Flood erosion evidences:

Water is the main culprit that dissolves minerals, and loosens soil and rock from the landscape, transporting them to the ocean.

Day after day, year after year, the rivers of the world cart tons of decomposed rock across the continents and dump it in the ocean.
By comparison, the amount removed by winds, glaciers, and ocean waves on the shores is small.

Water can do it’s eroding work once it falls as rain, it then collects into drainage basins, which are easily identifiable on any topographical map.

By sampling the mouth of a river, the volume of water discharged from the basin, and the amount of sediment it carries can be determined.

This isn’t exactly precise, as it is difficult to observe how much sediment is pushed along the river floor (‘Bed load’), but, to make up for it, sometimes an arbitrary allowance is included to account for it.

Sedimentologists have researched many of the world’s rivers, and calculated how fast the land is disappearing.

And their results are intriguing!

Some rivers are excavating their basins by more than 1,000 mm of height in 1,000 years, whilst others move only 1 mm in 1,000 years.

The average height reduction for all continents is 60 mm per 1,000 years, which equates to some 24 MILLION tons of sediment per year, disappearing into our oceans.

(Which, i feel is a principle ingredient for higher sea levels... NOT icebergs melting or global warming)

Of course, on the scale of a human life, these rates of erosion are low, but, for those who say that the continents are billions of years old, the rates are staggering.

A height of 150 Kms of continent would have ERODED in 2.5 billion years.

Even at the slowest rate of 1 mm per 1,000 years, the continents, (with an average of 623 Kms of height) should have vanished long ago…

In short, if erosion had been going on for billions of years, NO continents would remain.

These rates not only ‘erode’ the idea of billion-year-old continents, but also destroy the concept of ancient mountains.

It has been suggested that mountains still exist because uplift is constantly replacing them from below. Consequently, mountains would have been eroded and replaced many times over in 2.5 billion years.

Although uplift is occurring in mountainous areas, such a process of uplift and erosion could not go on long without removing ALL layers of sediments.

We wouldn’t expect to find any old layers of sediment in mountainous areas if they had been eroded and replaced several times over.

Yet, surprisingly, sediments of all ages, from young to old (by ‘evolutionary dating’ methods) have been preserved in mountainous regions.
The idea of continual renewal by uplift doesn’t solve the problem.

Another theory trying to explain disappearing mountains is that today’s erosion is ‘abnormally high’.

According to this argument, erosion in the past was much less before humans interfered. Human activities such as farming and land clearing have been blamed for this increase in erosion.
However, quantitative measurements on the effect of human interference have found erosion has only increased 2 to 2.5 times.

For this explanation to solve the problem, the increase would need to be several HUNDRED times greater.

It has ALSO been suggested that the climate of the past was much drier.
(on the basis that less water means less erosion)
But, this idea is against the evidence. The climate was actually WETTER, as deduced from the abundance of lush vegetation in the fossil record. (Take a look under Antarctica)

To summarize:

The mountains and continents that we have today were the result of a huge FLOOD, in which the continents were uplifted, and the energy of retreating floodwaters carved our landscape.

It is clear that not a lot (geologically speaking) has happened in the past few thousand years… (Excepting a giant flood)

(In answer to those saying, “it’s impossible to cover Mount Everest in water!”:

Short answer, It didn’t need to.

Slightly longer answer:

The Himalayas show evidence of being pushed up AFTER layers of fossil-bearing flood sediments had been deposited.

THEORETICALLY, the flood waters didn’t need to be huge, as (theoretically) there were no large mountains in the past to cover. (as I said, theoretically)

On the contrary. I only attack idiots who think the whole world was covered with water. You have shown yourself to have some common sense in saying the bible is wrong in that regard.

Genesis 7:19 is rubbish. We agree,.

"remember the 'scientifically balanced' protein supplement for cows."

Don't you know the difference between scientists and advertising agents?

quote:

---

[BOLD]But the day of the Lord will come like a thief.[/BOLD]
The heavens will disappear with a roar;
the elements will be destroyed by fire,
and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.

---

quote:

---

First off, the 'Book of the Dead':
I am aware of the fact that there are FOUR versions of it, which represent four regions, and four periods of time. It's clearly open to interpretation as to the what and where. But, For the moment, the Book Of the Dead ( the 'Rescensings of coming forth by day') is of no importance.

---

Why is it of no importance? Because prt m hrw (coming forth by day) is the best preserved copy? Yup, you don't want to work with the stuff that is most intact, you can't warp it as easily.

[/quote](And the 'Book of the Dead' was NOT copied FROM Papyrus TO stone, but vise-versa.)[/quote]

Really? Isn't that what I already said? The Book of the Dead evolved from the Coffin Texts, which evolved from the Pyramid Texts.

quote:

---

"Quarry marks":

I don't recall Hancock in that little speech, mentioning anything about grammatical errors...

