Science Proving 'Global Flood Myth' true - Dating for Prehistoric Civilization Legitimized!

One of the so-called "artifacts" dredged up in the Gulf of Cambay:



On the Gulf of Cambay "artifacts" from the link provided (wiki.)

According to archaeologists, the "ruins" are either natural rock formations and result of faulty remote sensing equipment and the "artifacts" recovered are either geofacts or foreign objects introduced to the site by the very strong tidal currents in the Gulf of Cambay. The side scan sonar equipment used to image the bottom of the Gulf may have been faulty, and the claimed supporting evidence is purely circumstantial.

Interpretations of the objects and seismic data differ sharply between archaeologists and lay commentators. The consensus among scientific archaeologists is that there is no evidence supporting claims of submerged Neolithic ruins and artifacts. In sharp contrast, amateur commentators, including Graham Hancock, Vedic mystics, and Hindu nationalists, argue that the evidence clearly indicates the presence of submerged Neolithic cities at the bottom of the Bay of Cambay (Witzel 2006).

What is a "geofact?"

Figure 1, Natural carbonate concretions from near Endako, British Columbia. Concretion in upper right corner is 4 cm long. Reproduce from Plate 7 of Kinder (1923) with permission

Geologist Paul V. Heinrich can tell you all about them HERE

A snippet:

For Item 1, (EDIT: Item "1" Heinrich refers to here is in the photo linked at the top of this post - Harte) Hancock (2002b) concluded:

"Overall appearance of this object indicates it was manufactured or created by hand rather than having been formed by natural forces within the environment."
It making this statement, Hancock (2002b) overlooked the fact that the cementation of thinly laminated sediments, as in case of the above calcareous concretions, can produce a ridged cylindrical concretion like Item 1. As illustrated in Figure 1, concretions of undoubted natural origins exhibit a development of ridges and symmetry far superior to any of the objects that he hypothesized to be artifacts. Despite their well-developed ridges and superior symmetry, these concretions are without question concretions of natural origin. The concretions from laminated lake silts near Endako and Quesel, Canada refute the interpretation of Hancock (2002b) that the overall appearance of Item 1 is any indication that it is man-made.

The ridges on Item 1 can be explained by the precipitation of some sort of cement around a pre-existing burrow within either flat-laminated or cross-laminated sand. The hole in the specimen, which is remarkably off-centered for a drill hole, as interpreted by Hancock (2002b), is the burrow itself. The ridges on the specimen represent individual sand laminae of the sand bed penetrated by the burrow. The distance that each ridge extends from the burrow reflects the texture of the sand laminae. The coarser laminae would extend further from the burrow than the finer sand laminae because the greater porosity would allow the cementation of the laminae it to penetrate further away from the burrow. A hypothetical cross-section of Item 1 is shown in Figure 2.

And this, friends, is why you haven't heard anything else about this bogus "ancient civilization."

Harte

Something struck me about your response, so I went to check other sourches.

Originally posted by cormac mac airt

The discovery of fossil whale bones in Michigan has been a source of some embarrassment for the conventional geologic story of the history of the Great Lakes region, and the notion that the area has remained above sea level for 290 million years since the end of the Pennsylvanian period, as whale fossils are obviously evidence that the land was submerged beneath the sea.

From your own link:

Carbon 14 dating of samples taken from the Michigan whale bones by Harington produced enigmatic results; the age reported for the sperm whale was less than 190 years; the results for the finback whale were 790 - 650 years old, and the right whale was dated as being between 810 and 690 years old. (Holman, 1995, p. 207) Perhaps these results reflect some kind of recent contamination.

The "enigmatic results" actually seem right on the spot. The lower limit for radiocarbon dating is about 100 years and even then the error can be fairly large. It's a tool that is more useful to date things that are 700 to 50,000 years old... but not yonger and not older than that range:
www.talkorigins.org...

Modern-looking whales don't show up until after the Eocene (a mere 60 million years ago) :
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.intersurf.com...

There weren't any whales 290 million years ago, since the earliest mammals didn't show up until around 200 million years ago... and they were very small -- and most definately not whales.
www.hno.harvard.edu...

They had fish 260 million years ago... but as everyone knows, whales aren't fish.

reply to post by Byrd


Hi Byrd -

The "enigmatic results" actually seem right on the spot. The lower limit for radiocarbon dating is about 100 years and even then the error can be fairly large. It's a tool that is more useful to date things that are 700 to 50,000 years old... but not yonger and not older than that range:
www.talkorigins.org...

It is ironic that your link cites Richard Fairbanks et al's paper "timescale over the past 30,000 years using mass spectrometric U-Th ages from Barbados corals" as their primary source as it is when researching those corals that Fairbanks was quoted as saying (in Science, 248: 1314, 1990):

Fairbanks used his coral data to estimate changes in global sea level versus time. About 12,000 BP, he states, sea level was rising ten times faster than today due to melt water from the polar ice caps. This amounts to 2.5 to 4 meters per century. "...perhaps fast enough to prompt legends of a Great Flood"!

The article in Science was titled "From One Coral Many Findings Blossom" and is not available on the internet in its entirety, but here is an exegesis of it.

