It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationism, taken to its logical extreme, negates the existence of Jesus Christ.

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: john666

But you're claiming that our entire past is one giant forgery. Well, unfortunately for this fascinating theory we have archaeology, anthropology, history, etc, which show that your theory is 100% wrong.



You falsely claimed that the damage done to the Sphinx was not done by water.
That means that as far archaeology is concerned, you have no idea what you are talking about.


The alleged water damage to the Sphinx is a highly contentious issue. The upper part of the statue has been damaged by the wind - that part is uncontested, as wind erosion is highly distinctive - the horizontal bands that can be seen quite clearly. Water erosion is vertical. It has been argued that the Sphinx now is an altered version of an older statue that predates the Pyramids and which was built 5,000 years ago, when the climate in the Giza Plateau was slightly wetter. This is, as I said, a contentious theory.
I seem to have a rather better grasp of archaeology than you do by the way.


By the way, you do not.
But who knows, maybe I am subjective, and you indeed may have a much better grasp of archaeology than I do.
And that is why I would like to ask you a question about the Sphinx.
What do you think, what force caused the damage to the lower part of the statue?

upload.wikimedia.org...


I can re-post my earlier post if you like. It can be argued that the lower part of the Sphinx suffered from water erosion because it was built hundreds of years earlier than some people think. But this is a highly contentious theory. The upper part of the Sphinx has still suffered from wind erosion however. That fact is uncontested.


Do you remember why the two of us began to debate about the Sphinx?


Erm, yes. You tried to claim that it isn't thousands of years old, based on erosion to the Statue of Liberty. I pointed out that it rains a lot in New York and that therefore your point was a moot one. You then brought up the alleged water erosion to the rear of the Sphinx. I then pointed out the wind erosion to the upper part and that there is a theory that the Sphinx is a lot older than has been claimed. All of the above tends to point to the Sphinx being older than you said.


Why wouldn't the Sphinx be 300 years old.
What physical evidence speaks against it.




posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 04:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: john666

But you're claiming that our entire past is one giant forgery. Well, unfortunately for this fascinating theory we have archaeology, anthropology, history, etc, which show that your theory is 100% wrong.



You falsely claimed that the damage done to the Sphinx was not done by water.
That means that as far archaeology is concerned, you have no idea what you are talking about.


The alleged water damage to the Sphinx is a highly contentious issue. The upper part of the statue has been damaged by the wind - that part is uncontested, as wind erosion is highly distinctive - the horizontal bands that can be seen quite clearly. Water erosion is vertical. It has been argued that the Sphinx now is an altered version of an older statue that predates the Pyramids and which was built 5,000 years ago, when the climate in the Giza Plateau was slightly wetter. This is, as I said, a contentious theory.
I seem to have a rather better grasp of archaeology than you do by the way.


By the way, you do not.
But who knows, maybe I am subjective, and you indeed may have a much better grasp of archaeology than I do.
And that is why I would like to ask you a question about the Sphinx.
What do you think, what force caused the damage to the lower part of the statue?

upload.wikimedia.org...


I can re-post my earlier post if you like. It can be argued that the lower part of the Sphinx suffered from water erosion because it was built hundreds of years earlier than some people think. But this is a highly contentious theory. The upper part of the Sphinx has still suffered from wind erosion however. That fact is uncontested.


Do you remember why the two of us began to debate about the Sphinx?


Erm, yes. You tried to claim that it isn't thousands of years old, based on erosion to the Statue of Liberty. I pointed out that it rains a lot in New York and that therefore your point was a moot one. You then brought up the alleged water erosion to the rear of the Sphinx. I then pointed out the wind erosion to the upper part and that there is a theory that the Sphinx is a lot older than has been claimed. All of the above tends to point to the Sphinx being older than you said.


Why wouldn't the Sphinx be 300 years old.
What physical evidence speaks against it.


(Facepalm)
The UPPER part of the Sphinx has WIND erosion. Because the Giza Plateau gets about an inch of rain a year. That's not enough to cause water erosion. The climate of the Plateau has been very dry for thousands of years. There's no water erosion damage on the Pyramids you see. Or any of the other monuments of Ancient Egypt.
The only place where there is alleged water erosion damage is on the LOWER part of the Sphinx and parts of the Temple surrounding it. It's possible that this was caused because the Sphinx was build earlier than thought and was then re-carved by the ancient Egyptians. This is a highly contentious theory. However, it's worth pointing out that the depression that the Sphinx sits in regularly fills up with sand unless cleared out. When Napoleon led his army to Egypt (unless that too is a lie) most of its body was covered in sand. So there's your problem - if it was built in the last 300 years, when was it able to get water erosion to its rear?



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 04:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: john666

But you're claiming that our entire past is one giant forgery. Well, unfortunately for this fascinating theory we have archaeology, anthropology, history, etc, which show that your theory is 100% wrong.



