Steviepinhead

Too bad the "unanswered questions" thread got locked. Presumably, not focused enough (since dave leaves unanwered questions strewn behind him far and wide, like landmines after a "limited regional conflict").

I loved where the thread originator stuck it, though, in "Moral Foundations and Principles"...

If you're engaged in debate, and you fail to engage and deal with contrary evidence, arguments, and assertions, where do you get? Nowhere fast, which is why the mods keep locking dave's "spin-off" (don't rinse, but repeat anyway) threads.

mung bean

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:
Thank you, Mr Hawkins, for being so wonderfully true to form and giving me five solid minutes of side-splitting laughter this morning.
So, after our beloved Energizer bunny spending his days merrily hopping down every rabbit trail he sees we are suddenly confronted with the spectacle of him being narrowly focused and legalistic when confronted with someone pointing an RPG at his population stats.
Davey, are you going to start a seperate thread to address Babel? Because I suspect that if I start one you will avoid it like the plague.

Edit: So Dave, assuming you are going to stick to dealing with the OP ( and assuming, in the spirit of charity, that you will address Babel in a seperate, tightly focused thread ) you will of course be dealing with Red Dave's question of finding some record of the moment when pre-Flud Egypt was wiped out.
This leads directly to Shirley Knott's question of which sediment layers in Egypt, particularly the Nile Valley, are Flud sediments. You cannot pretend that this is off topic.
Also, since the Nile Valley is full of sediment to a depth of 8,000 feet under Cairo you will also have to deal with whether or not this sediment is Flud sediment. If you state that it is you then have to explain why you are making this assertion, which will lead directly to the question of how the 8,000 foot deep drainage canyon formed, which will in turn lead directly to the evaporation of the Mediterranean.
If you state that it is not Flud sediment, you then will be in the position of educating us on how it got there since it is undeniably there and is directly underneath the archaelogical remains of the Egyptian society we are discussing, which according to you was founded shortly after the Flud.
By your own admission and assertion Dave, all these subjects have now become directly and irrefutably on topic.



PS. To Caliliasseia and STP, I believe the reason that thread was locked is because it is against forum policy to use someone's handle in an antagonistic manner in a thread title. (Not that I intend to discuss moderation in this thread. Just clearing the point up for future reference).

Steviepinhead

We'll figure the new rules of our new hosts out eventually. A few wrinkles are to be expected.

Whether all of our self-educating auto-didacts show the same learning curve remains to be seen.

What's the old saw about doing the same old thing in the same old way, while expecting new results?

Calilasseia

Furthermore, since this "1+ mile of flood deposited sediment" is supposed to exist uniformly all over Planet Earth, we are all still waiting for an unequivocal answer as to which sedimentary layers uncovered by actual geologists constitute this "flood deposit".

Now, I've provided a nice little list of geological features above, taken from a variety of places around the globe, and I hereby challenge Dave, somewhere on this Board, to state if none, some or all of those features are "flood deposits", complete with reasons for doing so.

deadman_932

Neither Rohl's nor Smyth's claims have anything to do with the FOUNDING of Egypt, Dave. They come long after the founding.
1. Rohl's revised Chronology deals with Egypt after the 19th-25th dynasties, not the founding of the Egyptian state-level system. Rohls "revised Chronology" doesn't deal at ALL with the founding of Egypt. And to boot, Roh's NEW CHRONOLOGY (NC, hereafter) doesn't even move those affected dynasties much at all... it's a total of 350 years. He does this to accord with events in the OT that deal with David, Saul, etc. THESE EVENTS OCCUR LONG AFTER THE DATES ASKED ABOUT BY RED DAVE.
Red Dave is specifically asking about why the FOUNDING of the Egyptian state system appears BEFORE your flood date in the archaeological record. ...and YOU give him a diversion about events AFTER THAT? WHY?

2) Similarly, What Smythe says about the date for the Great Pyramid is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the Archaeology of the founding of Egypt. The Great Pyramid occurs LONG AFTER.

Red Dave is being very clear yet you are offering meaningless claims about events that have NOTHING to do with what Red Dave is asking.

It is analogous to someone asking about the American Revolutionary period and you start yammering about the Civil War. A revised chronology for the Civil war period says NOTHING about the Revolutionary War period.

