Ice Age Earth

[tzor]

I think it's safe to say that everything PhatScotty says is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

Are you sure? It looks more like goose shit to me ...

And yes, I have a ton of Canada Geese that live where I work. I hate goose shit.

[jimboston]

Try this on for size, integrate it, see what comes out the other end.

How about, I mean a giant comet 100 miles in diameter slammed directly into the North American ice sheet stacked up to 2 miles high in some places stretching from the North pole to Iowa, resulting in an 18 degree (f) spike in global temperature in a span ranging from 2 weeks tops at most to 48 hours at least, integrating also the other giant ice sheet on the other side of the planet along with the South Pole. Then could it make sense there is no way such a resulting flood could not flood the entire world, qualify as a great flood, regardless of if anyone built a boat or not?

Is this possible?
-> YES. I guess. I'm not a climatologist.

Did it happen?
-> I don't think it did the way you described it. Do the majority of geologists support this idea?

Would this event be recorded by humans? Either in written format or verbally?
-> NO. Because no one would live through it.

Would this, if it happened, be what post people mean when they hear the phrase "The Great Flood"?
-> NO. Most people, the vast majority, would assume that terms means the same as "The Story of Noah and His Ark"...
or some similar story from another religion. One where people were "punished" for "being bad/disobeying God", and where some devote "good guys" where "saved".

So by using the phrase "Great Flood", you are evoking an image/story different than what you are stating here.

By these standards, I could use the term "Great Flood" to describe how the Earth was covered by molten rock and iron during its' early formation. That would be just as valid.

[Phatscotty]

its based on two things:
you said it isn't true, so it must be true
wikipedia plus an article I read in Scientific American years ago

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

what do you mean "before they could even reproduce"?
is this the same as how the knowledge of dinosaurs was instantly in all people in one day? the north american megafauna all went instantly extinct in one day?

well, over hunting, silly as it is, has got to be the worst theory my friend. Wikipedia lists 3 different theories....which clearly means the answer does not exist to Wiki, because theories are theories.

Before they could reproduce.... ya know, the 'extinct' part.

Since you want to talk about dinosaurs, let me at least make sure I understand you clearly
a giant comet wiped out the dinosaurs, but it's silly that a giant comet wiped out the mega-mammals?

[Phatscotty]

Try this on for size, integrate it, see what comes out the other end.

How about, I mean a giant comet 100 miles in diameter slammed directly into the North American ice sheet stacked up to 2 miles high in some places stretching from the North pole to Iowa, resulting in an 18 degree (f) spike in global temperature in a span ranging from 2 weeks tops at most to 48 hours at least, integrating also the other giant ice sheet on the other side of the planet along with the South Pole. Then could it make sense there is no way such a resulting flood could not flood the entire world, qualify as a great flood, regardless of if anyone built a boat or not?

Is this possible?
-> YES. I guess. I'm not a climatologist.

Did it happen?
-> I don't think it did the way you described it. Do the majority of geologists support this idea?

Would this event be recorded by humans? Either in written format or verbally?
-> NO. Because no one would live through it.

Would this, if it happened, be what post people mean when they hear the phrase "The Great Flood"?
-> NO. Most people, the vast majority, would assume that terms means the same as "The Story of Noah and His Ark"...
or some similar story from another religion. One where people were "punished" for "being bad/disobeying God", and where some devote "good guys" where "saved".

So by using the phrase "Great Flood", you are evoking an image/story different than what you are stating here.

By these standards, I could use the term "Great Flood" to describe how the Earth was covered by molten rock and iron during its' early formation. That would be just as valid.

It is the Great Flood, I don't care some human beings think that means Noah's arc. That's their psychological dogma, not mine. A great flood is a great flood, and a personal story about surviving said event is a story. Say I had said 'The Megaflood', or 'The ultimate flood', are you so sure most people wouldn't still think about the great flood anyways? Which flood between the megaflood and the great flood were biggest? Regardless, I never brought up the bible or Noah, I'm talking about the flood that happened. If people evoke something that I was not even talking about, is that really my fault? lulz

Is this possible?
-> It's a fact.

