"There is also the huge problem of no archaeological evidence for their theory ..."
This is almost my point, but I think yourself any many others over the years have made the same mistake time again by not saying the above in specific terms. What I'm getting at is the type of archaeological evidence and is the reason for my objection to the theory - and why I started this thread. Unfortunately, no one seems to have gotten this other than the first two or three posters, while the remaineder of the thread is another re-hash of hundreds and hundreds of conversations I've seen in the past seven or eight years. That said, I for one clearly understand why JAW is so fed up with it. Inother words, let's get this thing moving on.
In any case, back to where I quoted you. Let me put it this way: you're quote should read:
'There is also the huge problem of no archaeological evidence for their theory where an advanced culture is concerned.'
I mean, no great technology is needed to carve this beast; it is a rudimentary task. Ergo, one shouldn't expect certain things to appear in the archaeological record which would define 'advanced culture'. You see, I actually have no problem with the Sphinx having been created prior to the pyramids popping up (though not as old as JAW projects), but I do have a problem with how the level of culture is defined. Both for/against camps miss this completely. Do you see what I'm getting at now?