Intelligent Design.

[TheMathGuy]

The recent discussion of intelligent design has got me thinking. Not so much about evolution and whatnot, but rather an interesting question it raises. Concerning things which humans design (so there is no question as to whether or not they were designed), how much about the intelligence of the designer can you infer from what has been designed? That is, how much of a good design is serendipitous and how much is due to intelligence? For that matter, what does it mean for a person to be "intelligent"?

[JGL53]

If the various species on earth were designed then the supernatural designer is a piss poor designer. There are hundreds of examples of jerry-rigged body designs, e.g., the panda's "thumb".

God is an incompetent fool or god doesn't exist. Pick one.

[untermensche]

The recent discussion of intelligent design has got me thinking. Not so much about evolution and whatnot, but rather an interesting question it raises. Concerning things which humans design (so there is no question as to whether or not they were designed), how much about the intelligence of the designer can you infer from what has been designed? That is, how much of a good design is serendipitous and how much is due to intelligence? For that matter, what does it mean for a person to be "intelligent"?
First of all, if you find something that is designed, you have no idea how many intelligences were involved.

Very few things are designed by one intelligence alone.

Most advancements are made from the shoulders of previous designers.

[RexT]

The recent discussion of intelligent design has got me thinking. Not so much about evolution and whatnot, but rather an interesting question it raises. Concerning things which humans design (so there is no question as to whether or not they were designed), how much about the intelligence of the designer can you infer from what has been designed? That is, how much of a good design is serendipitous and how much is due to intelligence? For that matter, what does it mean for a person to be "intelligent"?
Well, you are asking three separate, yet related questions. I suppose I will take your first question. If you were an amoeba, you could not infer very much about designers from their designs. If you were a wasp, and you came upon a wasp nest, you could infer that it was built by another wasp, and you would infer the intent of the builder. The point I am trying to make is that, it depends on your own intelligence as to what you can infer about the intelligence of others. A skilled designer could infer a geat deal more about another designer than could a layperson.

This raises the possibility that few if any humans could infer much of anything about the designer of life forms, assuming they were designed. Organisms appear designed, but that in itself may no be proof that they were. On the other hand, if a human comes upon something that was designed by another human, it can be infered to a high degree of probability that it was in fact designed by another human, presuming the object in question is within the normal abilities of humans to design and build.

If for example, we came upon a UFO that was flying in a manner that no known human designed craft could, we might imagine that it was designed by aliens, and we would likely infer a supperior intelligence or a more evolved technology. Of course, we could not be sure, since it is possible that it could belong to a secret government project or perhaps a foreign country. I personally wonder about the great pyramid in Giza; it seems beyond the abilities of ancient people. I would like to believe that Egyptians designed and built such a thing, yet I am not convinced. Thus, it is difficult for me to infer much of anything about its architect.

Rex

[Smullyan-esque]

If the various species on earth were designed then the supernatural designer is a piss poor designer. There are hundreds of examples of jerry-rigged body designs, e.g., the panda's "thumb".

God is an incompetent fool or god doesn't exist. Pick one.

That's not what the original poster is talking about! (sheesh! even people on my own side suffer from kneejerkitis)

The original post was talking about things that we KNOW are designed, like the stupid case that holds my computer, where the holes for the screws in the cover don't line up with the threaded holes in the case itself. Things like that, where we make judgements about the intelligence of the designer based on the efficacy of the design.

MathGuy, I think we CAN make inferences about the intelligence of the designer of a product based on the quality of the resulting product. When it all works really, really well, we infer that the designer was very intelligent. (Or, to be more realistic, it implies that whoever was in charge of the design team knew how to get the most out of their designers.) When even a casual observation reveals glaring flaws in the design, we infer that the designer was either: 1) totally stupid, or 2) not putting their attention where it should have been.

Yes, sometimes serendipity plays a role, but I bet its less often than you might imagine.

[mattikake]

The original post was talking about things that we KNOW are designed, like the stupid case that holds my computer, where the holes for the screws in the cover don't line up with the threaded holes in the case itself. Things like that, where we make judgements about the intelligence of the designer based on the efficacy of the design.