---

You mean in his statement on their validity or in his book? His new copies of Fingerprints mentions that he no longer supports the forgery theory. Have you even seen the quarry marks?. My guess is no, because if you did, and if you had even a rudimentary understanding of hieroglyphs, you would see that there are no grammatical errors. Don't use your intellectual laziness and ignorance as an excuse to justify Sitchin's bull.

quote:

---

But, I would like to point out about 'Khufu': Whilst there may have been a pharaoh Khufu in the fourth dynasty, that doesn't necessarily mean that it was him. IF you read that David Pratt link, you will see that it is possible that the inscriptions may have merely been for 'protection'

---

They contain more than one of his names. Horus Medjedu was Khufu's Horus name. There was only one Horus Medjedu, and this name was not used by later Egyptians as a charm. Your argument depends on ignorance for its upholding.

quote:

---

The 'chronological order' of your pyramids are based on what? If using carbon dating etc, I would like to point out they are highly affected by variables. ( and if on recorded chronologies, note Khufu didn't build the GP.... it's not in the records...)

---

Thanks for pointing out the problems with C-14. I only work with it directly, so I was unaware of that (sarcasm). The chronologies are not based on a single form of evidence, that would be unscientific. They are based on a combination of carbon dates, historical inscriptions, archaeological context, and other evidence. The sequential order is pretty damn solid.

Why are you holding the GP in a special light? There is just as much evidence, if not more, attributing the pyramid to Khufu as there is attributing the Red to Sneferu, or the Step to Djoser, or the Abu Rowash pyramid to Djedefre. Again, STOP USING YOUR IGNORANCE AS AN EXCUSE TO IGNORE THE INCONVIENCE OF RESEARCH.

quote:

---

Peter: """"It would be unusual to find an inscribed burial chamber in Khufu's pyramid. Again, it rests just as it should in the evolutionary line of royal funerary structures. The same goes with the rest of its features""""

I am higly curious about this statement. How is it 'resting just as it should... with the rest of it's structures'? AND in chronological order?

---

Are you serious? You need to buy a book. I'm not going to go over all of this in a single post. Thankfully I already have a short essay on the subject for you to read. Please also pick yourself up a copy of Verner's recent book on the pyramids. Until then, read this again: http://touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramidevolution.htm

quote:

---

Peter: """"Pieces of the Great Pyramid's causeway, said to be highly decorated and as impressive to see as the pyramid itself by Herodotus, have been found bearing Khufu's name. The pyramid itself is entirely surrounded by members of Khufu's court and family. """"

See the bits about Khuti.

---

I have. LONG ago. It isn't new, it isn't enlightening, and it isn't qualified. It is pseduohistory.

quote:

---

So, the other two pyramids, which are also impressive monuments, are automatically assigned to Khufu's family? ( that's the reasoning, isn't it?)
(Chephren's is said to have been started by Khufu, i'll give you that much...)

---

I don't know who said that, but it wasn't an Egyptologist or anyone else who knows what they're talking about. The other pyramids are assigned attribution based on evidence, not fanciful whim. Again, read Verner's book. Or Lehner's. Or any other respectable introductory to pyramids.

quote:

---

I haven't said Khufu building the GP isn't impossible. It is just very unlikely. I have stated that Khufu had managed to build imperfect structures.

---

**NEWS FLASH** The GP is NOT perfect. It is full of errors, short cuts, and mickey mouse work.

quote:

---

"how is it possible for a man who built imperfect structures to build the wonder that is the Great Pyramid"?

---

With stone. You don't know enough about the pyramid to make that comment. Again, you're in error, and again I would suggest you pick up a respectable introductory to pyramids. Lehner, Verner, Edwards, or even Fakhry would be ideal.

quote:

---

There is NO evidence that can show conclusively that Khufu was the man to
do it. Yes, he added casing stones. ( an impressive feat on it's own, no
doubt) But evidence is thin about His constructing it from scratch.

---

The quarry marks are conclusive. The weight of evidence associated with other finds also leaves no doubt. Again with the introductory book...

quote:

---

I have stated that records of Khufu's life and times reveals NOTHING of his hand in the GP, besides ( if anything) casing stones.

---

Look into finds from the workman's village. Also the quarry marks. You're getting boring now.

quote:

---

Architecturally?! The GP is like no other building on the planet! How can you say it 'fits the 'stone-age' buildings of the 4th Dynasty?! (how do you sleep at night?)

---

1. Cut the drama.

2. Because it does. Research them. I'm not a babysitter. Read my essay again.

quote:

---

Using Hancocks words to prove that the quarry marks are legit, 4th dynasty Khufu marks does nothing for this. It neither proves it, nor disproves it.

