Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Isn't it rather presumptuous to imagine that you speak for all the other posters here apart from Stevevw? I certainly believe the biblical account of the flood in Noah's time.

Isn't it rather presumptuous to imagine that you speak for him?

 

[David Lamb]

Isn't it rather presumptuous to imagine that you speak for him?

Sorry, but I didn't say that I did speak for him. I was answering what you said about what "the rest of us" (by which I assume you meant everybody apart from Stevevw) believe.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry, but I didn't say that I did speak for him. I was answering what you said about what "the rest of us" (by which I assume you meant everybody apart from Stevevw) believe.

Then he clearly wasn't speaking for you at all then.

 

[David Lamb]

Then he clearly wasn't speaking for you at all then.

Maybe I wasn't clear, in which case I'm very sorry. I did not say that he was speaking for us all. I was questioning the fact that in an earlier post, you wrote: "the rest of us don't need to and think it highly unlikely anyway." So it was you who claimed to have been speaking for "the rest of us."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Maybe I wasn't clear, in which case I'm very sorry. I did not say that he was speaking for us all. I was questioning the fact that in an earlier post, you wrote: "the rest of us don't need to and think it highly unlikely anyway." So it was you who claimed to have been speaking for "the rest of us."

I'm not BCP1928, the person you're actually want to be replying to.

 

[David Lamb]

I'm not BCP1928, the person you're actually want to be replying to.

Whoops! I can only apologise for my carelessness.

 

[Astrid]

Isn't it rather presumptuous to imagine that you speak for all the other posters here apart from Stevevw? I certainly believe the biblical account of the flood in Noah's time.

It may be presumptuous, or perhaps something else, to believe that of
all religions that may have been, one has chosen the right one.

And, we suppose, cannot be mistaken.

But what is it to believe something, like “ flood”, after it has been
as proven as false and absurd as “ flat earth”?

I mean, if it’s not simple ignorance, what is it?

 

[stevevw]

This is all just one long argument from incredulity from you.

You say that but you don't reason or argue against the evidence presented. I find it more the other way around. If you cannot even admit that there are questions about the findings that are at least unanswered and don't seem to be explained from what I have presented then your in denial.

You have not heard you even mentioned for example the images I linked which deserve some comment as to the unusual cuts which seem impossible to be cut by a copper saw.

You ignore the evidence and persist in the logical fallacies and then claim 'they did it anyway' and anyone who disagrees is living in fantasy. That is not reasoning to defeat the arguement. I want to here a reason why these cuts still support a simple copper saw. Argue the case but don't just dismiss it..

 

[David Lamb]

It may be presumptuous, or perhaps something else, to believe that of
all religions that may have been, one has chosen the right one.

And, we suppose, cannot be mistaken.

But what is it to believe something, like “ flood”, after it has been
as proven as false and absurd as “ flat earth”?

I mean, if it’s not simple ignorance, what is it?

Equating belief in the biblical account of the flood of Noah's time with a belief in a flat earth is wrong. The bible doesn't state what shape the earth is. It does say that all living animals and humans apart from those on the ark were destroyed by the flood. Those scientists who do believe the biblical account of the flood have the same evidence available as those scientists who don't, but they interpret the evidence differently. I don't think it's helpful to suggest that believing the biblical account of the flood is ignorance. On this matter, as on many matters, different members of these forums have a wide variety of beliefs. Surely we can say that we disagree with another poster without being rude to them.

 

[stevevw]

Watching just four minutes of that video told me all I need to know, which is that you and the person making the video suffer from a serious case of incredulity at the idea that ancient people could do what they did with the sorts of technology they had at hand. Your own source goes "Yeah, they had ways of doing it and it's been shown many times how it's been done.... but I'm going to ignore those and invent something mystical and magical to explain it."

This is another example. To dismiss something after just 4 minutes shows your unwillingness to look at the evidence. I have watched that video and others and you will hear the author even say he is not sure whats going on. He is not pushing any agenda. He is simply presenting the evidence from the ground. He goes to the actual places with experts and sees for himself. More than you have done.

There is nothing in that video which is controversial. He doesn't give any explanation as to how this happened but rather what the observations show. Like I am doing with the images which clearly show they could not have been made by copper saws as the so called experts claim.

