DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2667--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: February 10, 2015, 7:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
UB said to Ashvin,
--- Quote ---
> Your evidence presented by Fitzpatrick is all ad hoc and ad
hom and totally unprofessional, several people have noted this
including the comment by "John" he downvoted but did not repond
to. He sets up a website called "Bad Archaeology" Capitals are
appropriate as a proper noun for HIS site. He then goes on to
repeatedly refer to OTHER peoples work as "Bad Archaeology" not
even "bad archaeology" which would be bad enough. But it seems
it is his best shot at smug superiority and assorted appeals to
irrelevant technicalities such as Hancock not knowing what
species of spider is shown carved on rock instead of addressing
how the hell the giant spider picture got there.
--- End Quote ---
Exactly. And then Ashvin tries to turn it all around and claim
we are the ones who lack objectivity. Also, what you mentioned
about how Ashvin switches between the macro and micro to dance
is par for the rhetorical course in fallacious debating
techniques. Then he claims I am "accusatory" and going al "ad
hom" on him. Nope. I just want him to stop dancing. He won't do
it.
The fact I believe the ET presence is real does not have jack sh
it to do with the EVIDENCE presented by Graham Hanc ock, who
DOES NOT hold the "ETs taught humans how to draw maps" theory (
or any other 'ETs are here' theory, for that matter - but Ashvin
likes to group the "con artists" for effect.
As Eddie said (and I had mentioned it previously too)
--- Quote ---
> Graham Hanc ock is not a UFO guy, really. I haven't read his
books, but none of the videos I've seen tries to make a case for
ancient astronauts or anything of that sort.
>
--- End Quote ---
But it is QUITE important for Ashvin's argument to cast me as an
"ET true believer sans evidence" even though I took pains to
show him the logical steps in the premise; ALL of which he has
STUDIOUSLY avoided discussing with his micro to macro and back
dance.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp
As I said a couple of pages ago:
--- Quote ---
> I do my homework. I consult medical science and mainstream
archeology BEFORE I present the possible speciation evidenced by
these other skulls. Whether they are or aren't ET is NOT the
issue in regard to the skulls themselves. The ISSUE is whether
they are a different hominid species.
>
> IF they are a different hominid species, then, and only then,
can we ask further questions about the FACTS, as established by
our credentialed historians and archeologists, that:
>
> 1) Widely diverse "primitive" cultures (separated by oceans
before transatlantic travel) practiced cranial deformation for
tribal leaders. NO other practice like neck expanding, ear lobe
enlarging, teeth sharpening, and so on, was practiced in widely
diverse cultures. So please spare me the "primitives do weird
things to distinguish their leaders" business. Yes, they do. BUT
not on a worldwide basis UNLESS it was cranial deformation.
>
> 2) Wherever they were, they were leaders in the community as
evidenced by funeral garb.
>
> We CANNOT logically proceed to the next question until, or if,
it is confirmed that the 20% greater brain pan sized (and higher
bone density as well) cone heads (NOT DEformed and NOT
genetically Malformed - they are symmetrical and show no signs
of trepanation or cranial plate forcing distortions) is the
product of hominid speciation.
>
> THIS IS THE NEXT QUESTION THAT IS MOOT until all the above is
confirmed:
> Is there any evidence that they were ETs such as, but not
limited to, written records, ancient schematics, knowledge of
astronomy, a recovered flying saucer or part of one in a dig or
high tech artifacts such as machines?
>
--- End Quote ---
Then Ashvin claims this is ALL ABOUT ETs. :evil4: Sure, Brien
Foerster includes it in the possibilities (that Ashvin views as
a premise that is number umpteen on the priority list of
possibilities ;)). But Brien Foerster has said, QUITE CLEARLY,
that the evidence has NOT proven in any way whatsoever that the
skulls were ET. How many times does Ashvin have to be told this
to understand it?
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191404.bmp<br
/>They have found DNA in the New York SUBWAY TUNNELS that
matches
no known organism. SO WHAT? That doesn't mean they are ET bugs
on the subway tunnel walls! I continue to claim that Ashvin
keeps parading the ET thing here as a rhetorical tool used to
undermine the credibility of the researchers dealing with
ancient civilizations and their level of advancement. Then he
accuses me of attacking the messenger.
Ashvin has not answered the questions posed with evidence. Yet
he claims that is sufficient to counter them.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
I beg to differ. And I will continue to differ. Notice I posted
two screen shots with questions and he completely ignored them
(about Plato and about the Rephaim). This is called glossing
over. Then he gets pissed when I point at his glossing over.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>
:
PLEASE ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING TWO QUESTIONS, ASHVIN:
Ashvin, did PLATO make this STRANGE SH IT up?
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191404.bmp
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-040215155259.png
How about the Hebrews? Did they make up this STRANGE SH IT too?
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191404.bmp
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-060215011125.png
Ashvin, please address the following two claims by Eddie:
Eddie said,
--- Quote ---
> I'm only willing to make two claims.
> 1. Graham's take, that it is likely that there were one or
more somewhat advanced civilizations that probably got wiped out
in Younger Dryas flooding, seems to make some sense.
>
> 2. UFO and alien type stories exhibit uncanny parallels with
ancient glyphs and cave paintings, and would seem to be
associated with shamans and the inner world described by those
who have ingested plant entheogens, like Ayahuasca.
--- End Quote ---
Eddie,
The two points you make are quite adequate to the task of
cornering Ashvin logically. He has not countered either one.
HTML http://us.cdn2.123rf.com/168nwm/lenm/lenm1201/lenm120100200/12107060-illustration-of-a-smiley-giving-a-thumbs-up.jpg
Ashvin said,
--- Quote ---
> I didn't bring Antarctica into the discussion, UB did after
reading a sentence in the BA post. I couldn't have anticipated
that he would bring that up. That being said, YES, I do think
that is a very weak part of their arguments. Please do go into
that and the South American boundaries too, if you want.
>
--- End Quote ---
You mockingly asked if a portion of a map looked like
Antarctica. DON'T DENY IT.
As to maps, when I went to photo interpreter school many years
ago, I studied cartography including Lambert conformal conic,
Mercator and so on. I understand how distortions build on maps.
As I pilot, I had to know ho to read maps rather well.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>
In pre-accurate time piece times, they could draw coastlines
okay but locating them was a bit of a challenge, to put it
mildly. The guy that made the Piri Reis map ADMITTED it was a
copy with several iterations from the original! He was no ET.
Handcock says a past high civilization of HOMO SAPS obtained the
cartographic info and it was passed down, PERIOD.
It being that you have some QUESTIONS to answer on this post, I
will make a separate post on the Piri Reis map with an
explanation of the projection issue. If you want to haul in
another hit piece "debunking" Piri Reis as a fraud, there's
plenty of them on the internet.
I suggest you do a little more checking on what you post here
than some "Bad Archeology" hit piece heaven. UB is far more
patient and learned than I am and will continue to deconstruct
disingenuous claims presented.
HTML http://us.cdn2.123rf.com/168nwm/lenm/lenm1201/lenm120100200/12107060-illustration-of-a-smiley-giving-a-thumbs-up.jpg<br
/>;D
I await your answers to the above questions. 8)
#Post#: 2671--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: February 13, 2015, 1:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[center]Evidence that Demands a Verdict:[/center]
The Consensus Historical View that Piri Reis used South
American Coastline maps made by Columbus
Christopher Columbus (Italian: Cristofero Colombo; Spanish:
Cristóbal Colón; Portuguese: Cristóvão Colombo; born between 31
October 1450 and 30 October 1451, died 20 May 1506) was an
Italian explorer, navigator, and colonizer, citizen of the
Republic of Genoa.
HTML http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/ColombusNotesToMarcoPolo.jpg
--- Quote ---
> Cristofero Colombo's handwritten notes in Latin, on the
margins of his copy of The Travels of Marco Polo.
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus
Explorers need maps. So Cristofero began scrounging around for
maps, after being inspired by Marco Polo (keep that in mind,
please 8)), that would help him in his quest.
HTML http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Atlantic_Ocean%2C_Toscanelli%2C_1474.jpg
--- Quote ---
> Toscanelli's notions of the geography of the Atlantic Ocean,
which directly influenced Columbus' plans.
> Columbus estimated the distance from the Canary Islands to
Japan to be about 3,000 Italian miles (3,700 km, or 2,300
statute miles). The true figure is now known to be vastly
larger: about 12,500 km.
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus
First KNOWN map by Cristofero Colombo. This map is quite
logical. It covers what Cristofero actually knew before he
hitched a ride on the trade winds on the good ships ""Saint
Mary" (real name - all ships were named after saints), the
"Pint" or "Painted lady", depending on the translation, and the
"Young Girl" (non saint names were probably nicknames - test on
Monday ;D).
HTML http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/ColombusMap.jpg
--- Quote ---
> Mapa de Cristóbal Colón. Lisboa, taller de Bartolomé y
Cristóbal Colón, hacia 1490.
> Christopher Columbus map. Lisbon, workshop of Bartolomeo and
Christopher Columbus, c.1490
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus
Who in the world would've ever known
What Columbus could do
If Queen Isabella hadn't hocked her jewels
In fourteen ninety two! (it's a song Ashvin. Settle down!). :D
HTML http://www.songlyrics.com/jimmy-jones/good-timin-lyrics/
HTML http://www.songlyrics.com/jimmy-jones/good-timin-lyrics/
Queen Isabella's timing was good, but in regard to the Piri Reis
map, Cristofero's timing was not.
So off he went with his crew of fear filled sailors.
HTML http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/LaPinta.jpg
Replica of the Pinta. I actually walked on it and talked to a
sailor that made the Atlantic crossing (imitating Columbus) on
this replica in 1992. A voyage on this vessel is NOT for the
feint of heart. It is VERY small for a transatlantic vessel! :o
--- Quote ---
> The New World was first sighted by Rodrigo de Triana on the
Pinta on October 12, 1492.
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinta_(ship)
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinta_(ship)
Voyages of Columbus
[img width=640
height=580]
HTML https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/2495/3874835820_bec27c8d37.jpg[[/img]
First voyage 1492
HTML http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbl7j3L45O1qhsqm1o1_1280.jpg
All four voyages
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-110215022816.png
More detail of the four voyages. Ashvin, PLEASE observe how far
SOUTH Columbus went. 8)
--- Quote ---
> Columbus always insisted, in the face of mounting evidence to
the contrary, that the lands that he visited during those
voyages were part of the Asian continent, as previously
described by Marco Polo and other European travelers.[9]
Columbus' refusal to accept that the lands he had visited and
claimed for Spain were not part of Asia might explain, in part,
why the American continent was named after the Florentine
explorer Amerigo Vespucci and not after Columbus.[40]
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Columbus
That's NOT all, folks. Cristofero died in May of 1506 DENYING
the existence of the "New World". That is a historical FACT,
Ashvin.
Was Cristofero keeping some land area map knowledge a secret?
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-026.gif<br
/>I don't think so. But there is "evidence" out there that
serious
scholars (this is not a joke, pal) accept/swallow/claim/push
(and so on) that makes absolutely no sense unless Cristofero was
a world class liar and insane too. Yet no serious scholar has
called him a liar or an expert in shooting himself in the foot
and face. ??? I'll get to that later on.
Mapping South America
Mapping the east coast of South America, especially in those
days when some native tribes along the east coast were quite
warlike, is a rather time consuming task. It is safe to say that
in 1504, from Cristofero's last sighted point on down, said
coast had NOT been mapped by humans yet, right? Wrong. Well,
that's what serious scholars state, so I guess that's what you
believe too, Ashvin. I agree. But the serious scholar historical
doubletalk is in the details, so to speak.
Let's take the last bit of South American coastline that
Cristofero sighted on his third voyage. That was the
southernmost point in his four voyages. After the fourth voyage
he died without added coastal mapping knowledge beyond what he
had mapped.
Guyana = 459 km
Brazil = 7,491 km
Uruguy= 660 km
Argentina = 4,989 km
Total 13,599 km = 8,500 miles
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_length_of_coastline
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_length_of_coastline
Going back and forth from Europe to South America must be added
to the length of time such a herculean task as mapping the east
coast of South America would take.
Back to Cristofero, he mapped most (not all - he did not map a
large part of Cuba and part of what is now Haiti) of the
Caribbean islands and part of Central and South American coast
in FOUR voyages at varying intervals from 1492-1504. Islands
have a lot of coastline so he was quite busy. In 12 years, he
mapped approximately 3,500 km (2,187 miles) of coastline.
Vespucci is credited with mapping the coast of eastern South
America south of Cristofero's last point at about 10 degrees
south latitude (Guyana).
