Egyptian Evidence for Great Flood: Giza Plateau Once Under the Sea

 

The following, taken from:

http://www.gizaforhumanity.org/report-from-mr-sherif-el-morsi/
 

may be a further indication of the Great Flood. The following article would agree, though it seems to place the Pyramids prior to the flood. We, instead, would place them well after the Flood.

Report from Mr Sherif El Morsi

A convincing clue proving that the Giza plateau was once covered by the sea is being studied, along with other evidence of erosion due to saturation by deep water of the surface of the plateau. An echinoid (a type of sea urchin or shallow marine creature) petrified in “recent times” has been found embedded upright in the upper surface of a block adjoining the Menkaura pyramid and within the ancient intertidal range. This is a splendid discovery by an Egyptian researcher.

Preface

“I am very proud to present to you a first report on the splendid discovery by Mr Sherif el Morsi. For several reasons: first, because it is only the beginning of seriously questioning dating and other data which have been wrong for years, and because this is very thorough work based on proofs that become stronger every day. It is time for science to get its message across! I am very happy also that this is an Egyptian discovery because Egyptian researchers and scientists well deserve it.
A more personal reason is that for the last 20 years now I have also been collecting evidence of sea erosion due to deep water saturation on the Giza plateau. My own theory (already published in France in 2007) is that the last Great Flood (and no doubt others before it) came up the Giza plateau, and that the Ancient Egyptians with their incomparable skills adapted the plateau from the beginning in order to protect their population and their science beneath it.”

Antoine Gigal

Report from Mr Sherif El Morsi

“I have spent the past 12 years doing on-site research in the Giza Necropolis. My research has brought some important discoveries such as the Neolithic honeycombed community of cavern dwellers on the Great Pyramid eastern escarpment, the megalith ramp used for hauling the granite blocks up the escarpment to be used in the construction of the Kings chamber, and just recently the different extensive erosion patterns found on different elevations in the Giza plateau with an existing ancient shoreline.I Like to thank Ms. Antoine Gigal for this honourable invitation to put on her prestigious board my following work. I am following the footsteps of the renown geologist Dr. Schoch and the great writer/journalist Graham Hamcock, but expanding their theory that is based on erosion patterns found on the Sphinx body due to water erosion. I have found that the extensive erosion patterns at the lower elevations of the plateau are different to the erosion patterns found at higher elevations. These erosion patterns are due to the Necropolis’s inundation by water. The inundation of water reaches a maximum of 75 meters over our current sea level creating a shoreline at the Khafra enclosure that spans all the way across to the Menkara temple. This shoreline is a 2 meter high intertidal range showing pitting and tidal notches due to seawater, wave mechanics, and tidal ebbing. At the lower levels such as at the Sphinx, the Sphinx temple, the first 20 courses of the Great pyramid including the boat pits; we see erosion due to deeper water saturation, where the stone blocks and wall linings have absorbed sea water. As the waters receded and a dry sunny windy climate took place, these megalithic stone blocks started weathering, creating tafoni erosions which are due to the salt chemically reacting and flaking the limestone with pitting formations. During a catastrophic sea surge and the forthcoming water regression, we clearly observe at certain areas such as corners, outlets, and trenches… horizontal indentures due to water force gushing and turbulence. On the top temple blocks we have sediment and alluvium deposits that have collected on the flat surfaces such as seen in shallow sea beds and lagoons, creating an oozing spongy effect due to the water regression that left these deposits.

Tafoni pitting due to sea water saturation on the Great Pyramid first course polished facing stones. The large tafoni pittings seen on the top of the block takes milleniums to reach this size,..plus another few milleniums of wind abresion to smooth them down to near non-existance. A 25 centimeter loss of surface limestone due to this type of erosion can be calculated by the 10,000s of years.

