> Jon Ellison Wrote:
> > Usually using less durable media. Engineering
> > carved in stone?
> Civilisations which are literate at all usually
> have things to say which they want to be durable.
So we see a complete breakdown of the construction of G1 recorded for eternity in stone by the 4th AE?
Now you are really being pathetic.
> > Probably not the possibilities are almost
> > infinite.
> Oh, so now the problem is an infinity of ideas?
No not infinite.... Almost infinite... Meaning very many. Not infinite.
> > Totally gone or dust, makes little difference.
> > unless you are able to identify the original
> > source of an individual particle of dust.
> Oh, yes, well, of course, all of the tools were
> out in the open and turned to dust and got blown
> away. Nothing ever gets buried and localised.
> This is why there are no fossils. All just blown
As far as I can recollect fossils are composed of minerals ... STONE...
Which is why they are good for many millions of years.
> Funny how they never thought of keeping their
> tools inside their stone buildings.
> > Do they? Most human cultures do not construct
> > million ton pyramids.
> > Dealing with a whole different paradigm here.
> Oh, right—so please explain your interesting
> theory of a correlation between building pyramids
> and leaving bodies in the open to rot. This may
> even be (against stiff competition) the stupidest
> thing you’ve said yet.
Now behave yourself because someone may come knocking on your number 13.
> And ancient Egypt was not unique in building large
> (yes) funerary monuments.
> > Then where is the OK industrial infrastructure
> > necessary to support tens of millions of tons
> > construction projects. Structures that
> > an advanced understanding of applied
> > Great we are getting somewhere. You are NOT
> > claiming that the 4th AE had the necessary
> > industrial infrastructure ?
> Er, no, it’s you who’s claiming that the
> relatively low-tech infrastructure of pharaonic
> Egypt wasn’t good enough and that there had to
> be an infrastructure of a more “advanced”
> kind—whose impact on the environment (my point)
> should have left more evidence of its existence
> than it actually has, i.e. (as I need to keep
> reminding you) none at all—but do carry
> on with your conjuring trick.
Show me the AE tools. Why no appropriate tools in the AE archaeological record?
> > > > You say the 4th AE built and left no trace
> > >
> > > Which, if you think about it, is
> > > self-contradictory (which is one reason I
> > > don’t say it).
> > Not self contradictory, an impossibility. If
> > left no trace from a mere 4500 years ago then
> > did not do it.
> Logic not your strong point.
Do you have anything constructive to offer?
> > > Perhaps you should look for it harder.
> > Show me the tools.
> Learn what “look for it” means—then show me
> any evidence at all of your “lost”
Work in progress.
Show me the 4th AE tools.
> > > Provide us with some knowledge of it, then.
> > Working on it.
> > Agreed we have ample evidence of a pharaonic
> > civilization, however we have zero evidence
> > they had the wherewithal to complete these
> > construction projects, hence the debate. (in
> > you hadn't noticed)
> > The only commonality being that of geographic
> > location.
> > Yes there is. Monumental multi million ton
> > construction projects imbued with a knowledge
> > advanced applied mathematics and construction
> > techniques. If you like a "language/message"
> > carved in stone. One just needs to know how to
> > read it.
> Oh, so the product is evidence re the (imaginary)
> “lost” civilisation, but not re the (evidenced
> and real) dynastic civilisation.
Now you are suggesting that the 4th AE are the lost mathematically advanced civilization? Who somehow managed to "lose" all records of their advanced engineering prowess while simultaneously maintaining a record of every other aspect of their every day lives.
> Can’t quite put my finger on it, but there seems
> to be an inconsistency here.
For once you are correct, you can't put your finger on it can you.
> > You should be familiar with that principle
> I am. What I doubt is your claimed relevant
Then continue to be doubtful.
Over and out.
In the meantime read this.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12-Apr-16 19:01 by Jon Ellison.