You mean…. other than the entire field of geology?
No, I want to hear some kind of proposed mechanism and evidence of observation, otherwise “CDK” is nothing more than “dark energy” which you cry about elsewhere
Golly I guess that settles that
>Mfw you can “roll” 200 ton stones through fucking sand, then lift them into positions so precise you couldn’t fit a razor blade between them (u triggered?)
Lmao
I know how comforting “just so” stories are. Doesn’t stop them from being retarded however.
That’s great. I wasn’t suggesting your post be removed (is that not obvious?) just that you get some better evidence than “a bunch of retards agree with me”
It is the Sphinx ayh refuse the narrative about.
Well, atleast you’ve got that much figured out
Golly I guess that settles that
The community mods are all MiA, the admins have been notified and their help has been requested but they’ve just been jerking off and ignoring us for a few weeks now
you believe humans coexisted with dinosaurs, yet there's no evidence of this anywhere.
Well, except for every culture on earth talking about dragons
🚨 RETARD ALERT 🚨
Inb4 “achsully the speed of light is changing. Don’t ask me for the how, or the why, just shut up and worship zionism”
grinding in stones inplace … No any advanced technologies needed.
How did they place these 200 ton stones? They have no plausible means of moving them, much less lifting them precisely into place
Maybe, but “the Bible” and “6 gorillion jews agree with me” aren’t proof
Wrong. I was the second downvote, and only because you said I was the first, fag
Beginning with disingenuous arguments and the logical fallacy of “prove me wrong” increases the likelihood that your side has nothing. YW.
Flat earth tier post
Try this perspective...how many choices (plural) can a being (singular) shape until the singular becomes plural?
Hmm…none (i.e. it’s not possible?)
One (i.e. the choice to pair with a mate and produce offspring?)
Many/Infinite (i.e. similar to above, but the ongoing series of choices made from inception to death?)
Why does plurality imply a synthesis? Because everything naturally exists as “one”?
Khufu's pyramid
Look into it some more, the entire justification for attributing the Pyramid to Khufu is a single stone stele that reads more like a shopping list for repairs carried out under his reign than any kind of building dedication. I’d start here:
But you don't like what I say
Yeah. Because inevitably it’s 10 fucking paragraphs about irrelevant shit closed out with some snide insult or passive aggressive faggotry from an unearned high-horse
You never actually dive into the stuff I share and invite you to dive into. You’ve never shared your thoughts on the Gospel of Thomas despite multiple occasions and invitations, nor the Tao Te Ching, nor John Chang and Mo Pai, nor gTummo yoga, nor any of the “prehistory” stuff I’ve shared (including this). If you do ever comment, it’s usually gay and passive aggressive like these last two, and never about the substance of the post. Only retards are convinced the earth is 6,000 years old - why would I design my posts around retards?
Watch the documentary gaylord, this is a forum post not a symposium
Notice how many seek shelter from rain under a roof, yet how few leave the shelter when the rain ends...the temptation to artificially shelter grows exponentially unless resisted.
A noticing which has never cross my mind before…thanks friend
Structure implies in-between roof/foundation aka as above/so below...that separation implies natural analysis
What (if any) other separations imply natural analysis?
That’s great, and probably true to some extent - it’s still impossible for those civilizations to have achieved the level of precision they did with the technology we claim they had
They could literally have build ramps several miles long out of earth just to keep the slope low enough to roll these things up on logs.
No, they literally couldn’t have lol, certainly not without leaving any evidence
It's your consent to the suggested word "application" which hides analysis (cation) within synthesis (apply)...you are choosing to artificially hold together what nature sets apart from one another.
Heat flows up, water flows down, this i can discern from analysis, yet don’t I, the human, still require the synthesis to decide to, and ultimately to actually produce a roofed structure which will keep the heat in and the rain out? Is that an inversion of the natural analysis or is that an example of natural synthesis?(though if I read right, such a thing doesn’t even properly exist in the framework you describe, so the question has inherent limits) - forgive the use of the word “or”
Only one of the pictures has anything providing any kind of size reference
Anyway, here’s the wiki page. Megaliths weighing (up to) many hundreds of tons moved into position:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_monoliths#Moved_monoliths
And no, log rollers or log pivots to move massive stones don’t work in desert sand lol, though I did enjoy that comment when I first saw it, I don’t believe it applies.