• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

‘If we ever had a leak of this chat we would be cooked’: 7 months of shocking private messages among rising GOP leaders

A YouGov poll indicates that a portion of individuals with progressive viewpoints publicly expressed condolences for Kirk, while privately exhibiting a different stance.
Do you have a link? This was the closest I could find What Americans really think about political violence | YouGov but it doesn't really say that.
Upvote 0

‘If we ever had a leak of this chat we would be cooked’: 7 months of shocking private messages among rising GOP leaders

Despite his allusions to infighting, Giunta still apologized.

“I am so sorry to those offended by the insensitive and inexcusable language found within the more than 28,000 messages of a private group chat that I created during my campaign to lead the Young Republicans,” he said. “While I take complete responsibility, I have had no way of verifying their accuracy and am deeply concerned that the message logs in question may have been deceptively doctored.”
I apologize for the nasty things attributed to me but probably, maybe aren’t.
That’s some fine politicking, there, that is!
Upvote 0

Are the Jews Israel, or is the church Israel? Or does it depend on the context of the passage?

Consider the verse below when thinking about the modern nation of Israel.

Isaiah 54:9 To me this is like the days of Noah, when I swore that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth. So now I have sworn not to be angry with you, never to rebuke you again.

The Apostle Paul declares the obvious in Galatians 4:26-27. That Isaiah 54 is a prophecy about the New Jerusalem. The context of that chapter is Old Testament believer’s being illustrated as the wife of God suffering at the hands of their own wicked kings and the gentile nations; someday winning the nations by the gospel and through that inheriting the world. This is why Paul called the New Jerusalem the mother of all New Testament believers. OT saints in Ancient Israel gave birth to NT saints, both Jew and Gentile.

Here is how Isaiah 54:9 ties into the debate over the two extremes between those who teach the name Israel IS ONLY referring to the Jews and modern Israel and God's covenant with them. Verses those who say Israel is now the church and God's NT covenant. In both the OT and NT we see God is almost continuously angry with Ancient Israel for its sin. The reason for this is God chose both the saints and sinners out of one nation, Ancient Israel, to bring his word and the Messiah into the earth. It was his Normandy beach head for his long-planned invasion of planet earth to spread the influence of his invisible kingdom.

Once the mission God chose all of Ancient Israel for was complete. His focus became the expansion of that influence worldwide. First through Jewish believers that naturally added Gentile believers to that mix. This new mix of believers, illustrated in the Bible’s prophecy was given a new name- The New Jerusalem

Isaiah 62;1 For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent, for Jerusalem’s sake I will not remain quiet, till her vindication shines out like the dawn, her salvation like a blazing torch. 2 The nations will see your vindication, and all kings your glory; YOU WILL BE CALLED BY A NEW NAME that the mouth of the Lord will bestow.

That is why God would no longer be angry with his people. They are no longer a mix of ethnic Israeli's who had the faith of Abraham along with the ethnic Israeli's who refused that faith. Instead, his people, illustratively spoken of as God’s bride and the New Jerusalem consist of a mix of ethnic Israelis and gentiles who have embraced the faith of Abraham- in and of the Messiah.

Speaking to both extremes about this issue. This IS the Bible’s OT and NT doctrine on the matter. God will not smile upon anything else that is taught.

Does this mean ethnic Israelis, or Jews, who do not have or refuse the faith of Abraham are no longer God’s chosen people? That would depend on narrative you look at Bible's prophecy through. Which by the way is the main point of friction between the two extremes. One extreme says yes because there is end of the world prophecy in the Bible that revolves around a modern nation of Israel. One says no because only believers count as the children of Abraham by faith so the modern nation is an aberration not mentioned in scripture.

