12,980 years ago when TSHTF Big time.

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

Our Oceans are only 70 million years old, give or take.

So what's the deal with the fossils of sea creatures that are older than 70 million years? For example, shark fossils and other fish fossils from 300+ million years ago, or fossils of other undersea creatures from early in the dinosaur era.

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: one4all

A better one
Prove Subduction to be based in observation and fact.........

Just out of morbid curiosity, any reason why I should? If you think it is wrong, it's pretty much up to you to show why it might be wrong. The ball is in your court, not mine.

Extraordinary claims and all that.

'

Why should I ?....lol....that's is sweet Carpy…..lol.

Do you ever stop?.....listen...the world as not at your beck and call....you are the laziest poster I have ever seen on ATS.... no Carpy the ball is in your Court....like it usually is.Dont be afraid to take ownership of things Carpy...put your name behind it big fella....get off the fence.

You will not get the bastardised "peer approval" vetted information you demand.....are you ok....do you understand no one is buying the old school traps anymore.You have to evolve Carpy or you will go extinct.

We are breaking new ground here Carpy.You should be proud to be connected to the disclosure even in an oppositionally defiant way..

a reply to: one4all

Actually, old son, I was not talking to you.

So, what's it to you, pokenose?

a reply to: one4all

DONT WANT THERE TO BE A WORKING MODEL THAT IS REPEATABLE

There has been no model to try and repeat, so the above is just nonesense.

You would have to show said model for us to even begin to be able to debunk or confirm it. So far, nothing. Just you naming a fictitious fantasy after a member of ATS.

originally posted by: Flavian

originally posted by: one4all

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: one4all

If you were to actually give any details at all about your alleged "Model" then we might be able to discuss it.

Unfortunately, you can't do that because you just come up with lame and pathetic excuses and ask us to produce your "Model" for you.

That is not how ATS works.

...my refusal to produce a working Model with supportive conclusive data...in no way diminishes the reality of the situation...

No. Your refusal to produce a working model just shows everyone that your claims are just nonsense and have zero credibility.

No Carpy…..your refusal to build a working Model under my tutelage illuminates your trolling of the topic....lol....ATS is not your personal Universal Translator....lol....you have to put in some work...I understand you don't think so....but that's your prerogative...if you really believed your own devils Advocate stance....you wouldnt have ever come back to discuss this topic....but you did.....you are just accustomed to calling the shots...its really a bit much to be Frank.....you aren't learning anything the easy way with me Carpy...because your learning method is the most annoying there is....you play the Devils Advocate and want everyone to do all of your work for you.

Do you not understand that when you are making fantastical claims, the onus is on you to provide the evidence? Without evidence it is simply another crackpot theory, albeit an interesting one.

Nothing is fantastical….saying liquid oil is millions of years old is fantastical if not asinine.....lol....saying it is fresh and building a Model to prove how and why is not fantastical(you just wont have the Model gifted to you you will have to build it yourself)using a working model to pinpoint areas like the Busegi mountains where one of the DUMBs from a past Cycle of Humanity is located is not fantastical when you use a Model to do the locating....lol.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: one4all

DONT WANT THERE TO BE A WORKING MODEL THAT IS REPEATABLE

There has been no model to try and repeat, so the above is just nonesense.

You would have to show said model for us to even begin to be able to debunk or confirm it. So far, nothing. Just you naming a fictitious fantasy after a member of ATS.

No,you are not informed,Carpy is and has lured you into deep waters....you fell for the olde statis quo recruitment schtick.....lol...the Model has already been explained here on ATS or I wouldn't be discussing it.....like I said to Carpy….get yourself a nice stack of Oreo Cookies and a nice box of Jello-Pudding and lets get started....you have a lot to learn...and if that is to much for you to handle....I guess you miss out.

Carpy can build it or you can build it, but the Model will not be gifted to you complete.You will build it and your actions will validate it....

You will have to build the VGCDW Model yourself....this Is called confirmation by proxy....and you have no option of debunking ...which you are counting on.....like I said there is not going to be a Path of least resistance for oppositionally defiant fence-sitters who live and die by the Status Quo they are hand-fed....I have not refused to teach...I have refused to gift.

a reply to: one4all

We are breaking new ground here Carpy.You should be proud to be connected to the disclosure even in an oppositionally defiant way..

Wow. That's quite some ego you've got there.

a reply to: one4all

Model has already been explained here on ATS

Actually, it hasn’t. You just talk a lot and showed some images of shorelines. That’s it.

get yourself a nice stack of Oreo Cookies and a nice box of Jello-Pudding and lets get started

That’s not a model either.

but the Model will not be gifted to you complete

But you just said it has already been explained, then you say it hasn’t. Make up your mind.

and you have no option of debunking

Of course we don’t. We can’t debunk or confirm something that doesn’t exist.

I have refused to gift

So all anyone has is your word and soggy cookies? Think I’ll follow real science instead of the unhinged ravings of an anonymous stranger on the internet.

a reply to: one4all

You will have to build the VGCDW Model yourself....this Is called confirmation by proxy....

No. This is called an utterly lame excuse.

a reply to: one4all

OK, I have built your Model, based upon your teachings. Unfortunately, it's turned out to be complete #e.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: one4all

OK, I have built your Model, based upon your teachings. Unfortunately, it's turned out to be complete #e.

At least you have a glass of soggy Oreos.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Perhaps I can try to remake this Model of his using the soggy Oreos. Would probably have more substance to it than his.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: TerryDon79

Perhaps I can try to remake this Model of his using the soggy Oreos. Would probably have more substance to it than his.

And if not, you have snacks! Albeit soggy snacks, but still snacks!

a reply to: TerryDon79

I don't like Oreos. Now, Hobnobs dipped in tea - Mmmmm....

Or Digestives for the more traditionally minded.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: TerryDon79

I don't like Oreos. Now, Hobnobs dipped in tea - Mmmmm....

Or Digestives for the more traditionally minded.

I don’t like dunking biscuits (cookies to the non-UK folk). I prefer my tea/coffee without “bits”.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Yes, but the art is to dunk for just the right amount of time to avoid bits falling in.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: TerryDon79

Yes, but the art is to dunk for just the right amount of time to avoid bits falling in.

I’ve heard that. It’s kind of like “The art of war- biscuit edition”. Supposedly it takes good judgement. I married a woman from Dundee, Scotland, so my judgment may be a bit impaired.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I bet your good lady wife is far too canny to not lose any any of her biscuit in her tea.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: TerryDon79

I bet your good lady wife is far too canny to not lose any any of her biscuit in her tea.

She does like to dunk her bourbons and custard creams. I’ve never checked her cup after, but I reckon you’d be right. She had the great judgment of marrying me, after all

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye

Our Oceans are only 70 million years old, give or take.

So what's the deal with the fossils of sea creatures that are older than 70 million years? For example, shark fossils and other fish fossils from 300+ million years ago, or fossils of other undersea creatures from early in the dinosaur era.

There were 3 somewhat large bodies of water before 70 million years age. You can imagine aquatic life filled them. And, at times in the deep past there were other continent based seas that dried up.

Another possibility is that some of those ancient water beds may have been thrust upwards during the mountain building process's.

Later fossils found in Mountains could also be present in mountain areas due to the flood of 12,000 years ago. Because of the way the flood was produced, great amounts of mud and debris were pushed inland, that also contained ocean life forms.