Occam's Aftershave

Still waiting for you to tell us about the 1 mi. of Flood sediments in Egypt Dave.

Do you think you could give us a time frame for when you plan to keep your word?

BWE

Don't know if ya all know about a debate I'm having with Dave at Richard Dawkins forum but his last post suggested that Dendrochronology is, in it's entirity, based of a fraud perpetrated by a guy who died in the 1980's.

Bad bad form. bad form.

Funny how Egyptologists also have conclusions that refute your weird view of reality. And biology, geology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, geography, 3rd grade, etc.-all of them. What a perfect cover up. Only scientists and 3rd graders know about the hoax though. We are doing it so that we can all laugh at you at the rapture and say, "Just Kidding!"...

Discussing reality with creationists burns more braincells than snorting battery acid. What an exercise- can you imagine if you wanted to come up with a way to refute some aspect of reality, say, dishwashers?

I just got a shiver.

Steviepinhead

Turn the "Heat" cycle on in the dishwasher.

Oh, wait.

Maybe dishwashers aren't real.

And that's why you're shivering.

I get it.

But wait, what about that hearty old Maytag repair guy. Now you're gonna try and tell me that he was just the fantasy of some advertising copywriter...

Vicious Love

Right after praxeus makes good on his promise, I'll wager.

BWE

The maytag repairman goes back to freud. Two of the pillars of western materialism have fallen,...

gregor

bump - awaiting afd's promised answers.

Dave Hawkins

TYING UP LOOSE ENDS ON SMYTH, PETRIE AND DAVIDSON
Dean Anderson and I have been going back and forth about whether Smyth was right or not about the Great Pyramid being a repository of scientific and astronomical knowledge of the ancients. My position is that Smyth was correct in his measurements and in his observations about the value of PI, the length of the solar and sidereal years, the polar diameter of the earth and other key measures being built into the Great Pyramid. I think he was also correct about the building date of the GP, based on the coincidence of two factors: 1) the alignment of Alpha Draconis (the ancient north star) with the ascending passage, and 2) the position of Eta-tauri in the constellation on Pleiades. See diagram here and also search the text for "tauri". Dean has conceded the point that Smyth was correct in his observation of the Alpha Draconis alignment, but he has not addressed the Pleiades alignment. Given the prominence of the Pleiades to ancient peoples, this is a strong argument in favor of Smyth's theory for the date of construction.

As for the Davidson reconciliation of Smyth's and Petrie's base circuit measurements, I do not understand Dean's reluctance to concede this point. I gave several references of investigators who acknowledge the concavity that Davidson analyzes including Petrie himself. I showed that Davidson's theory for the casing stones is the most natural one and in no way requires arbitrary adding of numbers to "make it work." I even pointed out a different Pyramid - the Lisht - whose sockets argue in favor of Davidson's socket theory and against Petrie's. It seems highly unlikely that the Aerial Photo Showing Hollowed Faces is an "airbrush job" as suggested by Dean because of the many investigators cited previously who acknowledge it's existence, and also the known fact that slightly irregular surfaces can easily be seen under the right lighting conditions.

To summarize, it seems highly likely that the Great Pyramid ...
1) incorporates a very exact value of PI
2) records the exact length of the solar and sidereal years
3) records the exact length of the polar diameter of the earth
4) indicates via astronomical alignments a building date of 2170 BC

Whether it records other significant science besides these points, I cannot say for sure and I don't care much. And I certainly don't care about any prophetic speculations entered into by either Smyth (minimal) or Davidson (extensive). The scientific facts highlighted here are significant enough to support my inferences that ...

a) early post-Flood man had a highly developed science, and
b) ancient Egypt may not have been founded as early as the Egyptologists suppose

This latter point is further supported by the facts pointed out by Rohl. I posted these HERE and HERE and have yet to get a response from either Dean or anyone else. To refresh your memory, I asked ... As for the Flood Date, the Dispersion Date and the question of whether there was enough manpower available to build the Tower of Babel and the GP, genetic superiority of our ancestors, etc. ... these questions have been thoroughly discussed here and in other threads. Here are some helpful links ..