HTML http://www.uh.edu/engines/vespucci.gif
Vespucci voyages NOTE: Vespucci turned north back to Spain, on
his voyage down the east coast of South America, 400 miles north
of Tierra de Fuego.
HTML http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1350spanish.htm.
HTML http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1350spanish.htm.
Then we have the Balboa voyage discovering the Pacific
(1510-1513). Observe that he did not go further south than
Columbus. Balboa is considered the FIRST Conquistador.
Early Voyages of Exploration 1492-1609
HTML http://www.phschool.com/atschool/ahon/history_interactive/mvl-1021/common_player.html
But, SO WHAT? Hadn't Vespucci mapped the eastern coast of South
America in 1501-1502? My answer is a DEFINITIVE NO! The
"serious" scholar historians are quite satisfied that my claim
is false.
The historical record also is clear that Vespucci DID NOT go
back to South America after that voyage. Magellan (1519) was the
next explorer that took Vespucci's route.
Let me be clear. I'm not saying Vespucci did NOT sail down the
coast to approximately 400 miles north of Tierra de Fuego before
turning home to Spain. I AM saying his mapping was a cursory job
with only the most salient details in his map.
It's a LONG coast. He did NOT know when it would end. He had
warlike tribes to deal with if he got too close to the coast
(something you HAVE TO DO to map on the relatively tiny vessels
of the day with much shorter masts than the tall ships that came
centuries later).
You need a daily sun shot to get your latitude at noon and some
sort of time keeping to figure your longitude too. It's been a
while since I've studied it but is NOT something he could have
done quickly, no matter how skilled Vespucci was.
There's also the weather to deal with. ANY TIME it rained, he
could NOT map accurately and had to drop anchor until he could
see the sun at noon for latitude (for longitude the stars and/or
preferably the moon were needed along with the time piece, of
course - so rain at night was a pain too!).
And then there were his trip provisions. He had a certain amount
of time before he HAD TO turn back to Spain, regardless of what
he could forage for on land.
Finally, there were the carreer advancement goals of Vespucci.
Columbo was still the big dog when Vespucci became convinced,
on his second voyage
HTML http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1350spanish.htm,
that this was a
"new world". He needed to get back to the king to gain favor for
his hypothesis. He was a smart cookie (For any scholar reading
this: No, I will not stop using pedestrian "man in the street"
common terms, language and expresions that make scholars sniff
in derision when they read my work. I rather enjoy using
vocabulary that communicates reality rather than some ivory
tower, high brow, erudite fuddy duddy, self aggrandizing
prose.).
My contention is that Amerigo Vespucci did a RUSH JOB on the
eastern South American coast. More on that later.
That brings us to 1513 and, you guessed it
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp,<br
/>the Piri Reis map.
HTML http://www.crystalinks.com/piriresimap_southamerica.jpg
Piri Reis map next to current land mass photo.
Ashvin, there is NO WAY in God's GOOD EARTH that ANYBODY could
have mapped 8,500 miles, or even HALF that much, of South
American coastline, brought it to Spain, sold a copy to the
Turks and enabled Piri to get his dibs on it, never mind
reconciling the other maps he had access to and produce the Piri
Reis map by 1513!
By 1550, sure. The Spaniards were going to town on the injuns
down there by then. They surely had to have the coastlines
mapped to find who to torture or enslave for God and Country
next (along with knownin' where the ORO and PLATA was too!)
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/pirates5B15D_th.gif.
But our serious scholars are having none of that post 1510
(that's right 1510, NOT 1513! ) business.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/237.gifhttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/bc3.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6961.gif
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/fly.gif
No sir! It has been
accepted by historians that 1513 is the actual date the map was
finished.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>
--- Quote ---
> The map was signed by Piri Reis, an Ottoman-Turkish admiral,
geographer and cartographer, and dated to the month of Muharram
in the Islamic year 919 AH, equivalent to 1513 AD.[12][13] It
was presented to Ottoman Sultan Selim I in 1517.[4][14]
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piri_Reis_map
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piri_Reis_map
Our SERIOUS SCHOLARS in this wikipedia article, and EVERY
serious historical reference to this EMBARRASSING Piri Reis map
(discovered in 1929), CLAIM that Piri used maps from Cristofero
Colombo!
You know, that guy that went to his grave claiming there was no
"new world" (see Marco Polo fixation).
You know, that guy that got one upped by Amerigo Vespucci for
that very reason!
You know, the guy never got south of about 10 degrees north
latitude in all four voyages!
And you claim these "serious" scholar historians (and you) rely
on the[I] "BEST" explanation!!!? [/i] ???
HTML http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2009/347/2/6/WTF_Smiley_face_by_IveWasHere.jpg
--- Quote ---
> In the map's legend, Piri inscribed that the map was based on
about twenty charts and mappae mundi.[15][16][17] According to
Piri, these maps included eight Ptolemaic maps, an Arabic map of
India, four newly drawn Portuguese maps from Sindh, Pakistan and
a map by Christopher Columbus of the western lands.
>
> From Inscription 6 on the map:
>
> From eight Jaferyas of that kind and one Arabic map of Hind
[India], and from four newly drawn Portuguese maps which show
the countries of Sind [now in modern day Pakistan], Hind and Çin
[China] geometrically drawn, and also from a map drawn by
Qulūnbū [Columbus] in the western region, I have
extracted it. By reducing all these maps to one scale this final
form was arrived at, so that this map of these lands is regarded
by seamen as accurate and as reliable as the accuracy and
reliability of the Seven Seas[18] on the aforesaid maps."[19]
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Piri_reis_world_map_01.jpg
--- Quote ---
> Surviving fragment of the Piri Reis map showing Central and
South America shores. In his notes appended to it
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png<br
/>is written "the map of the western lands drawn by Columbus"[1]
--- End Quote ---
[b]Piri Reis map [/b]
--- Quote ---
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
>
> Surviving fragment of the Piri Reis map showing Central and
South America shores. In his notes appended to it is written
"the map of the western lands drawn by Columbus"[1]
>
> The Piri Reis map is a world map compiled in 1513 from
military intelligence by the Ottoman admiral and cartographer
Piri Reis (pronounced [piɾi ɾeis]). Approximately
one-third of the map survives; it shows the western coasts of
Europe and North Africa and the coast of Brazil with reasonable
accuracy. Various Atlantic islands including the Azores and
Canary Islands are depicted, as is the mythical island of
Antillia and possibly Japan.
>
> The historical importance of the map lies in its demonstration
of the extent of exploration of the New World by approximately
1510
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif,<br
/>and in its claim to have used Columbus's maps
HTML http://dl8.glitter-graphics.net/pub/1238/1238988d68zgywbnq.gif
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg,<br
/>otherwise lost, as a source. It used ten Arab sources, four
Indian maps sourced from the Portuguese and one map of Columbus.
More recently it has been the focus of pseudohistoric claims for
the premodern exploration of the Antarctic coast.
>
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piri_Reis_map
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piri_Reis_map
--- End Quote ---
Magellan DID travel along, and map, the east coast of South
America beginning at a point midway down the coast of Brazil,
but he began this voyage in 1519!
What about the Ashvin style "best" explanation logic that the
Piri Reis map, if Vespucci didn't produce it, is a backdated
Magellan map?
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
The Piri Reis map could not have been a "backdated" Magellan
piece BECAUSE of two reasons:
1) The Piri Reis map shows the coast of Guyana and Brazil AFTER
the last point Columbus sighted and BEFORE the point in Brazil
where Magellan sighted land.
2) Magellean mapped the coast from the point he sighted land to
the Strait of Magellan, and kept going WEST. His maps DO NOT
twist the southern part of South America to the right.
HTML http://libweb5.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/pacific/magellan-strait/map-magellan-strait-pigafetta.jpg
1520 Strait of Magellan map
--- Quote ---
> Magellan’s 1520 transit of the strait took thirty-eight days,
many of them spent scouting and discounting alternative paths
through the labyrinth. The following expedition in 1525, led by
the Spanish nobleman Garcia Jofre de Loaísa, required four and a
half months to solve the strait’s puzzle. As a result, the
commander recommended that Spain abandon using the route to
reach the Pacific. Henceforth, most Spanish expeditions to the
Pacific were launched from their ports on the western coasts of
Central and South America.
>
> The first English venture through the passage—in a speedy
seventeen days—was that of the privateer and circumnavigator Sir
Francis Drake in 1578. Exiting into the Pacific, his expedition
met fierce winds that pushed his ships south and east to a
latitude of about 57° S, where they were surprised to find open
water. (Later, this serendipitous discovery was named the Drake
Passage; it offered the possibility of a more southern route
around South America.)
--- End Quote ---
Final half in next post on this thread.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/reading.gif
#Post#: 2672--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: February 13, 2015, 2:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Second and final part of:
[center]Evidence that Demands a Verdict:[/center]
The Consensus Historical View that Piri Reis used South
American Coastline maps made by Columbus
HTML http://libweb5.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/pacific/magellan-strait/map-magellan-strait-quad-1600.jpg
Corneille Wytfliet’s map of 1597
--- Quote ---
> It wasn't until 1616-1624 that the the southern tip of South
America was mapped.
> The discovery of the Le Maire Strait and Cape Horn by the
Dutch mariners Jacques Le Maire and Willem Corneliszoon Schouten
in 1616 at last provided explorers and merchants with a viable
alternative to the vagaries of the Magellan Strait.
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://libweb5.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/pacific/magellan-strait/map-magellan-strait-bertius-1602.jpg
--- Quote ---
> Published before the Dutchmen Jacques Le Maire (1585–1616) and
Willem Corneliszoon Schouten (d. 1625) rounded Cape Horn (1616),
the map shows the Strait of Magellan separating Patagonia and
Tierra del Fuego, which still was considered to be part of a
vast southern continent. The charm of the map lies in its
depiction of Patagonian giants, the mythical
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/> race of large people first mentioned by Antonio Pigafetta in
his chronicle of Ferdinand Magellan’s voyage. Bertius’s note
next to the illustration states that the giants can reach ten
feet in height :o and that they paint their bodies in various
colors from diverse herbs. ;D
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> It was not until 1624 that another Dutch explorer, Jacques
L’Hermite, charted the islands and waters around the cape,
proving that Cape Horn was really an island.
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> Rounding Cape Horn, of course, would prove to have serious
weather issues of its own—ones that continue to confront and
confound sailors today—but it would become the preferred
transoceanic route for sailing ships for centuries to come.
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://libweb5.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/pacific/magellan-strait/map-magellan-strait-gerritsz-1630.jpg
--- Quote ---
> Gerritsz., Hessel, 1581?–1632. “Provincien van de Straet van
Magallanes, ende vande Straet Le Maire.” Copperplate map, with
added color, 27 × 35 cm. From Joannes de Laet’s Nieuwe wereldt .
. . (Leiden, 1630). Acquired with funds provided by the Friends
of the Princeton University Library. Reference: Martinic,
Cartografía magallánica, VIII, 89. Historic Maps
Collection
>
> Oriented with north to the right, the map explodes the
long-held belief that Tierra del Fuego was attached to a
southern continent. Fifteen years after the circumnavigation of
Le Maire and Schouten, Hessel Gerritszoon, the official mapmaker
for the Dutch East India Company, is able to show the
alternative route navigators can take to reach the Pacific from
the Atlantic: around Cape Horn via the Strait of Le Maire.
--- End Quote ---
The last map in this series I will present is a truly beautiful
map. It's truly a work of art, as well as exceptional
cartography. Put the establishment is not altogether happy with
it.
This is an excellent example of serious historians engaging in
conjecture and clever suggestions of PROPAGANDA when the data
does not fit their historical paradigm.
Whenever a serious scholar wants to undermine the credibility of
some map data and/or annotation, they use descriptive terms like
"mythical", "incongruous", "propaganda", "alleged", "unproven",
etc.
What's wrong with that, you (or Ashvin ;D) might ask?
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_9HT4xZyDmh4/TOHhxzA0wLI/AAAAAAAAEUk/oeHDS2cfxWQ/s200/Smiley_Angel_Wings_Halo.jpg<br
/>They are just being prudent, measured, serious (and so on),
RIGHT?
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs3187425.gif
WRONG! It is, in fact, quite the double standard! WHY? ???
Because, in regard to exactly the SAME map, they will use
descriptive terms such as "Tour de force", "elegant",
"detailed", etc. to support
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/19.gif
the accuracy and
credibility of the cartographer!
