JohnEmmett
Well-Known Member
- Jan 21, 2017
- 5,194
- 484
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Buddhist
- Marital Status
- Celibate
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I brought this on myself
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.Source?
Pangaea likely remained a supercontinent until about 4,500 years ago when it broke up.
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.
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.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?
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.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.
"Creation science" is an oxymoron.
So you have no evident intent to discuss science.
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.
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
most dating methods are highly inaccurate.
Nothing plausible or intriguing, other than why you ask here instead ofQUESTION.
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.
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.
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.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.
Oh yeah, lots of them, but I just don't type them out.
Meep morp.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?