Can any book test faith as much as the Bible?

[steve_bank]

Maybe Learner is steing to understand how we perceive reilgion.

 

[Elixir]

Maybe Learner is steing to understand how we perceive reilgion.

Evidence, please.

 

[atrib]

That would be the best, the Romans could do, moving one weighty object that size. But the blocks in Baalbek are much larger. The largest estimated to be 1600 tons!!

And yet it is well documented on when it was built, and it was built mostly by human hands (some animals were involved) using human techniques that are all fairly well understood.

I have no doubt about the types of techniques that could have been used, which maybe similar to the Romans techniques. This is not what I'm talking about Building such collossal structure of pure solid mass e,g., placing blocks of 1000 + tons, on top of each other, several block high... seems proportionately too large in scale, size and weight, even for the Romans, despite them having advanced building techniques of their time.

A couple of minutes on Wiki gives us a clue:

These walls were built from about 24 monoliths, at their lowest level weighing approximately 300 tonnes (330 tons) each. The tallest retaining wall, on the west, has a second course of monoliths containing the famous "Three Stones" (Greek: Τρίλιθον, Trílithon):[37] a row of three stones, each over 19 m (62 ft) long, 4.3 m (14 ft) high, and 3.6 m (12 ft) broad, cut from limestone. They weigh approximately 800 tonnes (880 tons) each.[146] A fourth, still larger stone is called the Stone of the Pregnant Woman: it lies unused in a nearby quarry 800 m (2,600 ft) from the town.[147] Its weight, often exaggerated, is estimated at 1,000 tonnes (1,100 tons).[148] A fifth, still larger stone weighing approximately 1,200 tonnes (1,300 tons)[149] lies in the same quarry. This quarry was slightly higher than the temple complex,[123][150] so no lifting was required to move the stones.

So, still an amazing feat for 2,000 years ago, but not quite as unbelievable as you make it out to be (or the creo website you referenced earlier made it out to be).

Following up further with a search focused more narrowly on the larger monolith stones, I found, also on Wiki:

The largest monoliths hewn were two giant building blocks in the quarry of Baalbek: an unnamed rectangular block which was only recently discovered is measured at c. 20 m x 4.45 m x 4.5 m, yielding a weight of 1,242 t.[72] The similarly shaped Stone of the Pregnant Woman nearby weighs an estimated 1,000.12 t.[73] Both limestone blocks were intended for the Roman temple district nearby, possibly as an addition to the trilithon, but were left for unknown reasons at their quarrying sites

So the larger monoliths were not moved at all from the spot they were quarried at.

A few minutes of research on the internet could have saved you some embarrassment.

 

[atrib]

Lol, seems ... is merely a word, inserted to express a humble opinion. Its not an expression claiming an absolute declaration... especially (if you can entertain the idea I have a little rationality), when I am fully aware, it is difficult to prove WHO built those structures... It must suck to be you when you can't find a real argument here, but you'll keep trying.

You never fucking learn. Your opinion is not worth the photons illuminating my computer screen because you haven't made the effort to do your due diligence before forming it. Not because the information is difficult to access, but because you have no desire to learn anything, despite calling yourself Learner. And you swagger around with a smug, condescending air of self-assurance that is not underlain by any kind of substantial foundation, just a chaotic, noisy, empty space.

 

[steve_bank]

It doesn't get the Egyptian or Roman notoriety.

The Incas were outstanding civil engineers. They accurately layed out complex mountain roads using a simple bowl of water as a level with two holes for sights.

There is the Parthenon. That too was figured out as to how it was done. Paved Roman roads and aqueducts built to an accrete slope.

Elixer's cpmoment is right. ET building pyramids is people seeing what they want to believe as do Christians.

 

[atrib]

There were also some other issues, that were topics for debates. Cambrian explosion and the fossil records reliability.

Feel free to start a topic in the appropriate forum as to what issues you have with the Cambrian explosion or the reliability of fossil records.

Oh, and you might want to respond to some questions I had asked earlier about some claims you made.

