flood/pyramid question.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The water damage is confined to the lower sections of the sphinx I believe, so it has nothing to do with a worldwide flood otherwise the entire sphinx would have water damage, not just the lower portion.

The proportion of the head compared to the body shows that the head has been cut down to represent the face of some Egyptian king at some point in time. It is believed that the head of the Great Sphinx was originally a lion's head, and much larger. Below is a sketch I drew from the top of my head, might not be entirely accurate, but you get an idea about the approximate anatomical proportions involved.

To Kingslayer, Rex282, Krazysh0t:

If the thread topic were in fact "Murgatroid", you might have some credibility.

Your focus on criticizing and accusing other posters while at the same time ignoring the topic at hand is precisely why I stopped taking the three of you seriously a long time ago.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Why are you quoting other members that aren't even participating in this thread as some sort of proof?

Like this...

originally posted by: lonewolf19792000
I hate to burst your bubble of self delusion but it must be done. Archaeology has already proved the "great flood" in fact has happened.

He hasn't been here for years... and he's lying for one... plus Hes a fundamentalist Chrisitian that would believe anything that happens to show the smallest bit of evidence for a Young earth?

I've had many debates with lonewolf.... why are you quoting him as if he's an archeologist or something?

a reply to: Murgatroid

Your claims and statements have been criticized, not you personally.....so you can stop playing the victim and address the points made.

If you can ofc....

a reply to: Akragon

Perhaps because I believe him?

You must realize how comical you sound...

I would hang onto that "fundamentalist Christian" card because it only makes your argument look even more ridiculous.

a reply to: Murgatroid

So asking you to produce credible evidence of what is being discussed in the opening post (a world wide flood) is criticizing you? Lol.

a reply to: Murgatroid

LOL... ok believe him...

Why not actually look into that claim instead of just blindly believing someone who doesn't have a clue what hes talking about....

Archeologists prove the flood happened eh... such information would have been known all over the world and in every news cast... So where is this proof?

hmmmm?

Try not to quote Ken Ham...

a reply to: Murgatroid

So a family of 8 people not only repopulated the Earth to about 7 billion people in the matter of only 3,000 years, but they also produced the range of ethnicities we see today from one gene pool? Not to mention they would have had to have sailed around the entire world and placed lions in Africa, polar bears in the Arctic, kangaroos on Australia, etc. before getting off their primitive boat and settling down themselves.

Yeah, totally believable. That happened for sure.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

nah... no sailing involved

The animals swam to their respective continents... Duuh

Krazyshot instead of telling people to prove what they think how about you go into your backyard and dig up some evidence it didn't happen

Oh what a silly thing for me to say

a reply to: Raggedyman

Look at the population and the range of ethnicities we have today. Also look up how the world would look if all the ice on Earth melted to see that there is nowhere near enough water on Earth to cover the entire world.

No digging in dirt required to disprove it.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I agree that is an absolutely silly thing to say...

Considering Krazyshot didn't make the claim...

and the one who did has no evidence of his claim...

Nor does the person HE quoted.... Other then Ken Ham, who is nothing more then a moronic twit pushing his "creation museum" nonsense

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Raggedyman

Look at the population and the range of ethnicities we have today. Also look up how the world would look if all the ice on Earth melted to see that there is nowhere near enough water on Earth to cover the entire world.

No digging in dirt required to disprove it.

Really enlightened 1

Look at the population today, fits in perfectly with a society only a few thousand years old

creation.com...

Be aware its a creation site, you may manifest

As for water, you may have that wrong as well, though you cant be told

a reply to: Raggedyman

And all the different ethnicities? Where did they come from?

See...

Ken Ham and his people... That's all anyone has for YEC

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Raggedyman

And all the different ethnicities? Where did they come from?

Look at the population today, fits in perfectly with a society only a few thousand years old, do you now agree?

creation.com...

Ethnicity???

