98 replies to this topic

[Genesis Veracity]

Ah yes, you are forced to move back megalithic building by a few thousand years, and move up the end of the Ice Age a few thousand years, to fit the evidence.  But alas, conventional science is almost unanimous that megalithic building began circa 3000 B.C., and that the Ice Age ended circa 10000 B.C., so you have 7,000 missing years of megalithic buidling to explain, so get busy.

[Robert Henvell]

Stone Pages may have had an article on the discovery of a large megalithic complex in Tunisia in its last addition.It would be interesting to know the date of the Tunisian megaliths.

[BuckyE]

For any poor souls still reading this thread who might not be familiar with the facts of the matter, "conventional science" is in no way "almost unanimous that megalithic building began circa 3000." Where GenVer comes up with this stuff I have no idea. A date of 8,500 BCE is perfectly well accepted for the deliberate human burial of the 7 meter tall, 50 ton carved megaliths of Gobekli Tepe in Anatolian Turkey. Of course, this early date was a shock to all, and a pleasant one, as it opens up such a wealth of questions to be investigated.

That "the Ice Age ended circa 10000 B.C." is another of those generalized statements having little bearing on the present discussion. Sea level was rising from about 20,000 BCE to the present. It rose fairly steadily for the majority of that time, then began to taper off anywhere from 7,000 to 4,000 BCE, depending what chart you look at. But, the rate of rise may not have been truly steady, and some scientists even propose a "highstand" about 4,000 BCE where sea levels may have been 2 meters above present levels. Odd and certainly not universally accepted.

However, there is perfect agreement that no places experienced the exact same rise, that is, was covered at the same rate as some other place. Some shores rose relative to the center of the earth as the weight of the glaciers was removed (isostatic rebound). Some shores were scoured deeper by erosion, some were raised by deposition, some sank under the weight of deposition. It's a mess. But, it's impossible to date a site by its present depth, and implying that we should accept depth as a measure of age (as GenVer has done earlier in this thread) is irresponsible at best and just plain deceitful at worst.

As an example of the "7,000 missing years of megalithic buidling (sic)", there is a beautiful mostly submerged stone ring in the Gulf of Morbihan in southern Brittany in France. Seen it myself. Only a few stones are now visible, except at the most extreme low tides, which we were not, alas, able to witness. Granted it's not submerged to the depth of the alleged temple of Gebel Gol-bahar, but I think it does a good job of bridging the supposed 7,000 year gap.

Is that busy enough for you? Gosh, what a lot of time I'm wasting here. But it's fun.

[Genesis Veracity]

That was feeble, but I won't rebut it point by point, better things to do.

[baz]

Genesis Veracity, on 12 October 2005, 2:36, said:

That was feeble, but I won't rebut it point by point, better things to do.

No, it wasn't feeble, it was very good. Bucky wins the debate.

I hope we hear no more of your conjecture that megaliths were not erected until 3,000bc on here, because we know better.



baz

[Genesis Veracity]

And on what basis do you "know" that they were built before 3000 B.C.?

[baz]

Genesis Veracity, on 12 October 2005, 11:41, said:

And on what basis do you "know" that they were built before 3000 B.C.?

If you can't rebut Bucky's posting then further debate with you is futile.

As I said, as things stand, Bucky has won the debate.


baz

[Genesis Veracity]

Carbon 14 dating is as unreliable as are your notions that megalithic building was ongoing thousands of years before the building of the GP, Stonehenge, and the other major megaliths.  You lose the debate.

[baz]

Genesis Veracity, on 12 October 2005, 12:25, said:

Carbon 14 dating is...  You lose the debate.

I didn't see any mention of carbon 14 dating in Bucky's post.

You have yet to answer any of his points. I could make some of my own, however, it seems obvious that you have your beliefs and the rest of us here have other, conflicting beliefs based on accepted (by us) archaeological and scientific evidence.

As things stand, the debate ended when you replied to Bucky: "That was feeble, but I won't rebut it point by point, better things to do." You failed to maintain your argument.

baz

[Jimit]

Dear Baz,
As you are finding out, GV does not respond in detail to ANY of the well researched points raised here.
All forums at one time or another attract monomaniacs who are incapable of listening and generally wind up everyone in sight which is why most of us have stopped replying to these contensious posts.
If you value your sanity and blood pressure, you should do the same and the annoying man will go away and wind up another site where he will be treated with much less tolerance than here.
Regards,
Jim.

[Genesis Veracity]

Based upon carbon 14 dates, the ruins of Gorbekli Tepe and Catalhoyuk are said to be from circa 9000 B.C.  Those ancient cities, of rows and rows of adjoining mud-brick buildings and huge, built for load-bearing, T-shaped megaliths, with fine artwork on them, look little different from other ancient sites which rightly are said to be from circa 2000 B.C., so you would have us believe that cities such as those specified above were built 7,000 years before other cities which look like them were built.  That's a supposed 7,000 years with the existence of only a few sites in the Middle East, and after all that time, many more which look the same suddenly were built, and that is obviously extremely far-fetched.

Since what were deemed to be good samples to carbon 14 date are later deemed to be bad samples because the date results don't match preconceived notions as to how old the samples "should" be, and reasons are then rationalized as to why what were seen as good samples are "really" bad samples, how can you call that good science?  You can't be that gullible.

[Genesis Veracity]

Ok jimmit, you tell us when all those buildings on the seafloor were built.  Are you of the 8000 to 10000 B.C. crowd?  If so, how gullible of you.

[Nigel]

Went on a little pilgramage today, prompted by this thread. To a chapel in Shrewsbury. Sat in the seat that young Charlie Darwin sat in, when no doubt he would have listened, inter alia, to readings from Genesis.

'Course, he moved on from there, noticed and wrote up some stuff that conflicted with Genesis. But nothing that ever conflicted with God. The congregation there have erected a stone tablet celebrating their most famous worshipper that looks down on them during services. Which include readings from Genesis no doubt.

I can only surmise that they too have moved on, although they remain perfectly comfortable in their religious faith. Unless it's because they're "feeble". Who knows?

What has this to do with the this debate about the date of the megaliths? Just about everything, I'd say.

[Genesis Veracity]

Please tell us all how Darwin, the Bible, and the building dates of submerged megalithic bulidings relate to each other vis-a-vis the topic of this thread.

[BuckyE]

OK, I'll quit. Really. I certainly haven't thought that our resident creationist would be influenced in any way by reasonable evidence. Religious fanatics with bad cases of future shock never are. I've been thinking more of visitors who might be interested in the facts, as well as the inferences and the unsupported claims.

From now on, I'll let such hypothetical folks fend for themselves.