You may be onto something. That just might be the case. I do agree that it does seem that the more challenge encountered, the greater the adherence to the view. Double down. Triple Down. Quadruple Down. To infinity and beyond.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists believe in miracles more than believers
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
I think it was a human pawn sent back in time by aliens to build robots, girl robots, that in turn built the pyramids while the stinky-footed bumpkins looked on and practiced their silly walks while listening to bootleg, future copies of the Bangles. Getting bootleg copies of albums that won't be available for several thousand years is the sole purpose of the pyramids I believe.
It seems too late to cast Christopher Reeves as the time traveler, but Jane Seymour could revise her role as the older version of Elise McKenna. But it is about time travel so all bets are off.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Bangles and Monty Python for the win.
If we cannot know anything, why bother. If we cannot know Annette, why bother.
I think Rip Hunter Time Master is the guy that went back in time to build the pyramids.
In a meaningless aside, Rachel McLish still looks very good.
When in doubt, bring out the Bangles. Bring out Monty Python. And bring out your dead.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I want to see these funiculars and the motive power behind them. Were they human constructs or extraterrestrial and if so why wasn't the knowledge retained? So many questions, so few answers, but at least about pyramids, there is a physical reality to discuss.
This subject is more appropriate in the ancient reality thread;
Ancient Reality
A response to this statement in another thread wouldn't be appropriate there. Proof isn’t evidence. You keep getting hung up in semantics. Semantics is one of the chief ways we use to create our circular arguments and some use it to demolish other arguments. But semantics isn't real, it's...
www.religiousforums.com
Suffice to say every single part of the funicular called "The Bull of Heaven" is listed in the literature and still exists in ruins and/or art.
Homo sapiens is the same species today as it was when agriculture was started, the pyramids were built and the theory of evolution was formulated. We have made it into our 21st Century.
Change in living things is not sudden and varies depending on the domain of change in question. Biochemical activity occurring in parts of seconds and seconds. Growth occurring over lifespans of varying length up to 1000's of years. Speciation occurring over 10's of thousands and millions of years. And so forth. The evidence supports this.
Evolution is the change in the gene frequency of a population over time driven by selection of the environment. The evidence supports this.
The Lenski experiment demonstrates evolution.
Not all living things are known to have or show evidence of having or needing consciousness. The evidence supports this.
No evidence demonstrates that insects teach their offspring to avoid cars.
Change in living things is not sudden and varies depending on the domain of change in question. Biochemical activity occurring in parts of seconds and seconds. Growth occurring over lifespans of varying length up to 1000's of years. Speciation occurring over 10's of thousands and millions of years. And so forth. The evidence supports this.
Evolution is the change in the gene frequency of a population over time driven by selection of the environment. The evidence supports this.
The Lenski experiment demonstrates evolution.
Not all living things are known to have or show evidence of having or needing consciousness. The evidence supports this.
No evidence demonstrates that insects teach their offspring to avoid cars.
gnostic
The Lost One
@cladking don’t know how to read either hieroglyphs, nor hieratic, which were used during the time of Old Kingdom period (from dynasty 3 to dynasty 6).
There are only few hieroglyphic inscriptions in the 3 large pyramids of Giza. The only hieroglyphs of worth that was composed in the time of Khufu (the 2nd king in the 4th dynasty), relating to the largest pyramid, was discovered in 2013, a bunch of papyri about 130 km from Giza, in one of the harbour towns on the Red Sea coast.
These papyri are known as Merer's Logbook or Merer's Diary, because they contained diary entries of shipping supplies from the harbour to Giza, which included stones for the construction of Khufu's pyramid.
These are the oldest surviving papyri in Egypt, because papyri don't usually last from the Old Kingdom period. Most writings that do survive are usually written on walls and columns.
The hieroglyphs that are known as the Pyramid Texts, have nothing to do with the pyramids of Giza. The Pyramid Texts, in which cladking quoted are from either end of the 5th dynasty (pyramid of King Unas) or mostly from the 6th dynasty. These hieroglyphs were inscribed on the walls of pyramid chambers. The Pyramid Texts are only found in pyramids at Saqqara, not at Giza, and at different dynasties.
cladking don't know how to read the Pyramid Texts, and he obviously use translations by translators. That's he is claiming to know more about what the hieroglyphs than the people who actually translated, just sounded arrogant and deluded in his own ability to decipher what he cannot read.
I discovered this fact reading through posts on another forum.
Thanks for the information though. Kind of interesting.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Now I understand the connection.
