Dave Hawkins

What conclusions, specifically, do you object to? The only ones I even care about are ... of which, I think Dean already agrees with 3 of these points. Let's not fight about more items than is necessary.

RED DAVE

Not to be a spoiler, but let me remind people that the purpose of this thread is to compare the mythical Noachian flood and the chronology of the Biblical pyramids.

People such as afdave and praxeus are adept at ducking the issue, and bringing up diversions, so let me ask them the following questions, one more time:

1) What is your date for the Flood (i.e. the one that you accept for purposes of argument)?

2) If it's approximate (and there's no reason why it shouldn't be), what are the outside limits?

RED DAVE

Sven

"modern"? Dave, do you really think the early 19th century is "modern"?
:rolling:

Uniformists vs. catastrophists is a red herring. Geologists have acknowledged for a loooooooooooooong time that occasionally, catastrophes happen and add much to the history of the Earth. No serious geologist ever has been a 100% uniformist.

Show me one theory which was proven wrong by science, only to be accepted later again by science. Just one.
You have a very shallow understanding of how science works.

Dave Hawkins

My tentative date for the GP is 2170 BC following Smyth. (Subject to examination of Proctor and Herschel's works) I also tentatively accept Smyth's Flood and Dispersion dates of 2743 BC, and 2528 BC, respectively. The discussion about genetically superior ancestors relates to this because my theory is that the early post-Diluvians were much more vigorous, healthy and longer-lived than later peoples. This and other factors supports the idea that they multiplied rapidly following the Flood providing adequate population for building the GP ~600 years later.

Pappy Jack

Dave, if these 5 points are the only ones that are relevant in your/Smyth's 'advanced scientific knowledge of the non-Egyptian Great Pyramid-builders' theory, then I am happy to deal only with these.
1. No. See Dean's post.
2. No. See preceding discussions in this thread about this.
3. Yes, but so what? Any society which uses astronomy to establish its calendar will realize that something like this is going on by simple observation.
4. No. See Dean's post.
5. Yes, but again, so what? The Egyptians weighed things and measured things.
And regardless of the yes/no answers above, I do not accept that the Great Pyramid architects hid these values in its measurements. 'Finding' them therein is nothing more than an exercise in number-crunching to produce a desired result.

shirley knott

And Dave, even if your '5 points' were true, SO WHAT? [not a rhetorical question, btw]
They ARE true of the Ancient Greeks.
They ARE true of the Ancient Chinese.
And again, SO WHAT?
They provide no support whatsoever for your frankly ludicrous position wrt the alleged flood of the Old Testament.
And your pyramidology is as riddled with holes as your geology, history, chronology, biology, and physics are.

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott

RED DAVE

From afdave:
Okay. Let’s see how that concurs with archaelogical findings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza

So, following the latest findings, you’re about 400 years too late.

From afdave:
So, even accepting that this mythological flood took place, we would expect: (a) a layer of mud many meters thick over all of Egypt; (b) an indaction of the death of the entire population of Egypt (mass destruction of the entire country); (c) loss of culturyal continuity (loss of the Egyptian language, culture, religion, etc.) Now, we have no evideence that any of this happening, so we may safely conclude that there was no flood arend Smyth’s (or anyone else’s) date.

From afdave:
[QUOTE]The discussion about genetically superior ancestors relates to this because my theory is that the early post-Diluvians were much more vigorous, healthy and longer-lived than later peoples. [quote]There is no evidence for this. The average life-span back then was about 35 years. Why don't you write your sources, explain your theories, and then post any replies you get.

From afdave:
I suggest, if can write things like this, you consider a career either in stand-up or in comedy writing.

RED DAVE

ck1

Sorry for being off-topic, just wanted to set this straight. Dave, you have completely misinterpreted Crow. Crow argues that natural selection as modeled by what he calls "quasi-truncation selection" is able to balance the rate of formation of deleterious mutations. This effectively controlled the rate of accumulation of deleterious mutations throughout much of human evolution - IOW, no genomic deterioration of the sort you describe! He comments that "environmental improvements" in only that last few centuries and specifically in "wealthy nations" act to reduce the effectiveness of natural selection in eliminating mutations. I repeat, not an argument for genetic deterioration throughout all of human evolution.

Back to pyramidology...

Dave Hawkins

RED DAVE ... Wikipedia is great for handy reference for non-controversial topics. But for controversial topics, we need to refer to more reliable sources.

Crow proposes quasi-truncation selection as a solution. Of course he has to come up with something. He's not prepared to reject his theory of human evolution for philosophical reasons. But he does not demonstrate that this will save the human race, much less allow "progressive" evolution (Muller's term ... the fruit fly guy). One thing you have to ask yourself is "How confident is Crow in his own proposition of QTS if he concludes his paper with the statement that genomic deterioration is a "bomb with a long fuse"??

Do you have an answer for this?

(Boy ... I sure like the fast response time on the servers here at IIDB)

Dave Hawkins

RED DAVE ... to answer your questions, please start by reading THIS POST about Egypt and China in my recent Flood Debate, then the entire debate. Also, please visit my Formal Debate here at IIDB on the Historicity of Genesis. I will posting there again tomorrow morning.