I know just about everyone has been taught (indoctrinated) that Stonehenge was a structure intentionally caused by humans thousands of years ago. They have found a few tools that they claim had been used to create Stonehenge but they could have been used to shape an existing formation into Stonehenge. Is it reasonable to think humans at that time with virtually no tools could have heaved stones that weigh several tons on top of other stones that weigh 20-30 tons? The only reason anyone believes that tale is because they have been indoctrinated since knee high to believe it.
Now, I’m not saying Stonehenge was caused unintentionally by natural forces… I’m just claiming I lack the belief it was intentionally caused and the onus is on those who claim it was intentionally caused to provide demonstrable evidence in favor of their far fetched claim. I lack belief due to lack of evidence. Don’t ask for evidence it was unintentionally caused because as everyone knows…you can’t prove a negative. Go prove there isn’t a teacup circling Jupiter if you think you can.
I will offer a just so story based on the mere possibility it could have happened. A meteor about the size of Stonehenge may have landed about 20,000 years ago and heaved stones up around the circle of what is Stonehenge today. A huge flood of water pushed stones up and around the perimeter and unintentionally set the main stones up right. Later a more meteors heaved lighter stones on top of the upright stones. Circle is easy to explain. Nature creates circles all the time. Stars are giant circles as are planets.
Indoctrinated people bring up the fact the stones appear to have been meticulously placed with precision. Obviously these people never heard of the puddle analogy. Imagine a puddle thinks to itself I fit into this puddle perfectly yet no one caused it to fit perfectly.
Lastly given such a huge universe and nearly unlimited planets a Stonehenge is bound to appear given unlimited opportunities for it to occur.
You begin by assuming indoctrination is the only reason somebody would believe that humans created Stonehenge. What if I believe it was assembled by humans because I just find that likelier? Maybe we didn’t recover all of the tools or something? Your assertion seems calculated; if you actually could disprove that Stonehenge was created by humans in some way, then you would just do it. There would be no argument.
Then you claim you just lack belief and thus are insulated because one cannot be reasonably asked to prove a negative. People prove negatives all of the time. I mean, you appear to attempt to do it in a counterexample to the position you claim is only accepted due to indoctrination—even if your counterexample is just a “story”. If you think a decisive counterexample could exist then you are admitting that, on some level, your position could hypothetically be proven, and therefore I think it is not right to put the burden entirely on the other side.
And just because you cannot possibly have knowledge of the exact natural means by which Stonehenge could have unintentionally occurred, that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have to be able to produce at least one such credible account if you want to claim that that is one way it could have happened. This:
is not credible.
A puddle, by nature of being a puddle, fits into itself perfectly, yes. Rocks that are assembled in an incredibly unlikely formation that looks like it was done by humans is different. Rocks don’t adopt those positions due to some property they have—but rather must almost certainly be assembled in some way.
Okay, sure, but there is no reason to believe Stonehenge would naturally manifest on our planet because even given nearly unlimited instances of opportunities for it to happen, it is still distributed such that it is rare. Furthermore, in every instance in which a Stonehenge could occur, it could occur due to the more likely explanation of the actions of intelligent beings. And since the burden appears to also be on you to explain Stonehenge, you need more than just appeals to “indoctrination” or whatever to counter that explanation.
I know your argument is probably insincere and all that, but I have nothing better to do than take it seriously.
You’re probably one short leap of attributing the arrangement of Stonehenge to aliens at this point.
Your theory posits it entirely to some accidental occurrence completely removing human involvement and all you’ve presented appears to be a conspiracy theory more than anything … my take on its creation is that we give earlier humans less credit then they deserve, we essentially have the same intellectual capacities as them all that’s changed since then is the development of technology and tools and though the achievement and feat of building Stonehenge might seem too improbable to be attributed to humans, it is … the alternative which you’ve proposed is too ridiculous to be taken seriously.
Seeing as the development of Stonehenge and Pyramids overlap… I’m curious to know what theory you propose on their erection … for you seem to be downplaying human ingenuity here to fit your conspiracy agenda
What I find unreasonable is the idea that a creature like human, with hands heavily optimised for using tools, can develop from an animal that isn’t already an adept tool user.
So you’re denying evolution? I think the problem here can be framed in reverse, we design tools to fit our anatomy. Intelligence then is really what separates us from other primates and animals… that and the invention of language to coordinate and accommodate a larger society.
You begin by assuming indoctrination is the only reason somebody would believe that humans created Stonehenge.
Not the only reason just a reason.
What if I believe it was assembled by humans because I just find that likelier?
I’d point out that is what you’ve always been told to believe and your disbelief it was unintentionally caused is due to personal incredulity. You just can’t imagine how natural forces caused Stonehenge to exist.
Your assertion seems calculated; if you actually could disprove that Stonehenge was created by humans in some way, then you would just do it. There would be no argument. Then you claim you just lack belief and thus are insulated because one cannot be reasonably asked to prove a negative. People prove negatives all of the time.
It’s a ridiculous claim but tell atheists who use this argument frequently. By golly if its good enough for them its good enough for me.
A meteor about the size of Stonehenge may have landed about 20,000 years ago and heaved stones up around the circle of what is Stonehenge today.
is not credible.
Its more credible than the claiming some supermen existed who could muscle 40 ton rocks into place. Have you even seen a cauldron formed from a volcano that sunk and filled with water? You’ve seen the big meteor impact crater in Arizona. I’m using my imagination as a substitute for facts and data.
And don’t forget you’re making the positive claim so the onus is on your to prove Stonehenge was intentionally caused by super men.
And since the burden appears to also be on you to explain Stonehenge, you need more than just appeals to “indoctrination” or whatever to counter that explanation.
which traits are you implying here?… we both accept that evolution takes time and doesn’t happen overnight so the selective pressures were cumulative and purposeless… so from this point of view our features are a result of blind chance to the demands of nature at a given point in time.
we essentially have the same intellectual capacities as them all that’s changed since then is the development of technology and tools and though the achievement and feat of building Stonehenge might seem too improbable to be attributed to humans, it is … the alternative which you’ve proposed is too ridiculous to be taken seriously.
Is the proposal the universe, mind and life was unintentionally caused by natural forces ‘too ridiculous to be taken seriously’?
Like if you dropped a bomb on a field, it might build a village.
Or just like if natural forces unintentionally caused a universe to exist it might cause all the conditions for life and mind to occur also for no particular reason.
When I read your OP, I thought, this poster is trying to use Stonehenge as an analogy to debunk the biological evolution of life by means of natural selection.
One red flag was your repeated use of the word “caused” - you state that Stonehenge was caused - but it wasn’t caused, it was built.
An entirely different process - evolution by means of natural selection - over a period of billions of years - resulted in the great diversity of life on this planet.
It seems your criticism of the idea of evolution by means of natural selection is that no “unintentional” process could result in complex life.
Learning the basics of the theory of evolution - which is learning, not indoctrination - may shed light on your dilemma.
That is a laughable effort to press an onus of proof claim in the wrong direction. That it could have been the result of natural forces is what is far fetched. You’re trolling