It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dinosaur Study Backs Controversial Find

page: 9
51
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grayelf2009

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Grayelf2009
reply to post by Sarkazmon
 


I hunt fossils for a living.....and I can tell you from my experience from what I have seen in the field that the like most things of importance that we have been lied too. The dinosaurs are only thousands of years old....died in the flood....and I don't use this info for gain on Christian views or beliefs.
And as a fossil collector , I am known as one of the best.... not bragging, just been told that by the people in that industry.


Anyone who actually believes this crap can't have much experience or education in the field of Paleontology.
There is no evidence to suggest a world wide flood let alone dinosaurs that are only a few thousand years old.

99% of all fossils are in sediment deposits.... what other proof due people need.


I am not a "creationist", but to play devils advocate, lets throw this into the mix:

Giant Sinkhole Opens Up Near Denver City, TX


DENVER CITY - Investigators from the Texas Railroad Commission spent Tuesday trying to figure out why land at a Denver City oil company caved-in.

The sinkhole appeared just on the edge of Denver City on the Oxy site. Officials tell us no one was hurt and no water or power lines were damaged.

The hole drops 50 feet and is 60 feet around.


Why do i bring this up? Well, we date things based on the strata they are found in, right? It would seem that sink holes represent a great example of how things can infiltrate strata from earlier dates. The real kicker? How sinkholes are formed.


Sinkholes are all about water.

Water dissolved minerals in the rock, leaving residue and open spaces within the rock. (This is called "weathering".)

Water washes away the soil and residue from the voids in the rock.
Lowering of groundwater levels can cause a loss of support for the soft material in the rock spaces that can lead to collapse.

Changing groundwater gradients (due to removing or introducing water to the system) can cause loose material to flush out quicker from the voids and the surface to collapse in response.

Any change to the hydrologic system (putting more water in or taking it out) causes the system to become at least temporarily unstable and can lead to sinkholes.

Sinkholes can result from seasonal changes in the groundwater table, freeze and thaw of the ground, and extremes in precipitation (drought vs heavy rain).

Karst landscapes develop naturally through the weathering process so a sinkhole can be considered a natural occurence. But, human influence causes sinkholes to occur where they might not naturally have happened. Or, they may occur sooner or more abruptly than under natural conditions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A sinkhole is a large depression in the Earth's surface, often shaped like a well or a funnel, that can be up to several miles in diameter. Sinkholes are most common in limestone regions. Underground layers of limestone can be dissolved by groundwater or by seepage from above-ground streams. A crack in underground limestone is often the first step in the formation of a sinkhole. A sinkhole may also be caused by a dramatic event, such as the collapse of a cave roof.

Sources:TheEncyclopedia Americana, International Edition, p. 843; Magill, Frank N. Magill's Survey of Science, vol. 3, pp. 1310-17.


So, greater amounts of water increase the appearance of sink holes due to the dissolution of minerals? Sounds like a flood to me.




posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Heya, bfft,


...mosey on over to "badastronomy" forums and start talking about possible Moon life. You will see exactly how open minded science, on the whole, actually is.


I'm not much of an expert regarding dinosaurs on the Moon...


Jus' teasin'.

Didn't want to stray the topic, so I had to throw that it as I ask: Wouldn't 'science' have a different attitude, even if you 'moseyed over' to badas....tronomy, if someone had some sort of evidence, of siad Moon 'life'?

I just realized, I fell for it...a thread about dinos, and you said "life", and I immediately jumped to a mental image of multi-cellular creatures. Oooops.

I'd think, though, the scientific community wouldn't be all that hostile to possible microbial life, even on the Moon, right?? Haven't some Cosmologists hypothesized possible life on comets? Life is tenacious, we see that in a multitude of forms, here on Earth, with 'extremophiles' and such.....



Here is the thing to me: Ingo Swann has been tested under strict scientific controls. He is a biologist by education, and demanded these controls. The highly esteemed Hal Puthoff oversaw the experiments and ensured that they were controlled. According to the research at SRI, Ingo Swann, et al, proved that CRV works.

Expand upon that, and assume that Ingo is legit (since the experiments indicate he is), and read his "Penetration" book. In it he claims to have remote viewed the Moon and seen humanoids working up there. It is something that i believe science ignores. Why? I don't know...perhaps the ramifications of admitting it as a possibility are too threatening?

