Is Our History Written by the Victors? The Legend of Cuzco

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: [post=26670520]Hanslune

LABTECH767

I was speaking to your comment:

"That aside as to the idea of Victors writing the history it is a historical fact that they do and then often destroy the history to replace it with there own, prime example being the murder of teh scholars and burning of the historys in ancient China.

I was speaking to that and you deliberately ignored that and twisted what I wrote and tried to applied it to creationism.

i.imgur.com...

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Hanslune

There are most certainly credible experts that do not buy the party line,

There are? The "party line" of no Biblical flood?
Okay... quotes and/or links please.
Should be easy for you.

Harte

a reply to: MatterIsLight

Since your post is 26665517
I will tell
that's the answer

I kid you not

originally posted by: starshift
a reply to: Byrd

The Inca don't claim to have built many of those ancient monoliths. If you watch the video I linked it will go into that and it also ties into similarstructuresfound on Malta.
There are additions that they had built upon many of those ancient structures but the work is quite primitive and typical for that of a bronze age culture.

Videos, while interesting, are "written by the victor."

The sources I gave included the writings of an actual Inca man from the time of the Spanish conquest, writing about what his Inca people believed and did. It was not some European-descended person giving a series of unattributed statements 500 years after the fact.

You're trying to tell me that some person doing a video 500-600 years later from a European-centric culture knows more about what the Inca believed than they themselves wrote/said. I see no reason to believe this second person over the words of an actual person from that culture who wrote about his actual experiences and the things that his parents and his culture taught him.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Hanslune
Tree's in Rock strata that are upright and pierce what is supposedly hundreds of thousands or even millions of years of stratification is actually ample proof that the dating of that strata is WRONG and anyone arguing against that conclusion would have to provide an explanation for how those tree stump's survived that long in an intact manner to pierce all those layers of Strata that are supposedly by the OBVIOUSLY wrong dating of them so many millennia of eon's old.

I take it that you haven't studied geology in school? That your only experience with it is from videos?

a reply to: Byrd

Au contraire I studied it indeed though not at Degree level.

I also know that someone passing a memory test does not make them a Genius just a very good living database that is better suited to such subjects as the legal profession rather than inquisitive science, science TRUE Science if you recall is not a fixed set of laws it is about a quest for knowledge though in real practical terms it often has great application as we all know.

Now please explain why and how so many fossil tree stumps penetrate so many layers of strata when in fact that should not be the case, explain why the Log mat theory for coal deposition is wrong, why the global evidence of flooding is also wrong, why so many ancient cultures all around the world whom have similar flood story's are wrong and why a bunch of occult brotherhood member Victorian gentlemen whom had no formal training are Correct and why an entire scientific discipline is built upon there ideas when they never had any formal qualifications, oh not just Victorian some of them were a few century's earlier one even had a similar idea to Darwin for that evolution nonsense, oh don't get me wrong I do believe in Adaptation but a puddle putting on a cell membrane then suddenly deciding to self replicate, that puddle then getting with a group of it's buddies and forming a multi celled organism and that multi celled organism then developing a nervous system complex organs and sensory organ's and then branching out growing leg's and then arguing about it on a computer some hours later, well call me a sceptic.


Oh don't get me wrong Practical geology is excellent, mineral prospecting, mining, oil drilling etc have all created a vast well of practical knowledge but I am not by any means convinced of the dating - at all.

You know even at a quantum level the universe may still be in flux and that may even mean that radioisotope dating is far less reliable than many think though that is seldom of ever practically applied to date geology as you well know but in other fields such as archaeology there are a plethora of dating's that are probably very wrong due to carbon dating contamination for example and later tampering with sites such as at Tiwanaku (Tia Huanaco) and Puma Punku were the site was actually REBUILT in the 1950's and 60's by so called experts in meso American cultures to resemble what they ASSUMED it must have looked like and probably fouled up any genuine research into the site by this activity, similarly Stonehenge in my nation was Rebuilt possibly several times but an ancient depiction of the site depicts it as a square? (though that may have been a depiction made by someone in the medieval period that had not even seen it themselves? - still it makes it sound rather more in line with Carnac than the other contemporaneous stone circles around the UK such as Avebury, but if true would suggest it may have been a hybrid site of the two styles but once again the evidence is lost as a result).

The water mark on the pyramids of Giza, salt encrustation inside the structures that is claimed to have LEACHED out of the stones but there are no stalactites or stalagmites so I don't buy that at all.

No on the contrary I find that when some of you are faced with things that do not fit your world view you simply ignore them, belittle the messenger and try to put them down as imbeciles when in fact it is just this very attitude that is the very act of imbecility and stupidity of the highest order, ignore potential sources of knowledge at your own peril.

And yes it's a YouTube video and not as such about geology at all but still worth watching just to throw a spanner into that view of reality BUT then some of you already know this and are still out to deny or dismiss it despite your own inner understanding that it is true, why?.


And another one from these kid's that I find really good.


What about Cart of Chariot Wheel's in supposedly hundreds of millions of year old limestone.


Now in isolation fine if it was found just one but these type of discovery's have been reported again and again over the century's.

So the


Your reason for the edit (must be filled out):


modern scientifically accepted (by the majority but NOT ALL) dating is wrong, simple as that.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Now please explain why and how so many fossil tree stumps penetrate so many layers of strata when in fact that should not be the case

You can find out for yourself you know.

