Wlad is not a top 20 HW, he has never beaten anyone of significance

:huh

First, I don't think you know what a primary source is. Primary sources (with a few exceptions) are written by the people during the time period you're investigating. Secondary sources are (usually) written by historians analyzing primary sources. Since the Egyptians couldn't have compared their engineering projects to the Aztecs, asking for a primary source is absurd.

Second, I'll reiterate what I said throughout this thread: you're the one who claims pyramids demonstrate that the Egyptians had some sort of technological edge over their neighbors. Yet you haven't pointed to any pyramid-building technologies that the Egyptians possessed and their neighbors didn't.

Your only proof that the other civilizations couldn't build pyramids is that they didn't, which is an extremely weak form of proof since Egypt's neighbors would have no reason to build pyramids. You need to make some sort of positive proof, and you haven't.

Is it also "unfounded speculation" to say that modern New Yorkers could build the pyramids? Of course not, because they have the technology to do so. So did Egypt's neighbors.

How is this hard to understand?

If you wish to give up, you are free to do so. I'm quite confident that the stuff I've posted -- including numerous sources compared to your one (which doesn't strongly support your argument) -- looks far more convincing to any objective reader.

Already posted. Read thread.

Already posted. Read thread.

Well, let's see. The Mesoamericans didn't have work animals, the wheel, bronze working (they barely had copper working), or fractions -- all of which you could find out pretty easily if you'd read a high school history text before entering this debate. You could also look at the chapter on Mesoamerica in James McClellan's Science and Technology in World History (available here: [ame]http://www.amazon.com/Science-Technology-World-History-Introduction/dp/0801858690[/ame]), which I highly recommend that you read.

Of course, if you really want to believe that the Egyptians were technologically inferior to the Mesoamericans, be my guest. That makes the Egyptians even less impressive. :hey

 

You should not be so quick to ascribe your own inability to understand my posts to my "dishonesty". You asked for a source for my entire post, not the highlighted second part.

As for "relevant evidence"...hmmm. According to the same National Geographic article, the Kushites were foreign invaders.

Foreign.

Invaders.

Anyway, I was originally replying to your claim that the National Geographic article contradicted the Egyptians were being "white." This was an absurd claim. Clearly, mentioning black Kushite Pharaohs has no bearing on the race of the Egyptians.

 

Exactly where did I make this claim?

Nor do I have to. The Egyptians built Pyramids on a grand scale. Their contemporary neighbors didn't. If you assert that their neighbors had the engineering proficiency to match the Egyptians then the burden of proof is on you.

1 + 1 = 2

Are you again asking me to prove a negative?

Sorry but it does NOT work that way.

If you assert that the Egyptian's neighbors had the engineering proficiency to match the Egyptians then the burden of proof is on you.

1 + 1 = 2

Strawman arguments don't prove anything other than you inability to provide any evidence to back any of your assertions.

Source please.

 

Please cite the relevent text.

 

Ah, but what race were the extraterrestrials?

This content is protected

He looks tropically adapted to me.

 

Please tell me you're not serious. Look at the first sentence in the source. Here it is:

Also, what part of "CONQUERORS OF ANCIENT EGYPT" is unclear to you?

 

For the fiftieth time: You think that Egypt is somehow impressive. I asked you to prove it. You said pyramids.

Hence, this thread.

Your ultimate claim is that the Egyptians...

Ugh. On second thought, I'm not going to repeat this again. Just reread the thread and get back to me.

No. In fact, I'm beginning to suspect that you're not entirely clear on what this "prove a negative" business means either.

You're ultimately trying to show that the Egyptians were as impressive as their neighbors, right? You're using the pyramids as your example. So it falls to you to show that the pyramids were more than just piles of rocks -- that they reflected advanced technology.

If I had been you, I would have started from the beginning: What did pyramid construction require? I would have mentioned the mathematics that went into engineering them, the astronomical knowledge reflected in their alignment, the social coordination required to build them, and the construction techniques that the Egyptians used. I would have then asked my opponent to produce comparable knowledge in other civilizations. If he could produce it, we would have been at a stalemate, but I would have showed that the Egyptians at least equaled their contemporaries in most respects.

Instead, you played word games with Egyptian and Mesoamerican pyramids for 20+ pages.

...Which I did, and you ignored.

I showed in previous posts (which you did not read) that the Babylonians in particular had more technologies relevant to pyramid-building than the Egyptians did. If this is not proof, then what would constitute proof in your eyes?

If you think that this is a strawman argument, then I'm quite certain that you haven't read (or understood) my posts.

I was trying to explain to you, in the simplest terms I could, why your reasoning is mistaken. You're trying to prove that no other civilization can build a pyramid simply because they didn't build one. I'm asking you to prove that they didn't have the requisite technologies to build one.

Unbelievable.

My source was in the same paragraph that you cited. You cut it out.

 

The Kushites were *NOT* foreign invaders in the same manner as the Hyksos seeing as Ancient Egyptian culture originates in "Nubia" - same as with the Kushites. The Hyksos, OTOH, have no cultural connection to Egypt whatsoever.

Open a book before you speak on subject on which you have no clue...

 

Cite the post # please.

 

atsch

Foreign = not Egyptian. The Kushites were not Egyptian. The Hyksos were not Egyptian.

This has got to be the pettiest hair splitting I've ever seen. Do you honestly believe that when someone says "the Kushites were foreign invaders like the Hyksos" that they mean that the Kushites were identical to the Hyksos in every single respect?

They were both foreign invaders. The Kushites, like the Hyksos, were foreign invaders. Let's move on.

 

A lot of the species look human but the level of knowledge about technology must have been much more advanced than ours at that time.
Hmm it doesn't matter which race they belong to, they were just not from the earth originally, and they are superior. Just be proud to be human, not because you are white, black, yellow, or green.:yep

 

You're stalling. I'm not going to search through my own posts and relocate it when I already posted it for you and you didn't read it.

You are free to back through the thread and find it. It shouldn't be that hard.

 

WRONG.

The Kushite invasion was *nothing* like the Hyksos invasion.

The Kushites invaded to RESTORE Egyptian culture.

The Hyksos invaded to DESTROY Egyptian culture.

HUGE difference.

Again, open a book and get a clue.

Like I said, Egyptian culture and civilazation comes from "Nubia" - as with the Kushites. So, categorizing the Kushites as "foreigners" is questionable.

 

Once again, for all of the armchair "Egyptologists" in this forum;

[url]http://wysinger.homestead.com/sub-saharan.html[/url]

 

By all means, keep arguing against a point I didn't make.

Both groups came from outside of Egypt and conquered it. Neither group was Egyptian. In that respect, they were alike. That is what my post said. How on earth is this hard to understand?