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-291014182422.png
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120215001540.jpeg
--- Quote ---
> 1675: Wit, Frederik de. “Tractus australior Americæ
Meridionalis, a Rio de la Plata per Fretum Magellanicum ad
Toraltum.” Copperplate map, with added color, 48 × 54 cm. From
Wit’s Orbis maritimus ofte zee atlas. Amsterdam, 1675.
Reference: Martinic, Cartografía magallánica VIII,
121. Historic Maps Collection
>
> One of the most elegant and detailed charts of southern South
America produced in the seventeenth century. The map continues
the now archaic, headland view of Cape Horn but offers a much
fuller picture of the west coast of Chile, identifying many
capes and ports. In the Atlantic, an unspecified Dutch naval
battle takes place.
>
> The dramatic cartouche, however, is the tour de force of the
map (see the map detail): a meeting between Dutch merchants and
natives (Patagonians or Fuegians?) who are mining, refining, and
molding what appears to be gold. The onlooking animal with the
spiral horns looks like a blackbuck antelope, native to India,
or even an eland or oryx from Africa—but is out of place in
South America.
>
> At the time of this map, the continent was a literal gold mine
for Spain, and Dutch commercial interests were focused on the
East Indies.
>
> Hence, this iconography seems incongruous: one would expect to
see Spanish conquistadors and Peruvian Indians portraying their
contemporary master/subject roles. Here, the scene suggests that
a new deal or trade could be made.
>
> Perhaps the artist/cartographer is dramatizing the possible
rather than the status quo in a work of Dutch propaganda.
--- End Quote ---
Princeton University collection and history of South American
maps made by Magellan and those who came after him:
HTML http://libweb5.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/pacific/magellan-strait/magellan-strait-maps.html
In short, the cartographer from centuries ago is JUDGED to be
perfectly honest, thorough and accurate AS LONG as he tows the
present "serious" historian paradigm. Any departure from that is
poo pooed with erudite puffery.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp
That is not serious scholarship. Yet Ashvin NEVER even considers
the possibility of interpretative perfidy among "serious"
scholars. The fact that scholars ALWAYS use careful language
blinds Ashvin and others to their paradigm turf protecting
duplicity. They use it sparingly to preserve their credibility
but do not hesitate to invent long screeds of logic free
discourse to demonize any revisionist history that questions
their paradigm. But they are so polite about it!
Consequently, NOBODY is allowed to consider the possibility of
mens rea because academics are, OF COURSE, not affected by peer
pressure, establishment line towing, tenure considerations,
social climbing, status and money. SNIFF!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/290.gif
Oh no!
It's all those pseudo historians out there that that are
immediately suspect... BALONEY! >:( News flash! The higher up
on the civilizational hierarchy a human is, the MORE PRONE he is
to engage in mendacity, duplicity, perfidy and fraud to DEFEND
the status quo. But our credentialed "priesthood" must always be
sanctified while anybody questioning, with data and evidence,
their paradigm gravy train is demonized and ridiculed (see
double standard on steroids :P).
And all the while, these logic challenged credentialed meat
heads have the audacity to claim they will change their views
with "sufficiently valid" evidence that their paradigm requires
a shift to understand the data. I don't think so. It is not hard
to change the paradigm because of lack of evidence; it's hard
because of ossified, stubborn and pride filled status quo turf
defending.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp
Of course it's part of human nature. But, if we were logical and
reasonable about this, we would, given that power and position
CORRUPTS, look with a more jaundiced eye at the establishment
pooh bahs than women or men (like me
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp)<br
/>that just want the honest God's historical truth to be
accepted,
regardless of who's pride is hurt by looking like a world class
turf protecting reprobate.
I don't think any of the maps or mapmakers presented here are
deliberately inaccurate or mendaciously annotated in any way,
shape or form. ([i]the Piri Reis NOTES allegedly APPENDED to the
Piri Reis map are another matter). And YEAH, Ashvin, that
INCLUDES those rather large natives Magellan saw in Patagonia!
[b]They are NOT on alleged NOTES APPENDED to the map; they are
written on it! [/b]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
But I
KNOW what your reaction to Magellan's eye witness account will
be.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_6961.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/fam/fam12.gif
ANYTHING that doesn't
fit your paradigm is "not relevant" to the "best" explanation so
you will use your rhetoric to
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/Banane21.gif
away from it. ;D
The Piri Reis map has the South American coast twisted to the
right with no gap at the end, giving the, PROBABLY MISTAKEN,
impression to a modern cartographer that it was mapping
Antarctica. I am not convinced of the Antarctica mapping but
that's neither here nor there. I have some theories about why
that is if you want to hear them (it has to do with the accuracy
of the available time pieces of the mappers).
[center]
CONCLUSION[/center]
It is IMPOSSIBLE for Columbus to have provided the map info
credited to him by Piri Reis in the "NOTES APPENDED TO IT" (the
map), as serious scholars claim because.
1) No European explorer was THERE to map eastern South America
in this DETAIL until AFTER 1519!
2) Even if Cristofero had lived past 1506 and sailed to map said
coast, he wouldn't have had enough time to map 13,599 km = 8,500
miles of coastline, get it to Spain and hand it off to the
Turks!
But you believe them. Fine and dandy, Ashvin, you have lots of
company in your beliefs. But that's all they are.
Cabot went out in 1497 but it was much farther north than
Columbus (Newfoundland).
Cortes starts out in 1519. Pizarro in 1531 and Hudson in 1609.
END OF STORY.
Check all voyage geography and dates HERE:
Early Voyages of Exploration 1492-1609
HTML http://www.phschool.com/atschool/ahon/history_interactive/mvl-1021/common_player.html
When the accurate, indisputable data (I know, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE
for an adversarial lawyer ;)) does not fit the paradigm, a
shift in the paradigm is required. Vested interests and the
scholarly historical consensus do NOT want to undergo a paradigm
shift BECAUSE that requires eating a LOT OF CROW and rewriting
history.
They rightly fear that the pseudo-historians and scam artists
will have a field day if the credibility of serious scholars is
undermined BY serious scholars.
But that's just turf protecting, not logic or serious
scholarship.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113183729.png<br
/> No amount of clever rhetoric by you or anybody else can
disguise that. The scam artists will always be there. That is
NOT an argument for disingenuously inventing the baloney that
Cristofero Colombo provided the South American map data to Piri
Reis.
Among the pseudo historians there is a subset of "pseudo"
historians (i. e. Serious, truth searching historians -
something you REFUSE to believe) that have pointed to the truth.
Serious scholars don't want to give them the time of day for the
reasons I have stated, but serious scholars have PECUNIARY
reasons as well. Try not to forget that when you attack the
credibility of an author (i.e. claim they are ruled by
conscience free greed instead of truth) based on the fact that
he is making a buck by writing revisionist history.
And spare me the "true believer" motive you pejoratively ascribe
to me for writing these pieces. This is my work. I am not
quoting Hapgood, Hancock or anybody else. So feel free to claim
I am not "credible" because I am not credentialed.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
That argument works well in a court room but not in a debate
where truth is more important than sophistry.
No, I DO NOT think that ET gave Piri the map info. LOL! ET would
have space age mapping photographic quality accuracy. The Piri
Reis map DOES NOT have that level of accuracy, but there is NO
QUESTION that the coastline is South America's east coast. And
time travel is impossible, as far as I'm concerned. I think we
can agree that the Columbus mapping ships were not time
machines.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>Columbus did NOT map the coastline of eastern South America
below 10 degrees north latitude.
What you SHOULD be doing now Ashvin, instead furiously Googling
"Piri Reis map fraud" and "pseudo history of Piri Reis map" (and
so on) is asking yourself WHERE did Piri Reis get the
indisputably accurate, according to modern maps, coastline map
information of eastern South America below 10 degrees north
latitude. Cristofero Columbo never went there.
But I know you well, Ashvin. You are going to bring up good old
Amerigo Vespucci. You are going to bring up the serious
scholarly claim that Vespucci DID map the coast of South America
from Guyana on down between 1500 and 1502. And then you are
going to put two and two together and get the 1510 "historically
accepted level of knowledge" that Spain had of South America.
You are going to claim that Amerigo Vespucci, named by the king
to be top dog on "New World" (that term Cristofero was allergic
to) exploration procedure and authorized by said king to set up
a school to teach explorers how to map and how to navigate, of
course shared this South American map knowledge with Cristofero
Colombo and his brother Bartolomeo, who shared the work of
running the the same "taller" (map workshop) the Colombo
brothers ran.
The last link in this trail of serious scholarly logic is that
after Cristofero's death in 1506, Bartolomeo made a few (more
like a LOT!) of pesetas selling a copy (Maps were INCREDIBLY
EXPENSIVE and tenaciously guarded in those days of early
exploration because of the ORO and PLATA filled lands
explorer/conquistador/plunderers who had them could navigate
to.) to Piri Reis.
My, what a gem of reasonableness and plausibility. Is that is
your "best" explanation? With a few insignificant variations,
that is what serious historians claim.
The accepted historical paradigm that, in 1510, the knowledge of
South America indisputably displayed on the 1513 Piri Reis map
was the level of mapped knowledge by European civilization at
the time is inaccurate. It is a fairy tale. It is a willful
denial of the evidence. It is a deliberate distortion of the
truth in order to defend the claim that Piri Reis got his info
from the Spaniards. It is an absolute scandal that they persist
in this fantasy.
[center]CLOSING ARGUMENTS[/center]
1) There are some serious scholarly historian issues with
Amerigo Vespucci. While alive, he was QUITE secretive about what
he knew and who he shared his mapping info with. This was, of
course, normal for that time period.
I present that fact to you in order for you to understand the
context of the data that historians question. You will find that
one of his "voyages" is considered fictitious by historians due
to letters Vespucci allegedly wrote of his "four" voyages,
conveniently discovered many years after his death, that turned
out to be forgeries. So the exact details of his voyages are
STILL, unlike Cristofero's voyages, a matter of historical
conjecture.
But aren't his maps evidence of his voyages? Somewhat, but they
are a BIG FAIL in confirming he had anything to do with the Piri
Reis map. I told you I'd get Vespucci's RUSH JOB and now we are
here. ;D
There is a 1507 map ( a German one) that claims the data for
"America" (what is now South America) and the Caribbean came
from Vespucci (and Colombo too). It does not show the track of
the voyages of Vespucci or how many of them there were. And by
the way, that's how South America was the first to receive the
name "America".
HTML http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Waldseem%C3%BCller_quadratic.jpg
--- Quote ---
> Waldseemüller’s 1507 map of America re-drawn on an
equirectangular projection and on the same uniform scale as that
of Schöner of 1515, so as to be readily comparable (E.G.
Ravenstein, Martin Behaim: His Life and His Globe, London,
George Philip & Son, 1908, p. 36).
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldseem%C3%BCller_map
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldseem%C3%BCller_map
Here's another one from 1515 (a little late for Piri Reis and
looking just as coarse as the Waldseemüller 1507 map)..
HTML http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Sch%C3%B6ner_quadratic.jpg
--- Quote ---
> Schöner’s 1515 map of America re-drawn on an equirectangular
projection and on the same uniform scale as that of
Waldseemüller of 1507, so as to be readily comparable (E.G.
Ravenstein, Martin Behaim: His Life and His Globe, London,
George Philip & Son, 1908, p. 36).
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldseem%C3%BCller_map
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldseem%C3%BCller_map
2) If the above two maps showing South America ARE from
Vespucci's mapping efforts, as serious historians have accepted,
it is evidence of a RUSH JOB. But serious historians don't
accept it was a rush job. I wonder why. ;) As I previously
mentioned, the mapped coastline is far too lengthy to have been
mapped at the required detail in in time to get the data to
Spain and Piri Reis before 1513.
3) Even if the above two points could be explained away somehow,
there is the further "problem" for the serious scholars that the
Andes mountain chain is accurately portrayed for a distance on
the Piri Reis map. Balboa was somewhat near there between 1510
and 1513 when he discovered the Pacific Ocean but he was too far
away to sight the Andes in his location in Central America. The
Andes were NOT discovered by Balbo. Pizarro discovered and began
mapping them in 1533.
4) The Piri Reis map shows that the Amazon river tributaries
begin on the east side of the Andes mountain chain and join to
make the Amazon river. Yes, the distance from the mountains to
the delta is inaccurate. So? The point is there is no way
Vespucci could have guessed the Andes were there or that the
head waters were west-southwest of the delta.
Yes, Vespucci mapped the Amazon river delta. But he probably did
not know it was a delta for sure.
--- Quote ---
> ... the mouth of the Amazon is so huge (over 200 miles across)
that early explorers navigating the Atlantic coastline of South
America simply didn't recognize the mouth of the river as a
river!