But what says the scripture? Well, according to many chapters of prophecy like Isaiah 54, 60, 61, 62, 65 Rev 20-22. Daniel 2 & 7 They say billions would come to Christ after the Roman Empire ends which happened in 1453 AD; and the natural result of that would be a world transforming for the better. We now know this was due to the general public, (illegally) beginning to gain access to their own Bibles to read themselves right when that empire ended. This is what the Bible means when it said the meek, or the saints, shall inherit the earth. It's why we went from the perpetual rule of kings and emperors to a growing free world of republics as it states in the passage below.

Isaiah 29:18-20 And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness. The meek also shall increase their joy in the LORD, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel. For the tyrannical oppressor is brought to nothing…….

Now we have the key to understanding why modern Israel exists. The process of meek inheriting the earth would providentially lead to the world having mercy on the Jewish people and bringing them back to the land promised to Abraham. NOT for some end of the world apocalypse. But rather as part of the process of the meek inheriting the earth. As stated in the prophecy below. The regions future is 10’s of millions of Jews, Arabs, Egyptians and Syrians finding the faith of Abraham in Jesus their savior. The natural result of theirs and the Bible’s influence will be the transformation of the region. It's how the prophecy below is being fulfilled. All the war, death and destruction is Satan’s doings through darkened hearts to try to stop this from happening. Over the long run, it is not going to work.

Isaiah 19: 23-25 In that day shall there be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the Assyrians. In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, even a blessing in the midst of the land: whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.

Good news is it not? Peace on earth, good will towards men news.
Jews, or church is Israel.
Upvote 0

Another look at the moon landing.

I believe this one, when I hear of the earth being billions of years old I just stop reading or switch it off. Such nonsense!
Well that's it, isn't it?
The bottom line in all of these many threads and thousands of posts is that you believe only people/facts/scientists/books that back your beliefs. Everyone else - educated, knowledgeable, scientific people, some of whom are born again Christians - is lying.
You even interpret the Bible in such a way that it fits with your beliefs. And anyone who disagrees doesn't have the truth, doesn't believe God's word, "can't" believe Genesis or they would know the moon landings were impossible(!) or will be in trouble one day when "it all comes tumbling down (though you can't explain how.)

Never was the phrase "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts" more accurate.
Upvote 0

Another look at the moon landing.

Comparison with Young Earth Creationism​

In contrast, some belief systems, such as Young Earth Creationism, assert that the Earth is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. This view is based on literal interpretations of religious texts, particularly the Bible. However, this perspective contradicts established scientific evidence and is not supported by the broader scientific community.

I believe this one, when I hear of the earth being billions of years old I just stop reading or switch it off. Such nonsense!
Upvote 0

Trump sends troops to the 'warzone' of Portland...

Yes this is what happens when you have and support sanctuary cities. When you allow illegals in there are bad illegals that come too. Then you have to sort them out. Which takes time during an operation like this.

People in Chicago VOTED and choose to be a sanctuary city. You have to accept the consequences of such actions.
The President is the Head of the Government of the United States of America, not the Daddy for the States.

If he is, then that’s not how our federalist system operates, and we’re in extra-constitutional waters.

What’s “conservative” about upending the delicate balance-of-powers between the Federal Government and the several States?
Upvote 0

The History of the “Two Laws” Theory in Romans 3:20

Not true.

EVERY reference to Paul in a worship service on Sabbath is a reference to the 7th day Sabbath of Gen 2:2,3 and Ex 20;11
This is irrefutable.
;) You're trying to use a truism as proof! Of course, every case in which Paul observes Sabbath rest is a genuine example of him practicing Sabbath rest! But that doesn't mean he was ever doing this out of observance of the OT Law!
Paul repeatedly affirms the unit of TEN as God's Commandments
If Paul did so he was affirming that they were ten commandments *under the Law of Moses.*
No text says that.

Mark 2:27 says it is for "mankind" not 'just Jews"
Sorry, it doesn't have to spelled out that Jesus was speaking of Jews. Obviously, he was speaking to Jews and knew that the Sabbath Law had only been given to the Jews.
It is :"still a sin to take God's name in vain"
James to "he who is guilty of breaking one is guilty of breaking all?
James was using OT Law as an example of how *any sin* keeps Mankind from obtaining Eternal Life by his own works. That was the lesson of the Fall in the garden of Eden. A single sin contaminated Adam and Eve, and got them kicked out of the garden and away from the Tree of Life.

