Minimalist

They have, however, tried to make scale models using various technologies they imagine were available to the Ancient Egyptians. These attempts have failed to demonstrate effective building techniques.

http://www.margaretmorrisbooks.com/xcerpt04.html

Vicious Love

You don't say? Got any evidence to support either contention?

Timetospend

At some point in the past, perhaps Mount Everest was not as high as it is today.

GenesisNemesis

You shouldn't generalize, WishbownDawn. We can't all makes those arguments.

Rhaedas

It wasn't. But that much more than 6000 years ago.

Well then, given I saw three movies showing it, Middle Earth must exist as well.

Has there been any replicas of the ark, of any size, that have contacted water at all? If a smaller version isn't seaworthy, then it would seem the original wouldn't be as well, right?

Vicious Love

Mt. Everest is presently rising by about 4 millimeters a year. At that rate, it will have grown a grand total of 24 meters in 6,000 years. Now, understand that the same processes that elevate mountains are also responsible for all the earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and tidal waves in the world, then ask yourself just how quickly you suppose all those mountains were growing throughout recorded history. In the course of said speculation, you might be tempted to fit all that growth into a brief, catastrophic span of time, say... the deluge. I would advise against that.

Edit: Just clarifying the scope of your problem here: Mt. Everest's peak is about 8850 meters above sea level. Were the polar ice caps to melt, sea level would rise by something like 80 meters (says one source). I trust you appreciate the difficulty of resolving that sort of discrepancy.

Cege

Nope. Just a partial facimile. Skeptic explains:

Located in Petersburg, Kentucky, near Cincinnati, the museum has an elaborate walk-through exhibit of Noah’s ark. As you enter the giant exhibit you encounter 12 animatronic figures building the vessel. You can then meander around two floors of animal pairs, walking both inside and outside the ark. There is also a display of the design plan of the ark to lend scale, demonstrating to visitors that this massive diorama represents only 1 percent of the total ark space. The walls are covered with mural paintings that show how Noah’s family took care of the animals, including engineering speculations about food and waste management. And crucial to the logic of the entire ark display is the exhibit showing how two of every “kind” of animal was brought on board, not two of every “species.”

Antipope Innocent II

Some self-published amateur kook says all the professional Egyptologists who have studied the Pyramids are wrong, so therefore they're wrong? Yep and Eric Von Daniken is a genius as well.

Give us a break. :banghead:

Minimalist

Professional egyptologists are not engineers. There are no Egyptian inscriptions or papyri which discuss the building process for the pyramids so it is not as if they have studied the texts and related what the Egyptians themselves said.

They have done what everyone else is done. They look at them and they wonder "how." Then, they envision ramps ( such a ramp would have been a mile long to reach the top and maintain a reasonable angle ) and teams of workers pulling sleds with big rocks on them. THey do this all to create a tomb for one man. This further presupposes that they would build the pyramid in one lifetime. 20 year estimate in the case of the GP.

Practically, that means that since there are 2.5 million blocks in the GP they had to place one block every two minutes for 20 years, 24/7 365 days a year. Frankly, it is ludicrous. So, either they had technological abilities which were greatly in excess of what the Egyptologists state, or, these things were not built in 20 years but like the cathedrals of Europe took much longer.

In any event, she is certainly not the only person who has pointed some of this stuff out.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/mpl_w...#Egyptologists

Derec

And is just a superstructure on a steel barge.