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.projectamazonas.org/brief-history-amazon-exploration
HTML http://www.projectamazonas.org/brief-history-amazon-exploration
The fact that the headwaters of the Amazon river are just east
of the Andes was not discovered until 1541 and not confirmed as
the headwaters, despite reaching the Atlantic Ocean on 26
August, 1542, until many years later.
--- Quote ---
> Despite the fact that indigenous people had been living in the
Amazon for at least 10,000 years, and possibly for as long as
15,000 year, the Amazon River itself was "discovered" by a
Spanish explorer and conquistador. Don Francisco de Orellana
left Quito, Ecuador in February of 1541 in the role of
lieutenant to the company of Gonçalo Pizarro ...
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.projectamazonas.org/brief-history-amazon-exploration
HTML http://www.projectamazonas.org/brief-history-amazon-exploration
But not only is successfully imagining a mountain chain like the
Andes rather far fetched, placing imaginary or speculative land
marks was NOT standard operating procedure for a cartographer of
that day.
As you can see from much later maps, like this detailed southern
South American Dutch map from 1675, cartographers did not 'make
things up' inside a land mass that they did not know precisely
where to locate.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-120215001540.jpeg
--- Quote ---
> 1675: Wit, Frederik de. “Tractus australior Americæ
Meridionalis, a Rio de la Plata per Fretum Magellanicum ad
Toraltum.” Copperplate map, with added color, 48 × 54 cm. From
Wit’s Orbis maritimus ofte zee atlas. Amsterdam, 1675.
Reference: Martinic, Cartografía magallánica VIII,
121. Historic Maps Collection
--- End Quote ---
Drawing scenes of this and that may be okay to add a little
razzle dazzle, but locating a mountain chain AND river
tributaries for aesthetic effect was not acceptable then or now.
Cartographers were/are fastidious about landmarks, Ashvin. When
a landmark position is not certain but still claimed by an eye
witness, the cartographer will so state on the map. The Piri
Reis map does NOT state that the Amazon tributaries, the Amazon
river OR the Andes are speculation.
5) The Piri Reis map accurately portrays the Malvinas (The
Falklands for the Brits). Portuguese cartographer Pedro Reinel,
in about 1522, produced the very first map to show the Falklands
AFTER the Piri Reis map.
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_history_of_the_Falkland_Islands
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_history_of_the_Falkland_Islands
Vespucci turned north about 400 miles north of Tierra de Fuego.
He never sighted or mapped the Malvinas.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130215003144.jpeg
Piri Reis map with detailed South American east coastline, a
portion of the Andes mountain chain, Amazon river headwaters not
discovered officially until much later and accurately portrayed
Malvinas islands pointed out by A. G. Gelbert.
The probability that Amerigo Vespucci, in a mapping voyage that
took LESS THAN two years, mapped, at the Piri Reis level of
detail, 10,000 km PLUS of the eastern coast of South America and
"got lucky" positioning a large part of the Andes he had never
seen, the headwaters from them that feed the Amazon river and
the accurate portrayal of the Malvinas is ZERO.
Serious scholars in their ivory towers
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-064.gif
are
allergic to paradigm shifts.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared005.gif
So are
you. I understand.
Except for the quotes and links, I, A.G. Gelbert, wrote all the
above.
Among the pseudo historians, there is a subset that I belong to
of "pseudo" historians that are serious, truth searching amateur
historians who labor to expose the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help us God.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
I am a man of respect
and integrity. I am not credentialed but I am credible.
Anyone reading this is free to publish it, send it to a
university, shout it from the rafters (and so on) with, or
without, attribution. I am unconcerned if the "serious" scholar
historians print this on a roll of toilet paper. If they do, at
least it shows those stuffed shirts have a sense of humor. ;D
I freely give this authority to readers in order to nip in the
bud, so to speak, any spurious and defamatory claims of
pecuniary motives on my part. Of course some may try to claim I
am a pseudo-historian fishing for a book contract like any
"good" con artist. Anyone that claims that is engaging in libel
and is also suffering from glial cell colonization by fecal
coliforms. Have a nice day. 8)
#Post#: 2687--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: February 16, 2015, 9:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.abroadintheyard.com/wp-content/uploads/Wallaces-Line-separating-southeast-Asian-and-Australian-fauna-today-and-around-50000-years-ago-when-sea-levels-were-much-lower.jpg
--- Quote ---
> Wallace's Line separating southeast Asian and Australian fauna
today, and around 50,000 years ago ...
--- End Quote ---
Snippet from an article with the above graphic in it. Aside from
the "subspecies" groundless speculation about interbreeding, it
points to some type of hominid species that was NOT Homo SAP.
--- Quote ---
> A study of ancient DNA suggests that a mysterious sub-species
of ancient human could have reached Australia after crossing
Wallace’s Line in southeast Asia over 100,000 years ago.
>
> The Denisovans are the newest addition to the human family
tree following the discovery in 2008 of a 40,000 year-old
finger bone in the Denisova cave in Siberia’s Altai Mountains.
Scientists were stunned when analysis of its mitochondrial DNA
revealed that it was genetically distinct from modern humans and
Neanderthals. They were further amazed when they found that
some modern human populations carried traces of Denisovan DNA,
the relic of ancient interbreeding between the two subspecies.
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gaah.gif
>
> Puzzlingly, the traces of Denisovan DNA in modern human
genomes appear to be confined to indigenous populations in
Australia, New Guinea and surrounding areas, but absent or at
very low levels in populations on mainland Asia where the fossil
was found.
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.abroadintheyard.com/denisovans-discover-australia/
Agelbert NOTE: I don't know how advanced or how primitive they
were. However, I think it is arrogantly biased to automatically
assume the Denisovans were brutes that could only follow the
animals they hunted over land to Australia and were too
'unevolved' to know how to make boats! :( Regardless of the
patronizing prejudices they have been branded with by our
scientists, there is no question that they existed more than
16,500 years ago when sea levels were lower.
Were there OTHER hominid species besides the Denisovans and
Neanderthals out there then? How advanced were our ancestors
and/or other hominid species we shared the planet with?
The answers, never mind the QUESTIONS, have not been addressed
with much rigor by our scientific community. They seem to be
rather comfortable with their view of human history and have no
wish to have it revised by embarrassing evidence. Consequently,
researchers like Graham Handc ock, that question the consensus
of history AND provide evidence that it needs revising, are
either ridiculed or demonized. So it goes with the turf
defending stuffed shirts in academia. >:(
[b][I]A LOT of antediluvian civilization got flooded when sea
levels rose.[/i] A moron can see that humans have a habit of
building coastal cities! A person with an IQ of 80 or better can
figure out that when ice caps melt, coastal port cities will be
flooded and disappear from the historical record. With a few
more IQ points, they can even look at modern civilization and
SEE where most of our population AND HIGH TECH is concentrated.
DUH... The COASTAL mega cities. So if you tell a
scientist/archeologist that if you want to look for ancient
advanced civilizations and possible high tech, the OBVIOUS place
to start is the location of coastlines in the three melt surges
post ice age, WHY do they look at you cross eyed? ??? It's
either because they are stupid or they are in to arrogant turf
protection. I don't think they are stupid. ;D
According to modern science, the world wide coastal flooding
post ice age occurred in three major surges. The lowest sea
level before the ice began to melt was 16,500 years ago. That
was the pre-flood civilization. But since the three periods of
surges were separated by thousands of years, there were
technically three levels of pre-flood coastal city
civilizations. After each massive flooding event, mankind would
build cities on the new coasts.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-160215212431.jpeg
Map created by Martin Vargic, an amateur graphic designer from
Slovakia.
'It is the first map of its kind on such a scale and level of
complexity, and depicts our planet as it looked during the late
glacial maximum of the last ice age, 14,000 years BCE,' he told
MailOnline.
The world 16,000 years ago was in many ways radically different
to the present; because large amounts of water were concentrated
in the massive ice sheets covering the majority of North America
and western Eurasia, sea levels were about 110 meters lower when
compared to today.
This exposed massive land bridges, most notably Beringia,
Sundaland and Sahul.
Martin Vargic said,
--- Quote ---
>
> "I was genuinely surprised about how the climate and geography
of the world has changed in only about 16 thousand years (only a
fraction of time when compared to Earth's history)".
--- End Quote ---
The two maps below show the weather now versus the weather
16,000 years ago. Also please note that in this type of
projection, Antarctica's coast line is severely distorted.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-160215212523.jpeg
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-160215212617.jpeg
HTML http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2630738/How-world-looked-ice-age-The-incredible-map-reveals-just-planet-changed-14-000-years.html
If the scientific community ever does decide to seriously
address the possibility of advanced antediluvian civilization,
the answers will probably be found in ancient submerged cities.
Here for your edification and enjoyment is some research done by
Graham Handc ock in the company of scientists. These videos are
about scientific evidence for pre-flood cities and
civilizations. Enjoy!
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va0BIqfzpvo&feature=player_embedded
[b]Underworld - Flooded Kingdoms Of The Ice Age (part one)[/b]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRq56cWLyZQ&feature=player_embedded
[b]Underworld - Flooded Kingdoms Of The Ice Age (part two)[/b]
Flooded Kingdoms of the Ice Age: A Vedic and India Perspective
by David Frawley
SNIPPET (relating to the research in the above videos): 8)
--- Quote ---
> Vedic literature describes its homeland on a long lost river
called the Sarasvati, which according to Vedic descriptions
flowed east of the Indus from the Himalayas to the Arabian Sea.
Modern satellite photography has clearly indicated the existence
of this great river, as have numerous geological and ground
water studies conducted over the last few decades, which show
that the Sarasvati was once over ten kilometers in width and
flowed from the mountains to the sea, dwarfing the nearby Indus.
As the Vedas say, the Sarasvati was the largest river of the
region at the time. It was the center of a great civilization
and the vast majority of ancient Indian and Harappan ruins have
been found on the now dried banks of the Sarasvati.
>
> As the Sarasvati River dried up around 1900 BCE, the Vedic
civilization which describes the river as its immemorial
homeland must be much older.
>
> Graham Han**** breaks down this anti-India barrier and
elevates ancient India back to the forefront of ancient
civilizations. He shows that the spiritual foundation of the
Vedas cannot be divorced from the earliest civilization of the
region. He quotes the Vedas to show how they reflect a great
flood and the establishment of a new civilization after it.
Han**** shows how the Vedas reflect a maritime civilization
which developed amidst the crashing glaciers that produced the
waters to make the now dry Sarasvati the largest river in India.
Marine archaeology shows a number of submerged sites off the
coast of Kachchh and Cambay in what would have then been the old
Sarasvati delta region.
>
> A Gulf of Cambay urban site has recently been dated by Indian
archaeologists to 7500 BCE. This would totally change our view
of history as we now date cities only after 3500 BCE. It is here
that Han**** is now seeking what he calls the holy grail of his
quest for this older civilization of the pre-Ice Age era. It is
here that we can look for the tradition of Manu, the Hindu flood
figure and first king and law giver, and the great sages, the
Angirasa and Bhrigu rishis who were traditionally connected both
to Manu and to the sea. This earlier civilization was preserved
in India in two traditions. The first is the Vedic tradition,
which grew up on the Sarasvati River at the end of the Ice Age.
The second is the Tamilian tradition, which reflected pre-Ice
Age cultures off the coast of South India.
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_cienciaindia_5.htm
Mankind does not just have over 250 flood "myths"; we have MASS
AMNESIA about our past!
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp
#Post#: 2688--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: February 17, 2015, 12:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
JD,
I researched the Chinese maps. Unlike Piri Reis, the dates
cannot be authenticated. Consequently, they cannot be used as
evidence of Chinese pre-European discovery of the Americas.
:emthdown:
UB said,
--- Quote ---
> Agelbert, thanks for the time taken producing the above posts,
kindly cue the cat in the labcoat, it needs to be my new
signature.
>
--- End Quote ---
The cat in the lab coat?
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-010215144153.png
You mean THIS ONE?
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-230115195735.png
WHOOPS! That's the one that comes later....