Did it happen?
-> Sure did. I don't know what all geologists agree with or think, but I do know the time for them to dispute said claim was last year, and all criticisms were met and all derivative evidence sufficed. Like the impact proxies, nuclear glass in sedimentary samples easily dated all around the world, black mat carbon sedimentary layer dated from continental wildfires. Hoards of life-scale woolly mammoths (not fossils) flash frozen (unhunted) with broken hind legs and the food they were eating still undigested. The crater impacts from smaller chunks of the comet in Jordan and 2 other countries In Europe. Greenland ice core samples, just to mention a few

Would this event be recorded by humans? Either in written format or verbally?
-> it happened to the entire world, and every single person left in the world knew the story, perhaps. When did Atlantis disappear?
Would this, if it happened, be what post people mean when they hear the phrase "The Great Flood"?
-> That's the vast majority's problem. If it helps people sleep at night, let's call it The Greatest Flood, and just accept that such an event is going to spawn lots of stories.

[Phatscotty]

By the way, here's the first scientific journal article about dinosaurs:
http://trn.lyellcollection.org/content/s2-1/2/390

The Iguanadon was named the following year.

In 1880, a new museum was built to include a dinosaur exhibit (and yes, they had been called dinosaurs for 38 years by this point).

Let's not forget the dinosaur sculptures opened in 1854 at Crystal Palace.

Charles Dickens spoke of the Megalosaurus in Bleak House.

In 1851, the New York Times referred to a head of state as a dinosaur, which means the word had been used enough to already enter metaphorical usage. From the 1870s until 1938, they ran dozens of dinosaur stories about the actual creatures.

I think it's safe to say that everything PhatScotty says is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

I think it's safe to say you aren't making the connection. I'm getting used to this lately.

Let's not forget, you aren't even in the correct context of why dinosaurs even came up
Let's not forget, I've already posted everything you posted.
Let's not forget, the subject was about how 'well known' something is, and what it means if it's well known, and nobody knows exactly when dinosaurs became 'well known'. But it was less likely but possibly the late 1800's and most likely the early the 1900's. Get over it, the point is made without needing to know what is the exact year. If you can't handle the point, then you can always give us the answer as to what year you think dinosaurs became well known to human beings. Hint, the date of the first scientific study, granted that the majority of people did not read that study, granted the possibility a large segment of people could not read at all, a large segment of people could read a little.....


It literally is safe to say, since DoomYoshi just said everything Phatscotty already said, and if everything Phatscotty says is pure, unadulterated bullshit, then everything DoomYoshi just said is pure, unadulterated bullshit, since Phatscotty already said it all first.

I guess none of that in your post is true then, eh? You have some issues to work out, lucky for me none of them are related to the topic matter in the thread, nor do I care that you constantly think something exists where there is no evidence at all, or that you constantly think nothing exists where there is evidence everywhere. You make for a far better Bible literalist than I my little grey friend. Finally, let's not forget just how far off topic and how far out of context you have had to go to try to make me look like i'm full of shit. Want to see who is full of it, look in your own thread that calls me out, look where I asked for a single example, and look who never gave a response....DoomYoshi

page 1

Making it about a side point of a side point is better than a spell-check rebuttal anyways.

Sure, some guy found a femur from a dinosaur in the 1700's, but he thought it confirmed the giants of the Bible. Nobody knew it was a dinosaur. Then, in 1822, some teeth were found! They were believed to be from giant animals that escaped Noah's Arc! Even the bone-wars up until 1892 , there were still only theories and speculation about what it was they were digging up, where they came from, and when. GIANT LIZARDS!!! close, but no cigar. The first dinosaur skeleton to be displayed in the world was in the late 1800's.

For 15 years -- from 1868 to 1883 -- Hadrosaurus foulkii was the only mounted dinosaur skeleton on display anywhere in the world. In 1879, it became the first dinosaur skeleton to be displayed in Europe when the Royal Scottish Museum in Edinburgh acquired a copy.

In the 1900's, finally the scientific community began to give their attention to dinosaurs, and there was 'a lot of enthusiasm!' So, very few people might have known what a dinosaur was. The people who dug up fossils and first confirmed the theories and put the first skeletons together and introduced it through journalism and people reading those journals, but when did 'everyone' know what a dinosaur was, or when did dinosaurs become 'well known'?

