Pyramids were grain silos, not tombs, says Carson
Eh, surgery is a skill, not a talent, and competency in it isn't really a marker of intelligence so much as it is one of intense study and good hand eye coordination. Reminds me of a guy I once worked for who spoke 5 languages due to a lot of travel in his youth, but was dumb as a box of rocks; always threw people off who were initially dazzled by the fluency and couldn't square it with what he actually said.
My son has severe (and global) apraxia, and it appears that cognition / fine motor skills / hand-eye coordination are, indeed, closely related, to the extent that deficits in one may accurately reflect deficits in the other. .
I dunno about this.
A lady who is a long time family friend of mom and dad has tons of "cognition" , plus normal social skills, and worked both as a scientist, and a supervisor of other scientists. But she had apraxia. Could never tell left from right, and she cant read a map. In the pre GPS days she couldnt be trusted to drive from a point on the Baltimore Beltway to a point on the Washington Beltway to save her life even though the two cities are right next to each other.
nerdygirl
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,645
Location: In the land of abstractions and ideas.
You should watch the documentary "Patterns of Evidence - Egypt."
A lot of what the movie says is inconclusive (admitted to be so), but it makes one go Hmmmmm....
Everyone interviewed admits whatever personal bias they may have (how refreshing!), and there are a wide number of perspectives shown. Worth a watch.
Then come back and discuss this issue about the pyramids.
A lot of what the movie says is inconclusive (admitted to be so), but it makes one go Hmmmmm....
Everyone interviewed admits whatever personal bias they may have (how refreshing!), and there are a wide number of perspectives shown. Worth a watch.
Then come back and discuss this issue about the pyramids.
So, are you saying that Carson's laughably stupid idea should be given some credence because some Christian group has put together a propaganda film arguing for discredited, implausible theories about Egyptian history?
I am not sure I follow the reasoning there.
Even if it were true that the Egyptologists have their dates all wrong, it still makes no sense to think of the Pyramids as storage containers for anything but dead Pharaos and their relics. Using a huge structure made of solid stone with tiny interior spaces makes as much sense on a purely practical level as using a bowling ball as a cup and proposing that people preparing for a drought would begin storing water in the finger holes of bowling balls.
It doesn't work, no matter how you approach it.
A lady who is a long time family friend of mom and dad has tons of "cognition" , plus normal social skills, and worked both as a scientist, and a supervisor of other scientists. But she had apraxia. Could never tell left from right, and she cant read a map. In the pre GPS days she couldnt be trusted to drive from a point on the Baltimore Beltway to a point on the Washington Beltway to save her life even though the two cities are right next to each other.
Dyspraxia, like autism, manifests differently in different individuals and varies in severity. There are different "types" of apraxia - such as oral motor apraxia or oculo motor apraxia which may occur as "stand-alones" or as co-morbids. Yet others, like my young man, have global apraxia that affects every aspect of their functioning, from difficulty planning even the simplest activity (such as walking down the stairs) to a total inability to utter a word.
Your friend may have mild dyspraxia that affects her spatial awareness and skills, without affecting other skills or overall functioning ability.
Anyway, the good news is that as fine motor skills improve, so does cognition. One can always hope !
_________________
O villain, villain, smiling, damnèd villain!
My tables—meet it is I set it down
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.
At least I'm sure it may be so in "Denmark".
-- Hamlet, 1.5.113-116
nerdygirl
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2014
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,645
Location: In the land of abstractions and ideas.
A lot of what the movie says is inconclusive (admitted to be so), but it makes one go Hmmmmm....
Everyone interviewed admits whatever personal bias they may have (how refreshing!), and there are a wide number of perspectives shown. Worth a watch.
Then come back and discuss this issue about the pyramids.
So, are you saying that Carson's laughably stupid idea should be given some credence because some Christian group has put together a propaganda film arguing for discredited, implausible theories about Egyptian history?
I am not sure I follow the reasoning there.
