Notices
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 301 to 324 of 324
Like Tree26Likes

Thread: Noah's Ark

  1. #301  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    What caused the fauna in norfolk UK to be found all swept over in the same direction?
    Most sedimentary deposits show orientation of their components related to the prevailing current direction.
    Yes... the current direction of the flood that likely swept over the area?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Why were mammal bones of various species found broken up in caves as if having endured great pressure, and then preseverved.
    What is your source for this? What constitutes great pressure? How does is manifest itself in bones?
    (In short, the claim sounds likes waffle.).
    The source is (not word for word) earth in upheaval by you know who.

    By great pressure I mean... it said the bones were shattered into small bits. but the edges of the fractures showed no wear like they would if they have been in the sea for a long time, or if they had been exposed to air and oxidised.

    So it's snap crush wallop washed into a cave and burried in sediment before any real decay or rounding of sharp edges could occur.

    If it sounds like waffle thens it probably my choice of wording due to the time elapsed since reading it.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    What caused the mamouth to be found practically frozen alive in siberia was it? I think evidence suggested it was eating one minute and the frozen and preserved the next."
    Have you looked at elephants? Their behaviour is probably quite close to that of mammoths. They spend a lot of time eating. They have too. They are big and they are vegetarians. If you are a big vegetarian you keep eating even when the world is falling down around your ears. There is nothing too surprising here.[/QUOTE]

    The suprising thing is ofcourse that one minute the mamouth was feeding of fresh vegatation and the next it was frozen solid on all fours and then burried in ice for thousand of years.

    Elephants feed on vegetation... but no in ice covered climates.

    Ofcourse the mamouth is adapted to colder conditions than it's relative the elephant... But vegetation desn't grow on ice and thats another suprising aspect of this discovery.


    Does anybody have any sources of robust scientific information regarding this particular mamouth? like what museum is it in now?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #302  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    here's a more accurate version of the claims:

    "The Ivory Islands, pages 4-6
    In 1797 the body of a mammoth, with flesh, skin, and hair, was found in northeastern Siberia. The flesh had the appearance of freshly frozen beef; it was edible, and wolves and sled dogs fed on it without harm. The ground must have been frozen ever since the day of their entombment; had it not been frozen, the bodies of the mammoths would have putrefied in a single summer, but they remained unspoiled for some thousands of years. In some mammoths, when discovered, even the eyeballs were still preserved.

    (All) this shows that the cold became suddenly extreme .. and knew no relenting afterward. In the stomachs and between the teeth of the mammoths were found plants and grasses that do not grow now in northern Siberia .. (but are) .. now found in southern Siberia. Microscopic examination of the skin showed red blood corpuscles, which was proof not only of a sudden death, but that the death was due to suffocation either by gases or water."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #303  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Troubled Times: Earth in Upheaval

    The source of the stuff I quoted plus some other info from vehlikovsky's book.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #304  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    We discussed Velikowski earlier.

    Let me just mention one thing. He described the movement of the planet Venus, doing things that are impossible according to the laws of physics.

    Anyone who, in all seriousness, suggest something that the laws of physics makes impossible, is a nut case.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #305  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    here's a more accurate version of the claims:

    "The Ivory Islands, pages 4-6
    In 1797 the body of a mammoth, with flesh, skin, and hair, was found in northeastern Siberia. The flesh had the appearance of freshly frozen beef; it was edible, and wolves and sled dogs fed on it without harm. The ground must have been frozen ever since the day of their entombment; had it not been frozen, the bodies of the mammoths would have putrefied in a single summer, but they remained unspoiled for some thousands of years. In some mammoths, when discovered, even the eyeballs were still preserved.

    (All) this shows that the cold became suddenly extreme .. and knew no relenting afterward. In the stomachs and between the teeth of the mammoths were found plants and grasses that do not grow now in northern Siberia .. (but are) .. now found in southern Siberia. Microscopic examination of the skin showed red blood corpuscles, which was proof not only of a sudden death, but that the death was due to suffocation either by gases or water."
    What exactly are you trying to assert with this? It sounds like typical cases of frozen mummies.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #306  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Local flooding does not support the notion of a great global flood, nor does it address the problems of ocean salinity or ancient volcanic dust beds that would have been washed away (Utterly destroyed) by global flooding.
    Suffice to say, not only is there no evidence of any global flood, there is a lot of evidence that such a thing did not ever occur.
    I wouldn't dispute your claims.

    I am interested to hear about some of the specific evidence against global flood... such as, where are these volcanic ash beds? how many? What other evidence against it?