Hell if I am not wrong, YOU believe all animals, all life come from one single or something or some-kind of strand of whatever it was that
abiogenesised originally/ initially from water and dust

That sounds as stupid if not more stupid than ethnicities over thousands of years to me

Explain that over millions of years and I can sure explain skin colors and languages over a few thousand

Yes Ak, we have Ken Ham and you have Dawkins, he is as big a joke, if not more a joke. Dawkins is to scared to debate

All you have are personal attacks on people

All the different ethnicities, where did life come from, thats the question you refuse to acknowledge
All of you evolutionists run miles from that
Proving your religion is a faith with no foundation

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Raggedyman

And all the different ethnicities? Where did they come from?

All of you evolutionists run miles from that
Proving your religion is a faith with no foundation

Apart from the fact that EVOLUTION has nothing to do with CREATION?

CREATION is how life came to be.

EVOLUTION is what happened AFTER life was created.

See how the 2 are completely different?

ETA: The beginning of life for "us scientists" would be called abiogenesis. Unlike the creation myth, there is actual proof of how life could have come about, instead of "god did it".

a reply to: Raggedyman

Here's a few questions I would need answering or explaining to me to even come close to believing YEC.

Can you explain how Amino acid racemization (which can date things to several millions years old) is wrong?

Can you explain how continental drift happened if the Earth is only 6,000 years old?

Can you tell me how the atmosphere of the moon is as it is considering it would take a minimum of 10,000 years to have an atmosphere even close to what it has?

While on the subject of the moon, can you explain the lunar retreat? Surely it would have to be moving a lot faster than it actually is to fit in with YEC?

Can you tell us why Dendrochronology (that's tree rings) shows no proof of a world wide flood?

Can you explain petrified wood? It normally takes millions of years as it's such a slow process.

What about distant star light? If the earth was only 6,000 then surely we wouldn't be able to see all the stars we can?

Erosion also takes quite a long time. The Grand Canyon has taken millions of years to form. Care to explain that?

Can you tell us why Human Y-chromosomal ancestry shows that our ancestors are around 340,000 years old?

Can you explain why there's a lack of DNA in fossils as it takes around 100,000 years for all DNA to be undetectable?

Can you explain how we have large impact craters, but they didn't wipe out all of us humans?

I think that would be a good start for you to explain if it's just a 6,000 year old planet.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Yes Ak, we have Ken Ham and you have Dawkins, he is as big a joke, if not more a joke. Dawkins is to scared to debate

Are you kidding me?

Bill Nye the science guy made a fool of him in his own museum

Ken Ham doesn't even know how to debate, he just talks over everyone

Why would Dr.Dawkins even bother?

a reply to: gflyg

I remember hearing that the sphinx in Egypt had water damage possibly dating it to older then the pyramids. Could this water damage been caused by the great flood? ( if it acually happened) and has the pyramids been studied for water damage since they would have been submerged as well. Depending on how long the flood happened could We/have We found some evidence on the pyramid?

From some of what I have read concerning this water damage there was some evidence (not proof) that water was channeled from the Nile to the location of the great pyramid of Cheops and the entire operation was a water power system. It is said that there is a well of water beneath the pyramid as we speak. It is very difficult for anyone to investigate much of this because the Egyptian govt. disallows most all of any missions to investigate.

Another thought is that if the Sphinx was at one time buried in sand then it would have acted as a tomb of protection from the outside elements. This could help in false dating because no one really knows the environment of that area in the past.

Even though I do believe that Noah's flood did happen it is not provable to most everyone and it most likely would not be the cause of the weathered evidence shown on the sphinx. Although the torrential rain and catastrophic upheaval of the world for those forty days and forty nights could have battered the structure into what we see as weathered, it is not provable by any means that we know today.

Also there is some supposition from the Genesis account that the world was encased in water and that this was the water which fell upon the world for forty days and forty nights. As a result of this massive weight of water the world was broken up and enlarged twice fold into what we have today.

We have graduated from evidence to proof in the demands of most and for this reason it will never be shown as to consider any of this to be the case. Name calling is not the answer and ganging is not the solution. The solution is discussion of thoughts which can lead to revelations. When you think you then begin your journey to wisdom.
My opinions of course --