The Law of Moses was designed to affirm this truth to Israel, to make them hope for God's mercy, which would be revealed in Christ. Christ provided a Salvation *apart from the Law of Moses* so that they could find mercy in Jesus despite their record of sin under the Law.

Israel no longer has to serve God under the bondage of the Law, which bound them to Sin and Death. They can simply follow Jesus. The 10 Commandments, and Sabbath Law, are completely fulfilled in his righteousness. And he was not subject to the Law. He *gave* the Law!
God's commandments are part of the Jer 31:31-34 New Covenant as Heb 8 reminds us.
We are told in Jer 31.32 that the New Covenant will be for Israel something different from the Commandments and Laws given at Horeb.
Until you read Isaiah 66;23
I've read it and explained it. OT language was used in the OT period in order not to discourage continued respect for the Law. But Sabbath to Sabbath simply means Week to Week.
Jesus condemned anyone teaching against God's Law in Matt 5
I don't know when you will begin to understand that Jesus spoke, during his earthly ministry, to Israel while they were *still under the Law.* The veil had not yet been rent. The New Covenant had not yet been sealed in Jesus' blood. Therefore, the Law of Moses was still in play, and Jesus indicated that every requirement was needed to show every aspect of what Messiah would do.

You gotta believe what you want to believe is true.
Upvote 0

Another look at the moon landing.

You should have ordered this one.

How We Got to the Moon: The People, Technology, and Daring Feats of Science Behind Humanity's Greatest Adventure Illustrated Edition​



I'm not particularly keen on fairy tales although I did enjoy 'Jack & The Beanstalk' :)
Upvote 0

Are the Jews Israel, or is the church Israel? Or does it depend on the context of the passage?

I am not of either of the extremes. One of which you are articulating.
What extreme am I articulating? Either the Church has replaced Israel or it has not. There is no between.


. What is written below cannot come to pass without a modern nation of Israel
And Israel being back as a nation in 1948 is fulfilment of the modern Israel.


Millions of Jew, Arabs, Syrians, Egyptians coming to their savior Jesus and that influence transforming the region.
Yes they are. But that does not mean the Church has replaced Israel.

All who want to be saved have to accept the Messiah. That was the truth in OT and it is the truth now.
Upvote 0

The History of the “Two Laws” Theory in Romans 3:20

A distinction without a difference.
Apparently I didn't do a good enough job explaining the difference betwen the Creation Sabbath and the Weekly Sabbath under the Law of Moses? There is more than a little difference betwen them! The Creation Sabbath was something God observed. The Sabbath Law was something Israel, and not God, observed.

Also, the Creation Sabbath was a "one off." It presented Rest in recognition of a completely finished product. By contrast, Sabbath Law was repetitive, indefinitely, and represented an unfinished product--an incomplete redemption from unfinished contaminated works.
The Sabbath at Sinai points directly at Gen 2:2-3
The Sabbath Law does point back, in a sense, to the Creation Sabbath. But this was to honor God's Creation Sabbath as something different--something perfect and Divine, and the Sabbath Law as representing human imperfection.

One presented God's perfection. And the other represented Man's defiling of the Paradise God had given us, Man now subject to toiling by the sweat of his brow.

How "odd" to suggest "Do not take God's name in vain" was "no longer valid.
The OT Law is no longer applicable *as law.* I wouldn't say it was invalid as a teaching tool. The same morality is present in Christ, who is the one we follow now--not the Law of Moses, nor the 10 Commandments. And certainly not Sabbath Law.