[Phatscotty]

Geologist J Harlen Bretz in 1923 was the first to propose a radical geologic theory-that huge geologic features in America’s Pacific Northwest were formed by catastrophic water flow. He named the Channeled Scablands, with its catastrophically water-carved coulees, dry waterfalls, potholes and huge erratic boulders. At that time, most scientists believed these geologic features were formed by gradual erosion and deposition following the notion of uniformitarianism, which ruled out sudden changes in the landscape by catastrophic events.

Yes, the same J Harlen Bretz whose geology was tossed in the garbage, exiled, labeled a heretic, since he did not know where the water came from, just that water did this, and it's being measured today using SVERDRUP, which is normally reserved for measuring/describing oceanic flow. It took geology about 60 years to 'come around', and now almost 100 years later his theory has been tested and proven and synthesized with other open-minded scientific fields, theories, and discoveries to complete a truly 'great' puzzle. All the while the uniformaitarianists are still clinging to what makes them comfortable, ignoring what can be measured and tested. Ironic. Maybe we all need a 'crutch' from time to time.

Now, if you like, witness geologists discovering everything that has been said to be recently discovered, not as erosion over millions of years, but overnight! Accept immediately what was yesterday vehemently denied. Just know it was truth all along, and it still has nothing to do with Noah, but as clearly shown here even the most wise and trusted phd's in geology were willing to dismiss evidence because the flood sounded too Biblical'. I wonder how much other science has suffered and is suffering based on such silly prejudice. The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?

Look on my works ye mighty, and despair

Disclaimer! This video is not the Bible! It's PBS Nova! late 2015. Keep in mind, if everything I say is pure B.S., then everything all these top PHD's say is pure B.S. too

[jimboston]

Is this possible?
-> It's a fact.

Did it happen?
-> Sure did. I don't know what all geologists agree with or think, but I do know the time for them to dispute said claim was last year, and all criticisms were met and all derivative evidence sufficed. Like the impact proxies, nuclear glass in sedimentary samples easily dated all around the world, black mat carbon sedimentary layer dated from continental wildfires. Hoards of life-scale woolly mammoths (not fossils) flash frozen (unhunted) with broken hind legs and the food they were eating still undigested. The crater impacts from smaller chunks of the comet in Jordan and 2 other countries In Europe. Greenland ice core samples, just to mention a few

Do you have links to the evidence you mention?

Why would this comet kill all the large mammals, but not kill the human species as well?

[PLAYER57832]

An unanswered question I still have for flood-denialism.

Everyone knows the earth used to be in an ice age, right?

How did it come to be everyone is auto-programmed to laugh at the mere mention of the 'The Great Flood'?

Have we really never had to wonder for ourselves what happened to all the ice??? Is it really so silly to entertain the idea that the ice melted, turned into water, and flooded the oceans???

While I am not a flood denier (but also not the kind of literalist you insist we Christians should be), the ice age is not as you seem to imply -- that is, it did not actually cover all of the Earth at one time.

As for the ice melting = flood, the main reason would be that its not what the Bible says. That is, I would say that melting could be part of the waters rising and such, but if you are going to be fully literal as you seem to imply we should, then why wasn't melting ice mentioned?

Well, how far down the Biblical rabbit hole do you want to go? For starters, the glaciers all melted more than 10,000 years ago, which would I believe be in conflict with the established Biblical timeline for when the flood was supposed to occur, about 4,000 years ago.

Not sure where you get this date, but it is not something believed by most Christians, even most fundamental literalists today.

If you are going to get away from that strict literalism, then I would suggest my prior statement that the Bible's world refers to the world that was known at the time is more likely (one of a few possibilities that would match the Bible and evidence) That last is also backed by evidence as your version is not. Again, not saying that the flood did not happen, just not as you suggest above.

[PLAYER57832]

Besides the fact there has been (ignored) evidence all along but the scientific community exiled and banned scientists for life because their findings had yet to be 'understood' and synthesized with other scientific fields with other discoveries of evidence that had not been presented, tested, backed up and certified....discoveries made all the way up until now. Yup, that kind of stuff we only 'know' about reserved for theorizing the sun revolves around the earth still goes on today in established science. There in fact is strong contemporary geological evidence to show for a fact that a global great flood occurred, and it's not only geological either.

Explain, please....

#4, showing big rocks with people standing on them, that weigh 36,000,000 pounds swept 50-75 miles south is just one way we can get the most accurate estimate yet and how much water made up the great flood in this area, how fast it was rushing, and and flood that can sweep a 36,000,000 pound boulder I opine yes is truly great.

