Fascinating!

[Dan From Smithville]

No. I don't believe any "bottleneck" was the origin of any of these stories I can think of.

"Adam" was the first homo sapiens but he was a mutation with a speech center closely tied to higher brain functions.

No population bottleneck here.

Two people would not have the diversity to produce a population. Two is a terminal condition for a population.

 

[cladking]

There are over 6,000 spoken languages. Each varying in the number of words, definitions, context and connotation. Which language are you referring too?

All modern human languages are alike in that there is no tie to reality. There are some very interesting languages that break some of the rules like Basque, Hawaiian, and Irish but none are metaphysical.

Ancient Language was metaphysical and spoken by all homo sapiens. Only modern human languages are not metaphysical.

What are ancients. People of 100 years ago? A 1,000 years? 10,000 years? 300,000 years? What did people of 1,000 years ago understand about electricity that is greater than what we understand today? How does the ignorance of a few mean that knowledge is not possessed by others?

"Ancient people" is a reference to people who were alive before the Tower of Babel and spoke ancient Language.

If ancient cultures did not have a word for belief, it does not mean that they did not have beliefs.

This is merely an assertion that flies in the face of logic. Sure, you could be correct but no experiment shows it. There is no modern language without such words and ALL modern people see what they believe and talk about it using the "infrastructure of superstition".

It makes no sense to me out of context. Even with context, it may still not make sense, being formed from some irrational basis I am not privy to.

It will actually make even less sense to you in context.

How can you conclude it is irrational if it makes no sense and is written in language that doesn't even have the words "rational" or "irrational"? You are leaping to the same conclusion made by Egyptologists who never even tried to make sense of it. I did! I found it all makes perfect sense and that it usually pretty much means exactly what it says. The literal interpretation reflects author intent and reveals a scientific language, not nonsense. We see what we expect but more importantly we must parse sentences before there is any sense at all. This is what you are doing; parsing a language that can't be parsed because the meaning evaporates.

You must remember that no words had any definition at all. The meaning was representative of the referent and its meaning was fixed. There is no room for interpretation. Also the language was formatted differently. They didn't use subject > verb > predicate. They used subject > context > meaning. This required every thing to have three words in three categories and the choice of category defined the sentence. You can't parse this language and you can't translate it because you can't say ANYTHING in modern language that is fixed in reality. There are literally submarines literally flying higher than the moon because every word has many meanings. We don't notice how modern language or the brain works so, of course, we never noticed Ancient Language was different. Then there was the tower of babel and we talk like we do now. We use confused language because metaphysical language became too complex.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It just gets worse and worse, every time you keep asserting things without giving them more thought. Building a dam, swimming, mating, sleeping, hibernating, etc., are all instinctual behaviors in beavers. They do not "invent" dams using "their science", they build them. This behavior is biologically, genetically, and instinctually hard-wired by evolution. Beavers may not know what a second or a year is, but they are keenly aware of the passage of time, seasonal changes, and other environmental changes. The bee assertion is just another fact-less assumption that you try to force fit, to support your conclusion. Even you don't need a watch to have a good idea of what time of day it is. Our complex language only allows us to accumulate MORE knowledge, but the mechanisms for learning is cognizant, not language. Hence, not necessary for life or survival.

I think that most people understand just how "free will"(if it exists), can easily be compromised, controlled, manipulated, or even taken away. You totally ignore the role of our social interactions, negative and positive feedbacks cues, our genetic makeup and hormone systems, and how our early development shape our conscious predilections. Do you think that these factors might have some effect on our consciousness, and the illusion of "free will"? So, no. Having free will does not allow us to do anything we like. Also, consciousness and free will, are not essential for life. How do the vast majority of other species survive without being self-aware or having free will. Just ask any worm. Simply stating that they must, is also not evidence.



Please, what is the evidence that backs up these assertions? This is not about what I believe, or the belief-models that I cling to. This is about what evidence you can present to support your claims. So, stop shifting your responsibility by just making more assertions and claims.

I do not try to control my organs, because I understand the science of human physiology. I understand the functions of the 3 nervous systems. I do accept "phantom itching" because the evidence supports that belief. No one can observe the location, or be cognisant of any processes of the brain, because Neural transmission are unidirectional. Just because you see the cat, does not mean that the cat can also sees you. Just because the mind can project its perception of reality, doesn't mean that the perception can project the mind. What is your evidence for organ control?