 

[Learner]

Building such collossal structure of pure solid mass e,g., placing blocks of 1000 + tons, on top of each other, several block high... seems proportionately too large in scale, size and weight, even for the Romans, despite them having advanced building techniques of their time.

Seems to you.

That word “seems” renders your entire argument a mere demonstration of your own personal ignorance.

You can’t even begin to imagine how they could possibly have done it? Well, we can put you down as both ignorant and unimaginative. Sucks to be you.

Lol, seems ... is merely a word, inserted to express a humble opinion. Its not an expression claiming an absolute declaration... especially (if you can entertain the idea I have a little rationality), when I am fully aware, it is difficult to prove WHO built those structures... It must suck to be you when you can't find a real argument here, but you'll keep trying.

Humility is the one thing absent from your posting history. Somebody once told you that your opinion was as good as anyone else’s. That person was very badly wrong, and did you a huge disservice. Your claim to being humble is self-refuting nonsense.

Opinions are like arseholes; Everybody has one, and mostly they’re full of shit.

Just as I thought... you'll keep trying. I think the absence of humility has its usefullnes, which can be the right tone of response to match posts like yours... I'll be responding in a likewise manner IOW.

 

[steve_bank]

Topic for discussion on evolution means there may be questions, but that does not imply a rejection of the general theories. It does not mean the possibility of a god or agent.

 

[Learner]

Lol, seems ... is merely a word, inserted to express a humble opinion. Its not an expression claiming an absolute declaration... especially (if you can entertain the idea I have a little rationality), when I am fully aware, it is difficult to prove WHO built those structures... It must suck to be you when you can't find a real argument here, but you'll keep trying.

You never fucking learn. Your opinion is not worth the photons illuminating my computer screen because you haven't made the effort to do your due diligence before forming it. Not because the information is difficult to access, but because you have no desire to learn anything, despite calling yourself Learner. And you swagger around with a smug, condescending air of self-assurance that is not underlain by any kind of substantial foundation, just a chaotic, noisy, empty space.

Oh dear, right on cue. The usual post as per Atrib, itching to express ones underlining personal grudge. I want to discuss a view point as well as listen to someone elses, I had a good conversation with excreationist, although briefly. Just let the conversation carry on, even if it sounds far fetched. But mate... this "swaggerring condescending arrogance" it seems I possess, will be the right tone for posts like yours above. Cheers BTW for allowing me to 'feel free" to answer your questions of a previous post. I think I will, coz I er... swagger around with a smug.

 

[skepticalbip]

...

Building such collossal structure of pure solid mass e,g., placing blocks of 1000 + tons, on top of each other, several block high... seems proportionately too large in scale, size and weight, even for the Romans, despite them having advanced building techniques of their time.

Seems to you.

That word “seems” renders your entire argument a mere demonstration of your own personal ignorance.

You can’t even begin to imagine how they could possibly have done it? Well, we can put you down as both ignorant and unimaginative. Sucks to be you.

Lol, seems ... is merely a word, inserted to express a humble opinion. Its not an expression claiming an absolute declaration... especially (if you can entertain the idea I have a little rationality), when I am fully aware, it is difficult to prove WHO built those structures... It must suck to be you when you can't find a real argument here, but you'll keep trying.

Humility is the one thing absent from your posting history. Somebody once told you that your opinion was as good as anyone else’s. That person was very badly wrong, and did you a huge disservice. Your claim to being humble is self-refuting nonsense.

Opinions are like arseholes; Everybody has one, and mostly they’re full of shit.

Just as I thought... you'll keep trying. I think the absence of humility has its usefullnes, which can be the right tone of response to match posts like yours... I'll be responding in a likewise manner IOW.

"I think the absence of humility has its usefullnes,"... How so? Someone lacking humility is never capable of learning anything that corrects their erroneous beliefs and assumptions. Lack of humility is arrogance,. which may be a useful trait for successful con men (or dirty politicians) to have but not so much for anyone else.

 

[Learner]

...

