Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hex · 05-16-2007, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

But not in this forum. We've got another forum to deal with this stuff. We do BC&H here.

spin

Well, actually ... That sort of aspect is how archaeologists have 'synced up' differening ceramic dating scales (I'm thinking here of volcanic eruptions). If I recall correctly, the iridium layers come from asteroid impacts?

- Hex

Sven · 05-17-2007, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RED DAVE

From gagundathar:
Please give a source for the iridium-rich layer.

See

Iridium_anomaly and the references given there.

ETA: Googlescholar helped to dig the original reference up (published 1980 in Science):
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../208/4448/1095

RED DAVE · 05-18-2007, 01:19 AM

Here’s another xtian view on Flood dating. As a bonus, you get a picture of Josephus!

http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/flooddate.html

Quote:

According to the Jewish historian Josephus, Irish archbishop and chronologist James Ussher, and most conservative Christian scholars, the Flood of Noah's time occurred between 2500*BC and 2300*BC.

First century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (pictured at left) used manuscripts available during his time to calculate that Noah's Flood occurred 1556 years after the creation of Adam (see his table below). By adding the ages of the patriarchs listed in the Bible, other scholars have come up with roughly similar dates.

Irish archbishop James Ussher calculated that the creation of the world took place in 4004*BC. If 1556 is deducted from 4004 then the worldwide flood of Noah's time was around 2448*BC (if both chronologies are correct; but please note that there is some disagreement even among conservative Bible believers on these dates).

So, so far, we have the following dates:

2304 BC +/- 11 years (post 175)
2448 BC (post 183)

RED DAVE

RED DAVE · 06-11-2007, 03:53 PM

In anticipation of the end of praxeus's suspension which hs give him plenty of time to do some research:

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 · 06-15-2007, 12:51 AM

In anticipation of the end of praxeus's suspension, which should be about over now, and which has give him plenty of time to do some research:

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

Dave Hawkins · 06-16-2007, 05:22 AM

Since the title of this thread is "Pyramids and All That" I thought it might be appropriate to note that I recently engaged in a debate on the Flood and discussed Egypt and the Pyramids and also China in THIS POST and THE FOLLOWING POST HERE.

It was my first online debate ever and it is a different format from many (I have learned more of the norms of formal debate since), but I believe I gave some excellent support for the Flood in spite of what the ending poll indicates (I was highly outnumbered by Biblical skeptics). Here are some excerpts from one of the above posts ...

Quote:

Anti-diluvialists claim that the Biblical Flood chronology could not be accurate because civilizations such as Egypt and China existed right through the supposed dates of the Flood. Another objection is that there would not have been enough time from the Flood until the time of the building of the Great Pyramid of Gizeh to have enough workers to build it. Is this true? Or have the anti-diluvialists jumped to conclusions too quickly?

...

I use a different date and I am probably one of the few creationists to use this date, but nevertheless I think there is more support for my dates from the available evidence than for other dates.

My dates for the the Flood, the Tower of Babel, and the Building of the Great Pyramid of Gizeh are taken from Charles Piazzi Smyth, Astronomer Royal for Scotland in the late 19th century, as follows: 2743 BC, 2528 BC, and 2170 BC. Smyth, working on the foundation laid by Taylor, probably had more influence on British metrology than any other single individual and in my opinion, is the reason we still use feet and inches in America. If it had not been for Smyth and others, we would have changed over completely to the metric system, in my opinion. You can read more about this here http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-135425064.html

[Discussion of Smyth, then Petrie who apparently discredited him]

...

[But wait ... Smyth was later vindicated]

Wow. Agnostic turned Biblical inspirationist [Davidson] from his work at the Great Pyramid. Let's have a look at that! It turns out that Davidson vindicated BOTH Smyth AND Petrie during Petrie's lifetime due to a dramatic aerial photograph taken accidentally at a specific time and angle by Brigadier General P.R.C. Groves, the British prophet of air power (Tompkins, p. 108). The collage at the first of this post contains that picture and it shows a definite "hollowing out" of the core masonry of the Pyramid.