You falsely claimed that the damage done to the Sphinx was not done by water.
That means that as far archaeology is concerned, you have no idea what you are talking about.


The alleged water damage to the Sphinx is a highly contentious issue. The upper part of the statue has been damaged by the wind - that part is uncontested, as wind erosion is highly distinctive - the horizontal bands that can be seen quite clearly. Water erosion is vertical. It has been argued that the Sphinx now is an altered version of an older statue that predates the Pyramids and which was built 5,000 years ago, when the climate in the Giza Plateau was slightly wetter. This is, as I said, a contentious theory.
I seem to have a rather better grasp of archaeology than you do by the way.


By the way, you do not.
But who knows, maybe I am subjective, and you indeed may have a much better grasp of archaeology than I do.
And that is why I would like to ask you a question about the Sphinx.
What do you think, what force caused the damage to the lower part of the statue?

upload.wikimedia.org...


I can re-post my earlier post if you like. It can be argued that the lower part of the Sphinx suffered from water erosion because it was built hundreds of years earlier than some people think. But this is a highly contentious theory. The upper part of the Sphinx has still suffered from wind erosion however. That fact is uncontested.


Do you remember why the two of us began to debate about the Sphinx?


Erm, yes. You tried to claim that it isn't thousands of years old, based on erosion to the Statue of Liberty. I pointed out that it rains a lot in New York and that therefore your point was a moot one. You then brought up the alleged water erosion to the rear of the Sphinx. I then pointed out the wind erosion to the upper part and that there is a theory that the Sphinx is a lot older than has been claimed. All of the above tends to point to the Sphinx being older than you said.


Why wouldn't the Sphinx be 300 years old.
What physical evidence speaks against it.


(Facepalm)
The UPPER part of the Sphinx has WIND erosion. Because the Giza Plateau gets about an inch of rain a year. That's not enough to cause water erosion. The climate of the Plateau has been very dry for thousands of years. There's no water erosion damage on the Pyramids you see. Or any of the other monuments of Ancient Egypt.
The only place where there is alleged water erosion damage is on the LOWER part of the Sphinx and parts of the Temple surrounding it. It's possible that this was caused because the Sphinx was build earlier than thought and was then re-carved by the ancient Egyptians. This is a highly contentious theory. However, it's worth pointing out that the depression that the Sphinx sits in regularly fills up with sand unless cleared out. When Napoleon led his army to Egypt (unless that too is a lie) most of its body was covered in sand. So there's your problem - if it was built in the last 300 years, when was it able to get water erosion to its rear?


You are assuming that "The climate of the Plateau has been very dry for thousands of years."
And the reason why you are assuming that, is because "historical sources" says so.
In another words, it never occurs to you that the "historical sources", could be lying.
Because of that, faith that the Christians have in the Bible, is no different than the faith, that you - and many others - have in the "historical sources".



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 04:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: john666

But you're claiming that our entire past is one giant forgery. Well, unfortunately for this fascinating theory we have archaeology, anthropology, history, etc, which show that your theory is 100% wrong.



You falsely claimed that the damage done to the Sphinx was not done by water.
That means that as far archaeology is concerned, you have no idea what you are talking about.


The alleged water damage to the Sphinx is a highly contentious issue. The upper part of the statue has been damaged by the wind - that part is uncontested, as wind erosion is highly distinctive - the horizontal bands that can be seen quite clearly. Water erosion is vertical. It has been argued that the Sphinx now is an altered version of an older statue that predates the Pyramids and which was built 5,000 years ago, when the climate in the Giza Plateau was slightly wetter. This is, as I said, a contentious theory.
I seem to have a rather better grasp of archaeology than you do by the way.


By the way, you do not.
But who knows, maybe I am subjective, and you indeed may have a much better grasp of archaeology than I do.
And that is why I would like to ask you a question about the Sphinx.
What do you think, what force caused the damage to the lower part of the statue?

upload.wikimedia.org...


I can re-post my earlier post if you like. It can be argued that the lower part of the Sphinx suffered from water erosion because it was built hundreds of years earlier than some people think. But this is a highly contentious theory. The upper part of the Sphinx has still suffered from wind erosion however. That fact is uncontested.


Do you remember why the two of us began to debate about the Sphinx?


Erm, yes. You tried to claim that it isn't thousands of years old, based on erosion to the Statue of Liberty. I pointed out that it rains a lot in New York and that therefore your point was a moot one. You then brought up the alleged water erosion to the rear of the Sphinx. I then pointed out the wind erosion to the upper part and that there is a theory that the Sphinx is a lot older than has been claimed. All of the above tends to point to the Sphinx being older than you said.


Why wouldn't the Sphinx be 300 years old.
What physical evidence speaks against it.


