for something that I had no evidence of?

That sounds a lot like what several have done with the Pumapunku site...

..."positive assertions" without actual evidence...

---

And "I DON'T BELIEVE IN ALIENS!"

 

[Nonpareil]

People HAVE carved, hammered, sanded, and otherwise shaped stone indeed for thousands of years.

But what we DON'T know is who did what, when, and how.

"Humans carved stone a long time ago." does NOT equal "Humans carved ALL the stone structures on Earth."

No, it doesn't. But it does make it highly likely that any stone structure encountered was constructed by humans. So far, there have been no known instances of a stone structure on Earth not built by humans. So what makes this one so different?

"Microscopically different"... One doesn't need instrumentation to decipher the difference between a cube fashioned 'out of' stone, and a square cut 'into' stone.

And you are assuming that, when I say "Humans have carved stone for thousands of years", carving squares into stone is somehow excluded from the stone-carving methods utilized by the ancient peoples.

It isn't.

That said, I'd LOVE to see the microscopic differences the Pumapunku stones cuts show, if any.

What?

Indeed, so use a term I am comfortable with to describe MY beliefs.

How about terrestrial non-human sentient beings...?

Well, I would, but "aliens" is so much more... zippy.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Why would I make a positive assertion for something that I had no evidence of?

That sounds a lot like what several have done with the Pumapunku site...

..."positive assertions" without actual evidence...

---

And "I DON'T BELIEVE IN ALIENS!"

Then why start a thread where you label yourself a 'knower'? Why not start a thread titled, "UFO's are Unidentified"? Everyone could agree and we could all move on. Are you simply trying to shift the burden of proof?

 

[King of the Americas]

No, it doesn't. But it does make it highly likely that any stone structure encountered was constructed by humans. So far, there have been no known instances of a stone structure on Earth not built by humans. So what makes this one so different?

THE period it was built, the materials used, and the nature of the cuts made...

And you are assuming that, when I say "Humans have carved stone for thousands of years", carving squares into stone is somehow excluded from the stone-carving methods utilized by the ancient peoples.

The question is were these Inca capable of this work?

What?

I'd love to take a microscope TO these stones, and look for evidence of the original work, a surface that hasn't received a lot of weathering, that might still show scratch marks of some kind.

Well, I would, but "aliens" is so much more... zippy.

It might be more zippy to say 'you' believe in sea monsters. But it would be more accurate to say that you've seen evidence of giant squid...

 

[King of the Americas]

Then why start a thread where you label yourself a 'knower'? Why not start a thread titled, "UFO's are Unidentified"? Everyone could agree and we could all move on. Are you simply trying to shift the burden of proof?

'I' have collected evidence that I can't replicate here...

The empirical data 'I' have been privy to, led me to my "knowing" that there IS a something up there.

 

[RoboTimbo]

'I' have collected evidence that I can't replicate here...

The empirical data 'I' have been privy to, led me to my "knowing" that there IS a something up there.

Thank you. Now if you would provide compelling evidence of something extraordinary, more than anecdotes even if it's your own anecdote. Or the empirical data that you have been privy to, should wrap this up nicely.

 

[Nonpareil]

THE period it was built, the materials used, and the nature of the cuts made...

None of which are strange.

The question is were these Inca capable of this work?

And the answer is yes.

It might be more zippy to say 'you' believe in sea monsters. But it would be more accurate to say that you've seen evidence of giant squid...

If you define "sea monster" as "giant squid", go ahead, say that I believe in sea monsters. I don't care. I just happen to define "alien" as "non-human intelligent species".

'I' have collected evidence that I can't replicate here...

I find that hard to believe. Why not?

The empirical data 'I' have been privy to, led me to my "knowing" that there IS a something up there.

Can you give us a description of this empirical data?

 

[King of the Americas]

Thank you. Now if you would provide compelling evidence of something extraordinary, more than anecdotes even if it's your own anecdote. Or the empirical data that you have been privy to, should wrap this up nicely.

Agreed, it WOULD wrap this up nicely.

But the data collected IS my anecdote.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Agreed, it WOULD wrap this up nicely.

But the data collected IS my anecdote.

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you said it was empirical data.

 

[Nonpareil]

Agreed, it WOULD wrap this up nicely.

But the data collected IS my anecdote.

So you actually have no evidence, then. Thanks for clearing that up. Can I go now?

 

[Stray Cat]

..............

"Humans carved stone a long time ago." does NOT equal "Humans carved ALL the stone structures on Earth."

 

[Alley Cat]

Oh stop picking on him. He can't help it.

 

[Nonpareil]

Oh stop picking on him. He can't help it.

Oh, look! Stray Cat has a new friend!

Welcome to the forums, Alley Cat.