Interesting example.

A computer case is mass produced by industrialsation, in a capitalist world for a profit - it's purpose is not actually to be a "good" product. The intelligence of the design may be sound, but the intelligence and consistency of the production is clearly pathetic, though this would be a product of our civilisation. So using that example you could only conclude that the there is very little intelligence "in" how our civilisation operates.

(NB: rhetorical statement. I reckon capitalism sux and will twist anything to help others see it. ;) )

[JGL53]

That's not what the original poster is talking about! (sheesh! even people on my own side suffer from kneejerkitis)...

- No insult intended to the original poster. I was just pointing out the options available - and the difficulty presented by any actually existing omnipotent omniscient personal god - i.e., the theodicy problem.

[dongiovanni1976x]

Interesting example.

A computer case is mass produced by industrialsation, in a capitalist world for a profit - it's purpose is not actually to be a "good" product. The intelligence of the design may be sound, but the intelligence and consistency of the production is clearly pathetic, though this would be a product of our civilisation. So using that example you could only conclude that the there is very little intelligence "in" how our civilisation operates.

(NB: rhetorical statement. I reckon capitalism sux and will twist anything to help others see it. ;) )
:D I had to laugh...interesting discussion.

[Wads4]

Well, you are asking three separate, yet related questions. I suppose I will take your first question. If you were an amoeba, you could not infer very much about designers from their designs. If you were a wasp, and you came upon a wasp nest, you could infer that it was built by another wasp, and you would infer the intent of the builder. The point I am trying to make is that, it depends on your own intelligence as to what you can infer about the intelligence of others. A skilled designer could infer a geat deal more about another designer than could a layperson.

This raises the possibility that few if any humans could infer much of anything about the designer of life forms, assuming they were designed. Organisms appear designed, but that in itself may no be proof that they were. On the other hand, if a human comes upon something that was designed by another human, it can be infered to a high degree of probability that it was in fact designed by another human, presuming the object in question is within the normal abilities of humans to design and build.

If for example, we came upon a UFO that was flying in a manner that no known human designed craft could, we might imagine that it was designed by aliens, and we would likely infer a supperior intelligence or a more evolved technology. Of course, we could not be sure, since it is possible that it could belong to a secret government project or perhaps a foreign country. I personally wonder about the great pyramid in Giza; it seems beyond the abilities of ancient people. I would like to believe that Egyptians designed and built such a thing, yet I am not convinced. Thus, it is difficult for me to infer much of anything about its architect.

Rex

Doesn't the existence of mastaba tombs, the step pyramid, the bent pyramid and the collapsed pyramid suggest anything to you about the probable evolution of pyramid -building capability, culminating in the great pyramid? That seems fairly convincing to me.

[Worldtraveller]

I asked the question from a slightly different perspective here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=177830). That might give a little insight...or lead to more questions. :)

Cheers,
Lane

[Craigart14]

Interesting example.

A computer case is mass produced by industrialsation, in a capitalist world for a profit - it's purpose is not actually to be a "good" product. The intelligence of the design may be sound, but the intelligence and consistency of the production is clearly pathetic, though this would be a product of our civilisation. So using that example you could only conclude that the there is very little intelligence "in" how our civilisation operates.

(NB: rhetorical statement. I reckon capitalism sux and will twist anything to help others see it. ;) )

Many other forces besides the designer's intelligence factor into the resulting product. People have been building computer cases for thirty years or so now, so you would think the design might be improved. However, if it were to be changed very much, a lot of other components wouldn't fit, so if you wanted to build and sell computers using hard drives, sound cards, motherboards, etc. developed by other manufacturers, you couldn't use a new case design, no matter how good it was. Sort of like the Dvorak keyboard. Clearly a better design, but few people want to learn how to type all over again or try to hire typists trained in Dvorak. Sometimes the market dictates the design, making it impossible to incorporate improvements. It wouldn't matter much what economic system you were working with; people wouldn't want to go to the expense and effort of changing to a new design, even if they could type three times as fast with 95% less effort and no risk of carpal tunnel

The endless comparisons between human designed objects and the natural products of "intelligent design," though, all pass over one obvious difference. We can readily observe living, organic material growing, evolving, mating, etc. Someone please show me an example of plastic, aluminum, steel, and glass evolving into a pocket watch. You can start by showing me these substances occurring naturally, or evolving into the alloys necessary. Hell, I would settle for a video of two Corvettes mating--if I can have the pick of the litter.