You need to reason the evidence rather than attack the man with ad hominems.

That is 100% not the same thing as saying that the pyramid of Giza was a power plant, which is exactly what Dunn claims.

But your quote mining him. Your taking 8 words he has said and pinning his whole meaning on those 8 words as to what he actually meant. You pre judged him and assumed this was the case before you even read anything of his work. You have to trash good scientists because you have it in for them just because they disagree with you.

And yet he makes the insipid and outlandish claim that the pyramid of Giza, a place that has been investigated for centuries in meticulous detail, is a power plant. That is his claim, and if he claims that, then that sure as nothing else makes him suspect as an 'expert' on anything.

But your attributing to him your version of what he means by power plant. You have chosen to make it whacko and not investigate what he actually meant as any good researcher would do.

The words you use like 'outlandish and insipid' show you have it in for him. You have no respect of his qualifications or the actual work he did to come to the conclusion that the pyramids may be some sort of energy harvestor in the way the chambers and shafts are setup backs on reverse engineering.

In other words his conclusions are based on science and yours are based on a personal attack of the man and not the content.

By the way you say the pyramids have been studied for years and no one has came to similar conclusions. This is another misrepresentation of the facts. Other scientists have also prosed that the pyramids have some sort or energy about them whether accustically or with electromagnetism.

Electromagnetic properties of the Great Pyramid: First multipole resonances and energy concentration

Resonant response of the Great Pyramid interacting with external electromagnetic waves of the radio frequency range (the wavelength range is 200-600 m) is theoretically investigated. With the help of numerical simulations and multipole decomposition, it is found that spectra of the extinction...

ui.adsabs.harvard.edu

Chambers in Egypt's Great Pyramid concentrate radio waves – Physics World

Computer simulations reveal electromagnetic properties of huge structure at Giza

physicsworld.com

I am pretty sure I already linked a paper supporting this so you must have seen it and yet you still want to make out Dunns a whacko when other scientists from reputable peer review science journals say the same thing.

What your doing is the equivelant of claiming Einstein is a whacko and promoting conspiracy theories for suggesting "spooky action at a distance" (quantum entanglement) in quantum physics.

I don't need to misrepresent anything because you say it all yourself in black and white for people to see. You've been spouting conspiracy theories and nonsense for the last two pages for no reason other than that you don't want to accept the mainstream science behind the world.

Like what. Tell me exactly what conspiracy theoiry I am promoting. If its anything like how you treated Dunn then I expect you will have nothing. Just misrepresentations.

And I'll answer your question for you: When people lived in ancient times, they only had the knowledge that was available to them which meant that they didn't have a full understanding of the world. When your world is limited to your personal horizon, that is your world. Ancient people lived near water sources because water is needed for live, so when those places flooded, their 'world' flooded too. Over time, through numerous retellings and evolution of storytelling, that world became a true global flood.

You don't understand anything and this thread show it.

I literally stated clearly the arguement which has nothing to do with what your implying and you completely ignore this and persist with this misrepresentation fallcy. What conspiracies am I suppose to be claiming.

This thread has not shown any conspiracy theory. Just a couple of simple facts which I repeat over and over and you keep ignoring. The only claims I have made is

That is that a massive flood happened around 10 to 12,000 years ago during the Younger Dryas. (which is a proven fact)

Thats cultures back then had sophisticated religious belief and displayed knowledge beyond what we thought they had. The discovery at Goblekli Tepe is regarded by most scientists as pushing back human knowledge and history beyond what archeologists claimed. (which is a proven fact).

Like I said the only thing I have spectulated and I acknowledged this several times is that putting all this together it suggests that the flood stories may have originated with the great floods back then.

Thats it. So tell me where is the conspiracy.

 

[Astrid]

Equating belief in the biblical account of the flood of Noah's time with a belief in a flat earth is wrong. The bible doesn't state what shape the earth is. It does say that all living animals and humans apart from those on the ark were destroyed by the flood. Those scientist who do believe the biblical account of the flood have the same evidence available as those scientists who don't, but they interpret the evidence differently. I don't think it's helpful to suggest that believing the biblical account of the flood is ignorance. On this matter, as on many matters, different members of these forums have a wide variety of beliefs. Surely we can say that we disagree with another poster without being rude to them.