Whatever remains law in Jesus himself is what we follow. But we do so under an entirely new covenant, as opposed to the one given Israel at Sinai.
from Sabbath to Sabbath just as we see in Act 18:4 "Every Sabbath" Paul was preaching the Gospel in the worship service of the Sabbath
As I've said several times now, Paul acted like a Jew so as to win the Jews. But he proclaimed that he was personally free from any obligation under the Law of Moses. He did not want cultural issues to inhibit his attempt to reach his fellow Jews with the Gospel. To Paul, cultural issues, such as Sabbath observance or the eating of meat offerred to idols, was a distraction.
Almost every Christian denomination on Earth affirms the continued *"unit of TEN" for Christians today
They do so to assert the continued morality of our life in Christ, which was modeled after the Ten Commandments. Christ's life was also the *fulfillment* of the 10 Commandments.

All denominations also assert that Christians are not under the Law of Moses any longer, which means that any seeming observance of the 10 Commandments is not really an observance of the Law of Moses, but actually only a recognition that the same morality that was in the 10 Commandments is also present in the New Covenant and in Christ, as well.
Upvote 0

Discussion 1: Eve (God's Word to Women book)

Eve doesn’t mean the mother of all believers, but Mary the Mother of God, the New Eve. Christ and Mary are the opposites of Adam and Eve. If the first Eve, through disobedience, brought sin and death into the world, then Mary, through obedience to God, brought salvation, becoming the instrument of Christ's incarnation. Eve is the mother of all who live according to the flesh; Mary is the mother of all who live according to the spirit. The first trusted the word of the serpent and brought the Fall; the second trusted the word of an angel and brought redemption. Thus, the Mother of God symbolizes the reversal of the history of the Fall: through one woman came death, and through another woman life.
Jesus is called "the last Adam." However, nowhere in the bible does the bible make any mention of Mary being the "New Eve." Nowhere in Scripture either do we read that Mary is the mother of all who live according to the spirit. And God is eternal. It is just misleading to call Mary "mother of God."

As for the meaning of the name "Eve", the bible tells us:

“And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.” (Ge 3:20 NKJV)

So your suggestion that Eve means "Mary the Mother of God, the New Eve" is wrong.
Upvote 0

New York Times, AP, Newsmax among news outlets who say they won’t sign new Pentagon rules





Sounds like this Hegseth directive is being broadly rejected by media outlets, big & small, and across the political spectrum.

All of the big ones are in broad agreement (ABC, NBC, CBS, and Fox News), and even the very "MAGA-friendly" Newsmax is opposing it as well.
How dare members of the fourth estate not kowtow to the Secretary of War!?
Mercy me, whatever shall we do?
Upvote 0

Heating up down under

Going on about the hottest places on earth being hot during the hottest times of summer, as if that's something to be alarmed about, is kinda silly.
Not when those hottest places have measurements going back to 1910.

Climate change has always existed.

Yes - as if this is news to any actual scientist - let alone climate scientist. Or any humanities geek like myself who has read a bit. Do you know WHY the climate changes? What the top drivers are? What causes a glacial period and interglacial period over tens of thousands of years - or what about LONGER term climate trends over the 10's of millions of years?

Like I said - I'm not even a scientist. But even I know some of these things.

"Big funding from Koch brothers and Exxon" as a conspiracy for why people aren't panicking over it being a couple of degrees hotter than it was 115 years ago,
A couple of degrees hotter? Maybe you're thinking of weather.
A couple of degrees of CLIMATE change should scare you - should make you angry - should make you think of the inter-generational immorality of us living as if we allowed to squander our children and grandchildren's futures!

Didn't Calvin himself say the farmer should leave his fields in better condition than he found them? He had basic ideas of stewardship in mind.

Maybe you don't understand the difference between weather and climate?


Think of water in a bathtub. Weather is the toddler splashing and making waves. The amount of water stays the same, but the waves rock back and forth with the water level. Climate change is that someone left the tap on, and soon that toddler could drown!

Climate change is the energy imbalance of the planet - the extra energy 'trapped' by the sunlight bouncing off the earth's surface as heat, and being trapped by the thicker blanket of gases surrounding the earth.