Building such collossal structure of pure solid mass e,g., placing blocks of 1000 + tons, on top of each other, several block high... seems proportionately too large in scale, size and weight, even for the Romans, despite them having advanced building techniques of their time.

Seems to you.

That word “seems” renders your entire argument a mere demonstration of your own personal ignorance.

You can’t even begin to imagine how they could possibly have done it? Well, we can put you down as both ignorant and unimaginative. Sucks to be you.

Lol, seems ... is merely a word, inserted to express a humble opinion. Its not an expression claiming an absolute declaration... especially (if you can entertain the idea I have a little rationality), when I am fully aware, it is difficult to prove WHO built those structures... It must suck to be you when you can't find a real argument here, but you'll keep trying.

Humility is the one thing absent from your posting history. Somebody once told you that your opinion was as good as anyone else’s. That person was very badly wrong, and did you a huge disservice. Your claim to being humble is self-refuting nonsense.

Opinions are like arseholes; Everybody has one, and mostly they’re full of shit.

Just as I thought... you'll keep trying. I think the absence of humility has its usefullnes, which can be the right tone of response to match posts like yours... I'll be responding in a likewise manner IOW.

"I think the absence of humility has its usefullnes,"... How so? Someone lacking humility is never capable of learning anything that corrects their erroneous beliefs and assumptions.

Well sure, but humility wasn't really an issue or topic of interest here. It was just dreamed up by our fellow posters who didn't have an argument, or really something interesting to say. What I was saying (being sarcastic), I respond to posters in the same manner they reply to me. Being on the same page or frequency, if you will - even if it there are tones of arrogance or "swagger as a smug"in posts - they earned it. But, what a waste of posting space, tooing an froing over nothing. Haven't they learnt anything, (oddly enough humility being one of them), after all this time on the forum?

 

[Learner]

That would be the best, the Romans could do, moving one weighty object that size. But the blocks in Baalbek are much larger. The largest estimated to be 1600 tons!!

And yet it is well documented on when it was built, and it was built mostly by human hands (some animals were involved) using human techniques that are all fairly well understood.

I have no doubt about the types of techniques that could have been used, which maybe similar to the Romans techniques. This is not what I'm talking about Building such collossal structure of pure solid mass e,g., placing blocks of 1000 + tons, on top of each other, several block high... seems proportionately too large in scale, size and weight, even for the Romans, despite them having advanced building techniques of their time.

A couple of minutes on Wiki gives us a clue:

These walls were built from about 24 monoliths, at their lowest level weighing approximately 300 tonnes (330 tons) each. The tallest retaining wall, on the west, has a second course of monoliths containing the famous "Three Stones" (Greek: Τρίλιθον, Trílithon):[37] a row of three stones, each over 19 m (62 ft) long, 4.3 m (14 ft) high, and 3.6 m (12 ft) broad, cut from limestone. They weigh approximately 800 tonnes (880 tons) each.[146] A fourth, still larger stone is called the Stone of the Pregnant Woman: it lies unused in a nearby quarry 800 m (2,600 ft) from the town.[147] Its weight, often exaggerated, is estimated at 1,000 tonnes (1,100 tons).[148] A fifth, still larger stone weighing approximately 1,200 tonnes (1,300 tons)[149] lies in the same quarry. This quarry was slightly higher than the temple complex,[123][150] so no lifting was required to move the stones.

So, still an amazing feat for 2,000 years ago, but not quite as unbelievable as you make it out to be (or the creo website you referenced earlier made it out to be).

Why didn't you add the Russian monoliths with the above? You see that construction in Russia, had blocks placed on blocks, several blocks high, AND were much heavier. So are we really sure Baalbek wasn't constructed in the same way as those in Russia? An amazing feat for 2000 years ago? Mate... those constructions were thousands of years long before the Romans!!

