An examination of evidence. Noah's Boat, God's design II
![[M]adman's profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
[M]adman
So first, Let's examine the evidence at the link that says the Giza pyramids
are at least twelve thousand years old:
http://www.sacredsites.com/africa/egypt/great_pyramid.html
And Then, (you are gonna love this), it seems there was a 'great flood' of
biblical proportions THAT NECESSITATED the building of Noah's famous Ark:
"Silt sediments rising to fourteen feet around the base of the pyramid
contain many seashells and fossils that have been radiocarbon-dated to be
nearly twelve thousand years old. These sediments could have been deposited
in such great quantities only by major sea flooding, an event the dynastic
Egyptians could never have recorded because they were not living in the area
until eight thousand years after the flood. This evidence alone suggests
that the three main Giza pyramids are at least twelve thousand years old. In
support of this ancient flood scenario, mysterious legends and records tell
of watermarks that were clearly visible on the limestone casing stones of
the Great Pyramid before those stones were removed by the Arabs. These
watermarks were halfway up the sides of the pyramid, or about 400 feet above
the present level of the Nile River. Further, when the Great Pyramid was
first opened, incrustations of salt an inch thick were found inside. While
much of this salt is known to be natural exudation from the stones of the
pyramid, chemical analysis has shown that some of the salt has a mineral
content consistent with salt from the sea. These salt incrustations, found
at a height corresponding to the water level marks left on the exterior, are
further evidence that at some time in the distant past the pyramid was
submerged halfway up its height."
400 feet above the present level of the nile?
Wowsa! That is Astronomical to say the least. I bet THAT would cover most
parts of the earth and generate plenty of world wide ledgends.
Like the ones from every culture on earth that can be seen here:
http://www.poee.org/documents/Other_Religions/Cult_of_the_One_God/Flood.htm
14' deep silt sediments with 12 thousand year old seashells and fossils?
Now THAT sounds like geological evidence of a Noah's flood to me!
OK k00ks! Insert Denial BELOW:
________________________
GO!
--
It is all about the truth with:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
rossum
wrote:
>14' deep silt sediments with 12 thousand year old seashells and fossils?
>
>Now THAT sounds like geological evidence of a Noah's flood to me!
Nope, those sediments are more than 6,000 years too old to be from
Noah's flood. Noah's flood was after 4004 BCE remember; IIRC Ussher
had it about 2450 BCE.
rossum
wf3h
> So first, Let's examine the evidence at the link that says the Giza pyramids
> are at least twelve thousand years old:
>
> http://www.sacredsites.com/africa/egypt/great_pyramid.html
>
> And Then, (you are gonna love this), it seems there was a 'great flood' of
> biblical proportions THAT NECESSITATED the building of Noah's famous Ark:
let's assume this is true.
what does that mean to penang, malaysia? did the flood go there? how
do you know?
oh. you don't.
more crap from the flag bearer of ignorance creationist.
David Hare-Scott
Hillarious! I never thought I would I see a so-called Christian quoting
pyramid power woo woo to support the bible.
I specially like this bit:
<quote>
In the 1920s, a Frenchman named Antoine Bovis made the surprising discovery
that, despite the heat and high humidity of the main chamber, the dead
bodies of animals left in the chamber did not decay but completely
dehydrated. Thinking that there might be some relationship between this
phenomena and the position of the main chamber in the pyramid, Bovis
constructed a small-scale model of the pyramid, oriented it to the same
direction as the Great Pyramid, and placed the body of a dead cat at the
approximate level of the main chamber. The result was the same. As he had
observed in the Great Pyramid, the cat's body did not decay.
<unquote>
You don't have a pyramid shaped hat do you? It would account for your
brain being dead but refusing to decay.
David
Boikat
<snip regurgitates bullshit>
You posted this same crap months ago. Guess what? It's still crap.
>
> Now THAT sounds like geological evidence of a Noah's flood to me!
You ar a total fool.
>
> OK k00ks! Insert Denial BELOW:
> ________________________
>
> GO!
>
I deny that you know anything about goelolgy. I deny that you possess
the capability to criticaly analyze data. I deny that you can tell
the difference between reality and fantasy. I deny that you even
possess the faintest hint of the basic understanding to even a
rudimentary form of science.
You *are* a fuctard.
> --
> It is all about repeating lies with:
VoiceOfReason
well-documented by Egyptologists who know what they're doing.
Mike Dworetsky
news:9Qvol.7588$qa....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ·.¸Adman¸.·
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
Interesting that here you rely on the spoutings of a crackpot, yet choose to
ignore actual documentary ancient writings and inscriptions, as well as
archaeological and carbon dating evidence, that place the building of the
great pyramids at Giza around 2500 BCE.
In other threads you demand that science has to give way to "ancient
writings", but here you inconsistently adopt exactly the opposite stance
(ignore those ancient inscriptions, guys!) in order to "validate" a
crackpot.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
[M]adman
THat is because you cut that part out moron.
Like the ones from every culture on earth that can be seen here:
http://www.poee.org/documents/Other_Religions/Cult_of_the_One_God/Flood.htm
>
[M]adman
propaganda
[M]adman
Ussher is obviously wrong.
And IIRC Ussher uses the genology to arrive at that date.
Unreliable to say the least.
[M]adman
Note rossum is the only one to gave a real reply so far.
I can always tell when they cannot refute the evidence. How? Hand waving and
shrill comments that the information is not valid ----without any evidence
to support that claim of course !
Wombat
>
> > 14' deep silt sediments with 12 thousand year old seashells and
> > fossils?
> > Now THAT sounds like geological evidence of a Noah's flood to me!
>
> > OK k00ks! Insert Denial BELOW:
> > ________________________
>
> > GO!
>
> Hillarious! I never thought I would I see a so-called Christian quoting
> pyramid power woo woo to support the bible.
Ray Martinez apparently also believes this sort of stuff.
The arch pseudo-scientist of this sort of rubbish is Graham Hancock,
who had his head handed to him in a BBC Horizon programme a few years
ago.
Wombat
harry k
>
> > 14' deep silt sediments with 12 thousand year old seashells and
> > fossils?
> > Now THAT sounds like geological evidence of a Noah's flood to me!
>
> > OK k00ks! Insert Denial BELOW:
> > ________________________
>
> > GO!
>
> Hillarious! I never thought I would I see a so-called Christian quoting
> pyramid power woo woo to support the bible.
>
> I specially like this bit:
>
> <quote>
> In the 1920s, a Frenchman named Antoine Bovis made the surprising discovery
> that, despite the heat and high humidity of the main chamber, the dead
> bodies of animals left in the chamber did not decay but completely
> dehydrated. Thinking that there might be some relationship between this
> phenomena and the position of the main chamber in the pyramid, Bovis
> constructed a small-scale model of the pyramid, oriented it to the same
> direction as the Great Pyramid, and placed the body of a dead cat at the
> approximate level of the main chamber. The result was the same. As he had
> observed in the Great Pyramid, the cat's body did not decay.
> <unquote>
>
> You don't have a pyramid shaped hat do you? It would account for your
> brain being dead but refusing to decay.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hmmm!! It would fit that point on his head well too.