For the Europeans, Imagine that the battle of hastings gets changed by 100 years...say, to 966 AD....how does this affect the reality of previous archaeology showing Viking influence in the 900's? Or Roman archaeology earlier? does it NEGATE that archaeology? No, at BEST all it could do is push it deeper in time 100 years. It won't ELIMINATE IT.


Predynastic Egypt is that before 3100 BCE, Dave. Say we move it UP to 2800...so what? IT JUST PUSHED THE FOUNDING OF EGYPT FURTHER BACK, 350 YEARS more, to WHERE YOU SAY NO EVIDENCE SHOULD BE FOUND -- IT SHOULD BE COVERED BY FLOOD DEBRIS. YET WE FIND IT.

WHY?

Archaeology in Egypt extends long back before you say the earth should even exist, Dave. It deals with the rise of egyptian proto-states and agriculturalism long before you say the Earth exists. It deals with the founding of the state-level system when you say NO SUCH EVIDENCE SHOULD BE FOUND BECAUSE IT SHOULD BE BURIED UNDER FLOOD STRATA.

YOU are babbling about events LONG after that--Rohl wishes to down-date Egyptian chronology by several hundred years by shortening the 20th Dynasty and overlapping the 21st and 22nd Dynasties (Rohl 1995b: 144, 384). This would impact the dating of the archaeological periods in Palestine, since dates for the Bronze Age are dependent upon Egyptian chronology.

In turn, the relationship between THOSE archaeological periods and Biblical history would be shifted. DO YOU GET THE IDEA? IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE FOUNDING OF EGYPT EXCEPT TO MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN WHY WE FIND SUCH EARLY FOUNDING SITES AT ALL.

deadman_932

And let me repeat this again, Dave: YOU PERSONALLY have NEVER been able to show that radiometric dating of ANY sort is intrinsically flawed in principle.

We have thousands of such dates that precede the Great Pyramid and the period that Rohl is dealing with in his revised Chronology .

Your job is to show that those dates are incorrect...because by YOUR flood dates, those archaeological sites that precede your flood should all be buried, RIGHT? Under a MILE of sediment, RIGHT? So why do we find them at all?

deadman_932

http://www.thekeep.org/~kunoichi/kun...edynastic.html
http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/po...olpottery.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predyna...eriod_of_Egypt
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../392488a0.html

Hassan, F.A.(1985) A Radiocarbon Chronology of Neolithic and Predynastic sites in upper Egypt and the Delta. African Archaeological Review, 3:95-116

Bard, Kathryn A. (2000) in Shaw, Ian : The Emergence of the Egyptian State in The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford University Press

Caneva, I., Frangipane, M., and Palmieri, A. 1987 Predynastic Egypt: New Data from Maadi. African Archaeologica Review 5: 105: 114

De Wit, Huib E., and Pawlikowski, Maciej (1992) Comparison of Palaeoenvironmental data from Neolithic-Early Dynastic sites of Upper Egypt, the Fayum and the Nile Delta : IN in The Nile Delta in Transition: 4th-3rd Millennium BC (ed. Van den Brink, E.C.M.)289-291. (Pinkhas, Tel Aviv, 1992).

Kroeper, K. (2003) Radiocarbon and Thermoluminesence dates from the Pre/Early Dynastic cemetery of Minshat Aby Omar. In: Krzyzankiak, L., Kroeper, K., and Kobusiewicz, M. Cultural Markers in the Later Prehistory of Northeastern Africa and Recent Research
Poznan Press. http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/muzeum/m.../studies8.html

Other citations on dating EGYPTIAN NEOLITHIC-PREDYNASTIC sites by various absolute and relative methods: http://www.faiyum.com/html/bibliography.html

Dean Anderson

Let's look at this answer in detail...

You imply here that you believe that Egypt was founded after the flood because Rohl's chronology supports this.

But this us utterly false.

Even with your proposed flood date (which is hundreds of years before the date that the Bible gives - something you have never addressed), Rohl's chronology still gives a founing date before the flood, so the problem of continuous Egyptian culture running through the time of the flood still exists.

Score so far: 0/1

False, again.