Even a hypothesis must include some independent facts. If science rejects your hypothesis, then I suggest that you re-examine them again.

I cannot get passed the idea that he thinks that beavers one day came up with the idea of dams, communicated that idea, tested various designs, settled on the one we see today and that it was all done with some sort of scientific process. What I cannot get passed is that a lot of his "evidence" is what he believes and there is nothing physical to back it up.

 

[cladking]

Two people would not have the diversity to produce a population. Two is a terminal condition for a population.

There was a single mutation in an individual we know only as "Adam" and the Egyptians called "S3h". This was the first human and he bred with the proto-humans and his progeny became the human race.

The mutation simply tied the speech center (wernickes area) to higher brain functions. It is this which defines the human race, not intelligence, not thumbs, and not any invention, process, or characteristic.

But the human race changed at the tower of babel and we are now homo omnisciencis and believe we know everything.

 

[cladking]

I cannot get passed the idea that he thinks that beavers one day came up with the idea of dams, communicated that idea, tested various designs, settled on the one we see today and that it was all done with some sort of scientific process. What I cannot get passed is that a lot of his "evidence" is what he believes and there is nothing physical to back it up.

All ideas are individual. All progress is individual. All peers are irrelevant. Most likely dam building was a series of ideas over time. Probably there were beavers swimming on the shoulders of giants before they all got to where they are today.

Of course beaver giants are puny compared to human giants because humans have complex language and chewing down trees to create log jams isn't really rocket science to us since we have far more knowledge. No more "intelligence", but far more knowledge. And far less ability to gnaw down trees. This knowledge derives from complex language and the ability of Eve to promote and promulgate it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All modern human languages are alike in that there is no tie to reality. There are some very interesting languages that break some of the rules like Basque, Hawaiian, and Irish but none are metaphysical.

Ancient Language was metaphysical and spoken by all homo sapiens. Only modern human languages are not metaphysical.

This is your opinion and unsupported by any evidence. The word chair in English is a part of the language. When I offer a chair to another to sit on, they do not break through the door, jump out the window or sit on the floor. They sit on the chair.

You have no evidence that there was one language spoken by all people. This is belief. Pure belief without any evidence to support it.

"Ancient people" is a reference to people who were alive before the Tower of Babel and spoke ancient Language.

So anyone that existed prior to a mythical structure with no established origin of construction. A believed structure conceived and destroyed in believed events. So a meaningless reference with regards to anything. Over the last 6,000 years, there has been no evidence that language was one universal tongue and that suddenly at some undetermined point, 1,000's sprang up.

This is merely an assertion that flies in the face of logic. Sure, you could be correct but no experiment shows it. There is no modern language without such words and ALL modern people see what they believe and talk about it using the "infrastructure of superstition".

Since the only language we can have anything to comment on is written language, you cannot state with any certainty that ancient languages did not contain words referencing belief, supernatural or related words. There is no logic in claiming that these did not exist. If you do not speak the "Ancient Language" how can you even know?

It will actually make even less sense to you in context.

How can you conclude it is irrational if it makes no sense and is written in language that doesn't even have the words "rational" or "irrational"? You are leaping to the same conclusion made by Egyptologists who never even tried to make sense of it. I did! I found it all makes perfect sense and that it usually pretty much means exactly what it says. The literal interpretation reflects author intent and reveals a scientific language, not nonsense. We see what we expect but more importantly we must parse sentences before there is any sense at all. This is what you are doing; parsing a language that can't be parsed because the meaning evaporates.

All you know is that the writing did not have certain words. You do not have the context of those that spoke the language and the culture they existed in. You have a belief that is exactly what you want it to be and a mechanism to shew away anyone that questions that belief.

You are seeing what you want to see and ignoring what you do not want to see.

You must remember that no words had any definition at all. The meaning was representative of the referent and its meaning was fixed. There is no room for interpretation. Also the language was formatted differently. They didn't use subject > verb > predicate. They used subject > context > meaning. This required every thing to have three words in three categories and the choice of category defined the sentence. You can't parse this language and you can't translate it because you can't say ANYTHING in modern language that fixed in reality. There are literally submarines literally flying higher than the moon because every word has many meanings. We don't notice how modern language or the brain works so, of course, we never noticed Ancient Language was different. Then there was the tower of babel and we talk like we do now. We use confused language because metaphysical language became too complex.