Flat earth is very clearly implied, and was universally the
belief- still very widespread in for example Catholic
Philippines.
Education, facts have overcome a lot of ignorant religious
beliefs. Like earth as central to the universe. Or that other
discoveries in astronomy merited death by torture.

But importantly, what e Bible can be read to say- Pi=3, for example,
is really quite irrelevant to what Is trie.

The “ same evidence, different interpretation” is a moldy bit of
creationist garbage . It has exactly the honesty displayed by tobacco
industry scientists.

I'm sure you are in unaware of the vast array of data from every field of science that directly
contradict the flood.

So no blame other than in attention is attached. But!

For one easy one-
The deep age ( up to a half million years in places) of polar shows that no
world wide flood occurred. Ice floats.

Your denier-scientists cannot disprove that, nor any
other science that doesn’t fit their religion.

There is a yec paleontologist who flat out
says ( brags?) that facts mean nothing to him.
As in, no integrity, no scientific honesty.

YEC / literal bible reading is incompatible with intellectual
integrity. And reality.

We suspect the tobacco scientists knew
perfectly well what the data showed. But,
facts, lives, and integrity meant nothing to
them.

That’s your team.
You sure that’s who you want go with
the liars for RJ Reynolds, or for Jesus?

Literal reading of “ flood” or Pi=3 are not
even a detail in Salvation.

You decide if negligently spreading falsehoods ( in the name
of …?} is important to you. Or to such
God as may be thus slandered.

 

[BCP1928]

Whoops! I can only apologise for my carelessness.

Never mind, it was me. It was a bit presumptuous, but not unreasonably so, given the individuals who were participating in the conversation at the time. However, I may have been speaking for you, as well; let's see:

Right now Steve is arguing that ancient civilizations created stone structures which would be beyond us to duplicate today, using technology now lost. In particular, that the archaeologists are wrong who believe that the builders of the Egyptian pyramids used abrasive cutting tools to produce the stone blocks used in the pyramids--even though these tools were known to be in use at the time and have been recreated and shown to be practical.

Do you believe any of that? Do you think it necessary to believe it in order to credit the story of Noah's flood in the Bible?

I don't know if you have been following Steves discourse closely or not, but rather than bore you with a rehash, here is a short summary:

https://medium.com/@Nelsonalfonso/the-younger-dryas-and-the-story-of-noahs-ark-a-possible-connection-38770192283c#:~:text=It's%20crucial%20to%20note%20that,story%20of%20Noah's%20Ark%20suggests.

Not as lurid or complicated as Steve's version, but it will give you the general idea.

Do you believe any of that? Do you think it necessary to believe it in order to credit the story of Noah's flood in the Bible?

Perhaps you do, though I don't think so. If you do then I apologize, I wasn't speaking for you after all.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You say that but you don't reason or argue against the evidence presented. I find it more the other way around. If you cannot even admit that there are questions about the findings that are at least unanswered and don't seem to be explained from what I have presented then your in denial.

You have not heard you even mentioned for example the images I linked which deserve some comment as to the unusual cuts which seem impossible to be cut by a copper saw.

You ignore the evidence and persist in the logical fallacies and then claim 'they did it anyway' and anyone who disagrees is living in fantasy. That is not reasoning to defeat the arguement. I want to here a reason why these cuts still support a simple copper saw. Argue the case but don't just dismiss it..

I don't reason or argue against it because you've presented nothing to support your claim. All you've done is make the claim, use videos that make the same claims, and not once has there been a shred of evidence of any advanced historical engineering devices to show that the main stream view is wrong.

If you want me and/or anyone else to take your claim seriously, you need to provide evidence of the advanced tools themselves. Which you have yet to do.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thats it. So tell me where is the conspiracy.

The conspiracy theory that ancient civilizations had advanced tools and engineering far in advance of what came after them, enough to be considered the same as today. That is a conspiracy theory.

The rest of your post is insipid nonsense as per your usual.

 

[sjastro]

No because you making another fallacies. You said it yourself. You said "By implication". Thats you and not me. You are making a claim about what you think I was doing in linking that article. Thats all you and not me. Your projecting.

