The Tower of Babel

[Minimalist]

I'll retract the comment if you are willing to admit publicly that your bible is a pile of shit.  I've been telling you that for years.  Perhaps it finally sunk in?

[vulcanlogician]

Why would mainstream scientists be "unwilling to accept" something that is evident? Evidence is kinda their whole schtick.

I'll give you some time to fabricate a conspiracy theory if you need to. And trust me. You need to.

What are you talking about? Science constantly changes in accordance with new evidence (eventually), mainstream science was unwilling to accept Newton's theory that light consisted of particles, yet here we are...

New theories, especially ones that break the old paradigm, are often considered "false until proven true."

The reason that Newton's particle theory was rejected is because evidence pointed to light being a wave. The old paradigm had no theoretical room for wave-particle duality. But scientists didn't figure wave-particle duality out later by consulting cranks. They followed the evidence until it lead to a paradigm shift. Scientists are open to paradigm shifts as they can be. The article you quote called this "unwillingness"... at best, it was a poor word choice.

[vulcanlogician]

Also, in Huggy's defense, the subject has come up elsewhere in the forums and he has said he doesn't subscribe to YEC-ism. So it's unfair to throw the 6,000 year thing in his face.

[Aroura]

2 Ukrainians with an theory is not "mainstream science".  In fact, this is the very definition of pseudoscience.

the growth of pseudoscience in Russia is serious

Also note, just because you read it in something claiming to be a scientific journal, or the paper has a scientific looking layout, does not make it good, legit research.

Is there any corroborating research?  Or is it just this pseudoscientific Russian thing you are going off of?

---

Your idiocy knows no bounds.  What do you think the great pyramid has to do with technology capable of creating an inter dimensional gateway?

*UPDATE*

It appears that mainstream science has finally caught up, seeing how none of you will accept anything unless mainstream science says so, I'm updating this thread.

I was ridiculed for suggesting that pre-antideluvian people were technologically advanced.

Well well well...







Study reveals the Great Pyramid of Giza can focus electromagnetic energy

An international research group applied methods of theoretical physics to investigate the electromagnetic response of the Great Pyramid to radio waves. Scientists predicted that under resonance conditions the pyramid can concentrate electromagnetic energy in its internal chambers and under the base. The research group plans to use these theoretical results to design nanoparticles capable of reproducing similar effects in the optical range. Such nanoparticles may be used, for example, to develop sensors and highly efficient solar cells. The study was published in the Journal of Applied Physics

I would like to point out that RIGHT HERE you claim this is "mainstream science".

Oldest means first...dipshit.  The same techniques and methods were used in the 2d and 3d.  All three were built within a span of about 80 years.... if you listen to the Egyptologists.


It wasn't so long ago that another moron said that the great pyramid was build using internal ramps.... forgetting apparently that the other two lacked the same sort of "evidence" he was claiming.  Like I said, pyramidiots.

Oh, and by the way, RT stands for Russia Today and is the Russian government propaganda arm in the West.  I'm sure the WLB can get you an introduction to Putin if you ask nicely.

According to these researchers the Sphinx was constructed atleast 800,000 years ago.

Link to study here

http://mgu.bg/geoarchmin/naterials/64Manichev.pdf

Also

http://csglobe.com/geological-evidence-s...years-old/

Now, two Ukrainian researchers have proposed a new provocative theory where the two scientists propose that the Great Sphinx of Egypt is around 800,000 years old. A Revolutionary theory that is backed up by science.

The authors of this paper are scientists Manichev Vjacheslav I. (Institute of Environmental Geochemistry of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine) and Alexander G. Parkhomenko (Institute of Geography of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine).

Manichev and Parkhomenko firmly believe that the Sphinx had to be submerged for a long time under water and, to support this hypothesis, they point towards existing literature of geological studies of the Giza Plateau.

According to these studies at the end of the Pliocene geologic period (between 5.2 and 1.6 million years ago), sea water entered the Nile valley and gradually creating flooding in the area. This led to formation of lacustrine deposits which are at the mark of 180 m above the present level of the Mediterranean Sea.