(Facepalm)
The UPPER part of the Sphinx has WIND erosion. Because the Giza Plateau gets about an inch of rain a year. That's not enough to cause water erosion. The climate of the Plateau has been very dry for thousands of years. There's no water erosion damage on the Pyramids you see. Or any of the other monuments of Ancient Egypt.
The only place where there is alleged water erosion damage is on the LOWER part of the Sphinx and parts of the Temple surrounding it. It's possible that this was caused because the Sphinx was build earlier than thought and was then re-carved by the ancient Egyptians. This is a highly contentious theory. However, it's worth pointing out that the depression that the Sphinx sits in regularly fills up with sand unless cleared out. When Napoleon led his army to Egypt (unless that too is a lie) most of its body was covered in sand. So there's your problem - if it was built in the last 300 years, when was it able to get water erosion to its rear?


You are assuming that "The climate of the Plateau has been very dry for thousands of years."
And the reason why you are assuming that, is because "historical sources" says so.
In another words, it never occurs to you that the "historical sources", could be lying.
Because of that, faith that the Christians have in the Bible, is no different than the faith, that you - and many others - have in the "historical sources".


Erm, the Pyramids don't have water erosion. Cairo doesn't have any water erosion. Unless an invisible army of pixies is cleaning up any evidence of this it's safe to conclude that the Giza Plateau has had an arid climate for centuries, if not thousands of years. Your wild claims of inaccurate historical sources doesn't change that. Address those facts please.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 04:47 AM
link   
The Pyramids look very damaged. How do you know this wasn't caused by water erosion?
And from where did you get this "centuries if not thousands of years of arid climate", if not from "historical sources", in which you believe blindly?



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 04:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: john666
The Pyramids look very damaged. How do you know this wasn't caused by water erosion?
And from where did you get this "centuries if not thousands of years of arid climate", if not from "historical sources", in which you believe blindly?









Ok, so now we can add geology to the list of topics that you seem to know nothing about. Interesting. By the way - the Pyramids have been damaged by an EARTHQUAKE. The ground went all whibbly-whobbly due to a faultline nearby. You do believe in earthquakes don't you?

On a more serious note (aren't you at all embarrassed by the way? I would be at the way that you're getting made a fool of on this thread) if you look at the Pyramid of Khafre you can see the original facing stones at the top. That's the pointy bit by the way. The rest of the facing stones fell off or were seriously loosened during the great Cairo earthquake of 1300 AD, whereupon they were pinched to repair buildings in Cairo.

So - that explains that damage. Not water erosion, earthquake damage. And the facing stones on the Pyramid of Khafre? No water damage at all.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 05:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666
The Pyramids look very damaged. How do you know this wasn't caused by water erosion?
And from where did you get this "centuries if not thousands of years of arid climate", if not from "historical sources", in which you believe blindly?









Ok, so now we can add geology to the list of topics that you seem to know nothing about. Interesting. By the way - the Pyramids have been damaged by an EARTHQUAKE. The ground went all whibbly-whobbly due to a faultline nearby. You do believe in earthquakes don't you?

On a more serious note (aren't you at all embarrassed by the way? I would be at the way that you're getting made a fool of on this thread) if you look at the Pyramid of Khafre you can see the original facing stones at the top. That's the pointy bit by the way. The rest of the facing stones fell off or were seriously loosened during the great Cairo earthquake of 1300 AD, whereupon they were pinched to repair buildings in Cairo.

So - that explains that damage. Not water erosion, earthquake damage. And the facing stones on the Pyramid of Khafre? No water damage at all.


Aren't you embarrassed to admit that the only "evidence" that you have that the damage observable on the Pyramid of Khafre, was caused by an earthquake in 1300 AD, ARE THE HISTORICAL SOURCES, IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE BLINDLY!?
And also, let me ask one more thing.
If the damage that we see, was done by earthquakes, then how come that NONE of the interior structures have collapsed?



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 05:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666
The Pyramids look very damaged. How do you know this wasn't caused by water erosion?
And from where did you get this "centuries if not thousands of years of arid climate", if not from "historical sources", in which you believe blindly?









Ok, so now we can add geology to the list of topics that you seem to know nothing about. Interesting. By the way - the Pyramids have been damaged by an EARTHQUAKE. The ground went all whibbly-whobbly due to a faultline nearby. You do believe in earthquakes don't you?

On a more serious note (aren't you at all embarrassed by the way? I would be at the way that you're getting made a fool of on this thread) if you look at the Pyramid of Khafre you can see the original facing stones at the top. That's the pointy bit by the way. The rest of the facing stones fell off or were seriously loosened during the great Cairo earthquake of 1300 AD, whereupon they were pinched to repair buildings in Cairo.

So - that explains that damage. Not water erosion, earthquake damage. And the facing stones on the Pyramid of Khafre? No water damage at all.