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp<br
/>
HTML http://www.whydidyouwearthat.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/tumblr_l7j9nik8Wf1qaxxwjo1_5001.jpeghttp://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png<br
/>
You are welcome.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141113185701.png
I hear what you say about Antarctica and Piri Reis. But you have
to look closely at Cape Horn (in the right twist distortion)
versus the location of the Malvinas on the Piri Reis map. That
is BIG deal. WHY? Because Cape Horn looks like the stretched,
flattened Antarctic coast that a modern map like the one below
shows.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-160215212523.jpeg
Now check out the other map that shows what the world looked
like before the ice melted 16000 years ago. It is quite
interesting that the South American tip begins to swing RIGHT as
the ocean level gets shallower.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-160215212617.jpeg
Does that mean Piri Reis data down there was that old? I don't
think so BECAUSE the Malvinas would be bigger.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-130215003144.jpeg
They aren't bigger than when they got officially mapped by some
Dutch dude in 1524 or so. Nevertheless, I agree the Dutch were
not letting on what they knew (the Dutch have a historical
HATRED for Spaniards). I'll dig up that Dutch 1524 map if you
like. Here's a modern close up map of the area:
HTML http://www.naturalist.co.uk/maps/Falklands.jpg
At any rate, Piri Reis and the Dutch were probably NOT pals
either. My hypothesis is that the ancient knowledge came from
the middle east. I've got some leads but no proof. So, for now,
I am simply TOTALLY convinced that Europeans did not make Piri
Reis.
Ashvin,
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
Let me
get his straight. You think that JESUS CHRIST was referring to a
LOCAL flood when he was discussing Noah and the Ark?
Do you want the Gospels in Greek (as supposedly they were
originally written in) and the old testament in Aramaic, Hebrew
and whatever to accept that JESUS was raised in the JEWISH faith
and read and believed the Scriptures that do not say BEANS about
the flood and Noah being allegorical, a parable, some children's
scary story or a warning? Your NON-answer is absolutely
BREATHTAKING!
Let's take it from the top. Jesus Christ is GOD, right? He comes
into this world in the flesh and His knowledge gets downgraded
(according to the New Testament). He did not have the FULL
PICTURE that GOD has. The specific passage is where it says he
GREW in KNOWLEDGE.
God does NOT need to do that. But J.C. needed to do that because
he was part Homo SAP. The point is that he LEARNED and BELIEVED
the Pentateuch, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Judges, Chronicles, Samuel I
and II and so on. He was a smart guy, RIGHT? He probably had a
photographic memory, RIGHT? Of course! He may have been human
but here is no question that He was a GENIUS when He walked the
earth.
You and I have taken pains trying to explain to RE and others
that J.C. was NOT ACTING in a play. That is why he had his data
base Homo SAP sized when He came here. Otherwise it would have
been just theater. He HAD to feel DOUBT about who He was/is or
he was doing theater.
But maybe you have never wanted to delve into the
divinity/humanity mix all that much. Fine. Me neither. I just
KNOW the Gospel says He LEARNED and He INCREASED in KNOWLEDGE.
There is no way to dance around that fact. And I don't believe
you want to so I will assume you agree that J.C. learned his
Scriptures like a good Jewish boy.
Fast forward to Mathew 24:37-39. Here the overall context is His
RETURN when He won't be Mr. Nice Guy. He is using a historical
reference (Noah, the ark and the flood that drowned every
non-aquatic creature [i]on EARTH, according to the scripture
(the date it happened is not the issue, Ashvin - it's WHETHER it
happened or not on a global scale that IS the issue AND the
reason I said anybody claiming J.C. did not believe in global
flood is mistaken[/i].).
J.C. is predicting what some Homo SAP civilizational conditions
will be when He RETURNS. It's a prophecy. It's a rather
IMPORTANT prophecy, is it not? Do you HONESTLY think Jesus
Christ would use a LOCAL FLOOD (where Noah and family got
warned and survived while the bad people in a limited area
drown) comparison to HIS RETURN to JUDGE the EARTH?
Do you think He was planning to drop in on the same area as that
LOCAL FLOOD and to hell with the rest of the planet?
Perhaps I am not understanding you, Ashvin. Would you please
clarify your position on Noah and the extent of the flood? GO
was kind enough to state right out that he thought it was a
parable. He considered it a myth. He may still consider it a
myth but he promises to ponder the issue. There is an honest
response. Is that your opinion too?
And by the way, I'm surprised you did not immediately point out
to GO that "image and likeness" of God has absolutely nothing to
do with our biology and everything to do with our spirit. Or do
YOU labor under the erroneous view that our bodies are what was
made in the "image and likeness" of God too?
Back to Jesus Christ, we have enough trouble in forums like this
to get people to believe Jesus Christ Himself came even the
FIRST TIME, never mind returning! Look at all the hoops you
jumped through when that article about J.C. being a myth was
dropped here by Da godfader for fun and jollies over a year ago.
I was so disgusted with it I could not bring myself even to
comment on it. I am indebted to you for fighting the good fight
then.
But now I'm very unsatisfied with your response about J.C. and
Matthew 24:37-39. J.C. was not whistling Dixie, to put it
mildly. He was talking about the most important event in Church
Prophetic Teaching History. You CANNOT just gloss over that and
concentrate on the cross, salvation and leave it at that. The
Early Church got through those awful times with help from the
Holy Spirit, sure. But the HOPE of His RETURN was one of the
main forces in keeping the early Christians united.
That biblical passage is a HUGE deal! I caution you, JD and GO
and any other believers reading this, to not pretend Jesus
Christ was making an "unimportant" comparison between Noah's
life saving ark and Jesus Christ's return.
Of course you could chase down King James' translators and do a
bit of hairsplitting about what J.C. said and how He said it.
I'm sure you and Ka could discuss the matter for weeks. But
there is no way you can extract Noah and the ark from Jesus
Christ's return to "kick ass and take names" for non-obedient
and the reward of the obedient for His sheep.
#Post#: 2691--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: February 17, 2015, 5:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ashvin link ---
>
> [quote author=agelbert link=topic=4216.msg67998#msg67998
date=1424153201]
> Ashvin,
HTML http://www.coh2.org/images/Smileys/huhsign.gif
Let me
get his straight. You think that JESUS CHRIST was referring to a
LOCAL flood when he was discussing Noah and the Ark?
--- End Quote ---
I think it's a valid interpretation of the Genesis account and
scientifically more plausible than a global one. If it is in
fact the CORRECT interpretation, then it's obviously the one
Jesus would have held too.
--- Quote ---
> Do you want the Gospels in Greek (as supposedly they were
originally written in) and the old testament in Aramaic, Hebrew
and whatever to accept that JESUS was raised in the JEWISH faith
and read and beleived the Scriptures that do not say BEANS about
the flood and Noah being allegorical, a parable, some children's
scary story or a warning? Your NON-answer is absolutely
BREATHTAKING!
--- End Quote ---
I'm having a hard time believing that you are having such a hard
time understanding what I'm saying. My posts have made clear
that I do NOT believe it was allegorical, a parable or any other
literary device. So I don't know why you keep mentioning those
things.
--- Quote ---
> Fast forward to Mathew 24:37-39. Here the overall context is
His RETURN when He won't be Mr. Nice Guy. He is using a
historical reference (Noah, the ark and the flood that drowned
every non-aquatic creature [i]on EARTH, according to the
scripture (the date it happened is not the issue, Ashvin - it's
WHETHER it happened or not on a global scale that IS the issue
AND the reason I said anybody claiming J.C. did not believe in
global flood is mistaken[/i].).
--- End Quote ---
Where does it say "every non-aquatic creature"?
--- Quote ---
> J.C. is predicting what some Homo SAP civilizational
conditions when He RETURNS. It's a prophecy. It's a rather
IMPORTANT prophecy, is it not? Do you HONESTLY think Jesus
Christ would use a LOCAL FLOOD (where Noah and family got
warned and survived while the bad people in a limited area
drown) comparison to HIS RETURN to JUDGE the EARTH?
>
> Do you think He was planning to drop in on the same area as
that LOCAL FLOOD and to hell with the rest of the planet?
>
> Perhaps I am not understanding you, Ashvin. Would you please
clarify your position on Noah and the extent of the flood? GO
was kind enough to state right out that he thought it was a
parable. He considered it a myth. He may still consider it a
myth but he promises to ponder the issue. There is an honest
response. Is that your opinion too?
--- End Quote ---
Yes, you are misunderstanding me, and no that's not my opinion.
We BOTH agree that the Flood was universal (and that Jesus was
talking about a literal, universal Flood), i.e. it wiped out ALL
of humanity except Noah and his family. My position is that ALL
of humanity could have been confined to a limited portion of the
Earth at the time the Flood occurred. This position would assume
that Adam & Eve and their descendants up to Noah didn't make it
too far from Eden before the Flood came.
(this is the position held by Hugh Ross and others at Reasons to
Believe - www.reasons.org
HTML http://www.reasons.org
)
--- Quote ---
> And by the way, I'm surprised you did not immediately point
out to GO that "image and likeness" of God has absolutely
nothing to do with our biology and everything to do with our
spirit. Or do YOU labor under the erroneous view that our bodies
are what was made in the "image and likeness" of God too?
--- End Quote ---
I think GO and I both say it is about human spirit, NOT biology.
But GO's point seemed to be that it would be weird for God to
create humans in his image, but also more advanced and
intelligent beings who are not in his image. My point was this
would only be weird if the beings were fallen, since Jesus would
be incarnated on at least one other planet as another being (not
human) for their redemption. If they are not fallen, then it's
not so weird (theologically), since we already accept the
existence of unfallen angels who are probably more intelligent
than we are.
--- Quote ---
> Back to Jesus Christ, we have enough trouble in forums like
this to get people to believe Jesus Christ Himself came even the
FIRST TIME, never mind returning! Look at all the hoops you
jumped through when that article about J.C. being a myth was
dropped here by Da godfader for fun and jollies over a year ago.
I was so disgusted with it I could not bring myself even to
comment on it. I am indebted to you for fighting the good fight
then.
>
> But now I'm very unsatisfied with your response about J.C. and
Matthew 24:37-39. J.C. was not whistling Dixie, to put it
mildly. He was talking about the most important event in Church
Prophetic Teaching History. You CANNOT just gloss over that and
concentrate on the cross, salvation and leave it at that. The
Early Church got through those awful times with help from the
Holy Spirit, sure. But the HOPE of His RETURN was one of the
main forces in keeping the early Christians united.
>
> That biblical passage is a HUGE deal! I caution you, JD and GO
and any other believers reading this, to not pretend Jesus
Christ was making an "unimportant" comparison between Noah's
life saving ark and Jesus Christ's return.
--- End Quote ---
Of course. I pointed out this same HUGE comparison to GO back
when he still believed it was allegory, and I'm pretty sure
that's why he decided to treat it more literally. The comparison
rests in the LITERAL judgments of sin/evil which affect ALL of
humanity, and the "Ark" (Jesus Christ) which offers us
salvation. I hope my position is more clear to you now.
I also have a question - do you believe God would wipe out
Arctic polar bears or penguins in Antarctica, even though they
would have no interaction with humanity at the time of the
Flood? That seems like overkill to me...
[/quote]
Ashvin,
I stand corrected. I see that you believe humanity was limited
to the area around where Noah lived. Then, of course, the flood
would not need to be world wide.
Of course the account of Noah does not say that non-aquatic
animals were singled out for destruction; that's a logical
conclusion a biblical researcher I read about in the 1980's
reached when he studied the Noah's Ark and what types of life
forms (all surface air breathers) were in it. Quite frankly,
that's a no-brainer. But that researcher went on and on about
seeds surviving so no seeds needed to be carried, dormant
insects, insect eggs and pods that float (and so on). It wasn't
necessary for all that to be spelled out in Scripture, was it?
As to the polar bears and penguins, both species would survive
in a worldwide flood even though they are air breathers because
they hang around and feed on ice flows. But the gist of your
question is not about polar bears and penguins; it's about
overkill. I get it.
So let me address it. You are the Biblical Scholar, not me. You
are the one that has discussed the curse now and then from Adam
on down. I have absolutely no sympathy for God's decision to
curse all of life because Adam was disobedient.
I'm right there with WHD in being highly disgusted with the idea
that a just God would do such a thing. I do not get it. I do not
understand it. But just like all of nature was cursed because of
whatever actually happened (I DO think the garden of Eden is
100% allegorical!) a long time ago between our species and God,
the death of millions of totally innocent animals in the flood
is a given that I accept.
So yeah, I believe the flood was worldwide and covered all the
mountain tops (as the Scripture says). There are marine fossil
shells found in the highest of mountains. The scientists claim
that is because the mountains got pushed up. Some of them, sure.
But marine fossils on mountains are ubiquitous all over the
planet. And Ashvin, there is a lot more evidence, hard evidence,
of a geologically recent worldwide flood than that.
But let us assume that there is NO EVIDENCE and the Bible is our
only reference. Let us assume that God did some major overkill
during Noah's flood. There is no question that the animal pairs
that got lucky and were chosen to ride the boat equates to a
death sentence for the numerous representatives of their species
that were slated to drown. Without even considering polar bears
or penguins, we are already into overkill=unjust God territory,
are we not? We are not talking about the difference between a
Divine misdemeanor and a felony. God is either 100% just or He
is not God, right? Right.