You are extrapolating a belief to become a fact. If they did not have written language, they did not have written dictionary, but this does not mean they did not have a dictionary. I have one in my head. Representing an object is defining it to mean something.

Any formatting differences can only be seen in written language that is available for study. Anything before the creation of the artifacts that have examples of that language is unknown and pure speculation.

 

[cladking]

All ideas are individual. This knowledge derives from complex language and the ability of Eve to promote and promulgate it.

We were supposed to remember this whenever we saw Rigel but we lost our science and our history at the tower of babel.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All ideas are individual. All progress is individual. All peers are irrelevant. Most likely dam building was a series of ideas over time. Probably there were beavers swimming on the shoulders of giants before they all got to where they are today.

Of course beaver giants are puny compared to human giants because humans have complex language and chewing down trees to create log jams isn't really rocket science to us since we have far more knowledge. No more "intelligence", but far more knowledge. And far less ability to gnaw down trees. This knowledge derives from complex language and the ability of Eve to promote and promulgate it.

Most likely, dam building was a series of behavioral actions that evolved over time. There is no evidence of beaver science, beaver schools, beaver education systems, etc. You, yourself, said that they have no language, so how could the giants pass on the information? None of this makes sense.

You make a lot of statements as fact that are opinion and belief. The ability to construct dams is based on the beavers ability to cut trees. How could they maintain dam construction if they were losing a keystone ability required for that construction?

I am not arguing that beavers do not possess an intelligence, but in your example, you are attributing things to beavers that no one, I MEAN NO ONE, has ever demonstrated to exist.

I get that your world view is based on redefining words to mean something else, but intelligence can be tested and beavers do not show an intelligence that is the same as that exhibited by people.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We were supposed to remember this whenever we saw Rigel but we lost our science and our history at the tower of babel.

Rigel? The Hynerian Dominar from Farscape?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We were supposed to remember this whenever we saw Rigel but we lost our science and our history at the tower of babel.

This event is a myth. What are you going to do?

Bees have a language. It is complex and effective.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are engaging in semantics and word play again. The word "translation" has numerous meanings and YOU CHOSE THE ONE FOR THIS CONVERSATION AND THEN CHANGED IT!!!

What I said AL can't be translated I simply meant author intent can not be changed into any modern language. Changing author intent from one language to another is one of the definitions of "translation". Indeed, it's why most translation is done at all.

Egyptology missed author intent by a mile and author intent can not be directly expressed in English.

I might not even point out semantical arguments in the future if you insist on continuing to use them.

The only thing that I have gotten out of all you have posted is that you really, really, really do not like Egyptologists.

 

[cladking]

Since the only language we can have anything to comment on is written language, you cannot state with any certainty that ancient languages did not contain words referencing belief, supernatural or related words. There is no logic in claiming that these did not exist. If you do not speak the "Ancient Language" how can you even know?

Because Ancient language just keeps repeating the same 6 or 8000 words over and over again. Most of them are nouns and Egyptologists never even noticed they break Zipf's Law.

Modern people literally can't sneeze without invoking beliefs, thoughts or superstition. No Egyptologist can make any statement about anything without saying words that are synonyms for "belief" or "thought". We would be tongue tied without such vocabulary. We see what we believe and we must think to do it so we can't describe anything without such vocabulary. The lack of vocabulary for Ancient Language is virtually proof they didn't think like Egyptologists and they didn't "think" at all from our perspective. They were fundamentally different and lacked a brocas area. They processed their world in a digital and metaphysical language that had only a single word for "chair" so it wouldn't be confused with an "appointment" to a position or anything else.

The "tower of babel" shouldn't be thought of as a place at all. We don't really know what it was though I have several hypotheses and only one involves "Babel" and a few involve a "tower". Think of it as an event at which the official language all over the world was changed from Ancient Language to its pidgin forms. The original language was universal and static but the pidgin forms were local and evolved rapidly. They all share the same vocabulary but the nature of words and their meanings have changed. The pidgin languages were not mutually intelligible.

I can state beyond fear of contradiction from any knowledgeable person that the words didn't exist and can show exactly how they expressed concepts that we experience as thought. Egyptologists are ignoring this but I have no doubt they are quite aware of my arguments and they can't refute them. Long before I knew much of anything back in 2009 Hawass referred to my theory as "other unscientific theories on the internet". None have talked about it since but they keep backtracking on their statements and hypotheses. They even say they will release no data until it conforms with Egyptological belief. They think it's a stalemate but they are increasingly becoming irrelevant. Data will never conform with the paradigm and people are starting to notice that they won't apply science.