Harry K
John S. Wilkins
I like the Bent Pyramid. It's almost as if the builders were learning as
they went along...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bent_Pyramid
and the Black Pyramid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Pyramid
which should, if there was a flood, have been washed away, since it's
made of mud brick...
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
TomS
<oNWdnf-jyP4kLD_U...@bt.com>, Mike Dworetsky stated..."
[...snip...]
>Interesting that here you rely on the spoutings of a crackpot, yet choose=
> to=20
>ignore actual documentary ancient writings and inscriptions, as well as=20
>archaeological and carbon dating evidence, that place the building of the=
>=20
>great pyramids at Giza around 2500 BCE.
>
>writings", but here you inconsistently adopt exactly the opposite stance=20
>(ignore those ancient inscriptions, guys!) in order to "validate" a=20
>crackpot.
From time to time, I hear the claim that the Israelites in Egypt
built the Pyramids. I know that there is not a word in the Bible
about the Pyramids of Egypt, so does anyone know where that claim
comes from? (Just to make it clear, I am not taking this claim at
all seriously. I am just curious about how this claim could have
come about.) One traditional dating scheme puts Moses to about
1500 BCE, so that would really conflict with Egyptian chronology.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Ye Old One
>
>
>
>So first, Let's examine the evidence at the link that says the Giza pyramids
>are at least twelve thousand years old:
>
>http://www.sacredsites.com/africa/egypt/great_pyramid.html
>
>
>
>And Then, (you are gonna love this), it seems there was a 'great flood' of
>biblical proportions THAT NECESSITATED the building of Noah's famous Ark:
>
>"Silt sediments rising to fourteen feet around the base of the pyramid
>contain many seashells and fossils that have been radiocarbon-dated to be
>nearly twelve thousand years old.
But you don't believe in C14 dating.
> These sediments could have been deposited
>in such great quantities only by major sea flooding, an event the dynastic
>Egyptians could never have recorded because they were not living in the area
>until eight thousand years after the flood.
So you are claiming that the Giza pyramids predate the Egyptians. Is
that right?
> This evidence alone suggests
>that the three main Giza pyramids are at least twelve thousand years old.
Wrong again. Dating, by a number of methods, agree on a date of about
2560BC for the Great Pyramid.
> In
>support of this ancient flood scenario, mysterious legends and records tell
>of watermarks that were clearly visible on the limestone casing stones of
>the Great Pyramid before those stones were removed by the Arabs. These
>watermarks were halfway up the sides of the pyramid, or about 400 feet above
>the present level of the Nile River.
Limestone does that. It sucks water by capillary action.
> Further, when the Great Pyramid was
>first opened, incrustations of salt an inch thick were found inside. While
>much of this salt is known to be natural exudation from the stones of the
>pyramid, chemical analysis has shown that some of the salt has a mineral
>content consistent with salt from the sea.
Salt from the ground has the same composition.
>These salt incrustations, found
>at a height corresponding to the water level marks left on the exterior, are
>further evidence that at some time in the distant past the pyramid was
>submerged halfway up its height."
Rubbish.
>
>400 feet above the present level of the nile?
Rubbish, it is not that high above the present level. Try looking at a
map.
>
>Wowsa! That is Astronomical to say the least. I bet THAT would cover most
>parts of the earth and generate plenty of world wide ledgends.
Wrong again.
>
>Like the ones from every culture on earth that can be seen here:
>http://www.poee.org/documents/Other_Religions/Cult_of_the_One_God/Flood.htm
>
>14' deep silt sediments with 12 thousand year old seashells and fossils?
>
>Now THAT sounds like geological evidence of a Noah's flood to me!
It may well do, but sorry, it doesn't hold up to examination.
>
>
>OK k00ks! Insert Denial BELOW:
>________________________
>
>
>GO!
--
Bob.
wf3h
>
>
which:
1. does not prove that every culture had a flood at the same time
2. does not account for the fact there's no PHYSICAL evidence for a
flood
3. does not account for the fact that a worldwide flood as in the
bible is impossible
sorry, creationist, try again
wf3h
>
> > 14' deep silt sediments with 12 thousand year old seashells and
> > fossils?
> > Now THAT sounds like geological evidence of a Noah's flood to me!
>
> > OK k00ks! Insert Denial BELOW:
> > ________________________
>
> > GO!
>
> Note rossum is the only one to gave a real reply so far.
>
> I can always tell when they cannot refute the evidence. How? Hand waving and
> shrill comments that the information is not valid ----without any evidence
given the fact you're a creationist, no amount of evidence will
convince you...by definition. that's what creationism all about..t.he
triumph of emotion over reason
Mike Dworetsky
news:245401460.000...@drn.newsguy.com...
I agree with your assessment. Exactly what the Israelites were building for
Pharaoah (sp?) isn't clear, but it was nothing to do with the Giza pyramids.
VoiceOfReason
So you claim that all the people who have studied the pyramids over
the years are all liars? Do you have evidence to support such an
accusation?
Do you think that "Thou shalt not bear false witness" doesn't apply to
you? If you are the believer you claim to be, you should start
worrying about your soul sooner rather than later.
VoiceOfReason
John S. Wilkins wrote:
> VoiceOfReason <papa_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The oldest Egyption pyramid is less than 5,000 years old. It's age is
> > well-documented by Egyptologists who know what they're doing.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser
>
> I like the Bent Pyramid. It's almost as if the builders were learning as
> they went along...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bent_Pyramid
I always liked that one. Just a little miscommunication between the
laborers and the extraterrestrial who wrote the plans. ;-)
> and the Black Pyramid
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Pyramid
>
> which should, if there was a flood, have been washed away, since it's
> made of mud brick...
Maybe God decided to save it in order to test our faith in Saint von
Daniken.
VoiceOfReason
Yet 4 minutes before you wrote this response, you replied to a post in
which I DID show you the evidence, which you chose to ignore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser
Again, does "Thou shalt not bear false witness" not apply to you?
Dana Tweedy
> pyramids are at least twelve thousand years old:
>
> http://www.sacredsites.com/africa/egypt/great_pyramid.html
>
>
>
> And Then, (you are gonna love this), it seems there was a 'great flood' of
> biblical proportions THAT NECESSITATED the building of Noah's famous Ark:
>
> "Silt sediments rising to fourteen feet around the base of the pyramid
> contain many seashells and fossils that have been radiocarbon-dated to be
> nearly twelve thousand years old.
Seashells are not normally used for carbon dating, because the organsims
that make shells usually don't get their carbon from the air. Fossils are
usually made up of the rock that has replaced the organic material, so
fossils are poor candidates for carbon dating. So, a claim that
"seashells and fossils" have been radiocarbon dated to a particular date
should be taken very skeptically.
http://www.pecosrio.com/faq/FAQA6.HTM
"Unfortunately few items are good candidates for this process. One that is
not is sea shells."
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/as/hedges.html
"The ocean reservoir lags behind the atmosphere, and radiocarbon dates from,
for example, sea shells, tend to be some centuries older than terrestrial
animals and plants, and so need their own calibration curve."
Also, weren't you complaining earlier that radiocarbon dating was
inaccurate?
