Carl Wilson (
11 Aug 1996 19:27:18 GMT

Dave Courtney <> wrote in article
> I first revealed this on the 'Net in 1991, and since then I have been
> getting the "Copernicus Treatment"
> However, it is interesting to note all the attention the Academic
> community has been giving to the Sphinx since that time, especially
> trying to persuade the public that it is really millions of years old
> with cheap television tricks!

I haven't seen anyone in the scientific community making any such claim.
Who made this claim? Or is this the prelude to a strawman argument?

> If you haven't heard by now, here is the deal: Try holding up a picture
> of the Sphinx next to a picture of a Homo Erectus skull.
> Pretty similar eh?


> This should tell you a few things. One: The Homo Erectus hominids did
> not look any more like chimps than we do. They looked like us except that

> they had a rather different skull shape.

It sure does tell me a few things. About you that is. You remark
contradicts itself. "They looked like us except they had a rather
different skull shape." In effect you're saying, "They looked like us
except that they didn't look like us!"

> Two: They were smart enough to build statues of themselves at the very
> least.

An assumption built on your groundless assertion that they built the
Sphinx. An assumption built on nothing is still nothing.

> Three: Chances are that the Homo Erectus hominids fluorished rather more

> recently than scientists would suggest.

Based on what?
> Still not convinced? Try looking at other Old Kingdom artwork,
> particularly the way the skulls are depicted. One of the most obvious is
> the "Narmer Palette", that you may find in any good book on Egyptology.
> The Narmer Palette clearly shows a hominid with the height and shape of
> a Homo Erectus bashing the brains out of another shorter hominid shaped
> like a Australopithecus.

Since you claim that the Sphinx portrays a Homo erectus, your conclusion is
built (again) on a groundless assertion.
> For those of you too lazy to look it up, believe me when I say that
> these hominids are not covered with hair. Scientists need to start
> reconstructing human features on these early humans and stop trying to
> make them out as half-apes.

Right. Forget about doing good science and start bolstering your beliefs.
Evidence be damned, eh?

> What is the explanation? The oldest historical documents attest. All of
> the hominids died out with the exception of Homo Sapiens. Agreed? Homo
> Sapiens culture may be traced back in all directions to the area around
> Mount Ararat.

Wrong again.

> Here's a trivia question for you. What do Somalia and the Republic of
> Georgia have in common? (Besides that parts of both are separatist,
> unrecognised states?)
> Give up? Both Somalis and Georgians trace their ancestry all the way
> back to Noah. Of course, so does everybody else in between. Noahs three
> children, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, all have peoples claiming to be their
> descendants. Somalis being Cushitic will admit to being named for Ham's
> son Cush. Georgians are traditionally descended from Japheth's son
> Meshech. And of course, most of the peoples in between are Semitic.

Boy you got us there! Georgians are "traditionally".... At the same time
the earth was "traditionally" believed to be flat. So I guess it really is

Your entire posting is based on two things. A lack of understanding of
science, and "traditional" beliefs.
Hardly a debunking of science, only a demonstration of your total ignorance
of it.

[much garbage deleted...]