Aren't you embarrassed to admit that the only "evidence" that you have that the damage observable on the Pyramid of Khafre, was caused by an earthquake in 1300 AD, ARE THE HISTORICAL SOURCES, IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE BLINDLY!?
And also, let me ask one more thing.
If the damage that we see, was done by earthquakes, then how come that NONE of the interior structures have collapsed?


Erm, have you actually studied the Pyramids? Seen the internal structures? An earthquake strong enough to loosen the casing stones wouldn't necessarily damage the interior. And the stones still show no sign of water erosion.
I note that you are now desperately back-pedalling away from the Sphinx. Fascinating.
By the way, if your dubious theory was in any way correct how do you explain fossils, Stonehenge, menhirs and above all COINS. Especially those coins that are discovered in archaeological digs with names and dates on them?
edit on 19-6-2014 by AngryCymraeg because: Typo



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 05:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666
The Pyramids look very damaged. How do you know this wasn't caused by water erosion?
And from where did you get this "centuries if not thousands of years of arid climate", if not from "historical sources", in which you believe blindly?









Ok, so now we can add geology to the list of topics that you seem to know nothing about. Interesting. By the way - the Pyramids have been damaged by an EARTHQUAKE. The ground went all whibbly-whobbly due to a faultline nearby. You do believe in earthquakes don't you?

On a more serious note (aren't you at all embarrassed by the way? I would be at the way that you're getting made a fool of on this thread) if you look at the Pyramid of Khafre you can see the original facing stones at the top. That's the pointy bit by the way. The rest of the facing stones fell off or were seriously loosened during the great Cairo earthquake of 1300 AD, whereupon they were pinched to repair buildings in Cairo.

So - that explains that damage. Not water erosion, earthquake damage. And the facing stones on the Pyramid of Khafre? No water damage at all.


Aren't you embarrassed to admit that the only "evidence" that you have that the damage observable on the Pyramid of Khafre, was caused by an earthquake in 1300 AD, ARE THE HISTORICAL SOURCES, IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE BLINDLY!?
And also, let me ask one more thing.
If the damage that we see, was done by earthquakes, then how come that NONE of the interior structures have collapsed?


Erm, have you actually studied the Pyramids? Seen the internal structures? An earthquake strong enough to loosen the casing stones wouldn't necessarily damage the interior. And the stones still show no sign of water erosion.
I note that you are now desperately back-pedalling away from the Sphinx. Fascinating.
By the way, if your dubious theory was in any way correct how do you explain fossils, Stonehenge, menhirs and above all COINS. Especially those coins that are discovered in archaeological digs with names and dates on them?


You are the one who is "desperately back-pedaling away".
Namely you were the one who mentioned the Pyramids, when you were beaten in argument concerning the Sphinx, so as to shift the focus of debate(which you were, and are losing).
However I wouldn't call that Fascinating, but Pathetic.

But you mentioned the Pyramids, and the alleged damage that was done to them by the earthquake.
I would like that you explain, how come that all four sides were damaged equally by the earthquake.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 05:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666
The Pyramids look very damaged. How do you know this wasn't caused by water erosion?
And from where did you get this "centuries if not thousands of years of arid climate", if not from "historical sources", in which you believe blindly?









Ok, so now we can add geology to the list of topics that you seem to know nothing about. Interesting. By the way - the Pyramids have been damaged by an EARTHQUAKE. The ground went all whibbly-whobbly due to a faultline nearby. You do believe in earthquakes don't you?

On a more serious note (aren't you at all embarrassed by the way? I would be at the way that you're getting made a fool of on this thread) if you look at the Pyramid of Khafre you can see the original facing stones at the top. That's the pointy bit by the way. The rest of the facing stones fell off or were seriously loosened during the great Cairo earthquake of 1300 AD, whereupon they were pinched to repair buildings in Cairo.

So - that explains that damage. Not water erosion, earthquake damage. And the facing stones on the Pyramid of Khafre? No water damage at all.


Aren't you embarrassed to admit that the only "evidence" that you have that the damage observable on the Pyramid of Khafre, was caused by an earthquake in 1300 AD, ARE THE HISTORICAL SOURCES, IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE BLINDLY!?
And also, let me ask one more thing.
If the damage that we see, was done by earthquakes, then how come that NONE of the interior structures have collapsed?


Erm, have you actually studied the Pyramids? Seen the internal structures? An earthquake strong enough to loosen the casing stones wouldn't necessarily damage the interior. And the stones still show no sign of water erosion.
I note that you are now desperately back-pedalling away from the Sphinx. Fascinating.
By the way, if your dubious theory was in any way correct how do you explain fossils, Stonehenge, menhirs and above all COINS. Especially those coins that are discovered in archaeological digs with names and dates on them?


You are the one who is "desperately back-pedaling away".
Namely you were the one who mentioned the Pyramids, when you were beaten in argument concerning the Sphinx, so as to shift the focus of debate(which you were, and are losing).
However I wouldn't call that Fascinating, but Pathetic.