>These sediments could have been deposited in such great quantities only by
>major sea flooding, an event the dynastic Egyptians could never have
>recorded because they were not living in the area until eight thousand
>years after the flood. This evidence alone suggests that the three main
>Giza pyramids are at least twelve thousand years old.
Actually, the predominace of evidence shows that the pyramids are about 4500
years old.
snip more inability to distinguish between legend and fact
DJT
rossum
wrote:
So if the Biblr is "unreliable" then what evidence do you have for a
flood? Is the Epic of Gilgamesh more reliable than Genesis?
rossum
John S. Wilkins
Quite apart from anything else, they were supposed to be making mud
bricks. No pyramid is made with mud bricks.
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Quite apart from anything else, they were supposed to be making mud
> bricks. No pyramid is made with mud bricks.
The people who wrote the Bible were not about to let facts get in the
way of good story.
Walter Bushell
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> VoiceOfReason <papa_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The oldest Egyption pyramid is less than 5,000 years old. It's age is
> > well-documented by Egyptologists who know what they're doing.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser
>
> I like the Bent Pyramid. It's almost as if the builders were learning as
> they went along...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bent_Pyramid
>
> and the Black Pyramid
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Pyramid
>
> which should, if there was a flood, have been washed away, since it's
> made of mud brick...
Didn't you just say that none of the pyramids were built with mud bricks?
[M]adman
The genesis account seems to originate from the sumarian version.
[M]adman
You are going to tell the Egyptologists and scientists FROM Egypt that they
are wrong and only your answers are right?
How arrogant.
Your prevailing theory is wrong.
Quantum Leaper
"John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
news:1ivn2k6.r8r2oqe4vgjkN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Pyramid
Black Pyramid, encased in limestone, is made of mud brick and clay instead
of stone.
I can't take credit for knowing this, someone else in the thread posted it
first.
John S. Wilkins
None that are standing. We were talking about the Giza pyramids in that
post, I thought.
[M]adman
It is "Thou shalt not bear false witness AGAINST YOUR NEIGHBOR"
If you are going to use the bible, at least understand the bible.
Boikat
>
> >>> 14' deep silt sediments with 12 thousand year old seashells and
> >>> fossils?
> >>> Now THAT sounds like geological evidence of a Noah's flood to me!
>
> >>> OK k00ks! Insert Denial BELOW:
> >>> ________________________
>
> >>> GO!
>
> >> Note rossum is the only one to gave a real reply so far.
>
> >> I can always tell when they cannot refute the evidence. How? Hand
> >> waving and shrill comments that the information is not valid
> >> ----without any evidence to support that claim of course !
>
> > Yet 4 minutes before you wrote this response, you replied to a post in
> > which I DID show you the evidence, which you chose to ignore.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser
>
> > Again, does "Thou shalt not bear false witness" not apply to you?
>
> It is "Thou shalt not bear false witness AGAINST YOUR NEIGHBOR"
>
> If you are going to use the bible, at least understand the bible.
Irony aside, so you're saying that since you do not live next to VOR,
it's okay to lie to him.
That explains the dishonest nature of vast number (if not all) of your
posts.
Boikat
wf3h
>
> >>> 14' deep silt sediments with 12 thousand year old seashells and
> >>> fossils?
> >>> Now THAT sounds like geological evidence of a Noah's flood to me!
>
> >>> OK k00ks! Insert Denial BELOW:
> >>> ________________________
>
> >>> GO!
>
> >> Note rossum is the only one to gave a real reply so far.
>
> >> I can always tell when they cannot refute the evidence. How? Hand
> >> waving and shrill comments that the information is not valid
> >> ----without any evidence to support that claim of course !
>
> > Yet 4 minutes before you wrote this response, you replied to a post in
> > which I DID show you the evidence, which you chose to ignore.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser
>
> > Again, does "Thou shalt not bear false witness" not apply to you?
>
> It is "Thou shalt not bear false witness AGAINST YOUR NEIGHBOR"
>
> If you are going to use the bible, at least understand the bible
it's a shame you don't take your own advice
Garamond Lethe
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 05:35:12 -0600, [M]adman wrote:
> So first, Let's examine the evidence at the link that says the Giza
> pyramids are at least twelve thousand years old:
>
> http://www.sacredsites.com/africa/egypt/great_pyramid.html
>
>
>
> And Then, (you are gonna love this), it seems there was a 'great flood'
> of biblical proportions THAT NECESSITATED the building of Noah's famous
> Ark:
>
You are SO gullible.
<snip>
> In support of this ancient flood scenario,
> mysterious legends and records tell of watermarks that were clearly
> visible on the limestone casing stones of the Great Pyramid before those
> stones were removed by the Arabs. These watermarks were halfway up the
> sides of the pyramid, or about 400 feet above the present level of the
> Nile River.
<snip>
To the best of google's knowledge, there has been exactly one person in
history who thought there were watermarks on the Great Pyramid: Abu
Raihan al-Biruni (973-1048). There is only a single source for this
fact: Fanthorpe and Fanthorpe's _Mysteries and Secrets of the Templars,
The Story Behind the Da Vinci Code_.
So.
Dan Brown writes a fictional book that takes great liberties with
historical information. That's fine, it was clearly labeled as fiction.
Fanthorpe and Fanthorpe cash in on this by writing a pop-history book
about the Templars. He's was the Archbishop and World Primate of the
Interdenominational Templar Church as well as a Knight Commander of the
Order, doncha know. The church doesn't have a web presence --
http://www.templarchurch.net is 404. It looks like they had a bit of fun
creating their own denomination to sell a few more copies of their book,
which might make you wonder what else they made up.
The idiot at www.sacredsites.com can't be bothered to cite where he read
about the watermarks, so it gets changed into "mysterious legends".
Then you fell for it.
You. Are. So. Gullible.
John S. Wilkins
> You. Are. So. Gullible.
To Me. Can't You See?
You're Everything I Joke About
Everything I Sneer
You. Are. So Gullible.
To Me....
</Joe Cocker>
Wombat
> > wrote:
>
> >> rossum wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 05:35:12 -0600, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> 14' deep silt sediments with 12 thousand year old seashells and
> >>>> fossils?
>
> >>>> Now THAT sounds like geological evidence of a Noah's flood to me!
> >>> Nope, those sediments are more than 6,000 years too old to be from
> >>> Noah's flood. Noah's flood was after 4004 BCE remember; IIRC Ussher
> >>> had it about 2450 BCE.
>
> >>> rossum
>
> >> Ussher is obviously wrong.
>
> >> And IIRC Ussher uses the genology to arrive at that date.
>
> >> Unreliable to say the least.
> > So if the Biblr is "unreliable" then what evidence do you have for a
> > flood? Is the Epic of Gilgamesh more reliable than Genesis?
>
> > rossum
>
> The genesis account seems to originate from the sumarian version.
I told you that a few months ago and you said I was wrong.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Twatman. Been to Damascus recently?
Wombat
Cory Albrecht
And the question "Who is my neighbour" was answered in Luke chapter 10.
But glad to know that you;re trying to rationalize your lying - it shows
that you know that you are lying. Good of you to finally admit that,
however implicitly.
> If you are going to use the bible, at least understand the bible.