    It seems to me that since we have such advanced science... then we can peice together exactly what happened when and there is no confusion.

    What caused the fauna in norfolk UK to be found all swept over in the same direction?
    Why were mammal bones of various species found broken up in caves as if having endured great pressure, and then preseverved.
    What caused the mamouth to be found practically frozen alive in sideria was it? I think evidence suggested it was eating one minute and the frozen and preserved the next.

    I'm not for or against a global flood idea... just trying to understand some of the phenomenom found by vehlikovsky.
    All of these have been addressed in this thread already. Why bring them up again?
    becuase it seemed a lot easier than sifting through 270 posts in the hope of finding the answers... why else?
    So you either forgot what you were told last time you asked, or are being purposely obtuse and trying to get answered more to your liking then?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #307  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Why were mammal bones of various species found broken up in caves as if having endured great pressure, and then preseverved.
    What is your source for this? What constitutes great pressure? How does is manifest itself in bones?
    (In short, the claim sounds likes waffle.).
    The source is (not word for word) earth in upheaval by you know who.

    By great pressure I mean... it said the bones were shattered into small bits. but the edges of the fractures showed no wear like they would if they have been in the sea for a long time, or if they had been exposed to air and oxidised.

    So it's snap crush wallop washed into a cave and burried in sediment before any real decay or rounding of sharp edges could occur.

    If it sounds like waffle thens it probably my choice of wording due to the time elapsed since reading it.

    Here is my response, post #141, to you LAST series of questions on this exact topic in August
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    A quick search found this:

    What had millions of bisons and woolly mammoths, built for relatively mild and short winters, to do in northeastern Siberia during the assumed last glacial period? Neither mammoths nor bisons would have survived in Siberia today, with a biting cold winter lasting nine months with an average temperature of -18°C, which easily can drop further to -40°C. After a few days they would have perished from cold and lack of food and water. If they could not have survived today, how could they have survived a far colder and harsher glacial period of 100.000 years? Mammoth and bison would neither have survived the short summer months of today in Siberia, since the upper 50 cm. of the permafrost melts and turns to bog. In the stomachs of many of the deep-freezed intact mammoth carcasses, plants have been found belonging to a moderate climate zone. Large parts of Europe, Russia and Siberia were probably very fertile steppes and grassland where mammoth and bison thrived. The extinction of the woolly mammoth was part of the global Pleistocene/Holocene mass extinction of megafauna [Wiki article: Quaternary extinction event], which timewise coincides with the end of the assumed last glacial period, ca. 9.700 BC. The two most popular scientific hypotheses of what caused this mass extinction, are: 1) a global climate change to the better, and 2) that hunters quite suddenly did an “overkill” of all the megafauna! Both of these hypotheses are ridiculous. The most natural explanation of a global mass extinction of both flora and fauna is a global cataclysm. Was the tectonic plate of the northeastern part of Siberia during an Earth crust displacement moved from a moderate climate zone into the polar region, while the tectonic plate of the northeastern America was moved out of the polar region to its present position?
    What a load of bollocks. The paragraph starts with the faulty premise that Siberia during hte last Ice age was the exact same as it is now when it comes to flora, fauna, and weather patterns. It was not.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    In a cave in Yorkshire, North England, bones from tropical species like hippopotami, rhinoceroses, hyenas and tigers have been found. Bones from hippos are found all over England. What are we supposed to believe? Did these tropical species migrate to the northern latitudes because these latitudes could offer a “tropical period” between two “glacial periods”? But if the tropical period was global, why should these species move at all? How can we explain the fact that tropical fauna and flora earlier thrived in both the Arctic and the Antarctic regions?
    Will Nibiru trigger an Earth crust displacement?

    not sure if thats of any use...
    So the website you found is talking about the Kirkdale Cave (Kirkdale Cave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) but I have my doubts as to if the author actually looked up information on the cave. The reason the bones are all crushed is due to the Cave having been the den for Cave Hyenas. All of the animals found in the cave system had subtropical to temperate species in the last 1 million years, so the "tropical" claim is false.