Beginning of Great Pyramid Discussion w/ Dean Anderson
Davidson Diagram Showing Hollowed Faces
Aerial Photo Showing Hollowed Faces
Hollowed GP Faces Confirmed by Petrie
Post-Flood Population Growth Chart 1
Population Growth Chart 2 and the Tower of Babel
Refocus on OP of Pyramid Thread
Rebuttal of Dean Anderson's points
Dean Anderson Concedes point about Smyth's astronomical alignments
Petrie and Langdon: Early Egyptians were monotheists
More on Early Egyptian Monotheism
Handy Links for Long-Lived Patriarch discussion
Dr. J.C. Sanford Deteriorating Genomes Discussion

I am now ready to look into sedimentary layers in Egypt although I leave Friday for a week in Mexico ... don't know how far I will get.

In the mean time, I would love for someone to address the issues Rohl raises, linked above.

Thanks to all for your participation so far.

Pappy Jack

I don't know how many times this has to be pointed out to you:

• 1. There is an entirely plausible explanation for the incorporation of pi into Khufu's Pyramid based on the building techniques used by the Dynastic Egyptians.
• 2. Smyth fudged and manipulated his data to produce the results he wanted.

Okay, I'll bite. I've posted this twice here before without a response; I don't mind posting it a third time if no one else does.....
I'm glad you don't find Rohl conclusive, Dave, as his chronology is controversial and disputed with good reason - as you will discover if you follow some of the links I and Calilassea have given you (btw, I miswrote Walter Mattfeld's name in the link I gave you, which you may have noticed if you followed up the suggestion to look at his work; my apologies to Mr Mattfeld). So, if Rohl is not conclusive, I return to my response to the question you asked Red Dave:
As to your bullet points from Rohl's work:
• Shishak/Shoshenq - disputed and unresolved.
• C14 is not the only RM method used for dating the Egyptian chronology. Thermoluminescence is also used. Do you and/or Rohl have problems with this as well?
• Hebrew names in Egyptian papyri? So what? Egypt was both a military and commercial empire with links throughout the Eastern Mediterranean and Near and Middle East. What other papyri and other textual sources are there that include non-Egyptian names? What does this lead us to conclude about Egyptian society?
• Egypt was a society with a deep-rooted belief in magic and the power of the gods. How many other pharaohs' reigns saw 'blasts of (the) god(s)' or other supernatural events recorded? If none, Manetho's observation may have some value; if many, then precious little. And are we certain that these are Manetho's own words rather than an interpolation by a later writer seeking to reinforce Biblical 'truth'? This is a pertinent question as Manetho's original work is lost and preserved only in fragmentary translations by Josephus (70 AD), Africanus (early 3rd century AD), Eusebius (early 4th century AD) and Syncellus (800 AD).
• And what is your interpretation of the 'terrible catastrophe' at Avaris? How does this provide 'evidence for Israel's activities'?
• Ditto Garstang and Kenyon's 'work at Jericho'?
• Joseph? Well, here's a comment from Dennis Forbes' review of A Test of Time here:
Regardless of Rohl's work, however, and even if 350 years was to be lopped off the accepted chronology for Dynastic Egypt (unlikely, if you follow the links to the reasoned criticisms of Rohl's work and conclusions), this does nothing to help you provide supporting evidence for Smyth or to explain the existing evidence for Early Dynastic and Predynastic settlement in Egypt that your mythical Flood should have wiped from the face of the Earth.

The Evil One

I don't get it. Modern humans have a highly advanced science, and we don't go around intentionally building pi into the measurements of our monuments for the dead. Nor do we usually build in measurements of the year.

And as for the chronology, I rather think the point is that the mainstream accepts chronology A, Rohl argues for chronology B, and you are arguing for chronology C. You don't get to use the existence of an argument between A and B as evidence for C. You have to present evidence for C. You haven't done so.

Or to put it another way, "there is some debate about this question" doesn't imply "therefore any answer I pull out of my arse is as acceptable as any other".

The post you quoted didn't provide evidence for your favoured chronology, it just muddied the waters by changing the topic to the exodus.

Pappy Jack

But here renowned mathematician Martin Gardner demonstrates how, by manipulation of the data, you can find 'hidden' scientific and numerical encodings in the Washington Monument. Dave prefers not to address this....