Pot, kettle, black. Glass houses, stones. Casting the first one. Logs
and eyes.
John Smith
You cannot "deny" what has not been proven.
rossum
wrote:
So you think that both Genesis and the Sumerian version are
unreliable. You have still not shown where you have got your evidence
for a global flood from.
rossum
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
But so far YOU have produced no evidence to back your claims. Typical
creationist.
>
>How arrogant.
>
>Your prevailing theory is wrong.
Nope.
--
Bob.
Allen
Tell that to a real Egyptologist, http://www.drhawass.com/.
VoiceOfReason
>
> >>> 14' deep silt sediments with 12 thousand year old seashells and
> >>> fossils?
> >>> Now THAT sounds like geological evidence of a Noah's flood to me!
>
> >>> OK k00ks! Insert Denial BELOW:
> >>> ________________________
>
> >>> GO!
>
> >> Note rossum is the only one to gave a real reply so far.
>
> >> I can always tell when they cannot refute the evidence. How? Hand
> >> waving and shrill comments that the information is not valid
> >> ----without any evidence to support that claim of course !
>
> > Yet 4 minutes before you wrote this response, you replied to a post in
> > which I DID show you the evidence, which you chose to ignore.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser
>
> > Again, does "Thou shalt not bear false witness" not apply to you?
>
> It is "Thou shalt not bear false witness AGAINST YOUR NEIGHBOR"
>
Answer the question. Does it not apply to you?
> If you are going to use the bible, at least understand the bible.
Blatant hypocrisy, given your diatribes against the science you don't
understand.
VoiceOfReason
Which ones? Name them. Surely you aren't just making it up again?
<...>
Dogma Discharge
> Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You. Are. So. Gullible.
>
> To Me. Can't You See?
>
> You're Everything I Joke About
> Everything I Sneer
>
> You. Are. So Gullible.
> To Me....
> </Joe Cocker>
Wilkins for President !
John S. Wilkins
Boikat
> So first, Let's examine the evidence at the link that says the Giza pyramids
> are at least twelve thousand years old:
<snip>
Since this crap was discredtited previously, I'd like to examine
something ese.
Let's fire a laser pulse into your right ear. We will place a
detector at the opening of your left ear. I would like to measure the
speed of information through a vacuum.
Boikat
Garamond Lethe
> Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You. Are. So. Gullible.
>
> To Me. Can't You See?
>
> You're Everything I Joke About
> Everything I Sneer
>
> You. Are. So Gullible.
> To Me....
> </Joe Cocker>
Sir:
Twenty-four hours later and that tune is still stuck in my head. My
insurance will not cover the electroshock therapy needed to remove it, so
for your sake I hope your insurance will.
That is all.
Garamond
Garamond Lethe
> Dogma Discharge <me...@red.co.jp> wrote:
>
>> "John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
>> news:1ivnghi.1m8nh1fp8r15wN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
>> > Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> You. Are. So. Gullible.
>> >
>> > To Me. Can't You See?
>> >
>> > You're Everything I Joke About
>> > Everything I Sneer
>> >
>> > You. Are. So Gullible.
>> > To Me....
>> > </Joe Cocker>
>>
>>
>> Wilkins for President !
>
> Of what?
Doesn't matter. We just like marching around carrying signs saying
"Wilkins for President!". It's a hobby.
Mark Evans
>
> >>> 14' deep silt sediments with 12 thousand year old seashells and
> >>> fossils?
> >>> Now THAT sounds like geological evidence of a Noah's flood to me!
>
> >>> OK k00ks! Insert Denial BELOW:
> >>> ________________________
>
> >>> GO!
>
> >> Note rossum is the only one to gave a real reply so far.
>
> >> I can always tell when they cannot refute the evidence. How? Hand
> >> waving and shrill comments that the information is not valid
> >> ----without any evidence to support that claim of course !
>
> > Yet 4 minutes before you wrote this response, you replied to a post in
> > which I DID show you the evidence, which you chose to ignore.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser
>
> > Again, does "Thou shalt not bear false witness" not apply to you?
>
> It is "Thou shalt not bear false witness AGAINST YOUR NEIGHBOR"
>
> If you are going to use the bible, at least understand the bible.
Then I guess you are lucky none of us live close enough to you to
qualify as a neighbor or else you would be in big trouble for breaking
a rule of your faith.
Mark Evans
Desertphile
> > > http://www.poee.org/documents/Other_Religions/Cult_of_the_One_God/Flood.htm
> > >
> > > 14' deep silt sediments with 12 thousand year old seashells and
> > > fossils?
> > > Now THAT sounds like geological evidence of a Noah's flood to me!
> > >
> > >
> > > OK k00ks! Insert Denial BELOW:
> > > ________________________
> > >
> > >
> > > GO!
> >
> >
> > Note rossum is the only one to gave a real reply so far.
> >
> > I can always tell when they cannot refute the evidence. How? Hand waving and
> > shrill comments that the information is not valid ----without any evidence
> > to support that claim of course !
> Yet 4 minutes before you wrote this response, you replied to a post in
> which I DID show you the evidence, which you chose to ignore.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser
>
> Again, does "Thou shalt not bear false witness" not apply to you?
The "'ten' commandments" do not apply to Fundamentalist
Christians: they only apply to non-Fundamentalist Christians. We
know this is true because of the behavior of Fundamentalist
Christians.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Dana Tweedy
Are you going to suggest that the person who wrote the above was an
"Egyptologist"? What determines whether an answer is "right" is how well
it matches the evidence, not where the person making the statement is from.
>
> How arrogant.
>
> Your prevailing theory is wrong.
What do you offer as support for that assertion?
DJT
VoiceOfReason
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<87686947-2ad7-42b1...@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>):
That won't work for two reasons.
1 the distance isn't long enough to allow for good readings, the error bars
would be too high.
2 he's solid granite from ear to ear.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Elijahovah
interiorly built with brick.
The outside only is encased in limestone block
and then the granite has been removed to build Moslem cities
brcause the pyramids were intended to last until
year 6000 of Adam (1975 AD). from 4025 BC
but because the Moslems said Adam was 5378 BC and Flood 3122 BC
that 622 AD was 6000 and so now they built the New City
out of the stones from the pyramids.
As for carbon dating, a water vapor canopy of several feet existed
around the
planet and the shielding creates a 12x ratio difference that looks
like
20,000 years, that is why the 50-year ice age ending in 2320 BC
looks like 10,000 years in a mere 50. And Jericho looks like 7000 BC
just like Ur and Babel though built in 2240 BC and 2239 and 2237.
So your 12,000 year deposit is actually about 2330 BC.
But the pyramid was not built on it until 2170 BC 70 years after
Babel.
And it falsely dates as 3000 BC.
You are so busy arguing when all of you will now die because you
fail to see what it shows will happenly astrally this month and from
which direction of heaven it will hit us.
ELIJAH the first of two sacrifices next month.
three sacrifices if you wish to include 6 billion dead
like the vicitims of Sodom left behind by Lot
VoiceOfReason
Elijahovah wrote:
> sorry but if you look up pyramids you wil find that they are
> interiorly built with brick.
