Wernher von Braun and Intelligent Design in the '70s

Post Reply New Topic

How would you go about scientifically proving, through one of the scientific methods, that the pyramids of Greece had builders who designed them rather than them just being a natural occurrence?

Pyramids of ...Greece?
I took a history of architechure class once, but maybe I was sick for that class. At least I got lucky: there weren't any questions about Grecian pyramids on the test.

Yes, of Greece.

[img][800:675]http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/1295/epicfacepalmbyrjthl.jpg[/img]

We know humans exists, we have some ideas about how those people built the pyramids - within the technology level of the time. There is nothing similar with your magic man theory.

You still haven't responded my post #30.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid#Greece

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCcjW7m8w0w[/youtube]

What? You have a post number 30? So do I, so respond to that since you aren't busy arguing with a multitude.

I'll respond in part to post #30. A loving creator is not something that falls into the scientific method. Since some people can't consider the possibility of something that can't be tested, this post does not apply to them. We can argue points about what the personality of God might be like by examining the universe, but understanding how he can be loving requires seeking to know him. Many people criticize the state of the world, but the truth is that the world is a wreck because God gave us more free will than what is really good for us; not because he made a mistake but because he wanted us to have the free will to love him back 100% voluntarily. Having the capacity to love Him freely requires the capacity to turn around and do the mirror and wreak havoc in their lives and the lives of others. God tends to get used as a very convenient whipping boy for people who are mad about the messes they got themselves into.

Because you can find evidence that pyramids are of human design just as modern buildings and airplanes are of human design rather than being evolved naturally, and there is no need to the appeal of the supernatural for that, and I believe that a biologist can very much explain why such artifacts cannot develop naturally in such form. And given that mankind is responsable for the existence of such artifacts, the existence of mankind can be physically demonstrable.

Unlike the creationist designer, he hasn't been observed nor its existence has been demonstrated physically, and mankind appears to be better at designing, as they seem to have a better concept of aesthetics, apparantely.

Even if we accept the idea of a designer, with the pyramids analogy, there is still the issue, about knowing how the pyramids were actually constructed, the planning, methods used, the time, etc. and not surprising, disagreements would exist regarding the issue, however if evidence is found that favors one way better than alternative ideas, then you get the result.

What of the scientific method though? Observation, hypothesis, experiment, you know? You started with the assertion that the pyramids are of human design, in the same manner as other buildings which are man-made. No, there's no need to appeal to a supernatural cause, as, for one, we're not referring to creation ex nihilo here, but who's to say that the pyramids couldn't form themselves like Giant's Causeway in Ireland did? It could just be a natural formation, right? Or why can it not be?

The designers and builders of the pyramids of Greece, Egypt, Yucatan, Indonesia, etc have never been observed either, and nor are they observable, today.

Archeological evidence, but I'm no archeologist.


hmmm, I would say it may depend on the formation of said pyramid, if the pyramid looks like this:

It is very likely that it didn't come up naturally, however, if I pressume that that wouldn't be enough, so there should be methodologies to follow.


No, they haven't been observed directly, but this is archeology, and the data collected should give you an indication of what took place at the time and by whom, regarding if people involved are dead, but the same species still exist, so we have physical evidence of these beings still existing today. And I pressume that the data collected by archeology would hardly tells us that it was all made by a different species, such as aliens, and wether if all appeared by natural causes, I pressume that other fields can very well determine if that's the case.

And what I said earlier stands, not only is the issue of wether there are designers, but the issue on how the designers made their work and how long it took.



BTW, I hardly doubt your analogy refutes Evolution.

Huh. You learn something every day, I guess. I wouldn't call them pyramids, but that's irrelevant to your point.