Even if it were true that the Egyptologists have their dates all wrong, it still makes no sense to think of the Pyramids as storage containers for anything but dead Pharaos and their relics. Using a huge structure made of solid stone with tiny interior spaces makes as much sense on a purely practical level as using a bowling ball as a cup and proposing that people preparing for a drought would begin storing water in the finger holes of bowling balls.
It doesn't work, no matter how you approach it.
My husband corrected me and said the movie did not make such claims that the tombs were for grain storage. My apology. I don't catch all the information in films correctly...
But to say that the movie is a "propaganda film" made by a Christian group to promote "discredited, implausible theories about Egyptian history" is a bit unfair. It is also inaccurate. The movie was not made by a group, but an individual. And, as I said above, it made no CLAIMS, but only asked questions that make one go HMMMM... In no way, shape, or form is it propaganda. One catch watch the film and make one's own conclusions. I also made it clear that many experts were interviewed in the film, and all were open about their own personal biases. Not only that, one of the proponents of looking at different dating for Egyptian history is a professed agnostic.
A lot of what the movie says is inconclusive (admitted to be so), but it makes one go Hmmmmm....
Everyone interviewed admits whatever personal bias they may have (how refreshing!), and there are a wide number of perspectives shown. Worth a watch.
Then come back and discuss this issue about the pyramids.
So, are you saying that Carson's laughably stupid idea should be given some credence because some Christian group has put together a propaganda film arguing for discredited, implausible theories about Egyptian history?
I am not sure I follow the reasoning there.
Even if it were true that the Egyptologists have their dates all wrong, it still makes no sense to think of the Pyramids as storage containers for anything but dead Pharaos and their relics. Using a huge structure made of solid stone with tiny interior spaces makes as much sense on a purely practical level as using a bowling ball as a cup and proposing that people preparing for a drought would begin storing water in the finger holes of bowling balls.
It doesn't work, no matter how you approach it.
My husband corrected me and said the movie did not make such claims that the tombs were for grain storage. My apology. I don't catch all the information in films correctly...
But to say that the movie is a "propaganda film" made by a Christian group to promote "discredited, implausible theories about Egyptian history" is a bit unfair. It is also inaccurate. The movie was not made by a group, but an individual. And, as I said above, it made no CLAIMS, but only asked questions that make one go HMMMM... In no way, shape, or form is it propaganda. One catch watch the film and make one's own conclusions. I also made it clear that many experts were interviewed in the film, and all were open about their own personal biases. Not only that, one of the proponents of looking at different dating for Egyptian history is a professed agnostic.
I'm old enough to remember the pyramid power craze back in the late 1970s where people reported food actually took longer to rot in a pyramid shaped storage container compared to a rectangle...it even had scientific credence back then, most of it may be linked to the idea that pyramids had some type of special power rather than it's mundane use by Joseph in the bible to store grain during a biblical famine....
A lot of what the movie says is inconclusive (admitted to be so), but it makes one go Hmmmmm....
Everyone interviewed admits whatever personal bias they may have (how refreshing!), and there are a wide number of perspectives shown. Worth a watch.
Then come back and discuss this issue about the pyramids.
So, are you saying that Carson's laughably stupid idea should be given some credence because some Christian group has put together a propaganda film arguing for discredited, implausible theories about Egyptian history?
I am not sure I follow the reasoning there.
Even if it were true that the Egyptologists have their dates all wrong, it still makes no sense to think of the Pyramids as storage containers for anything but dead Pharaos and their relics. Using a huge structure made of solid stone with tiny interior spaces makes as much sense on a purely practical level as using a bowling ball as a cup and proposing that people preparing for a drought would begin storing water in the finger holes of bowling balls.
It doesn't work, no matter how you approach it.
My husband corrected me and said the movie did not make such claims that the tombs were for grain storage. My apology. I don't catch all the information in films correctly...
But to say that the movie is a "propaganda film" made by a Christian group to promote "discredited, implausible theories about Egyptian history" is a bit unfair. It is also inaccurate. The movie was not made by a group, but an individual. And, as I said above, it made no CLAIMS, but only asked questions that make one go HMMMM... In no way, shape, or form is it propaganda. One catch watch the film and make one's own conclusions. I also made it clear that many experts were interviewed in the film, and all were open about their own personal biases. Not only that, one of the proponents of looking at different dating for Egyptian history is a professed agnostic.