> The outside only is encased in limestone block
> and then the granite has been removed to build Moslem cities
> brcause the pyramids were intended to last until
> year 6000 of Adam (1975 AD). from 4025 BC
> but because the Moslems said Adam was 5378 BC and Flood 3122 BC
> that 622 AD was 6000 and so now they built the New City
> out of the stones from the pyramids.
>
Sneaking out of your room again? Go back now, or you won't get jello
tomorrow.
<...>
heekster
Wilkins) wrote:
>Mike Dworetsky <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> "TomS" <TomS_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> news:245401460.000...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> > "On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:24:58 -0000, in article
>> > <oNWdnf-jyP4kLD_U...@bt.com>, Mike Dworetsky stated..."
>> > [...snip...]
>> >>Interesting that here you rely on the spoutings of a crackpot, yet choose=
>> >> to=20
>> >>ignore actual documentary ancient writings and inscriptions, as well as=20
>> >>archaeological and carbon dating evidence, that place the building of the=
>> >>=20
>> >>great pyramids at Giza around 2500 BCE.
>> >>
>> >>In other threads you demand that science has to give way to "ancient=20
>> >>writings", but here you inconsistently adopt exactly the opposite
>> >>stance=20
>> >>(ignore those ancient inscriptions, guys!) in order to "validate" a=20
>> >>crackpot.
>> >
>> > From time to time, I hear the claim that the Israelites in Egypt
>> > built the Pyramids. I know that there is not a word in the Bible
>> > about the Pyramids of Egypt, so does anyone know where that claim
>> > comes from? (Just to make it clear, I am not taking this claim at
>> > all seriously. I am just curious about how this claim could have
>> > come about.) One traditional dating scheme puts Moses to about
>> > 1500 BCE, so that would really conflict with Egyptian chronology.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > ---Tom S.
>> > "As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the
>> > demand."
>> > attributed to Josh Billings
>> >
>>
>> I agree with your assessment. Exactly what the Israelites were building for
>> Pharaoah (sp?) isn't clear, but it was nothing to do with the Giza pyramids.
>
>Quite apart from anything else, they were supposed to be making mud
>bricks. No pyramid is made with mud bricks.
Ziggurats were. They were truncated pyramids.
heekster
>Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> "[M]adman" <gr...@hotmail.et> wrote in message
>> news:9Qvol.7588$qa....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So first, Let's examine the evidence at the link that says the Giza
>>> pyramids are at least twelve thousand years old:
>>>
You are not an Egyptologist or a scientist.
You are a moron.
>How arrogant.
>
Yes, you are.
>Your prevailing theory is wrong.
>
You're projecting, again.
heekster
Wilkins) wrote:
>Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You. Are. So. Gullible.
>
>To Me. Can't You See?
>
>You're Everything I Joke About
>Everything I Sneer
>
>You. Are. So Gullible.
>To Me....
></Joe Cocker>
Cry me a river.
John S. Wilkins
Go listen to the record it's from and there are several much better
tunes. I strongly recommend Cocker's version of "The Moon's A Harsh
Mistress". This will displace that terrible thing.
Walter Bushell
Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
But not for POUS, philosophers make worse politicians than
mathematicians.
Mark Evans
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:28:36 -0500, Boikat wrote
> (in article
Use higher power settings. A few gigawatts might be enough.
Mark Evans
John S. Wilkins
Why? You don't want philosopher kings as the guardians of your republic?
wf3h
>
> As for carbon dating, a water vapor canopy of several feet existed
> around the
> planet and the shielding creates a 12x ratio difference that looks
> like
> 20,000 years,
this is true. the water was delivered by flying saucers. i personally
saw keanu reeves helping to deliver this water in bottles
macaddicted
Well this one is fairly good, and can easily be forgotten:
here's the story
of a man named brady...
If that doesn't work there is the "nuclear weapon" of song killers:
Just sit right back and you'll here a tale
a tale of a fateful trip...
Having a fifth of liquor around is recommeneded for fully conquering the
latter song. Or you can just skip the song and move directly to the
liquor.
--
macaddicted
Wisdom is radiant and unfading and she is easily discerned
by those who love her and is found by those who seek her.
Wisdom 6:12 (NRSV)
macaddicted
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <49a41f88$0$31211$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com>,
> > Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:51:54 +1100, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dogma Discharge <me...@red.co.jp> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> "John S. Wilkins" <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote in message
> > > >> news:1ivnghi.1m8nh1fp8r15wN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
> > > >> > Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >> You. Are. So. Gullible.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > To Me. Can't You See?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > You're Everything I Joke About
> > > >> > Everything I Sneer
> > > >> >
> > > >> > You. Are. So Gullible.
> > > >> > To Me....
> > > >> > </Joe Cocker>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Wilkins for President !
> > > >
> > > > Of what?
> > >
> > > Doesn't matter. We just like marching around carrying signs saying
> > > "Wilkins for President!". It's a hobby.
> >
> > But not for POUS, philosophers make worse politicians than
> > mathematicians.
>
> Why? You don't want philosopher kings as the guardians of your republic?
Or worse, a semanticist.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._I._Hayakawa>
VoiceOfReason
[crickets]
Still waiting. Or was it just another tall tale you pulled out of
your rear?
Sockie The Apostate
"wf3h" <wf...@vsswireless.net> wrote in message
news:c1b5a609-669a-458f...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Some of them were using old milk containers of water. :-D
Mitchell Coffey
> Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:51:54 +1100, John S. Wilkins wrote:
>
> > > > Dogma Discharge <me...@red.co.jp> wrote:
>
> > > >>news:1ivnghi.1m8nh1fp8r15wN%jo...@wilkins.id.au...
> > > >> > Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> >> You. Are. So. Gullible.
>
> > > >> > To Me. Can't You See?
>
> > > >> > You're Everything I Joke About
> > > >> > Everything I Sneer
>
> > > >> > You. Are. So Gullible.
> > > >> > To Me....
> > > >> > </Joe Cocker>
>
> > > >> Wilkins for President !
>
> > > > Of what?
>
> > > Doesn't matter. We just like marching around carrying signs saying
> > > "Wilkins for President!". It's a hobby.
>
> > But not for POUS, philosophers make worse politicians than
> > mathematicians.
>
> Why? You don't want philosopher kings as the guardians of your republic?
Philosophers should stay out of politics for their own good; they're
unappreciated:
Mitchell
[M]adman
> sorry but if you look up pyramids you wil find that they are
> interiorly built with brick.
> The outside only is encased in limestone block
> and then the granite has been removed to build Moslem cities
The granite was not removed moron. The bright white thin lime stone outer
shell was removed to build Moslem cities.
> brcause the pyramids were intended to last until
> year 6000 of Adam (1975 AD). from 4025 BC
> but because the Moslems said Adam was 5378 BC and Flood 3122 BC
> that 622 AD was 6000 and so now they built the New City
> out of the stones from the pyramids.
>
> As for carbon dating, a water vapor canopy of several feet existed
> around the
> planet and the shielding creates a 12x ratio difference that looks
> like
> 20,000 years, that is why the 50-year ice age ending in 2320 BC
> looks like 10,000 years in a mere 50. And Jericho looks like 7000 BC
> just like Ur and Babel though built in 2240 BC and 2239 and 2237.
