PROOF OF GOD

ImageShack - Best place for all of your image hosting and image sharing needs

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

WILLOWTREEThe second group of issues outlined in post 400 addresses the capabilities of the Egyptians to construct the Great Pyramid. To say that it is rubbish or that nobody knows how it was constructed is certainly premature.Once we see if there is any validity to any of the issues outlined in Group I of post 400 we can address those in Group II.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hello Willow, Yea, but you don't even get off the ground if you can't establish the Gemantric claim, and the Bible reference to the Pyramid.I'll read your links.--------------
I have neglected out other debate and not perused it for a short while. I hadn't completely responded to your last post when I replied on that thread.I'll check back on asap. Sure: I said so on the other thread. Fill me in on that thread, not here.Edited to add:Willow linked to: For the purposes of proving the Gemantria claim, these links don't cut it. For starters the Gemantria stuff is contaned in little jpegs, and I can hardly read it. Secondly, what was the source of the Hebrew translation: why can we trust it? The calculations on those pages are not very self-explanatory, and I can't check the maths. My experience has shown me that Bible Numerics claims fall down on close inspection and I sense something fishy.Give me the most common Hebrew translation (and tell me why you think it is), with the individual letters clearly shown and let me do the maths. My trustee calculator is standing by.This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 07-07-2004 12:19 AMThis message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 07-07-2004 01:47 AM

Gil wrote:Remember that I also stated that the BBC produced a documentary re-enacted most of the major construction processes of the Pyramid, using ancient and very primitive technology.Willow responded Say what?If a few bored uni students can cut a Pyramid sized stone with hand tools, move it around with woodern levers and logs to roll it, place on a barge with ropes and pullies and muscle power, deliver it to another distant site using only primitive tools, then there is nothing miraculous about the same process being repeated thousands of years ago by a huge workforce over a century of labor.Mankind has experienced technological cycles: there have been many times on the past, in different areas of the world where civilisation was much more advanced than it became many centuries later.Don't underestimate our ancient ancestors. They conceived and drafted one of the best tools for religion and control of the masses: the Bible, afterall.

Gil, We aren't yet clear on what the claims are. Let's get that straight first.Then let's see if they are ture or not. Only after that do we need to bother if the Egyptians could have done it without "help".This message has been edited by NosyNed, 07-07-2004 01:43 PM

Why do you believe this lie: But not this "lie": Don't bother with a reply - it is rhetorical.If students could actually do what you asserted then the SHOW would of never been produced.Nobody can cut limestone/edit: granite blocks (20 tons average) with optical precision using hand tools, and move them around without cranes, your quickness to embrace these crank demonstrations defies reality and the evidence which makes your constant purported allegiance to evidence selective lip service.These "Hollywood" shows are the epitome of desparation and dedication to dogma, which is ONLY done because the alternative is the evidence of Divinity, and the Romans 1 wrath of God sense removal is further demonstrated, despite the evidence - God is not an option.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 07-07-2004 03:11 PM

Can I take this as an admission that the evolutionary scenario of ultra slow step by tiny step is falsified by this statement of fact ?

I've been avoiding posting in this thread because I'm waiting for your evidence, but you've already returned to your cycle of making bare assertions, posting websites that contain unevidenced assertions that agree with yours, invoking Romans I, and trying to declare victory.You've also again tried to bring evolution into this discussion, where it does not belong.You seemed to return to this thread in good faith, wanting to argue certain points with a specific group of forum members.Unfortunately, your source materials have yet againbeen misplaced, and we are left with your usual diatribe. Exceedingly frustrating, to say the least...Please, please - show us some evidence.By evidence, I mean the specific methods and calculations used to determine the measurements in question.Thank you.

This opinion implies that no evidence has been posted.I will not go further with you until the evidence is acknowledged.Why should I keep posting if all you are going to do is act like it aint there ?Why is it that some people are allowed to evidence by link but not me ?All my previous evidence was argued and explained while citing the source.....sources that obtained their evidence IN EGYPT, which makes their evidence first hand.While the rules of this Forum are actually quite ambiguous, I have certainly satisfied these requirements and beyond. I have made claims, posted the evidence, and cited the source, a source in the case of Dr. Rutherford who produced ALL his evidence from being in Egypt.UNTIL THIS IS RECTIFIED AND ACKNOWLEDGED I HAVE NOTHING TO GAIN.I am personally satisfied that the responses all equate to saying "where is the evidence ?"In lieu of the evidence this is all you can say.Nobody has met my evidence with contrary evidence with source.I will not be held to a different standard in order to comply with a silent handicap which you are giving yourselves.Either acknowledge what I have posted or create a one line post of dismissal and acknowledge it in this thoroughly defeated way.

