To be technical, they really only had to dig up those big stone blocks.
Posted on 08/22/2008 6:29:13 PM PDT by Ron Jeremy
To be technical, they really only had to dig up those big stone blocks.
Socialist idiots.
The pyramid blocks were almost certainly poured; you’d waste 80% of the material trying to carve them, even if you had the infinite time and manpower to do it. Wagons full of stone from quarries were hauled to the site and emptied into frames, and then some sort of liquid bonding agent was poured into the frame and topped off. The close fits of the blocks are from the use of the frames and not from carving with infinite resources.
Oh, yeah, the two things you have in Africa which would be useful for hauling wagons like that are elephants and buffalo. I doubt they’d have used dinosaurs even if they’d had them.
Vince Fenech is a nut. He teaches his students that Malta’s joining the European Union in 2003 was predicted in Holy Scripture. He’s also a rabid anti-Catholic - and in a Catholic country that can make you nuts I suppose.
stupid.
Anytime you pour slurry to make something there will be spillover. Is there evidence of this anywhere?
Considering that the building stone geology (under a microscope) in the pyramids is strongly in tune with the makeup (particle alignment, etc.) of the surrounding virgin stone from the queries, I doubt “pouring” was the method used. Just MHO.
That one is so silly that even Answers in Genesis advises against using it. Source
And dinosaurs cavorting about with humans is even sillier.
They’ve found human hair, pieces of rope etc. inside the blocks.
Sure they could have. There was a documentary on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW1nlJUxa9I
There is no shortage of artwork from prehistoric times showing clearly recognizable dinosaur types and that includes Ica stones, Amerind petroglyphs and other categories of things, and there might have been a handfull of dinosaur holdouts after the flood... But the basic reality is that dinosaurs lived before the flood and the pyramids were built after it.
The word "dinosaur" was coined in 1842, and before that the animals described were called... Regardless of your belief system, one still has to explain the myriad of ancient references to "dragons". One's view of origins greatly influences how they interpret any evidence of man's coexisting with dinosaurs, such as ancient reliefs, the Ica stones, all of the "mythology" concerning dragons, etc.
Any references? Not doubting your word, but Internet, book or other references for me to investigate would be great. ;-)
And we draw pictures of them now, despite the fact that we don't live with them. Why then would the fact that people 3,000 years ago drew dinosaurs mean that they lived with them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.