Evidence of cooking 780,000 years ago rewrites human history

originally posted by: sarahvital
isn't pyramid construction drifting from the thread subject?

unless one can tie them to a bbq pit a million yrs ago or something like an alien stove?

even if the nile flowed in front of it.
how many boats with 2 ton blocks were in service at once if they placed a block every 2 minutes?

Because the time flow is based on a false premise. The person who made up 2.3 million blocks didn't realize that the GP has about 23% of bulk from the ridge line that was incorporated into it. The calculation also assumes a solid GP. It isn't and contains 500,000 tons of Gypsum mortar and the core exhibits a great many 'gaps'.

The number of blocks is between 500-960,000. The blocks for the core appear to have come from the quarries on Giza, just granite and the cladding, high quality limestone from Turah, was brought over as explained in Merer's diary.

This is an image of the upper tier of the GP the only tier we can see clearly to get an idea how sloppily it was put together. i.imgur.com...

originally posted by: cooperton

No I gave specific empirical points as to why their conclusions are not based in any clear unambiguous science. In your own words, Why do you suppose Oxygen ratios can unambiguously determine a date for this archaeological site?

Sorry Cooperton I forgot you were a creationist. Unfortunately for you I have placed Flat Earth, Big Foot, Hollow Earth, Apollo Deniers, Holocaust Deniers, Reptilian believers and few other choice groups in the, ' not worth talking to basket'. So long.

If you have need to pursue this may I recommend you post your question to Cormac at Ancient Mysteries and Alternative History, at the Unexplained Mysteries Forum. www.unexplained-mysteries.com...

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: XipeTotex

As for the quarries, i dont know what to tell you, an exceptionally talented scientist says it does not hold up under closer inspection, many of the pyramid stones do not match the stones of the quarry.

If the stones were made out of reconstituted, crushed, rocks then none of them would match any rock in any quarry, either in terms of stratification or chemical composition. You wouldn't need to be a geologist to readily see the difference.

Oddly, however, none of the geologists, who have been able to determine exactly which quarries the various stones originated from, have noticed this.

Not to mention that any fossils (which you can clearly see in the blocks... I've been there. I've seen them) didn't get crushed up for this "geopolymer."

originally posted by: MetalThunder

It is abundantly clear that humans are a type of ape.

Your video cherry picks a few of the hundreds of examples of hominins - choosing only the ones that fits it's narrative and acting like science thinks a thing is settled upon the finding of the fossil, instead of after analysis of the fossil.

The fact that the idiot narrator brings up the old trope "the missing link" - a thing which does not (and cannot) even exist tells the whole story about the ignorance on display in the vid.
Lastly, it proposes nothing about human origins.
I suppose that means God did it?

Harte

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: cooperton

No I gave specific empirical points as to why their conclusions are not based in any clear unambiguous science. In your own words, Why do you suppose Oxygen ratios can unambiguously determine a date for this archaeological site?

Sorry Cooperton I forgot you were a creationist. Unfortunately for you I have placed Flat Earth, Big Foot, Hollow Earth, Apollo Deniers, Holocaust Deniers, Reptilian believers and few other choice groups in the, ' not worth talking to basket'. So long.

If you have need to pursue this may I recommend you post your question to Cormac at Ancient Mysteries and Alternative History, at the Unexplained Mysteries Forum. www.unexplained-mysteries.com...

Ok good thanks for admitting your heads in the sand. Saved me some time.

As for anyone else reading, know that there is no way to accurately determine age from Oxygen isotope ratios.. this is mostly why Hanslune is refusing to respond. Either he knows it is an insufficient method, or he is incapable of understanding and discussing the science behind it. This is how bad science perpetuates, due to blind believers being compelled to “trust the science” without understanding it.

originally posted by: cooperton


Ok good thanks for admitting your heads in the sand. Saved me some time.

One cannot have a scientific discussion with a person whose religious beliefs require he ignore science and lie.

So, how old is the Earth? Are you YEC or OEC?

originally posted by: Hanslune

One cannot have a scientific discussion with a person whose religious beliefs require he ignore science and lie.

So, how old is the Earth? Are you YEC or OEC?

No one knows the age of the earth. Radiometric dating assumes the oldest possible age date by assuming the initial concentrations are 100-0 parent-daughter, which never happens in nature. Even gold is not 100% pure. The Oxygen isotope ratio technique is self-admittedly unreliable, due to it being cyclical in geological layers. For example, the particular ratio being used to "prove" this site is 780,000 years old could have actually just been from the most recent oscillation, or due to a variable deposition rate in the substrate.

