Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RED DAVE · 04-23-2007, 04:16 AM

From praxeus:

Quote:

Hi Stinger. There are two issues involved in my post above. The theory that plate tectonics accounts for moving huge masses of rock with marine fossils from .. something .. up many miles. And that this is a "prediction" of plate tectonics. Please read more carefully. Thanks.

Nice that you could comment on plate tectonics. However, you are still ducking the point of the thread, which doesn't surprise me.

Quote:

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

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

RED DAVE

Dave Reed · 04-23-2007, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE

Egyptologists, of course, can see no cultural context at all in which the Sphinx could have been carved before 5000 BC, or 3000 BC for that matter, and several good reasons for putting its carving at about 2500 BC. Before about 10,000 BC, conditions were cold and dry in Egypt, so erosion of a pre-existent Sphinx is hard to imagine - indeed, the pre-existence of the Sphinx before 10,000 BC is itself an idea all but impossible to entertain.
RED DAVE

Yes, I agree that they can see no cultural context simply
because they don't really know much about the Egyptians
in that area before 5000 BC. Cultural context is absolutely
not the same as archeaological evidence. In reading the
entire article, not just a piece of one page, you would have
to agree that the original build date is unknown, except
that it must have been before the heavy rain period.

RED DAVE · 04-23-2007, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

Yes, I agree that they can see no cultural context simply
because they don't really know much about the Egyptians
in that area before 5000 BC. Cultural context is absolutely
not the same as archeaological evidence. In reading the
entire article, not just a piece of one page, you would have
to agree that the original build date is unknown, except
that it must have been before the heavy rain period.

Dave, you are working from the sheerest speculation. If you want to deal with the age of the Sphinx, come up with the sources that claim it's older than the accepted date.

Remnants of a Lost Civilization?

http://guardians.net/hawass/remnants.htm

Quote:

Writer John Anthony West and Boston University geologist Robert Schoch contend that weathering of the Member II layers indicates that the Sphinx was built between 5000 and 7000 BC. If Egyptologists tend to ignore West and Schoch it is because the two mostly ignore the evidence of the Old Kingdom Egyptian society that surrounds the Sphinx, concluding that the monument must be the remnant of a much older civilization, otherwise unknown to archaeology. They do not explain how their lost civilization disappeared from the archaeological record, nor how the Old Kingdom society of Khufu, Khafre, and their cohorts are so abundantly represented in that record. Nor do they explain what happened to this lost civilization during the thousands of years between their mysterious Sphinx builders and the Old Kingdom (2575-2134 BC). Apart from these problems, the West-Schoch case is flawed in the specifics they cite about erosion on the Sphinx.

RED DAVE

RED DAVE · 04-24-2007, 10:15 PM

Still waiting, praxeus. You've managed to make some comments about quaits, etc., on another thread, but you keep ducking this thread.

So, one more time:

Quote:

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

RED DAVE · 04-25-2007, 10:34 PM

From praxeus:

Quote:

[Y]ou get used to IIDB diversions and distractions.

Hmm. What was that quote again? Something about being without sin and casting the first stone?

Still waiting, praxeus:

Quote:

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

RED DAVE · 04-27-2007, 04:25 AM

The horror, the horror, another day without a response from praxeus:

Quote:

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

Steven Avery · 04-27-2007, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE

The horror, the horror, another day without a response from praxeus:RED DAVE

I'll simply point out that <edit> I already indicated when I would discuss this in more depth more on IIDB.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Paul2 · 04-27-2007, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

I'll simply point out that <edit> I already indicated when I would discuss this in more depth more on IIDB.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

All I saw was that you said it would take a little more time to get your facts, or something to that effect. that was a week ago. Had enough time, or are you just hoping Dave would forget?

Jack the Bodiless · 04-27-2007, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

As an example, when I point out that marine fossils on top of mountains around the earth are clearly evidence of a flood and that great minds puzzled over them throughout history then the post-facto pseudo-'prediction' of plate tectonics is offered. Despite the fact that the marine fossils are given as a primary evidence for tectonics in tectonics apologetics !

..."Tectonics apologetics"? Never heard of this before. Plate tectonics is a fact of nature, confirmed by direct observation and measurement (it's an ongoing process), it doesn't require "apologetics" of any sort. And it was deduced primarily from matching the shapes of the continents (and, in more detail, the rock strata on opposite sides of oceans and so forth).

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

As for the question of my chronology, salvanoot (patience). It is a new field of research for me and I am looking forward to studying various materials, especially an article that discusses secular chronologies in depth that I should have in a couple of weeks to a month. At that time I will share with you from my studies and views.

..."Secular chronologies"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

To give more backdrop, as I explained, this is not something I normally make a first priority. (And discussions with evolutionists sometimes get bogged down in things like cave paintings that are supposed to be 40,000 years old .. here we are focusing on the more fundamental chronology issues.) So I had some discussions who some folks seem like they have an excellent grasp on the issues.

Yes, there are indeed cave paintings that are tens of thousands of years old. But what has this got to do with evolution?

I believe the term you're groping for here is non-crackpot. You need to research non-crackpot geology, non-crackpot chronologies, and non-crackpot dating mechanisms. You don't need to dress this up in bizarre alternative terminology such as "tectonics apologetics", "secular chronologies" or "evolutionism". I'm reminded of the habit among naturists (nudists) of referring to the other 99.99% of the population as "textiles": minority groups seem to enjoy slapping a label on everyone else (but creationists take it further than most: I've never heard of "textile apologetics", or any sort of "textile science" that doesn't relate directly to fabrics).

But information on mainstream science, history etc is readily available: so what's the delay?

Steven Avery · 04-27-2007, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul2

All I saw was that you said it would take a little more time to get your facts, or something to that effect. that was a week ago. Had enough time, or are you just hoping Dave would forget?

Hi Paul,

You might take the time to actually read posts 71 & 84 before posting.
Only takes a minute to find, it's not such a long thread.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.