(January 12, 2016 at 1:18 pm)Irrational Wrote:(January 12, 2016 at 12:55 pm)athrock Wrote: Likely not right? Well, that's how all overturned scientific positions were viewed initially.
I don't know about all, or even most. There are lots of good theories, after being tested rigorously, that get accepted by the mainstream science quite easily. And honestly scientists don't go all hostile on every new alternative theory they are proposed, just ones that to them may be clearly inferior to the currently established theory. I think it's quite rare when they do altogether make a wrong judgement about some "challenger's" new theory, and in this case it's pretty clear that the current Egyptologist theory is superior to the one proposed by Rohl et al. If all Rohl can do is numerology and alternative interpretations without falsifying or showing why the currently accepted theory is inferior, then he is not in a favorable position academically and won't be anytime soon.
I'm trying to avoid specifics by the way because by discussing them that just serves as a distraction from the more important point(s) that need to be considered.
Well, you're probably right about that.
What I would like to know, though, is precisely where Mahoney is in error with regard to the six markers I mentioned earlier.
I mean, it does appear that there is compelling archaeological evidence for each of them, in the proper sequence, in an earlier period of Egyptian history.