> Origyptian Wrote:
> 1) What positive evidence can you provide Wadi
> al-Jarf predates the 4th Dynasty?
> 2) What evidence would qualify under your as yet
> unknown "higher standard of proof" that could
> date Wadi al-Jarf or any other site for that matter?
> > First of all, I never said el-Jarf definitely
> > predates the 4th Dynasty. I said it was
> > possible, not definite. It's another
> > possibility since it's not been proven in
> > fact to have been built in the 4th Dynasty.
> So despite the fact you think it "possible" as
> usual you have zero evidence to offer to support
> this possibility. What has been "proven" is that
> so far nothing has been found to date it before
> the 4th Dynasty and everything that has been found
> points directly to it.
There's no evidence it's from the 4th dynasty either. That's my point. Your entire premise seems to be based on the accuracy of the dynastic timeline which I see as the crux of the problem.
> > Second, you are incorrectly applying my standard of proof.
> Ironic how it is only "misapplied" when applied to
> you which without exception you are incapable of
> meeting your own "standards" and offer the same
> weasel cop out. Is it "possible" my road was made
> hundreds if not thousands of years ago? Just
> because there is zero evidence to support this
> claim if only the opposite the fact we cannot be
> "100% sure then this means it is "possible"? MAybe
> it was built by native Americans and just by
> coincidence it got paved over in modern times.
> Maybe that is why it got paved over-who knows???
I have no idea why you're attempting to cite false analogies like that. You know full well what's going on here, so please stop the extreme examples which have no relevance here. There is simply zero proof of the provenance of those galleries at el-Jarf.
> > My standard of proof simply says that
> > insufficient proof has been offered to
> > authenticate the claim that el-Jarf was
> > indisputably constructed in the 4th Dynasty --
> And yet there is indisputably no evidence found
> that dates it prior to this time. If so, tell us
> what it is. This the question but of course you
> cannot because you never can.
My point exactly, there is no direct evidence that "indisputably" dates those galleries. Period.
> 100% nonsensical doubt mongering BS. Once again
> instead of providing even the slightest amount of
> positive proof to back up your claims...
What "claims" have I made? I don't understand on what basis you can argue so strongly that those galleries couldn't have been made far earlier than the 4th dynasty.
> > Likewise for the boat pits. But why stop at
> > "archaic Dynastic"?
> Why would I keep going when there is nothing else
> to go to?
> > The condition of the galleries
> > at el-Jarf seem to date those galleries far older
> > than anything dynastic.
> Lol. This is complete and utter gobbledygook.
> There is nothing about this:
Note the differences in erosion at different strata.
> That makes it "seem" like it is "far older" than
> 4600yrs old let alone one day older. I really find
> it hard to believe you are being honest. Here look
> at this "ancient" mining tunnel:
Very different type of excavation that shows no strata indicating a differential in erosion. Without a written record of the recency of that excavation, how would you know how old that cave really is?
And that's really my point. There's nothing about those galleries that would definitively date them as being "indisputably" or even "probably" constructed originallyin the 4th dynasty.
> My, I can tell just by looking at it it must be
> thousands if not tens of thousands of years old.
> Sorry, but it was made in the early 1900's. But
> "how do we know"?!? Maybe it was repurposed from a
> lost civilization. Anything is "possible".
More irrelevant sarcasm.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?