Prehistory, somewhat Biblical

[JohnEmmett]

I brought this on myself

Be careful…

 

[LenKin]

Source?

You wanted the source for my statement that Pangaea likely remained a supercontinent until about 4,500 years ago when it broke up. This site has much of the evidence for that: Shock Dynamics set Plate Tectonics in motion (newgeology.us) But the author kind of goes along with conventional dating of the Younger Dryas event and places the breakup around then. But some of the evidence I use to suggest the more recent date of 2,500 BC are: dating of helium in zircons from continental granite at 6 to 8 thousand years ago; dating of the oldest tree to about 2,500 BC; ancient literature; etc.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Pangaea likely remained a supercontinent until about 4,500 years ago when it broke up.

No…

 

[Astrid]

You wanted the source for my statement that Pangaea likely remained a supercontinent until about 4,500 years ago when it broke up. This site has much of the evidence for that: Shock Dynamics set Plate Tectonics in motion (newgeology.us) But the author kind of goes along with conventional dating of the Younger Dryas event and places the breakup around then. But some of the evidence I use to suggest the more recent date of 2,500 BC are: dating of helium in zircons from continental granite at 6 to 8 thousand years ago; dating of the oldest tree to about 2,500 BC; ancient literature; etc.

IOW WOO WOO

 

[LenKin]

You say you want to have a scientific discussion and then present a number of claims. Do you have any scientific evidence to support these claims? If so, would you care to present it?

Yes, I have evidence for all of the scientific claims, I think. Which claims are you particularly interested in? I provided 2 links in my OP. Those cover a lot of evidence. I'll try to answer specific questions and comments, as I have time and interest.

 

[LenKin]

3 obvious points:
1. If you don't want to discuss religion you shouldn't base your argument on religion;
2. and don't end your post with a pile of religious statements.
3. If you want to discuss science you need to bring some science into your argument.

I don't base my prehistory findings on religion. I only mentioned my religious views at the end, for those who may be curious about them. I did provide 2 references in my OP to locations where there is a lot of evidence for my statements. But I'll try to provide evidence here as well as I have time.

 

[LenKin]

"Creation science" is an oxymoron.
So you have no evident intent to discuss science.

 

[LenKin]

QUESTION.
Does anyone find any of my statements in my OP plausible or intriguing? I'm honestly hoping to find a few folks who are open-minded and curious about the subject.

I guess the OP sounds extreme to most people, or maybe just boring.

ARGUMENT.
I came across this line of reasoning just a few years ago. 1. Sedimentary rock strata are mainly of 3 kinds, shale, sandstone and limestone. 2. They are generally found in separate layers, not mixed together in the same layer. 3. It is widely assumed that each layer was deposited gradually over thousands or millions of years. Where did each layer come from? Was there a huge highland of sandy material that eroded away for thousands of years to form a layer of sandstone? And then there was a huge highland of clay that eroded away for thousands of years to form a layer of shale? And then there was a huge highland of limestone that eroded away for thousands of years to form a layer of limestone? Seems absurd. Sedimentology.fr explains experiments that show that the 3 different kinds of rock are sorted by flood waters and deposited all at once. There are layers like that at Mount St. Helens that formed during flooding that resulted from the eruption in 1980.

 

[LenKin]

The Updated Case for Re-Writing History!

youtu.be/DMPChWRtCeU?t=240

youtu.be/DMPChWRtCeU?t=489

youtu.be/DMPChWRtCeU?t=704

youtu.be/DMPChWRtCeU?t=931

That channel is pretty good. He's naive though IMO to assume that conventional dating methods are accurate. The Creationist links I provided in the OP have a lot of good evidence that most dating methods are highly inaccurate. So Gobekli Tepe is likely no older than about 2,500 BC. Since all of the sedimentary rock strata were likely deposited during one or a few Great Floods less than 6,000 years ago, any archeological remains within or atop the flood-deposited strata must be younger than that. He seems to accept Graham Hancock's ideas about lots of former advanced civilizations hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago. Hancock is naive too for the same reason. Randall Carlson has interesting info about the Younger Dryas events, etc, but he also has the same acceptance of conventional dating. Even the comparative mythologists I mentioned in the OP have the same problem, but to a lesser extent.

Unlike Creationists, I don't consider the Bible infallible, nor very reliable about prehistory, or history either. But they do have pretty good geological and paleontological science papers, way better than AGW hype.

 

[JohnEmmett]

most dating methods are highly inaccurate.

Araka's Teaching

Once, monks, there was a teacher named Araka …

Now at that time, monks, the human life span was 60,000 years, with girls marriageable at 500. … Yet even though people were so long-lived … that teacher Araka taught … Next to nothing, brahmans, is the life of human beings — limited, trifling, of much stress & many despairs.​

 

[Astrid]

QUESTION.
Does anyone find any of my statements in my OP plausible or intriguing? I'm honestly hoping to find a few folks who are open-minded and curious about the subject.

I guess the OP sounds extreme to most people, or maybe just boring.

