Egyptian Civilization 10,000-Years Older than Thought?

[tooblue]

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-E...ht-59648.shtml

[SoCalCoug]

Based on other posts you've made, I know the spirit you're posting this in.

I don't get your seeming hatred for science and the scientific method. Do you believe that when scientists discover that a previous hypothesis or theory is incorrect, that the scientific method has failed?

It's actually how it's supposed to work, you know.

[woot]

That and the article in the OP is completely wrong. The only people who thought the Egyptian civilization started 5000 years ago are creationists, and only because it couldn't have started any earlier for them, what with the universe being created 6000 years ago.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by woot

That and the article in the OP is completely wrong. The only people who thought the Egyptian civilization started 5000 years ago are creationists, and only because it couldn't have started any earlier for them, what with the universe being created 6000 years ago.

What in the article that Tooblue posted led you to this conclusion? IMO, this article is simply too poorly written to allow anyone to reach any sort of conclusion as to what the guy is talking about. It appears that they found some paleolithic rock art that is much older than they have found in Egypt before. Is this the Egyptian 'civilization?' Hard to say. But what's the point you guys are arguing here? I can't see that this poor piece of journalism really helps anyone.

[woot]

Originally Posted by creekster

What in the article that Tooblue posted led you to this conclusion? IMO, this article is simply too poorly written to allow anyone to reach any sort of conclusion as to what the guy is talking about. It appears that they found some paleolithic rock art that is much older than they have found in Egypt before. Is this the Egyptian 'civilization?' Hard to say. But what's the point you guys are arguing here? I can't see that this poor piece of journalism really helps anyone.

Yea I guess that was my point. They grab a number out of the air, and call it the existing estimate for when the egyptian civilization started, then they grab a rough estimate for the age of cave art that seemed egyptian-ish, and call it a big deal. If the only point to all of this is that new evidence changes our perception of things, just ask me and I'll say yes.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-E...ht-59648.shtml

What about the fact that the Pyramids of Giza are aligned as Orion's belt was as of 11,000 BC, rather than 8,000-9,000 years later?

http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/CreightonS2.php?p=4

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

What about the fact that the Pyramids of Giza are aligned as Orion's belt was as of 11,000 BC, rather than 8,000-9,000 years later?

http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/CreightonS2.php?p=4

Lucky guess.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

What about the fact that the Pyramids of Giza are aligned as Orion's belt was as of 11,000 BC, rather than 8,000-9,000 years later?

http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/CreightonS2.php?p=4

Hey I didn't know that. That's good stuff. It does align with the number of 11,000 that I had in my head for the start of egyptian civilization, but I don't know where I got that, nor do I know if that was "ago" or "BC" It's not really my field. I did learn not too long ago that the stones that make up the pyramids were very likely casted. That goes against the alien theories.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-E...ht-59648.shtml

The title of the article and this thread is highly misleading. The article discusses an unremarkable event for scientists. They discover something new in the archeological or fossil record that causes a greater understanding of prehistoric humans and their long circuitous trek to humans that wrote, built cities, etc. It actually doesn't appear this new information contradicts anything previously established, only helps to round out our understanding of prehistoric humans in the area of present day Egypt. But the article's title suggests that the highly developed Egyptian culture with pyramids and pharoahs we think of as ancient Egypt is 10,000 years older than we thought, which isn't what the article is about, nor what the recent discovery tells us.

Since tooblue's point is premised on this highly misleading title he fails to make his point. We do know with a fair degree of precision the age of the Egyptian culture depicted in the OT. What a curious belief for a devout Mormon--there's no such thing as truth. It's nonsense.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Based on other posts you've made, I know the spirit you're posting this in.

I don't get your seeming hatred for science and the scientific method. Do you believe that when scientists discover that a previous hypothesis or theory is incorrect, that the scientific method has failed?

It's actually how it's supposed to work, you know.

It's not the inarticulate softpedia article I found fascinating -it's the "Lascaux on the Nile" statement that occupies my imagination.