Sorry for the off topic here.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Look i have one question that has bugged me for years concerning the Darwin/Creation debate. off topic but i am going to ask any way.

Forget carbon dating, floods,evoulotion ect..

At night when i gaze at the stars i wonder are all these stars only 6000 light years away? And shouldn't we be seeing more and more stars every day as the light reachs our only 6000 year old planet?

You see the problem is that we are seeing starlight that took millions to get here and that is not disputed by anyone i know of, and creationist say the universe is 6000 years old. How does that work? Either your math is flawed or the Creator chose to decieve everyone by making things seem much older than they are.

Not taking sides, just have never heard an explaination for this.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Militant1
Look i have one question that has bugged me for years concerning the Darwin/Creation debate. off topic but i am going to ask any way.

Forget carbon dating, floods,evoulotion ect..

At night when i gaze at the stars i wonder are all these stars only 6000 light years away? And shouldn't we be seeing more and more stars every day as the light reachs our only 6000 year old planet?

You see the problem is that we are seeing starlight that took millions to get here and that is not disputed by anyone i know of, and creationist say the universe is 6000 years old. How does that work? Either your math is flawed or the Creator chose to decieve everyone by making things seem much older than they are.

Not taking sides, just have never heard an explaination for this.


6000 years? Well if you check the net, depending on the site you pick the age of the universe is between 12 and 20 billion years old with most sites giving a 13 to 15 billion year age. Some people even think it is as old as 21 TRILLION YEARS OLD. As for me I have a feeling it is far older than even that. I think it may infact be 100's of trillions of years old. Why do I think that you ask. I have no answer for you, it is just a feeling I have.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by fixer1967
 


I tend to agree with you that the Universe is FAR older than we currently think. My reasoning has to do with the effect of mass on time (time dilation), skewing any data that we may glean from visual observation.

But the person you quoted was asking the typical Creationist how the Earth could be only 6000 years old.

(i believe man to be a species that is likely millions of years old, myself).



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Militant1
Look i have one question that has bugged me for years concerning the Darwin/Creation debate. off topic but i am going to ask any way.

Forget carbon dating, floods,evoulotion ect..

At night when i gaze at the stars i wonder are all these stars only 6000 light years away? And shouldn't we be seeing more and more stars every day as the light reachs our only 6000 year old planet?

You see the problem is that we are seeing starlight that took millions to get here and that is not disputed by anyone i know of, and creationist say the universe is 6000 years old. How does that work? Either your math is flawed or the Creator chose to decieve everyone by making things seem much older than they are.

Not taking sides, just have never heard an explaination for this.


Here where they attempt to explain it:
www.answersingenesis.org...
Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?

For people that have no science background, it might even sound plausible. But somewhere in there, I hear the high pitched squeal of science being twisted.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


You DO NOT need a precise 'starting time' to get an accurate time range.

Warning: link contains info about archaeological dating methodology that is actually taught to archaeologists.

Matrices, phasing and dating methods

Short form: layers allow a site to be sequenced, but does not allow them to be dated. You must find the 'starting time' from datable objects, like coins, or pottery or organics to specify the date. AND you must verify that the objects found are not 'intrusions' caused by tree roots, worms, sink holes, whatever. If you get a consistent picture from the datable objects in a layer, then you can make reasonable inferences about the undateble objects, like post holes.

But archeological dating is only useful for things a few 10's of thousand years old. How do paleontologists and geologists find the 'starting time' for things millions of years old?

Re-imagine your race and the time shown on the watch at the end. Now suppose you screwed up and don't know when the race started, but a competitor is claiming a starting foul so you have to find the start of the race on the video tape. How do you estimate the time of the start so you can get close to it when all you have is the race end time of day? One way is to rewind the tape to the beginning and scan forward. But that takes too long.

You do have much more information that will get you a lot closer. You know that your swimmer is not a world class swimmer so he could not have swam faster than the world record, so you know that the start could not have been after the end of the race minus the world record time.

You also know that your swimmer is consistently faster than the slower swimmers personal bests. So you also know that the race started after the end of the race minus the personal best of the slowest swimmer.

So you have a range of time to locate the race start. Of course there could still be 'intrusions', like maybe your swimmer was on performance enhancing drugs and really did beat the world record, or the water was ice cold and everybody swam slower than the slowest swimmers personal best.

