The existence of this article strongly suggests that the reviews were mainly for doctrinal acceptability and did not consider such niceties as the rationalist of the arguments.
The pseudonymous Woodmorappe disposes of an argument which explains how the Earth can be as warm as it is, if it is old, in the following way:
The ‘solution’ to the problem cannot work if the earth is not old.
He even claims that it "begs the question" on this feeble ground ! Apparently Woodmorappe and his reviewers are unaware of the fact that to "beg the question" means that the conclusion must be the same as one of the premises.
For those who can't see the failure of reasoning, the PROBLEM is to show how the heat can be accounted for IF the earth is old. It is hardly a criticism to say that the solution only works in the situations where it is required !
Maybe there is a point there ? If the Flood story is as wrong as that article maybe we're being unfair on poor old Noah. Maybe the real events were much more plausible, and it''s only the silly story in the Bible that causes us not to believe it.
quote: Im not trying to debate the Great pyramid here at all. Im simply saying it's so great an accomplishment that no one would believe they built it back when they did if it wasn't still there and only documented in few texts.
Why are people having a hard time understanding the comparison?
Because you are citing false claims that make it seem MORE amazing that it really is. For instance the assertion that it is the first of the Pyramids, which is completely false. The Egyptians worked their way up to building it from simpler structures, making mistakes along the way. Using a highly inaccurate article that exaggerates the point you are trying to make is a pretty bad mistake.
Some say the Great pyramid is in the bible too.
“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... And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt.” —Isaiah 19:19-20
And they are being silly. Isaiah is clearly talking about a situation in his future, but the Great Pyramid was old when Isaiah was written.
So the lesson here is try not to use silly assertions as evidence. It only hurts your case - at least it will here, where people are bound to notice your error.
Might I suggest that you learn to vet your sources. Wikipedia is not too bad - in fact usually reliable so long as the subject is not contentious (e.g. there were reports of Sarah Palin fans trying to edit Wikipedia to include her mistaken claims about Paul Revere's ride). I've cited Wikipedia myself, quite often but I do try to be careful - I have run across the occasional case where a biased individual has tried to insert dubious claims.
But there's a lot of nonsense written about the Great Pyramid - and Art Bell is a purveyor of nonsense, so the fact that the article came from his publication should be a big red flag.