According to Manichev and Parkhomenko, it is the sea level during the Calabrian phase which is the closest to the present mark with the highest GES hollow at its level. High level of sea water also caused the Nile overflowing and created long-living water-bodies. As to time it corresponds to 800000 years.

This means that the Great Sphinx of Egypt is one of the oldest monuments on the surface of the Earth, pushing back drastically the origin of mankind and civilization.

Furthermore, as it has been demonstrated, the two megalithic temples, located adjacent to the Great Sphinx were built by the same stone which means that the new dating of the Sphinx drags these monuments with the Sphinx back 800,000 years. In other words, this means that ancient civilizations inhabited our planet much longer than mainstream scientists are willing to accept.

And then a few posts later, you quote the article which actually says it GOES AGAINST mainstream science.  Which you apparently noticed by I guess hoped we wouldn't.

And no, you didn't quote multiple sources.  I just looked into this and there is one source.  That's like quoting WaPo, NYT, and FOX who are all using one single identical source, and claiming you used multiple sources.  Do you know how sources work?

This is from 2 Ukrainian scientists.  That is all. There is literally not another scientific source backing this up.
Could it still be true?  Maybe. But you'd have to have other scientists study the same evidence and reach similar conclusions.  2 guys do not, by themselves mean much of anything. 



Get some corroborating studies.  Then we'll take a more serious look.

OH WAIT!  I did more research and this claim is already 10 years old!  It comes up every few years again in the news, much like other consiracy theory bull.

I call bullshit and I have actual evidence to back up my claim.  Unlike you.  I'll post it in a minute.

---

Alrighty, here is an very interesting article.  Because honestly, Ill accept anything backed by actual science, even if it goes against my current beliefs.  
So, is there any actual evidence to back this claim of an 800,000 Sphynx, and therefore also Pyramid?

Short answer?  No.  No there is literally no evidence at all.

Long answer:

truth about the 2008 claim on the Sphinx's age

Firstly, the "scientists" original claim was 750,000.  But the pseudoscince blogger who made the story mainstream "got the date wrong, and most of those who are reacting to him followed suit."  Including Huggy, who clearly didn't even read the actual scientific study, just the trash news articles that followed it.

Another man named Schoch claims that these two fellows based their findings on his work. "“Personally, I am not convinced that the Great Sphinx is anywhere close to the age postulated by Manichev and Parkomenko,” Schoch wrote in defense of his own proposed date before the start of dynastic Egypt."

Next:

the two authors did not conduct any field testing to reach their conclusions. Instead, they say that they re-dated the monument based on a “visual investigation” (i.e. visiting the Sphinx and looking at it) and “reading the literary sources.” They based their conclusion on a comparison of the Sphinx, in a desert environment, with rock walls around the Black Sea, in an environment that differs in pretty much every conceivable way. Nevertheless, they argue that the undulating pattern of erosion on the Sphinx is not the work of wind and sand working differentially on rock layers of different hardness but rather the work of waves that accomplished the same task in a time when Giza was flooded.
 
They conclude that when the Sphinx was carved, Giza must have been like the Black Sea is today, and therefore this could only have occurred 750,000 years ago. The argument runs thus: If we assume that waves were necessary to create the erosion pattern (because it looks similar to the erosion pattern on the Black Sea coast), then we would need a water level at least 160 m higher than the current sea level to flood the Sphinx; therefore, this could only have occurred 750,000 years ago, the last time the sea was so high. As you can see, the problem is the initial if, based as it is on a “looks like therefore is” line of reasoning, without geochemical or any other type of proof to substantiate it.

They start their premise with a massive, unfounded assumption.  They did not test anything.  It's pure BS they just thought up.
And it gets worse.

