Date: Fri, 24 May 1996 17:49:57 -0400
To: Athena Discuss 
Subject: Re: evading evidence

John Servais wrote:
> >There was a recent special on public television in which the
> >theories of West and others (re the dating of the Sphinx to
> >ante-deluvian times, ie. to about 10,000BC) were presented.
> Yes, a revised dating based on the weathering of the base of the Sphinx.
> An internationally respected geologist, with collaborators, is quite
> convinced that it is much older than the Egyptologists have thought.
> Interesting, for this "discussion", is that the traditional authorities
> on ancient Egypt, archeologists and Egyptologists, are strongly
> disagreeing with these revised datings.  Ah yes, of course they say this
> young upstart geologist is not qualified to make such assertions.
> Trroublemaker.  Upsetting the whole timetable.  Pushing them right out of
> their comfortable positions.
> Sounds familiar, doesn't it.

Quite right.  The documentary gave those supporting the received
view full opportunity to rebut.  It was a most amazing spectacle.
The guy said the geologist was wrong, not because there was 
something wrong with his geology or his argument, but because, if
we accepted those findings, we would have a huge unexplained gap
in the chronology, and "it just doesn't work that way", he said.
All I could think was ... "Incredible!  Where did these guys learn
scientific method, and logic?"  OTOH, we seem to have the same
sort of illogic rampant on this list as well, as we see when it
is seriously suggested that the long chronology must be wrong, 
because the earliest writing *anywhere* is 3200 BC.  It must actually
be pointed out to them that absence of evidence is not evidence
of absence.  So yes, it is quite familiar, regrettably, this "dance 
of distortion and denial" (which fine phrase is due to me, not Jesse 
Jackson :))
> John Servais

(who right now is remembering his "A" Level chemistry teacher who
taught him that science is ... "sitting humbly before fact")

Contents | Previous | Next