It's going up about to 2 Hiroshima bombs per second, every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day, of every day of the year. All year around. It shows up in glaciers melting, heat records toppling, seasons out of whack, grubs hatching and dying before the baby birds hatch so they can eat the grubs. It's the very food web is out of whack.

It's global crop yields down a quarter as the population goes UP a quarter by 2050.

1760508684596.png



And Exxon knew about it all from their own scientists way back in 1977.


1760509063721.png


Exxon scientists said...


In 1982 they sent a document marked “not to be distributed externally.”

“Preventing global warming … would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion. Unless that happened, there are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered … Once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible.”


It seems sir - that you have a lot more reading and thinking to do.

Unless of course, like most MAGA you just think "That's what you CHOOSE to believe - I choose to believe something else."

Login to view embedded media
Upvote 0

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

The Chris Dunn's team has done a Report which is another form of an academic paper with Overview, method, then analysis, findings and conclusion.
Not one well provenanced vase in the bunch. Many measured runouts in excess of 0.1 mm. No procedure described to calculate any quality metrics.
Also here with the geometry which is fully laid out in steps with calculations.
Where the author believes it to be a modern fake or reworked original.
The Artifact Foundation also done a Report.
And in their table all but two vases have a median circularity > 0.1 mm (they are 72 and 96 µm). And median doesn't tell the complete story. Look in the surface deviation plots for all the vases (https://3ee9be00-b8a0-4f00-991d-97c...d/3ee9be_e79661f238934aed91a28269a61725d8.pdf) not the cherry picked best example.
I think they all explain why they used the specific quality metric. I think Karolys method is the same.
It's not he uses the the geometric mean of the median circularity and concentricity, Max sums the mean error rmse and concentricity offset and standard deviation of the concentricity offset. Just as you were wrong when you falsely ascribed a PhD to Karoly.
Certainly in using layers to determine circularity and concentricity. I think the method had to be adjusted to measure the vases as there was no precedent to go by.
If you're going to find the symmetry axis of the hypothalamus then you need to use PCA to determine the best symmetry axis, on what is in effect cylindrical objects it is not needed. Max didn't feel the need in any case.
Providence seems to be an issue in the least because skeptics use that to dispute the vases. The Artifact Foundation began testing museum vases only this year.

There are Petrie vases in the precise class from the Artifact Foundations tests. They set the parameters of the precise class which was 0.001mm to I think 0.200mm which was the tolerance accepted in precision tooling. Five or 6 vases from memory came under this. One at 48 microns median score.
0.2 mm as a median score is not the normal tolerance metric such as it would be if it is the difference in radius between the an inner and outer circle that covers all the measured points (see ISO 1101). So there is some sleight-of-hand with definitions going on here.
Max was testing vases that were from a private collections (Matt Beall) but also housed at the Petrie museum. Thats why I was saying that people can question the providence of private collections but the Petrie museum regards them as genuine enough to display them as authentic. Max also found around 11 vases in the precise class.
Those were not from the Petrie museum collection.
There are no other researchers or tests as far as I know. Like I said there are many small tests of one off vases. You can even see a guage test done on line before your eyes showing the precision.

View attachment 371597 View attachment 371598 View attachment 371599

Starts at 1.20 minute mark. Now thats a proper social media test. Live on camera for everyone to see.

