Hi Annanias,
First off, I just *categorized* the ancient engine as a toy -- true only by today's standars, I freely admit. Your description ("engine") implies (to those not familiar with the subject) that they had engines -- in the modern sense of the word -- used as sources of mechanical power which was used to do some work (e.g. milling, pumping water, etc). However, that clearly was not the case, IIRC. It should NOT be discounted, and it is mentioned in every Sci/Tech history book I've read. However, it was never harnessed to do actual work, all it did was spin around. A nice start that went nowhere. Calling this device an "engine" is possibly would be as misleading as calling a Pinwheel a "Windmill".
=======================
you might study a bit on the progrssion of science and acientific thought
=======================
Happy to oblige, can you suggest further reading? I mean in addition to the classics "A history of the Sciencs" (Stephen F. Mason) and "The Copernican Revolution" (Thomas S. Kuhn).
=======================
Archimedes did some fairly interesting stuff, but since Setmor Cray hadn't been born yet I guess that makes it all just fun and games
=======================
I assume you mean Seymour Cray (for whom Cray computers is named)? I'm not trying to pick at a typo, I just want to make sure we are talking about the same person. Assuming that is who you meant.... NO, I didn't say that. You have created a "Straw man argument". Archimedes is an important part of this history of science, I would not dismiss his contributions just because they are ancient. The point is that these early attempts were the EXCEPTION, not the rule, to rational thought at that time. That's why those jewels of early discovery are so few and far between.
=======================
Your original premise was that because "modern" science (which isn't really all that modern) can tell us with some degree of accuracy (but by no mean definitively) a little more about our universe than we knew yesterday. Because we've managed to bend some of this understanding into neat shapes and things (some of which may kill us in a flash) that proves the Bible is an irrational collection of fables and stories that only children would listen to.
=======================
Again, a straw man argument. Modern science (which I agree, is not necessarily "modern", since the principles of testing hypothesis require no advanced modern technology and *COULD* have been more widely used in anceint times than it was) does not prove the bible is based on ancient mythology.
Rather, a careful study of ancient mythology demonstrates that.
All our current body of knowledge does is add further weight to that literary analysis. For example, there is not only no evidence to prove an world wide flood occurred ~5000 years ago, but also plenty of evidence to prove that it did not and could not have happened. Alternatively, biblical geneaology (sp?) says that man was first here only 6000 years ago, but we have recorded history for 10,000 and archaeological evidence of homo sapiens for ~50,000 years.
===================================
And because somebody can find a publisher to print his theory on the pyramids, that makes it right?
==================================
I applaud your skepticism; I encourage you to widen it out a bit. Can I assume you have no intention of reading the books I suggested in my earlier post?
