The geological evidence definitely does not support a massive rapid meltdown!The scribe is a retired sedimentologist.
0
Underwater Temples Of Gebel Gol-bahar
Started by Genesis Veracity, 30-Sep-2005 15:14
98 replies to this topic
#19
Genesis Veracity
-
- Registered
- 93 posts
Dolmen Expert
Posted 5 October 2005 - 22:20
Wrong. During the Ice Age, the plains and valleys along the Arctic Ocean were pasture and forest land (the winters were warmer, and the summers were cooler, because of the dense cloud-cover of the Ice Age, that was caused by the necessitated warmer oceans of the Ice Age).
When the oceans had cooled, so that there was less evaporation off the oceans to cause the cloud-cover, the summers then became much warmer, to melt the more inland Ice Age icepack, which rushed down to drown and entomb the animals in muck, which then froze one autumn, to never defrost, as the winters were becoming much colder, due to the then clearing skies.
When the oceans had cooled, so that there was less evaporation off the oceans to cause the cloud-cover, the summers then became much warmer, to melt the more inland Ice Age icepack, which rushed down to drown and entomb the animals in muck, which then froze one autumn, to never defrost, as the winters were becoming much colder, due to the then clearing skies.
#20
Robert Henvell
-
- Registered
- 78 posts
Dolmen Expert
Posted 7 October 2005 - 02:25
You missed the significance of the words"in some regions"??
Circa 23000bce from Hudson Bay To the Mountains of British Columbia masive ice sheets were already forming.The Arctic coast of the Yukon,Alaska and Siberia were largely glacier free.There was substantial variations in weather patterns worldwide from 23000-16000bce.
The easiest way to check the validity of this statement is to use your favourite search engine and compare the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores for the same periods of time.
There are a number of mega differences.A word of caution a lot of the articles on the ice ages are based on theory--not fact.It is adviseable to check these premises against the ice cores,tree rings,and lacustrine levels.They all vary from area to area.There are two ice core locations in Greenland and there are some obvious anomalies between the two.
Someone proposed that volcanic eruptions "at some locales",during the ice age caused a rapid temperature change,which froze a number of animals.Validity ??
Circa 23000bce from Hudson Bay To the Mountains of British Columbia masive ice sheets were already forming.The Arctic coast of the Yukon,Alaska and Siberia were largely glacier free.There was substantial variations in weather patterns worldwide from 23000-16000bce.
The easiest way to check the validity of this statement is to use your favourite search engine and compare the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores for the same periods of time.
There are a number of mega differences.A word of caution a lot of the articles on the ice ages are based on theory--not fact.It is adviseable to check these premises against the ice cores,tree rings,and lacustrine levels.They all vary from area to area.There are two ice core locations in Greenland and there are some obvious anomalies between the two.
Someone proposed that volcanic eruptions "at some locales",during the ice age caused a rapid temperature change,which froze a number of animals.Validity ??
#24
Nigel
-
- Registered
- 321 posts
Megalithomaniac
- Interests:Avebury/Silbury
Posted 8 October 2005 - 17:20
Genesis Veracity, on 8 October 2005, 14:23, said:
Ah, one lame attempt to discredit one photo, and he thinks the entire thesis is debunked, so who should "listen to the Watcher of the Skies?" (Whatever that is.)
So I think your thesis would be better described as your Belief. It would certainly help avoid confusion here.
#30
BuckyE
-
- Registered
- 142 posts
Menhir Seeker
- Location:Westminster, MD, USA
- Interests:travel, Neolithic archaeology
Posted 11 October 2005 - 00:18
Well, strictly speaking a thesis is a proposition that is maintained by argument. We've got plenty of that here. It can also mean a hypothetical proposition, especially one put forth without proof. But that's a kind of sloppy usage, because strictly speaking, an hypothesis is a tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem, that can be tested by further investigation.
My remembery is that first one proposes an hypothesis noting new or anomalous facts, then, with testing and investigation, one marshalls facts to propose a thesis or theory, which should make predictions about facts yet to be discovered. If the theory explains enough facts and its predictions turn out to be true, we accept it as knowledge. With, of course, the provision that further investigations can always supersede it.
Our good fundamentalist is obviously trying to marshall facts to support his young earth hypothesis. I'm not sure what predictions of future facts or situations the young earthers make in the attempt (if indeed there is one) to turn a religiously motivated hypothesis into a scientific theory. Not that I really care. But it is mildly amusing to watch them thrash around.
I enjoy a good mystery as much as the next person. The claims of underwater sites are wonderful, and it's a shame more money can't be devoted to them. Look at what's being found just in the harbor at Alexandria, for example. Now that the Paluxey man tracks have been debunked, we'll be hearing about these drowned sites for a while, and then their real dates will finally be ascertained, and human history will have been pushed back another few thousand years. That's been going on all MY life, and I see no reason to expect it to stop. Cool!
My remembery is that first one proposes an hypothesis noting new or anomalous facts, then, with testing and investigation, one marshalls facts to propose a thesis or theory, which should make predictions about facts yet to be discovered. If the theory explains enough facts and its predictions turn out to be true, we accept it as knowledge. With, of course, the provision that further investigations can always supersede it.
Our good fundamentalist is obviously trying to marshall facts to support his young earth hypothesis. I'm not sure what predictions of future facts or situations the young earthers make in the attempt (if indeed there is one) to turn a religiously motivated hypothesis into a scientific theory. Not that I really care. But it is mildly amusing to watch them thrash around.
I enjoy a good mystery as much as the next person. The claims of underwater sites are wonderful, and it's a shame more money can't be devoted to them. Look at what's being found just in the harbor at Alexandria, for example. Now that the Paluxey man tracks have been debunked, we'll be hearing about these drowned sites for a while, and then their real dates will finally be ascertained, and human history will have been pushed back another few thousand years. That's been going on all MY life, and I see no reason to expect it to stop. Cool!
Bucky Edgett
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