When you drill down into their paper, it becomes clear that they never considered alternative hypotheses, nor did they attempt to find proof that only submersion in a giant lake could achieve the erosion they describe. It’s also disturbing that almost all of their sources on geology were Soviet texts published in the 1960s. Surely there have been updates to geology since then. Worse, their paper takes as its foundation the Secrete Doctrine of Helena Blavatsky, which they refer to in their own English re-translation of the Russian translation, citing Book 2, Part 2, Stanza 5, which I give in the original: “Behold the imperishable witness to the evolution of the human races from the divine, and especially from the androgynous Race—the Egyptian Sphinx, that riddle of the Ages!” They argue that the lines place the Sphinx at 750,000 BCE, though in context it is not at all clear that this is what she meant. But anyway the point remains: The whole claim is inspired by Theosophy... and the part of Theosophy (as we can see from her footnotes) directly inspired by the Book of Enoch and the myth of the Fallen Angels!

TLDR: This is most certainly not science.  It is, as I suspected, the worst sort of pseudoscience.

---

Oh wait, I was only responding to the second claim of the 800,000 year old age.

As to the first claim, I submit that Huggy goes from a scientific maybe "The Great Pyramid of Giza Might Focus Electromagnetic Energy in Its Chambers" and makes the great leaps that this was:
a) intentinal
b) used for some as of yet unknown advanced technology

There is NO evidence to suggest his giant leap. Quite the opposite. About 5 minutes of reading reveals that many structures structure, both manmade and natural, have unusual properties such as this.

Think of it this way, if I design a building to do function A), then it also turns out to do function B, that does not mean I understand function B, intended function B, or in anyway ever even used function B. All of that would take a giant, unproven assumption.

And let me restate. That's not how science works.

Still, this is a pretty cool discovery, on it's own. Who would have guessed, pyramids have special physical properties! Hey Huggy, maye you should go out and buy one of those metal pyramids you put over your food to help preserve it. I mean, since they focus electromagnetic energy, it turns out Pyramid Power is real!!! Amiright?!?

[Angrboda]

I'd like to know what Huggy thinks a structure being capable of focusing electromagnetic radiation means. I don't know. Does he?

[LadyForCamus]

Uh, yeah... we're here and you're a creatard.  Where does "Adam" and your 6,000 year old universe fit in?  Or did you forget that part.

First show where I claimed the universe was 6000 years old...

---

Lol @ Huggy pretending he cares about science.

Please, I've been debunking atheists here with science from the beginning, did you forget it's my position that science doesn't disprove anything in the bible.

I asked you guys to provide evidence of science disproving the bible, guess what? none of you could do it, so lol all you want...

(I'll be more than happy to post receipts of the above if you desire)

Your reasoning skills are as bad as your understanding of how science works, lol.  No one is obligated to disprove your silly book, Huggy.  The Bible is a heaping pile of assertions.  Onus is on you to demonstrate they’re true.

[Succubus]

According to these researchers the Sphinx was constructed atleast 800,000 years ago.

And with this Huggy, you have just told the whole world everything it needs to know about you.

[Minimalist]

Also, in Huggy's defense, the subject has come up elsewhere in the forums and he has said he doesn't subscribe to YEC-ism. So it's unfair to throw the 6,000 year thing in his face.

All that means is that he's a cherry-picker.  Which we already knew.  I love it when xhristards decide which parts of their "inerrant" scripture are not inerrant!

[Huggy Bear]

According to these researchers the Sphinx was constructed atleast 800,000 years ago.

And with this Huggy, you have just told the whole world everything it needs to know about you.

As per usual, don't even try to refute the research, just engage in adhominem...


What are you guys afraid of?

I didn't write the paper dummy, it was written by two geologists, who detailed scientifically why they came to the conclusion they did. My point to Minimalist was that the Great Pyramid was far older than the other two, which would explain why they don't have the same properties. Whether it's older by 800,000 years or 10,000 the point stands.

*edit*
I should add that the fact that Jormungandr kudosing that post makes her one of the biggest hypocrites of the forums.

---

Also, in Huggy's defense, the subject has come up elsewhere in the forums and he has said he doesn't subscribe to YEC-ism. So it's unfair to throw the 6,000 year thing in his face.

All that means is that he's a cherry-picker.  Which we already knew.  I love it when xhristards decide which parts of their "inerrant" scripture are not inerrant!

Oh so now I'm cherry picking?

I'll wait for you to provide one scripture that states the earth is 6000 years old.

I won't hold my breath...

[Cyberman]

I won't hold my breath...

Shame.