Pistol Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


>
> This is true, but using the scale, Egyptologists
> come out on top because they have the "higher"
> probability factor heavily weighted on their
> side.


This might be true but it would be true only where the theories are
supported by physical evidence.

Unfortunately there is a dearth of evidence of all types before the
first intermediate period and mostly it is based on supposition. It
might even be added that much of the physical evidence is discounted
or deemed to be irrelevant. If the egyptologists are correct about
the pyramids and the Giza Plateua before they were built it will be
largely the happenstance that nothing of significance in nature and/or
the affairs of man (nor his religion) changed during this epoch.

Perhaps this isn't an overly great assumption and perhaps it is.

Certainly it's only natural that as you look further back in time that
certainty becomes more difficult to achieve. This isn't to say that
the ancients had higher math or even the luxury of placing the pyramids
exactly where they desired, merely that the Great Pyramid constitutes
pretty convincing evidence of more math skills than mere arithmetic in
itself.


____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.