That's how fossils are dated. Remember that geologic layers specify the sequence but not the specifically the date. But the layers can be dated using Uranium 235. The layer below the fossil layer is dated using U235 to get the earliest possible time. The layer above the fossil layer is dated using U235 to get the latest possible time. The fossil layer cannot be older than the layer below nor younger than the layer above. This gives a range for the age of the fossil.

Its quite simple really.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

I fully concur.

I know plasma cosmology hasn't been fully fleshed out yet, simply due to the fact not enough people are studying it. As more scientists get involved, I'm sure more answers to the questions of the universe will come forward.

However I am willing to flatly reject standard theory. I think it has been fully falsified.

It has turned into nothing more than wild speculation backed up by hypothetical theories based on no tangible evidence.


You really have to pick up on how scientific models are accepted and rejected. For a new theory to replace an accepted theory, the new theory has to explain more than the accepted theory and make better predictions.

Your assertion that the "standard theory" has been fully falsified, is fully false and is fully hogwash. The accepted theory is the most useful cosmological explanation we have. Its predictions continue to be confirmed. And yes there is always something new to figure out. There is no such thing as an absolute.

The plasma model was interesting back in the 60's, but it never got to anywhere near explaining the cosmological phenomena successfully explained by the standard model. But most importantly, its most central prediction, an explanation of the missing blackbody spectrum in the cosmic microwave background, has proved to be incorrect. That is pretty disheartening to researchers who like to work on things that produce results.

If the plasma model is ever to supplant the accepted model, it will have to do so by demonstrating that it is better than the accepted model. It has to explain everything the accepted model does. And it must make predictions that are actually confirmed. It must solve problems that the accepted model does not. Notice that doesn't FALSIFY the current model, it just says that the replacement is BETTER.

Why are you on about FALSIFICATION of the entire model? You say the Plasma model still has holes in it, but that's OK? The standard model doesn't explain everything in the universe to your satisfaction so its completely false, and those who pursue it are frauds?

It just doesn't make sense.

[edit on 2/8/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
It is not logical that sauropods evolved to be massive creatures with huge necks if they couldn't lift those necks above their waists.


Maybe you are correct. Please review this paper:

Sauropod dinosaurs held their necks in high, raised postures

This is a pop-science summary of a new paper, I'm not sure of the status of the science in the actual paper, at least one researcher who worked on "Walking with Dinosaurs" is working on a response but hasn't published yet.

The summary is by the authors of the paper, but other pop-science blogs and mags have made some pretty stupid misrepresentations about it, so you should be wary of over exaggeration. This Dino-Gloss blog discusses some outrageous claims made by popular media with respect to this paper.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa

You really have to pick up on how scientific models are accepted and rejected. For a new theory to replace an accepted theory, the new theory has to explain more than the accepted theory and make better predictions.

Your assertion that the "standard theory" has been fully falsified, is fully false and is fully hogwash. The accepted theory is the most useful cosmological explanation we have. Its predictions continue to be confirmed. And yes there is always something new to figure out. There is no such thing as an absolute.


Observational falsification of the LCDM model and the big bang:

Paper falsifying the LCDM model
www.nasa.gov...

Another paper falsifying LCDM model based on the WMAP cold spot
arxiv.org...

Article on the bad data produced by the WMAP satellite
www.cosmology.info...

The actual paper proving WMAP data to be invalid
www.springerlink.com...

Big Bang observationally falsified:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Black holes observationally falsified:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Originally posted by rnaa
The plasma model was interesting back in the 60's, but it never got to anywhere near explaining the cosmological phenomena successfully explained by the standard model. But most importantly, its most central prediction, an explanation of the missing blackbody spectrum in the cosmic microwave background, has proved to be incorrect. That is pretty disheartening to researchers who like to work on things that produce results.


false.

Prediction of the submillimeter spectrum of the cosmic background radiation by a plasma model
Lerner E, Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on Volume 18, Issue 1, Feb 1990 Page(s):43 - 48



Originally posted by rnaa
If the plasma model is ever to supplant the accepted model, it will have to do so by demonstrating that it is better than the accepted model. It has to explain everything the accepted model does. And it must make predictions that are actually confirmed. It must solve problems that the accepted model does not. Notice that doesn't FALSIFY the current model, it just says that the replacement is BETTER.

Why are you on about FALSIFICATION of the entire model? You say the Plasma model still has holes in it, but that's OK? The standard model doesn't explain everything in the universe to your satisfaction so its completely false, and those who pursue it are frauds?