But you mentioned the Pyramids, and the alleged damage that was done to them by the earthquake.
I would like that you explain, how come that all four sides were damaged equally by the earthquake.



????? You were the one who brought up the alleged water damage to the Sphinx. I pointed out a few facts and you then ran away from it. State your case again if you like.
As for the earthquake damage to the Pyramids, what, do you really think that it would have affected one side more than the others? Do you even understand what an earthquake is?
By the way - coins. Explain them. Explain all those solidi with the faces of the Caesars on them that we keep digging up. The coins with the faces of the Persian Emperors. The coins with the faces of the Holy Roman Emperors.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 06:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666
The Pyramids look very damaged. How do you know this wasn't caused by water erosion?
And from where did you get this "centuries if not thousands of years of arid climate", if not from "historical sources", in which you believe blindly?









Ok, so now we can add geology to the list of topics that you seem to know nothing about. Interesting. By the way - the Pyramids have been damaged by an EARTHQUAKE. The ground went all whibbly-whobbly due to a faultline nearby. You do believe in earthquakes don't you?

On a more serious note (aren't you at all embarrassed by the way? I would be at the way that you're getting made a fool of on this thread) if you look at the Pyramid of Khafre you can see the original facing stones at the top. That's the pointy bit by the way. The rest of the facing stones fell off or were seriously loosened during the great Cairo earthquake of 1300 AD, whereupon they were pinched to repair buildings in Cairo.

So - that explains that damage. Not water erosion, earthquake damage. And the facing stones on the Pyramid of Khafre? No water damage at all.


Aren't you embarrassed to admit that the only "evidence" that you have that the damage observable on the Pyramid of Khafre, was caused by an earthquake in 1300 AD, ARE THE HISTORICAL SOURCES, IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE BLINDLY!?
And also, let me ask one more thing.
If the damage that we see, was done by earthquakes, then how come that NONE of the interior structures have collapsed?


Erm, have you actually studied the Pyramids? Seen the internal structures? An earthquake strong enough to loosen the casing stones wouldn't necessarily damage the interior. And the stones still show no sign of water erosion.
I note that you are now desperately back-pedalling away from the Sphinx. Fascinating.
By the way, if your dubious theory was in any way correct how do you explain fossils, Stonehenge, menhirs and above all COINS. Especially those coins that are discovered in archaeological digs with names and dates on them?


You are the one who is "desperately back-pedaling away".
Namely you were the one who mentioned the Pyramids, when you were beaten in argument concerning the Sphinx, so as to shift the focus of debate(which you were, and are losing).
However I wouldn't call that Fascinating, but Pathetic.

But you mentioned the Pyramids, and the alleged damage that was done to them by the earthquake.
I would like that you explain, how come that all four sides were damaged equally by the earthquake.



????? You were the one who brought up the alleged water damage to the Sphinx. I pointed out a few facts and you then ran away from it. State your case again if you like.
As for the earthquake damage to the Pyramids, what, do you really think that it would have affected one side more than the others? Do you even understand what an earthquake is?
By the way - coins. Explain them. Explain all those solidi with the faces of the Caesars on them that we keep digging up. The coins with the faces of the Persian Emperors. The coins with the faces of the Holy Roman Emperors.


You were the one who ran away from the Sphinx to the Pyramid, not me.
And yes, the Sphinx does show water damage in it's lower part.

upload.wikimedia.org... Sphinx_of_Giza_-_20080716a.jpg

As far as the earthquake is concerned, if the earthquake has caused the damage on the Pyramid, the one, or the maximally two sides of the Pyramid that would have been IN FRONT, of the epicenter of earthquake, would have been less damaged than the other sides, considering that the momentum of force would move from the two sides that were first hit to the other two sides.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 06:11 AM
link   
This is just mind blowing...

john666, care to provide evidence for water erosion in pyramids?

BTW, your picture - not found... lost in flood...



edit on 19-6-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 06:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666
The Pyramids look very damaged. How do you know this wasn't caused by water erosion?
And from where did you get this "centuries if not thousands of years of arid climate", if not from "historical sources", in which you believe blindly?









Ok, so now we can add geology to the list of topics that you seem to know nothing about. Interesting. By the way - the Pyramids have been damaged by an EARTHQUAKE. The ground went all whibbly-whobbly due to a faultline nearby. You do believe in earthquakes don't you?

On a more serious note (aren't you at all embarrassed by the way? I would be at the way that you're getting made a fool of on this thread) if you look at the Pyramid of Khafre you can see the original facing stones at the top. That's the pointy bit by the way. The rest of the facing stones fell off or were seriously loosened during the great Cairo earthquake of 1300 AD, whereupon they were pinched to repair buildings in Cairo.