Reaching the maximum level of the inundation, which is 75 meters over our current sea level, we see a different type of erosion that is due to wave mechanics and tidal ebbing that has created a 2 meter high ancient intertidal range. This ancient shoreline spans from the Khafra enclosure up to the Menkara temple, where the rock hewn cliffs plus the temple blocks are all extensively eroded with tidal notches and extensive pitting. The erosions are so extensive that most blocks are nearly dilapidated out of existence, losing block mass and disfigured into grotesque shapes. This disfiguration is due to wave hitting, sea spray, and shallow marine habitation.

The great south eastern boat pit showing the horizontal indentures due to water turbulance from gushing forces during the sea surge and regression. Tafoni pittings on the sides have been weathered by wind during milleniums.

The Khafra south west corner core stones. This is an outlet into the southern desert plain from the Khafra enclosure, where water turbulance and powerfull gushing forces accentuated at corners and bottlenecks creating these horizontal indentures during the sea surge and regression. The water hitting while entering and existing at this corner must have created whirlpool turbulance and gushing forces.

Top block on the Sphinx temple, showing extensive tafoni pitting and grainy flood sediment and alluvium deposits that have accumulated and oozed off the top surface of the temple block, left by the eventual sea regression. This erosion pattern is unique to Giza and shows its pre ancient age.

A megalithic temple block at 75 meter over our current sea level and part of the ancient shoreline. It stands in a 2 meter intertidal range showing a clear tidal notch. It’s dilapidated state with more than half its mass lost is due to wave mechanics, sea water erosion, and probable marine habitation. During my photo shoot of this ancient seashore line, I nearly tripped off a 2nd level temple block. To my surprise the bulge on the top surface of the block that nearly made me trip was a petrified exoskeleton of what seems to be an Echinoid (sea urchin), which is a shallow sea marine creature. The coincidence to discover a petrified shallow marine creature laying on a top surface of a temple block that sits right under the ancient intertidal range, is a blessing. This is probably the most absolute proof that the Giza Necropolis was inundated by a sea surge. The petrified Echinoid and the dilapidated temple block stand together creating for us such a solid picture of an ancient lagoon that once existed at the Menkara temple during a high sea that inundate the Necropolis.

A megalithic temple block at 75 meter over our current sea level and part of the ancient shoreline. It stands in a 2 meter intertidal range showing a clear tidal notch. It’s dilapidated state with more than half its mass lost is due to wave mechanics, sea water erosion, and probable marine habitation.

We can see the petrified exoskeleton of this Echinoid or shallow marine creature laying gravitationally flat on the top surface of the megalith temple block (forefront). The top surface of this block seems to be covered by lagoon sediments and alluvial sands that have cemented to it due to the forth coming hot dry climate after the sea water regression. In the background we can clearly see a top megalith temple block that has lost half its mass and disfigured due to seawater spray, wave mechanics, and marine habitat. Both block and the petrified Echinoid are 75 meters over our current sea level were a 2 meter high intertidal range spans from the Khafra enclosure up to the Menkara temple. Both temple block and petrified Echinoid are existing in this intertidal range.

Since the Mokattam limestone is formed out of miniscule fragmented marine shells such as numulites and echinoids that date back to the Eocene Epoch which is circa 30 million years ago, geologists and archeologists are debunking this discovery believing that this petrified marine creature has eroded out of the limestone block. I disagree due to these forth coming points; first, this petrified marine creature’s exoskeleton is in pristine condition with minute details of the shell perforation showing clearly, therefore it must have been exiting from a much later date such as the Pleistocene or early Holocene periods. Second, this petrified creature is laying gravitational flat in its natural sitting position on the surface of this temple block. Third, it is living in its natural environment which is in the intertidal range in a shallow lagoon with sea bed sediments. Fourth, it is not a miniscule fragment like most shells that make the limestone formation, but a large entire specimen.

We can clearly see the pristine condition and minute details of the exoskeleton perforation which means that this marine creature must have petrified from recent times. It is not a body fossil as most fossils are that date back to 30 million years, but petrified by the sediment deposits that have filled its hollow.