You know my basis for saying that they are wrong, because I told you. My basis for saying that you are wrong is because in the hundred or so years since Herschel and Proctor wrote we have developed much more accurate measuring techniques, and (using these techniques) NASA has published more accurate dates - and these simply do not match the earlier, less accurate, date used by Smyth. Indeed, we do not even know whether Smyth accurately reports Herschel and Proctor's date, or whether he fudges the numbers like he does with so much of his measurement data.

You have already accepted that the NASA dates are correct, but still claim that Smyth is somehow also correct.

Score so far: 0/2

Secondly, your statement that Smyth's date is based on astronomy is also false. Smyth's date is based primarily on his alleged prophetic symbology - something that you have admitted that you do not agree with. He only uses the astronomical data as secondary supporting evidence to support his prophecy based date.

Score so far: 0/3.

False yet again.

Firstly, Petrie was well aware of the slight concavity of the faces - as your own quote of his words shows.

Secondly, the calculations that make Smyth's measurements apparently align with Petrie's simply involves adding an arbitrary and unnecessary value to Petrie's in order to arrive at Smyth's. It can in no way be said to reconcile the two.

Score so far: 0/4

Thirdly, you are taking a tiny subset of Smyth's "measurements" - the subset that is closest to Petrie's and is the least controversial - and claiming that because you can "reconcile" these with Petrie's measurements, then Smyth's other measurements - the symbolically prophetic ones that he bases his dating on must also be accurate.

This is simply false.

If you wish to show that Smyth's age of the pyramid is correct, then you must support the particular calculations that he uses to arrive at that date, not simply a different small subset of his measurements.

Score so far: 0/5

False. You presented a quote from Petrie that mentioned the slight concavity - but which contradicted both Smyth and Davidson when describing its nature. This is not "much evidence" that the pyramid was as Smyth and Davidson described.

Score so far: 0/6

False. Your "evidence" went no way towards supporting your conclusions. As for the photo, I (amongst other people) speculated that it didn't look like what one would expect to see (even if your theory was correct), and therefore might be airbrushed. Given your extra - and contradictory - evidence, it still doesn't look like what one would expect to see.

Score so far: 0/7

False. The 2% figure represents people with modern acricultural techniques and a large standing biodiversity, neither of which would be available to flood-survivors.

Score so far: 0/8

Misleading. I may have made you look silly for relying on fractional people, but that is only half the story.

I also showed that your 600 year figure contradicted your dating, and that - even if your figures were accurate - your population would only be about a fifth of what you claimed.

Score so far: 0/9

False, once again.

Your second figures are less realistic than your first, since they involve people living for 500+ years, and rely on your assumptions that our ancestors were more fertile and healthy than us - assumptions that - as has been pointed out to you by the very geneticists whose work you claim leads to those conclusions are completely unwarranted.

Final score: 0/10

Summary

In order to answer the OP, you have:

1) Used a flood date that contradicts the Bible.
2) Used Egyptian dates that you claim are based on Rohl, but which are actually contradicted by Rohl.
3) Used Smyth's dates that are arrived at by prophetic symbolism, even though you claim to not believe in that symbolism.
4) Used astronomical alignments that are contradicted by modern NASA measurements which you admit to be correct.
5) Not attempted to support Smyth's prophecy-based date, but instead tried to support some other measurements of his.
6) Then, after you have used all this to arrive at an alleged 580 year gap between the Flood and the building of the Pyramid, you have used wildly unrealistic formulae to attempt to show that there could have been enough people to build the pyramid.

But none of this helps, because even according to your numbers, Egypt was founded before the Flood and its civilisation carried on through the Flood without noticing it.

Calilasseia

Er, pardon me for launching this little tangential diversion, but isn't using a date that contradicts the Bible a strange way of establishing Biblical inerrancy?

Either the Bible date is correct (which any reasonable person would assume would be a starting point for ANY attempt to establish inerrancy), in which case all the revisionist chronologies that generate dates not in agreement are by definition WRONG if you supoprt Biblical inerrancy, or the Bible date is NOT correct, the revisionist chronologies ARE correct, and as a corollary, the Bible is no longer inerrant?

Pappy Jack

Ah, but the interpretation of what constitutes Biblical inerrancy is what it's all about, innit, otherwise there wouldn't be any need to burn heretics at the stake, would there?