So where do these apparently calloused and cruel Divine death
sentences on innocent animals, never mind severely narrowing the
gene pool, leave us? Shall we give the finger to the God of the
Bible? Shall we say all religion is baloney? Shall we say J.C.
did not know His ass from a hole in the ground? Not me. Only God
has the authority to judge God.
Shall we say that it is obvious that there is no God and we are
all evolved pond scum doing a Rorschach exercise on what we see
in nature by projecting our feverish imaginations on why this,
that and the other happened to try to make some sense or order
where there actually is no order or sense? Are we just making it
up as we go along because of our 'evolutionary advantage' (used
to quickly discern threats, particularly threatening faces)
called Pareidolia?
Pareidolia (/pærɨˈdoʊliə/
parr-i-DOH-lee-ə) is a psychological phenomenon involving a
vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being
perceived as significant.
I used to listen to a Pastor called J. Vernon McGee. He would
respond to questions of that nature by saying that it's God's
universe. What seems unjust as all hell to us has some purpose
that we cannot fathom because of our limitations as humans.
The unbelievers call that wishful or magical thinking. I don't
believe it is. It's a recognition that trying to logically
countenance each and every action that God takes that involves
causing the physical death of his creations as "good", only if
it is limited to the guilty party (Homo SAP), is a quixotic
effort.
Towards the end of His earthly ministry, J.C. said something
that has always struck me as evidence that the Bible is VERY
limited in what knowledge it has imparted to Homo SAPS on what
goes on and why.
--- Quote ---
> John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe
not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
--- End Quote ---
IOW, He has given them the basic stuff. The other info is WAY
OUT there, more complex, more voluminous and more difficult to
believe. We know very little about this universe.
My belief is that there was a worldwide flood (at least one). My
evidence is the 12,500 year old catastrophe that scientists have
found evidence for about some LARGE meteor fragments hitting the
planet mostly in North America and triggering massive, rapid
melting.
I believe that carved the Grand Canyon in decades, not millions
of years, along with wiping out some very advanced
civilizations. I believe THAT was Noah's flood. I think Jesus
Christ knew that and a whole lot more He did not tell us.
#Post#: 2699--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: February 19, 2015, 11:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
UB,
Well said.
Ashvin,
You are right. You know nothing about maps ( I know that is a
bit snarky but since you like to dish it out, I expect you can
take it.).
As UB says. The type of map projection (Portolan) discussed does
not invalidate a twisted coastline. The author is presenting a
non-argument.
The author had one valid argument about Piri Reis that he
subsequently contradicted. I will provide a post on that
tomorrow along with addressing Dr. Ross views.
But here's something for you to ponder in regard to Portolan
maps:
--- Quote ---
> [color=blue]
> Portolan Charts 'Too Accurate' to be Medieval
>
> by Frank Jacobs
>
> Portolan charts, it was always assumed, were compiled by
medieval European mapmakers from contemporary sources. A Dutch
doctoral dissertation now disproves this: these nautical charts
are impossibly accurate, not just for medieval Europe, also for
other likely sources, the Byzantines and the Arabs. So who made
them – and when?
>
> Mystery has always shrouded the sudden emergence, seemingly ex
nihilo, of portolan charts. The oldest known example emerged in
Pisa around 1290, without any obvious antecedents. This Carta
Pisana kickstarted a tradition of amazingly accurate sea charts
almost up to modern standards, although as with most other
portolans, that accuracy was mainly limited to the Mediterranean
and the Black Sea.
>
> A typical portolan chart showed coastal contours and the
location of harbours and ports, ignoring virtually all inland
features. It would be criss-crossed by straight lines,
connecting opposite shores by any of the 32 directions of the
mariner's compass, thus facilitating navigation.
>
> After popping up in Italy, portolans became coveted
possessions in the seafaring nations of Spain and Portugal,
where they ranked as state secrets.
>
> Little or nothing is known of their origins and production, so
the working hypothesis among cartographic historians was that
portolans were somehow gathered together from the knowledge of
medieval European sailors, possibly enhanced with older
knowledge from Byzantine or Arab sources.
>
> That hypothesis has now been disproven by Roelof Nicolai, a
Dutch geodetic scientist who on 3 March obtained his doctorate
degree from Utrecht University for a dissertation titled A
Critical Review of the Hypothesis of a Medieval Origin for
Portolan Charts.
>
> In it, Nicolai puts forth the theory that portolan charts were
made using techniques that were not at all available to medieval
Europeans. So they must have copied them from unknown older
sources – in all likelihood while failing to grasp how accurate
those maps really were.
>
> Nicolai demonstrates that portolans achieved their accuracy by
using what seems like an early version of the Mercator
Projection – almost three centuries early. Only in 1569 would
the Flemish cartographer introduce his mathematical method of
projecting spherical data onto a flat surface that would prove
crucial to navigation (straight lines on the map equal straight
lines at sea).
>
> mozaik (graphic at link)
>
> In blue: portolan shorelines; in red: actual shorelines. A
close match in the Mediterranean and Black Seas, wildly off the
mark in the British Isles and the Baltic.
>
>
> “The portolan maps I've researched all seem to be made using
the Mercator Projection”, Nicolai says. “They've all clearly
been produced on medieval parchment, but those mapmakers
probably didn't realise the accuracy of the maps they were
producing. We immediately recognise the shape of the
Mediterranean, but even in the Late Middle Ages, that shape was
far from established on maps. Nobody really knew how all of the
Mediterranean's shorelines ran”.
>
> Nicolai also showed that the portolans weren't produced as
single pieces, but in fact are a mosaic: “There are obvious
differences of scale and orientation between different areas on
portolan maps. Not only does that demonstrate clearly that they
were collated from different maps, it also shows that those
medieval cartographers were not familiar with the techniques
used to produce those different sources”.
>
> The doctorandus also tried to replicate the presumed method by
which portolan charts were produced, by averaging the data from
numerous single sailing records detailing the location of
harbours, the directions of sail, etc. The resulting accuracy
was worse by a factor of 10 to that of the actual portolan
charts – even while using methods of calculation averages that
were developed only at the end of the 17th century. Only in the
19th century did cartographers manage to re-achieve the accuracy
of the portolans.
>
> So who was the producer of this anachronistic accuracy?
Nicolai only points to the likely source of the maps:
Constantinople. “But it is highly unlikely that they were
produced there as well. As far as we can tell, the Byzantines
really didn't add much to the scientific knowledge inherited
from the Classical Age. They only acted as a repository for
ancient Greek and Arabic knowledge. And why would the Byzantines
even try to chart English and French coastlines? Those were way
beyond their sphere of interest”.
>
> Could portolans have an Arabic background? After all, the
Arabs were keen astronomers and navigators, giving us the
nautical rank of admiral (from 'Amir al Bahr', ruler of the
sea). But Nicolai contends the accuracy of the portolans
transcends the Arabs' navigational ability of the time. And what
we know of Roman and Greek scientific knowledge, for that
matter.
>
> “Perhaps we should re-evaluate what we think was the state of
science in Antiquity”, says Nicolai. “As long as this doesn't
generate any speculation on so-called lost civilisations. As far
as these portolans are concerned, we'll just have to think our
way back step by step”.[color]
--- End Quote ---
HTML http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/648-portolan-charts-too-accurate-to-be-medieval
HTML http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/648-portolan-charts-too-accurate-to-be-medieval
Ashvin,
Your author does not have a clue of what he speaks in regard to
Portolan maps.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183312.bmp<br
/>In fact, anyone knowledgeable of maps does not want to use the
Portolan chart nature of Piri Reis to claim it is "no big deal"
because the reverse may be true BECAUSE it is a Portolan type
chart.
#Post#: 2715--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: February 22, 2015, 6:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Response to Dr. Ross's claim that Noah's Flood was local PART 1
of 2 PARTS
Agelbert NOTE: This is my last post on this thread. I will post
any subsequent information in regard to the subjects of ancient
maps, archeology, the worldwide flood(s), ancient high tech
civilization evidence and evidence, or the lack of it, for ET
influence on Homo SAPS on some other thread.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-060914180936.jpeg<br
/>
--- Quote ---
> Ashvin,
> I stand corrected. I see that you believe humanity was limited
to the area around where Noah lived. Then, of course, the flood
would not need to be world wide.
>
> Of course the account of Noah does not say that non-aquatic
animals were singled out for destruction; that's a logical
conclusion a biblical researcher I read about in the 1980's
reached when he studied the Noah's Ark and what types of life
forms (all surface air breathers) were in it. Quite frankly,
that's a no-brainer. But that researcher went on and on about
seeds surviving so no seeds needed to be carried, dormant
insects, insect eggs and pods that float (and so on). It wasn't
necessary for all that to be spelled out in Scripture, was it?
>
> As to the polar bears and penguins, both species would survive
in a worldwide flood even though they are air breathers because
they hang around and feed on ice flows. But the gist of your
question is not about polar bears and penguins; it's about
overkill. I get it.
>
> So let me address it. You are the Biblical Scholar, not me.
You are the one that has discussed the curse now and then from
Adam on down. I have absolutely no sympathy for God's decision
to curse all of life because Adam was disobedient.
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> I don't believe God "cursed" all creation, as in he
supernaturally placed a hex on it. I believe he was pointing out
the simple fact that creation would now be subjected to the
misuses and abuses of sinful humans. The "curse" was a natural
consequence of humanity's fall.
--- End Quote ---
You can define "curse" anyway you want, but "Entropy and the
wearing down and deterioration of every life form until it
physically dies" is a fairly good working definition.
Nature apparently got shafted because of Adam's disobedience,
PERIOD. Dr. Ross, when discussing another act by God (Noah's
flood) claims it was local, but the laws of thermodynamics that
govern physical life processes in this universe, not just
biochemstry on planet earth, oviously are not. I consider that
massive overkill.
--- Quote ---
> I'm right there with WHD in being highly ****ed about the idea
that a just God would do such a thing. I do not get it. I do not
understand it. But just like all of nature was cursed because of
whatever actually happened (I DO think the garden of Eden is
100% allegorical!) a long time ago between our species and God,
the death of millions of totally innocent animals in the flood
is a given that I accept.
>
> So yeah, I believe the flood was worldwide and covered all the
mountain tops (as the Scripture says). There are marine fossil
shells found in the highest of mountains. The scientists claim
that is because the mountains got pushed up. Some of them, sure.
But marine fossils on mountains are ubiquitous all over the
planet. And Ashvin, there is lot more evidence, hard evidence,
of a geologically recent worldwide flood than that.
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> I primarily rely on Hugh Ross for the scientific side of this:
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote ---
> The Waters of the Flood
> January 1, 2000
> By Dr. Hugh Ross
>
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-161214184123.gif
> "Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the Genesis Flood is
its geographical extent. Part of the basis for the controversy
is that Genesis addresses the geophysics, geology, and geography
of the flood only secondarily. Its main message is that God was
compelled to cleanse the earth of the wickedness of man. The
message of God's judgment against rampant evil is very clearly
stated and understood in any translation. However, in order to
comprehend the geological details concerning the flood, it is
helpful, perhaps in this case essential, to read the Genesis
text in the original Hebrew, and even then the text is not
always as specific as one might like.
>
> A good rule of Biblical interpretation is to analyze that
which is less specific in the light of that which is more
specific. As I mentioned in part seven of this series, the Bible
is very specific about the extent of the defilement of man's sin
and about God's response. The defilement is limited to the
sinners, their progeny for several generations, birds and
mammals which are part of their livelihood, their material
possessions, and their agricultural land. Nowhere in the Bible
do we see God's meting out judgment beyond those limits. Hence,
we can expect that if mankind had never visited Antarctica, God
would not have struck that territory. The extent of the Genesis
flood would be limited to the extent of the defilement of man's
sin. This interpretation is supported by the Genesis author's
choice of the Hebrew words for creatures" destroyed by the
flood, namely basar and nephesh. Part seven gives further
details.
>
> In Genesis 7:4-12 we are told that the flood arose from the
earth's troposphere and from underground aquifers (not from some
unknown place in outer space). These water resources are
considerable, to be sure, but fall short of what verse 19 seems
to require. According to Genesis 7:19, the waters "rose greatly
... and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were
covered." The English translation seems to imply that even Mt.
Everest was submerged under the flood waters.
--- End Quote ---
Science has indeed discovered there is enough water locked away
beneath the earth to flood the planet ABOVE the mountain tops.