As for how you'd prove that they weren't naturally occurring, there are a couple of lines of evidence you could look for to support the hypothesis that the structures were created by a designer:
If the stones were dressed, there will be chisel marks on them and flakes of stone, which will closely resemble chisel marks and flaking patterns on other buildings known to have been built by humans. Humans might be observed shaping stone in a similar manner today (there is a team of rock workers that does beautiful walls in my area, by hand). The style of masonry would match the masonry of other types of buildings of the era and area, being more complex (for example) than earlier-dated cyclopean masonry but less complex than collumned temples.
If built by humans, the stones were likely transported at least a short distance from a quarry; the stone of the building won't match the material of the substrate exactly. Normal discontinuities in substrate are generally signs of geologic faults, but fault activity is unlikely given the regularly stacked pattern of the stones, which would not have survived earthquakes well. There may be surviving evidence of decorations or pigments on the rocks, although given that the much later acropolis shows very little evidence of pigments after much less weathering, the lack is probably not significant.

in other words, the scientific method goes question -> hypothesis -> evidence gathering to support or disprove hypothesis-> present hypothesis and evidence to the community for challenge -> refining or discarding hypothesis/presentation of alternate hypotheses -> evidence gathering -> repeat.

question: how were the structures built?
hypothesis: they were built by humans using the technology available to humans at the time.
How would I support or disprove this hypothesis: look for evidence of human activity in, on, and around the structure, and compare it to other structures known to be of human origin.
challenge: how might the structures be explained by other means? What assumptions are required by the alternate explanation?
etc.

I'm neither an architect nor an archaeologist, so I'm sure that there are obvious things that I'm overlooking; however, I think that it's safe to say that if all of these things were found then the most parsimonious explanation would be that humans built the structure.

There are no natural processes that we know of that fashion giant pyramids at of raw sand and stone.

Prior to the time of humans there were no pyramids or other such structures. After the time of humans there were in addition to which we modern humans build structures on the same design principles as the ancient pyramids and zaggarats. Since modern humans do it, it is a reasonable assumption that humans of the past could and in fact did do it.

It is true that our conclusion that the ancient structures were man-made is an inference, but it is a highly probable and reasonable inference. A lot more reasonable than assuming Intelligen Aliens built them or that a Supreme supernatural creator built them.

Many of the things we accept as known are not directly known. In fact, no one of use knows much directly compared to the things that are know to others and passed by way of witness, recounting, testimony etc.. The human race makes progress on hear say.

ruveyn

I didn't draw your attention to the thread two years ago because it was active for weeks and I thought the title would catch your eye. I know that you noticed the thread in which I wrote about statistical reasoning, because my post was a direct reply to you. But you may have abandoned the thread by then. You did not post in it after my post. If you have read my post now, does it make any difference to your views on hypothesis testing?


How does seeking out design help without a criterion for distinguishing the result of design from the result of natural processes? I still have not seen that criterion anywhere in creationist writing, except for appeals to intuition, claims of irreducible complexity that have been proven wrong, and Dembski's arguments about information that have also been proven wrong.

If you want to make argument that anything designed by an intelligent designer is there for a good reason and is a good or the best possible solution, you have to deal with cases of Unintelligent Design. The usual answer is that if we don't understand it, that only shows how far the designer is beyond our limited intellect. Ragtime liked that one. Your problem then is that ID becomes too vague to have any value at all. If something look good, it shows the design is intelligent, if it looks stupid for a deliberate design, it only shows that the design is so intelligent that we don't get it. Then by definition anything you find in nature becomes an example of intelligent design, and you have no prediction you can make.

This is all well and good, but it is conjecture compared to The Scientific Method. LKL came closer, though, but even that relies more on speculation and circumstantial evidence then it does upon the scientific method.

I certainly believe that they were crafted by humans, but proving it by The Scientific Method is impossible. You are left with only speculation and conjecture, the one of which accepted is the one which you find most acceptable based upon the criteria that one currently values. It works more like a court of law in this regard then it does a laboratory.

Grommit, I get tired of arguing occasionally and sometimes for weeks on end, especially when time consuming things like college homework and wedding planning are in the way. Currently I'm about to re-start college from the break my wife Jacklyn and I took so that we wouldn't go insane.

I'll get back to you later, since your posts on this topic are usually quite more substantial in comparison, especially, to the usual bickering and bemoaning.