> Precisely.. Because you know it's a castle!
> A knowledge based upon historical record. In this
> case the easily accessible internet and google.
> No historical record equals no knowledge of
> historical record.
> No knowledge of historical record equals no frame
> of reference.
> No frame of reference equals no absolute
> Answer me this. Why would anyone in the absence of
> verifiable historic records assume that the great
> pyramid of Giza had any religious or spiritual significance?
> Could it be that the ONLY frame of reference
> available to them at the time was religious and spiritual?
> The very same culture that identified fossils of
> millions of year old extinct species as victims of
> the great flood.
> The only frame of reference they had was religion
> and the bible, so why not?
> The dragons didn't make it into the Ark.
> Dragons died,
> Petrified dragon bones and no living dragons.
> Problem solved..
It's possible that "religion and the Bible" wasn't the only frame of reference they had. It may simply have been the preferred frame of refernece chosen by those skilled in the humanities who lacked the technical insights to understand what they were looking at and who chose not to bring in the technical experts to make their own assessment. This is obvious in the timeline and it's obvious in how frequently they gravitated to categorizing everything as temples, priests, and rituals. I think if the field had been scrutinized by engineers, materials experts, physicists, and logistics experts, they would have had a far more relevant frame of reference to see that there was some amazing brilliance going on in that construction that would have resulted in a significantly different assessment of the age and purpose of those structures.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 17-Dec-16 05:44 by Origyptian.