Most of the people that have ever lived have never died. Humans live forever.
Dude. I used them both and ended up flipping a coin for could/did. Also, I could switch my argument from Stonehenge to the Great Pyramid and it negates that guys achievement (in the video above he didn’t prove Pyramidal contruction) within the parameters of this debate.
I was trying to not have ten points. I indented one because, since I include it, I can ( andalmost have to) include every other possible point in that direction.
Aside from the logic debate, does Ancient Aliens use murals and old writings to try to justify the theory? I’d assume that they are given the jumping off point from something?
Are you sure? Are there more people alive today than all that have lived in the past?
It reminds me of Heywood Banks “I am older than a lot of famous dead guys. A lot of famous dead guys didn’t live as long as me. Oh, sure they accomplished more in a lot less time. But, they are dead now and what good does that do you?”
Dude. You are in a thread about learning how to debate better. You can either lose the attitude and learn to sharpen your skills and use precise language to articulate what you really mean, or you can just get pissy when someone points out a flaw in your argument in a thread on learning to debate better.
In addition, switching topics would defeat the purpose of the debate. The point is to pick a side and defend it while attacking your opponent’s weaknesses. Changing topics isn’t useful.
If you need 10 premises to prove your case, then use those 10 premises. Choosing to not use even one would mean having a flawed argument. Even if your argument is valid, having incomplete or false premises is not good for logical debate.
I have no idea what you are getting at here.
I have only attacked your arguments and not provided my own for you attack, so I will do so now:
I do not believe a deductive argument can be made to prove that humans built Stonehenge, but I do believe that an inductive argument can be made to strongly suggest that humans did, in fact, create Stonehenge:
- Newgrange, believed to predate Stonehenge, is believed to have needed a workforce of 300 for a period of 20 years in order to construct it.
- This demonstrates that man during this time period was willing to spend an entire generation/lifetime building a large site, and they had the workforce to build it too.
- Wally Wallington demonstrated on his website, The Forgotten Technology, that he was able to recreate a Stonehenge-like structure, and he is now recreating an exact replica by himself without using modern technology.
- That a single man could build Stonehenge with technology available to prehistoric man strongly suggests that a workforce of a few hundred could build Stonehenge in a single generation.
Chill out man. If you think my “attitude” was from the word “Dude.” I said that because I was amazed that you pointed out something that i debated myself about.
I am not going to try to prove ancient aliens. I brought it up because hashem said debate ‘stupid things’ and AA is on the history channel…
Again, I am not trying to “debate” that subject. I, myself, was curious to figure out why History Channel has it on TV because it is so illogical. That is why I would have suggested “switch” the main point to the pyramids; merely something else on the show. So get off your high horse. There was no attitude in my post.
You do that. You find ten premises to try and prove something like ancient aliens. There are literally an infinte amount of them. Like my inquiry as to whether or not they originate in some kind of drawings or writings from ancient times. By including one, I simply open up the door for every infinite instance to be used to tear the proposition down. I wanted to avoid this conversation.
I am simply asking where the foundational reasoning for the show comes from? That infinite list of possibilities…
In response to your strong induction argument. All I can do is attempt to demonstrate it as “weak” instead of “strong.”
First, is there evidence that the creators of Newgrange were not aliens?!?!?
“It is estimated that the construction of the Passage Tomb at Newgrange would have taken a work force of 300 at least 20 years.”
Am i accepting your conclusion here in the premise that humans built this (and/or other megaliths; why I cannot use the pyramids as a counteer example, but you can use this is beyond me. We are both inserting something that is not the subject as “proof” or “evidence” of our points and neither one really resembles the task of erecting Stonehenge…)?
Does it? We cannot verify construction method, or constructors. can we?
Yes. He did however, discover the pivot of massive weight by spinning a rock on concrete. If man cannot lift a giant rock, then it would be difficult to move the rocks with the dual pivot rocks because you would need to place the giant rocks on top of other giant rocks (or maybe flatter smaller rocks) in order to pivot them. Remember the point is to prove how they got the giant rocks onto each other in the first place. I did notice he had some kind of wooden contraption for moving the rocks as well, so I cannot to discount this point entirely.
Pretty much. Although, the time of a generation is arbitrary as demonstrated from points one and two.
Aliens only exist in our mind.
Aliens exist in our mind.
We are aliens.
Humaliens made stonehenge.
Eh, there was also the fact that you were so dismissive about the actual argument (i.e. wanting to just switch to pyramids because Wally Wallington wouldn’t apply to that). But I guess I misunderstood you. My mistake.
Okay. We don’t have to debate about it if you don’t want to, but you did actually attempt to prove it, whether you really care about it or not.
If you really wanted to switch to the pyramids for that reason, then you should have just said so. The reason that you actually provided was “[a]lso, I could switch my argument from Stonehenge to the Great Pyramid and it negates that guys achievement (in the video above he didn’t prove Pyramidal contruction) within the parameters of this debate.”
So don’t get mad at me because you don’t articulate your thoughts clearly.
You were the one who brought up the subject of ten premises. I see no reason why I should have to provide ten premises that prove that ancient aliens built Stonehenge. I’m on the side that they didn’t. If you wanted to avoid this conversation, why did you start it?
I will direct you here to read more about it. Some of the more relevant material:
-
“None of the structural slabs were quarried, for they show signs of having been naturally weathered”.
-
Human corpses had been buried and cremated within Newgrange.
-
“[T]he grave goods that came from Newgrange were typical of Neolithic Irish passage grave assemblages.”
The evidence points to humans having built Newgrange. There is no evidence that Ancient Aliens built Newgrange.
I have touched upon this already, but you did not use the pyramids as a counterexample. From what you wrote, you cited the pyramids so that you could change the argument entirely. But even if you were to try to use the pyramids as a counterexample, they do not change the point of Newgrange, which is that it is possible that humans could be build prehistoric sites. Even if the pyramids were built by ancient aliens, that would not prove that they built Stonehenge. At best, it shows that it is possible, just as Newgrange demonstrates that it is possible that humans were building sites back then.
Archaelogists have found evidence that humans did in fact built Newgrange. Even if it cannot be demonstrated with 100% certainty, the evidence they found shows that it is more than likely. And there exists no evidence that ancient aliens did build it.
He has already erected a mini replica of Stonehenge, and he is working on a full size replica. He is doing this with methods that would have been available when Stonehenge was constructed. And he did this by himself. It should be easier with more people.
True. It could have taken more or less time. Some have postulated that it took as little as five years while others have said that thirty years is more likely.
Does this count? I recently tried doing something like this in the Obamacare thread but I think it can come across as begging for free answers. I’m trying to gauge the proper boundaries of doing this.
ok here is a classic. If you already know the fallacy in this argument don’t spoil it for those that don’t.
Every forum post is the same. One forum post is the same as itself. Assuming that n forum posts are the same as themselves, there exist two sets of n forum posts, each containing n-1 forum posts and another one, that are the same, so if n forum posts are the same n+1 forum posts are the same. Therefore, by proof by induction, all forum posts are the same.