---

Then look at them for yourself. If you still believe they were forged you're either: a. religitarded, or b. stupid.

quote:

---

Here is an excerpt of:

"The Great Pyramid: Mans monument to Man" (Tom Valentine, 1975)

Have fun with this, regardless of your beliefs. It raises a few interesting points...

---

Pathetic.

I admit that you are knowledgeful of the orthodox understanding of Egyptology, but for you to claim that the GP is riddled with shoddy workmanship, 'Errors and mickey mouse work' just proves your ignorance of REALITY.

In this last post of yours, you've answered absolutely nothing, but instead, avoided the issues completely.

I will say to you what I say to all, if you don't know, just say so, we all make mistakes.

Take it like a man...

(John, I couldn't have said it better, thank you)

A small example of filler debris can be seen here: http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/images/great_pyramid/great_pyramid_41.jpg

John, care to point anything out in that essay?

The limestone casing would have been quite perfect. We know this from the little that still remains, and from the casings stones still intact on Sneferu's Bent pyramid and those at the top of Khafres. They were stripped after an earthquake in the middle ages in order to rebuild portions of Cairo after an earthquake. When I was last in Egypt, Andrew Bayuk (Guardian's Egypt guy) and I were studying what we believe to be the remains of the ramp used to transport the casing stones down the edge of the plateau. It is made entirely of debris that seems to come from a collection of monuments in the area.

Peter I have, three times, on three different boards.

quote:

---

Sitting at seven meters above ground level on the north side, the original entrance to the pyramid opens to a long descending passageway which extends for thirty meters before leveling off and continuing to the Subterranean Chamber (Verner 196).

---

The descending passage is a 350-foot (106.68meter) passage of extraordinary straightness. Petrie was astounded to find a mean variation from a central axis of the entire length of the passage, of less than a quarter of an inch in azimuth (side to side)
and only .1 of an inch in altitude (up to down).
The first 130ft (39.62 meters) of the passage are of beautifully finished masonry of even greater exactness.

It does not "extends for thirty meters before leveling off and continuing to the Subterranean Chamber" does it? Have some respect to the miners that built this shaft so exactly under the most difficult of circumstances and at least describe it correctly.

It is as you said: "People who have the least respect for the ancient Egyptians are those who don't take the proper time to study them, and wish, often for personal reasons, to pass off their accomplishments to others."

And backed up by John: ' I think it's odd that the people who seem to have the least respect for the ancient Egyptians are the ones who pose themselves as "Egyptologists."'

I am.... saddened by this...

Blu, it isn't damage. It was how it was built.

At least you did credit him with being 'the king of the pyramid builders' but can you explain why he built three pyramids without resorting to calling him incompetent.
He could just as well have moved his capitol because he was building another pyramid. Because that is what he did, build pyramids. Rather than build another pyramid because he moved his capitol for suspected political reasons.

Just an opinion for consideration, the ramp that you and Andrew looked at when observed from satellite photos, looks well placed to be an embankment to prevent erosion of the cliff to the east of Khufu, this may have been a problem as early as the forth dynasty. Perhaps it was made then with offcuts from that then.

Anyway have a great time in Egypt, hope it not too hot where you are going to be.
Take a pith helmet they are great ask Schoch.
Watch out some of that anti-malaria medicine can knock a person sideways.

quote:

---

The GP is indeed full of errors, shoddy workmanship and short cuts. Once you get past the exterior, you find a pyramid core full of gaps, unworked debris, holes filled with sand, cracks in the blocks and other such features.

---

John, Sneferu is attributed with building at least 5, not 3, pyramids. Although the other 2 are thought to be practice runs and are much, much, much smaller. He probably finished Huni's, as was Egyptian tradition, and the Bent and Red you already know about. There is evidence of a primary burial in the Red, but this is a little perplexing as the cult temples of Sneferu are fully completed at the Bent, not at the Red. The attribution of these pyramids to Sneferu is unquestioned, if you want I can cover it but it can also be found in many books on the subject. The problem of him building what seems to be two primary pyramids is most easily explained when taking into consideration the faults of the Bent. Perhaps he continued with the Bent's construction, even after encountering the architectural problems, in case he died early while constructing the Red. If you have another idea for his building two primary pyramids, I'd like to hear it. Perhaps it is symbolic of his rule over Upper and Lower Egypt? I don't know for sure, but abandonment of the Bent for burial in the Red due to structural problems seems to be the best guess to me.

The ramp we looked at is composed of previously worked debris. It is not contemporary with the 4th dynasty. Hawass has recently mentioned to Andrew that he will soon be publishing something on this, so until then I don't have much more to say on it until I review his evidence.

Cleaster, it is quite easy to determine if a block has been damaged by earthquake in-situ, or whether or not this debris was placed as we see it today. Much of it is rubble not larger than one of your hands, and it doesn't fit well together at all. Look at the picture I provided and you'll see that much of it was not caused by earthquake.