Why are you assuming these rocks were moved by water and not ice? Also, I think you are actually underestimating the power of moving water.

[hotfire]

if all the glaciers melted at once...but continental glaciers in Antarctica date back to 800,000 years and Greenland ice cores are undisturbed for 105,000 years back...when did this flood occur? wouldn't the ice break apart and melt after 40 days in the ocean? or would it just float on the water like an iceberg and not move and fall back on the same spot it was deposited originally?

[PLAYER57832]

if all the glaciers melted at once...but continental glaciers in Antarctica date back to 800,000 years and Greenland ice cores are undisturbed for 105,000 years back...when did this flood occur? wouldn't the ice break apart and melt after 40 days in the ocean? or would it just float on the water like an iceberg and not move and fall back on the same spot it was deposited originally?

One note I have to add -- In ancient days, counting abilities were not as we know today. The number 40 was considered a "huge" number, basically used for "more than anyone can count" -- roughly the way we might say "thousands" or "millions" without it meaning exactly anything. In our time, we have seen a migration from hundreds to thousands to millions to billions. When I was a kids, we talked of "thousands of stars in the sky", "hundreds of bird in the sky", etc. Now my kids rail off "billions" as if its nothing. Computers, etc have changed us.

[PLAYER57832]

Why is Phatts is so concerned about the "Great Floods" destroying mankind?

He should be posting a new thread on how to prevent the next "Great Flood."

Phatts, you believe in science? All that hot air you are producing on this thread is probably elevating our planet's temperature.

Already did that as well as try a few different other ways.

No, actually you avoid real challenges or bring up unverified and irrelevant information, such as your claim way back that the idea of global climate change was invented by Al Gore and, further, that just disputing some of what Al Gore said/pointing out inaccuracies in his statements and policies was all you needed to do to disprove the theories.

I can point out other examples, but since you made the statement, provide links that show were you did what you claim .

[PLAYER57832]

I prefer to get my science from scientists, not religious folk. I don't get my religion from scientists either.

so you are totally cool with the fact that the science community still exiles good science and the scientists that produce good science based on the premise said good science doesn't fit with current establishment models, which I'm guessing is one of the main reasons why you pay no attention to religion. Makes sense brah

Provide examples, please.

The TRUTH is that ANY new idea is both read, viewed and CHALLENGED. This challenge has little to do with whether people "like" the idea or not. The challenge is part of how science actually works, as opposed to how you keep implying it works.

People come up with ideas, run tests, if lucky or part of a few established groups, they get published. THEN, after being published, comes the real challenges.

Per the "religious information is being rejected" --- ANY idea that widely disagrees with the accepted norm is viewed with great interest AND skepticism. Again, that is because its how science works! The only way to get an idea accepted, particularly anything that changes basic ideas, IS to have it run through a mill of challenges.. and survive. ALL new ideas face criticism and ridicule. MOST are rejected, for various reasons. The rare exceptions are those that wind up yielding Nobel prizes - not at all coincidentally, because the level of scholarship necessary to prove the standard wrong IS phenomenal.


The real truth is that various journals have gone out of their way to find folks presenting real science that contradicted the norm. They do this for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is to be sure they are not representing any kind of bias. The trouble? The submissions almost never meet the very basic demands of real science, do not present proof or make very big errors. These so-called "scientists" are mostly lazy operatives that start with their ideas and just plain reject anything that disagrees with their ideas. That alone is OK. A dedication to an idea IS a hallmark of new investigation, BUT it has to come with a real and true understanding of not just their own ideas, but the ideas they are trying to reject. Among the greatest ironies is that many of these lazy scientists want to bring up examples found by legitimate scientists as reason to reject "all of science". Typically, they insert a few real publications in with their own ideas without any indication that there is any difference, scholarly or otherwise. I brought up plenty of examples with you in the past.