This actually has /some/ merrit to it. I am shocked you know about it.
> So your 12,000 year deposit is actually about 2330 BC.
> But the pyramid was not built on it until 2170 BC 70 years after
> Babel.
> And it falsely dates as 3000 BC.
> You are so busy arguing when all of you will now die because you
> fail to see what it shows will happenly astrally this month and from
> which direction of heaven it will hit us.
> ELIJAH the first of two sacrifices next month.
> three sacrifices if you wish to include 6 billion dead
> like the vicitims of Sodom left behind by Lot
You need help. And a lot of medication.
A LOT
[M]adman
all of them, ---The OP shows you are wrong
>
> <...>
Jim Willemin
>
>
>
> So first, Let's examine the evidence at the link that says the Giza
> pyramids are at least twelve thousand years old:
>
> http://www.sacredsites.com/africa/egypt/great_pyramid.html
>
>
>
> And Then, (you are gonna love this), it seems there was a 'great
> flood' of biblical proportions THAT NECESSITATED the building of
> Noah's famous Ark:
>
> "Silt sediments rising to fourteen feet around the base of the pyramid
> contain many seashells and fossils that have been radiocarbon-dated to
> be nearly twelve thousand years old. These sediments could have been
> deposited in such great quantities only by major sea flooding, an
> event the dynastic Egyptians could never have recorded because they
> were not living in the area until eight thousand years after the
> flood. This evidence alone suggests that the three main Giza pyramids
Y'know, I just spent a little time looking for the source of that story
about four meters of silt around the pyramids, and damned if I can find an
actual description of the discovery. The earliest mention I found so far
is a 1996 article by Joseph Joachman in the journal Atlantis Rising, in
which he mentions the silt and radiocarbon dates but neglects to mention
who did the work. Considering that sand, and not silt, pervades the
literature as the dominant surficial deposit on the Gizeh plateau (even in
Flinders Petrie's work), and so far the only mention I have found of this
silt deposit is in the - um - alternative science presss, and that is
without attribution, it seems to me a reasonably good bet that the story of
silt and seashells is a complete fabrication. None of the several mentions
of the silt I have found provide any references, and they all seem to make
unattributed cut-and-pastes from each other.
So, dear heart, unless you can provide some substance to your claims of
silt and seashells (like who first described the formation, who did the
dating, and where the original results are published), I tenatively
conclude that your story is bullshit. If the silt and seashells are non-
existent, then I guess the rest of your story is bogus too. Besides, how
do you know the radiocarbon dates are right? Remember, you can't trust
those scientific dating methods at all.
Jim Willemin
@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
> VoiceOfReason wrote:
>> On Feb 23, 10:15 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote:
>>> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>>> "[M]adman" <g...@hotmail.et> wrote in message
>>>> news:9Qvol.7588$qa....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
>>>
<snip>
>>>>> These sediments could have been deposited in such great quantities
>>>>> only by major sea flooding, an event the dynastic Egyptians could
>>>>> never have recorded because they were not living in the area until
>>>>> eight thousand years after the flood. This evidence alone suggests
>>>>> that the three main Giza pyramids are at least twelve thousand
>>>>> years old.
>>>
>>>> Actually, the predominace of evidence shows that the pyramids are
>>>> about 4500 years old.
>>>
>>>> snip more inability to distinguish between legend and fact
>>>
>>>> DJT
>>>
>>> You are going to tell the Egyptologists and scientists FROM Egypt
>>> that they are wrong and only your answers are right?
>>>
>>
>> Which ones? Name them. Surely you aren't just making it up again?
>
> all of them, ---The OP shows you are wrong
Well, lessee... Off the top of my head, in the 4500 year age camp we
have folks like Mark Lerner (University of Chicago), and Zahi Hawass
(director of the Egyptian Office of Antiquties). In the 10,000 year age
camp we have Graham Hancock and Joseph Joachaman. So your claim that
'all of them' support a late Pleistocene age for the Pyramids is
mistaken.
In fact, there are several dating techniques that can date the last time
a buried surface was exposed to sunlight (thermoluminescence and
optical-stimilated luminescence dating, if you want to look them up),
and a recent paper reports some early results of luminescence dating of
quartz grains obtained from monuments of the Old Kingdom (Liritzis, I.,
Sideris, C., Vafiadou, A., and Mitsis, J, 2008, Mineralogincal,
petrological and radioactive aspects of some building material from
Egyptian Old Kingdom monuments, Jour. Cultural Heritage, 9 (1), 1-13;
abstract at http://preview.tinyurl.com/dhtqmh). (Alas, I have not
access to the journal and am too cheap to shell out 35 bucks to Science
Direct for a download - perhaps some nice scholar out there could take a
look and see what dates are reported?). Luminescence dates from an
interior block would pretty well nail down the date of construction.
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
> (Liritzis, I.,
> Sideris, C., Vafiadou, A., and Mitsis, J, 2008, Mineralogincal,
> petrological and radioactive aspects of some building material from
> Egyptian Old Kingdom monuments, Jour. Cultural Heritage, 9 (1), 1-13;
> abstract at http://preview.tinyurl.com/dhtqmh). (Alas, I have not
> access to the journal and am too cheap to shell out 35 bucks to Science
> Direct for a download - perhaps some nice scholar out there could take a
> look and see what dates are reported?).
I sent a copy to your hotmail address.
Garamond
Jim Willemin
$882e...@news.ThunderNews.com:
Thank you most kindly - I owe you several beers of your choice!
VoiceOfReason
Since you provided no names, it indicates you're just making it up
again. Not that it's a surprise...
[M]adman
head in the sand again?
[M]adman
That is what i love about T.O. Everything is a lie. Except for what an
evolutionist post of course. And if you find a single item out of place then
you ASSume all the other information is wrong as well.
ok, 'dear heart' useing your criteria, i have discovered that you are wrong
about "silt" at the giza plateau. Which makes everything else you posted
equally as wrong. Right? dear heart?
"Thus these enigmatic monuments were not placed at random, but instead
convincing explanation and evidence of the flooding, the pyramid texts and
computerized pictures of the Orion belt four thousand years ago, proves the
opposite."
http://acsenglish.tripod.com/eessay/pyramids-final.doc
What flooding do you supose they mention? The Nile? No. It is established
that the builders placed the pyramids well above the highest flood stage of
the Nile.
" west of the River Nile, Giza governorate ... to the nearby desert, namely,
the
pyramids plateau and Abu ... consists of the fertile top clay-silt layer.
http://www.springerlink.com/index/u518364r04x248u6.pdf
How do you supose silt got into the middle of a desert?
"the term Kemet was used to label the black silt "
http://svmmvmbonvm.org/kemetmysticism.pdf
Jim Willemin
>>> od .htm
Well, it seems to me that your fossiliferous silt layer is a key bit of
evidence in supporting a 10,000 year age for the pyramids; if that bit of
evidence turns out to be bogus, then the rest of the structure gets real
shaky (particularly considering the strong evidence for a construction date
around 2600 BCE).
