That wasn’t really my point, but ok.
No, a triangular pyramid is 4-sided, and is also known as a tetrahedron.
I believe the historical consensus is that there was very little chattel slavery in the Old Kingdom of Egypt. The pyramids were built by the common people doing draft-labor, and it was actually a kind of jobs-program-with-whips. They got work and food during the summer months, between planting and harvest, when there was little to nothing to be done on their farms.
They lied.
If they admit that normal people could actually build the pyramids, then they have no reason to make their show and they can’t charge sponsors lots of money to run advertising.
The majority of the large blocks used in constructing the pyramids top out at about 2 1/2 tons–a weight that a dozen guys can move along a sleight incline without killing themselves. Larger blocks are included, but they were not lifted by cranes.
They have no “evidence” (supposed or otherwise) that “aliens” had anything to do with it.
. . .
No serious authority believes that any blocks were raised by cranes. It has been the understanding of actual Egyptologists that the blocks were moved up ramps on skids or rollers. As to the tolerances, if they make up a number and take it to some guy with no experience with the actual pyramids, he is going to be “astounded” at the numbers he is handed, but that has no bearing on reality. (Alternatively, if some guy wants to make a few bucks, “testifying” about the amzing tolerances in the pyramid blocks is an easy way to collect a few bucks.) The blocks did have close tolerances, but real archaeologists expect to discover how they were achieved without resorting to woo.
Look up actual Egyptologists at various universities and see how many of them are quoted in the show. (Hint: fewer than 1.) If you want to know about how the pyramids were built, start with L. Sprague deCamp’s The Ancient Engineers and then look up some books by real Egyptologists. You also might want to check out the BBC’s Building the Great Pyramid for more information. (Note that not once do any of the real archaeoloists even consider space aliens; the “scientists” interviewed in your TV show are poseurs.)
When our astronauts get to Alpha Centauri, of course the first thing they’re going to do is teach the natives how to spend 20 Earth years building a giant stone tomb to keep their razor blades sharp.
If the Aliens were here on our beautiful planet they would have taken it for their own. Maybe made it into a vacation planet or something.
One thing it seems to be bad luck to build pyramids or huge monuments to the dead. How many civilizations have died off leaving us these huge stone tombs…
I think that has more to do with being ancient civilizations than with building pyramids. The ancient civilizations that didn’t build pyramids died off too.
OK, how many?
And then compare that to the number of civilization that’ve died off and DIDN’T build pyramids. That’s called using science.
“In Search Of…” was not a documentary.
In addition, Egyptian civilisation lasted some 3000 years after the building of the first pyramid.
Hmm, that’s 1000 years it’s ahead of Christianity…
Oh, yes. Perciful, you asked me to explain a previous remark of mine.
What I mean is that believing in a creation story, usually means you learned this story via religion. So if you are religious and you don’t know any better, you believe in Creation.
Creationism is a different beast. It is a movement that started out with the express goal to disprove evolution.
As this is impossible, of course, the people pushing this have had to turn to playing dirty. You should really have a look sometime at some of their arguments up close, and their debunking. You will come to the conclusion that some, if not most, of their arguments could only have been thought up if they intended
to be dishonest.
Quoted for truth. I have no doubt that the majority of creationists in the flock are earnest. I don’t think there can be any real doubt that some of the authority figures (Gish, Hovind, etc) are knowingly dishonest.
One particular area in which this becomes apparent is the popular creationist tactic of Quote Mining - where a well-known figure such as Darwin, Dawkins, Gould etc is quoted, but the quote is trimmed very carefully out of context, in such a way as to change (often completely reverse) the intended meaning.
It’s possible to misread something and accidentally quote just one little bit and misinterpret the reason… once or twice, but when you make a habit of repeatedly looking for quotes that can be warped to mean something else, it’s dishonest - and unfortunately, it’s a popular tactic with authority figures in mainstream creationism.
They might not be faking their belief in creation, but they cannot be unaware that they are misrepresenting the opinions and statements of their opponents.
You mean the luckless Egyptians? They built the greatest of their pyramids in 2560 BC and their civilization only lasted about another, ooh, 2,300 years, longer than any comparable civilization, like the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, etc etc. I’m not seeing the bad luck there.
I didn’t know they went on that long! Ok better example, The Aztecs, The Mayans, The Easter Islanders. Once flourishing societies that just die off for some unknown reason.
This is CLASSIC. You didn’t know the facts of something you posted AS a fact, so you just…made it up? That’s not how science works.
Once again, many other ancient flourishing civilizations who did not build pyramids also died off. You gonna do that scientific comparison I suggested earlier?
Actually, the reason the Aztec civilization died off is extremely well-known. It’s called Cortez. As for moving those big stone blocks, there’s a fellow in Michigan whose hobby is to move big blocks like that, using ancient technology, single-handedly.
Actually, we know why these civilizations died off. The reasons are complex and multifaceted, but can usually be boiled down to “Spaniards.”
Perciful, this is a very good example of why, despite what you professed earlier in the thread, science is based on facts…
You’ve put forward a hypothesis:
…it seems to be bad luck to build pyramids or huge monuments to the dead…
So we’ve put this to the test, by examining the evidence for various civilisations that did this. Turns out that, for the Egyptians, Mayans and Aztecs at least, bad luck did not, as far as we can tell, play a part in their downfall. Your hypothesis is looking shaky so far.
I’m not aware of what happened to the Easter Islanders, so perhaps you might want to delve into this for homework 
to see if it supports or weakens your hypothesis.
This is science in microcosm - if the evidence had supported your hypothesis, it would have gone some way to convincing me it was valid. But because the evidence contradicted your hypothesis, it didn’t. Note that I haven’t made my decision for personal reasons, but purely by looking at the evidence.
If you’ve read Collapse by Jared Diamond, you’d know this also. It was not bad luck either. Cite.
Perciful, one of the first things you do when writing a dissertation or scientific paper is to research what is already known about the subject. One reason is so you can build on what has already been done, and not explore blind alleys, but another reason is so that you don’t make obvious mistakes like you are making. Do that and your work gets rejected and your credibility is shot to hell.
Every school child knows about Cortez and the Aztecs. A five second Google search could have told you about Easter Island and the Mayans. The fact that you are too lazy to find the reason does not make it unknown.