Craig

[RexT]

Doesn't the existence of mastaba tombs, the step pyramid, the bent pyramid and the collapsed pyramid suggest anything to you about the probable evolution of pyramid -building capability, culminating in the great pyramid? That seems fairly convincing to me.
Based on what I have read, the great pyramid is the oldest, the others were feeble attempts to emulate it. What does that suggest to you?

Rex

[untermensche]

Based on what I have read, the great pyramid is the oldest, the others were feeble attempts to emulate it. What does that suggest to you?

Rex
You have not been reading reliable sources.

[RexT]

You have not been reading reliable sources.
That is always a possibility.

Rex

[Wads4]

Based on what I have read, the great pyramid is the oldest, the others were feeble attempts to emulate it. What does that suggest to you?

Rex

It suggests to me that you have been deceived by reading some crank pyramid literature, of which there is much. Mastabas are early mudbrick precursors of all pyramids. The first pyramid was of the 3rd dynasty king Zoser (Djoser) you piled some mastabas of decreasing size on top of each other,-in stone. Zoser's architect was Imhotep, and the Step pyramid is the worlds oldest stone structure. Then came Snoferu the first king of the 4th dynasty, who also tried his hand, but the first effort failed and became the "collapsed pyramid", then he tried again, and produced the bent pyramid. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th kings of the 4th dynasty, Khufu (Cheops), Khafra )Chephren), and Men-Kau-Re (Mycerinus),--produced the great Pyramid, the Second and third(much smaller) pyramids respectively,-at Gizah. Afterwards as you say, there were poor quality imitations, until the collapse of the Old Kingdom. More pyramids were built in the 12th dynasty Middle Kingdom. So you see the gradual evolution of pyramid design during the 3rd and 4th dynasty.
I believe this account is the authentic version, rather than some New Age nonsense, which would have you believe that the Great pyramid was built de novo, by aliens, God, or the Israelites.

[RexT]

It suggests to me that you have been deceived by reading some crank pyramid literature, of which there is much. Mastabas are early mudbrick precursors of all pyramids. The first pyramid was of the 3rd dynasty king Zoser (Djoser) you piled some mastabas of decreasing size on top of each other,-in stone. Zoser's architect was Imhotep, and the Step pyramid is the worlds oldest stone structure. Then came Snoferu the first king of the 4th dynasty, who also tried his hand, but the first effort failed and became the "collapsed pyramid", then he tried again, and produced the bent pyramid. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th kings of the 4th dynasty, Khufu (Cheops), Khafra )Chephren), and Men-Kau-Re (Mycerinus),--produced the great Pyramid, the Second and third(much smaller) pyramids respectively,-at Gizah. Afterwards as you say, there were poor quality imitations, until the collapse of the Old Kingdom. More pyramids were built in the 12th dynasty Middle Kingdom. So you see the gradual evolution of pyramid design during the 3rd and 4th dynasty.
I believe this account is the authentic version, rather than some New Age nonsense, which would have you believe that the Great pyramid was built de novo, by aliens, God, or the Israelites.
Yeah, I admit that my knowledge of Egypt's history is poor, yet, truth is that no one knows how the great pyramid was built. I have seen images of it and its sheer size and design, the weight of some of its stones and the percision of some of its parts, especially the granite coffer suggest a technology and tools that were beyond ancient people. Of course, their math and know-how may have been underestimated. I do not believe it was built by aliens, but something still does not add up. We do not have the full picture, that is what I believe.

