Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Geology and the Great Sphinx
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 14 of 25 (378869)
01-22-2007 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by johnfolton
01-03-2007 11:54 PM


Re: What does it say?
Charley writes:
thus one can only conclude by the flood marks the sphinxs was built before the flood approximately 6,500 years ago.
What flood marks?
The articles cited by the wikipedia link that the OP referred to (this one by Schoch), infers precipitation based erosion, based on vertical erosion patterns. They are not flood marks, but rain marks (as they would require not a still body of water, but water running down the side of the rock).
Now, you could say that this indicates 40 days and nights of rain, but I would assume that a long period (centuries) of periodic heavy rain would be needed to form such structures by precipitation.
---------------------------------
Also, I found this interesting summaries of views on the Sphinx, including that of Schoch, Reader (who PaulK already linked to) and others. View it here: Page not found - WORLD MYSTERIES

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by johnfolton, posted 01-03-2007 11:54 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 20 of 25 (379434)
01-24-2007 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Vacate
01-24-2007 1:34 AM


Re: Two pillars?
There is no other way that a structure could have visible water markings yet have not gone through a world wide flood?
Even if the markings were evidence of a large flood, the Sphinx is just 8 or so kilometres (5 miles or so) from the Nile river, which (before the Aswan High Dam) would flood very often, so certainly doesn't indicate a large (i.e. world-wide) flood.
Edited by Doddy Curumehtar, : Added miles measurement for the metric-system impaired

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Vacate, posted 01-24-2007 1:34 AM Vacate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by johnfolton, posted 01-24-2007 9:40 AM Doddy has replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 22 of 25 (379585)
01-24-2007 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by johnfolton
01-24-2007 9:40 AM


Re: Two pillars?
I doubt you can support that the Nile River is flooding these pillars to account for the flood markings Jon expressed in the opening thread.
As I said before, they are not flood markings. A body of still water couldn't produce such markings - water running over and of the back of the Sphinx, as Schoch suggests, could.
So, tell me, what do you think happened? Is the Sphinx proof of a much older civilization? Is their an explanation for the erosion patterns found?
There are multiple explanations, though I am not sure which one I believe. Schoch believes the markings indicated centuries of above average rainfall running off the structure, due to the shape of the markings, so asserts that the Sphinx dates as far back as 7000 BCE, rather than 4500BCE which is the accepted date.
Other scientists have proposed other mechanisms that could have created such markings within the usually accepted time-frame. A geochemist from the University of Louisville, K. Lal Gauri, believes atmospheric moisture is to blame. As dew condenses it absorbs the minerals in the rock, and then as the dew evaporates later in the morning, the salts recrystallize and force their way out of any small pores the water has infiltrated. Differing gradings in the rock may also have attributed to the patterns of weathering.
Dr. James Harrell, professor of geology at the University of Toledo, Ohio, argues that this erosion was more likely caused by wet sand. The Sphinx enclosure has been filled with sand for most of its known existence. In Harrell's opinion, this sand could have been wetted by rainfall and also by runoff from the Giza plateau. It could also have been wetted from the occasional Nile flooding or from capillary action (in which flood water that did not reach the monument seeped upward).
August Matthuson, a geologist with an interest in archaeology, comments that any rain induced weathering from an early period would be heavily eroded from the later millenia of wind erosion, almost to point of not being visible at all. He also claims that the differing lithologic morphologies Schoch associates with wind and water respectively are not generally accepted by geologists to be directly associable, because differences in the rock structure can often eclipse the differences in erosion patterns by the elements.
There are also some additional theories: Lambert Dolphin, a geophysist, argues that as acid rain in the last 150 years has very quickly damaged the sphinx, but I couldn't determine any more about this theory.
So no, I don't think it is evidence of an older civilization. Maybe in conjunction with other indicators, then I might be convinced, but at the moment I am sceptical.
Edited by Doddy Curumehtar, : fixed grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by johnfolton, posted 01-24-2007 9:40 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by johnfolton, posted 01-24-2007 10:07 PM Doddy has replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5910 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 25 of 25 (379663)
01-25-2007 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by johnfolton
01-24-2007 10:07 PM


Re: Two pillars?
Charley writes:
There is no evidence the nile has flooded the Sphinx, at least none I could find. Do you have a link supporting the flooding of the Sphinx by the Nile River.
At the moment I can't find anything conclusive, but I do notice that even Schoch concedes that occasionally a flood would reach the Sphinx, but he argues that wouldn't occur often enough to make a difference and would show undercutting of the monument (which isn't present).
Charley writes:
If not, then its the Creationists flood model. The rain pelted down for 40 days causing the water to rise up above the giza plateau and then flowed off the earth is not exactly a body of still water.
A great Nile flood is far, far more likely than a world-wide flood as an explanation for flood marks. Parsimony for the win!
Additionally, I'm not sure that a mere 40 days of rain could produce such marks. I'm not a geologist, but I'd assume you'd need more than that - perhaps ten times that amount of rain over a few hundred to a thousand years or so.
Charley writes:
You have the evidence of sand left behind from the flood excavated that in agreement with the Creationists biblical flood model, etc.
Or, that sand was blown from the desert.
Edited by Doddy Curumehtar, : fixed a bit of grammar

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by johnfolton, posted 01-24-2007 10:07 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024