To skip all the dialogue in which I highlight where the invalid statements are and go right to the conclusion of this article CLICK HERE
Thomas Dawe 5:06
PM
Didn't they
predate Jesus? No one really knows what
they wrote about... especially since someone in power burned down their Royal
Libary of Alexandria in the more recent history, probably to hide the truth
about the past. Just saying, Egypt
probably isn't the best place to turn for facts due to the history there. Of course, if they did find that historical
vault under the Great Sphinx like Edgar Cayce predicted, someone knows the
truth... and I wish they weren't bogarting it.
The claim being made: The total sum knowledge of
the Egyptian empire was destroyed in the Greek fire.
Why the claim is wrong: There
are many hieroglyphs readily available for study from ancient Egypt.
Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [1]
Thomas Dawe 5:21
PM
Yes, but as I
said, the entire Library of Alexandria was burnt along with all of the
historical and educational documents within.
They weren't just all about hyroglyphics on walls. So it is impossible to say what sort of
details they had when it is all ash now.
Secondary claim of the already stated detail now
reinforced with counter claim against the veracity of hieroglyphs as a source
of detail.
Rich Peall 5:26
PM+6
+Thomas Dawe they had reason to write about their
pets via hieroglyph I think a GIANT F---ING FLOOD would get a mention.
Counter claim being made: the
importance of such a significant event would not have gone undocumented
Rich Peall 5:48
PM
[Content
of post directed at unrelated 3rd party]
Thomas Dawe 6:04
PM
+Atavistic By Nature - I agree that it is a
possibility that the 'heresy' contained within could have been the reason...
well, unless it was Julius Ceasar who had it burnt. Don't think he was a Christian. But no one is really certain who was
responsible. Stories vary. Anyway, your
whole argument is based on assumption, so seems like you're the one not
equipped here.
Claim being made: “your whole argument is
based on assumption”
Why this is wrong: you have no possible way at
this time to understand how much or how little the person knows on this given
subject
Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [2]
Thomas Dawe 6:05
PM
Incidentally, the water erosion on the sphinx itself
is proof of a flooding in that area at the very least. Of course, it also predates written history.
Thomas Dawe 6:18
PM+1
Much of the bible was taken from earlier scriptures
from other religions. The flood, for
instance, was a story 'borrowed' from Babylonian history (do a search on
Gilgamesh Flood myth) - which may have even originated from stories from
Sumeria. So it is kind of silly to say
that it didn't happen.
Claim being made: “kind of silly to say that
it didn't happen”
Why this is wrong: argument from authority, if
you research the idea of a substantial flood within the appropriate time period
there is little actual geological data to support the hypothesis.
Supporting document: http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Flood%20geology.pdf
Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [3]
[cont.]
It would probably be more accurate to say we don't know when it happened. Scientists have proven that the sun is capable of bombarding our atmosphere with a surplus of hydrogen atoms
It would probably be more accurate to say we don't know when it happened. Scientists have proven that the sun is capable of bombarding our atmosphere with a surplus of hydrogen atoms
Claim being made: “Scientists have proven that the sun is
capable of…”
Why this is wrong: I can find no document
anywhere that any scientific study has either hypothesised this or stated it to
be accurate – Claim made without proof.
Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [4]
[cont.]
which, when combined with our oxygen-rich atmosphere, will increase the amount of water significantly over an amazingly short period of time. A great flood is indeed possible. Doesn't take a god to make it happen though. Just good, old-fashioned science.
which, when combined with our oxygen-rich atmosphere, will increase the amount of water significantly over an amazingly short period of time. A great flood is indeed possible. Doesn't take a god to make it happen though. Just good, old-fashioned science.
Claim being made: “A great flood is indeed
possible”
Why this is wrong: conclusion drawn on anecdotal
and unsupported hypothesis (see above)
Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [4]
Thomas Dawe 6:40
PM
Yeah, I sincerely doubt it was a world-wide
flood. However, when massive amounts of
liquid supersaturate the Earth's crust, who is to say what might happen? Could be serious techtonic plate changes on
parts of the earth which absorbed some of the excess water. There is evidence
supporting a 'growing earth',
Claim being made: There is evidence supporting
a 'growing earth'
This is correct! There is evidence and study
detailing how Earths size is increasing, sadly not for the reasons you have
suggested but none the less the claim is accurate.