All geologic strata can be formed quickly. Volcanic rock is formed fast, and so can sedimentary rock. This is proven by "polystrate fossils", which are upright fossilized trees that permeate through multiple sedimentary geological strata. So there's no empirical reason to believe the super old earth mythos, unless of course you have to in order to accommodate belief in evolutionary theory.

While I am not sure of the age of the earth, I do think life started much more recently than is commonly believed. the fact that soft tissue is consistently found in dinosaur bones is the most straight-forward indicator of this supposition.

originally posted by: cooperton


Deleted

Sorry friend take the Creationist stuff to the sub-forum for that.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Hanslune

Sorry friend take the Creationist stuff to the sub-forum for that.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Everything I said is relevant to dating techniques, which is very much relevant to this thread considering that is how they tried to determine the age of the site. I am open to discussion with whoever is willing to assess the data, rather than appeal to belief systems and labels.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: XipeTotex

As for the quarries, i dont know what to tell you, an exceptionally talented scientist says it does not hold up under closer inspection, many of the pyramid stones do not match the stones of the quarry.

If the stones were made out of reconstituted, crushed, rocks then none of them would match any rock in any quarry, either in terms of stratification or chemical composition. You wouldn't need to be a geologist to readily see the difference.

Oddly, however, none of the geologists, who have been able to determine exactly which quarries the various stones originated from, have noticed this.

Not to mention that any fossils (which you can clearly see in the blocks... I've been there. I've seen them) didn't get crushed up for this "geopolymer."

Gathering large amounts of fossils is easy, even easier to throw them in to the mixing pot, why? there could be many reasons, added structures, symbolic act, could be anything.

Have you heard the saying that a "house has good bones" people used to throw in bones in mortar because it makes it strong, also for good luck.

originally posted by: XipeTotex

Gathering large amounts of fossils is easy, even easier to throw them in to the mixing pot, why? there could be many reasons, added structures, symbolic act, could be anything.

Have you heard the saying that a "house has good bones" people used to throw in bones in mortar because it makes it strong, also for good luck.

First you have chip them out of the limestone matrix and if you do that they look like large pebbles. So you are saying the they collected hundreds of thousands of tons of fossils, put them into mold, took off the mold, covered the limetone block with chisel and bashing marks and made many of the stone different sizes and shapes for grins and giggles>? Sorry not at all believable. Not mentioning that cut them out as blocks......

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: XipeTotex

Gathering large amounts of fossils is easy, even easier to throw them in to the mixing pot, why? there could be many reasons, added structures, symbolic act, could be anything.

Have you heard the saying that a "house has good bones" people used to throw in bones in mortar because it makes it strong, also for good luck.

First you have chip them out of the limestone matrix and if you do that they look like large pebbles. So you are saying the they collected hundreds of thousands of tons of fossils, put them into mold, took off the mold, covered the limetone block with chisel and bashing marks and made many of the stone different sizes and shapes for grins and giggles>? Sorry not at all believable. Not mentioning that cut them out as blocks......

Thats sounds like a lot of work mate, personally i would just collect them like i normally do, Just kinda sift loose sand, pretty easy and efficient. But i have put some in to an reconstituted matrix just for fun.

Or after admitting that the fossil is only an indicator not a smoking gun.

a reply to: Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: XipeTotex
a reply to: Harte

I did not say all of them are this or that, many different methods have been utilized. Different sizes mean nothing, quite simple to do with molds.

As for the quarries, i dont know what to tell you, an exceptionally talented scientist says it does not hold up under closer inspection, many of the pyramid stones do not match the stones of the quarry.

The guy isn't a geologist, but he is making pronouncements about geologists - essentially saying geologists can't identify stone.
He doesn't know enough about geology to know that his findings are typical for limestone in the area.
Also, he postulates a kind of geopolymer, but has been unable to duplicate it.
In other words, you're beating a dead horse. Try addressing the fact that each block is unique. That's a lot of different sized forms, isn't it?
And remember, there is mortar between the layers so if cast they must have let them cure before placing them - they certainly couldn't have been poured in place with mortar between the layers.
So there goes that so-called advantage.
Davidovits reminds me of that homily, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Harte

What are you smoking? Mortat between the layers.. Have you ever seen a brick wall?

Tell, me.. Is it easier to cut,carry and lift up giant stones, or cast them on site, a few feet away, then splash on the mortar, and tipping the block over to its position?

I think cooking was discovered after a tree was struck by lightening and a sacrafice was thrown into it's hollow burning interior to appease the gods.

The smell of barbecued meat was enough to get those taste buds working and fire was the key to more more more.

So, I believe that barbecue was invented BEFORE humans tamed fire.

Imagine being the first person to ever try cooked food. Oh boy!

originally posted by: XipeTotex

Thats sounds like a lot of work mate, personally i would just collect them like i normally do, Just kinda sift loose sand, pretty easy and efficient. But i have put some in to an reconstituted matrix just for fun.

