Thoughts/Theories On Ancient Civilizations Contacting Each Other During The Pangaea?

a reply to: peter vlar

I know nothing about any dating but as the vid shows there as a forest and a lake that got changed very quick and there are remains of many many fine layers that has nothing to do with years but hours . As far as his paper is concerned I can't say . Someone must have written a paper in response to his as a kind of rebuttal by what you are saying . Where did you get what you are saying or trying to say ?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I know nothing about any dating but as the vid shows there as a forest and a lake that got changed very quick and there are remains of many many fine layers that has nothing to do with years but hours .

Layers of ash. Not rock.

a reply to: Phage

Yes I know it was ash . Now to turn as into rock you need some water and some other stuff as well as time . Mount saint helens are layered and there was no flood there . When the Ice age started melting it may have released a lot of water at times and that could have mixed a lot of stuff and when given enough time ,would have created stone . No need for millions of years but there is a need for a lot of material moving and mixing . some with fossils in them . For me it has explains to my mind my world view . The picture fits .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

The picture does not fit all scenarios. There is no evidence that the Grand Canyon was formed catastrophically. The Grand Canyon is not cut in ash. It is cut in stone.

a reply to: Phage

There are layers from the canyon floor to the top .Some is stone now but may not have been when it was laid down .There could and probably was some different process that involved much water but the ice sheets could have provided that . That little stream at MSH's didn't carve out what we see there but was the mud flows .The same thing could have happened at the GC . just saying .
here is a vid of what looks like wagon or sledge tracks in stone ...

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Some is stone now but may not have been when it was laid down .

It most certainly wasn't. It turned into stone over millions of years. The stone was then cut by water, over millions of years.

The same thing could have happened at the GC . just saying .

No. Because the ash is not stone.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: peter vlar

I know nothing about any dating but as the vid shows there as a forest and a lake that got changed very quick and there are remains of many many fine layers that has nothing to do with years but hours . As far as his paper is concerned I can't say . Someone must have written a paper in response to his as a kind of rebuttal by what you are saying . Where did you get what you are saying or trying to say ?

I came to my conclusions after reading through his paper and having a familiarity with the methodology used.

He commissioned Geochronology, a lab out of Cambridge Mass. Their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old

We cannot analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y. Was a prominent footnote on their site when they still did K-Ar dating.

With less advanced equipment, 'memory effects' can be a problem with very young samples. This means that minuscule argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment. This precludes accurate dates for very young samples.

In geological samples, you will find contaminants like Phenocrysts and microphenocrysts. They become trapped in other residue when the lava flow cools and must be removed before testing. Austin notes the existence of Phenocrysts in his paper but nowhere does he detail their removal.

I'm not a geologist by any means but as an Anthropology major, we had to take our fair share of geology and I'm pretty confident in my analysis of his half assed methodology. Austin started out with an answer and then pieced together data to support it. That's the opposite of how the work is supposed to be done and makes him intellectually disingenuous because he can get away with telling these lies to people who aren't going to question him because they don't know enough about the subject matter to know they're being Shang Hai'd


ETA- normally, multiple dating methods are used to obtain a date. Dr. Austin used only K-Ar with no supporting data. It's just bad science whether or not he was purposely skewing the results for the ICR/AIG gang or not.

a reply to: Phage

GC could be the results of multipal processes .Yes over time but to what time scale could be something we cant say for certain .Just as MSH shows that things we could have been seen as many years can be done in a few days ,GK could tells us something we don't know but put a process and date on because we were not there at the time unlike MSH .Proxy dating can be off as much as it can be close .It can be accurate but can also not be reliable .Climate Audit has shown this in some of the proxies that were used to give a date that had to be reconsidered . C14 and as far as I can understand other dating methods is or can be a bit ambiguous as well .

a reply to: peter vlar

I'm not a geologist by any means but as an Anthropology major, we had to take our fair share of geology and I'm pretty confident in my analysis of his half assed methodology.

Not saying he didn't make any mistakes and doesn't have his own bias because every one seems to have one .New and better methods are always being developed so none of the older standards and procedures are set in stone .Saying he lied may be going a bit far but its not something any should ascribe to . Using past claims in papers could also be considered a lie or something that is not true .take your pick ... Steve Austin gave me a different way of looking at some things that even he says the archaeology 101 didn't show . Maybe its time for a 2.0 version to add what ever knowledge MSH has taught us .

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: intrptr

Maybe the pyramids are symbolic mountains..

Just headstones… the biggest money could buy.

a reply to: booyakasha

How the earth expands is something no one has the answers for though.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Anyone who wants a similar comparison to how plate tectonics works should watch this video. The lava lake has a crust divided into plates, the boundaries of which float on the hot lava beneath them, just like the crust of the earth. These plates move, slipping and grinding past one another, fresh material wells up one one side and subducts back down on the other. Hot spots light like volcanoes along plate boundaries on the earths surface.The earth obviously grew bigger over time, tons of meteoric material rain down even today. But the crust itself is constantly convecting the same way water boils in a pot or lava boils in a volcanic cauldron. Look at the earth as a spherical kettle of boiling lava, with a crust.

a reply to: intrptr

Its a pretty amazing planet we live on .Lots to look at and wonder about for sure .tks

a reply to: the2ofusr1

C14 and as far as I can understand other dating methods is or can be a bit ambiguous as well .

C14 dating plays no role in geology.

a reply to: Phage

So what do you do count layers ? That could be problematic if you take into account the many many layers produced in a few short days at MSH's . If you date the rock by the bones and you date the bones by the rocks then there is no way of confirming them independently from one another .. C14 has shown on many cases to have missed the mark .Big variances using independent labs .....

a reply to: the2ofusr1

C14 has shown on many cases to have missed the mark .Big variances using independent labs

C14 is not used in geology. Its usefulness extends to about 50k years. Max.

Like someone else recommended, take a class in the fundamentals of geology before you make claims about it.

a reply to: Phage

would that be geology 101 or do we have a 2.0 version yet ?

a reply to: the2ofusr1

The fundamentals would be 101. You take it beyond the graduate level if you wish.

Oh look, another religious dogma thread pretending to be science

originally posted by: Marduk
Oh look, another religious dogma thread pretending to be science

This surprises you?

originally posted by: MadhatterTheGreat
I've been thinking about this for a long time now. Maybe someone has thought of this already, but is there any evidence the Pangaea isn't as old as scientists say?

No. Pangaea dates to before the Cretaceous. The breakup of Pangaea was in part responsible for the multiple extinctions during the Jurassic as the ocean currents changed the amount of water (and water temperature).

I've always considered with so much evidence civilizations who shouldn't have been in contact with each other but share such similar history, that maybe the Pangaea isn't as old as scientists believe and that the land masses were separated during the great upheaval the planet went through.

No, there weren't humans back then. This was the Jurassic - almost no modern plants and the atmosphere was very different (and it was considerably hotter back then.)

Maybe all the earthquakes and flooding that's recorded throughout civilizations were the land masses separating?

No, that's due to weather and to the very slow geological processes going on.