Anyways, I leave for Egypt on Friday and I will be gone until July 31st. I still have a lot to do to prepare and my girlfriend and I are moving to a new place in Toronto on July 1st (I'll be gone), so I have to get as much packed and organized as I can before I leave so I don't leave her with too much to do on her own. So, with that said, I think it is understood that I'm going to be very busy in these next few days and I probably won't get a chance to come on and post a lot. Maybe once more between now and August.

Please supply sources of your assertions.

See here IV for dating techniques:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574766/Ocean_and_Oceanography.html

"The absolute ages of climatic changes can be determined by correlating the evidence of temperature changes with radioactive-dating techniques (see Chronology; Dating Methods; Radioactivity).Thorium-230 dating is applicable to samples younger than 300,000 years, potassium-argon dating to samples in the range of 75,000 years, and carbon-14 dating to samples younger than 40,000 years. Several other radioactive dating techniques are available for samples of very recent age. A geophysical dating method is also commonly used; it determines the magnetic orientation of sediment particles, since it is now known that the earth’s magnetic field has reversed its orientation several times in the past few million years (see Earth: The Core and Earth's Magnetism). Such dating techniques indicate that the ocean basins are no older than 200 million years."

[This message has been edited by Catastrophe (edited 06-10-2004).]

Only reduces the water requirement a tiny amount. The argument still stands. And that is in the last million years

When do you reckon "the flood" was? Multiply that by 4-5 millimeters per year.

1 inch = 25.4 millimeters so 4-5 millimeters is about 1/6 to 1/5th of an inch. 4000 years at 1/5th inch = 800 inches = 66.67 feet.

66.67/29029 x100% = 0.23% increase in height.

I rest my case.

Brig. I am only arguing with people who believe Genesis 7:19.

"The Pesharim are Qumran sectarian biblical commentaries whose exegesis is based on inspired eschatological interpretation of the biblical text. The premise is that the prophets wrote about the present time of the exegete, a time assumed to be just before the eschaton, and that only divinely-granted insight can show the exegete the true meaning of the scriptures".

Exegesis is the critical explanation or interpretation of a text, especially of scripture.
Eschatological the part of theology concerned with death, judgement, and destiny.
Exegete is a person who interprets text, especially of scripture.
Eschaton is the final event in the divine plan; the end of the world.

The Pesher technique may explain the slanted political spin of the filthy hideous nuclear agenda including those rubbish radioactive-dating techniques, which deceive and add weight to the preponderant lie about the geological chronology needed to fit the theory of evolution that proves scientifically and at great expense, that there never was a creation.

Catastrophe, I don't mean to use a little logic here, but I must. The link you provided implies that the dating techniques are relative, NOT an actual fact.

It uses the principle of, "Well, there's not many shells in this bit, there must have been an ice age then", etc... (when dating the ocean floor) Not very scientific, regardless of whatever THEORETICAL numbers you may provide.

I'm not arguing that you are wrong, but, you're not right. (about the effectiveness of such practices)

I do agree with this part: "Such dating techniques indicate that the ocean basins are no older than 200 million years"-- Even though it proves nothing.
I only agree because it is basically impossible to find ANY sediment ANYWHERE, land OR sea, that could possibly predate that, due to the constant replacement cycle.

Quote: "The last up thrust affected not only the Himalayas, Transhimalaya and the Karakorum, but also the whole of the Tibetan region. With an area of 2.5 million square kilometers, this region is the highest land mass on earth and in the last 1 million years it has risen by nearly 5,000 meters, an average of 4-5 millimeters per year."

Did I miss something? Where is the source for this? ( if on Catastrophe's link reference, i didn't find it)

"The link you provided implies that the dating techniques are relative, NOT an actual fact."

Personally, i think such methods are absurd at best. First of all, you need to have an idea of when you would like to date a specimen to, then send specimens to different labs to be dated, and many times, the dates they send back are all different. Is this science?!

Then you must take into consideration the weather effects on the specimen, and/or interference from other sources. Was it exposed to the elements? was it hidden? Was it buried in soft sand or hard clay? What about shifting land and or mudslides etc? Tectonic movement?...

All of these things are VARIABLES, hence, open to debate and NOT conclusive.

All we know is what we can observe in our OWN time, we have no idea of what happened in the past.

Dating methods are opinions, nothing more...

How's your digging go?

Radioactive decay allows absolute dating within statistical limits.

It may say 40,000 years plus/minus 400 years but it cannot be confused with 20 years or ten million years.

It is absolute dating within limits.

But, the day you can explain why, when an ancient volcanic rock and a modern volcanic rock from OUR time, are compared and dated, can yield the same dating results using this 'precise' technology, is the day i'll believe you about it's effectiveness.

It's nothing more than a glorified theory...

Please reference. That makes no sense.