I'm quite simply flabbergasted by your behavior.--Percy

Percy:I have agreed to post the "math" when I re-acquire the sources. I will have them tonight and can begin posting tomorrow.BUT, until the primary evidence is acknowledged as evidence (Dr. Rutherford's evidenced produced by his research IN EGYPT) then to continue without this recognition is to agree that I have not posted evidence.Dr. Rutherford says the Pyramid is 5449 PI in height.That is a claim with source cite.That is evidence.I have agreed to post the math but not until the standard of what evidence is is established and evenly applied.Pink is not even paying attention or he wouldn't of acted like he didn't know that I had to re-acquire the sources.Concerning the unit of measure: I have posted the primary evidence with source. Until someone argues my position in their own words and THEN tells me why it is error with their sources this is a double standard.Everything I say is ignored to some degree, until some honesty is directed my way I will not act like it is there and play the fool.

WILLOWTREE, I too am flabbergasted, especially since a day or two ago you promised to post sometime this week the type of evidence we've been asking for...Also, when quoting me, you (intentionally?) left my request for evidence incomplete. I don't believe that you have given us the specific methods and calculations we've been asking for, but if you have I apologize, and would like you to please direct me to your post containing said methods and calculations (saying "some guy a long time ago measured his shadow..." doesn't cut it here, since we have no way to validate that.)'Evidence by link' is valid only if it gives a separate account or additional information. It seems that most of the links you provide lead to sites that contain the same assertions you have made, often in the same or similar language, leading me to believe that those sites likely used the same sources that you have.(If I say "Aliens built the pyramid," and you say, "I'd like to see the evidence," and I counter with a list of a hundred websites stating "Aliens built the pyramid" and little else, would you take that as evidence?)In any case, your linked sites have not provided the type of methods-and-calculations evidence we need to validate the measurements. It was my understanding you promised to post such information by the end of the week. Okay, but you are apparently confusing the idea of citing a source, and detailing the evidence in that source.The fact that you've read a source does not provide us with the evidence they obtained or how they obtained it.You've only provided us citations.Since you claim to not understand the methods and calculations, I would think you'd be especially keen to examine them. I'm not trying to dismiss your argument, since myself and others are genuinely interested in examining the claims made by your sources.It is regretful that whenever we ask for the details we need, you throw a temper tantrum.

WILLOWTREE - a clarification:The 5449 statement is evidence for a supernatural origin of the pyramid.We are asking for the evidence that the pyramid is 5449 PI in height.Do you understand?

As noted by others: Having someone else make an assertion is interesting but doesn't prove a darn thing. As an example we showed you how a LLM(longest land meridian) might be defined and measured. Once that evidence is given you are free to examine it, to redo the calculations and to agree or disagree with the result giving your reasons for doing so.Until we know how the height of the pyramid was measured with all the details and assumptions made then we don't have any evidence at all that the source is correct.If the details are using shadow lengths then the calculations complete with expected precision and accuracy must be supplied. It is my suggestion that such a method would supply a hieght measurement that would have to be presented as 5,200 +/- 300 PI.In other words there is no way that the answer to four figures can be given. Once you have confirmed the measurement method used we can show (or not) that this is the case.WT, do you understand what an assertion is compared to real evidence?I will again attempt to show you an example:I claim that the LLM is at about 21 degrees E. That is an assertion. If I have lindum and 53 other people say the same thing all I have is an assertion. It doesn't prove a damm thing.However, when I show you a series of measurements made on some selected map of the world and show you all the measurements and arithmetic done to arrive at my answer for the length of the LLM then you have some evidence that you may examine yourself.When you do the examination you may:
1) agree with me
2) show that my assumptions, calculations or measurements are wrong so the length I have calculated is wrong
3) use exactly the same methods and show me another meridian that is a longer land meridian.Until you offer an equivalent quality of evidence you will continue to be asked to supply evidence. I guess we could get all nit picky and philosophical here and say you have supplied "evidence". It is just that it is of ridiculously low quality. It can not be examined and assessed. You have supplied the supposed height of the GP but nothing other than shadows for how it was measured. For the LLM and LLP you haven't even given the lengths. This is close enough to no evidence.Now about post 400 --- have you agreed that the list of claims are those that your sources make? Do you agree that is what, through those sources, you are claiming?

Can I just supply this website that I found while trying to hunt down the meathods used to measure the GP?AIA FAQ file on the Great Pyramid - Answers.orgWhile it doesn't count as evidence as such and needs quite a bit of checking, it does cast some light on the subject, especially when it mentions that the length of the four bases of the pyramid are not the same. That means if you measure one side and multiply by four the answer you get is NOT the total length of the base.Additionally Petrie's original measurements took into account the limestone facing - he actually found some of the originals buried at the base of the pyramid and so was able to include them in his measurements. Even then, the baseline measurements are too short for the 9140 inches required. So that means that one of the measurements used on the Pyramidology websites is out.Added in edit - I've just found out that the measurements done on the height of the GP by the length of the shadow cast were done by Thales (640-546BC). He planted rod of known height in the ground, measured its shadow length by pacing it out then worked out the proportion of the shadow length. He then used that figure on the shadow length of the pyramid, again by pacing it out. Not a very accurate method, but it gets you in the right ball park. Still, its a bog basic method known to seven year olds the world over and is quite handy.This message has been edited by Trixie, 07-07-2004 05:09 PM