So - that explains that damage. Not water erosion, earthquake damage. And the facing stones on the Pyramid of Khafre? No water damage at all.


Aren't you embarrassed to admit that the only "evidence" that you have that the damage observable on the Pyramid of Khafre, was caused by an earthquake in 1300 AD, ARE THE HISTORICAL SOURCES, IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE BLINDLY!?
And also, let me ask one more thing.
If the damage that we see, was done by earthquakes, then how come that NONE of the interior structures have collapsed?


Erm, have you actually studied the Pyramids? Seen the internal structures? An earthquake strong enough to loosen the casing stones wouldn't necessarily damage the interior. And the stones still show no sign of water erosion.
I note that you are now desperately back-pedalling away from the Sphinx. Fascinating.
By the way, if your dubious theory was in any way correct how do you explain fossils, Stonehenge, menhirs and above all COINS. Especially those coins that are discovered in archaeological digs with names and dates on them?


You are the one who is "desperately back-pedaling away".
Namely you were the one who mentioned the Pyramids, when you were beaten in argument concerning the Sphinx, so as to shift the focus of debate(which you were, and are losing).
However I wouldn't call that Fascinating, but Pathetic.

But you mentioned the Pyramids, and the alleged damage that was done to them by the earthquake.
I would like that you explain, how come that all four sides were damaged equally by the earthquake.



????? You were the one who brought up the alleged water damage to the Sphinx. I pointed out a few facts and you then ran away from it. State your case again if you like.
As for the earthquake damage to the Pyramids, what, do you really think that it would have affected one side more than the others? Do you even understand what an earthquake is?
By the way - coins. Explain them. Explain all those solidi with the faces of the Caesars on them that we keep digging up. The coins with the faces of the Persian Emperors. The coins with the faces of the Holy Roman Emperors.


You were the one who ran away from the Sphinx to the Pyramid, not me.
And yes, the Sphinx does show water damage in it's lower part.

upload.wikimedia.org... Sphinx_of_Giza_-_20080716a.jpg

As far as the earthquake is concerned, if the earthquake has caused the damage on the Pyramid, the one, or the maximally two sides of the Pyramid that would have been IN FRONT, of the epicenter of earthquake, would have been less damaged than the other sides, considering that the momentum of force would move from the two sides that were first hit to the other two sides.


Ladies and Gentlemen of ATS the above is proof that the OP does not understand geology. Or history. Or archaeology.

EDIT: Oh and the link provided doesn't work either.
edit on 19-6-2014 by AngryCymraeg because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 06:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog
This is just mind blowing...

john666, care to provide evidence for water erosion in pyramids?

BTW, your picture - not found... lost in flood...




As for the picture(shows water erosion on lower part of Sphinx); upload.wikimedia.org...

As for water erosion in Pyramids, there is this:
sentinelkennels.com...

Also www.youtube.com...

Look at video from 41 min.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 06:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666
The Pyramids look very damaged. How do you know this wasn't caused by water erosion?
And from where did you get this "centuries if not thousands of years of arid climate", if not from "historical sources", in which you believe blindly?









Ok, so now we can add geology to the list of topics that you seem to know nothing about. Interesting. By the way - the Pyramids have been damaged by an EARTHQUAKE. The ground went all whibbly-whobbly due to a faultline nearby. You do believe in earthquakes don't you?

On a more serious note (aren't you at all embarrassed by the way? I would be at the way that you're getting made a fool of on this thread) if you look at the Pyramid of Khafre you can see the original facing stones at the top. That's the pointy bit by the way. The rest of the facing stones fell off or were seriously loosened during the great Cairo earthquake of 1300 AD, whereupon they were pinched to repair buildings in Cairo.

So - that explains that damage. Not water erosion, earthquake damage. And the facing stones on the Pyramid of Khafre? No water damage at all.


Aren't you embarrassed to admit that the only "evidence" that you have that the damage observable on the Pyramid of Khafre, was caused by an earthquake in 1300 AD, ARE THE HISTORICAL SOURCES, IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE BLINDLY!?
And also, let me ask one more thing.
If the damage that we see, was done by earthquakes, then how come that NONE of the interior structures have collapsed?


Erm, have you actually studied the Pyramids? Seen the internal structures? An earthquake strong enough to loosen the casing stones wouldn't necessarily damage the interior. And the stones still show no sign of water erosion.
I note that you are now desperately back-pedalling away from the Sphinx. Fascinating.
By the way, if your dubious theory was in any way correct how do you explain fossils, Stonehenge, menhirs and above all COINS. Especially those coins that are discovered in archaeological digs with names and dates on them?


You are the one who is "desperately back-pedaling away".
Namely you were the one who mentioned the Pyramids, when you were beaten in argument concerning the Sphinx, so as to shift the focus of debate(which you were, and are losing).
However I wouldn't call that Fascinating, but Pathetic.

