the kinds of fact tht pyramids were not built by humans are convincing?can anybody support this?
106917
no, they were built by scrab beetles
455080
No, I'm Not. but, here's an interesting theory as to their Guidance System to Find Earth; The Pyramids of the Eastern [Egypt] Hemisphere, and of the Western [Mexico , Central America] Hemisphere are Aligned in Such a Way, and Constructed of the Proper Materials that the Energy of the Earth's Magnetic Poles are Naturally Focused Upon the Pyramid Structures. The Claim is that the Earth Resonates at an Inaudible Frequency of 8 Hz. That, combined with the Polar Magnetic Energy Focused onto all of the Earth's Pyramids Generates a Beam of Energy which can be Detected Far Out into Space, well Beyond Our Solar System. NASA Supposedly has Proof of this from Voyager I and II , which are both beyond our Solar System. Supposedly there is also Proof that if the Pyramids had been only a Few Miles Apart from where they were Built, and not Made of the Same Materials of which they were Built, they would not be able to Emit an Energy Field that can be Detected, Perhaps Light Years beyond Earth! If that's all a Coincidence, along with the Prehistoric Drawings of Space Vehicles found on the Walls of Caves in France, then so be it. Also, Read the Bible, "Ezekiel saw the Wheel, way in the middle of the Air"
552192
How in the world can skeletons be wrong.  I can see actual theories being potentially wrong, because they're just that, theories.  But skeletons?  You can't fake that stuff and get away with it these days!\n\nHowever, in the interests of the question, I'll attempt to find something.\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_java.html -- Definitely in support of the whole "homo erectus was a hominid" thing, but it gives a brief statement as to why creationists USED to use "Java Man" as an example of why they weren't anywhere near hominid.  Interesting.\n\nThis is an interesting list from the "Answers in Genesis" website listing arguments that they don't think creationists SHOULD use in support of creationism.  I wonder what they would say these things do support... http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp#java_man\n\nThis is an article on why the genes of the ancient hominids and ours are related. http://home.entouch.net/dmd/hegene.htm\n\nThis article verifies that scientists have found that homo erectus was a widespread and thoroughly homogenous species that was an obvious precursor to ours: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/03/020325080853.htm\n\nOkay, I think that this article says that they (all of the human fore-species) can all be considered the same species but in different stages of development.  Is that what you were looking for? http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/erectus.asp\n\nHere's more information on Homo Erectus: http://anthropology.net/tags/homo_erectus\n\nHere is an article about Neandertals from the Answering Genesis website: https://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/neandertal.asp\n\nHowever, this article explains the exaggerations that creationists often make in regards to how close the relationship between Neandertals and modern humans is: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_neands.html\n\nAnd here is an article on a breakthrough in mapping out the DNA of the Neandertals that states that they were most definitely a different species from the hominids of the time and from us!  http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wolpoff/Papers/Concocting.PDF#search='neandertal%20AND%20wrong'\n\nI couldn't find anything saying that it was wrong that Cro Magnon man were our closest ancestors; in fact, even the creationists were quiet on that one.  I think it's because Cro Magnon traits can still be seen today, so it's a little hard to disprove.\n\nI hope this helped answer your question, although I'm not sure if I interpreted it correctly or not.
696051
pyramids of egypt\nhanging gardens of babylon\nstatue of zeus\nTemple of Artemis (Diana) at Ephesus \nMausoleum at Halicarnassus \nColossus at Rhodes \nPharos (Lighthouse) of Alexandria \n\nmore explanations:\n\nSince ancient times, numerous “seven wonders” lists have been created. The content of these lists tends to vary, and none is definitive. The seven wonders that are most widely agreed upon as being in the original list are the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, which was compiled by ancient Greek historians and is thus confined to the most magnificent structures known to the ancient Greek world. Of all the Ancient Wonders, the pyramids alone survive. \n\nThe Pyramids of Egypt are three pyramids at Giza, outside modern Cairo. The largest pyramid, built by Khufu (Cheops), a king of the fourth dynasty, had an original estimated height of 482 ft (now approximately 450 ft). The base has sides 755 ft long. It contains 2,300,000 blocks; the average weight of each is 2.5 tons. Estimated date of completion is 2680 B.C. \n\nThe Hanging Gardens of Babylon were supposedly built by Nebuchadnezzar around 600 B.C. to please his queen, Amuhia. They are also associated with the mythical Assyrian queen Semiramis. Archeologists surmise that the gardens were laid out atop a vaulted building, with provisions for raising water. The terraces were said to rise from 75 to 300 ft.\n\nThe Statue of Zeus (Jupiter) at Olympia was made of gold and ivory by the Greek sculptor Phidias (5th century B.C.). Reputed to be 40 ft high, the statue has been lost without a trace, except for reproductions on coins.\n\nThe Temple of Artemis (Diana) at Ephesus was begun about 350 B.C., in honor of a non-Hellenic goddess who later became identified with the Greek goddess of the same name. The temple, with Ionic columns 60 ft high, was destroyed by invading Goths in A.D. 262.\n\nThe Mausoleum at Halicarnassus was erected by Queen Artemisia in memory of her husband, King Mausolus of Caria in Asia Minor, who died in 353 B.C. Some remains of the structure are in the British Museum. This shrine is the source of the modern word mausoleum.\n\nThe Colossus at Rhodes was a bronze statue of Helios (Apollo), about 105 ft high. The work of the sculptor Chares, who reputedly labored for 12 years before completing it in 280 B.C., it was destroyed during an earthquake in 224 B.C.\n\nThe Pharos (Lighthouse) of Alexandria was built by Sostratus of Cnidus during the 3rd century B.C. on the island of Pharos off the coast of Egypt. It was destroyed by an earthquake in the 13th century.
