Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 6:42 PM
27 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, Coragyps, DrJones*, edge, jar, Percy (Admin), PsychMJC, Taq (8 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,836 Year: 9,872/19,786 Month: 2,294/2,119 Week: 330/724 Day: 55/114 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
Author Topic:   Geology and the Great Sphinx
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3764 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 16 of 25 (379310)
01-23-2007 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Vacate
01-23-2007 8:51 AM


Two pillars one of brick" Giza Pryamid" and one of stone " Sphinx"?
Isaiah 19:19 In that day shall there be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a "pillar" at the border thereof to the LORD.

Isaiah 19:22 And the LORD shall smite Egypt: he shall smite and heal it: and they shall return even to the LORD, and he shall be intreated of them, and shall heal them.

Isaiah 19:25 Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.

Joesephus says two pillars were created one was composed of brick, and the other of stone, so that if the pillar of brick should be destroyed, the pillar of stone would remain, both reporting the ancient discoveries, and informing men that a pillar of brick was also erected.

Josephus reports that the pillar of stone remained in the land of Siriad in his day.

http://home.kc.rr.com/hightech/evolution/evolution102.html

-------------------------------

Pillars of the sons of Seth
The Pillars of the sons of Seth, according to the Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus, were two pillars created by the descendants of Seth and inscribed with many scientific discoveries and inventions, notably in astronomy. They were built by Seth's descendants based on Adam's prediction that the world would be destroyed at one time by fire and another time by global flood, in order to protect the discoveries and be remembered after the destruction. One was composed of brick, and the other of stone, so that if the pillar of brick should be destroyed, the pillar of stone would remain, both reporting the ancient discoveries, and informing men that a pillar of brick was also erected. Josephus reports that the pillar of stone remained in the land of Siriad in his day.

http://www.answers.com/topic/pillars-of-the-sons-of-seth

Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

Edited by Charley, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Vacate, posted 01-23-2007 8:51 AM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Vacate, posted 01-23-2007 7:25 PM johnfolton has responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2773 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 17 of 25 (379315)
01-23-2007 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by johnfolton
01-23-2007 6:53 PM


Re: Two pillars one of brick" Giza Pryamid" and one of stone " Sphinx"?
The only Joesephus I could find relating to this was during the period after Jesus' crucifixion. Perhaps I found the wrong person, this is likely.

He says however that the pillar of brick should be destroyed. Neither has been destroyed so I don't see how this applies. Both are said to report "many scientific discoveries and inventions, notably in astronomy" but this does not seem to be the case.

In the second link you supplied I read the following paragraph and this seems to blur what you are trying to say even more :

William Whiston, a 17/18th century translator of the Antiquities, stated in a footnote that he believed Josephus mistook Seth for Sesostris, king of Egypt, the erector of the referenced pillar in Siriad. He argued that there was no way for any pillars of Seth to survive the deluge, because the deluge buried all such pillars and edificies far underground in the sediment of its waters.

The flood, I am told, created the depth of the Grand Canyon in sediment, raised Mount Everest from level ground, and shot water from the depth of the Earth into space - but it did not affect these two monuments? Granted the Sphinx was buried in sand for quite some time, but certainly not to any depth I would expect given what I am told the flood did to the rest of the planet.

You had previously stated that the Pyramid was an altar, not a pillar created to survive a flood for the purpose of preserving knowledge.

IE: I still do not understand why these two monuments are evidence of a pre-flood society or that the flood took place at all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by johnfolton, posted 01-23-2007 6:53 PM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by johnfolton, posted 01-23-2007 7:47 PM Vacate has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3764 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 18 of 25 (379328)
01-23-2007 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Vacate
01-23-2007 7:25 PM


Re: Two pillars one of brick" Giza Pryamid" and one of stone " Sphinx"?
The flood, I am told, created the depth of the Grand Canyon in sediment, raised Mount Everest from level ground, and shot water from the depth of the Earth into space - but it did not affect these two monuments? Granted the Sphinx was buried in sand for quite some time, but certainly not to any depth I would expect given what I am told the flood did to the rest of the planet.

You had previously stated that the Pyramid was an altar, not a pillar created to survive a flood for the purpose of preserving knowledge.

IE: I still do not understand why these two monuments are evidence of a pre-flood society or that the flood took place at all.

The pryamid is built on the Giza Plateau in that it was a plateau in Seths day unlike the El Capitan Plateau that was upthrusted after the flood sediments settled. This is why its visible today and the Sphinx only partially covered in the sediments. The sphinx has visible water marking testifying it went through a deluge and could only of been created before the biblical deluge.

In America you have the El Capitan Plateau that the sediment flowed to and then it was thrusted upwards. This is why there you have coral fossils that were once below sea level now above sea level with over a mile of sediments.

Before the flood happened you had approximately 7,000 years of coral growth before the biblical deluge. If one day is as a thousand years 2 peter 3:8 you have the flood happening approximately 5400 years ago.