Rex

[Wads4]

Yeah, I admit that my knowledge of Egypt's history is poor, yet, truth is that no one knows how the great pyramid was built. I have seen images of it and its sheer size and design, the weight of some of its stones and the percision of some of its parts, especially the granite coffer suggest a technology and tools that were beyond ancient people. Of course, their math and know-how may have been underestimated. I do not believe it was built by aliens, but something still does not add up. We do not have the full picture, that is what I believe.

Rex

Yes it is a fantastic structure; but Egypt was a highly organised, centralised monarchy ruled by a God-king, and they had nothing much else to do but spend about 22 years being employed to work on the King's tomb, while the fields were Nile-flooded, and there was nothing else to do. I believe some of the stones are inscribed with the quantities of onions fed to the labourers who worked in shifts. Mainly copper tools were used to shape the stones,-and required constant sharpening. Granite blocks would have taken at lot of work, but the lime-stone casing cover slabs were softer to work. Ramps , levers and small cranes would probably have sufficed to lift the stones up to higher levels. Consider also, the massive underground rock-cut tombs, and the hugh temples which came later; did they also have a mystical origin?--and as I mentioned earlier, there was a clear evolution of experimental proto-pyramids which lead up to the big one. After the Gizeh pyramids I believe political decline set in, and the workers probably went on strike. I can imagine a scenario in which the Chief Foreman goes to the Vizier and says "no more pyramids!--we've had it up to here with pyramids".

[RexT]

Yes it is a fantastic structure; but Egypt was a highly organised, centralised monarchy ruled by a God-king, and they had nothing much else to do but spend about 22 years being employed to work on the King's tomb, while the fields were Nile-flooded, and there was nothing else to do. I believe some of the stones are inscribed with the quantities of onions fed to the labourers who worked in shifts. Mainly copper tools were used to shape the stones,-and required constant sharpening. Granite blocks would have taken at lot of work, but the lime-stone casing cover slabs were softer to work. Ramps , levers and small cranes would probably have sufficed to lift the stones up to higher levels. Consider also, the massive underground rock-cut tombs, and the hugh temples which came later; did they also have a mystical origin?--and as I mentioned earlier, there was a clear evolution of experimental proto-pyramids which lead up to the big one. After the Gizeh pyramids I believe political decline set in, and the workers probably went on strike. I can imagine a scenario in which the Chief Foreman goes to the Vizier and says "no more pyramids!--we've had it up to here with pyramids".
I see nothing mystical about the politics that likely ended the era of pyramid building. What seems mystical is how the great pyramid could have been built in 22 years. There were about 2.5 million stones in the structure, the least weighing about two tons and the heaviest weighing about 50 tons.

Let us do some simple math and we will find that in order to complete the pyramid in 22 years, that is 8,030 days and assuming that work was done 7 days a week, 365 days a year without interruption, which seems highly improbable, but even given this, it would have required the percision cutting, transporting and setting into position 311 blocks each day. If that sounds reasonable to you, then you know little about construction. The great pyramid was not carelessly thrown together as were the other pyrimids; its foundation was leveled to within two tenths of an inch over 700 feet, the length of its base. Even modern buildings using percision instruments are seldom within two inches over such distances. So one might ask, why the need for such incredible percision and how was it accomplished.

A more realistic estimate of block positioning would give an avarage of closer to 10 blocks per day, which would have required a little over 600 years to finish the job. Surely, no Pharaoh would build a tumb for himself that he would have to wait that long, and 22 years is just plain naive.

Nevertheless, setting aside such matters; it is really the percision craftmanship that seems the most improbable. Copper tools could have carved limestone, but not granite. Yet, even if copper could have scratched the granite, it surely could not have cut the inner walls of the kings sarcophagus, which have been measured to within .002 of an inch if one places a straight edge along any wall. Again, why the percision and how was it done?