I am more than happy to consider any real examples of rejected legitimate information. In the past, you have not presented anything. Time has passed, maybe you can do better now?

lets see how the big money's view plays out in a couple of decades, after all we don't have a choice they have the money

On this, we agree. The trouble is you refuse to believe that folks are using YOUR religion (mine, too, broadly) to distort real scientific findings on how our world actually works. Strange that for someone so into conspiracies, you reject utterly that there is any convergence between attacks on environmental science and big money corporations. You have rejected the whole idea of global warming, the danger we face from species eradication directly, never mind the greater implications of such huge die-offs. (not just from climate change by any means!) You reject out of hand most environmental regulations and show disdain/rejection for funding research as "wasteful" out of hand. (and you seem to think that the judge of whether science is good or not has to do with whether you like the result, not the quality of research).

[Phatscotty]

Is this possible?
-> It's a fact.

Did it happen?
-> Sure did. I don't know what all geologists agree with or think, but I do know the time for them to dispute said claim was last year, and all criticisms were met and all derivative evidence sufficed. Like the impact proxies, nuclear glass in sedimentary samples easily dated all around the world, black mat carbon sedimentary layer dated from continental wildfires. Hoards of life-scale woolly mammoths (not fossils) flash frozen (unhunted) with broken hind legs and the food they were eating still undigested. The crater impacts from smaller chunks of the comet in Jordan and 2 other countries In Europe. Greenland ice core samples, just to mention a few

Do you have links to the evidence you mention?

Why would this comet kill all the large mammals, but not kill the human species as well?

Either you're thinkin or your stinkin, and you are thinkin my friend. The impact being in North America, let's start there with Clovis man, and let's end with the end of Clovis man at the exact same time. And they weren't over hunted. wiki is gospel, so I let wiki preach

The Clovis culture is a prehistoric Paleo-Indian culture, named after distinct stone tools found at sites near Clovis, New Mexico, in the 1920s and 1930s. The Clovis culture appears around 11,500–13,200

Numerous reasons have been suggested to be the driving force for the observed changes in the archaeological record, such as the Younger Dryas impact event

oh, hey, the comet thingy is already being incorporated as we speak! And even as the first thing mentioned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture

I have some names and dates yes, but I'm not done reading this book. I looked up the first one just to make sure she is communicating results honestly rather than twisting science to suit her purposes and I posted that one here in either the 'some say a comet will fall from the sky' or the 'choose your monument' thread. I have met the author and as I understand in summary over 30 mainstream scientists from various fields presenting evidence tested it and withstood scrutiny, and an average of 4-5 journal entries per year from 2007-2015 have been published, and finally (just now) is being accepted. Her sourcing is thorough but not in link form. I have tried a couple times a couple different ways posting the evidence. Nobody save a brave and open-minded few cared to look at it, honestly I'm not aware of a single person that looked at it. So I had to thump my chest and make a big deal and get people's attention first. Sorry about all that noise, humans will be human afterall. She's the one who was key in putting all this together along with a few others, so let's let her get a payday since if this was all over the internet like we are used to there wouldn't be much reason to buy her book. That said and the fact this is still 'underground' it's gonna take a minute for this stuff to matriculate.

Her book states the debate is over, and that is the purpose of the book. wiki is gonna have to buy her book methinks!

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, also known as the Clovis comet hypothesis, is one of the competing scientific explanations for the onset of the Younger Dryas cold period after the last glacial period. The hypothesis, which scientists continue to debate, proposes that the climate of that time was cooled by the impact or air burst of one or more comets.[1][2][3]

The general hypothesis states that about 12,900 BP calibrated (10,900 14C uncalibrated) years ago, air burst(s) or impact(s) from a near-Earth object(s) set areas of the North American continent on fire, disrupted climate and caused the Quaternary extinction event in North America. This resulted in the extinction of most of the megafauna, and the rapid demise of the North American Clovis culture.[4] The Younger Dryas ice age lasted for about 1,200 years before the climate warmed again. These events are also seen as part of the Holocene extinction phenomenon.

One or more big explosions may have occurred above or possibly on the Laurentide Ice Sheet in the region of the Great Lakes. Though no major impact crater has been identified, the proponents suggest that it would be physically possible for such an air burst to have been similar to but orders of magnitude larger than the Tunguska event of 1908.[5][6] The hypothesis proposed that animal and human life in North America not directly killed by the blast or the resulting wildfires would have suffered due to the disrupted ecologic relationships affecting the continent.