If you really believe they had superstitious words (no not gods and magic) then all you have to do is find one of them. Believe me you can't because there are none. Not even modern translators can find them.

 

[cladking]

This event is a myth. What are you going to do?

Bees have a language. It is complex and effective.

How do you offer a chair to a bee, ask it about grandmother, or even tell one about an outcropping by the flowers?

No. The vocabulary is highly limited. the grammar is limited. The knowledge needed to be a bee is not simple but the language is.

 

[cladking]

The only thing that I have gotten out of all you have posted is that you really, really, really do not like Egyptologists.

Yeah, well....

The feeling is quite mutual.

Actually I have nothing against any Egyptologists and hold the vast majority of them in very high regard. I single a few out because it's a necessity for communication but I have the utmost respect even for these individuals. I know what it takes to become an Egyptologist and I know they have a tremendous amount of knowledge individually and collectively. Many of them have more knowledge than I could acquire in a lifetime. Also people like Dr Lehner command a great deal of respect otherwise as movers and shakers.

As a group I find them nearly despicable. Not because I believe they are wrong and their boneheaded beliefs are destroying the world and threatening the species. they know not what they do. I hold the group in low regard because they refuse to help or hinder me. They leave me twisting on the net forever looking the fool. Also my low opinion of the group is caused by their unwillingness to use science and their disdain for real scientists. I don't like that they refuse to gather data and then censor it like they believe they own reality and they each personally own the pyramids. All men have a right to data and it is wrong for Egyptologists to stifle such rights. The pyramids belong to the Egyptian people and not Egyptologists. The Egyptian people have the right to know and to profit from knowing. The pyramids belong to everybody, not to a bunch of ivory towered and lettered peers. Egyptologists didn't build the pyramids. The average man (more than half the real work was done by women and children) built the pyramids and they used natural processes (they called "gods) to do it.

 

[ecco]

Two people would not have the diversity to produce a population. Two is a terminal condition for a population.

[sarcasm]
Not if The Creator God endorses incest.
[/sarcasm]

 

[Thief]

but then an INDIVIDUAL (Adam?) was born with a mutation that tied the speech center more closely to higher brain functions. This allowed a complexity not possible in ANY OTHER ANIMAL.

not buying that

Adam is a chosen son fo God
there were other people on the earth

and if Adam was a mutation …..he spoke to no one else

 

[cladking]

not buying that

Adam is a chosen son fo God
there were other people on the earth

and if Adam was a mutation …..he spoke to no one else

You're forgetting two simple things. Complex Language didn't contain much science when Adam was born because individuals all had to start at square one. Adam's command of language was almost more a potentiality than a reality. You're forgetting that "intelligence" doesn't exist. This means he could find a mate with better language skills and more capable of learning his own. Humans can learn almost anything not because we're intelligent or know so much, but because the brain in both its digital and analog form is quite adaptable and powerful. Eve believed in Adam and helped make him famous. If we ever find the courage to look inside the pyramid we'll find more about these two (S3.h and Sothis).

Adam would have taught as much to the proto-humans as they were capable of learning. There really was very little difference between them since this was the first generation of a species defined by its ability to acquire knowledge across generations. Adam was the very first man/ male homo sapien and his offspring mated with proto-humans creating more more homo sapiens. Within very few generations proto-humans simply became obsolete because they couldn't possibly understand complex language so they fell by the wayside. They simply became extinct just as homo sapiens became extinct at the tower of babel.

There is 40,000 years of science and history but Egyptologists are to afraid to even run simple scientific tests on the great pyramids to find out and to prove me right. Years of badgering them to do infrared imaging resulted in them running the tests and then saying (in 2015) that they refuse to release results because they fly in the face of Egyptological dogma.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Show your objective evidence and I have no interest at all in wiki pages or "science" derived from anything other than experiment.

I HAVE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE BUT YOU IGNORE IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. There is no word for "belief", remember. I've cited dozens of facts and have many more to support those but you can't see them so why go deeper into it? Why don't you challenge something you believe is merely assertion? People see the world in terms of their beliefs. This is obviously true but if you challenged it I could provide extensive experimental evidence to show it. Instead you are dismissing what I say and presenting the conclusion of Look and See Science. Darwin was wrong. Why can't you address what I say?