I'm old enough to remember the pyramid power craze back in the late 1970s where people reported food actually took longer to rot in a pyramid shaped storage container compared to a rectangle...it even had scientific credence back then, most of it may be linked to the idea that pyramids had some type of special power rather than it's mundane use by Joseph in the bible to store grain during a biblical famine....
So you're saying that the Pyramids WERE used for grain storage?
Despite the vast evidence to the contrary, and the total lack evidence for that -that's what you think?
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
A lot of what the movie says is inconclusive (admitted to be so), but it makes one go Hmmmmm....
Everyone interviewed admits whatever personal bias they may have (how refreshing!), and there are a wide number of perspectives shown. Worth a watch.
Then come back and discuss this issue about the pyramids.
So, are you saying that Carson's laughably stupid idea should be given some credence because some Christian group has put together a propaganda film arguing for discredited, implausible theories about Egyptian history?
I am not sure I follow the reasoning there.
Even if it were true that the Egyptologists have their dates all wrong, it still makes no sense to think of the Pyramids as storage containers for anything but dead Pharaos and their relics. Using a huge structure made of solid stone with tiny interior spaces makes as much sense on a purely practical level as using a bowling ball as a cup and proposing that people preparing for a drought would begin storing water in the finger holes of bowling balls.
It doesn't work, no matter how you approach it.
My husband corrected me and said the movie did not make such claims that the tombs were for grain storage. My apology. I don't catch all the information in films correctly...
But to say that the movie is a "propaganda film" made by a Christian group to promote "discredited, implausible theories about Egyptian history" is a bit unfair. It is also inaccurate. The movie was not made by a group, but an individual. And, as I said above, it made no CLAIMS, but only asked questions that make one go HMMMM... In no way, shape, or form is it propaganda. One catch watch the film and make one's own conclusions. I also made it clear that many experts were interviewed in the film, and all were open about their own personal biases. Not only that, one of the proponents of looking at different dating for Egyptian history is a professed agnostic.
I'm old enough to remember the pyramid power craze back in the late 1970s where people reported food actually took longer to rot in a pyramid shaped storage container compared to a rectangle...it even had scientific credence back then, most of it may be linked to the idea that pyramids had some type of special power rather than it's mundane use by Joseph in the bible to store grain during a biblical famine....
So you're saying that the Pyramids WERE used for grain storage?
Despite the vast evidence to the contrary, and the total lack evidence for that -that's what you think?
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
I didn't say that, read my post, it was a craze back in the 1970s and legitimate scientists in white coats appeared on TV (back then) saying how food can be stored longer in pyramid shaped containers. I didn't actually conclude anything?
I checked google for the heck of it and somebody has actually taken a patent out on the use of pyramid shaped containers for exactly this purpose
http://www.google.com/patents/WO2013178233A1?cl=en
Well, I would have doubted that these people on TV actually were scientists, but when you mention that they had white coats--well, what more proof do you need?
Everyone knows lab coats are much better indicators of reliability than repeatable experiments or peer review.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_power#Impact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramidology
Is anyone here a medical doctor or does anyone (besides me) know any personally?
Because medical doctors have to put in an astonishing amount of time in school and then in their practice of medicine. Usually smart, not superhuman. A person only has so many hours in the day, and in their life. Medical doctors have giant holes in what a normal person is expected to know. Because while the rest of us were watching TV or reading novels, they were studying this ONE thing that they do. So you'll have this person who has never been to a concert, or doesn't know what science fiction is. Has never done a load of their own laundry. Weird stuff like that.
Because of this alone, I'm not surprised at the foolish things that Ben Carson says. He's obviously not qualified to be President, but who of these jokers is, really? It's pretty much a figurehead position. Whichever one who gets elected won't be able to do all the dumbsh** things they're saying, such as taking away Medicare or deporting tons of people. The president isn't the King, and even if they were, they wouldn't have exclusive power.
Well, I would have doubted that these people on TV actually were scientists, but when you mention that they had white coats--well, what more proof do you need?