I'll dig up the article if you want.
Dr. Ross is unconvinced by the evidence presented by the
scientific community of meteor fragments hitting the planet
12,500 years ago as a direct cause of Noah's flood BECAUSE of a
biblical account that is NOT an eye witness account like the
waters all around the ark are.
I see his logic. It's pretty good but it falls short. Noah saw a
lot of water but there is no way he could have ascertained that
the flood was global, so Noah's account of a global flood is
suspect, particularly in the area of water torrents coming from
inside the planet.
But that certainly does not rule out the hard scientific
evidence of meteor fragment strikes, fossilization mechanism
(discussed below) and the discovery of, not small, but gigantic
(enough when added to our oceans to flood the whole planet!),
under the earth, amounts of salt water that certainly could get
freed by a lot of meteor induced tectonic activity. That
knowledge comes from that very same geophysical body of
knowledge Dr. Ross subsequently uses to claim the flood was
local. He is cherry picking. That's not kosher.
--- Quote ---
> The Hebrew word for "high," however, simply means elevated"
and for "mountain," means anything from "a small hillock" to "a
towering peak." The Hebrew verb for "covered" allows three
alternatives: (1) inundated, (2) rained upon, or (3) washed over
as by a rush of water. In any of these cases, 15 cubits of
standing water, 15 cubits of sudden rainfall, or a 15-cubit rush
of water, there would be no human or animal survivors.
--- End Quote ---
This is speculation. Wood floats. People hang on to it and float
too. A cubit equals 450 mm = 18 inches. Fifteen cubits = 22.5
feet. The 2004 tsunami had survivors that hung on to things that
floated. Some of these people were found alive in the ocean
after several days.
Does Dr. Ross accept that the waters were (15 cubits above the
surface of all Homo SAPS) for the length of time Moses claims
that Noah claimed there were? If so, he had better deep six that
word "rush" to describe the waters. If so, he has a lot of
explaining to do about how so much water could be in a
previously dry area for so long.
But he doesn't go there because that would argue for a much
larger flood (though not necessarily a planetary one) than a
relatively small local flood. His faulty calculus is that God is
limited to offing just mankind and the "defiled by association"
animals and land. I wish that was true.
Please obseve more cherry picking below. Here he accepts the
rather broad, and impossible to verify, Biblical claim that the
waters went back to their previous levels. There is simply NO
WAY that Noah could know that unless God told him that. Dr. Ross
is reticent to believe other things God allegedly told Noah but
accepts this revelation as fact?
Hello? We all agree that, after Noah's flood, the human
population did not require birth control, right? It was going to
be a while before Piri Reis made his map, right? Noah did NOT
KNOW WHERE the shores were before the flood and certainly did
not know afterwards, period (this is an excellent argument for
claiming antedilluvian civilization was NOT high tech. If it had
been, Noah would certainly have known where the pre-flood
shorelines were - Dr. Ross probably would claim that Noah and
mankind were in such a small area that they COULD, in LOW TECH
fashion, measure the shorelines before and after the flood -
how convenient for his local flood hypothesis.).
If the flood covered the planet and Noah knew where the
shorelines were before and after the flood, he either lived in a
global high tech civilization prior to the flood or got his info
through Divine Revelation.
As you see below, Dr. Ross is being highly selective in what he
claims science backs up as accurate and what Genesis is accurate
on. His statement about the claim made by some that there were
no high mountains before the flood is impossible to verify and
not accepted by geological science OR claimed by the Bible
either; it's just another red herring we must ignore. I've
already stated that science has, indeed, discovered that there
IS enough water to flood our planet to the mountain tops.
--- Quote ---
> Genesis 8 gives us the most significant evidence for a
universal (with respect to man and his animals and lands), but
not global, flood. The four different Hebrew verbs used in
Genesis 8:1-8 to describe the receding of the flood waters
indicate that these waters returned to their original sources.
In other words, the waters of the flood are still to be found
within the aquifers and troposphere and oceans of planet Earth.
Since the total water content of the earth is only 22 percent of
what would be needed for a global flood, it appears that the
Genesis flood could not have been global.
>
> The argument I have heard most frequently against this
conclusion is that before the flood, there were no high
mountains or deep oceans. The present day relief of the earth's
surface is said to have been generated in a period of just a few
months. I see several major problems with such a suggestion:
> -it contradicts a vast body of geological data;
> -it contradicts a vast body of geophysical data, at the same
time requiring such cataclysmic effects as to render highly
unlikely Noah's survival in an ark;
> -it overlooks the geophysical difficulties of a planet with a
smooth surface; and
> -it contradicts our observations of the tectonics. The
mechanisms that drive tectonic plate movements have extremely
long time constants, so long that the effects of such a
catastrophe would easily be measurable to this day. Since they
are not, I conclude that the flood cannot be global.
>
> As for the reference, "under the entire heavens," such
expressions must always be understood in their context. What
would constitute under the entire heavens for the people of
Noah's time? The extent of their view from the entire region in
which they existed or operated. Perhaps a verse from the New
Testament will clarify my point. In Romans 1:8 the Apostle Paul
declares that the faith of the Christians in Rome was being
"reported all over the world." Since "all over the world" to the
Romans meant the entire Roman Empire (and not the entire globe),
we would not interpret Paul's words as an indication that the
Eskimos and Incas were familiar at that time with the activities
of the church at Rome.
>
> Further support for a regional, rather than global, cataclysm
comes from consideration of God's command to Noah after the
flood, the same command He had given to Adam and later gave to
the people who built the tower of Babel: "Fill the earth." The
fact that God repeated this command to Noah (and intervened
dramatically to disperse the people of Babel's day) implies that
the people of Noah's generation had not filled the earth. This
view is consistent with the geographical place names recorded in
the first nine chapters of Genesis. They all refer to localities
either in or very close to Mesopotamia."
--- End Quote ---
Dr. Ross is a marvel of supposition and groundless logic. He is
obviously swayed by the "vast body" of geological "evidence" by
our geologists being challenged today by credentialed
scientists. He is rather pedantic as well.
His claim that the main controversy from a scientific
perspective with the flood is the geographic extent is
inaccurate. The main controversy, from a scientific perspective,
[i]is the FACT that one, or seven, breeding pairs is too narrow
of a gene pool to guarantee the survival of species.
There is zero evidence that biblically clean animals require
more breeding pairs than biblically unclean animals. The whole
Ark trip is a massive bag of worms scientifically. So that means
portions of it may be allegorical and there possibly were
hundreds of arks in diverse places on the earth.
Ross is merely trying to establish the geographic area of the
flood (the subject of his analysis), as the most controversial
issue. It's a nice rhetorical touch. If the local flood
hypothesis is established as the correct one, the other "issues"
are minor details.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif
Then he comes up with this clever gem of pedantic posturing:
--- Quote ---
> A good rule of Biblical interpretation is to analyze that
which is less specific in the light of that which is more
specific.
--- End Quote ---
That application of that "good rule" properly depends on what
the definition of "less specific" and "more specific" is. But on
the face of it, it is an illogical premise. "MORE SPECIFIC", in
regard to EVIDENCE, is where one must start to reach and/or
define "LESS SPECIFIC", not the other way around. But we can
hairplit that all day so let's assume he has a lick of sense and
see where he goes with this. .
--- Quote ---
> " defilement is limited to the sinners, their progeny for
several generations, birds and mammals which are part of their
livelihood, their material possessions, and their agricultural
land."
--- End Quote ---
Beyond the "defilement" of the sinners and progeny , possessions
and land, WHILE THEY LIVE ON IT ONLY (there is old testament
scripture that challenges the progeny "defilement" too, by the
way), the Bible certainly does not maintain anywhere that
animals that are part of sinner livelihood (beyond DOMESTIC
ANIMALS) are "defiled". But that term, "defilement", is a very,
very devious term as applied here. Millions of WILD animals,
totally unrelated to the LIVELIHOOD of mankind were KILLED by
drowning.
To claim it was because they were "defiled by association" using
his "less specific" to "more specific" baloney is ridiculous!
And this is the prize of gross assumptions:
--- Quote ---
> "Nowhere in the Bible do we see God's meting out judgment
beyond those limits. "
--- End Quote ---
It's magical thinking but it sounds so pious and good. So he is
saying that every bullock and every turtle dove and so on that
got sacrificed on an altar deserved it? Will he doubletalk
sacrifice for sin as NOT being "judgmental" or related to
JUDGMENT? According to Scripture, God ORDERED that done, NOT
because those animals were part of the livelihood of man but
because of mankind's sins.
Those animals were NOT DEFILED. In fact, unclean animals COULD
NOT be sacrificed!
And even that SENSELESS BUTCHERY was low level atonement sans
total forgivess (not enough to do the job), so Christ had to be
the Lamb of God. Christ was/is INNOCENT. ALL those sacrificed
animals were INNOCENT. Scape goating ordered by GOD is a buck
passing prima facie UNJUST act!
Dr. Ross is full of doubletalk.
To human eyes, unjust behavior by God is ALL OVER THE OLD
TESTAMENT! The young girl that had to DIE because some idiot
promised God that the first person he saw would be sacrificed
was UNJUST.
Many, many other examples abound. The 21 or over Israelites in
Exodus were judged for their disobedience but the kids got a
free pass. That was logical and just! The under 21 members of a
people that had attacked the Israelites ordered killed was NOT
justice.
People slaughtered because of what their ancestors did to the
Israelites centuries previous, anyone?
Job, anyone?
Dr. Ross reads what he wants to into the Bible. I don't question
God's sovereignty. And I do not sugar coat it either.
Then Ross proceeds to play fast and loose with "the earth" and
"the heavens" by cherry picking a quote from Paul. And
hairsplitting with the translations of "hills", "mountains" and
water depths ignores that Scriptrure quote in Genesis where it
states that the Ark was a certain number of cubits ABOVE the
HIGHEST mountains at maximum flood. He wants to define the term
"highest" away too! How convenient. This is hairspliting on
steroids! Even a cursory search of the 66 Bible books would find
numerous irrefutable uses of the adjective "highest" to mean
exactly that!
End of Part 1 of 2 Parts: Response to Dr. Ross's claim that
Noah's Flood was local
Response to Dr. Ross's claim that Noah's Flood was local PART 2
of 2 PARTS
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/general-discussion/lost-cities-and-civilizations/msg2716/#msg2716
#Post#: 2716--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: February 22, 2015, 7:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Response to Dr. Ross's claim that Noah's Flood was local PART 2
of 2 PARTS
Also, the number of days this ark was out of sight of land
implies a mind boggling amount of water for Noah, considering
that he DID NOT live next to the ocean (if that had been the
case, he would have built the ark next to the water) but lived
up in the hills, mountains or whatever. Even if the flood area
was LOCAL, Dr. Ross is disingenuously lowballing its size by
avoiding a DETAILED discussion of the time period the ark was on
the waters. How convenient.
But this perfidy, hairsplitting and doubletalk is predicated on
the premise, and Ashvin's premise too, that God does NOT do
overkill. Yes He does. But it is a clever way to get Christians
to nod their heads, isn't it? This charlatanry abuses the faith
of Christians in a "GOOD" God by refusing to accept that there
is no human way we can justify God's overkill.
It's God's universe, period. There is no need to baby talk and
abuse the faith of people by making sanctimonious claims about
what God's actions are limited by. But it sells books and keeps
the simpletons happy. That does not make it right or logical.
See below a fascinating example of premise upon false premise
leading to more and greater incorrect assumptions:
--- Quote ---
> Further support for a regional, rather than global, cataclysm
comes from consideration of God's command to Noah after the
flood, the same command He had given to Adam and later gave to
the people who built the tower of Babel: "Fill the earth."
--- End Quote ---
Baloney. Dr. Ross cleverly leaves out a certain verb in the Noah
account NOT present in the Adam account.
--- Quote ---
> The fact that God repeated this command to Noah (and
intervened dramatically to disperse the people of Babel's day)
implies that the people of Noah's generation had not filled the
earth.
--- End Quote ---
God DID NOT "Repeat" the command to Noah that God gave to Adam.
Mr. Ross takes ONE VERSE out of context and throws in the Tower
of Babel to confuse the issue. In fact, the Tower of Babel is
OBVIOUSLY allegorical unless you think God was A) physically
located at a distance from mankind down on the planet AND B)
concerned that humans could "get to him" with a united effort
like a tower or human space flight. LOL! The last time I
checked, humans are no threat to God. The Tower of Babel is an
allegory, period.
--- Quote ---
> This view is consistent with the geographical place names
recorded in the first nine chapters of Genesis. They all refer
to localities either in or very close to Mesopotamia."