Well, this could get rather long, but suffice to say that anyone beliving that the great pyramid was built in 22 years using copper tool is just naive. I do not know how it was built, but I know how it was not built. Anyway, if you want to believe the official line then have at it, I know better, and until someone comes up with a convincing explanation for the percision, which no one has yet done, I will continue to wonder and be amazed.
Read this article (http://www.lauralee.com/chrisdunn/article.htm)By Christopher P. Dunn (http://www.lauralee.com/chrisdunn/article.htm), and if you still believe such work could have been done by hand using primitive copper tools, then please explain why. I am not sold on The Giza Power Plant theory, but I am convinced that primitive humans did not build the great pyramid.

Rex

[TheMathGuy]

Hell, I would settle for a video of two Corvettes mating--if I can have the pick of the litter.

Now that would be a sight to see! I can remember one time my sister and I were parked in two parking spaces facing each other waiting for the rest of our party to come out of the store (which includes my brother who has a habit of taking forever to decide to be done already!). So we got bored and flashed our turn signals/headlights at each other, and then revved our engines and took turns inching our respective vehicles forward in a mock game of "chicken". Well, as you can guess, eventually the two cars were in contact with each other, license plate to license plate. Well when the rest of our party came out of the store, we couldn't resist pointing to the two cars and saying "Look guys! We found out the Torus and Elantra have a love interest in each other!":p To which my brother just looks at us and rolls his eyes! :rolleyes:

[TheMathGuy]

One thing I've noticed "ID" proponents like to point to is complexity. Funny thing is, what seperates a good design from an excellent one is that an excellent design is as simple as it can be while still fufilling it's purpose. Unnecessary complexity is generally frowned upon in design. Certain discoveries may be serendipitous when a design is being thought up, but I think the place where intelligence comes in is in evaluting the proposed designs, testing them for problems and fixing them, and making improvements to the design. To give an example from my own area of expertise--a well designed computer program is not only fast and efficient, but the writers will also have thought of everything that can possibly go wrong (computer runs out of memory, I type in "a" when the program is looking for a number, etc.) and designed the program to handle such situations. A well designed laptop can fall off a table and most likely still run correctly. A poorly designed laptop will be turned on in a moving vehicle (such as a car) and the hard drive can become corrupted, or some internal component can shake loose.

[Philo_66]

One thing I've noticed "ID" proponents like to point to is complexity. Funny thing is, what seperates a good design from an excellent one is that an excellent design is as simple as it can be while still fufilling it's purpose. Unnecessary complexity is generally frowned upon in design. Certain discoveries may be serendipitous when a design is being thought up, but I think the place where intelligence comes in is in evaluting the proposed designs, testing them for problems and fixing them, and making improvements to the design. To give an example from my own area of expertise--a well designed computer program is not only fast and efficient, but the writers will also have thought of everything that can possibly go wrong (computer runs out of memory, I type in "a" when the program is looking for a number, etc.) and designed the program to handle such situations. A well designed laptop can fall off a table and most likely still run correctly. A poorly designed laptop will be turned on in a moving vehicle (such as a car) and the hard drive can become corrupted, or some internal component can shake loose.
I'm a sofware engineer by profession. I agree with your analysis on what's good design. However... what I've discovered in the past 28 years I've been working with computers is that we simply do not start from scratch on each new design. The way it works is that we take an existing product and add new functionality to it.

It's a very perplexing problem. I can think about the best way to design the new feature that is to be added, but when I go to the existing design I often see that it's simply not feasible without re-designing the existing product. When I explain this to management they usually get a little edgy. So, ultimately, we end up doing exactly what Mother Nature has done in evolution--something less than ideal but workable with the existing design.

Unfortunately 'bad' design is not proof of 'no designer'.

Phil

[RexT]

I'm a sofware engineer by profession. I agree with your analysis on what's good design. However... what I've discovered in the past 28 years I've been working with computers is that we simply do not start from scratch on each new design. The way it works is that we take an existing product and add new functionality to it.

It's a very perplexing problem. I can think about the best way to design the new feature that is to be added, but when I go to the existing design I often see that it's simply not feasible without re-designing the existing product. When I explain this to management they usually get a little edgy. So, ultimately, we end up doing exactly what Mother Nature has done in evolution--something less than ideal but workable with the existing design.