We can clearly see the pristine condition and minute details of the exoskeleton perforation which means that this marine creature must have petrified from recent times. It is not a body fossil as most fossils are that date back to 30 million years, but petrified by the sediment deposits that have filled its hollow.In the upcoming image we can clearly see the petrified shallow marine creature sitting normally on the flat surface of the second level temple block, protruding 6 centimeters over the surface. In the back ground we have another perspective of the third level temple blocks that make these gargantuan temple walls and are part of the 2 meter high intertidal range that spans all the way to the Khafra enclosure. These blocks are extensively eroded showing intertidal notches that are due to wave mechanics and sea spray.

This echinoid, sea urchin, or shallow marine creature has petrified in its habitat which is a shallow lagoon that existed during the inundation of the Menkara temple. The sea surge must have sustained this 75 meter over our current sea level for quite a few centuries due to the amount of sediment and alluvium deposits that lay on the temple block surface. For an Echinoid to reach the size of 8 centimeter diameter takes at least 15 years of life. The extensive intertidal erosion seen on the blocks also take centuries. We can clearly observe the crack on the top of the petrified marine creature,..this crack could have been due to a catastrophic regression, in which the opening was filled with sediment and alluvium such as deposited on the temple block surface. Petrification equates to cementation were the sediments harden with time keeping the organism in its intact form. One can clearly see the cementated sediments in the petrified exo skeleton which has kept its thick calcite shell form and looks like it could be peeled off.”

Credit text and pictures: Shérif El Morsi, 2010.

Menkaura pyramid with in front lost blocks by the flood. Photo Gigal	Menkaura pyramid with in front lost blocks by the flood. Photo Gigal
Boat pit erosion.Photo Gigal	Water erosion inside boat pit East side GP. Photo Gigal

Sea and wind erosion between khafre to Menkara pyramid in the farfront Maenkaura temple

• Video

• Gigal Research

Copyright © GIZA FOR HUMANITY - Recherches archéologiques et historiques

Noah's Flood

 

Taken from:

http://www.answersincreation.org/flood.htm

By Greg Neyman
© Answers in Creation
First Published 29 May 2003

The global Flood of Noah is one of the centerpiece arguments for young earth creation science theology. Because of this, I have been asked what I believe the Flood of Noah was like.

 

To answer this question, let us first look at what the Flood is not…it is not the event that has been described by young earth creationism. There is no possible way the Flood could produce the rock record we see, nor could the flood produce all the coal layers, oil reserves, or chalk layers that we see in the rocks. If you want to explore these topics first, click on them to examine them in closer detail.

Was the Flood Global?

This is probably the biggest question I get asked. This will be a short answer to such a big question, but…no.

You may ask how I can believe in an inerrant Bible if I don’t believe the Flood was global. The Bible says the waters covered the entire face of the earth (Gen. 7:19). However, when considering any writing, one must take into account the author’s point of view.

What is the author of Genesis’s point of view? He is writing the story from the viewpoint of the witnesses, or, mankind. At the time of the Flood, mankind was still limited to the Middle East. Therefore, if you wipe out mankind, which all existed in one geographic area, you could easily say the Flood was global, since everywhere that man lived, it was flooded. Does that mean that North America was flooded? Think of it this way. You are in your house, and a flood comes and covers your entire house, leaving you sitting on your rooftop, with no land in sight. This flood event may not be global, or, over the entire surface of the earth, but to you, it is definitely ‘global’, for your entire world, all the land that you own, all the land that you can see, is flooded.

Or, think of it from Noah’s viewpoint. All the flood stories from around the globe originated from Noah, since all mankind is descended from him. If you are Noah, on the Ark, floating around with no land in sight for months on end, you too would certainly call the Flood global. Therefore from his viewpoint, global would be the correct word, even though there is no proof that the Flood actually covered the entire earth.

If the Flood was global, there is no proof that it covered the entire earth, either geologically or from writings, including the Bible. It was certainly ‘global’ from Noah’s viewpoint, but we can’t be certain that he completely circled the globe to prove that it was indeed global.

