> Anomalies wrote:
> > The ancients weren't very bright by your account I guess.
> This is something that permeates the existing paradigm so
> intimately that the those who believe the paradigm are blind to
> it. We are told endlessly by Egyptologists that the ancients
> were intelligent and rational but that they believed in myriad
> gods that had them acting in irrational ways. They are simply
> described as sun addled bumpkins but always appended to such
> descriptions is that there's nothing wrong with it. According
> to Egyptologists being superstitious isn't dangerous and
> life-denying if everyone around you believes the same thing.
> They say that this is just the way they were and that they were
> so dim witted and primitive that the only possible means they
> could devise to lift stones was to drag them up ramps. While
> Egyptologists speak out of both sides of their mouths regarding
> the nature of people who are barely removed from us in time
> relative the 45,000 years of man on earth most people just
> accept that they must have been superstitious since they are so
> enigmatic and had no proper fetching up.
> The fact of the matter is no people and no individuals ever
> survived and prospered due to superstition. Superstition kills
> and this goes many times over if there's no pharmacy on the
> corner and no one who knows what to do for snake bite. Ancient
> man would die individually and collectively if they had had the
> traits ascribed to them by modern man. It's our comforts and
> our technology that allows us to believe this superstitious
> claptrap that ancient man was irrational.
Superstition abounds in Egypt.
IMHO the easiest way to spot areas of science that are either wrong or have a long way to go. Are areas that have these glaring contradictions in them. Or, they have glaring contradictions with other forms of science. It's huge to me that Egyptologists have this profound contradiction in them.
1) They were amazing and show incredible engineering skill, and high level mathematics.
2) Their writings were religious and spiritual symbolism on crack. Not to be taken within context.
They should be taken in with the context that you would have if you had take the time to spend 10,000 hours studying pot shards from 40 different dynasty's. But you didn't, so you don't get to know what it means. Go study them first, then you can question me on my interpretation of the context.
This is why the hero's of this field are from the 1800's. Just one miserable interpretation of context after another.