>
> ok, 'dear heart' useing your criteria, i have discovered that you are
> wrong about "silt" at the giza plateau. Which makes everything else
> you posted equally as wrong. Right? dear heart?
>
Excellent! You found the original citation to the description of the silt
layer? What is it? That is, my darling, you need to provide a citation to
the literature because otherwise I don't believe you. (One of the
drawbacks with making assertions in the reality-obsessed community is that
you need to show that your assertion matches reality. Pity, but there it
is.)
>
> "Thus these enigmatic monuments were not placed at random, but instead
> convincing explanation and evidence of the flooding, the pyramid texts
> and computerized pictures of the Orion belt four thousand years ago,
> proves the opposite."
>
> http://acsenglish.tripod.com/eessay/pyramids-final.doc
This link is to what appears to be a high school student's essay on the
pyramids. As is common with scholarly productions by individuals at that
level of intellectual development, there is very little critical analysis
of data in what is mostly a demonstration of the ability to find references
and construct paragraphs. That particular garbled bit you quote here is
from a concluding paragraph following a discussion of a correlation between
the three pyramids and Orion's belt; in that discussion the young author
cites Bauval, (Bauval, Robert G. (1998). The Mystery Continues Giza-Egypt.
Retrieved November 26,2002 from http.www.the
noiseroom.com/egyypt/giza5.html), Legon, (Legon, John(1995). The Orion
Correlation. Retrieved November 26,2002 from
http://www.legon.demon.co.uk/orion.htm), and Orcutt (Orcutt, Larry(2000)The
Orion Mystery. Retrieved October 28,2002 from
http://www.catchpenny.org/orion.html ) in an effort to ascribe religious
significance to the layout of the pyramids on the plateau.
Following the paper (electron) trail, we discover that the student is
supporting Bauval's hypothesis that the pyramids reflect some grand master
plan to mirror Orion in stone, despite compelling arguments to the contrary
by Legon and Orcutt. The reference to flooding is in regard to regular
Nile floods, and the fact that to re-create Orion structures representing
the stars Betelgeuse and Saiph would lie on the Nile floodplain (see
Legon's discussion). There is no reference anywhere in the reference chain
to any abnormal flooding whatsoever. Sorry.
>
> What flooding do you supose they mention? The Nile? No. It is
> established that the builders placed the pyramids well above the
> highest flood stage of the Nile.
You really need to read things before you post them. I think that if one
actually reads your sources one discovers that the regular Nile flooding is
exactly what the author means. (Though to be fair, the young student
author of the snippet above is not wholly clear, but it is a high school
paper, after all.) In fact, regular Nile flooding prevents any pyramid
construction on the floodplain, which is the point of Legon's discussion
(as well as the absence of any structures representing the other two major
stars of Orion, Rigel and Bellatrix).
>
> " west of the River Nile, Giza governorate ... to the nearby desert,
> namely, the
> pyramids plateau and Abu ... consists of the fertile top clay-silt
> layer.
>
> http://www.springerlink.com/index/u518364r04x248u6.pdf
>
> How do you supose silt got into the middle of a desert?
>
Holy cats. There appear to be whole pages missing in your elipses.
Naughty, naughty! Bad scholarship! The paper you butcher here is Emara,
M.M., El Sabagh, I., Kotb, A., Turkey, A.S., and Husseen, D., 2007,
Evaluation for drinking groundwater for rural areas adjacent to the nearby
desert of Giza Governorate of Greater Cairo, Egypt, in Envronmental
security in harbors and coastal areas, Springer Verlag, ISBN 978-1-4020-
5800-4. The 'fertile top clay-silt layer' obviously refers to the Nile
floodplain deposits, because (a) the sand up on top of the plateau is sure
as hell not very fertile, and (b) the paper considers a geographic area
located entirely on the Nile floodplain.
Now if you really want to know how silt may get into a desert in general,
the answer of course is wind. What happens is that the wind will pick up
silt (e.g. from the Nile floodplain and delta) and transport it into the
desert. Preservation of silt as a layer after the wind dies down is a
little tricky, though, because the silt needs to settle down between larger
grains in order to escape re-entrainment by the next breeze, but this often
occurs where the desert pavement consists of pebble or cobble sized grains.
Indeed, in a semi-arid desert such as the Mojave, repeated wetting and
drying can cause differential movement between large and small grains
resulting in a layer of silt below an armoring layer of pebbles. If you
are wondering how a fertile clay-silt layer can be found in the Egyptian
desert, the answer is you need a valley and de Nile.
>
> "the term Kemet was used to label the black silt "
> http://svmmvmbonvm.org/kemetmysticism.pdf
>
Yup, Nile floodplain silt, restricted to the Nile valley. Sorry, dear
heart, but none of your efforts here support your original claim at all,
and in fact tend to make you look kinda silly (as well as dishonest). So
to recap, we still have no layer of fossiliferous silt four meters thick
surrounding the pyramids, nor indeed any trace of one; we have compelling
arguments against a Grand Plan to make the Giza Plateau a mirror of the
constellation Orion, and we have no reference at all to anything other than
normal Nile flooding.
VoiceOfReason
Still no names. Conveniently forgot about that "bearing false
witness" thing again?
Rolf
It is even far from clear the the Israelites even were in Egypt. No evidence
has so far been found. (AFAIK)
Garamond Lethe
Lovely way to start the day. Nice work there.
Garamond
johnetho...@yahoo.com
Talking about yourself? As usual you do not support your claims with
any evidence, presumably because you made them up out of thin air.
Also as usual you make yourself look stupid and dishonest.
Mike L
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:52:19 -0600, Jim Willemin wrote:
> >>>news:9Qvol.7588$qa....@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
[...three screens of nested quotations snipped...]
>
> Lovely way to start the day. Nice work there.
>
> Garamond
OT: Reckon you could trim before adding congratulations or comments to
a previous message, please? A sig delimiter (hyphen hyphen space) is
good, too.
--
Mike.
[M]adman
And yet the OP is still unrefuted.
Why is that?
[M]adman
You are a tad confused about what that whole "bearing false witness" thing
is all about.
wf3h
and you're confused about what the whole bible is about.
VoiceOfReason
It's no surprise that you've invented your own definition.
But you're still dodging the fact that you made up your claim about
"Egyptologists and scientists FROM Egypt." Squirm away however you
like, but dishonesty is generally frowned upon.
Jim Willemin
<snip several hundred lines of discussion about pyramids and such>
>
> And yet the OP is still unrefuted.
>
> Why is that?
>
Um, possibly because you cannot recognize a valid refutation when you see
one? Each one of your assertions in the OP is without support; I have more
or less documented the lack of support for the assertion of a four meter
thick layer of fossiliferous sediment - each one of your rebuttals has been
shown to be either mistaken or dishonest. You cannot provide the original
source for the 'mysterious legends' of watermarks on casing stones that
have conveniently disappeared, nor can you document the story about salt
incrustations with original descriptions. Further, note that only a little
fact-checking shows that the king's chamber, the highest internal room in
the pyramid, is a little less than halfway between the base and summit -
thus the 'level of salt incrustations' in the interior would be higher than
the highest accessible point in the interior. Your sources use fabricated
data.