Edited by Charley, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Vacate, posted 01-23-2007 7:25 PM Vacate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Vacate, posted 01-24-2007 1:34 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2773 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 19 of 25 (379423)
01-24-2007 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by johnfolton
01-23-2007 7:47 PM


Two pillars?
The pryamid is built on the Giza Plateau in that it was a plateau in Seths day unlike the El Capitan Plateau that was upthrusted after the flood sediments settled.

So because the Giza Plateau did not move (upthrusted) this explains why there is so little damage to both structures and why there is virtually no sedimentation?

The sphinx has visible water marking testifying it went through a deluge and could only of been created before the biblical deluge.

There is no other way that a structure could have visible water markings yet have not gone through a world wide flood?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by johnfolton, posted 01-23-2007 7:47 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Doddy, posted 01-24-2007 5:29 AM Vacate has not yet responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4082 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 yet responded

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

    
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3764 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 21 of 25 (379465)
01-24-2007 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Doddy
01-24-2007 5:29 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.

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.

----------------------------------
opening thread asks this question!
----------------------------------

What does it say?

The Great Sphinx is an Egyptian monument built at the site of Giza, Egypt (location of the Great Pyramids). In more recent times, a debate has ensued between what are considered "amateur" archaeologists and geologists by the professional community, and the professional community itself. The debate is thus:
These "amateur" geologists have agreed that the sides of the Sphinx and Sphinx enclosure (the pit that the statue sits in) show clear signs of water erosion through heavy rain downfall. The Giza Plateau is made of limestone, which alternate in layers based on hardness (soft layer, hard layer, soft layer, etc.). These geologists claim that had the Sphinx been eroded through by the wind, the soft layers would be missing, but the hard layers would have been left fully intact. However, the hard layers show up-down channels running between the alternating soft layers. It is their belief that the only way such erosion could've been caused is by heavy rains pounding down and trickling through cracks in the hard layers: slowly eating away at them.

The kicker of their theory is that the last time a rainfall sufficient enough to cause such erosion on the plateau would've stopped around the end of the last Ice Age! Some geologists are more conservative, and don't go back that far, but it still suggests an older date (4500 BC being the date accepted by the "pros"). A date of at least a few thousand years earlier, which is earlier than it has been previously thought a civilization even existed in Egypt.

What do the professionals have to say about this? Well, they think these people are all on crack (meth? pot? some sort of drug). They accept that the Sphinx was built by Khafre (Chephren), builder of the second pyramid on the plateau; placing it at around 4500 BC.

Please, check out this Wikipedia Article for pictures and more information.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Doddy, posted 01-24-2007 5:29 AM Doddy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Doddy, posted 01-24-2007 7:05 PM johnfolton has responded
 Message 23 by Vacate, posted 01-24-2007 9:55 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4082 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 responded

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

    
Vacate
Member (Idle past 2773 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 23 of 25 (379633)
01-24-2007 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by johnfolton
01-24-2007 9:40 AM


One pillar, one flood?
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.

I read Doddy Curumehtars explanation of the Nile floods as simply a plausable alternative to the global flood scenario. Had he believed this to be the cause I would ask him to explain, as I would like you to explain how this could be the cause of the features seen on the Sphinx.

The opening thread makes this statement:

It is their belief that the only way such erosion could've been caused is by heavy rains pounding down and trickling through cracks in the hard layers: slowly eating away at them.

This is what the alternate theory bases its claim on that the Sphinx is much older than previously thought. 40 days of rainfall hardly seems to be a case for "slowly eating" of the hard limestone layers. A single flood of the Nile would not produce the features seen, and I do not believe that Doddy Curumehtar even suggested such a thing. He did say the nile flooded often.

If you believe that a single event could produce the results seen on the Sphinx, why is it not realistic to say that this event is simply a localized flood? Or localized heavy rainfall?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by johnfolton, posted 01-24-2007 9:40 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3764 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 24 of 25 (379636)
01-24-2007 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Doddy
01-24-2007 7:05 PM


Re: Two pillars?
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.

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.

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.

You have the evidence of sand left behind from the flood excavated that in agreement with the Creationists biblical flood model, etc...

-----------------------

The Great Sphinx is an Egyptian monument built at the site of Giza, Egypt (location of the Great Pyramids). In more recent times, a debate has ensued between what are considered "amateur" archaeologists and geologists by the professional community, and the professional community itself. The debate is thus:
These "amateur" geologists have agreed that the sides of the Sphinx and Sphinx enclosure (the pit that the statue sits in) show clear signs of water erosion through heavy rain downfall. The Giza Plateau is made of limestone, which alternate in layers based on hardness (soft layer, hard layer, soft layer, etc.). These geologists claim that had the Sphinx been eroded through by the wind, the soft layers would be missing, but the hard layers would have been left fully intact. However, the hard layers show up-down channels running between the alternating soft layers. It is their belief that the only way such erosion could've been caused is by heavy rains pounding down and trickling through cracks in the hard layers: slowly eating away at them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Sphinx_of_Giza#Water_erosion

Edited by Charley, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Doddy, posted 01-24-2007 7:05 PM Doddy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Doddy, posted 01-25-2007 12:24 AM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4082 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 yet responded

    
Prev1
2
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019