I mean exactly what the article summary states that 'the question of the technological process of extracting colossal granite blocks by ancient artisans is still not definitively answered'.

The paper went over all the past tests and made more accurate measures and calulations which did not add up to the claims made by other experiments. They also reasoned the practicalities of using pounders and the difficulties and mechanics of achieving the task. All of which showed that past tests have underestimated the task and overlooked many things that would either make the task longer or impossible.

The paper never said it was out of the question that this could have been done with pounders and thats why it did not say this has been totally refuted. Only that the tests done so far have not conclusively shown that the pounding method to extract the obelisk has certainly not been proven. Unlike your claims that it has been proven.

Stop being dishonest, the evidence of dozens of dolerite pounders showing degrees of wear is clear proof they were used in the construction of the obelisk.
I note how you have deceptively changed the narrative by associating pounding methods with extracting the obelisk which is nonsense.

It highlights the folly of your argument, if the Egyptians had to rely on advanced technology such as cranes to extract the obelisk you would think they would have had something more advanced like stone cutting circular saws and angle grinders instead of using dolerite pounders.

But heres the irony. You post a small pic of marks on a sarcophagus that is suppose to "detroy my arguement of machined finishes well beyond the capabilities of “primitive tools and hands”. Isn't that out of context to determine this. Isn't using one small example misrepresenting all possible examples so we can determine the truth.

If you want to make sweeping statements that Egypt’s technological accomplishments have been achieved with tools we know absolutely nothing about which is an absurdity in itself, a single example of a wear pattern that can be explained with tools we do know existed will suffice.

See there you go again making this absolute claims like its a proven fact and any alternative evidence is whacko fantasy. You have not proven your case. You have ignored half the evidence and created logical fallcies that misrepresent things.

You have not supplied any evidence expect now refuted experiments. You have ignored and rejected opposing evidence as being whack conspiracies when they are valid scientific findings that need to be acknowledged and discussed. You don't even want to discuss them.

It’s a bit rich of you to give me a lecture on logical fallacies when you clearly have no understanding of the concept of evidence.
The evidence I have presented is the Egyptians used copper saws and chisels, dolerite pounders and bow drills for drilling holes in wood, stone and metal as shown in tomb paintings.

On the other hand you have no evidence for advanced tools the Egyptians supposedly used, only a prejudiced view they could not have made the technological achievements with the tools they actually used which common sense tells us would not have existed with access to more advanced tools.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

On the other hand you have no evidence for advanced tools the Egyptians supposedly used, only a prejudiced view they could not have made the technological achievements with the tools they actually used.

That's the main nub against his argument: If he wants to claim that the Egyptians, Mayans, whoever, used advanced tools to make their grand works, then he needs to show evidence of the tools actually existing.

 

[sjastro]

This is the out of context image. I am not sure which sarcophagus this is from. Your making a lot of unsupported claims. If anything it looks machined and not cut with a copper saw, sand and lubricant which would be much smoother. This is granite and sand is way softer and won't cut into granite like that. It would also not have cuts going different ways but rather uniform horizontal lines.

It is not an out of context image in fact if you watched the video from which the screenshot was taken you should have recognized it is the second image of the other Saqqara sarcophagus from your post #877 presented here in higher resolution.

The region where the striation marks on the sarcophagus are located.

Your critique of the image is nonsensical, sand is not way softer than granite as it has a Mohs hardness of 7 for a high quartz content while granite is 6-7.
If the sand is way softer, the copper saw would not be able to cut through the granite let alone form the grooves in the close up image.
The width of the grooves and elevated ridges indicates the use of coarse grained particles such as sand.
To claim the surface looks more machined is ridiculous if a reciprocating or circular cutting tool was used as it would leave an even more uniform surface.

\
Its almost the same misrepresentation that Dunn dicovered in a paper I linked where the experimenters used a photo of the drill core tilted slightly to make it look like the lines were horizontal rather than spiral thus misrepresenting the actual cut.

I would like to to view some images and tell me what you think. How this could be the result of a copper saw, sand and lubricants.

View attachment 357119

View attachment 357120
Notice the arched stop line where it stops before the uncut surface. Its clean and sharp and the lip is only a few millimeters. Notice also a cut mark in the 2nd image where it looks like the cut went deeper and left a slight edge only a couple of millimeters.

