> where did I say I wasn't obligated to understand how?
You said you didn't care how they did it. You certainly don't seem to know how they did it since I've asked you many times and you keep skirting the question. So it seems what you're saying is, even though you are obligated to understand it you don't care to know, nevertheless.
> I have expended far more time and effort on this
> than any other aspect of the 3 plus muillenia of
> their civilisation due to the fact that Giza is
> the source of most of the disinformation
> concerning that 3000 years.
Giza is a source of disinformation? What disinformation?
> > No data or testing is required for "faith".
> > Christian traditionalists had "faith" that the
> > earth was only 6000 years old. Not such as
> > prevalent notion as it was many years ago.
> So it's okay for the Christians to believe or to
> have believed that the world was only 6000 old.
> But it's not okay for the AE's to believe that
> their King ensure that the sun would come up and
> the river would rise?
I never said that, and I have no idea where you got that. I never disputed the notion that the Dynastics were extremely invested in their funerary context and knew about the solar and inundation cycles. But I don't see how that requires them to know about "cardinal points" at all, let alone know how to measure them so precisely. Especially when Dash acknowledged there is virtually no evidence of the method used by 3rd millennium BC Egypt for doing so. For all we know, the pyramids may already have existed in Dynastic times and gave those people a front row seat to view the sunrise every day.
> > For a long time, the humanities had "faith" that
> > the Roman Empire was responsible for the megaliths
> > at Baalbek. Newer standards of proof are revealing
> > that to be a rather tenuous attribution.
> That is still with the jury imho.
Fair enough. I agree to disagree.
> > I'm not sure what "faith in your fellow man" you
> > could be referring to in this discussion. We are
> > talking about the origin of pyramids. They are in
> > the physical world and require reconciliation, not
> > faith. They must be accounted for and not just
> > believed in. They must fit into the physics of
> > time, energy, mass, forces, and dimension, not
> > just fit into a self-consistent narrative.
> (Warwick drags out the blackboard)
> at Giza we see something that we cannot explain to
> everyone's satisfaction.
> It is my opinion that much of what makes it
> difficult to accept that the AE's did this is
> rooted in an individuals general distrust of his
> fellow man, his leaders, and the academic elite
Your blackboard sarcasm aside, you speak of "faith" and "distrust" but I have no idea how that relates to this discussion about the construction of real monuments in the physical world that must be accounted for with plausible engineering methods. What "distrust" and "faith" are you relying on here that seems to take priority over rolling up your sleeves to determine once and for all whether they really did have the capability to do that work?
From my perspective, much of what makes it difficult to accept that the 3rd millennium BE did this is rooted in the lack of evidence that they had the wherewithal to do it despite the huge volume of evidence regarding other aspects of that culture. Therefore, other possibilities for the origin of those monuments warrant consideration too.
> > If you don't care about "how" then why are you
> > volleying with those who do? Are you suggesting
> > that the "how" is not an important aspect of the
> > development of such technology?
> For the most part I am not interested in the
> workings of the Infernal combustion engine. But
> if I'm gonna drive one...
Well, respectrully, we know with fairly good certainty who built that "Infernal" combustion engine, as well as when it was built, how it was built, and why it was built. Meanwhile, we are not so lucky regarding those ancient monuments. And so I only asked you a simple question about whether the 3rd millennium BC Egypt really did have the wherewithal to know what "cardinal points" are and whether they had the knowledge to measure them. You can "trust" and have "faith" that they knew how to do it, but unless there truly is a real physical method that can be identified and attributed to the capability, then faith/trust that they did that isn't built on any physical capability that can be attributed to that culture.
If all you have is trust and faith, then that allows others to apply their own different system of trust and faith while never actually validating whether the culture actually did have that ability beyond simply having faith and trust that they did. That may be sufficient criteria for acceptance by some people, but not by everyone.
> > I sincerely don't understand your perspective here
> > regarding the OP and many other aspects of your
> > debate with ancient engineering enigmas in these
> > discussions if you really don't care how any of it
> > was done.
> you guys spew out absolutes at an exponential rate
Warwick, respectfully, with all your comments avoiding facts and actual knowledge of the engineering prowess of the ancients, with all the "faith" and "trust" you put in your fellow man, with your deflection from the challenge to explain even your simple claim that they knew how to find "North", you seem to be hiding what sounds like a "religious" perspective behind the guise of "anthropology". I took Anthropology in college, I've met several anthropologists, and I've never gotten the impression that anthropology isn't interested in how different cultures managed to achieve what's been attributed to them, whether it's an arrowhead, a stone vase, or a pyramid.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06-Feb-17 21:54 by Origyptian.