I don't know what this means except you must not understand anything I've said.

I am self taught. I did long ago use scientific text books to aid me but this was before Look and See Science was so commonplace. There was very little soup of the day science until more modern times. I don't read Look and See studies and results because I don't care. I care about theory based on experiment.



YES. REAL THEORY IS SUPPORTED BY EXPERIMENT. What is supported only by observation IS NOT THEORY. It is Look And See Science.

What is so complex about this? Even scientists now days often can't understand what science is and how it works.



MY REALITY makes accurate prediction where Look and See science refuses to even release data because it doesn't agree with their beliefs.



You just said you refuse to try to understand what I'm saying. Or maybe you can't understand such a simple concept as you must assign meaning to every word in this sentence on a real time basis to understand it. It's hard for me to tell when you aren't even trying to keep up.



Because you don't seem to understand the sentence, Habit is the root of most behavior that is encoded in the genes and made manifest by consciousness. Without understanding "free will" which underlies this you can't understand the PERSPECTIVE from which we can more easily see the evidence. As I said many times, it's not that science is wrong, it's that it sees reality from a poor perspective which doesn't include all the evidence and logic. Facts and logic are just tossed aside because they are deemed to be irrelevancies.

I don't know what this means except you must not understand anything I've said.

You just said you refuse to try to understand what I'm saying. Or maybe you can't understand such a simple concept as you must assign meaning to every word in this sentence on a real time basis to understand it. It's hard for me to tell when you aren't even trying to keep up.

This is ironic, since I simply quoted your own words. How do you expect others to understand your fragmented, disjointed, and ambiguous sentences, when even you can't understand your own words? It would seem that it is you that should keep up with the meaning and understanding of your own words. In real time.

You want objective evidence? Let's start with a simple experiment to demonstrate if we can consciously control our organs. I want you to place an apple and a flower on a table near you that is within your line of sight. Now I want you to completely cover your eyes so that no light can enter it. Now look in the direction of the table that the apple and flower are on. Tell me what do you see? For normal humans, the answer is nothing but darkness. Now I want you to consciously focus really hard, to see the apple and the flower on the table(not in your mind). Anything? I want you to consciously try to extend your lens, rods and cones, and your optic nerve past the blindfolds, and then tell me what you see? Can you now see the table, apple, or flower? Again, humans will only see darkness. What does this experiment tell us? Sight is a passive process, not an active process. Therefore we don't have active, or direct control over our visual receptors, or the visual network(other than mechanical). This experiment can be modified to demonstrate that we don't any active or direct control over other visceral organs as well(liver, heart, lungs, kidneys, etc.). What experiments would you have me do, that would support your assertion/implication that we do have direct control over these organs? I can understand not knowing the difference between Broca's area and Wernicke's area because of your poor understanding of science. But even a child would understand that he can't consciously control anything that he can't even be aware of. This is not just ignorance, this is a lack of common sense.

I HAVE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE BUT YOU IGNORE IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. There is no word for "belief", remember. I've cited dozens of facts and have many more to support those but you can't see them so why go deeper into it? Why don't you challenge something you believe is merely assertion? People see the world in terms of their beliefs. This is obviously true but if you challenged it I could provide extensive experimental evidence to show it. Instead you are dismissing what I say and presenting the conclusion of Look and See Science. Darwin was wrong. Why can't you address what I say?

Unfortunately, this is all just gibberish and half-truths. You have never supported any of your claims with testable, falsifiable, reproducible, or observable evidence. Can you give me an example of just one of the experimental evidence you've mentioned? What predictions can you make based on your beliefs about reality? Lets hear them. It is true that what people believe in can affect what people do. But all beliefs are conceptual, not perceptual. You can believe anything you want about the physical world, but it will never change the fact that a rock will always have the properties of a rock, regardless of your beliefs.

Please tell me what scientific Theory was derived from observations only? I know of none. What scientist are having problems understanding the methodology of their own scientific investigation? What is the rationale for asserting that "Look" (question, analyze, vet, and investigate) and "See" (experiment, predict, compare, and reproduce), are somehow not a valid method for scientific investigation?