It just doesn't make sense.

[edit on 2/8/2009 by rnaa]


Predictions?

Correct prediction of the CMB by steady state as far back as 1896

The Temperature of Space
C.H. Guillame 1896

Numerous prediction of the Deep Impact mission
www.thunderbolts.info...

Predictions of the aurora being powered by field aligned electric fields as far back as 1908

The Norwegian aurora polaris expedition, 1902-1903 (1908)
Kristian Birkeland

In fact as far as predictions go, plasma cosmology has a loooooong and distinguished history of correct and accurate predictions.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Prediction of the submillimeter spectrum of the cosmic background radiation by a plasma model
Lerner E, Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on Volume 18, Issue 1, Feb 1990 Page(s):43 - 48


Yes, I am aware of that paper. However, it has been invalidated because the data it was based on was incorrect.

The book it spawned 'The Big Bang Never Happened', is also in error. See Errors in BBNH. Dr. Lerner has responded to the Dr. Wright's criticisms so there is active debate on the issue. Most Cosmologists agree with Dr. Wright and the Big Bang is widely accepted because it has been confirmed by other observations, not just CBR.

Some of the work on the plasma cosmology model has been useful and incorporated into the so-called 'standard model'. Not all, and certainly not to the point of falsifying the entire 'standard model'.

That is the way science works, if something is useful it is accepted and celebrated. But just because a scientist does some good work doesn't necessarily mean that everything he thinks is beyond question, and certainly doesn't mean that his work must automatically overturn everything that has gone before.

That is the domain of very, very few paradigm shifting individuals. Dr. Alfvén has some very good ideas, and a Nobel to prove it, but he is not Copernicus, Newton or Einstein (IMHO).



Predictions?

Correct prediction of the CMB by steady state as far back as 1896

The Temperature of Space
C.H. Guillame 1896

Numerous prediction of the Deep Impact mission
www.thunderbolts.info...

Predictions of the aurora being powered by field aligned electric fields as far back as 1908

The Norwegian aurora polaris expedition, 1902-1903 (1908)
Kristian Birkeland

In fact as far as predictions go, plasma cosmology has a loooooong and distinguished history of correct and accurate predictions.



The Plasma Cosmology model was advanced only in the 1960's, so those old data are not predictions, but observations that the Plasma model seeks to explain.

I expect Plasma cosmology has more to contribute to our understanding of the universe. There is a lot of plasma in the universe and it is to be expected that plasma physics should have some impact. There are other cosmology models that may be successful in other areas too. But just because they answer some questions doesn't mean that the 'standard model' is going to be falsified wholesale, it means the results will have to be reconciled with the 'standard model'.

(the 'articles' you posted are unusable, except for the Deep Impact one. One appears to be a newspaper article in a Scandanavian language which I cannot read. Another is a catalog entry for a service, without even a precis. I don't know enough about Deep Impact to comment on that one, but I will try doing some research when I have time)

Edit: ok, I figured out how to read the polar expedition one.

[edit on 3/8/2009 by rnaa]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:18 AM
link   

The Plasma Cosmology model was advanced only in the 1960's, so those old data are not predictions, but observations that the Plasma model seeks to explain.


I'm not sure what you mean by the "plasma cosmology model was advanced only in the 1960's".

I have papers being put forth from every time period from the early 1900's to today.

The model is put forth by plasma physicists and electrical engineers. Many of the papers put forth do not appear in the ApJ or MNRAS because they are put forth in the electrical engineering journals and plasma physics journals instead. Notably the IEEE recognizes plasma cosmology and puts forth many of its papers.

My limited collection of papers so far.

So your continued insistence that this is something that was only put forth in the 1960's doesn't make much sense to me.

As to Lerner debating Ned Wright, new evidence showing the WMAP data to be completely invalid has ended that debate.

Lerner is correct.





[edit on 3-8-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Saying "I'm wrong" doesn't make you right



No but proving you're wrong does

Which I have done over and over

Your failure to respond even adds to the validity of my arguments


Seriously, I don't know who convinced you this nonsense is real but please do yourself a favor and pull yourself away from this science fiction and get back to reality. My guess is you found a book that had some neat idea's and you just glommed onto it like a moth to a flame. Then once you got hooked, you found another and another and before you knew it, you belonged to the cult.
Please do yourself a favor and find a good deprogrammer.