    That the author uses these faulty premises to brin up the fictional planet of Nibiru should be an indicator to do better research on the topics covered.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #308  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Troubled Times: Earth in Upheaval

    The source of the stuff I quoted plus some other info from vehlikovsky's book.
    If all this stuff about Noah's Ark is indeed being taken seriously by the posters here, why in the world is this guy even being mentioned? Crazy is fine. Tesla was a little crazy. But Mr. V was a little crazy and a lot wrong.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #309  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    985
    Sorry, I to was so incensed to by the mention of V, that I ignored the substance of the question. I have never heard that the fauna in Norfolk UK is oriented in any way and have no idea if it is true. Which caves? If all caves then I would have to suggest the actions of predators. Quite a few frozen mammoths have been found and what mechanism lead to them dyeing and freezing not only before they could decay but actually so quickly that the meat could still be safely consumed by humans when thawed thousands of years later, is a matter of debate. Several theories have been presented but none has been proven. They are in better shape than the human remains found a few years ago in the Alps.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #310  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    So you either forgot what you were told last time you asked, or are being purposely obtuse and trying to get answered more to your liking then?
    Yes I have forgotten much of what was said 3 months ago... I vaguely remember having a hard time because I wanted to learn about the vehlikovsky books. I didn't read through the hole thread, I think I have subconsciously marked the whole episode as a negative experience... That's the only reason I can think for my not wanting to read through the thread again, I think that might by why I didn't learn much either, was too distracted trying to comprehend the reactions.

    I came back to the thread in post 266, after reading 261 and 262, asking a question about the parting of the red sea which I beleive is unrelated to vehlikovsky, (certainly is in my mind). A comment was posted saying that local flooding isn't evidence of global flooding but there is evidence against global flooding. I was interested in that so I enquired and whilst I was at it I asked a couple of questions which I do not have an answer for, which happen to relate to a couple of geophysical 'artifacts' that have been found that happen to be mentioned by a certain vehlikovsky who happened to beleive that these geophysichal artifacts were evidence to support his controversial hypothesis.
    Everything went down hill very fast from that point... Because I asked about real artifacts that I personally happened to hear about in a vehlikovsky
    book.

    I'm sorry if vehlikovsky upsets you so much. I didn't mean to be obtuse or provocative. I didn't realise it was a swear word.

    I don't remember you telling me it was a Hyena cave...

    The author or website I quoted from in post 141 probably wasn't a very good one... What happens is: I ask a question about something from a vehlikovsky book, everybody says: 'thats psuedoscience' 'what evidence do you have' 'where did you hear that from', so I do a quick google search and present some stuff without checking it or caring how good it is... if I remember rightly I couldn't find any sensible stuff that strongly disputes much of what vehlikovsky said.

    I am not able to go back to post 141 and check the context in which I posted that, until I post this.


    All that aside... You tend to make claims without much explaination or refference. 'Sounds like a typical case of frozen mummies', 'your being purposely obtuse, trying to get it answered more to your liking' blah blah blah...What are you talking about? Bit waspy are we?


    Buckland makes claims like the cave entrance is too small for mammals to be washed into (pressuming them to be whole carcasses).. and yet he thinks Hyenas could get whole carcuses in... He even claims the Hyenas used to eat Rats (pressumably to explain rat fossills found)...

    This is from wikipedia:Calcite deposits overlying the bone-bearing sediments have been dated as 121,000 ± 4000 yr BP using uranium-thorium dating, confirming that the material dates from the Ipswichian interglacial.

    Could you explain that in english for me please. What date is that?

    Conspicuos in it's absence from the Wikipedia page is information about where the fossil collection from this cave can be examined or a link to pictures of the remains.

    It also say's Buckland was criticised by some but doesn't say who, and uses language like 'Buckland's analysis was widely considered as a good model' How about how it's seen by today's experts? Is Bucklands analysis really the best so far? Surely the fossils were re-examined at somepoint? at least since vehlikovsky mentioned them? is there no later analysis to 'go on'?

    I'm questioning things... I have no specific answers that I 'like' or dislike, I just like the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

    I don't quite understand a hostile reaction to that... It's like i'm being discouraged from questioning things.

    I'm not content with accepting what somebody says, I like to question it until I have a satisfactory understanding (which is rare), and even then I tend to still question my understanding from time to time.

    I'm sorry that it is felt i'm being obtuse.


    P.S You have reminded me of one link you gave to explain the bones in the cave... a link which is questionable.

    You failed to remind me of any links that explain the wolly Mamouth find, or the cromer forrest in Norffolk... I hope it is excusable for me to have asked these questions without being considered obtuse.

