Lee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Anthony,
>
> I wouldn’t be so quick to pounce, if I were you.
> I don’t think Steven has necessarily “nailed it,”
> nor do I think you have, as Rick’s statement is
> capable of two meanings, the first being that that
> they were both aware and unaware — in which case,
> the statement is irredeemably contradictory; or
> they were aware their ancestors built them but not
> which of their ancestors — in the Egyptian context
> that would mean Egyptians yes, but not Khufu or
> Dynasty IV.
Absolutely untrue. When interviewed in historical times, the attribution of the pyramid at Giza were clearly demonstrated by Egyptians.
Can EVERY Egyptian answer the question? Probably not. Not every American can tell you who is buried in Grant's tomb, either....
> When faced with what looks like a
> contradiction, I try to work out an acceptable
> meaning, and the second alternative, or a purely
> semantic level “works.” I had in fact decided
> that that is what Rick *must* have meant when he
> answered your post and proved me wrong. That
> doesn’t mean that the sentence per se was
> inherently contradictory, however.
The sentences were inherently contradictory. This has been shown quite clearly. He has then attempted to pick which side of the contradiction best suits him for either making his point or deflecting rebuttals.
Sorry, but them's the facts. Read the posts again.
>
> On another level, though, what’s wrong with the
> basic idea, apart from the GH, RB crap? Cultures
> do decay. The moai culture of IE did itself in
> and was replaced with the birdman cult; the Maya
> seem to have been in a fairly degenerate state,
> turning magnificent structures into makeshift
> fortresses, etc., before the Spaniards arrived.
> Ankor, Mahendjo Daro? Sometimes the interesting
> questions revolve around that precise decay: why
> did the OK collapse, etc.
That is what Stephen covered when he discussed the "blindingly obvious and banal (statement) that was not worth saying".
As I said, Stephen made an excellent post, precisely explaining the problems with Rick's post. It's up to Rick to fix his broken logic and contradictory claims. Nobody can do it for him, because they are his words.
Now, if you are attempting to agree with his contradictory claims, then you are defending the same "broken" logic. It really can't be defended, Lee. Sorry. Wrong is wrong. Contradiction is contradiction. If you mean something else, then I'm afraid I haven't gotten that meaning from this post.
Anthony
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.
