"Fake skulls." It's funny. Everything me and Yasure say or post is "fake" by you, but everything you say is true by you again. Hmmm. Very credible. You're the scientist of palaeontology.
We're in a relative backwater and the distances are immense. The odds are, any advanced civilization would be around older stars and most older stars are closer to the center of our galaxy. Certainly they have more to do with those stars than our relative backwater. Mankind's propensity to think he's special is old, but still funny....and about as mature as a spoiled two-year old.
Asinine response indicates an appalling lack of comprehension of basic terminology like "probability" and "assuming".
Weird assumption about the "direction" of DNA! Travel around the Mediterranean was widespread and shipping commerce was common. Sailors are notorious for sleeping around after long voyages. As a major trading nation Egypt probably had plenty of "western european" DNA arriving on a daily basis throughout the reigns of all of the Pharaohs.
The basis for his claims seems valid when the size and content of our observable Universe is considered as well as known communications systems (radiation) and possible relatively local observers.
No you cannot, these are not the proper tools for a flat surface, Nor can you make a 90degree cut. and we are speaking of granite anyway. We are also speaking of people who didn't have, even these tools.
This was his claim: The probability of life elsewhere in the universe is greater than the probability that our planet is the only one with life in the universe. There is no way to justify that claim. We don't know how life started on earth, we dont know if life can start in other ways (non carbon based), we only know what is required to sustain life on earth. We dont know how many suns with planets, of the suns we think have planets we dont know the status of those planets, we dont know the size of the universe. His claim is totally unfounded.
Thank you for confirming that I was 100% correct about the lack of comprehension of that terminology.
Limestone is a soft rock that can be easily chiseled using the copper tools available to the Egyptians. They also knew the basics of math that a 3,4,5 sided triangle always produces a right angle. Chiseling a straight line groove in the limestone and then stressing it will cause a break along the groove. Sand, water and rubbing will produce a smooth flat surface. The Ancient Egyptians had all of the above technology as well as the knowledge of levers. A shallow canal would have been all that was needed to float the blocks from the Nile to the site however there is some evidence that a harbor was used for the great pyramid at Giza. The evidence for these tools and methods exists in ancient murals and papyrus documents.
That is an Incan artifact from South America dated to around 536 AD long after the beginning of the Iron Age some 13 centuries earlier!
Yup! However probability might be an incomprehensible concept to those only capable of binary absolutes in which case a review would be a futile exercise.
except we are speaking, of Bolivia, of granite rock, and people who had no tools. Not even a written language or the wheel. Now you can see videos of Egyptians carving limestone, and the finished product is far different than the finished product in the pyramids. The Egyptian pyramids are a different story, with a different set of obstacles.
Actually it is not Incan, and dating varies from 500 AD, to 13,000 BCE. The people here were in the stone age when the Spaniards found them. And BTW, It takes a lot more than being in an age to make those. They would in fact, date to an industrial age, way past the bronze age.