    There was also the matter of volcanish ash beds and something about ocean salinity. These are things that I was interested in learning about... Not discussing Vehlikovksy.
    Last edited by question for you; November 26th, 2012 at 06:11 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #311  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    So you either forgot what you were told last time you asked, or are being purposely obtuse and trying to get answered more to your liking then?
    Yes I have forgotten much of what was said 3 months ago... I vaguely remember having a hard time because I wanted to learn about the vehlikovsky books. I didn't read through the hole thread, I think I have subconsciously marked the whole episode as a negative experience... That's the only reason I can think for my not wanting to read through the thread again, I think that might by why I didn't learn much either, was too distracted trying to comprehend the reactions.

    I came back to the thread in post 266, after reading 261 and 262, asking a question about the parting of the red sea which I beleive is unrelated to vehlikovsky, (certainly is in my mind). A comment was posted saying that local flooding isn't evidence of global flooding but there is evidence against global flooding. I was interested in that so I enquired and whilst I was at it I asked a couple of questions which I do not have an answer for, which happen to relate to a couple of geophysical 'artifacts' that have been found that happen to be mentioned by a certain vehlikovsky who happened to beleive that these geophysichal artifacts were evidence to support his controversial hypothesis.
    Everything went down hill very fast from that point... Because I asked about real artifacts that I personally happened to hear about in a vehlikovsky
    book.

    I'm sorry if vehlikovsky upsets you so much. I didn't mean to be obtuse or provocative. I didn't realise it was a swear word.

    I don't remember you telling me it was a Hyena cave...

    The author or website I quoted from in post 141 probably wasn't a very good one... What happens is: I ask a question about something from a vehlikovsky book, everybody says: 'thats psuedoscience' 'what evidence do you have' 'where did you hear that from', so I do a quick google search and present some stuff without checking it or caring how good it is... if I remember rightly I couldn't find any sensible stuff that strongly disputes much of what vehlikovsky said.

    I am not able to go back to post 141 and check the context in which I posted that, until I post this.


    All that aside... You tend to make claims without much explaination or refference. 'Sounds like a typical case of frozen mummies', 'your being purposely obtuse, trying to get it answered more to your liking' blah blah blah...What are you talking about? Bit waspy are we?


    Buckland makes claims like the cave entrance is too small for mammals to be washed into (pressuming them to be whole carcasses).. and yet he thinks Hyenas could get whole carcuses in... He even claims the Hyenas used to eat Rats (pressumably to explain rat fossills found)...

    This is from wikipedia:Calcite deposits overlying the bone-bearing sediments have been dated as 121,000 ± 4000 yr BP using uranium-thorium dating, confirming that the material dates from the Ipswichian interglacial.

    Could you explain that in english for me please. What date is that?

    Conspicuos in it's absence from the Wikipedia page is information about where the fossil collection from this cave can be examined or a link to pictures of the remains.

    It also say's Buckland was criticised by some but doesn't say who, and uses language like 'Buckland's analysis was widely considered as a good model' How about how it's seen by today's experts? Is Bucklands analysis really the best so far? Surely the fossils were re-examined at somepoint? at least since vehlikovsky mentioned them? is there no later analysis to 'go on'?

    I'm questioning things... I have no specific answers that I 'like' or dislike, I just like the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

    I don't quite understand a hostile reaction to that... It's like i'm being discouraged from questioning things.

    I'm not content with accepting what somebody says, I like to question it until I have a satisfactory understanding (which is rare), and even then I tend to still question my understanding from time to time.

    I'm sorry that it is felt i'm being obtuse.


    P.S You have reminded me of one link you gave to explain the bones in the cave... a link which is questionable.

    You failed to remind me of any links that explain the wolly Mamouth find, or the cromer forrest in Norffolk... I hope it is excusable for me to have asked these questions without being considered obtuse.

    There was also the matter of volcanish ash beds and something about ocean salinity. These are things that I was interested in learning about... Not discussing Vehlikovksy.
    Might I suggest taking the time to go through and fully re read the thread, rather then asking us questions that have already been covered and wondering why the others in the discussion may be getting frustrated.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #312  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1,907
    From what I could see the discussion had ended months ago and some of us reignited it in a different direction. There is no obligation for you to join in, you clearly arn't enjoying it.

    You still didn't show me where you had answered the questions I asked earlier...

    What is your problem I wonder?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #313  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    I already linked you to the specific post where I addressed your questions, rereading the thread would have shown you that it has been addressed.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #314  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    You have a nasty habit of answering questions that are put directly to somebody else.
    Sorry, just trying to help. I thought this was a discussion forum open to anyone.