I think if anyone needs a good "deprogrammer", its you.

I don't think you realize just how much current theory is backed up by nothing but wild speculation.



I notice you never responded to the fact that your own link has shown that you're wrong about pterasaurs



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by fixer1967

Originally posted by Militant1
Look i have one question that has bugged me for years concerning the Darwin/Creation debate. off topic but i am going to ask any way.

Forget carbon dating, floods,evoulotion ect..

At night when i gaze at the stars i wonder are all these stars only 6000 light years away? And shouldn't we be seeing more and more stars every day as the light reachs our only 6000 year old planet?

You see the problem is that we are seeing starlight that took millions to get here and that is not disputed by anyone i know of, and creationist say the universe is 6000 years old. How does that work? Either your math is flawed or the Creator chose to decieve everyone by making things seem much older than they are.

Not taking sides, just have never heard an explaination for this.


6000 years? Well if you check the net, depending on the site you pick the age of the universe is between 12 and 20 billion years old with most sites giving a 13 to 15 billion year age. Some people even think it is as old as 21 TRILLION YEARS OLD. As for me I have a feeling it is far older than even that. I think it may infact be 100's of trillions of years old. Why do I think that you ask. I have no answer for you, it is just a feeling I have.


I've never heard any reputable scientist even suggest that the universe is more then approx. 20 billion years old let alone trillions of years old. I think someone is pulling your leg.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

The Plasma Cosmology model was advanced only in the 1960's, so those old data are not predictions, but observations that the Plasma model seeks to explain.


I'm not sure what you mean by the "plasma cosmology model was advanced only in the 1960's".

I have papers being put forth from every time period from the early 1900's to today.

The model is put forth by plasma physicists and electrical engineers. Many of the papers put forth do not appear in the ApJ or MNRAS because they are put forth in the electrical engineering journals and plasma physics journals instead. Notably the IEEE recognizes plasma cosmology and puts forth many of its papers.

My limited collection of papers so far.

So your continued insistence that this is something that was only put forth in the 1960's doesn't make much sense to me.

Naturally there was work in Plasma physics before the 1960's and even people who applied it to cosmological scale and events. But as a coherent Cosmological Model, this is 'generally' attributed to Hannes Alfvén in the 1960s. Alfvén didn't spring out of a vacuum anymore than Copernicus or Einstein or Darwin did. You may understand that that is the time frame when the Steady State universe was overtaken by Big Bang. Alfvén didn't like Big Bang and promoted his Plasma model as an alternative. I'm certainly willing to admit that some of his ideas are useful. But there seems to be much too much evidence for a Big Bang universe for an eternal universe theory to hold sway. That's why Big Bang 'knocked out' the previously accepted Steady State 'standard model'. Einstein didn't like quantum mechanics either, but if it didn't work, the computer you are using wouldn't work either.



As to Lerner debating Ned Wright, new evidence showing the WMAP data to be completely invalid has ended that debate.

Lerner is correct.


Lerner's paper that you quote was based on incorrect COBE data. It was corrected 3 years after his paper, so that is not a slam at Lerner. The COBE FIRAS experiment matches the theoretical prediction of the Big Bang exactly, and contradicts the Plasma model exactly.

I can find no evidence that WMAP data has been invalidated, quite the contrary. A complaint of WMAP is that is carried no FIRAS experiment, however COBE did and that in no way invalidates the WMAP data.

As an aside, I find it odd that of the few claims that WMAP data refutes Big Bang they were all on Creationist sites. Odd that whey would back an interpretation (incorrect or not) that would support the Plasma Cosmology view of an eternal universe. But then again, there are other Creationist sites that claim that WMAP supports the Big Bang and therefore there is room for a created universe.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 06:10 AM
link   
How the heck did we get so far off topic?

I'm done.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa

I can find no evidence that WMAP data has been invalidated


you must have missed this post

Observational falsification of the LCDM model and the big bang:

Paper falsifying the LCDM model
www.nasa.gov...

Another paper falsifying LCDM model based on the WMAP cold spot
arxiv.org...

Article on the bad data produced by the WMAP satellite
www.cosmology.info...

The actual paper proving WMAP data to be invalid
www.springerlink.com...

Big Bang observationally falsified:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Black holes observationally falsified:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Some more fuel to the fire.