The impact of this postulated event (or series of events) goes beyond the Americas. A number of studies document this impact around the world. For example, James Wittke et al. document deposition of impact spherules 12,800 years ago across four continents, including Europe and the Middle East.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_D ... hypothesis

Dang, maybe I should have just Op'd the wiki on this, but then nobody would have to think, and that's all I'm trying to do is get people to make me think, tear down or edify my thoughts, and make them think too. I can see I was damn close in freestyling almost everything wiki says, but you get credit for asking the right questions too. Like I said, I did this to learn and help learn, I think on this on I am now learned. I already incorporated this though, I had no reason to get into it here or share with others than my own contribution to humanity understanding our own history.

btw, Holocene extinction phenomenon was a comet also, THE SAME COMET! The ancients knew about this and how to tell when the comets will come again and they encoded the information in megalithic stone structures all around the world, someone actually wrote it down but a giant earthquake finally busted the writing on the wall of the Pyramid at Giza and then a bunch of dickheads pried the rest off But that's for another time and another place maybe seeing how I might not be able to survive bible-thumpers AMD science-thumpers at the same time.

[PLAYER57832]

Geologist J Harlen Bretz in 1923 was the first to propose a radical geologic theory-that huge geologic features in America’s Pacific Northwest were formed by catastrophic water flow. He named the Channeled Scablands, with its catastrophically water-carved coulees, dry waterfalls, potholes and huge erratic boulders. At that time, most scientists believed these geologic features were formed by gradual erosion and deposition following the notion of uniformitarianism, which ruled out sudden changes in the landscape by catastrophic events.

Yes, the same J Harlen Bretz whose geology was tossed in the garbage, exiled, labeled a heretic, since he did not know where the water came from, just that water did this, and it's being measured today using SVERDRUP, which is normally reserved for measuring/describing oceanic flow. It took geology about 60 years to 'come around', and now almost 100 years later his theory has been tested and proven and synthesized with other open-minded scientific fields, theories, and discoveries to complete a truly 'great' puzzle. All the while the uniformaitarianists are still clinging to what makes them comfortable, ignoring what can be measured and tested. Ironic. Maybe we all need a 'crutch' from time to time.

Now, if you like, witness geologists discovering everything that has been said to be recently discovered, not as erosion over millions of years, but overnight! Accept immediately what was yesterday vehemently denied. Just know it was truth all along, and it still has nothing to do with Noah, but as clearly shown here even the most wise and trusted phd's in geology were willing to dismiss evidence because the flood sounded too Biblical'. I wonder how much other science has suffered and is suffering based on such silly prejudice. The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?

Science is like a "stubborn old man", quick to reject/slow to accept ANY new idea. As I stated above, that is by design, it is very much a part of why science is TRUSTED. Does this slowness to accept the new mean that some truly good ideas are rejected for perhaps too long? YES!!! NO scientist will deny this. I can give you plenty of examples (have mentioned several before to you already) -- the veliger larvae (for years considered a parasite, not progeny of crabs), that many (if not all) ulcers are caused by bacteria, etc, etc. To the extent religious ideas have been rejected more, its because a group of folks have decided to make it their mission to do just that.. present a bunch of crazy, unscientific religious ideas and proclaim that they are "truth", that science is "just wrong". AND .. if you do as you mentioned, "follow the money" -- isn't it interesting how much money comes from big business interests that benefit from rejection of these same supposedly "disproved" scientific findings. On the other side, you have a group of scientists who act like arrogant children, declaring that "they know better, just 'because', anyone who accepts religion is an idiot and to be ridiculed". They are degrading science from the other direction.

Even so, the truth stands. TRUTH, real science is independent of any specific ideology or idea. Its sad that so many findings have been put into a context of political proofs and ideology. I cannot help but see intent in that very process. You mentioned money. Who, exactly, benefits from clouding the realm of science, from making all findings suddenly murky and unfounded. Who, when the greatest attacks of all are focused on specific environmental claims, claims that indicate we really and truly DO need to change our behavior?

You said before to "follow the money". Fine... do just that, please. Follow the evidence, follow the money, BUT.. be careful, don't stop when you find information that matches your beliefs. Don't be lazy, face specifically those ideas you reject.

THAT challenge, I put forward to everyone!

[PLAYER57832]

Wikipedia lists 3 different theories....which clearly means the answer does not exist to Wiki, because theories are theories.