Maybe you should start here and follow up with some of the references at the bottom of the page.
Polystrate Fossils

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Now please explain why and how so many fossil tree stumps penetrate so many layers of strata when in fact that should not be the case

You can find out for yourself you know.

Maybe you should start here and follow up with some of the references at the bottom of the page.
Polystrate Fossils

Harte

Yep nasty old geology

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Byrd

Au contraire I studied it indeed though not at Degree level.

Well that counts for something.

Now please explain why and how so many fossil tree stumps penetrate so many layers of strata when in fact that should not be the case, explain why the Log mat theory for coal deposition is wrong, why the global evidence of flooding is also wrong,

You ought to know this from studying geology.

why so many ancient cultures all around the world whom have similar flood story's

As someone who studies mythology, they're not all that similar. And these stories are not universal. And many of them arise locally AFTER the Christian missionaries came in and "explained" the locals culture to the locals themselves ("Oh, you got part of that story wrong. See, it's actually here in the Bible. This is how it goes....")

don't get me wrong I do believe in Adaptation but a puddle putting on a cell membrane then suddenly deciding to self replicate, that puddle then getting with a group of it's buddies and forming a multi celled organism and that multi celled organism then developing a nervous system complex organs and sensory organ's and then branching out growing leg's and then arguing about it on a computer some hours later, well call me a sceptic.

You haven't read up on evolution, then. Fair enough.

radioisotope dating is far less reliable than many think though that is seldom of ever practically applied to date geology as you well know but in other fields such as archaeology there are a plethora of dating's that are probably very wrong due to carbon dating contamination for example and later tampering with sites such as at Tiwanaku (Tia Huanaco) and Puma Punku were the site was actually REBUILT in the 1950's and 60's by so called experts in meso American cultures to resemble what they ASSUMED it must have looked like and probably fouled up any genuine research into the site by this activity, similarly Stonehenge in my nation was Rebuilt possibly several times but an ancient depiction of the site depicts it as a square? (though that may have been a depiction made by someone in the medieval period that had not even seen it themselves? - still it makes it sound rather more in line with Carnac than the other contemporaneous stone circles around the UK such as Avebury, but if true would suggest it may have been a hybrid site of the two styles but once again the evidence is lost as a result).

I see you're not aware of the multiple methods used to establish dates and so forth.

The water mark on the pyramids of Giza, salt encrustation inside the structures that is claimed to have LEACHED out of the stones but there are no stalactites or stalagmites so I don't buy that at all.

I've been there. No water marks (I've also seen the flood and water marks along the Nile and that's why I agree with everyone that there's no water marks on the pyramids.) And... in spite of studying geology you don't seem to be aware that limestone is formed under the oceans...and has a high salt content.

You'd do better to not rely on Youtube videos. They're dreadfully light on content and information.

originally posted by: Byrd


I've been there. No water marks (I've also seen the flood and water marks along the Nile and that's why I agree with everyone that there's no water marks on the pyramids.) And... in spite of studying geology you don't seem to be aware that limestone is formed under the oceans...and has a high salt content.

The 'water marks' is an interesting story in fringe appropriation of a story and then failing to understand it.

There was a 'pyramid' found with such markings, from high water and deep mud from a flood. It was in Mesopotamia and the marks were found on a Ziggurat

French professor of archaeology Francois Lenormant spent a great deal of time poring over ancient Assyrian texts. In those cuneiform inscriptions, he recognized a new language, now known as Akkadian, which proved valuable to the understanding of the ancient civilization. Through his studies, he became familiar with the Akkadian word for the towering temples: ziqqurratu, which was translated into English as ziggurat.

The story of a pyramid having such markings comes from this actual evidence/incident.

Within a few months of one another during the 1928-1929 excavation season, archaeologists at two southern Mesopotamian sites, Ur and Kish, announced the discovery of flood deposits which they identified with the Flood described in the Hebrew scriptures and cuneiform sources. The famous and glamorous Sir Charles Leonard Woolley, after his deep excavations of the Early Dynastic royal tombs at Ur, had a small test shaft sunk into the underlying soil. He persisted through some eight feet of bare mud before finally coming to a layer bearing artifacts of late prehistoric date. It did not take Woolley long to arrive at an interpretation: I . . . by the time I had written up my notes was quite convinced of what it all meant; but I wanted to see whether others would come to the same conclusion. So I brought up two of my staff and, after pointing out the facts, asked for their explanation. They did not know what to say. My wife came along and looked and was asked the same question, and she turned away remarking casually, "Well, of course, it's the Flood."

Ziggurat is often translated into pyramid.

Yes Mesopotamia was subject to many many floods from the TE.

So markings on a ziggurat in mesopotamia got transferred to the 'pyramids' because Ziggurat was translated as pyramid. Of course the Biblical Flood was higher than the mountains so its unclear how Christians could say it left marks on the side of ziggurat/pyramid anyway!

The basis for the flood myth is people finding sea shells in the tops of mountains. At least that's part of why the myth exists.

All mountains, in every continent, have stuff like that in them. Consequently it should not be too big a surprise if all cultures have the accompanying myth.

It probably mixes in with memories of events accompanying the Younger Dryas, though. When there was a lot of flooding and Earth quakes, but no comprehensive flood.

a reply to: MatterIsLight

It's obvious when you know the same story they are all telling, it began when Moses left Egypt and said let my people go, but he wasn't talking about people, it was water, well not water but....
Fish

Well not fish but.....