Sunday, December 03, 2006

Ancient Computer

Talk about wisdom of the ancients! Here's an article about a 2,100 year old "computer"!!!!

Yep...check it out at

Pretty cool...Steve


Austin said...

Those with an evolutionary worldview always assume that people living thousands of years ago were somehow less intelligent than us, because they were "less evolved".

But they run into a huge stumbling block when they realize just how intelligent the ancients were. It's amazing. This article you linked is proof.

The reason they didn't have our technology is because they didn't have thousands of years of knowledge to draw from. We have a foundation, set by those ancients, who were supposed to be so stupid. But really, we would not have our technology if they had not been as brilliant as they were.

Some ancient Greek mathematicians measured the circumference of the earth (yes, the ancients knew the earth was round, contrary to much propaganda. Some even knew that the earth revolved around the sun, and not vice versa) and the distance from the earth to the moon. And you know what? Their calculations were almost perfectly accurate!

The ancient Indians (from India, not America) had plumbing and hot and cold running water!

Primitive indeed!

Evolutionists: 0
Creationists: well, a lot

Have you seen the commercials where they say "So easy, a cave man could do it!" and then a cave man shows up and gets angry? That's what I'm talking about! The company probably thinks it's just a joke, but they're actually quite right. The cave men were ordinary human beings. There is no difference between them and us, and evolutionists have not managed to prove that there is.

Rubies&Sapphires said...


This is such a good point. Unfortunately I know evolutionary scientists who know about how smart the ancients were, yet they still argue that that has nothing to do with the Evolution/Creation debate. Evolution simply cannot be real because it ISN'T HAPPENING today! What...did it just suddenly stop when humans came about?

Yet, they call themselves scientists and "thinkers." It seems so obvious...

Austin said...

They would probably say that we don't observe it because the process is so slow. And actually, this is a reasonable argument on their part, because they've always held evolution to be a long process.

They might also point to the Komodo Dragon, two females of which recently began reproducing without males, something they've never been able to do before to our knowledge. They might claim that that's observing evolution today.

Rubies&Sapphires said...

Excellent point, my friend! You are right that evoltution would take an amazingly long amount of time, but the changes between us today and our fellow humans 6000 years ago do not appear that different at all (as evidenced by archeological findings). One might argue that societies are more advanced today, but this is an argument that could be taken a few different ways.

Your Komodo Dragon story is very interesting, but I think that bisexual animals are not unknown. So, their acts of reproduction are still sexual by definition, and the acts of these dragons would in no way counteract the Genesis account or rules for reproduction. Even though the scenario could be used by Evoltuionists in order to prove one theory or another, the fact remains that these lizards are freaks in the sense that they are uncommon. And we really have no reason to suspect (or suggest) that bisexual animals were any more common 6,000 or six billion years ago.

Austin said...

I didn't mean that the dragons reproduced with their own gender, I meant that they reproduced entirely by themselves with no help from any other animal. This is quite common in some animals such as certain snakes and such, but these dragons have only demonstrated the ability in a few rare instances.

Rubies&Sapphires said...

Yes, I understood this. I meant just what you said. There are many flowers that also contain both the reproductive "organs" (if we may use that term with a flower) needed to breed and reproduce.

Don't worry, no confusion here, brother! :)

Austin said...

Yeah, but Christians could counter that plants are not real "life" in the Bible's sense of the word because they don't breathe.

Rubies&Sapphires said...

Well, Austin, I see no reason to believe that plants are not real "life." They do breathe, and they are part of God's living creation. However, this is simply a point of preference.

Honestly, I do not see that the Komodo Dragons we discussed earlier (or the flowers just mentioned) prove creation false anymore than they prove evolution false/correct. This was the point of my statement. Both cases are still well within the natural world as defined by the Genesis account.