Dave Hawkins

Don't get out much do you? Don't drive on highways cut through hills, huh? Never seen the Grand Canyon? Etc. Pity.

Dave Hawkins

If what you posted is not significant, then why did you waste my time by posting it? You posted something and I clicked the link and attempted to follow this guy's argument. I didn't even make it to first base because he uses unfamiliar terms.

Please repost and only include what you think is important for supporting your point and explain clearly what you are talking about and why it supports your point.

Thanks.

shirley knott

Dave, that's dishonest above and beyond your usual standard.
NO ONE is claiming that layers can't be found.
But you have never told us WHICH layer is the flood layer, or is the boundary.
You need to take care of that little detail.
Even you have not denied that there were other catastrophic floods that left evidence in the geologic column (or are you now denying the existence of the geologic column as some of your YEC colleagues have).
Given that, it should be trivial for you to identify which is the flood layer.
Why haven't you?

no hugs for thugs,
Shirley Knott
PS "Don't get out much" is especially rich coming from someone who has never visited any of the sites about which he pontificates. There's a record of this in one of the other sites on which you've engaged in "discussion" of the flood.

Mike PSS

Dave,
The last time I saw a flood deposit (stream flood in Wisconsin, went 10 feet above flood stage and inundated a small valley, emptied into a plain at the end of the valley) the detritus of this flood was a homogeneous mixture of everything the flood had carried out of the valley.

No sorting, no definition of distinct layers, just mud and grass and sand and small pebbles (and the odd piece of metal and wood frame from a few unfortunate farm buildings) all jumbled and mixed in a single layer.

So when people ask how a world wide flood would create the distinct layers of the grand staircase and you punt the answer and say "hydrologic sorting" (a non-answer) then offer no details to describe each layer.

Kind of seems disingenuous to say the least.

Occam's Aftershave

Dave, when are you going to show us that 1 mi. thick layer of Flood sediment in Egypt?

It's been weeks since you promised the evidence, and you're been reminded of it a dozen times. Were you just lying about that too?

Here is the stratigraphic map of Egypt again. WHERE IS THE 1 MI. DEEP FLOOD SEDIMENT LAYER??

mung bean

Goddam, the bugger's back, and (says he strenuously and scrupulously behaving himself) his arguments don't seem to have improved at all.

Davey boy, the Nile is calling.....

..now, since you were ever so interested in Nile valley sediments and so throroughly agreeable that the subject of said sediments was definitely on-topic for this thread and you were most certainly going to address it, wotcha reckon about it then?

We have 8,000 feet of sediment under Cairo, mate. Start digging and find us that Flud layer.

RED DAVE

From Vicious Love:
From afdave:
Don't observe much do you? Don't notice that the rock from the cuts is always different, in different parts of the country, instead of a uniform layer. Hiked down to the bottom of the Grand Canyon over forty years ago. You can see the layers of rock as you descend.

Maybe you and praxeus can get together and try joint posts, like we do over at the Ongoing thread.

RED DAVE

Sven

Well, it was 17 days, not seven.

Another thing atheists got wrong!

This proves that the flood happened!

Praise the lord!!!!!

Sven

Poor Dave. Pappy Jack used terms which are that unusual that even Googles give only about 1 800 000 hits for both. Oh, wait...

Pappy Jack

Dave, it's a point I've made over and over again. I keep trying to find examples that might mean something to you. You don't like the examples given in the link I gave you because of 'unfamiliar terms'. I still don't know whether or not you read the link to Martin Gardner's chapter on Khufu's Pyramid, which is eminently understandable and explains simply how Smyth and his ilk were mistaken. I also don't know whether you read the articles Mike referred you to at rdnet on how pi could have been incorporated into Khufu's Pyramid simply because of the design and construction techniques used and, if you did, why you take issue with these arguments.

Once again, though, the terms used by Jim Loy, whether familiar or not, do not detract from the argument which is, to state it once more and as simply as I can, that:

• given the availability of a mass of data
• (which itself may or may not be reliable)
• and the willingness to spend time manipulating that data in the expectation of finding encoded correlations amongst it
• surprise, surprise, you are going to find encoded correlations

So whether you understand Jim Loy's terms or not, this is exactly what his examples demonstrate in a simple and elegant way. Furthermore, the examples show how encoded correlations are a fundamental consequence of the geometry of almost any pyramid you care to postulate.

And, for clarification, as I understand it,

• slanting edge is the length of the slope of a pyramid from a perimeter corner to the pyramid's apex
• slanting height is the length of the slope of a pyramid from the mid-point of the base of a pyramid's side to its apex

The other geometrical terms Jim Loy uses are, I think, self-explanatory.