Aine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The who isn't as important as when. As I said
> earlier, if you identify the when, the finding the
> who is relatively straightforward.

Alright, sure, let's play this game. Here's your date:

6500 BCE.

Now give us your evidence of who.

---------------*

But wait, Aine is going to respond with 'Well where is your evidence it was this date? Got none?? What? How dare you ask for evidence when you can't even give any!'

But wait! I will then have to explain again that a specific date is NOT REQUIRED in advance to find out who might have built the pyramids because only material, physical evidence is what defines a culture. Finding said material will obvious come from a strata of the ground, which would tell us a more specific time frame.

Better still, how about I give you a range of dates:

3100BCE - 500000 BCE.

It really doesn't matter when. Somewhere in the strata of the ground should be artifacts that will fall into that range of dates. Or do you think I'll give you a date, then we will proceed to dig into the ground until we find that years' strata and only peek in there? And suppose we find nothing, in say, the layer of 6500BCE? You'll shout from the mountain we have no evidence for the date? Are you out of your mind? It's a bait and switch because your brain can't come to grips with there being no evidence in the 3100BCE-500000BCE layers for an unique and 'advanced' culture to have built the pyramids long before the mid 3rd Millennium BCE. You're thought process is cornered, and rather than admit the embarrassing error, convoluted illogic spews forth about needing a 'date' before the 'who'.