ARGUMENT.
I came across this line of reasoning just a few years ago. 1. Sedimentary rock strata are mainly of 3 kinds, shale, sandstone and limestone. 2. They are generally found in separate layers, not mixed together in the same layer. 3. It is widely assumed that each layer was deposited gradually over thousands or millions of years. Where did each layer come from? Was there a huge highland of sandy material that eroded away for thousands of years to form a layer of sandstone? And then there was a huge highland of clay that eroded away for thousands of years to form a layer of shale? And then there was a huge highland of limestone that eroded away for thousands of years to form a layer of limestone? Seems absurd. Sedimentology.fr explains experiments that show that the 3 different kinds of rock are sorted by flood waters and deposited all at once. There are layers like that at Mount St. Helens that formed during flooding that resulted from the eruption in 1980.

Nothing plausible or intriguing, other than why you ask here instead of
doing a little study on your own.
Also you are all over the place, Turkish archaeology to St Helens to a huge highland of clay.
Try asking ONE question.
Maybe about limestone.

Of course your "argument" about huge highlands of sand, clay, and limestone sounds absurd. You made it up and it is absurd.

You want to know how I limestone forms?.it's easy to Google it. All of your so mysterious questions are geology 101 stuff, that can be seen millions of years old or being formed today.

If you want to ignore the work of thousands og geologists over many decades you are being 100 percent intellectually dishonest and will of course never learn anything.

If you actually want to learn, there's resources and people like me who know some geology.

If your mind is made up and you seek converts to pseudoscience, please go away.
This is a science forum, not sci Fi fantasy.
We' ve already heard your moldy oldies a thousand times.
There is zero of interest in another rehash of ignorant nonsense.

 

[Kylie]

If kylie is a bot then thats a very smart bot

Thank you. I'll pass the compliment along to my programmers.

 

[Astrid]

Thank you. I'll pass the compliment along to my programmers.

No whirrrr click sound effects?

 

[Kylie]

Yes, I have evidence for all of the scientific claims, I think. Which claims are you particularly interested in? I provided 2 links in my OP. Those cover a lot of evidence. I'll try to answer specific questions and comments, as I have time and interest.

Given that the links in your OP are from creationist websites, I'd hardly call them scientific.

Anyway, let's start with Velikovsky. Do you have any scientific evidence that his notions about Venus are accurate?

 

[DamianWarS]

You wanted the source for my statement that Pangaea likely remained a supercontinent until about 4,500 years ago when it broke up. This site has much of the evidence for that: Shock Dynamics set Plate Tectonics in motion (newgeology.us) But the author kind of goes along with conventional dating of the Younger Dryas event and places the breakup around then. But some of the evidence I use to suggest the more recent date of 2,500 BC are: dating of helium in zircons from continental granite at 6 to 8 thousand years ago; dating of the oldest tree to about 2,500 BC; ancient literature; etc.

I'm not looking for evidence of Pangaea but your suggestion that it was still around 4500 years ago. Your source uses conventional dates and counts by the millions not the thousands.

 

[Kylie]

No whirrrr click sound effects?

Oh yeah, lots of them, but I just don't type them out.

Meep morp.

 

[Astrid]

Oh yeah, lots of them, but I just don't type them out.

Meep morp.

I knew it.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Oh yeah, lots of them, but I just don't type them out.

Meep morp.

K… you're real

 

[JohnEmmett]

the Mandela effect makes you question the reality of reality


the reality of people…

 

[LenKin]

Nothing plausible or intriguing, other than why you ask here instead of
doing a little study on your own.
Also you are all over the place, Turkish archaeology to St Helens to a huge highland of clay.
Try asking ONE question.
Maybe about limestone.

Of course your "argument" about huge highlands of sand, clay, and limestone sounds absurd. You made it up and it is absurd.

You want to know how I limestone forms?.it's easy to Google it. All of your so mysterious questions are geology 101 stuff, that can be seen millions of years old or being formed today.

If you want to ignore the work of thousands og geologists over many decades you are being 100 percent intellectually dishonest and will of course never learn anything.

If you actually want to learn, there's resources and people like me who know some geology.

If your mind is made up and you seek converts to pseudoscience, please go away.
This is a science forum, not sci Fi fantasy.
We' ve already heard your moldy oldies a thousand times.
There is zero of interest in another rehash of ignorant nonsense.

What percentage of mainstream science claims do you think are true?
I think a large percentage of them are false, because I've studied many of them without bias and have found that there is good evidence against many mainstream science claims. I believed most conventional science claims when I was in my early 20s in college, but I started to hear about alternative science views and found that many of the scientists with alternative views had much better explanations of data than did the mainstream.

I can specify many conventional claims that I have found to be highly improbable, but they would be rather off-topic, so I won't do that here.

I'm probably much more open-minded than you are. You seem to have judged me to be rather ignorant and yourself more knowledgeable on geology. Can you show me where any science site explains where shale comes from? They'll say from lithified mud or clay. But where did it erode from? If there wasn't a highland of clay that eroded for thousands or millions of years, what more reasonable source would you mention? And why do shale strata have little or no sand or lime? What is there besides flooding that can sort each type of sediment into separate strata?

I do study prehistory etc on my own, but I posted here because I hope to find a few others who share my interest with whom I may be able to have productive discussion and collaboration.

PS, you say this is a science forum not sci fi. Maybe you haven't noticed that this is the
Non-Mainstream and Controversial Science section.