Nope this is part of your delusional ideas
The above is your personal delusion - you cannot read the language and you don't get to change the meaning of words to suit your personal desires
Total BS"
Not really, but if your point was that they might have used bulls with ropes (funicular) to pull blocks up a ramp, yeah maybe but so?
Pogo
Well-Known Member
A coherent? background, Anybody can understand the ancient language - Graham Hancock Official Website/contains definitions and more.
I have done some very deep history research that's one reason why I'm atheist and have no truck with religious bull.
At least science has evidence and/or observation to back up, unlike the bronze age fairy stories often known as religion
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
There is no evidence and observation as per science that there is religious bull as bull. That is a belief without evidence.
cladking
Well-Known Member
How can you know what the evidence is or what it supports with no definition for consciousness?
Th only one offered so far is "wakefulness". Is not a dancing bee awake? Would the dance be better if it were asleep? Is the bee more likely to successfully avoid predators and gather food asleep?
Why wouldn't a conscious ant have an evolutionary advantage to one that was sleepwalking or acting only on instinct?
Why wouldn't pattern recognition and experience benefit an individual of any species?
Another product of this religion. Aren't we all better off if this religion stops turning minds this way?
cladking
Well-Known Member
You asked what powered the funicular and went straight to it: sekhmet. The word meant power (specific). The gods built the pyramids and that's literally what the people said. "Tefnut makes the earth high under the sky by means of her arms".
Just exactly as on this message board our job is to figure out what the words must mean for sentences to make sense. When you do this with Ancient Language you'll find that the formatting of the words is not like any existing language and the closest parallels are mathematics and computer code.
"Sekhmet The Empowerer" made it possible for tefnut's arms to raise the earth though atum was the first of the gods chronologically.
This stuff was all so simple a caveman could do it. And the markings in the caves show they were working on it. If it's simple enough for me to decipher Ancient Language anyone can do it.
cladking
Well-Known Member
It would require a miracle to run a many year experiment while maintaining strict controls on every parameter. The largest single factor in this control while observing e coli would be the food that was given them. I wager that the "Evolution" of the species merely reflects the evolution of the food provided to them.
And again, changes on the order that humans can see is virtually by definition; "sudden". This "experiment" simply can not show Evolution by survival of the fittest. E coli are not so complex as bees and beavers.
Not for you, but there is for the alert.
How can you not?
It would, but we'd have to take into account that that occurred suddenly and metaphysically as the basis of the science of pyramids. And on ramps made by colliding galaxies and dancing bees and conscious trees.
It would, but not possible for organisms with insufficient brains. You didn't understand that, did you?
Ants and bees no doubt agree.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Change in species is a random walk. If a million individuals come into existence each year then the species will normally take a half million baby steps in one direction and a half million in the other. In a few generations it is an entirely different species that is for all intents and purposes the exact same species as its great great grandparents. It requires an outside force to cause a change in species. The nature of this force and its magnitude determines the way and the speed at which species change. Rapid change normally only results from extreme predatory forces like in peppered moths or from population bottlenecks where unusual behavior is selected. Gradual change is very rare because it reflects a coherent and steady change in the species' biological niche but these changes tend to be rapid as well such as when one of its chief food sources or predators change. Certainly there exist long term changes in niches that will affect change in species such as increasing oxygen in the atmosphere. Such gradual changes apparently are more likely to result in extinctions than bottlenecks resulting in no or little change to species.
It should be pointed out as well that it is hubris of our species to say things like cockroaches are changeless. The fact is we don't even know all the sensory organs and processing capabilities of species. We don't know anything about consciousness. We have no means of knowing that a fossilized cockroach from 1.90763 million years ago is the same species as one from 1.90764 million years ago. They look alike we assume they are alike.
The very first thing Dr Hawass did when he saw a beetle inspect the camera lowered into the boat pit next to G1 wasn't to dissect or study the individual, it was to kill it and fumigate. We believe in the miracle of species and its inability to maintain its shape in the face of evolutionary pressures. So a beetle is a beetle is a beetle. It's the way we think. Logic has nothing to do with it.
It should be pointed out as well that it is hubris of our species to say things like cockroaches are changeless. The fact is we don't even know all the sensory organs and processing capabilities of species. We don't know anything about consciousness. We have no means of knowing that a fossilized cockroach from 1.90763 million years ago is the same species as one from 1.90764 million years ago. They look alike we assume they are alike.
The very first thing Dr Hawass did when he saw a beetle inspect the camera lowered into the boat pit next to G1 wasn't to dissect or study the individual, it was to kill it and fumigate. We believe in the miracle of species and its inability to maintain its shape in the face of evolutionary pressures. So a beetle is a beetle is a beetle. It's the way we think. Logic has nothing to do with it.