Yeah, like, the theory that the sun might rise tomorrow is no different from the theory that Roswell holds an alien cadaver.
They are both just theories, so no difference at all!

[Phatscotty]

Wikipedia lists 3 different theories....which clearly means the answer does not exist to Wiki, because theories are theories.

Yeah, like, the theory that the sun might rise tomorrow is no different from the theory that Roswell holds an alien cadaver.
They are both just theories, so no difference at all!

okay! so, over-hunting then?

as for everything else you posted, I've already addressed it all. Read the thread, hopefully you will drop the Bible n Noah reflex once you notice I never brought it up and based none of this on that.

happy hunting

[Phatscotty]

if all the glaciers melted at once...but continental glaciers in Antarctica date back to 800,000 years and Greenland ice cores are undisturbed for 105,000 years back...when did this flood occur? wouldn't the ice break apart and melt after 40 days in the ocean? or would it just float on the water like an iceberg and not move and fall back on the same spot it was deposited originally?

well.... great question. This one is more tricky but I think it makes sense so try it on for size. The flood did occur about 12,800 years ago, and all over the world. Who could say all the ice in the world melted idk, but it seems the magnetic pole existed around Hudson Bay at the time of impact, and the impact cause the pole to shift eventually to where it is now, meaning new ice was made further away from the impact, and new ice was made as the impact began to settle, and there seems to have been a lot of ice created as well when the comet was in the atmosphere but before it crashed as the volatiles gases in the nucleas are estimated to still be as cold as it was when in the ort cloud or the kuiper belt. There are theories, that one makes the most sense imo. Couple that with isostatic pressure where the land under the ice sheets rose as the weight receded and went into the ocean causing the earth to find a new balance. You can plug in Atlantis from here, just know 12,800 years ago is also the exact date given for Atlantis by Plato, who recieved it from Solon, who had it handed down to him orally from the Egyptian historians.

[Phatscotty]

lets see how the big money's view plays out in a couple of decades, after all we don't have a choice they have the money

On this, we agree. The trouble is you refuse to believe that folks are using YOUR religion (mine, too, broadly) to distort real scientific findings on how our world actually works. Strange that for someone so into conspiracies, you reject utterly that there is any convergence between attacks on environmental science and big money corporations. You have rejected the whole idea of global warming, the danger we face from species eradication directly, never mind the greater implications of such huge die-offs. (not just from climate change by any means!) You reject out of hand most environmental regulations and show disdain/rejection for funding research as "wasteful" out of hand. (and you seem to think that the judge of whether science is good or not has to do with whether you like the result, not the quality of research).

No, that isn't the trouble at all. I not only believe it, I know it. And I gotta admit, I haven't hardly seen anyone bring religion into this, except for the most sciency among us, specifically to distort and at least to laugh off real scientific findings. Mostly I get it's based on new information, and that's how humans roll, but also, somehow, they are the one's who seem to have concluded there could never have been a mega super duper huge great flood, based simply on the fact there is a story about something similar in the bible.

Again, not sure how you missed this, read the thread, you should see me blessing global warming as the best thing that ever happened to warm-blooded fuzzy cute mammals, most of all human beings. I reject that we have the full picture and understand everything we need to understand and nothing new can be discovered. I reject regulations can save us. I reject that global warming is such a bad thing. I reject the climate is never supposed to change. I accept global warming has existed long before humans existed. I accept that the earth can and has MANY times dealt with a billion times worse, which is why I now accept I do not have to treat the earth like a fragile vase, and I accept that the earth takes care of all of us, and the climate change I want to see us focus on is near-earth objects and how to prevent them from resetting civilisation yet again. A huge piece I just heard yesterday which contradicts...nevermind, it will just be excused away since I know there is no way you will be convinced that all the regulations can now be dropped because it turns out we didn't have the whole picture yet and human beings are only responsible for a fraction of what we once understood. Don't worry about my science, don't worry that I am human as well and therefor also do what humans do, which is accept what we like and reject what we don't. Just know I try and let that be evidenced by how I roll. I deal with tons of crap here, and I don't resort to name calling and I try not to be mean even when someone really deserves it, I try to help them, and I try to always address it whatever it is, as I am doing now, I've also admitted more than a few times when I felt I was wrong about something. So give that speech to the other 99% who can't ever seem to follow suit.

ta!