Davidson's conclusions reopened the entire subject of Pyramid measurements and bred a whole new school of pyramidologists, including the American geodesist John Fillmore Hayford, the originator of the Theory of Isostasy whose refined figure for the polar axis showed Smyth to be correct on his sacred cubit within 0.03 millimeters.

Other notables to write on the Great Pyramid included one time Nature editor and astronomer Sir Norman Lockyer in The Dawn of Astronomy, Australian railroad engineer Robert T. Ballard in The Solution to the Pyramid Problem, astronomer Richard A. Proctor in The Great Pyramid, Observatory, Tomb, and Temple, and others.

I obtained Davidson's book and am examining it now. I would be curious to hear your thoughts on the Smyth/Petrie/Davidson drama. Also, if you are interested, have a look at my current Formal Debate on the historicity of Genesis http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=210239

azidhak · 06-16-2007, 06:42 AM

I see you credit Smythe as the reason for the survival of the imperial system. So not only has he extremely poor science in his analysis of the pyramids, he has also hindered science by keeping americans(and until recently the British) to an outdated standard of measurement! Clearly this man has a lot to answer for. Vive la Systeme Internationale!

Dave Hawkins · 06-16-2007, 10:51 AM

Azidhak ... Could you please support your assertions ...
1) that Smyth had extremely poor science, especially considering that Petrie respected him highly and only felt he was wrong on one of his measurements
2) that the SI system is better and explain how it is better? Do you even understand the Pyramid system of weights and measures which is related to the Imperial system? If not, how can you say SI is better?

Pappy Jack · 06-16-2007, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Azidhak ... Could you please support your assertions ...
1) that Smyth had extremely poor science, especially considering that Petrie respected him highly and only felt he was wrong on one of his measurements
2) that the SI system is better and explain how it is better? Do you even understand the Pyramid system of weights and measures which is related to the Imperial system? If not, how can you say SI is better?

Dave,

As you continue to credit Smyth's work on the GP so highly, at least try checking out this link to a criticism of Smyth and other 'pyramidologists' by renowned mathematician Martin Gardner. If you can read this and still think Smyth & co. are worth the paper they're printed on, there's not much more to be said.

http://skeptically.org/skepticism/id15.html

azidhak · 06-16-2007, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afdave

Azidhak ... Could you please support your assertions ...
1) that Smyth had extremely poor science, especially considering that Petrie respected him highly and only felt he was wrong on one of his measurements
2) that the SI system is better and explain how it is better? Do you even understand the Pyramid system of weights and measures which is related to the Imperial system? If not, how can you say SI is better?

We've been through this several times before. As far as I've seen on the evidence, it's typical pseudoscience claptrap. The debate between WILLOWTREE and Dean Anderson sums up the points well enough and the evidence wasn't very convincing for pyramidology. As I've seen the pyramids for myself I can assert that there's nothing inherently different about the Kufu pyramid and the rest other than size. If anyone of them sticks out it's actually Khafre with the remnants of its outer limestone casing at the top.

When it comes to SI, I guess you aren't a scientist or do conversions often do you? SI is a decimal system which means that conversions inside the system is easy and less timeconsuming. The imperial system is counterintuitive and conversions are hell. Even though the imperial system would have "magical properties" (which I certainly don't believe), it's only rational to go with the easiest system as now finally the british have done (good for them). Now we only need some rationality from our american friends as well. (

)

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

06-16-2007, 06:42 AM	#187
azidhak Banned Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 818	I see you credit Smythe as the reason for the survival of the imperial system. So not only has he extremely poor science in his analysis of the pyramids, he has also hindered science by keeping americans(and until recently the British) to an outdated standard of measurement! Clearly this man has a lot to answer for. Vive la Systeme Internationale!

06-16-2007, 10:51 AM	#188
Dave Hawkins Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Missouri Posts: 2,375	Azidhak ... Could you please support your assertions ... 1) that Smyth had extremely poor science, especially considering that Petrie respected him highly and only felt he was wrong on one of his measurements 2) that the SI system is better and explain how it is better? Do you even understand the Pyramid system of weights and measures which is related to the Imperial system? If not, how can you say SI is better?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.