    If I had a genuine credible scientific source for these things then would I need to ask any question to anybody here?
    Then you seem to be asking the wrong question. If I had read something in an obviously unreliable source, I would ask something like, "does anyone know if the following have any basis in truth ..." or "can anyone point me at some credible sources for information on ..."
    Well i'm sorry I wasn't more carefull in my wording but I didn't expect to get a load of responses relating to vehlikovsky... This is what I said (30 posts ago! ):

    "It seems to me that since we have such advanced science... then we can peice together exactly what happened when and there is no confusion.

    What caused the fauna in norfolk UK to be found all swept over in the same direction?
    Why were mammal bones of various species found broken up in caves as if having endured great pressure, and then preseverved.
    What caused the mamouth to be found practically frozen alive in siberia was it? I think evidence suggested it was eating one minute and the frozen and preserved the next."

    The answer is either: here is a scientific explaination of those phenomena QFY, it's my pleasure to help you.
    Or: those phenomena don't exist QFY.. vehlikovsky is a charletan and made them all up. Here is evidence of my claim...


    Either of those two responses are constructive and useful. There is little chance that whoever I asked or anybody else will give me a response as the questions are now burried under a load of unecesary rhetoric regarding vehlikovsky and his scientific credibility. Which was never in question.

    I appreciate you trying to help... If a question is adressed to somebody else, and you know the answer.. please feel free to pipe up.
    I used to believe that the flood really happened. I used to believe the earth was young and that the reason dinosaur bones were so deep in sediment was because their bodies were heavier and so when the flood hit they sank and the light stuff was in the shallower parts of the rock. But fortunately, I have an analytical mind and when people explained to me the scientific reasoning against it, I listened.

    I can't address your questions about the bones in caves or the norfolk stuff but I have seen documentaries about the siberian mammoth. I never saw it suggested that it was just moseying along and suddenly was preserved. First a flood wouldn't do that. A flood would have probably slammed its body into mountain sides and torn it apart. Not to mention sea animals would have eaten it.

    Siberia goes through phases of being frozen solid and slightly thawed. During the time of the mammoths they were slightly thawed with frozen winters. I have always seen it suggested that this mammoth was walking along and fell in a water or mud filled hole. it could not get out and so died there and when the winter hit, it was frozen and preserved. It is not a huge mystery.

    Mammoths have been found in holes in the ground all over the world. They have a tendency to not be able to get out of them. There are the la brea tar pits, and this one in south dakota.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #315  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    flood would have probably slammed its body into mountain sides and torn it apart. Not to mention sea animals would have eaten it.
    Sea creatures probably wouldn't have been to happy with the salinity of ocean water being disrupted by a Global Flood from rain. They may have been too distracted with doing some dying to think much about eating mammoth bits.
    Although, that wouldn't have stopped some bacteria- which would have feasted upon soaked mammoth had it been flooded out.
    Sudden freezing doesn't happen from a Great Flood, much less a Global Flood which would have raised the local temperature pretty heavily.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #316  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    Yes... the current direction of the flood that likely swept over the area?
    A sizable percentage of sediments are deposited during floods. Stop trying to invest the occurence of flood evidence with mystical significance. Nothing to see here; move along.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    By great pressure I mean... it said the bones were shattered into small bits. but the edges of the fractures showed no wear like they would if they have been in the sea for a long time, or if they had been exposed to air and oxidised.

    So it's snap crush wallop washed into a cave and burried in sediment before any real decay or rounding of sharp edges could occur.
    Exactly so. Pick up a bunch of bones in any flood, bash them around, break them. Then, because these are the largest items in the flood, drop them out first as the flow rate subsides. No time to round off the edges - nice sharp fractures retained. No mystery here.

    Quote Originally Posted by question for you View Post
    What caused the mamouth to be found practically frozen alive in siberia was it? I think evidence suggested it was eating one minute and the frozen and preserved the next."
    Have you looked at elephants? Their behaviour is probably quite close to that of mammoths. They spend a lot of time eating. They have too. They are big and they are vegetarians. If you are a big vegetarian you keep eating even when the world is falling down around your ears. There is nothing too surprising here.

    The suprising thing is ofcourse that one minute the mamouth was feeding of fresh vegatation and the next it was frozen solid on all fours and then burried in ice for thousand of years.

    Elephants feed on vegetation... but no in ice covered climates.