Following up further with a search focused more narrowly on the larger monolith stones, I found, also on Wiki:

The largest monoliths hewn were two giant building blocks in the quarry of Baalbek: an unnamed rectangular block which was only recently discovered is measured at c. 20 m x 4.45 m x 4.5 m, yielding a weight of 1,242 t.[72] The similarly shaped Stone of the Pregnant Woman nearby weighs an estimated 1,000.12 t.[73] Both limestone blocks were intended for the Roman temple district nearby, possibly as an addition to the trilithon, but were left for unknown reasons at their quarrying sites

So the larger monoliths were not moved at all from the spot they were quarried at.

A few minutes of research on the internet could have saved you some embarrassment.

If that were to be the case. Embarrassment? The credit should be all yours.

(I have to do a check, update on something I vaguely remember having some significance, before I get to those questions)

 

[excreationist]

@Learner
Are you saying those big stone blocks must have been moved by giants? Otherwise what is your explanation? Sorry if I missed your answer to this.

 

[Learner]

@Learner
Are you saying those big stone blocks must have been moved by giants? Otherwise what is your explanation? Sorry if I missed your answer to this.

Naturally, if I am to believe in Genesis which the description fits, then as a believer that is what I believe this could be.

The idea had crossed my mind even before I was a Christian. The reason of thought, behind it was: that many thousands of years ago, life forms resembling today were much larger. From Trees, insects, all sorts of animals. I say many thousands of years rather than millions simply from the understanding I knew then, was that humans (giants in this case) weren't around millions of years ago, and these mysterious construcions like Baalbek exist. One theory at the time i recall mid 2000s, was the suggestion that for such size difference between plants and creatures then and now, was the difference of atmospheric pressure upon on the earth. I've seen an experiment once with an alteration of atmospheric pressure in a tank whereby the fish grew much larger than the usual size for that particular fish species.

 

[skepticalbip]

@Learner
Are you saying those big stone blocks must have been moved by giants? Otherwise what is your explanation? Sorry if I missed your answer to this.

Naturally, if I am to believe in Genesis which the description fits, then as a believer that is what I believe this could be.

The idea had crossed my mind even before I was a Christian. The reason of thought, behind it was: that many thousands of years ago, life forms resembling today were much larger. From Trees, insects, all sorts of animals. I say many thousands of years rather than millions simply from the understanding I knew then, was that humans (giants in this case) weren't around millions of years ago, and these mysterious construcions like Baalbek exist. One theory at the time i recall mid 2000s, was the suggestion that for such size difference between plants and creatures then and now, was the difference of atmospheric pressure upon on the earth. I've seen an experiment once with an alteration of atmospheric pressure in a tank whereby the fish grew much larger than the usual size for that particular fish species.

That seems to be starting with the answer you want then applying your answer to any problem you don't understand... then assuming that it proves your answer to be correct. A reasonable person would start with basic physics and asking themselves how people could apply physics to move the stones. It turns out that an understanding of simple balance and leverage could answer many of your questions.

Here's an example of a single person, using one of many possible techniques, lifting an almost 10 ton block of concrete then standing it on end. He only lifts it about three feet because that was all he needed to stand it but the same principle could be used to lift it or a heavier stone fifty feet if he wanted to. Of course four or five people doing it would be much faster.

 

[excreationist]

@Learner
Are you saying those big stone blocks must have been moved by giants? Otherwise what is your explanation? Sorry if I missed your answer to this.

Naturally, if I am to believe in Genesis which the description fits, then as a believer that is what I believe this could be.

The idea had crossed my mind even before I was a Christian. The reason of thought, behind it was: that many thousands of years ago, life forms resembling today were much larger. From Trees, insects, all sorts of animals. I say many thousands of years rather than millions simply from the understanding I knew then, was that humans (giants in this case) weren't around millions of years ago, and these mysterious construcions like Baalbek exist. One theory at the time i recall mid 2000s, was the suggestion that for such size difference between plants and creatures then and now, was the difference of atmospheric pressure upon on the earth. I've seen an experiment once with an alteration of atmospheric pressure in a tank whereby the fish grew much larger than the usual size for that particular fish species.