But you mentioned the Pyramids, and the alleged damage that was done to them by the earthquake.
I would like that you explain, how come that all four sides were damaged equally by the earthquake.



????? You were the one who brought up the alleged water damage to the Sphinx. I pointed out a few facts and you then ran away from it. State your case again if you like.
As for the earthquake damage to the Pyramids, what, do you really think that it would have affected one side more than the others? Do you even understand what an earthquake is?
By the way - coins. Explain them. Explain all those solidi with the faces of the Caesars on them that we keep digging up. The coins with the faces of the Persian Emperors. The coins with the faces of the Holy Roman Emperors.


You were the one who ran away from the Sphinx to the Pyramid, not me.
And yes, the Sphinx does show water damage in it's lower part.

upload.wikimedia.org... Sphinx_of_Giza_-_20080716a.jpg

As far as the earthquake is concerned, if the earthquake has caused the damage on the Pyramid, the one, or the maximally two sides of the Pyramid that would have been IN FRONT, of the epicenter of earthquake, would have been less damaged than the other sides, considering that the momentum of force would move from the two sides that were first hit to the other two sides.


Ladies and Gentlemen of ATS the above is proof that the OP does not understand geology. Or history. Or archaeology.

EDIT: Oh and the link provided doesn't work either.


You do not understand physics, that is why you do not not even try to refute what I am saying with arguments.
If I was mistaken(and I don't believe that I was), then I could have been only mistaken in the assumption about which part of the Pyramid would have been more, and which less damaged.

But even if I am mistaken in this(and I don't believe that I was), I would still be right, that an earthquake would cause ASYMMETRICAL DAMAGE, to the Pyramid.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: SuperFrog
This is just mind blowing...

john666, care to provide evidence for water erosion in pyramids?

BTW, your picture - not found... lost in flood...




As for the picture(shows water erosion on lower part of Sphinx); upload.wikimedia.org...

As for water erosion in Pyramids, there is this:
sentinelkennels.com...

Also www.youtube.com...

Look at video from 41 min.


Once again, the damage to the lower parts of the rear of the Sphinx is highly contentious. It's also at a spot which used to regularly get covered in sand if it wasn't cleared out regularly. The Sphinx was half-buried when Napoleon saw it - we have the drawing made by the scientists he took with him. So when did that 'water damage' take place if your theory is correct?
As for your video I don't think that you've watched it. I made the mistake of doing so, but gave up when he tried to claim that geologists acknowledge that the biblical flood took place.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 06:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666
The Pyramids look very damaged. How do you know this wasn't caused by water erosion?
And from where did you get this "centuries if not thousands of years of arid climate", if not from "historical sources", in which you believe blindly?









Ok, so now we can add geology to the list of topics that you seem to know nothing about. Interesting. By the way - the Pyramids have been damaged by an EARTHQUAKE. The ground went all whibbly-whobbly due to a faultline nearby. You do believe in earthquakes don't you?

On a more serious note (aren't you at all embarrassed by the way? I would be at the way that you're getting made a fool of on this thread) if you look at the Pyramid of Khafre you can see the original facing stones at the top. That's the pointy bit by the way. The rest of the facing stones fell off or were seriously loosened during the great Cairo earthquake of 1300 AD, whereupon they were pinched to repair buildings in Cairo.

So - that explains that damage. Not water erosion, earthquake damage. And the facing stones on the Pyramid of Khafre? No water damage at all.


Aren't you embarrassed to admit that the only "evidence" that you have that the damage observable on the Pyramid of Khafre, was caused by an earthquake in 1300 AD, ARE THE HISTORICAL SOURCES, IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE BLINDLY!?
And also, let me ask one more thing.
If the damage that we see, was done by earthquakes, then how come that NONE of the interior structures have collapsed?


Erm, have you actually studied the Pyramids? Seen the internal structures? An earthquake strong enough to loosen the casing stones wouldn't necessarily damage the interior. And the stones still show no sign of water erosion.
I note that you are now desperately back-pedalling away from the Sphinx. Fascinating.
By the way, if your dubious theory was in any way correct how do you explain fossils, Stonehenge, menhirs and above all COINS. Especially those coins that are discovered in archaeological digs with names and dates on them?


You are the one who is "desperately back-pedaling away".
Namely you were the one who mentioned the Pyramids, when you were beaten in argument concerning the Sphinx, so as to shift the focus of debate(which you were, and are losing).
However I wouldn't call that Fascinating, but Pathetic.

But you mentioned the Pyramids, and the alleged damage that was done to them by the earthquake.
I would like that you explain, how come that all four sides were damaged equally by the earthquake.