Unfortunately 'bad' design is not proof of 'no designer'.

Phil
You make great points!

Why reject the idea of a designer simply because the design is undergoing evolutionary improvements, which is exactly what we see in nature. To quote TheMatheGuy,

"I think the place where intelligence comes in is in evaluting the proposed designs, testing them for problems and fixing them, and making improvements to the design."

In other words, nature is intelligent since it is constantly seeking ways to test and improve itself, not unlike a mindful individual desiring to be the best he or she can be.

Rex

[untermensche]

In other words, nature is intelligent since it is constantly seeking ways to test and improve itself, not unlike a mindful individual desiring to be the best he or she can be.

You are abstracting "nature" and acting as if it is some individual thing with intentions.

Individual organisms have intentions. And sometimes the intention of one organism is to kill and eat another. Because that is the way it survives in this hostile "nature" it finds itself in, which is indifferent to any pangs of hunger the organism may have. And not because "nature" is trying to be the best it can be.

[RexT]

You are abstracting "nature" and acting as if it is some individual thing with intentions.

Individual organisms have intentions. And sometimes the intention of one organism is to kill and eat another. Because that is the way it survives in this hostile "nature" it finds itself in, which is indifferent to any pangs of hunger the organism may have. And not because "nature" is trying to be the best it can be.
Well, I could say the same for you, since you are merely abstracting organisms. Look at this another way. AI attempts to create pseudo-organisms in a pseudo-environment to see if they can learn, right. Does the experiment always involve the destruction of such organisms if they fail to learn? I am asking because I know almost nothing about AI, but it seems reasonable that life or death need not be a part of the efforts to get computers to think. Yet, according to your assessment of intelligence, it would have to be a part of the effort or else computers will never be intelligent. The point is that if we can get computers to think without involvement with the life or death issue, then intelligence of the universe or nature might also not involve this issue.

Anyway, I happen to think that the universe is an individual with intentions, not because that would support some religious ideology I might have, which I do not, but rather, because I can sense its intelligence and intentions as easily as I can sense the intentions of nature to survive and evolve and your intentions to define it all away. I really do not get you, I mean, we are completely surrounded by intelligence everywhere we look, but you have defined intelligence so narrowly that you exclude almost the entire universe.

Rex

[untermensche]

Well, I could say the same for you, since you are merely abstracting organisms. Look at this another way. AI attempts to create pseudo-organisms in a pseudo-environment to see if they can learn, right. Does the experiment always involve the destruction of such organisms if they fail to learn? I am asking because I know almost nothing about AI, but it seems reasonable that life or death need not be a part of the efforts to get computers to think. Yet, according to your assessment of intelligence, it would have to be a part of the effort or else computers will never be intelligent. The point is that if we can get computers to think without involvement with the life or death issue, then intelligence of the universe or nature might also not involve this issue.

Anyway, I happen to think that the universe is an individual with intentions, not because that would support some religious ideology I might have, which I do not, but rather, because I can sense its intelligence and intentions as easily as I can sense the intentions of nature to survive and evolve and your intentions to define it all away. I really do not get you, I mean, we are completely surrounded by intelligence everywhere we look, but you have defined intelligence so narrowly that you exclude almost the entire universe.

Rex
How is describing what organisms actually do, and what they are actually faced with abstracting them? How is understanding at what level intention exists abstracting it?

And I have no idea what you mean by saying that you can "sense" the intelligence of the universe.

How could I distinguish this from you merely believing it?

[sweetiepie]

The recent discussion of intelligent design has got me thinking. Not so much about evolution and whatnot, but rather an interesting question it raises. Concerning things which humans design (so there is no question as to whether or not they were designed), how much about the intelligence of the designer can you infer from what has been designed? That is, how much of a good design is serendipitous and how much is due to intelligence? For that matter, what does it mean for a person to be "intelligent"?
Err very good question.

First: how well it works.
Second is um.. how complicated it's composition is. That is, how rare each idea is for a given person/culture, and then how unlikely each connection between each idea is until you have the thing that works.