So you think the fossils aren't in the limestone matrix? They are.

originally posted by: XipeTotex

Tell, me.. Is it easier to cut,carry and lift up giant stones, or cast them on site, a few feet away, then splash on the mortar, and tipping the block over to its position?

That doesn't matter the stones are solid pieces of wildly different sizes and shapes, with marks from tools containing intact fossils - if you can figure out a way or why you would 'cast' stones like that please explain.

So, you are insisting these stones were made in the same mold?

i.imgur.com...

i.imgur.com...

They weren't.

Of course the quarries themselves show they were cut out

i.imgur.com...

Man there is a lot of evidence for you to pretend not to see!

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: XipeTotex

Thats sounds like a lot of work mate, personally i would just collect them like i normally do, Just kinda sift loose sand, pretty easy and efficient. But i have put some in to an reconstituted matrix just for fun.

So you think the fossils aren't in the limestone matrix? They are.

Yes, fossils exist in limestone matrix and as loose fossils in the sand.
A loose fossil can be put back in to a matrix.

We make a neat little competition here, will see who pretends better to not see the evidence.

And please, from the same mold.. tell me, i give you 5 pieces of board, how many possible square shapes can you do with them?

The answer is lots.

And your quarry picture, looks like a really symmetric grid, perfect for estimating amounts, tell me, with a fine grid like that, why are the stones different sizes then? See, we can both play this game.


And since i am the only one answering questions, tell me how to make a giant statue with magnetic anomalies in the nose, or belly for example? Or in a single glyph? I know the answer, but i want to hear about how you think they are pounded in to place with a chisel or something.

originally posted by: XipeTotex

Yes, fossils exist in limestone matrix and as loose fossils in the sand.

Ah, and how would they get into the sand except for erosion which wold mar and destroy them?

We make a neat little competition here, will see who pretends better to not see the evidence

You are winning in that department by a far far margin.

And please, from the same mold.. tell me, i give you 5 pieces of board, how many possible square shapes can you do with them?

And what sane reason would they have for making each stone unique as shown in the last tier?

and your quarry picture, looks like a really symmetric grid, perfect for estimating amounts, tell me, with a fine grid like that, why are the stones different sizes then? See, we can both play this game.

So you conceded that they took them out as blocks instead of crushing them - those quarries when cleared were filled with - guess what? Yep limestone fragments - why would there before limestone fragments - several hundred thousand tons of them if they were using it to make rocks? Because what changed was the height of the tiers which was for some crazy reason different for most tiers and not always shorter .

The size shown are the last ones cut out.

And since i am the only one answering questions, tell me how to make a giant statue with magnetic anomalies in the nose, or belly for example? Or in a single glyph? I know the answer, but i want to hear about how you think they are pounded in to place with a chisel or something.

Link to this as out lined in scientific paper, pls?

My question is are you still thinking they used geo-ploymers?

Lets look at that upper tier again

i.imgur.com...
i.imgur.com...

Oh yeah those really looked like they were made in a mold then bashed around to make them individualistic! LOL

originally posted by: XipeTotex

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: XipeTotex
a reply to: Harte

I did not say all of them are this or that, many different methods have been utilized. Different sizes mean nothing, quite simple to do with molds.

As for the quarries, i dont know what to tell you, an exceptionally talented scientist says it does not hold up under closer inspection, many of the pyramid stones do not match the stones of the quarry.

The guy isn't a geologist, but he is making pronouncements about geologists - essentially saying geologists can't identify stone.
He doesn't know enough about geology to know that his findings are typical for limestone in the area.
Also, he postulates a kind of geopolymer, but has been unable to duplicate it.
In other words, you're beating a dead horse. Try addressing the fact that each block is unique. That's a lot of different sized forms, isn't it?
And remember, there is mortar between the layers so if cast they must have let them cure before placing them - they certainly couldn't have been poured in place with mortar between the layers.
So there goes that so-called advantage.
Davidovits reminds me of that homily, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Harte

What are you smoking? Mortat between the layers.. Have you ever seen a brick wall?

Tell, me.. Is it easier to cut,carry and lift up giant stones, or cast them on site, a few feet away, then splash on the mortar, and tipping the block over to its position?

Your concept of what is "easier" has no place here.
Many things, including using diesel-powered cranes, would be "easier."

But the work that goes into just crushing the stone represents more work than just dragging whole stones up.
And, please.
Take another look at these stones:



The idea that they were cast in molds is completely laughable.
Imagine making hundreds of thousands of molds of different sizes. How much work is that?
How "easy" is that?

Harte