Do you believe in any of the following...?

Okay, try "Age Of The Sphinx In Question".

And it's your research, not mine.

And here's an article of traditional Egyptologists views on the age of the Sphinx to get you started:

Article Reviews

[SIZE=+2]The Sphinx: Who built it, and why?[/SIZE] (Zahi Hawass and Mark Lehner) Archaeology, September 1994
reviewed by:
Craig Wolther , Jaclyn Brower , Frank
The Sphinx is one of the most easily recognized symbols of
ancient Egypt. It is part of Khafre's pyramid complex. Now
Khafre is quite possibly the greatest maker of statues of the pyramid age ( ca.2575-2467 B.C. ) Through archaelogical studies of the Sphinx Temples , many possibilities for its purpose have been suggested. One concept is that the Sphinx represents the Sun god , the king as the god Horus , or a king in the leonine form of a god. Unfortunately , the builders of the Sphinx left no writing as to its purpose , just as they had left the Sphinx in a unfinished state.

There have been numerous attempts at restoration on the Sphinx over thousands of years. Unfortunately , all attempts to restore the Sphinx have failed in the long run , considering there has been a need for more and more restoration. The latest retoration attempt came about in 1981-82 , in which buttressing and masonry cladding were applied to stop large pieces from falling but the effect of the new materials on the rock surface , which is flaking and crumbling , is unknown.

Over the centuries , all the restoration has actually changed the shape of the Sphinx from its original form. In the 18th Dynasty , the Pharoh known as Thutmose IV , included in the restoration the " Dream stele " , which was carved into the chest of the Sphinx. Symbolizing the relationship between the Pharoh and the gods. And , again ,even the most recent attempts at restoration have changed the outward appearance of the Sphinx. Maybe , it is our opinion , that it is time to let nature take its course and man should stop interfearing with the effects of time.

http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/proj/anthro/asb222/articles/article20.html

The burden of proof is upon you, so start Googling.

I've seen lightning.

But you can't say, "hey lightning, come here and hit this meter so I can measure you and analyze you."

Psychic phenomena is sorta like that - it hits out of the blue and since it's in people's heads, how do you measure it?

No, because it was not my intention to start a debate over the age of the Sphinx, it was my intention to prove a point about the weakness of the scientific community, how personal prejudices can become involved and how science can be dogmatic like religion.

True, but the disappearance of the Bering land bridge is certainly something that could be mistaken for an entire continent being swallowed by the sea is it not?

My sister once said she'd had a strange dream about a plane crash. When she woke up in the morning, she turned on the TV news, and, lo and behold, there had been a plane crash earlier that morning. She thought it must be psychic or something.

I told her that, onsidering that was only one dream out of many, many thousands of dreams she'd had that came true (and about a relatively common occurence at that), she probably shouldn't claim the title 'psychic' just yet.

But lightning can be measured and does leave physical evidence of it. It can also be captured on film. Sprites, jets and elves were not believed to exist until it was caught on film:




Psychic phenomena can not be captured on film nor does it leave physical traces.

That's what makes it hard to prove.

The scientific method works to get rid of that. Works pretty well actually.

The simple fact is, the geology of your sources is bad. I have done a bit of a review of the literature, and it seems that Schoch's ideas dont hold up to scrutiny. he claims that the weathering of the sphinx is due to precipitation which only occurred at the earlier time period. However, wind induced weathering that occurred later would have obliterated the evidence of this. However, rapid weathering occurs within the rock due to the formation of salt crystals in the rock poors, which causes exfoliation due to hydrostatic pressure.

What Schoch did was himself get focuses on his personal prejudices and focus on one explanation he favored, without looking at alternative, and more parsimonious working hypotheses.

Nobody's saying you should believe in it. To believe in something is totally different from saying that it's possible. I don't believe in any of that stuff, but I certainly believe they're all possible.

Hence the "white crow" example that you totally missed the point of.

I don't agree.

There is quite a difference between wind and water erosion.

However, are you saying that the salt crystals can mimic the patterns of water erosion?