If you look into giraffes, you'll find they are some very special creatures.

They have a built in "g-suit" that preasurizes their legs to keep their blood from pooling there.

This natural "g-suit" is required because without it, the giraffe would pass out any time it lifted its head above its waist.

Gravity would pull all its blood into its legs and its heart would not be strong enough to pump it into its brain all the way up its neck.

The amount of force required to pump that blood up the giraffes neck can be calculated.

It turns out that the giraffe is at the maximum limit of height a land mammal can achieve. Beyond its current height, either the heart would have to be so large it wouldn't fit or its blood vessels would burst from over-pressure.

A creature taller than the giraffe would not be able to survive in our current gravity field.

The average ambient air pressure is 1013 mb, do you know what the pressure average would have been at that time, gravity is not always the deciding factor.



[edit on 2-8-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I would like to point out, to everyone who isn't aware, that the story of Noah is plagiarized from Sumerian mythology, which called its flood the Deluge. The Annunaki, "the ones who come to earth from above" had grown irritated with their creations, the humans, and sought to destroy them, but one of their relatives, Enki (similar to Prometheus, in that he was the one who actually "built" the first humans from clay), warned a man called Xisuthrus (Atrahasis), telling him to build a boat for he and his family. It's right out of the Epic of Gilgamish. It's on wikipedia too.

en.wikipedia.org...


Champion of humankind

According to Sumerian mythology, Enki also assisted humanity to survive the Deluge designed to kill them. In the Legend of Atrahasis, Enlil, the king of the gods, sets out to eliminate humanity, the noise of whose mating is offensive to his ears. He successively sends drought, famine and plague to eliminate humanity, but Enki thwarts his half-brother's plans by teaching Atrahasis about irrigation, granaries and medicine. Humans again proliferate a fourth time. Enraged, Enlil convenes a Council of Deities and gets them to promise not to tell humankind that he plans their total annihilation. Enki does not tell Atrahasis, but instead tells the walls of Atrahasis' (a.k.a. Utnapishtim or Ziusudra) reed hut of Enlil's plan, thus covertly rescuing Atrahasis by either instructing him to build some kind of a boat for his family, or by bringing him into the heavens in a magic boat. After the seven day Deluge, the flood hero frees a swallow, a raven and a dove in an effort to find if the flood waters have receded. On the boat landing, a sacrifice is organized to the gods. Enlil is angry his will has been thwarted yet again, and Enki is named as the culprit. As the god of what we would call ecology, Enki explains that Enlil is unfair to punish the guiltless Atrahasis for the sins of his fellows, and secures a promise that the gods will not eliminate humankind if they practice birth control and live within the means of the natural world. The threat is made, however, that if humans do not honor their side of the covenant the gods will be free to wreak havoc once again. This is apparently the oldest surviving Middle Eastern Deluge myths.


There's no "Noah" and there never was. It's just a retelling of an older story, whose tellers believed their ancestors were created, more or less, by extra terrestrials. The Epic of Gilgamish is a story, it's fiction. The Bible lifted most of its content from Sumerian sources. Take these ancient pagan stories with a grain of salt. As a matter of fact, nearly all of Genesis, including and especially the story of Adam and Eve is a lifted distortion of Sumerian myths. This is pretty common knowledge stuff to anyone who's done their reading. Personally, I wouldn't put my faith in any book the Catholic clergy have had their hands on for almost two thousand years.

Now is anybody gonna stand up and tell me that a bunch of superstitious desert people were really talking to some bloodthirsty deity (or deities) who gave them the true history of the world and it's survived, largely unaltered, into the present day, and that these people and these petty gods who tried to kill them because their hot sex was annoying to listen to knew better than modern scientists? Seriously, grow some thumbs and get with the times.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by Syrus Magistus]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by dan steely
 


The average ambient air pressure is 1013 mb, do you know what the pressure average would have been at that time, gravity is not always the deciding factor.

While air pressure may have varied throughout earths past, the only thing a super high air pressure might lend itself to is the ability of the pterosaurs to fly.

However I highly doubt this was the case and there is no evidence to suggest as much.

Air pressure would have no bearing on the blood pressure arguments for the tall dinos though.

Taken in conjunction, a lower gravity field well explains the gigantic size and height of some of the dinosaurs and the ability for the pterosaur to fly.






[edit on 5-8-2009 by mnemeth1]



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join