I don't recommend looking at inventions though. Any ijit can notice something that the world needs. Check out quality academia instead. Mathematicians who have theorems named after themselves and writers who make their way into Nortons are always s00per smart. You can tell because they can combine unlikely ideas in a way that you definitely can't.

If you can't look at the concepts that go into something though, I think you can't tell the intelligence of the maker.

[Wads4]

I see nothing mystical about the politics that likely ended the era of pyramid building. What seems mystical is how the great pyramid could have been built in 22 years. There were about 2.5 million stones in the structure, the least weighing about two tons and the heaviest weighing about 50 tons.

Let us do some simple math and we will find that in order to complete the pyramid in 22 years, that is 8,030 days and assuming that work was done 7 days a week, 365 days a year without interruption, which seems highly improbable, but even given this, it would have required the percision cutting, transporting and setting into position 311 blocks each day. If that sounds reasonable to you, then you know little about construction. The great pyramid was not carelessly thrown together as were the other pyrimids; its foundation was leveled to within two tenths of an inch over 700 feet, the length of its base. Even modern buildings using percision instruments are seldom within two inches over such distances. So one might ask, why the need for such incredible percision and how was it accomplished.

A more realistic estimate of block positioning would give an avarage of closer to 10 blocks per day, which would have required a little over 600 years to finish the job. Surely, no Pharaoh would build a tumb for himself that he would have to wait that long, and 22 years is just plain naive.

Nevertheless, setting aside such matters; it is really the percision craftmanship that seems the most improbable. Copper tools could have carved limestone, but not granite. Yet, even if copper could have scratched the granite, it surely could not have cut the inner walls of the kings sarcophagus, which have been measured to within .002 of an inch if one places a straight edge along any wall. Again, why the percision and how was it done?

Well, this could get rather long, but suffice to say that anyone beliving that the great pyramid was built in 22 years using copper tool is just naive. I do not know how it was built, but I know how it was not built. Anyway, if you want to believe the official line then have at it, I know better, and until someone comes up with a convincing explanation for the percision, which no one has yet done, I will continue to wonder and be amazed.
Read this article (http://www.lauralee.com/chrisdunn/article.htm)By Christopher P. Dunn (http://www.lauralee.com/chrisdunn/article.htm), and if you still believe such work could have been done by hand using primitive copper tools, then please explain why. I am not sold on The Giza Power Plant theory, but I am convinced that primitive humans did not build the great pyramid.

Rex
Well I am no expert, and I don't want to spend time on researching this furthur. I don't think the Old Kingdom Egyptians were that "primitive"; there were thousands of years of pre-history before upper and lower Egypt were united in the 1st dynasty. I have read fantastical stories about the alignment of the great pyramid with the star Sirius,-but then why not?-if that was their relligious motivation, and they had a belief that Sirius was the home of the gods or suchlike. It is not impossible that there are intelligent aliens who have periodically visited Earth, though why they should bother to imitate Egyptian early pyramid evolution is beyond me; in the same way as why should God bother to imitate naturalistic biological evolution if there is a creator God. We may never know.

[Wads4]

Well I am no expert, and I don't want to spend time on researching this furthur. I don't think the Old Kingdom Egyptians were that "primitive"; there were thousands of years of pre-history before upper and lower Egypt were united in the 1st dynasty. I have read fantastical stories about the alignment of the great pyramid with the star Sirius,-but then why not?-if that was their relligious motivation, and they had a belief that Sirius was the home of the gods or suchlike. It is not impossible that there are intelligent aliens who have periodically visited Earth, though why they should bother to imitate Egyptian early pyramid evolution is beyond me; in the same way as why should God bother to imitate naturalistic biological evolution if there is a creator God. We may never know.
And another thing:
As for working granite: it is possible to split granite off from base rock with wedges which when wetted, split off a section for working on. There are many Egyptian granite statues, including from the Old Kingdom, which have been worked and polished,-so it is obviously possible, given time and dedication to do this with basic copper tools, mallets, and polishing with hard stone. I think you underestimate the ingenuity of ancient people to get a job done.