So you say that those structures with huge stones are evidence that giants existed - and the main reason you believe there were giants is because the Bible says so? If it were the case, like some Christians believe, there were never any huge giants, would that test your faith in God?

 

[atrib]

@Learner
Are you saying those big stone blocks must have been moved by giants? Otherwise what is your explanation? Sorry if I missed your answer to this.

Naturally, if I am to believe in Genesis which the description fits, then as a believer that is what I believe this could be.

The idea had crossed my mind even before I was a Christian. The reason of thought, behind it was: that many thousands of years ago, life forms resembling today were much larger. From Trees, insects, all sorts of animals. I say many thousands of years rather than millions simply from the understanding I knew then, was that humans (giants in this case) weren't around millions of years ago, and these mysterious construcions like Baalbek exist. One theory at the time i recall mid 2000s, was the suggestion that for such size difference between plants and creatures then and now, was the difference of atmospheric pressure upon on the earth. I've seen an experiment once with an alteration of atmospheric pressure in a tank whereby the fish grew much larger than the usual size for that particular fish species.

So you say that those structures with huge stones are evidence that giants existed - and the main reason you believe there were giants is because the Bible says so? If it were the case, like some Christians believe, there were never any huge giants, would that test your faith in God?

And, the silence is deafening. .......

 

[Learner]

@Learner
Are you saying those big stone blocks must have been moved by giants? Otherwise what is your explanation? Sorry if I missed your answer to this.

Naturally, if I am to believe in Genesis which the description fits, then as a believer that is what I believe this could be.

The idea had crossed my mind even before I was a Christian. The reason of thought, behind it was: that many thousands of years ago, life forms resembling today were much larger. From Trees, insects, all sorts of animals. I say many thousands of years rather than millions simply from the understanding I knew then, was that humans (giants in this case) weren't around millions of years ago, and these mysterious construcions like Baalbek exist. One theory at the time i recall mid 2000s, was the suggestion that for such size difference between plants and creatures then and now, was the difference of atmospheric pressure upon on the earth. I've seen an experiment once with an alteration of atmospheric pressure in a tank whereby the fish grew much larger than the usual size for that particular fish species.

So you say that those structures with huge stones are evidence that giants existed - and the main reason you believe there were giants is because the Bible says so?

The bible says there are angels too. Is the mention of giants more incredible than angels? Big things like those constructions goes along with giant narrative in the bible. So yes, that is one explanation .... just as the bible says so.

If it were the case, like some Christians believe, there were never any huge giants, would that test your faith in God?

Like some Christians believe, is interesting come to think of it. Not met any yet, but I suppose there must be some out there.

Test in my faith of God? There are many thousands of denominations; AND each of them, don't doubt their faith in God! The only issues of testing faith would more likely be about varying doctrines/ statements between different denominations.

 

[excreationist]

So you say that those structures with huge stones are evidence that giants existed - and the main reason you believe there were giants is because the Bible says so?

The bible says there are angels too. Is the mention of giants more incredible than angels?

The Bible also seems to suggest the earth is flat... that also isn't evidence that giants existed.

Big things like those constructions goes along with giant narrative in the bible. So yes, that is one explanation .... just as the bible says so.

Are there any archaeologists that say that giants helped create huge structures? If that is historical then they should say that.

If it were the case, like some Christians believe, there were never any huge giants, would that test your faith in God?

Like some Christians believe, is interesting come to think of it. Not met any yet, but I suppose there must be some out there.

I'm saying some Christians don't believe there were huge giants in the past. I thought that would be widespread amongst those who believe in evolution.

Test in my faith of God? There are many thousands of denominations; AND each of them, don't doubt their faith in God! The only issues of testing faith would more likely be about varying doctrines/ statements between different denominations.

I'm asking about what if there were no huge giants, like mainstream science would believe?

 

[Politesse]

You cannot have met a very wide range of Christians, if you think they are all believers in mythical beasts. Some Christians consider their fealty to be to the unnameable and eternal God, not to whatever ancient cultures believed about the dragons who live over the next hill.