Thread: 11k-yr-old temple suggests organized religion catalyzed agriculture, civilization

Interesting stuff. It's certainly an anomalously large undertaking for its time. Not sure in what sense it suggests a catalysis of agriculture, though? It seems to be a surprisingly advanced act of a people whose way of life was approaching its death throes, but there doesn't seem to be any causal link to what followed.

Originally Posted by Xei

Interesting stuff. It's certainly an anomalously large undertaking for its time. Not sure in what sense it suggests a catalysis of agriculture, though? It seems to be a surprisingly advanced act of a people whose way of life was approaching its death throes, but there doesn't seem to be any causal link to what followed.

Basically, in the 3000-ish year period this complex was in use, at least one permanent settlement developed nearby where there is some evidence of domestication of local wild grains, and elsewhere nearby is the only known wild relative to one of the earliest cultivated grains of Mesopotamia. The appearance of a permanent structure, to all appearances a pilgrimage site, prior to those developments suggests that, contrary to the previously accepted narrative of agriculture allowing the development of organized religion, agriculture may have developed as a means to remain in proximity to religious sites.

That is so cool

so its pretty much the oldest building ever

Originally Posted by gameoverlord345

That is so cool

so its pretty much the oldest building ever

No one knows how old the Sphinx is, at Giza. It was there when the Egyptians got there.

Originally Posted by Seroquel

No one knows how old the Sphinx is, at Giza. It was there when the Egyptians got there.

REALLY? i thought the egyptians built that.

Originally Posted by Seroquel

No one knows how old the Sphinx is, at Giza. It was there when the Egyptians got there.

Khafra (Greek, Χεφρήν; Chephren) — also Khafre — was an Egyptian pharaoh of the Fourth dynasty, who had his capital at Memphis. [...] Khafre was the builder of the second largest pyramid in the Giza Necropolis complex (his is 3 metres shorter than Khufu's). Most modern egyptologists also credit him with the building of the Great Sphinx.

It [The Sphinx] is the oldest known monumental sculpture, and is commonly believed to have been built by ancient Egyptians of the Old Kingdom during the reign of the pharaoh Khafra (c. 2558–2532 BC).[1][2]

Despite conflicting evidence and viewpoints over the years, the traditional view held by modern Egyptologists at large remains that the Great Sphinx was built in approximately 2500 BC by the pharaoh Khafra, the builder of the second pyramid at Giza.

The age of the Sphinx might not be set in stone, but the Egyptians built it.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Khafra (Greek, Χεφρήν; Chephren) — also Khafre — was an Egyptian pharaoh of the Fourth dynasty, who had his capital at Memphis. [...] Khafre was the builder of the second largest pyramid in the Giza Necropolis complex (his is 3 metres shorter than Khufu's). Most modern egyptologists also credit him with the building of the Great Sphinx.

It [The Sphinx] is the oldest known monumental sculpture, and is commonly believed to have been built by ancient Egyptians of the Old Kingdom during the reign of the pharaoh Khafra (c. 2558–2532 BC).[1][2]

Despite conflicting evidence and viewpoints over the years, the traditional view held by modern Egyptologists at large remains that the Great Sphinx was built in approximately 2500 BC by the pharaoh Khafra, the builder of the second pyramid at Giza.

The age of the Sphinx might not be set in stone, but the Egyptians built it.

Lol, and you believe this? I bet you love Dr. Zahi Hawass.

Originally Posted by Seroquel

Lol, and you believe this? I bet you love Dr. Zahi Hawass.

is that your rebuttal?

why shouldn't we believe it?

Originally Posted by gameoverlord345

why shouldn't we believe it?

maybe because it's poor/falsified evidence. maybe it's not trustworthy! maybe Seroquel doesn't trust Wikipedia in general. maybe Seroquel has more legitimate evidence that says otherwise.

but we don't know, because Seroquel didn't actually say anything.

hopefully your question wasn't rhetorical.

oh, it wasn't rhetorical. But most things say (when i type 'how old is the sphinx') all of them say 2500- 5000 years old. Of course i skimmed them.

I remember hearing that the original shape of the rock was suggestive of a sphinx. Maybe that's what Seroquel has hooked onto. Who knows, his current evidence is 'lol'. Oh wait, of course, asking for evidence is trolling. :\

Originally Posted by no-Name

maybe Seroquel has more legitimate evidence that says otherwise.

Maybe not, but I do.
The sphinx was eroded by water.
Evidence? Uh.. Look at it! It was eroded by water.

Heavy rainfall in the Sahara desert? Our great Science Gods tell us that this hasn't happened for over 8,000 years. This is 4,000 years before Khafra was born.
The body looks nothing like any of the small sphinx statues that were constructed in Khafra's lifetime. The face looks nothing like Khafra. There is no mention of Khafra on the clay tablet in front of the sphinx. To be honest, I've really never heard any evidence that it WAS ordered to be carved by Khafra, other than that this is what our Science Book says (Chapter 3, verse 23).

By the way, none of the other pyramids immediately surrounding the sphinx have this type of erosion.