Login to view embedded media

I disagree. Karoly and the Artifact Foundation, Chris Dunn and team and Max are all doing science. The equipment they have used, the calibration of that equipment, the various methods of testing ie Light Scan, Lazer and Guage sensors and the reports coming from them are science. Theres no spectulation. This is hard data and not spectulations about peoples credibility.
Measures themselves are not science, they speculating on the skills of egyptian artisans is not science.
No sure if you have used all these devices or even understand them. Or actually done tests on vases. Your standing on the sidelines. If you want to dispute the tests then you have to repeat the tests and show how you done it to arrive at a different finding.
I don't need to do anything other than tell them that until they publish their results in peer-reviewed journals all they are doing is conjecture.
Peer review does not make it science. You don't need peer review to confirm that an object measures 5 cm on a ruler. Do you think you need some professor in a tower confirming that the guage measure above is correct. You can get a set of guage sensors and see for yourself. No better evidence.
An object measuring 5 cm is not science.
WE have good providence vases showing precision. This whole thread has become about knocking down logical fallacy. You know very well that vases from Petrie museum tested precise.
According to Max they didn't cluster with the precise vases.
They have been measured in various ways 50 times over. They have been measured properly. And even if we go with the exaggerated slight deviations in some places on the vase. We are talking 2 or 3 thinness of paper. Other parts within a hair thinness. This level of precision has to have been made by a pretty sophisticated lathe. It was not by sticks, flint, chisels and pounders.

We have 3 independent tests and they use the same and different methods. The light scanning is a matter of levels of accuracy. The Artifact group mentions results from the OG vase guage method and that the light scans confirmed and tightened the accuracy. Each method is showing the precision in various ways. None are contradicting each other.
Independent but with overlap in participants.
The trouble is OLga cheated. She actually used the wheel (like a lathe) to get the better precision and only proving that tech is needed to achieve such precision lol.

I don't know what you mean. I am saying as part of being a precision machinist in making parts you have to be able to know the metrology to ensure the parts are precise lol. Its just a given. You don't need an article to prove that.
Metrology is a science in itself, people do science in the field of metrology. If you say some is doing the science of metrology your saying something more than they know how to take a measure. So yes, to be good in the science of metrology you actually need to publish is metrology journals.
If they studied precision tooling and did not teach the science of measuring those precision tools and parts then thats pretty silly.
Taking measures by it self is not the science of metrology.
Most papers don't go into proving the scientists have the equipment or whether they can use them. They just state the equipment, the calibration and the method and findings. Your placing criteria in a paper that is not expected and therefore being bias.
If they publish in metrology journals they go over the equipment and methods in excruciating detail.
If you want to know the specific scientists ability you research the scientist seperately. If you do that you will find he has vast experience and knowledge in metrology. He measures stull all the time even down to the micro level.
He has two peer-reviewed articles, neither of which is in any adjacent field to geomtrical light scanning.
Max does Gamma Spectroscopy, Neutron Detection, Alpha Dection which all require an understanding of metrology. Even more complex than simple vase measures.
Yes, but it is not related to geometry scanning of vases.
I think you will find they are arguing their opinion is the final word lol. When they call the very testers they are disagreeing with whackpos and amateurs this is not about any fair process. They have it in for them because of an ideological belief and not science. You don't call those who scientists disagree with whackos lol.
That depends on how obviously wrong they are, flat earthers are wackos even if they happen to be scientistst.
Like you said you keep quiet about that and just do the science. Prove it with the actual science. That means doing exactly what the testers did. Redo the tests in the proper way they claim and see what findings they get.
No need since they don't seem to want to publish in peer-reviewed journals.
Well we sort of do know the providence. If the Petrie museum thinks they are genuine enough to house them as examples of Egyptian predyanstic vases then thats pretty good support. Many artifacts in museums come from private collectors on loan. .
Yes, and it has been a problem since the advent of modern scientific practices.
Lol so if they don't find the tool or device what then.
Then we will have to live in forever suspense, not speculating on unknown technology X.
That this must mean no advanced method was used. Of course not. NOt finding the method does not negate the method. The method is determined by the signatures. A certain level of precision in symmetry and roundness is commonly associated with lathing. If we don't find a lathe does that mean it was not created by a lathe.
So what are the pairwise likelihood ratios or Bayes factors for using unknown method X vs "ortohodox measures" vs "ortohodox measures" + turntable vs modern fakery?
The problem is we don't find much of any tools and methods fullstop. Even the basic tools. Metals like copper or bronze were reused as it was precisious and useful. BUt if they had some other way we don't understand we would not even know what to look for.
Then we will probably never guess it correctly either, what's the problem?
Yes for specific examples you have to do a thorough investigation into not just the science but also like you said the cultural aspects, the archeology, social and religious aspects. All aspects to understand the culture and their practices and how this relates to the worls they produce.
But like cultural practice and phenomena we can step back and make some general observations. We can say for example that at a certain point in pre history the world was full of Megalithic cultures as we see the massive works. We don't need to prove every single example.
Yes, every single example you say is a product of an megalithic culture needs to be investigated and placed by the best researchers in that field as an megalithic culture work.
We can make hypothesis about the level of knowledge they had at that time which stands out above other periods.
Sitting at home guessing is all good, trying to convince others in the field requires more that that (let's start with peer-review).
Even just investigating the out of place works is enough to warrant further investigation and being open to some sort of alternative knowledge that appears beyond that time. Thats why I think those who immediate cry whacko and conspiracy are actually the non scientist. Because science is full of out of place and contradictory ideas that move it forward. Shutting it down immediate is anti scientific and more a belief.
No one is stopping them.
I have noticed that some are highlighting the less precise specific examples and trying to make out this is the entire vase and therefore not CNC machines. Or exaggerating that less precision when its actually still very good.
Very good, is a very subjective term.
Thats why I say I think a formal and complete retesting is required to properly refute the researchers. All this bits and pieces of complaints on social media are too hard to control and ensure proper methods themselves.
They could just publish it a peer-reviewed journal, you know.
But at the same time I am reducing things to the basics and saying ok lets forget about all the semantics about a few so called imprecise examples. As there are many more precise ones. But forget about all that and the basic idea of whether they had a lathe at all. Or made these by chisels, pounders and rubbing. I think we can say the metrology is precise enough to say a lathe was involved. Its just a case of how sophsiticated.
Your opinion is noted, I don't share it.
Yes the providence again. Thats fair enough. So other vases like the OG have tested precise from the Petrie museum. One I think even more precise than the OG vase. Which sort of lends support for the OG as its not just a one off anymore.