I submit that I have presented strong arguments that your 'evidence'
presented in the original post in this thread is rankest hearsay, much of
it fabricated and all of it undocumented. Now, given that, what in your
mind would constitute a refutation? Do you want to talk about the
astronomical evidence for the date of construction of the Giza pyramids?
There is some pretty good stuff out there on that topic. It supports the
mainstream date. Face it. There was no global flood; the Great Pyramid
was built by Khunum-Khufu about 2600 BCE, and (I hate to do this, but I'm
feeling mean at the moment) Santa Claus is a myth and not a real person.
Ye Old One
I think it is you that is confused - as always.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Garamond Lethe wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 05:52:19 -0600, Jim Willemin wrote:
>>
>>> "[M]adman" <gr...@hotmail.et> wrote in
>>> news:Cbtpl.8751$i9....@bignews7.bellsouth.net:
>>>
>>>> Jim Willemin wrote:
>>>>> "[M]adman" <gr...@hotmail.et> wrote in
>>>>> news:9Qvol.7588$qa....@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
>>>>>
[snip]
>>>>
>>> Yup, Nile floodplain silt, restricted to the Nile valley. Sorry,
>>> dear heart, but none of your efforts here support your original
>>> claim at all, and in fact tend to make you look kinda silly (as well
>>> as dishonest). So to recap, we still have no layer of fossiliferous
>>> silt four meters thick surrounding the pyramids, nor indeed any
>>> trace of one; we have compelling arguments against a Grand Plan to
>>> make the Giza Plateau a mirror of the constellation Orion, and we
>>> have no reference at all to anything other than normal Nile flooding.
>>
>> Lovely way to start the day. Nice work there.
>>
>> Garamond
>
>And yet the OP is still unrefuted.
It has been refuted.
>
>Why is that?
>
You lack the brains to understand reality.
--
Bob.
[M]adman
Not at all. You are confused. Maybe had a bad preacher or maybe you just
cant read
[M]adman
You are stubbornly going to hold on to your main stream views.
You have refuted nothing. What you have done is reintroduce the same
evidence that the OP refutes.
HTH
VoiceOfReason
Yup, still squirming away.
Jim Willemin
@bignews8.bellsouth.net:
Sweetie pie, the original post presents no evidence. I have shown that
whatever wasn't made up cannot be checked (the fossiliferous silt is
most likely a figment of somebody's imagination; the salt incrustations
in the interior would have been discovered in 828 CE when Caliph Al-
Mamun first broke into the pyramid and are long since gone (see further
comments below); the water marked casing stones are probably in some
wall somewhere in Cairo, or burnt into lime). I'm not being stubborn -
it would be way neat if some of this was true - but I need more than
fiction to change my mind. I need verifiable observations - something I
can go and check for myself if I have a mind to. You have presented
nothing more than fiction. None of your 'evidence' can be checked,
except for the fossiliferous silt layer around the pyramids, which
apparently does not exist. I know this is cruel hard, but those are the
standards of the game. You gotta be able to show me, and you cannot.
*Further comments on the 'salt incrustations' inside the pyramid*
Sea water is about 3.5% salt. In order to get evaporative deposition of
several inches of salt on all surfaces, you would need to circulate
significant amounts of hypersaline brine into the pyramid and somehow
evaporate it inside before circulating more brine into the structure.
The only possible openings I can think of are the air shafts from the
two chambers in the interior, and at least one of these shafts is
blocked by a marble 'door'. Without doing the math, it seems to me to
be highly unlikely that infiltration of flood waters in the volumes
necessary to produce your incrustations would occur. While this is not
a refutation per se, it is a problem, and you would need to present a
plausible (i.e. the physics and math work) solution before I would
possibly accept this claim.
Main stream views are often main stream because of overwhelming evidence
in support of them. In order to successfully challenge such views, one
needs to provide compelling evidence to the contrary, most often in the
form of new observations, which you have not done here. So I suppose in
one sense you are right - I have not refuted your evidence, because one
cannot refute what does not exist. I have, however, demonstrated that
there is no reason to believe that those things you have adduced in
evidence so far actually exist, which puts your argument on very shaky
ground indeed.
Kent Paul Dolan
> 400 feet above the present level of the nile?
So?
The Nile is fed by a huge rain catchment basin.
Flooding there in the Nile valley is usually annual,
but catastrophic floods that send hundreds of feet
of water instead of tens of feet of water down the
Nile just need one huge rainstorm to stall in the
upstream catchment basin, and would be expected to
occur several times in the life of a pyramid.
I'm moderately sure that's the same moving moisture
that usually feeds the monsoons of India, where the
entire rainfall area ends up neck deep in water, so
immense amounts of water are available if the storm
stops moving and just sits and rains for a week or
two into the valleys feeding the Nile valley.
The creationists proposing the reality of the
Noachian flood aren't dealing in hundreds of feet,
but in thousands of meters, a problem the
innumerates among them (the whole crew) cannot
recognize even when it is shown to them. That flood
was said, in the scriptural words creationists
pretend to be inerrant, to have covered all the dry
ground of the earth.
Mount Everest ... is the highest mountain on
Earth, as measured by the height of its
summit above sea level, which is 8,848
metres (29,029 ft).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest
You've got a mere 28,629 more feet of water depth to
explain, nitwit, and you have to spread it over all
the earth, not just in one small river valley.
Salt sweat marks on the sides of pyramids are _not_
going to suffice to support your mendacity.
Let's just look at how far off your target you are.
Assume ridiculously, for the purpose of massive
overkill in your favor, that the 400 feet of water
covered the _entire nation of Egypt_.
Egypt contains
(fraction of land that is Egypt times land's
fraction of earth's sphere) = (0.0067 * 0.29) =
0.001943 of the total area of the earth (most of it
is ocean, remember).
Comparing the flood you are crowing about in Egypt
that puts a salt water mark on the side of a
pyramid, and for sake of argument that covers the
whole country to be sure of finding a pyramid
somewhere, 400 * 0.001943, to one that covers the
whole earth and reaches to the top of Mt. Everest,
29029 * 1.0, shows that your flood is a flood
0.00002677... of the size needed to flood the whole
earth as the Noachian flood legend pretends
happened.
In case you are "too stoopid"(tm(Lenny Flank)) to
catch on, that is a "your contentions are too bozoid
for further consideration" numerical outcome.
It's those nasty "facts" things to which
creationists have such a terrible allergy, biting
them on the butt again.
Innumeracy that doesn't lead you to suspect such a
result might be hiding behind your data is just one
of the several ways creationists can find to put on
clown noses and floppy shoes to entertain the saner
parts of the human population on a constant basis.
Not even the "great melt-off" will help you. The
glacial melting that removed the bulk of the
continental glaciation after the last ice age raised
sea levels "hundreds of meters" (about 250-500
meters, IIRC), and took about 10,000 years to do so,
which misses by a factor of 32-16 or so in depth and
100,000 or so in swiftness to match the descriptions
of the Noachian flood.
You'd better get your "wheel spinning breath into
lies" turning a bit faster yet.
Right now, all your progress at persuading people of
your contentions is going backwards at breakneck
speed, not a huge surprise when you are steering
the ship of your self-esteem ass-first.
xanthian.