    Ofcourse the mamouth is adapted to colder conditions than it's relative the elephant... But vegetation desn't grow on ice and thats another suprising aspect of this discovery.
    1. Find me a viable citation that demonstrates a mammoth has actually been found with a substantial volume vegetation in its mouth, as opposed to portions of vegetation between its teeth.
    2. Do you understand that you do not have 'to be on ice' to be frozen?
    3. Clearly you have never been walking in a sub-arctic environment in bright sunshine, all right with the world only to find yourself thirty minutes later in white out conditions, sub-zero temperature and one foot of snow on the ground. Try hanging around the Cairngorms for a while.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #317  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    East Anglia - England - Moving
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic View Post
    Occam's Razor says that the simplest explanation is the most likely to be correct.
    The simplest explanation for the bible stories is that they are just myths.

    For example : no-one has ever found any ancient Egyptian record of Moses and the Jewish people as slaves in Egypt, or the plagues. If the first born child of every Egyptian family had really been killed, this would have been massively vital to the Egyptian people, and should have been recorded. Apparently it was not. So it is probable that there never was an interlude when the ancestors of the Jews were slaves in Egypt.

    In the same way, Noah's flood probably never happened.
    Velikovsky had an Explanation for the Moses Stories - Read "Ages In Chaos".

    Basically - this says that we are looking at MUCH TOO RECENT Records of Egyptian Civlisation -
    Both the Ancient Israeli Civilisation and the Egyptian Civilisation go back a VERY long way.

    There is strong evidence that the Early Egyptian Civilisation is VERY OLD Indeed -
    It is just that Most Scholars just WILL NOT allow that the Civilisation od Abraham and Moses
    goes back so very far into the Past.

    I have read this Book - and the Arguments are very telling indeed.


    Re: Noah's Ark. YES - The greatest probability is that it was based on Ancient Stories of a Flood
    in the Distant Past. The Black Sea Flooding seems the most likelyu candidate for this.

    However - one should not forget that the Mediterranean was also once a vast Depression -
    Isolated from the Atlantic. There is clear evidence of a Prehistoric break in the Rocks between
    Gibraltar and North Aftica.

    Now - H.G. Wells made an Attempt to try to discuss the History of the whole of Humanity,
    from Pre-Hominids, to Hominids - to "Modern Man".
    SURE - His History was very flawed - but one thing he does bring in, is the Mediterranean Basin
    as a part of the development of the Civilisation of Early Man, even Proto-Man.
    This makes sense to me - as it is now accepted that when the Grasslands appeared in Africa,
    the Pre-Hominids came down from the Trees, and evolved into Plains living ( ground living ) Hominids
    and Pre-Humans.
    There is evidence that some time later - Neanderthal People, and slightly later Cro-Magnon People
    appeared in Europe, and Eastern Europe, as early Humans.
    They did not have Ships at this time - so most likely they crossed the Mediterranena Basin and of course
    the Black Sea to reach these Northern Areas.
    I am not claiming that H.G. Wells was right, that there was a "cradle" of Civilisation" in the Mediterranean -
    but Human Peoples did cross this area, and almost certainly lived there for a time. This area would have
    been Ice free, during almost all of the Ice Ages - and so would have provided a richer Environment for
    these Hunter-Gatherer Peoples.
    Somebody, somewhere - started the Slective Breeding and Development of Wheat, from Wild Grasses -
    and the Cultivation of them as Crops, which started Civilisation.
    Last edited by Karakris; December 1st, 2012 at 09:30 AM.
    If I wasn't so stupid - I might know what I was doing
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #318  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    East Anglia - England - Moving
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Yes all of those are very reasonably explained by other processes. What ones do YOU think are not?
    Your Approach is CLASSICAL NEGATIVITY.

    There are Many, Many Subjects - where the Sceptical will go to ANY lengths to prove that Each and Every occurence can be explained in some logical, scientific and "sensible" way - igonring the sheer MASS of Evidence for such things.

    U.F.Os. - So called Scentists come up with either two or sometimes many different logical, scientific and "sensible" explanations, for each and every one. Different explanations each time.

    Ghosts or Hauntings - Ditto as above.

    Human Self-conflagration - Ditto as above.

    If you DO NOT WANT TO BELIEVE Something - you can always find SOME form of Scientific, Logical or "Sensible" Explanation why it is not what is claimed.


    Much has been made of the Reverse - That THOSE CRACKPOTS will always distort the Facts or Observations, to prove their Point.
    Hover - THE REVERSE IS ALSO EQUALLY TRUE.

    Most People like the IDEA of U.F.Os., Hauntings, Etc. - but more as ENTERTAINMENT.
    They would NOOT want to BELIVE in these Things - no matter hoow many Sightings, etc. there are.