But the problem is like all of us when you challenge the tests your not just making a personal opinion. It has to be qualified. It seems everyone in going crazy about the qualifications of every little thing said by these researchers. But no scrutiny on the people who are questioning their credibility.
They could just publish it a peer-reviewed journal, you know.
You need to support what you said because its actually challenging the testers. In the first example your disputing a measure. But you have provided no support. This is undermining the testers measures. You need to do tests and show how their measures are not reflecting the 3D dimensions of the vase.
I said something about me.
The second one is more a general claim that the formal tests that have been officially published and laid out in academic format are the same as a few sentences on a social media platform. Your word just can't be the evidence. I disagreed and gave the arguement why ie done in academic format, did the tests and explained the steps to get to that specific measures.
They could just publish it a peer-reviewed journal, you know.
They are clearly two different formats. You have not provided any evidence for how they are the same. Just your personal opinion.
They could just publish it a peer-reviewed journal, you know.
Ok well thats a better response. But I think its still out of context. As far as I understand they have done the 3D measure for circularity and concentricity. They even state this. They aim was to prove the precision in the physical 3D vase. Why would they not do this. Are they lying.
That wasn't close to my admittedly badly written objection. Why dont they just use the normal ISO 1101 measure of circularity or roundness?
  • Structured light scanning:
    This process uses structured light to capture the surface of the vases, creating precise 3D models with high resolution (better than a thousandth of an inch).

Like I said I am only trying to apply the same criteria of what is being applied to these tests and researchers. Like proper science if a test or claim is being disputed then they should redo the tests and show how this was wrong. Not pick out bits out of context which misrepresents things.

But with all this fixation on a specific example of a specific example is taking away from the bigger picture.
There's no bigger picture if the constituent parts haven't been criticized and published.
Upvote 0

Filter

Forum statistics

Threads
5,876,617
Messages
65,386,463
Members
276,282
Latest member
TorahobservantSDA