There are only two perspectives. Which perspective would you think is more suitable for science? Subjective or Objective? Which perspective do you think that humans are trapped in? Subjective or Objective? Our subjective perspective is only related to our perception of reality(subjectivity). Our subjectivity is not directly related to our consciousness, our genes, our habits, and certainly not from the illusion of free will. Also, what facts, data, and logic do science toss out, or call irrelevant, that maintains its poor perspective? Evidence please!

 

[Truly Enlightened]

So a man buys a lottery ticket wins millions and then crashes his private jet on the side of a mountain in the Arctic and you ask me what happenstance has to do with anything!

I just don't know how to get through to you. Everything you actually know supports my beliefs but you can neither see it nor tell me anything that contradicts it. Your beliefs are so strong you can see I put facts and logic in every post. It is a simple fact too basic to show by experiment that most things are the result not of free will but of blind chance.

Every single time a molecule collides with another its resulting momentum is unknowable in advance but it still shapes all of reality forever. An oxygen molecule bumps a nitrogen molecule which causes a chain reaction that results in an itch in a butterfly's wing in China causing it to flap leading to a hurricane in the US which causes a man to buy a lottery ticket and crash his jet.

But, no, your world is much simpler and can be understood by just observing. And you might never notice what you are observing is merely what you already believe rather than what's before your eyes.

Sigh...

I'm sorry reality is far too complex to really understand or make prediction (prophesy) outside of science but that's the way it is.

Anyone that claims that beavers invent dams, by using beaver science, has more imagination than logic. But when someone tries to defend this claim, by implying that beaver's actually know what is the best habitat to invent, then they are using only their imagination. This would create a slippery slope to claim that all species must also invent their own habitat, using their own science? This would be sheer nonsense. Especially in the absence of any evidence supporting species(other than man) creating their own habitats. Unfortunately the rest of post #338 is completely intellectually dishonest, and incorrect. Regarding this post.

I have no idea if a man winning lotto, will, or will not be responsible for his own plane crashing into the side of a mountain. Nor do I know if a butterfly flapping its wings in China, will directly be responsible for a hurricane in some other part of the world. You are confusing the Chaos Theory(deterministic and unpredictably predictable), with cause and effect(Causality and time-invariant). You can't simply ignore all the other possible events that are also inherent in natural systems. I seriously don't think you fully understand the underlying significance of the Chaos Theory. That is, beyond your over-simplistic misrepresentation.

Every single time a molecule collides with another its resulting momentum is unknowable in advance but it still shapes all of reality forever. An oxygen molecule bumps a nitrogen molecule which causes a chain reaction that results in an itch in a butterfly's wing in China causing it to flap leading to a hurricane in the US which causes a man to buy a lottery ticket and crash his jet.

It would also seem that your understanding of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and de Broglie's equation, is just as weak as your understanding of the Chaos Theory. Maybe you can explain why our observed classical reality, does not appear to behave in the same way as the quantum reality. In one sense, we are connected in a sea of quantum waves. Our classical reality is governed by the four(or five) forces of nature. It is these forces of nature that are governed by the rules of Quantum reality.

Finally, my world is much simpler than the quantum world you are trying to conflate. It is a world that I can not only observe, but can test, falsify, and validate. To deny reality, is to deny the perception of reality. To deny the perception of reality, is to create another slippery slope. So, if you can present evidence that demonstrates the existence of an alternate reality, we can avoid this fallacy. Maybe you can describe a reality that exists, when our senses are not immersed in sensory overload? I'm sorry that the realities demonstrated and explained by science, is far too complex for you to understand. Certainly not enough to dispute its claims.
​

 

[cladking]

All you know is that the writing did not have certain words. You do not have the context of those that spoke the language and the culture they existed in. You have a belief that is exactly what you want it to be and a mechanism to shew away anyone that questions that belief.

Context must be deduced from available evidence. This evidence includes a lot of things that are normally brushed off as irrelevancies. One of these "irrelevancies" is the people said they used a cool effervescent column of water in funiculars to build pyramids and there is extensive physical evidence they did exactly this. One of these "irrelevancies" is that the linguists in charge of engineering at Giza never noticed the language broke Zipf's Law. One of these "irrelevancies" is that there is foreign sand at a couple of pyramids and vaterite behind the walls in the Great Pyramid.

If you pick and choose what evidence you see you can support any argument at all. This is EXACTLY how all humans live their lives and become their own circular argument.