Everyone knows lab coats are much better indicators of reliability than repeatable experiments or peer review.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_power#Impact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramidology
Ahh I see your the same vintage as myself...Yes back then what put on TV was taken very seriously by the public. Not sure if you ever read about the Milgram experiment where he demonstrated people were more obedient when faced with an authority figure in a lab coat. It's about perception, back then people weren't terribly sophisticated about what they saw on TV. Having said that Colgate, cosmetic and laundry powder companies still use actors in lab coats to sell. still works...
I'm not a medical doctor but you are making massive assumptions about what they do in their free time
I'm not a medical doctor but you are making massive assumptions about what they do in their free time
My brother is a medical doctor and he does not fit this profile. Not even 0.01%
_________________
O villain, villain, smiling, damnèd villain!
My tables—meet it is I set it down
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.
At least I'm sure it may be so in "Denmark".
-- Hamlet, 1.5.113-116
The_Face_of_Boo
Veteran
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 33,664
Location: Beirut, Lebanon.
Yet a lot of ISIS members are muslims who lived in Europe....
What is more concerning to me is that this dude actually managed to graduate medical school. Goes to show that common science and book knowledge are indeed mutually exclusive.
What is perhaps more concerning is that 3 out 4 Americans believe the bible is the word of god and around 63% believe in the literal meaning of the scriptures. It seems mental illness in relation to fictional stories is not endemic to muslim countries...In this respect it seems odd to pick on Carson as he merely reflects views held by mainstream Americans...
This might shock you:
Religious and devout Muslims are more accepting of evolution and the 4.5 billions years old earth than religious and devout Christians.
But fewer that may believe in the evolution of man.
Many muslims believe that Earth was created by God way before Adam and had already creatures dwelled and evolved on it.
Some argue that Adam was created in the same form as the modern man while others argue that perhaps Adam was a humanoid and humans later evolved to modern humans.
Interesting.
All three Abrahamic faiths read the Old Testament, and it's account of Genisis. And there are fundies in Orthodox Judaism (and presumably in Islam as well) who deny evolution.
But though Christianity inherited the Genesis story from Judaism it added something extra: the concept of Original Sin. The human race not only "fell", but will be restored when Christ returns. So that gives an extra theological importance to the Creation story that the other two faiths dont have. So that might be why Muslim Fundies, and Jewish Fundies, have more wiggle room for evolution than do Christian Fundies.
Hinduism tells the story of Manu who was the sole survivor of a great flood and from whom all humanity is descended -- a nice and obvious parallel to the story of Noah. This is perhaps the only commonality Hinduism has with the Abrahamic faiths.
Most Hindus - including right wing fundies - seem to agree with the theory of evolution. Vishnu assumes increasingly more complex and more evolved avatars with each "rebirth" -- starting off as a fish and ending as a chaotic human being ! The good thing about Hinduism is that there are various and vastly different stories of Creation. Furthermore, Hinduism does not go into great detail about each story, and allows followers their own interpretations of each story and to possibly even fill-in-the-blanks.
Given all this flexibility and write-your-own-story-of-the-world, it is little surprise that Hindu fundies have the greatest wiggle room of them all. Also, unlike other religions, Hinduism believes that "creation" is not a continuous process but a cyclic one. There is creation, then preservation for several millions years, then destruction, and then brand new creation. Sort of like the story of the dinosaurs going extinct and new life emerging on Earth after their extinction. The end of this current Yuga will occur when Kalki avatar ends and then Brahmam will create anew again.
Say what you will, but - aside from its horrific caste system - Hinduism is very open and very laissez faire. There are no restrictions and no rigidity on an individual's personal belief system. Your life, your choices. If I *ever* decide to resubscribe to organized religion again, that would be it. Plus, I look forward to scaring my grandchildren with stories from the Garuda Purana, just like my grandma used to scare me from time-to-time.
![]()
_________________
O villain, villain, smiling, damnèd villain!
My tables—meet it is I set it down
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.
At least I'm sure it may be so in "Denmark".
-- Hamlet, 1.5.113-116