I'm not trying to offend anyone's Scientific faith, but the signs really do look a bit off.
I'm not saying anything concrete. I mean I don't know. I didn't build the sphinx. I'm just suggesting that maybe this is what Sero was talking about.

but then, who built it, surely it cant be just luck that the stones were made that way. I mean look at him! Who built him, just because the sign didnt say Khafra built him, it didnt say someone else built him.

Originally Posted by sloth

To be honest, I've really never heard any evidence that it WAS ordered to be carved by Khafra, other than that this is what our Science Book says (Chapter 3, verse 23).

Originally Posted by Xei

How sad you must be inside following whatever mainstream science wants you to believe. Anybody who believes in something controversial is deemed "stupid".

The Ancient Egyptians told stories of the people who used to thrive there, before them, saying how they came from the west, from the sea, after their home was completely destroyed. They were the builders of the Sphinx, not the ancient Egyptians. And yes, this can be proven with the water damage explanation.

Originally Posted by gameoverlord345

but then, who built it

I did.

Originally Posted by gameoverlord345

surely it cant be just luck that the stones were made that way.

Made what way? Out of stone? Stones that weighed up to nine tons? Using the world's largest cranes, it takes modern man days of preparation in order to lift a single stone of that size. They are fitted together so tightly that we have great trouble reproducing such things even today. I'm sure you've heard about these things SOMEwhere, even if it doesn't say so in your Science Book.

Originally Posted by gameoverlord345

I mean look at him! Who built him, just because the sign didnt say Khafra built him, it didnt say someone else built him.

Right. Just because the sign didn't say Khafra built it must mean that Khafra built it, because it doesn't say that he didn't. As I have said, I in fact, built the sphinx. The proof of this is the fact that the tablet also does not say that I built it.. On the tablet there is part of his name, which is why it is written in the Great Science Book that he built it, but these heiroglyphs don't actually say that it was built by him. Plus, it does not have his entire name, just the beginning of it. Maybe they got distracted while writing it. It only appears once, by the way.

Originally Posted by Xei

This is an invalid argument.

Originally Posted by Seroquel

How sad you must be inside following whatever mainstream science wants you to believe. Anybody who believes in something controversial is deemed "stupid".

The Ancient Egyptians told stories of the people who used to thrive there, before them, saying how they came from the west, from the sea, after their home was completely destroyed. They were the builders of the Sphinx, not the ancient Egyptians. And yes, this can be proven with the water damage explanation.

^still doesn't get it.

Science is the exact opposite of the status quo. How many times until you understand this? Science has only made progress by rejecting the obvious and making ridiculous claims, but evaluating those claims based on evidence and reason.

If you make the controversial claim that the Sphinx predates Egypt, and then appeal to physical facts and reason like you are doing, you are acting as a scientist.

Originally Posted by Xei

If you make the controversial claim that the Sphinx predates Egypt, and then appeal to physical facts and reason like you are doing, you are acting as a scientist.

This isn't what you did, is it? You posted a disrespectful picture, trying to mock someone else.
This is NOT acting as a scientist.

I was mocking you. I was mocking the inane opinion you expressed.

When I take a dump I'm not acting as a scientist either. Well done, you proved whatever point you were making with consummate eloquence. (You didn't).

Originally Posted by Xei

I was mocking you. I was mocking the inane opinion you expressed.

When I take a dump I'm not acting as a scientist either. Well done, you proved whatever point you were making with consummate eloquence. (You didn't).

Right.
Great post, kiddo.

Have you got anything against rationalism except sour grapes for your lame performance in school? You honestly seem to have no good conception of what it actually entails, no matter how many times I try to explain it to you. I understand how much easier it is to label academia as a conspiracy of ignorance rather than admit you're just no good at it it, but whenever you come back with the classic 'science is dogmatic' line as you invariably do, I have to slap myself in the face a few times to suppress the sudden feeling that I need to go on a shooting spree before ending myself.

Science is a method rather than a body of knowledge. Whatever is taught as "academia" in school is the popularly accepted content of this method. No faith should occur, the popularly accepted hunches aren't what science is, everything is up for further investigation or improvement. Science is a never ending search, it can't possibly be dogmatic.

Originally Posted by Xei

Have you got anything against rationalism except sour grapes for your lame performance in school? You honestly seem to have no good conception of what it actually entails, no matter how many times I try to explain it to you. I understand how much easier it is to label academia as a conspiracy of ignorance rather than admit you're just no good at it it, but whenever you come back with the classic 'science is dogmatic' line as you invariably do, I have to slap myself in the face a few times to suppress the sudden feeling that I need to go on a shooting spree before ending myself.

You didn't display rationalism. You posted a funny funny picture, trying to mock me.
Then you started trying to defend rationalism and science.
When I pointed out that posting a funny funny picture, trying to mock me, instead of actually giving valid points is not a good example of science (behaving like a scientist), you stated that you aren't acting like a scientist when you take a dump, whatever the hell that means.
You can defend rationalism and science all day if you want, because, as you have claimed, you're fighting for justice and all that, but unless you practice this act, you just look ridiculous.

If I made a side comment that compared science with religious dogma, you cannot debate that by throwing insults. That is not an exception to the rule.

Throwing childish insults at other people is not rationalism. It's what little kids do until they grow up enough to have an adult conversation.