    If there were TWENTY BILLION Sightings or Reports - The Scrptics would still set-out to "Explain Away" Every Single One of Them.


    I am NOT Saying that I personally Belive in these Things - I am still undecided.


    This is just a Statement to RECOMMEND that EVERYONE SHOULS KEEP AN OPEN MIND on Things which they don't Understand.

    Human Science and Technology is not so Advanced as we think.
    What is deemed to be True and Fact, truly does change from Generation to Generation.
    Newton seemd to have explained Physics - and his Theories were taken as THE LAST WORD - but we now know differently.
    Einstein brought in completely new ways of looking at Physics - but can we TRULY say that this is the LAST WORD.
    We now DO understand about things like Ice Ages, and Plate Techtonics - but these Theories may be developed further.
    If I wasn't so stupid - I might know what I was doing
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #319  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Karakris View Post
    igonring the sheer MASS of Evidence for such things.
    If there were TWENTY BILLION Sightings or Reports - The Scrptics would still set-out to "Explain Away" Every Single One of Them.
    Cough...
    Quote Originally Posted by Karakris View Post
    I am NOT Saying that I personally Belive in these Things - I am still undecided.
    Bull.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #320  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    Karakis- The fact that they are explainable with ordinary explanations is good reason not to invent highly improbable causes.

    The ice age is not a theory, so im not sure what you are referring to when you say "ice age theory".

    What portions of plate tectonics or the ice age do you feel are inadequate?
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #321  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Karakris View Post
    Velikovsky had an Explanation for the Moses Stories - Read "Ages In Chaos"..
    I read it in 1962 or 1963 and again in 1974 and have dipped into it occassionally since then, since I have a copy in my personal library along with Worlds in Collision. The problem is that no archaeologist, Egyptologist, linguist, or other relevant expert agrees with his conclusions. The wikipedia article is as good a refutation as any.

    Quote Originally Posted by Karakris View Post
    There is strong evidence that the Early Egyptian Civilisation is VERY OLD Indeed -It is just that Most Scholars just WILL NOT allow that the Civilisation of Abraham and Moses
    goes back so very far into the Past.
    They will not allow it because the evidence for a very old Egyptian civilisation is very weak. It is strong enough to maintain Discovery Channel specials and the airport paperback industry, but it lacks any scientific substance. In contrast the evidence for the generally accepted ages of the civilisation is strong, multiply validated and has been been subject to vigorous attack, which it has readily survived.

    Quote Originally Posted by Karakris View Post
    I have read this Book - and the Arguments are very telling indeed.
    When I was fourteen I was impressed by the arguments too. Since then I got an education. I learned how to think. I learned that masses of references do not automatically equate to good scholarship.


    Quote Originally Posted by Karakris View Post
    However - one should not forget that the Mediterranean was also once a vast Depression -
    Isolated from the Atlantic. There is clear evidence of a Prehistoric break in the Rocks between
    Gibraltar and North Aftica.
    We have reasonably good timing on the last flooding of the basin. There is no way it can be correlated with human presence.


    Quote Originally Posted by Karakris View Post
    Now - H.G. Wells made an Attempt to try to discuss the History of the whole of Humanity,
    from Pre-Hominids, to Hominids - to "Modern Man".
    SURE - His History was very flawed - but one thing he does bring in, is the Mediterranean Basin
    as a part of the development of the Civilisation of Early Man, even Proto-Man.
    I presume you are referring to his History of the World. You are aware it was a popular work, a summary of current understanding. Relevant and useful at the time, but long outdated. (Nicely written - and yes, I have a copy of that one also.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Karakris View Post
    There is evidence that some time later - Neanderthal People, and slightly later Cro-Magnon People
    appeared in Europe, and Eastern Europe, as early Humans.
    .
    Early humans? Rather recent humans I think you'll find.


    Quote Originally Posted by Karakris View Post
    They did not have Ships at this time - so most likely they crossed the Mediterranena Basin and of course the Black Sea to reach these Northern Areas.
    .
    You know they had no ships, how exactly? You don't think they could walk around the Med? You want to have them walking across it. You'll just ignore all the evidence to the contrary and go with an idea that "makes sense to you". Time to start thinking, Karakris, and stop longing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #322  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1
    Allow me to chime in.

    The flood stories (plural) contained in the texts follow similar stories circulating in Egypt and Mesopotamia - Enuma Elish and Gilgamesh.

    Despite the persistent efforts of archaeologists over many years nothing has been found of anything that could be called an ark nor any support for Davidic dynasty.