Food Supply

In Genesis 8:11, the dove that Noah sent out brought back an olive leaf as proof of dry land. Let’s look a little closer at this from a young earth perspective.

In order to prove the Flood, and the necessary erosion that took place in order to deposit all the rock layers we see today, two young earth creation science theorists, Baumgardner and Barnette, worked out a simulation of the current patterns and speeds if the entire globe was covered in water. The important thing to note here is that the water currents were at least 131 feet per second, or more than 89 miles per hour! (Actual speeds varied between 89 MPH and 194 MPH). These are the velocities over the continental land masses, as the higher currents formed gyres over the continents. At that velocity, all previously existing trees would have been torn from their roots, and there would be no living trees or plants to survive the flood. So, where did the olive leaf come from? It would have to be a leaf from a seedling which the dove brought back, because none of the pre-existing trees would have survived.

Since none of these trees could have survived, there would have been no plant food for any of the animals (or Noah) to eat. How did the plant-eating animals survive after they were released from the Ark? The young earth creation science model cannot answer this.

How did the meat-eating animals survive? They would naturally have to immediately feed on the plant-eaters, which would have made them extinct within a matter of weeks. The young earth global flood model again fails to answer this.

However, if the Flood were local, not global, then the animals would merely have to migrate a short distance to find food. Clearly, the local flood model is the only one which can logically explain survival of animal species after the Flood of Noah.

Wildlife Ranges

What about the other continents…where they flooded? Was Australia flooded? If so, how did the wildlife there, such as Koalas and Kangaroos, get to Australia from the Ark? Did they swim across the sea? Of course not. If they migrated from Noah’s Ark, you would expect Koala and Kangaroo populations to exist all along this migratory route…but they are only located in Australia. A young-earth flood model cannot explain the wildlife habitat ranges that we see today in Australia, nor the other continents.

Dinosaurs

Young earth creation science proponents are quick to use dinosaur graveyards as evidence of Noah’s Flood. They claim the dinosaurs herded together, and then were quickly buried. However, this explanation is not feasible.

The dinosaur graveyards referred to are mostly in North America, in sediments in Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, and Canada. However, looking at the positioning of the rock layers, there are thousands of feet of sediment below these layers that the young earth theorists claim were deposited by the Flood.

To make this more understandable, let’s look at the Grand Canyon. Steven Austin, in his book Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, claims the Canyon rocks represent those which were deposited during the rising waters phase of the Flood (Figure 4.1). The “Late Flood”, or receding water rock deposits, are the Mesozoic sediments.

It is interesting to note that all the dinosaur fossils, including the mass graves, are Mesozoic in age. This means that all the dinosaurs died in the receding water phase of the flood. However, it is clear from Genesis 7:21-23, that all life was killed during the first 40 days of the Flood. Some young-earth theorists will argue that the bodies floated around, and eventually sank, based on various factors as body size, density, and so forth. However, this cannot be true, because the dinosaur footprints all exist in the same Mesozoic rock layers, as do all the dinosaur coprolites (fossilized dinosaur poop), and fossilized dinosaur eggs. Clearly, the dinosaurs were alive and well, after the declaration in Genesis 7:21-23 that all living things were killed during the first forty days of the flood. Clearly, the young earth flood model cannot explain the dinosaur fossil distribution in the rock record. However, if one accepts a local flood event, with the dinosaurs having lived over 65 million years ago, there are no problems.

Conclusion

The young earth creation science model for the flood falls flat on its face when compared to the rock record. There is no global, geological evidence for a flood, nor can the young earth model explain animal survival when there was no food supply, animal distribution ranges, nor dinosaurs which survived the first forty days of the flood.

The old earth explanation can handle all these problems. You can believe in an old earth, and still believe in Noah’s Flood. It was not “global” over the entire earth, but it certainly was “global” if you were in Noah’s shoes.