818049
I see a whole lot of people parroting what they've read and seen on TV, but here's an new and original thought for you...What if the blocks weren't pushed, pulled, levitated or moved into position at all?  What if they were "poured" into place as a sort of cement?  Think about it...They would've easily done it level by level, filling any smaller gaps with smaller blocks....\nAnyway, that's the only thing that really makes any sense to me.\nPulleys and levers, ramps..All that stuff has basically been disprove...If they were constructed in either one of those manners, then why can't we reproduce the great Pyramid using the same technology?....We should have pyramids all over the place!!!\nI like my cement theory!
468032
Moses is thus one of the most influential men in human history. Even so, for well over a century, Moses has come under fire from both scholars and clerics. Many challenge the belief not only that Moses performed miracles and led the Israelites out of Egypt but also that he even existed. \n\nAt first glance, such skepticism might seem to have merit. For example, critics observe that archaeological proof has been found to confirm the existence of such Bible personages as Israelite King Jehu, but no archaeological evidence has been found to confirm the existence of Moses. This is hardly proof that Moses is a myth, however. Skeptics once argued that others mentioned in the Bible, such as Babylonian King Belshazzar and Assyrian King Sargon, were likewise myths—until archaeology later confirmed their historicity.\n\nAuthor Jonathan Kirsch reminds us: “The remnants and relics of biblical Israel are so sparse that the utter absence of Moses in any source except the Bible itself is neither surprising nor decisive.” According to Kirsch, some thus argue that it is unlikely that Moses could be a mere figment of someone’s imagination, since “a life story so rich in detail and dialogue, so complex . . . , could not have been made up.”\n\nAs for the lack of archaeological evidence for the wilderness sojourn, we must remember that the Jews were nomads. They built no cities; they planted no crops. Presumably, they left behind little more than footprints. Still, convincing evidence of that sojourn can be found within the Bible itself. Reference is made to it throughout that sacred book. (1 Samuel 4:8; Psalm 78; Psalm 95; Psalm 106; 1 Corinthians 10:1-5) Significantly, Jesus Christ also testified that the wilderness events took place.—John 3:14.\n\nUnquestionably, then, the Bible’s account of Moses is credible, truthful. Even so, he lived a long time ago
879536
No.  There isn't the slightest scrap of evidence that a worldwide flood occurred.  Nor is there any possible physical way to construct a wooden vessel the size described by the Bible without it cracking apart under its own mass in the water.  Nor is there any reaonably possible way for such a vessel to be ventilated by a single tiny window.  Or even have enough for two--or seven--of every species in the world.  Or an even remotely believeable method for a handful of people to actually be able to take care of all the animals aboard the Ark for nearly a year.  \n\nNot to mention the many ancient civilizations like the Chinese and the Summerians who somehow managed to keep right of going and not even notice their own desrtruction.\n\nThe more you look closely at the tale, the more "Godmagic" you have to invoke in your effort to explain away the real-world problems of the story.  Since there's no such thing as magic, it's safe to chaulk the entire story as fiction.  A secondary creationist tale.\n\nBTW:  Yes, there are many civilizations that have tales of floods.  Floods were a near-universal experience for our ancestors, so naturally they would be incorperated into mythologies.  What the Creationists convienently overlook is the wide variety of differences between all the flood stories...the number of survivors ranges from two to entire tribes, the details of the source of the floods and the motives of the gods that cause them are all different, etc...  The only commonality of the tales is the involvment of a lot of water.