View attachment 357121
Look how the cut goes into the corner with a 2 or 3 millimeter lip in places. No saw can cut corners like that.

View attachment 357122
Notice the straight lines cut horizontal and verticle like the cutter went too deep.

View attachment 357123

Notice the sharp straight line and millimeter thin lip up against the uncut rock and see how the flat surface bends slightly around the corner. Its almost like it was shaved off with some device.

View attachment 357126

Same again but bigger. Perfectly straight stop line and once again it looks like a layer was shaved off. A saw cannot leave such cuts and marks and go around corners and make corners. Or cut so thin. The cut from the experiments you linked were around 5 or 6 millileters as the blade is grinding and moving around.
View attachment 357128
Once again deep cut marks like a the cutter went deeper for a sec. Also notice the lip about 3 incches in along the bottom of pic.
View attachment 357129
This has deep cut marks that are perfectly straight and paraelle like. There is also cut marks on the flat surface.
View attachment 357130
This is the one I linked before. Look at the sharp straight line that stops along the uncut surface which is only a couple of millimeters thin. It seems like only a thin piece was cut off. This is a big slab and its perfectly flat.

These are not the signs that a copper saw and sand would leave.

So now we have a number of cuts to compare. You can add more if you want. But we cannot ignore these ones and the many other available. Here is the video for the pics and it has references to the testing and expert opinion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AUDBFqn8EM&ab_channel=UnchartedX

For someone who claims to argue logically this is the classic false dichotomy fallacy if you think a failure to explain these images using Egyptian tools we do know existed is evidence for more advanced tooling.
The burden of proof is on you to show the examples are a product of advanced tooling but since you don’t know what they are let alone evidence for their existence puts you in an absurd situation.

 

[sjastro]

No its not. Its plain and simple that the evidence at the very least suggest something more than the simple tools that were found with created these megaliths. Thats it plain and simple.

You have explained but the explanations have been at the very least proven inconclusive and if anything unreal and not realistic. Your dismissing the evidence and claiming 'no matter how much it looks like they could not have done this, they still did it anyway'. Without ever explaining how they actually did. The evidence left on the stones does not match the tools they had. Its that plain and simple.

It would be “plain and simple” to provide evidence of cranes for lifting obelisks, or circular saws, angle grinders and power drills.
Then again if civilizations communicated through portals, we may not even recognize these tools as they be way beyond our own technology.
Pardon my sarcasm but it highlights your abysmal understanding of what constitutes evidence.

Did you just m,ake that up. This doesn't explain why that standard of precision and the megaliths just stopped. It didn't just happen in Egypt. It also happened in the Amazon, in Peru and other places. All Megalithic cultures disappeared like the megafauna.

If anything this is a work of art and to the gods so it didn't depend of force. It was almost a duty to express their gods. We see the continuation of this expression in other ways later except it became less megalithic and precise.

It also wasn't a case of lack of resources as people still came together and they still did other works. They actually improve their resources as time went on.

Do you suffer from reading comprehension skills?
I made it very explicit I was confining my example to Egyptian pyramid building, nothing about the Amazon, Peru and other places.
If you decided to use your internet surfing more profitably instead of engaging in quote mining you would find the decline of the central authority after the 4th dynasty was a major cause for the decline of pyramid building and not something made up.

 

[sjastro]

That's the main nub against his argument: If he wants to claim that the Egyptians, Mayans, whoever, used advanced tools to make their grand works, then he needs to show evidence of the tools actually existing.

If the Egyptians had used these advanced tools from an earlier far more advanced civilization as is claimed, there would be no evidence of copper saws, chisels, dolerite pounders and bow drills as the Egyptians would have no need for these items.

This flies in the face of @stevevw's boasts of presenting a logical argument.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If the Egyptians had used these advanced tools from an earlier far more advanced civilization as is claimed, there would be no evidence of copper saws, chisels, dolerite pounders and bow drills as the Egyptians would have no need for these items.

This flies in the face of @stevevw's boasts of presenting a logical argument.

There is also that simple bit of logic too: why did the ancient Egyptians do so many pieces of art with them using such primitive tools when they had things more advanced? Where's the parchments in hieratic showing off the Egyptian version of OSHA?