Can Someone Falsify My Claim: Humans Built “Basalt Columns” on Earth and on Mars?

a reply to: ignorant_ape

The columns "may be" molded. The method, whatever it is, is not that important to my conclusion. Who knows what humans may invent in the next 1000 years?

Have you considered one the newer discoveries that Mars contains high levels of percolates? If this proves to be correct then we may not much of any life ever on Mars including human? My best,

a reply to: FossilLin

]1. Basic misunderstanding: I never claimed the columns were formed from basalt. I speculated the columns might have been produced from concrete-like material.

and with that - your delusion truely has " jumped teh shark "

we has several basalt collum structures here [ UK ] from giants causway [ierland ] to the hebridean islands . and they are basalt - not some fantasy " concrete "

as someone else has pointed out - you are a wingnut

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

There is NO firm dating of the columns.
Geologists said:
1. The Giant's Causeway were formed 50 million years ago.
2. The Devils Tower was formed millions of years ago.
3. The Black Fall in Iceland (see Example 3 in original post) was formed 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.
One thing is certain: There is no modern "basalt columns". There is no record in history for their forming from basalt. I speculate that they must be at least 10,000 years old.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Many geologists mistook man-made objects for basalt. Think again.

a reply to: dragonridr

I did not say the columns were made from basalt.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

"What about crystalline structures we know patterns form like this in nature. "
You are right on the crystalline structures. But crystalline structures are small, usually smaller than 1 mm. Some "basalt columns" are 30 meters tall and 3 meters wide. Sizes matter.

a reply to: johnb

"journals.aps.org...
Found the above where it has been modelled, perhaps this will help."
Thanks for the link. But I was not talking about the six-sided shape of the columns. I was talking about no cracks.

originally posted by: FossilLin
a reply to: dragonridr

I did not say the columns were made from basalt.

Have you done any practical examinations or is your research just based of internet research?

The definition of basalt is problematic. The so-called "basalt" is defined by geologists. Many geologists mistook man-made objects for basalt. Think again.

No its not.

Its only problematic when you need it to mean something else to fit your world view.


Words have definitions, they are not problematic only the uses of the words can be problematic when they are used incorrectly.

Basalt is clearly defined,

If geologists labeled them basalt and they are actually something else then the definition of the word "basalt" isn't the issue but the identification of the stone or rock.

a reply to: FossilLin

citation required

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I have no citation. Just many discoveries of geologists mistaking concrete for basalt (see my website at wretchfossil.blogspot.com...).
Examples: wretchfossil.blogspot.com...
wretchfossil.blogspot.com...
wretchfossil.blogspot.com...
wretchfossil.blogspot.com...
wretchfossil.blogspot.com...
More examples will follow. The problem with the definition of basalt may lie in the LOOSE definition for its CHEMICAL composition.

a reply to: FossilLin

I see from your blogspot that you also hold some other "interesting" beliefs:

Mars One - Ghosts on Mars

Violent Martian ghosts are going to attack us? Thanks for the warning...…...

originally posted by: FossilLin
a reply to: SeaWorthy

"What about crystalline structures we know patterns form like this in nature. "
You are right on the crystalline structures. But crystalline structures are small, usually smaller than 1 mm. Some "basalt columns" are 30 meters tall and 3 meters wide. Sizes matter.

www.extremescience.com...
Giant selenium crystals. In 2000, the largest, most spectacularly-formed natural selenite crystals in the world were discovered 1,000 feet deep in a Mexican volcano. The translucent beams are as big as four feet across, with some of them as long as 36 feet and weighing as much as 55 tons.

PDF
Scientists have found that starch forms the same as the lava columns in tests.
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

a reply to: FossilLin

The problem with the definition of basalt may lie in the LOOSE definition for its CHEMICAL composition.

But basalt has many kinds, hence the differing chemical compositions.

This is from your blog

Five red boxes seem to contain plaster. On the left hand side are flat and smooth surfaces meeting in 90 degrees. Hand tools (without an engine) cannot produce such surfaces.

hand tools cannot produce flat and smooth surfaces or 90 degree angles?

originally posted by: FossilLin
a reply to: SeaWorthy

"What about crystalline structures we know patterns form like this in nature. "
You are right on the crystalline structures. But crystalline structures are small, usually smaller than 1 mm. Some "basalt columns" are 30 meters tall and 3 meters wide. Sizes matter.

Umm most stalegtite/mite are small too but then you have ones weighing tons, geology is funny like that given proper conditions.

a reply to: FossilLin

i am done with this farce - i ask you for citations - regarding alledged miss-identified basalts - and you respond with babblings from your own blog - regarding sandstones - PS - your alledged " miss-identification " - of its concrete - not sandstone = utter bollox

you has never actually studied an actual gelogical structure - has you ?

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Do NOT evade my original post here in this thread. In OP, I talked about shapes, etc. NOT MATERIAL. I just used quotation mark in "basalt columns". I did not challenge the material basalt.WHATEVER MATERIAL THE COLUMNS WERE MADE, THEY WERE NOT MADE OF NATURAL ROCKS, NO MATTER THEY ARE BASALT OR NOT. YOU CAN BELIEVE THEY ARE BASALT. BUT THERE ARE ZERO EVIDENCE FOR BASALT OR ANY NATURAL MATERIAL TO FORM/PRODUCE THE SO-CALLED "BASALT COLUMNS".

a reply to: InhaleExhale

To repeat, I did NOT challenge BASALT in my original post. That does not mean I agree it is basalt. Whatever, I don't want to talk about the material. I just talked about morphology, shape, evidence for formation, mechanism, etc. I did not talk about material itself.
"Five red boxes seem to contain plaster. On the left hand side are flat and smooth surfaces meeting in 90 degrees. Hand tools (without an engine) cannot produce such surfaces."
PLEASE GIVE ME THE URL SO THAT I CAN REPLY TO YOU.
NOW I REMEMBER: BY HAND TOOLS, I MEANT PRIMITIVE HAND TOOLS, NOT MODERN HAND TOOLS.

a reply to: FossilLin

whoo hoo - all caps wingnut rant

stress in geological structures produces assymetric shapes :



now funny you should mention basalt collum shapes - because - if you had actuallly studdied a real formation - every single one [ collum ] = a slightly different shape

and further - you did " challenge " the material - you claimed it was " some type of concrete " - produced by " shuttering " - so stop lying

a reply to: SeaWorthy

"basalt columns " are not crystalline structures. Crystalline structures have no relation whatsoever to the production of "basalt" columns. Regarding "Giant selenium crystals.",they are rare, not found all over world. Starch is not the same as rocks.