[cont.]
and evidence of underground oceans of water. It all kind of goes hand-in-hand. There is evidence of sea creatures found on top of mountains, for instance... suggesting that there have indeed been significant changes to our globe over the millenia.
and evidence of underground oceans of water. It all kind of goes hand-in-hand. There is evidence of sea creatures found on top of mountains, for instance... suggesting that there have indeed been significant changes to our globe over the millenia.
The above two points are also correct! Again,
not for the reasons you would assert, but that does not detracts from these two
statements validity
[cont.]
What might such a natural disaster do to even our technologically advanced civilization? Would we be reverted to the stone age? How many generations would it take for us to forget just how great we were? How long would it take for us to look back on the way it was as if it were just another Atlantis?
What might such a natural disaster do to even our technologically advanced civilization? Would we be reverted to the stone age? How many generations would it take for us to forget just how great we were? How long would it take for us to look back on the way it was as if it were just another Atlantis?
The above is nothing more than hyperbole and anecdotal inference
and as such has no bearing on the validity of any other statements
[cont.]
Palentologists have found human remains dating back hundreds of thousands of years. Plenty of opportunity for our ancestors to skirt disaster a few times.
Palentologists have found human remains dating back hundreds of thousands of years. Plenty of opportunity for our ancestors to skirt disaster a few times.
Thomas Dawe 7:14
PM
[Content
of post directed at unrelated 3rd party]
Thomas Dawe 7:18
PM
+David Miller Prey tell, what happens to all the
cosmic garbage that enters our atmosphere?
Is it incinerated into nothingness?
Several thousand asteroids hit our planet every day, that material is
added to our planetary mass... aka, global growth. Booyah.
The above is the beginning of the ‘new topic’ but as it
is presented here is nothing more than a red herring (entering into a new topic
to avoid properly engaging in the current topic)
Thomas Dawe 7:48
PM
+David Ripley Well, if insulting is your best come
back, I will assume you have no rebuttal to the tons of cosmological debris
that gets attracted by the earth's gravitational pull every day causing the
earth to grow. It's cool, you know... to
admit that you're wrong once in a while.
It doesn't hurt anything but that over-sized ego you are sporting.
Claim being made: “…causing the earth to grow”
Why this is wrong: the current, and well
supported details suggest the Earth is not ‘growing’ because of this effect,
but the effect is considered it is more likely that the Earth is ‘shrinking’
(loosing mass)
Supporting detail: work and statement by Dr
Chris Smith & Mr Dave Ansell of Cambridge University, http://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-0513/ijsrp-p17109.pdf
Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [5]
Rich Peall 8:29
PM
[Content
of post directed at unrelated 3rd party]
Thomas Dawe 8:41
PM
+P. KEY I don't know. What's a good daily average? For the sake of arguments, let's say the
earth gets pummeled with 500 pounds of cosmic debris a day on the average (just
a guess estimating a mean weight of 1/2 pound per asteroid and 1000 asteroids a
day - probably a low value). That's
178000 pounds in a year. 178000000 pounds in a millennium. 89,000 tons every
1000 years. Anyone who claims the Earth
is not growing is clearly ignorant in the basic laws of physics. Cause and effect kind of thing there. The added material has to still be here, not
like we have a lot of Earth ejecta. Now, it's no mount everest over a thousand
years, but it would be in 2,000,000 years.
Yes that means we have added about 2300 times mass of Mt. Everest since
the original formation of the planet...
... assuming that the whole 'Earth is 6000 years
old' theory is hogwash, of course.
Claim being made: too many to list, a lot of
random numbers and assertions to details which are apparently unknown to
Thomas.
Why this is wrong: simply picking numbers out
of the air to support your premise is an argument from ignorance and entirely
fallacious.
Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [6]
Thomas Dawe 8:48
PM
[Content
of post directed at unrelated 3rd party]
Rich Peall 8:50
PM
+Thomas Dawe
I assume you know how to use Google?
Why not fact check your statements, then you wont
look like a buffoon.
It seems that besides all your fancy numbers (which
are wrong) your statement of Mass gain over time, is quite wrong, here - let me
Google that for you...
Earth is loosing mass.
