Sphinx-ter says what?

By historical accounts the Sphinx of Giza was built around 2500 BC. That is, by shady accounts read from an unreliable source, the pharoh who claimed to have built it. Yet there are newer findings that may suggest the Sphinx is much older, perhaps 10,000 years older. These claims stem from apparent water damage to the Sphinx and the fact the face seems to have been carved out of a preexisting face. Amazing? Maybe not so much. But it still seems interesting to me.
The origin of Sphinx of Giza is as much a mystery to historians as the actual riddle of the sphinx was to travelers of ancient Greek mythology. Even among those who believe it is a more modern monument cannot pin down it's creator. Most belive Chephren was the designer... who's face adorns the head of the Sphinx. However, many others believe his succesors completed this amazing monument of man and beast. Some problems arrise with these assesments, however.
The first astounding problem is there is documentation of Egyptian elite from ancient times proclaiming they did not truely know where from the Sphinx originated. This is not amazing, except the fact it is now claimed to be Chephren's monument. Most ancient Egyptians were illiterate, and priests did not write in common egyptian languages. The priests would know, but they would write their documents in pictographs... or hyrogliphs. This equates to the lack of knowledge of how man invented fire (hypothetically) if the only people with such knowledge were very ancient priests.
The second problem involves the head being much less proportioned to the body of the Sphinx. Factually, the face does not truely resemble any known scultures of Chephren. It seems as if the head of the Sphinx were carved after the death of the pharoh... who's pyramid it lies near. A strange fact, but this can all fit within a more recent and acceptable time frame.
The more exceptional belief comes from apparent weathering (particularly from rain fall) on the body of the Sphinx. The rain damage on the Sphinx, to some experts seems to represent thousands of years of hard rain. The last time the Egyptian area saw such rainfall was in tropical climates 10 thousand years BC. That is an amazing fact, but it can be explained, partially by the fact the body of the Sphinx being built from softer stone. Time erodes soft stone very quickly. However, the Sphinx is sitting in a desert, and it's hard for anyone to imagine heavy weathering in such a climate unless there was totally different weather.
Essentially, the argument for a more ancient time frame for the Sphinx can be summarized thusly:
- No one in ancient Egypt was sure when the Sphinx was carved.
- The face of the Sphinx appears to have been cut from a preexisting head.
- There is some evidence that the Sphinx existed through heavy periods of rainfall.
My opinion is that there is always the possibility that an ancient civilization has existed. One more ancient than what is proven. For some reason, scientists today refuse to believe anything without written and definite proof. There have been numerous finds in recent years of civilizations existing beyond the 10,000 BC boundary. It is very offensive to human kind to suggest extremely ancient civilizations were incapable of building massive structures or sculpting monuments on a large scale. To suggest that only more modern humans are capable of greatness seems fairly biggoted.