    That some two million Israelites left Egypt under the headship of Moses is basically impossible. The archaeological footprint would have had to be visible and the movement of such a large number of people would have decimated the Egyptian economy which had an estimated population of about 6 million at the time of the supposed Exodus.

    There is no evidence, other than the biblical record, that Moses ever existed.
    MrMojo1 likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #323  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    The trouble with Velikovski is that he gives too much detail to his theories. Suppose a planet coming near Earth had caused the flood. Why should we leap to the conclusion that it was Venus? Why not some other planet sized object in the Oort cloud, perhaps with a highly elliptical orbit around the Sun, so elliptical that it is presently out past Pluto somewhere in space waiting to come back near us again?

    At least that would be possible given our present understanding of planetary physics.

    Why does Velikovski omit such possibilities? Answer: because he's a pseudo-scientist.


    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Karakris View Post
    There is strong evidence that the Early Egyptian Civilisation is VERY OLD Indeed -It is just that Most Scholars just WILL NOT allow that the Civilisation of Abraham and Moses
    goes back so very far into the Past.
    They will not allow it because the evidence for a very old Egyptian civilisation is very weak. It is strong enough to maintain Discovery Channel specials and the airport paperback industry, but it lacks any scientific substance. In contrast the evidence for the generally accepted ages of the civilisation is strong, multiply validated and has been been subject to vigorous attack, which it has readily survived.
    The main problem with older-than-5000-BC civilization theories is that, when the field of archaeology began, the archaeologists were initially trying to write and present for an audience of mostly hard-liner Christians. Their findings *had* to align with a young Earth or they'd find it very hard to get published.

    As a consequence, all the earliest findings do align with a 5000 BC - or thereabouts- start for civilization. All the low hanging fruit out there has already been interpreted that way. Every now and again an untouched jewel emerges, such as Gobekli Tepe, which allows us to see that humans were building stone structures much earlier than the "accepted" timeline for civilizations like Egypt, but they're mostly ignored because it's too hard to find a way to tie them into the mainstream narrative.

    Göbekli Tepe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    It's easier to reinterpret a find than modify a whole paradigm.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #324  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    When I see people getting all excited about the potential for a 1/3 meter rise in sea level over the next century, I extrapolate backward to contemplating sea level rises 6-12 times faster than that circa 8-14 kybp, and know that if some of my contemporaries are excited by the current trend, it would be likely that our ancestors were 12 times more anxious by their little disaster.

    This all hinges on my, not commonly shared, concept that our ancestors had rather well developed civilizations at waters edge circa 8-14-40kybp.
    supported by 40kybp deep sea fishing, and the oldest gobleki tepi "temple" (circa 12kybp)"was the best constructed" signifying a carry-over from a previous civilization and other less obvious hints. (one of my degrees was in archaeology) and the indications were obvious to me because of my predispositions.

    OK all that is really a stretch, and is just an alternate to trying to explain away adelady's 500-600 like stories with 500 to 600 different disasters.
    Without good cheap underwater archaeology at 140 meters under the waves, it must needs remain idle speculation.

    Do the stories stem from a common event? Or are they isolated incidences from disperate cultures, times, and locations?
    ..........IT. is my belief...THAT AT THE HIGHT OF THE LAST ICEAGE..[14,000 years ago ? ] the sea levels surrounding the equater. Would have possibly been much lower than we previously think becaus of gravity.!...if the sun redistributes billions of gallons of water from the oceans and turns it into ice,down to about ? .lat 53 . on both icecaps , over hundreds/thousands of years...this surely would cause the planet to bulge at the equater. if this did happen , and you check the sea levels ..you would have been able if the need arose ???? to very nearly walk to Australia.from England . Its possible to walk to Singapore now.Sumatra WHICH IS ,across a shallow sea , would have been connected to Java and so forth..crazy or what ... Shift+R improves the quality of this image. CTRL+F5 reloads the whole page.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Similar Threads

  1. The Ark
    By curious1 in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: September 15th, 2011, 02:10 PM
  2. If noah's ark was true....
    By Philemonarthur in forum Mathematics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: September 4th, 2011, 11:23 AM
  3. Was Noah's Ark a Time Machine?
    By DrCWho in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: March 26th, 2008, 09:11 AM
  4. Noah's ark
    By marnixR in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: July 16th, 2007, 02:10 PM
  5. Timing of Noah's Flood
    By ghost7584 in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: January 4th, 2006, 01:39 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •