What in your opinion is great?

  • #36
KenJackson
61
10
Sure, they must have had lasers and levitations devices, but somehow we can't find any proof of them.
Maybe they had lasers, but I didn't suggest it because no one has ever found evidence of them. But there IS evidence of incredible things that someone did (the remaining stone structures) and no one has adequately explained them.

And I wonder about levitation devices. But if they were possible, surely some modern day physicist would have at least suggested a way to temporarily neutralize mass. As far as I know, no one has done that.
Maybe there were two types of workers: the workers who could cut stone with lasers, and those who had to use copper chisels.
You are the one suggesting lasers, not me. But yes, there were two or three or dozens of different levels of technology used by the many different peoples who worked on these sites over the millennia.

Except for "there are building that I can't explain", you have zero proof.
You're making a logic error. I have said this is a great mystery. You are saying no, it's explainable. The burden of proof falls on you. And you've failed to provide a plausible explanation. No, I didn't ignore, I rejected and said why.

There's too much arrogance here. It's very wearying. No one challenged the other contributors to prove anything else was great. I'm disgusted.
 
  • #37
micromass
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
22,178
3,316
I'm disgusted.

How sad... Disgusted by a little bit of intellectual discussion...

Here's my philosophy: whenever I say something, I accept that I can be challenged and I am always prepared to retract my claim or back it up. THAT is the core of science. The core of science is not to be disgusted by somebody challenging your world view.
 
  • #38
collinsmark
Homework Helper
Gold Member
3,236
2,116
There's unlimited evidence of a world-wide flood both on the physical Earth and in ancient literature.

In bible related mythology there are references to a "great flood." The references are nowhere near unlimited, however. But the fact that it was called a "great" flood (at least in English translations) actually is on topic. :woot:

That's about where the evidence ends though.

Just think about. What would happen if all the water Earth's atmosphere -- all of it, every drop -- fell to the surface of the Earth all at once. How would that affect the rise in sea-level?

How much water is in the atmosphere? According to this site (which references Gleick, P. H., 1996: Water resources. In Encyclopedia of Climate and Weather, ed. by S. H. Schneider, Oxford University Press, New York, vol. 2, pp.817-823), about 12.9 trillion cubic meters.

For a back-of-the-envelope calculation, note that the volume of a sphere is [itex] V = \frac{4}{3} \pi r^3 [/itex]. Thus
[tex] dV = 4 \pi r^2 dr. [/tex]
Rearranging,
[tex] dr = \frac{dV}{4 \pi r^2} [/tex]
Plugging in [itex] 12.9 \times 10^{12} [/itex] cubic meters into dV, and [itex] 6.371 \times 10^6 [/itex] meters into r, the radius of the Earth, tells us the sea level would rise somewhere around 2.5 cm. That's hardly enough to describe a flood of biblical proportions.

Finds of fossilized sea-life found atop mountains is expected due to plate tectonics (particularly in the role of mountain formation). Any claims that the sea life must have arrived there due to a great flood requires ignorance of plate tectonics and mountain formation.
 
  • Like
Likes Hoophy and Pepper Mint
  • #39
micromass
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
22,178
3,316
Finds of fossilized sea-life found atop mountains is expected due to plate tectonics

Right. What could change my mind however is that if the fossilized sea life atop mountains and on ALL other places stem from the exact same time period. This is actually a very simple test for the global flood.
 
  • #40
Hoophy
90
61
I think that ancient structures such as Stonehenge are pretty great because of the LACK of 'advanced' technology used during construction. I do not believe that the technology of the time was more advanced (or even close) to today's but PERHAPS (and therefore perhaps not) the builders used a method that we have not thought of yet. Now assuming they used a method we have not yet thought of I would argue that their technology is NOT more advanced, but rather different. I bet there are many many many ways to build, well anything really :) and it would be a shame to think that because we do not do different things as well as others that they are technologically superior. Maybe somebody just had a really good idea on how to place 'this or that log'. This different method that we are no longer aware of does not imply advanced technology. Surely there are many ways to build a Stonehenge and with enough time/people/LUCK we will have the same creative idea as the builders, or we will have a better idea on how to construct a Stonehenge (with their technology) and we might not be able to prove if the idea is the one that was used because it is another way to complete the same task. Take for example the Moai of Easter Island, for a long time we ('modern' humans) were clueless as to how the ancient builders were able to move the structures, but eventually we figured out a likely way they could have achieved it. It took creativity to rediscover the method just as it took creativity to figure out how to move the Moai originally. The natives of Easter Island did not have 'advanced' technology because we did not know how they did something, and even if we never did find out we could not assume they were technologically superior (as it has been proven they were not). In my OPINION this applies to all the baffling structures mentioned in this thread. The creativity and ingenuity these ancient engineers harnessed to build amazing structures with the rudimentary technology available is pretty GREAT to me, but even MORE GREAT is that to this day we are still pondering their accomplishments and trying to figure them out, we solve some mysteries and at the same time are continuing to be stumped with others. History would not surprise us if we knew it all. This is all my own opinion and I hope it does not make anybody mad! I am curious to hear the opinions of those who disagree with me and I will treat your opinions with respect as I hope you will show mine. Thanks! :D
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Monsterboy, 1oldman2, Sophia and 2 others
  • #41
Hoophy
90
61
I think that this is great. I would love to go see it myself one day.
 
  • Like
Likes Pepper Mint
  • #42
EnumaElish
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,327
124
Alexander - he's just great.

Danes can be great.

Grateful Dead?
 
  • Like
Likes Hoophy and 1oldman2
  • #43
1oldman2
1,451
1,210
Alexander - he's just great.

Danes can be great.

Grateful Dead?
Great Scott !
 
  • #44
phinds
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
2022 Award
18,141
10,970
Jerry Lee Lewis' song Great Balls of Fire was great
 
  • Like
Likes EnumaElish and 1oldman2
  • #45
Evo
Mentor
23,925
3,264
Fresh butter.
 
  • Like
Likes Rubidium_71, collinsmark, Hoophy and 1 other person
  • #46
Rubidium_71
257
407
A cup of hot tea early in the morning is great.
 
  • #47
rollete
49
31
Consciousness is great. Beauty is great. Dreaming is great. Everything is absurd, which is great.
 
  • #48
rootone
3,393
946
I guess the greatest of all things would be the Universe.
 
  • Like
Likes Sophia, EnumaElish and Hoophy
  • #49
Molar
45
19
Being free is great.:wink:
 
  • Like
Likes Hoophy, Sophia and EnumaElish

Suggested for: What in your opinion is great?

  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
642
  • Last Post
2
Replies
62
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
397
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
330
Replies
1
Views
122
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
452
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
781
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
486
Replies
74
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
444
Top