--- End Quote ---
The first nine chapters of Genesis is a LOT of territory to
cover with such a blanket statement about the consistency of his
view. LONG before Moses sat down to write (more like rewrite
from hand me down documents or oral traditions) Genesis, there
is evidence of civilizations that came and went that God never
told Moses beans about.
The Bible is trapped in a vice of chronology in this regard.
There no way that Biblical Scholars, who pay any attention to
the chronology of the generations and the names, can handle a
flood that happened 12,500 years ago.
That is why many fundamentalists, true to their rigid, all or
nothing, personalities, have to locked themselves in a
Procrustean bed that denies verifiable science that PROVES the
allegorical nature of several biblical passages.
This in no way denigrates from Biblical authority as a handbook
for proper human behavior. Nevertheless, any crack in the
scientific accuracy of the Biblical account is used by many to
give the Bible, and God, the giant finger.
Dr. Ross is trying to straddle this arbitrary fence with his
defense of the Bible and the Christian Faith. Good for him. But
his cherry picking is the wrong way to go about it.
Ross left out the Noah quote from Jesus Christ. How convenient.
The Kenotic school of thinking (see Kenosis -the relinquishment
of divine attributes by Jesus Christ in becoming human ),
rejected by many Christian scholars and accepted by many more
today, is that J.C. shrunk his mental data base to Homo SAP size
through the incarnation to the point of actually being a
scientific ignoramous while He walked the earth. I agree that He
did not have the full God picture of the universe; that would
have made Him an ACTOR in THEATER, as RE has postulated. J.C.
had doubts, and plenty of them. A fellow confident of kicking
DEATH's ass by getting killed does not sweat blood.
But when He was talking about His return and Noah, He is making
it rather clear what He KNEW and what HE DIDN'T KNOW (He didn't
know when He was going to return but He knew Noah's flood
affected all mankind throughout the world as His return would
affect mankind throughout the world). Your logic that, "if the
flood was local, then J.C. obviously believed it was local",
applies equally if the flood was global.
Dr. Ross, makes broad statements based on the "macro" scientific
evidence, only to devolve into the hairslpitting "micro" to
support his broad claims. This is one of them:
--- Quote ---
> The mechanisms that drive tectonic plate movements have
extremely long time constants, so long that the effects of such
a catastrophe would easily be measurable to this day. Since they
are not, I conclude that the flood cannot be global.
--- End Quote ---
Plate tectonics is a red herring wild goose chase that is
irrelevant to geologic events within human history. Yeah, they
happen slowly. But floods, particularly post ice age ones,
happen rather quickly with a lot of help from a few large meteor
fragments.
The evidence of global flooding has, in fact, been presented by
credentialed geologists for over fifty years. Is it "easily"
measured? Yes, but it is controversial to the mainstream
uniformitarian geologic paradigm. Consequently, it has been
rejected based on uniformitarian ideology, not lack of evidence.
And spare me the "dating sediment layers" business. Dating a
rock says NOTHING about whether that rock sediment was moved
from here to there by a lot of water in a brief period.
Sedimentation evidence, on the other hand, DOES.
According to uniformitarianism, all rock formations, including
sedimentary rocks where fossils are found, formed over millions
of years.
The fact that land AND MARINE fossils are found on land (not in
the oceans) and fossilization mostly occurs in conditions of
rapid sedimentation (which introduce anoxic conditions that
preserve the shape and favor mineralization of the remains -
small insects trapped in amber are an exception to this rule
because amber also is an anoxic biochemical trap). IS evidence
for global flood(s). Furthermore, it is NOT evidence, as
mainstream geology claims, of "shallow seas covering the earth
millions of years ago" BECAUSE fossils DO NOT FORM in sea water.
The skeletons dissolve UNLESS anoxic conditions and biochemical
bacterial decomposition is HALTED.
At the bottom of ALL oceans, no matter how deep OR ANOXIC,
bacterial decomposition RECYCLES whale skeletons and anything
else smaller. Please don't hairsplit with microscopic
phytoplankton fossils and such. That is not evidence for ocean
preservation of (above microscopic) marine fossils.
Fossilization is an ANOMALY! The biosphere is DESIGNED to
recycle all parts of all life forms. Biological science accepts
that! But mainstream geology does not want to admit that OBVIOUS
fact BECAUSE their "geologic column" is their "BIBLE"!
The "body of geologic knowledge" Dr. Ross is referring to is
selective and proven to be partly erroneous as well.
Dr. Ross obviously does not know or believe that a lot of water,
carrying massive amounts of sediment and then receding within
days or months, leaves multiple levels of sediment that give the
FALSE uniformitarian school geologic paradigm view that it
happened over millions of years.
But empirical proof of this is has already been obtained
subsequent to the Mount Saint Helens eruption caused lake flood.
The Grand Canyon strata is also evidence, hotly debated, that
uniformitarians cannot counter with their dating methods. They
found a mosquito with detectable, not mineralized blood in its
gut. This was in a Grand Canyon area sedimentary rock strata
allegedly over 16 million years old. The ROCKS may be that old,
but a massive flood could have DEPOSITED them in sedimentary
layers 12,500 years ago along with the mosquito. As usual, like
the dino soft tissue, it's considered a mosquito that just
happened to have preserved hemoglobin for 16 (or more) million
years. It's a little too close to Jurassic Park for comfort IF
that blood found in the gut from a feeding just before it got
crushed was from a "you know what". LOL
Since the effects of a catastrophic global flood 12,500, or so,
ARE measurable to this day (good science is NEVER "easy"; it's
always methodical and challenging), Dr. Ross CANNOT assume or
conclude that the flood was local. But he does anyway (see large
"body" of "knowledge"). Dr. Ross's conclusion is based on the
uniformitarian geology scientific consensus that is
controversial, not on scientific evidence.
The fact that fossils are found intermittently in sedimentary
layers on land is evidence of (more than one) global flooding
event. Dr. Ross is in denial of the FACT that fossilization is a
FUNCTION of rapid sedimentation.
But there is more.
The Carbon-14 identified remains of humans in widely dispersed
areas of the globe around the time (and before) of the
catastrophic meteor fragment strikes 12,500 years ago argues for
global flooding along with the 250 plus flood "myths" of
diverse cultures all over the planet.
But let's talk Bible for the moment:
Below please find Genesis mentions of "the earth". I am certain
that the author of Genesis was not changing his definition of
"the earth", equating said expression to the entire planet
sometimes and a local area at other times.
DR. Ross, and you, obviously do. I accuse Dr. Ross of using the
cherry picking fallacious debating tactic. I accuse Ross of
trying to stuff the local flood Procrustean bed into the Genesis
account of a worldwide flood.
Putting aside the ancient world wide human remains Carbon-14
evidence, sunken cities pretty far from a local area of about
500 to 1000 miles around Turkey and the 12,500 year old meteor
fragment catastrophe/possible breaching of massive underground,
rock bound waters/massive volcanic eruptions/massive
earthquakes/rapid glacial melt/giant tsunamis/flood for a
moment, the Scripture is quite clear that the flood was
worldwide.
If you accept that the flood was local, then when the Scripture
describes the "whole heaven" in connection to the extent of the
flood, I guess you will have to claim the "whole heaven" were
local too! That is just one of several glaring logical
inconsistencies in trying to squeeze the "local flood" meme
into Genesis. The Paul quote that Dr. Ross cherry picked is not
evidence that the flood is local.
--- Quote ---
> King James Bible
> Chapter 7:
> 3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female;
to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
> 4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the
earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance
that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.
> 6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters
was upon the earth.
> 8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of
fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
> 10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of
the flood were upon the earth.
> 12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty
nights.
> 14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle
after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon
the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every
bird of every sort.
> 17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters
increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the
earth.
> 18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon
the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
> 19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and
all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were
covered.
> 21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl,
and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that
creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
> 23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the
face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping
things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from
the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with
him in the ark.
> 24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and
fifty days.
> Chapter 8:
> 1 And God remembered Noah, and every living thing, and all the
cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass
over the earth, and the waters assuaged;
> 3 And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and
after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were
abated.
> 7 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro,
until the waters were dried up from off the earth.
> 9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she
returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face
of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her,
and pulled her in unto him into the ark.
--- End Quote ---
Agelbert note: Please do not hairsplit with me here by bringing
up the flight range of a dove (or a raven) as DEFINING the range
of the flood.
That logic ignores all the other mentions of "[color=blue]the
earth" quoted here.
Furthermore, any claim that this particular passage is "more
significant" than the others, because it inserts the word
"whole" in the phrase "the earth", completely ignores the fact
that Ross is quite willing to equate the entire planet with "the
earth" when he uses the "fill the earth" passage as alleged
evidence that humanity AND the flood were area limited. Ross
also cleverly forgets to mention the "replenish" verb in Genesis
9:1. How convenient. Ross CANNOT have it both ways. [/color]
--- Quote ---
> 13 And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in
the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were
dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of
the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was
dry.
> 14 And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of
the month, was the earth dried.
> 17 Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee,
of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping
thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed
abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the
earth.
> 19 Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and
whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went
forth out of the ark.
> 22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold
and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not
cease.
> Chapter 9:
> 1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.
> 7 And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth
abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.
> 11 And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall
all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither
shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.
> 13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token
of a covenant between me and the earth.
> 17 And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant,
which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon
the earth.
--- End Quote ---
According the Scripture passages above, "THE EARTH" =
HTML http://msn.mess.be/data/thumbnails/351/Earth.jpg
But you are otherwise convinced, so I see no point in discussing
it further. I maintain my stance that you and Dr. Ross are
wrong. We will have to agree to disagree.
I am done with this thread. Any further posts about strange sh
it by me will be on some other thread. I don't think it is
prudent to spend long periods analyzing articles submitted by an
allegedly objective party that expects me to diligently do so
(your posted verbiage far exceeds mine but you are rather quick
to remind me when I miss something
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191258.bmp)<br
/> while simultaneously the very same allegedly objective party
calmly admits he sees no need to watch the videos I post.
Those videos actually save time. The one presented by Az (by
scientist Dr. Robert Schoch that documented Egyptian Sphinx age
and ancient high tech with data, not speculation) was a good one
too. Yes, one can't put quotes to debate the video claims one by
one but that is easily taken care of by recording the time
period in seconds a certain quote was made. That is not hard and
is quite specific. It saves time typing as well.
But that is, unfortunately for me, not your style. So I end up
reading long articles you post, your arguments to me and other
posters, and you end up never watching my posted videos.
Here's another excellent and informative video by Dr. Robert
Schoch. I'm sorry you won't watch it, Ashvin. It's a bit boring
but really quite good. Yep, Schoch sells books too.
The Sphinx, Gobekli Tepe, Ancient Catastrophes Dr Robert Schoch
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R1TQ6ZiQBI&feature=player_embedded
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100115191314.jpeg
End of Part 2 od 2 Parts.
Response to Dr. Ross's claim that Noah's Flood was local PART 1
of 2 PARTS
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/general-discussion/lost-cities-and-civilizations/msg2715/#msg2715
#Post#: 2729--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lost Cities and Civilizations
DIR By: AGelbert
Date: February 24, 2015, 5:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-240215175424.jpeg
(Image Credit: Daily Mail)
A scale model of Noah’s Ark has been built in India according to
instructions on a 4,000 year old script. :o ???
Noah's Ark Rebuilt According To Ancient Specs
The vessel, based on the ancient instruction manual, is coracle
like, and was built using traditional methods with materials in
India.
Built at around one fifth of the original size, the replica
would be big enough to carry only some pairs of ‘well behaved
animals’, according to Dr Irving Finkel of The British Museum,
who first discovered the ancient cuneiform text.
The replicated ark weighed around 20 tonnes, with walls 20 feet
high and a small living area on top. It was built as part of the
documentary feature being produced called ‘The Real Noah’s Ark’,
which is set to air shortly.
Building An Ark
The text describes God speaking to Atram-Hasis, who apparently
is the original ‘Noah’ used in the stories that Noah’s Ark was
allegedly based upon.
--- Quote ---
> ‘Wall, wall! Reed wall, reed wall! Atram-Hasis, pay heed to
my advice, that you may live forever! Destroy your house, build
a boat; despise possessions And save life! Draw out the boat
that you will built with a circular design; Let its length and
breadth be the same.’
--- End Quote ---
Should be an interesting documentary. Read more here at The
Daily Mail, along with some pictures and video.
HTML http://itsastrangeworld.com/noahs-ark-rebuilt-according-ancient-instructions/
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 8
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page