All you're doing is gainsaying again. you are presenting no evidence and no logic to counter my interpretation. You made up your mind based on "evidence" and have decided that nothing can dissuade you. On this basis you ignore the vast evidence including the scientific method that support my contentions. You simply pronounce that the same "scribbles" in caves all over the world can't be words because they breaks Zipf's law exactly like the Pyramid Texts breaks Zipf's Law. You say that Egypt had the same language for thousands of years despite the fact this can't be known because the earliest writing is superstitious gobbledty gook incantation that can't be understood. You ignore the patterns I've found in it that allowed actual predictions. You ignore huge amounts of evidence because it doesn't fit what you believe. Then you claim the only way to understand what you call the "Laws of Nature" is by looking at the evidence. You ignore the fact that this is exactly what witch doctors and the superstitious do; look at the evidence. You ignore the fact Egyptology won't do basic fundamental science and even the infrared signature of G1 that could be made with century old technology has never been seen by the Peers who you continually quote as though they have all the answers so interpretation of evidence is unnecessary and counterproductive. You only sing the praises of evidence when it agrees with you and the rest of the time you can't see it and don't want to hear about it. This is why witch doctors work so poorly. This is why Look and See Science works so poorly. This is why real science was invented in the first place; evidence sucks because everyone sees what he expects. Why can't you even comment on this? Why can't you see all the times even real science has been wrong and Look and See Science is always wrong?
New evidence suggests these are mere wall decoration. They have nothing to do with religion and magic or even what they concern. The happen to be rituals and are laid out to beautify the walls.
[sigh]
Humans have acted like humans for 40,000 years. I believe this evidence suggests that there was a mutation that tied the speech center to higher brain functions which allowed complex communication which led to the ability to pass learning down through the generations. In those days you kept up with science or you couldn't even communicate with other people. Today science progresses one funeral at a time.
[/sigh]
You can come up with another theory why all the evidence says that the pyramids were built with linear funiculars, Egyptology is stuck in a 19th century rut, and people believe Peers define reality by looking at the evidence. Try to explain why AL had a mere handful of words, humans have two speech centers, and the same words were inscribed in caves all over the world with the same theory. Try to explain why history started 1200 years after the invention of writing. Explain why the pyramid builders said the pyramids were not tombs but every single Egyptologist says they were. There are plenty of anomalies no matter what you believe or how you interpret ANY evidence.
"Evidence" is not science. Hypothesis is science and experiment creates theory. The ancients knew that the holy trinity was "Knowledge > Understanding > Creation and evidence be damned. But homo omniscience has forgotten because there's money to be made in bad science. So we get an awful lot of this now days; REALLY bad science.
Man...
You are just repeating the same garbage as you did when created at Ancient Reality thread.
This thread is not about your hatred for Egyptology and ramps, and it is not about pyramid building or pyramid texts, not about your untranslatable doodles, not about your Ancient Language (or metaphysical language) or your Ancient Science.
Why must you bring the pseudoscience and pseudo-archaeology concepts to this thread and to every other threads that reply to, in which you are the only one who believe in?
This is about why evidence are used in science.
You continue to say and use evidence are the “Look and See Science”...meaning you are against OBSERVATION being used as evidence. But you also say that the only “true” science is one do experiment.
I am not oppose to using experiments in science at all, but science are limited to just experiments.
The problem is that you don’t understand is that “experiments” are OBSERVATIONS too. Experiment is “Look and See”.
Every test results from lab experiments are the results of observations, whenever you record what you have detected/observed, counted, measured, compared, tested, verified/refuted, etc...they are all observations, hence a experiment is the “Look and See” science.
Experiments are often confined what can be controlled in laboratories - the observations and evidence are controlled.
What make experiments useful in science, is they are repeatable, not only by authors of the hypotheses, but they are reproducible in labs elsewhere, and can be independently tested by other scientists (in the same fields).
But not every discoveries of evidence can be confined in a laboratory. Some evidence must be sought outside of the laboratory.
You seemed to be ignoring that the evidence can be discovered in the labs and outside the lab. They are all observations, including lab experiments.
Observations are more than just seeing with a person’s eyes. Observations are about using whatever tools, equipment or device to assist with observations.
For instance, we know that electricity are used to power whatever appliances and devices but we cannot measure the power, voltage, current and resistance with using eyesight alone. We used multimeters or oscilloscopes to measure each of these properties of electricity and the electrical components of circuitry.
The multimeter and oscilloscopes are not just use as fun of measuring watts, joules, volts, amps, ohms, they are useful in assisting in design and manufacturing appliances and other devices, but also to diagnose faults when they break down.
Oscilloscopes and multimeters can be used in labs as devices to record measurements, but they can be used outside of the labs.
NASA and ESA have constructed mobile devices (rovers) and sent them to explore the Mars’ surface. They are equipped with various devices that can -
- detect the evidence (observations),
- record the evidence (more observations),
- measure the evidence (again observations),
- test & analyze the evidence (still observations)
All the important data collected by these rovers are sent back to NASA or ESA, or both if they are joint operations, for scientists to examine & to further analyze data from the evidence, and to learn what those rovers have discovered.
The various rover missions have to take place outside the confines of a laboratory. Now unless we can sent scientists to Mars with whatever lab equipment needed, there are no possible ways to perform experiments.
The points, to you, that whatever you may think, about observations and being anti-look-and-see, experiments are observations too.