1093634
There is no concrete proof.  It may be that the Egyptians deified a wise individual, because they did deify a certain Imhotep, the architect of the Great Pyramids (we have records of him), but that is sheer speculation.  Most Egyptian gods were based on the forces of nature, and Thoth was originally the moon god.
917173
They have pyramids.\n\nCoach
926725
There is considerable evidence -- archaeological, biological, geological, astronomical, cosmological, paleontological -- that shows the biblical account of creation is wrong.\n\nThere is *no* evidence in any scientific discipline that shows the biblical account of creation is correct.\n\nYour point above is just one of many that show how biblical myths came from other cultures -- there are also mythical stories of a garden of "eden", a great flood and a man who built a boat to ride it out, and many others that existed in other cultures (and were written down) in Mesopotamia that pre-date the hebrew stories by centuries or even millenia.  Thinking people, even religious scholars, understand and accept that the biblical stories are just myths and don't ascribe any absolute truth to them, or even attribute them to the hebrews.  Non-thinking people, well, don't think, research, understand -- they just spout dogma.
972764
Well, some basic concepts from the ancient times have been\nGreat Pyramids- represent man honoring king/pharoah\nGreek Parthenon- represent man honoring humanity\nNotre Dam- represent man honoring God\nHope this helps.  My social studies class was talking about this the other day!
1038654
I'm not entirely sure to what it is you're referring.  Most Egyptian pyramids are built of stone blocks or slabs - roughly dressed on the interior and smoothed on the exterior.  Typically the stone is limestone for the exterior, with the occasional use of granite on lower courses.  Interior chambers in the pyramid itself or subterranean chambers were frequently lined with a different type of stone - granite was a popular choice.\n\nThe peaks of the larger (ie. royal) pyramids are now large flat spaces now that stone has been robbed out and the pyramidia (capstones) have been removed.  The capstones, from what we know from contemporary inscriptions and a few examples that have actually been found were essentially little pyramids in miniature, each face was inscribed with the name of the pyramid  - each royal pyramid was named, usually a name including the nomen and/or prenomen of the king for whom it was built.  Additional inscriptions usually concerned the sun god and/or were specific to the cardinal direction that face of the pyramid faced.\n\nIt is extraordinarily unlikely that Egyptian pyramids serve as radio receivers and even more unlikely that they were designed to do so.  They were tombs.
1117259
Yes. Read the story of Noah and the great flood. There are far too many disprepenceis to list here, but I assure you that it can be proven to be untrue.
913342
The same reason we heard FDR bombed Pearl Harbor, fake moon landing, Holocaust was a hoax, Mafia and/or Castro killed JFK, Area 51 reverse engineering of Roswell UFO, and that fossils were a conspiracy propagated by paleontologists.  There's always the feeble minded that will believe anything.  Look at the high percentage of the world (80%) who take as gospel the idea of a supernatural entity without a shred of evidence.
493618
This reasoning is really quite flawed.\nThe piltdown man is not man-made, it is instead the use of two different skeletons (one which is actually a fossil by the way).  Just because the piltdown man is a hoax has absolutely nothing to do with the authenticity of all other fossils.  How do we know the other fossils are real?  That is simple, fossilization is a easily observable and has been so many times and the fossilization process is so easily replicated there is almost an 100% certainty that this could have occur naturally.  Take the sap that comes from trees (the sticky liquid) formation that involves insect.  Has insects been caught in these before?  Of course they have, considering that the sap is most surely strong enough to hold on to an insect.  Also considering the human casts of the citizens of Pompeii during the eruption of Vesuvius.  During the discovery of the city, the people discovered molds from the city.  Do you believe that they were all man made/hoaxes?  Could something similar to that happen organisms from ancient times?  Of course.  Science and logical reasoning indicates that the chances of fossils forming is really quite high.
200642
It seems that anthropologists have bones of austropethicus and ape-like people like the bones of an ape person called "Lucy" The skull cavity was for a large brain but the bone structures were more ape like than human like. There was neanderthal man which was believed to have been exterminated by homo erectus. Also homo habilis. I'm really not sure if people wiped out some smart ape people or if those bones are supposed to be us. But I personally believe humans are not apes. If anything I believe people are more closely related to bears than apes, though genetically speaking I'd be laughed at for that assertion.
723698
IF... and that's a HUGE IF... there are structures or pyramids on Mars, the only explanation would be that some sort of civilization erected those structures.\n\nIn other words, ALIENS.