That is what geologists tell me. I am a biologist by training, but apparently, it looks pretty similar. The rock the the Sphinx is made up of is very porous, and salts will leach through and accumulate within the pores. This puts pressure on the outer layer of rock, causing it to slowly slough off, get weathered down a little, and display the rounded profile that Schoch sites. This comes from another Geologist named August Matthuson.

http://www.catchpenny.org/augustm.html

The only way that Schoch is right, is if a civilization capable of carving a monolith out of solid rock, vanished without any other trace thousands of years before there was a recognizable civilization in the region...

I wish I would've come across that info, that's more reasonable than just dismissing something out of hand, just because it makes someone uncomfortable.

Thing is, unless scientists have an agenda, we are not very good at communicating what we find to the masses. The people that do have agendas, like trying to support the insane idea that atlanteans (who are apparently martian refugees according to West) carved the sphinx, typically are rather eloquent, or at least convince someone who is, and they publish their findings in public rather than scientific circles. Or they target their audiences.

Schoch isn't the only geologist that claims that the weathering patterns on the Sphinx are 'classic water erosion.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza

Personally I have no idea, but the concept that we have no other evidence of this civilization that might predate ancient Egypt, except of course the evidence we are choosing to ignore, isn't a very compelling argument to me. We didn't think Troy existed until recently either.

The difference there is a matter of degree. A few rainy years could have sped up the weathering process. Schoch thinks it is THOUSANDS of years older

Evidentally Schoch responded to critics in a KMT article:

http://touregypt.net/historicalessays/sphinxa11.htm

Again, I have no standing to question either way, but there's several geologists that side with Schock, if not in degree than definitely that the Sphinx predates standard Egyptologists estimation based on it's erosion patterns, especially when contrasted to the other monuments and geological features near it.

Personally I think there is enormous room in mankind's development for undiscovered history - cro magnon, who is 99.9% functionally equivalent to modern man, has been around at least 60,000 years prior to 'history', starting at 5000 BC.

You're kidding.

Shit, to do that you'd need some kind of......lightning rod. But since there isn't such a thing...

How about this angle...

From a purely scientific point of view, can something be impossible today but possible tomorrow? Is impossibility static, or can it change to possibility through some sort of paradigm shift?

I'm willing to believe in the possibility of things happening. There's a lot of brain potential we don't tap into, and there's a lot of possibility. Most of the astrology (checks to see if this is red room) bullshit is just that.

The pyramid power, I'm assuming, is the theory of pyramid shapes doing odd things. I read somewhere that if you put a block of cheese under a pyramid of paper or wood, on a small block, it won't go bad for three or four times as long.

Nothing is impossible, just improbable. For instance, the chance that psychics really can read minds is about as likely as me spontaneously growing penises on my face.

Yes.

A few decades ago, it was impossible to communicate directly over a brief period of time without direct electrical signals over a cable.

So now you can emperically quantify the probability of mind reading and growing penises on your face?

I dunno, ask the improbability drive.

See, that's the disconnect for me right there. In my worldview, something is either impossible or it's not, and nothing can change that. Radio communication 1000 years ago was possible, only we hadn't figured out how to do it yet. That's why when people like Herp and Timmy imply that nothing that hasn't been imperically measured or subject to the Scientific Process Does Not Exist. But if somehow in the future there is a scientific breakthrough which does allow us to measure it, then all of a sudden it exists. As if nothing exists that we haven't seen with our own, scientific little eyes. You do realize that Schrodinger was just kidding right?

Again, to me that thing has always existed, we just hadn't been able to measure it yet....hence anything is possible.

...and yet you made the claim.

Hmmm. I suppose it's largely a matter of semantics. We sometimes say 'impossible' when we mean 'not practical,' 'not economical,' etc.

Strictly speaking, something that is impossible is not possible even in principle. That is, it violates some fundamental law of the universe. Of course, our understanding of those laws is subject to revision, so even that's not necessarily set in stone.

Then there are things that are possible in principle, but that are probably not achievable in reality. Again, time improves our capabilities so what is not practical to do today, will be at some point in the future.

I guess I'd say this...

The impossible can never happen, no matter what the circumstances.

Everything else falls into the realm of the possible, but our capability does not span that entire set. So there are things that are possible but which we cannot currently (or, possibly, ever) do.

I agree. So going by from "I guess I'd say this..." on...is mind reading impossible?