????? You were the one who brought up the alleged water damage to the Sphinx. I pointed out a few facts and you then ran away from it. State your case again if you like.
As for the earthquake damage to the Pyramids, what, do you really think that it would have affected one side more than the others? Do you even understand what an earthquake is?
By the way - coins. Explain them. Explain all those solidi with the faces of the Caesars on them that we keep digging up. The coins with the faces of the Persian Emperors. The coins with the faces of the Holy Roman Emperors.


You were the one who ran away from the Sphinx to the Pyramid, not me.
And yes, the Sphinx does show water damage in it's lower part.

upload.wikimedia.org... Sphinx_of_Giza_-_20080716a.jpg

As far as the earthquake is concerned, if the earthquake has caused the damage on the Pyramid, the one, or the maximally two sides of the Pyramid that would have been IN FRONT, of the epicenter of earthquake, would have been less damaged than the other sides, considering that the momentum of force would move from the two sides that were first hit to the other two sides.


Ladies and Gentlemen of ATS the above is proof that the OP does not understand geology. Or history. Or archaeology.

EDIT: Oh and the link provided doesn't work either.


You do not understand physics, that is why you do not not even try to refute what I am saying with arguments.
If I was mistaken(and I don't believe that I was), then I could have been only mistaken in the assumption about which part of the Pyramid would have been more, and which less damaged.

But even if I am mistaken in this(and I don't believe that I was), I would still be right, that an earthquake would cause ASYMMETRICAL DAMAGE, to the Pyramid.


(Facepalm)
The damage from Earthquakes diminishes the further away you get from the epicentre. It tends to affect an entire building equally. And like I said - it loosened or knocked off the casing stones, which were then pinched by the locals. We don't have an exact picture of that the Pyramids looked like after the 'Quake.
By the way, I notice that you have still not addressed my point about the coins. Interesting.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: SuperFrog
This is just mind blowing...

john666, care to provide evidence for water erosion in pyramids?

BTW, your picture - not found... lost in flood...




As for the picture(shows water erosion on lower part of Sphinx); upload.wikimedia.org...

As for water erosion in Pyramids, there is this:
sentinelkennels.com...

Also www.youtube.com...

Look at video from 41 min.


Only thing that I see on Sphinx - is sand damage.... caused by constant sand shifts and wind.

The same with pyramids.

I believe just recently group of scientist gave clear evidence how pyramid stones were moved.

www.theblaze.com...




posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: SuperFrog
This is just mind blowing...

john666, care to provide evidence for water erosion in pyramids?

BTW, your picture - not found... lost in flood...




As for the picture(shows water erosion on lower part of Sphinx); upload.wikimedia.org...

As for water erosion in Pyramids, there is this:
sentinelkennels.com...

Also www.youtube.com...

Look at video from 41 min.


Once again, the damage to the lower parts of the rear of the Sphinx is highly contentious. It's also at a spot which used to regularly get covered in sand if it wasn't cleared out regularly. The Sphinx was half-buried when Napoleon saw it - we have the drawing made by the scientists he took with him. So when did that 'water damage' take place if your theory is correct?
As for your video I don't think that you've watched it. I made the mistake of doing so, but gave up when he tried to claim that geologists acknowledge that the biblical flood took place.


I don't know when the water damage occurred, but when I see the lower part of the Sphinx, I can not think of any other process that could have caused the damage that we see(it certainly wasn't wind).
As for the video, Klitzke says(and shows) that in one of the smaller pyramids there is salt to be found, that came from seawater.



posted on Jun, 19 2014 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: john666

originally posted by: SuperFrog
This is just mind blowing...

john666, care to provide evidence for water erosion in pyramids?

BTW, your picture - not found... lost in flood...




As for the picture(shows water erosion on lower part of Sphinx); upload.wikimedia.org...

As for water erosion in Pyramids, there is this:
sentinelkennels.com...

Also www.youtube.com...

Look at video from 41 min.


Once again, the damage to the lower parts of the rear of the Sphinx is highly contentious. It's also at a spot which used to regularly get covered in sand if it wasn't cleared out regularly. The Sphinx was half-buried when Napoleon saw it - we have the drawing made by the scientists he took with him. So when did that 'water damage' take place if your theory is correct?
As for your video I don't think that you've watched it. I made the mistake of doing so, but gave up when he tried to claim that geologists acknowledge that the biblical flood took place.


I don't know when the water damage occurred, but when I see the lower part of the Sphinx, I can not think of any other process that could have caused the damage that we see(it certainly wasn't wind).
As for the video, Klitzke says(and shows) that in one of the smaller pyramids there is salt to be found, that came from seawater.


(Facepalm)
But the alleged water damage to the lower parts of the Sphinx would have taken place over centuries. It's supposed to be the result of water erosion - rainwater in other words. Not erosion from a global flood and certainly not from something that never happened! There's no evidence for a global flood on the scale alleged by the bible!
The UPPER part of the Sphinx shows very clear WIND erosion. And that's the bit that WASN'T covered in sand on a regular basis!




top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join