Prehistory, somewhat Biblical

[JohnEmmett]

Can you show me where any science site explains where shale comes from?

They typically form in environments where muds, silts, and other sediments were deposited by gentle transporting currents and became compacted, as, for example, the deep-ocean floor, basins of shallow seas, river floodplains, and playas.

Encyclopædia Britannica

 

[JohnEmmett]

There have been and will be again many destructions of mankind arising out of many causes, the greatest having been brought about by fire and deluge.

― Plato, Timaeus

 

[LenKin]

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.

Newgeology.us does not discuss millions of years, I'm pretty sure. Here's a quote from newgeology.us/presentation30.html
"When did it happen?
"I have pondered this important question since 1986 and have considered dates between 3,500 B.C. and 28,000 B.C. A particularly good case can be made for either 9,500 B.C., 11,500 years ago, or 12,800 years ago (the Younger Dryas event)."

 

[LenKin]

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?

Several comparative mythologists have studied his evidence extensively and concluded that Velikovsky's dating of events were wrong and many of his claims were wrong, but some of his basic ideas were correct. Talbott, Cardona & Cochrane are the mythologists I'm referring to. Velikovsky was likely right in claiming that ancient people saw Venus have the appearance of a giant comet and that it appeared to have close encounters with Mars, and Mars appeared to come close to Earth. They say it was between 5 and 10 thousand years ago, instead of less than 3,500 years ago as Velikovsky said. Mythology is a science, so I can look up some of what they have found from mythology, if you'd like to hear such evidence. But it may take me a while to get back to this thread.
PS, Creationists seem to be as scientific as anyone, aside from their belief in creation. You can't judge if you haven't read any of their scientific articles.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Mythology is a science, so

“History became legend. Legend became myth.”

― Galadriel in The Lord of the Rings

 

[Kylie]

Several comparative mythologists have studied his evidence extensively and concluded that Velikovsky's dating of events were wrong and many of his claims were wrong, but some of his basic ideas were correct. Talbott, Cardona & Cochrane are the mythologists I'm referring to. Velikovsky was likely right in claiming that ancient people saw Venus have the appearance of a giant comet and that it appeared to have close encounters with Mars, and Mars appeared to come close to Earth. They say it was between 5 and 10 thousand years ago, instead of less than 3,500 years ago as Velikovsky said. Mythology is a science, so I can look up some of what they have found from mythology, if you'd like to hear such evidence. But it may take me a while to get back to this thread.
PS, Creationists seem to be as scientific as anyone, aside from their belief in creation. You can't judge if you haven't read any of their scientific articles.

Let's be clear here. Velikovsky postulates that around the 15th century BC, the planet Venus was ejected from Jupiter as a comet or comet-like object and passed near Earth (an actual collision is not mentioned). The object allegedly changed Earth's orbit and axis, causing innumerable catastrophes that are mentioned in early mythologies and religions from around the world.

There is no evidence supporting any of this. Worlds in Collision is bunk.

 

[JohnEmmett]

There is no evidence supporting any of this. Worlds in Collision is bunk.

Cataclysms happen

There is evidence of impacts

 

[Kylie]

Cataclysms happen

There is evidence of impacts

Yes, but there is no evidence that the specific claims Velikovsky made in "Worlds in Collision" ever happened.

You can't assume that the general proves the specific. It's like saying that lotteries are won, therefore I have won millions of dollars.

 

[JohnEmmett]

Yes, but there is no evidence that the specific claims Velikovsky made

But let us say it is completely true

For the sake of argument

 

[Kylie]

But let us say it is completely true

For the sake of argument

Then what?

We can say, If we assume the claims are true, then the claims are true?

What good does that do? What's the point?

Assume I am Queen of the World. Therefore I have shown that I am Queen of the World.

What do you think you are going to accomplish by asking us to assume the conclusion as one of the premises?

 

[JohnEmmett]

Then what?

What good does that do? What's the point?

you investigate, because you don't know

 

[Kylie]

you investigate, because you don't know

Investigate what? You just told us to assume it was true!

 

[JohnEmmett]

Investigate what? You just told us to assume it was true!

you will find truth

 

[Kylie]

you will find truth

Do you have anything to offer us apart from meaningless slogans?

 

[JohnEmmett]

Do you have anything to offer us apart from meaningless slogans?

Clarify

 

[DamianWarS]

Newgeology.us does not discuss millions of years, I'm pretty sure. Here's a quote from newgeology.us/presentation30.html
"When did it happen?
"I have pondered this important question since 1986 and have considered dates between 3,500 B.C. and 28,000 B.C. A particularly good case can be made for either 9,500 B.C., 11,500 years ago, or 12,800 years ago (the Younger Dryas event)."

still not a source for 4500 years ago. Where did you get this 4500 number from? if you made it up yourself what is the logic to choose 4500 years over 6000, or 10,000, or 500? If you didn't make it up yourself what is your source? I'm not looking for sources that disagree with your position (I can find lots of those myself), I'm looking for sources that affirm it and if you don't have those, at least be transparent and tell us your motivation behind the number.

 

[Astrid]

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.

Ah, I saw the word "science" and foolishly thought it meant science,
not pseudoscience, it iran e or gibberish.
So I was wrong. Words we won't see from.you.
But-
Ok you've established that you know more than any .
scientist on earth.
Yet you don't know the simplest things about intro to remedial geology, and can't be bothered to learn.
So productive. Bye

 

[DiscipleOfChrist85]

What percentage of mainstream science claims do you think are true?
I don't all of them because they have the evidence to back it up.
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.
You studied many of them yet you produce no evidence to back up your claim and you realize alternate science is not science. If alternate scientists cannot back up their claims with repeatable testable and falsifiable evidence then no one has any reason to take them seriously.

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.
You find them highly improbable, then demonstrate why.

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?
You think your open minded but you assume that you think you are judged to be ignorant yet you haven't produced all data to back up your claims . Can you explain what you think shale comes from and why mainstream science has it wrong with a creditable source.

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.
I do share a similar interest but you need to show evidence to back up your claims other wise how can we have a productive discussion.

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.

That's still no excuse either follow the scientific method or don't.

 

[Astrid]

That's still no excuse either follow the scientific method or don't.

As in don't pretend any legitimacy to the " science" being introduced.

 

[DiscipleOfChrist85]

As in don't pretend any legitimacy to the " science" being introduced.

Ah my mistake.