Thomas Dawe 11:28
PM
+Rich Peall Word of advice, never use anything that
starts off with "According to some calculations" as concrete evidence
to support your claims. It's guesswork
at best, based on theories of what is going on deep within the earth, which no
one can be certain about yet since we haven't even broke the crust.
Claim being made: “…of what is going on deep
within the earth”
Why this is wrong: It’s actually a study of
cosmological effect and nothing to do with anything ‘deep within the earth’
Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [7]
Claim being made: “which no one can be certain
about yet since we haven't even broke the crust.”
Why this is wrong: There are entire
sub-categories of geological study that actually do know what is below our
feet. And there is a plethora of material ready for you to look over.
Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [8]
[Remaining
content of post directed at unrelated 3rd party]
Rich Peall 11:34
PM
+Thomas Dawe don't be so condensing when I present
some 'real' detail rather than making up numbers on the spot to support random
nonsense (exactly what you had done in your 3rd post up)
My post is supported by research, your post
comprised of utter hyperbole.
Here's how it lands, You are wrong
Claim being made: Thomas is wrong
Supporting detail: this transcript
[cont.]
(if we follow the best available details we have) and you are attacking me because you have no better way to defend your arrogance.
(if we follow the best available details we have) and you are attacking me because you have no better way to defend your arrogance.
(added edit) also:
"so I say again, how does anyone know what the
Ancient Egyptians had written about?"
Historians/archaeologists know, because they can
interpret what they (the ancient civilizations) wrote... Yes, there are entire
fields of study in the hieroglyphs of ancient Egypt (and other ancient written
languages such as Sumerian)
How can you be so very ignorant in a day and age
where information is readily available to you?
Thomas Dawe 11:39
PM
+Rich Peall
Actually, your link supports my assertion that we are gaining cosmic
debris, I severely understated just how much we were gaining. I was estimating low on purpose to make a
point. Your link however lacks any real
proof that there is a consumption of matter going on. It is an estimate based on a theory that
someone came up with based on guesswork of what is going on within the
planet. If any one of the factors he was
basing his calculations on are wrong, the whole calculation is wrong. So you can't say it is empirical proof...
it's not proof at all.
You claim that the same detail supports your argument
but is dismissible in mine, this is a double standard. Either the detail is submissible
and accepted or not, if parts of the detail are to be questioned then please
provide adequate falsification of those details.
Thomas
Dawe11:42 PM
[Content
of post irrelevant to discussion]
Thomas
Dawe11:46 PM
One more thing, +Rich Peall any idea just how much
helium and hydrogen is being deposited into our planet from the sun?
Claim being made: there is helium and hydrogen
being introduced into our atmosphere from the sun
Why this is wrong: there is no data anywhere
that I can see that suggests any such idea, a claim being made without any supporting
detail, most likely based on an argument from ignorance, additionally
subverting the topic once more with a second red herring.
Number of times Thomas D has been wrong [9]
[cont.]
Probably a lot more than you realize ... since this article doesn't seem to account for the sun's impact on the earth at all. I can share a link with you about it if you would like to read about it. However, if you're going to just keep on with this pissing match about something this stupid, then nevermind.
Probably a lot more than you realize ... since this article doesn't seem to account for the sun's impact on the earth at all. I can share a link with you about it if you would like to read about it. However, if you're going to just keep on with this pissing match about something this stupid, then nevermind.
Rich
Peall11:50 PM
1."your link supports my assertion that we are
gaining cosmic debris"
No, it doesn't.. read it again, it clearly outlines
loss of mass/weight. and that 'theory' has probably more statistical data than
you could even comprehend to back up the claims it makes.
Oh, here's more information 'supporting' my claim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape
2."any idea just how much helium and hydrogen
is being deposited into our planet from the sun"
Your turn now. Find me the data to support this
claim.
I suggest the sun is a little too far away to
'deposit' anything as heavy as gaseous elements into our atmosphere, but I
await the detail that proves my assumption incorrect.
"I can share a link with you about it if you
would like to read about it"
Please do, I'm always open to new information.
Above contains counter arguments and supporting details to those counter arguments
Total number of times Thomas has been proven wrong
(and has not given sufficient counter argument or evidence to otherwise have his original claim validated)
9
A full and uncommented version of the conversation can be found here: Saved Google+ Transcript PDF
