Elizabeth Newton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello Anthony
>
> There isn't enough evidence to form an opinion and
> you have not presented anything to the contrary -
Another statement that is patently false.
> i.e anything which could be considered evidence.
> We have nothing regarding the construction of the
> Sphinx. That is a statement of fact.
No, it is a demonstrated false fact.
>
> What you call evidence, is nothing more than
> supposition
No, it is evidence. You may not relabel it so as to make it easier to dismiss.
> - coupled with seriously stretching
> the facts to support your preconceived opinion.
I know you wish that were true, but it isn't.
>
> Regarding the geology, I have indeed read Colin
> Reader's work. His result cannot be used to
> support an orthodox position versus an alternative
> position for reasons regarding the validity of
> evidence.
Then you have not understood what you've read.
>
> Robert Schoch's dates - for the Sphinx enclosure
> wall - effectively exclude the orthodox dates for
> the Sphinx.
Yet he puts it in a pre-dynastic era. Ridiculous.
>
> Colin Reader does not, per see, disagree with
> Robert Schoch's date range of 5000 to 7000 BC per
> see.
>
He vehemently disagrees with it. Read again.
> What Colin has done is to extend the range into a
> period which includes the earlier dynasties. He
> did not eliminate an earlier date for the Sphinx
> enclosure wall. Colin Reader's work most
> certainly is not evidence for the orthodox date.
There is no "orthodox date". There is a logical date that can be deduced from ALL the evidence, and there is a collection of other dates that cannot.
Put Schoch in category 2.
> It would only be relevant evidence if he had
> excluded the earlier period. Not only did he not
> exclude the Schoch years, by implication he agreed
> they were a possibility.
>
Anything is possible. To say otherwise is scientifically and logically irresponsible.
> As for Arche Solenhafen, I have yet to see his
> credentials presented as a geologist.
And you probably won't. That doesn't mean he is any less of a brilliant geologist. It only means you haven't seen his credentials.
Your sudden interest in people's credentials is funny, considering you have no interest in the credentials of the Egyptologists whom you are ignoring in toto.
> Unless we
> have the professional association of the country
> which recognizes him as a qualified geologist and
> his member number of that association, then his
> work must be eliminated as being irrelevant.
You are really a piece of work. What a ridiculous statement.
>
> You must agree that without the qualifications,
> then anyone could open up a geological textbook
> and quote in such a manner as to appear to know
> what they are talking about.
You don't seem to be able to.
> Discussions of
> geology should be left to those with the
> qualifications.
No, it should be left to those who understand the material. That's me.
Apparently, you don't qualify.
Anthony
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.