Modern-looking whales don't show up until after the Eocene (a mere 60 million years ago) :
news.bbc.co.uk...
www.intersurf.com...

There weren't any whales 290 million years ago, since the earliest mammals didn't show up until around 200 million years ago... and they were very small -- and most definately not whales.
www.hno.harvard.edu...

They had fish 260 million years ago... but as everyone knows, whales aren't fish.

Boy, I sure hope so. I know I do. I also know that no one or nothing is debating how long whales have been in existence. The article did mention that the land where the bones were found is thought by mainstream science to be above ground for the last 260 million years. Hence the anomaly if the dating can prove out.

The issue I am having with posting the larger, anomolous marine fossils is that most of the discoveries were made at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century and are in OOP books. And the only sites posting the books are YEC, which I am trying to avoid. Hence my going down the road of academic papers.

And along that road I am finding many, many, papers that call into question applcation of various types of methods used for dating -- C14, U-th, why even stratigraphy it seems is being called into question. It also seems that while you professsed-academic-types here on ATS stand firm and similar in your convictions, the real world ones? Not so much. It's refreshing.

Cheers!


edit: for typos

edit on 12-9-2008 by TheWayISeeIt

[edit on 12-9-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

[edit on 12-9-2008 by Jbird]

I think what would really help out here is knowing what definition of "flood" is being used. Obviously, a large overflowing volume of water over a short period of time isn't it.

From a previous quote:

Fairbanks used his coral data to estimate changes in global sea level versus time. About 12,000 BP, he states, sea level was rising ten times faster than today due to melt water from the polar ice caps. This amounts to 2.5 to 4 meters per century. "...perhaps fast enough to prompt legends of a Great Flood"!

Sounds like alot until you break it down. It's around 1 inch to 1 1/2 inches per year.

cormac

cormac -

I see your point in trying to do the math where you are averaging the water mass. Makes sense, but I don't think you are arriving at the conclusions that Shaw, Fairbanks, et al are. These are accomplished, mainstream guys, speaking to, and being quoted in, mainstream, top-drawer science publications.

Drumlins are a componenet of consideration here, specifically in Shaw's instance, and I think should be factored in. These 'hills' appear in concentrated fields in North America, Scandinavia, Britain and other areas once covered by ice and seem to have been formed at the same time, which I believe, is the span under disussion.

I have some data links for various drumlin thoeries and will post them in a bit, just need to get them in order. Hopefully they will give us a fuller picture as to why these men are publically endorsing the idea of a 'global' flood.

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
cormac -

I see your point in trying to do the math where you are averaging the water mass. Makes sense, but I don't think you are arriving at the conclusions that Shaw, Fairbanks, et al are. These are accomplished, mainstream guys, speaking to, and being quoted in, mainstream, top-drawer science publications.

TWISI,

I think it's been pretty well established that there were incidents of rapid sea level increase in fits and starts as the ice age (which we are actually still in, BTW) started to end.

There are scablands everywhere that show rapid erosion due to this or that glacial lake breaking through it's ice dam.

I don't think anyone disputes that fresh water flow into the Gulf of Mexico rose dramatically and fell dramatically, probably several times.

But as Cormac said, it all depends on what your definition of "dramatically" is, doesn't it?

No ice dam could hold back the amount of water it would take for Noah to have to collect animals and rescue them in his ark.

These wild-ass floods could very well be sources for some flood myths, though. And no impactor would be necessary.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte


These wild-ass floods could very well be sources for some flood myths, though. And no impactor would be necessary.

Harte

Until you try to explain how all that cometary material became embedded in solid rock and mammoth tusks thousands of miles away. This is a fact, and it makes one wonder what would have caused it if not for an impact.

Add to this the mystery of the Carolina Bays and the plot thickens just a little more.

I think what we are doing here is trying to split the hairs between "definitely happened" and "real possibility".

reply to post by TheWayISeeIt


I realize that those are only averages, which never happen. But even if you cut Fairbanks timeframe at 4 meters to 25 years, instead of 100, that's still only 6 inches per year. Enough to drive people to higher ground, certainly, but not enough to constitute a Global Flood as such. Still, I would like to know what does constitute a Global Flood as relates to this topic.

cormac

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
reply to post by TheWayISeeIt

 

I realize that those are only averages, which never happen. But even if you cut Fairbanks timeframe at 4 meters to 25 years, instead of 100, that's still only 6 inches per year. Enough to drive people to higher ground, certainly, but not enough to constitute a Global Flood as such. Still, I would like to know what does constitute a Global Flood as relates to this topic.

cormac

Isn't the term "global flood" relative? Just like saying that Alexander conquered the world...we know this wasn't true. I doubt that there was a true global inundation. But I don't doubt a single, massive event.

As I have stated previously in this thread, if you get a suddent impact there are other implications besides just finding comet fragments. TWISI has explained the "meltwater" under the glaciers. I have explained how you can see change in continental mass due to sudden changes in weight on one side of the shelf. Consider the effect of the release of all that water weight from the edge of a continental plate. Would the other end of said plate not "dip" down in response to the rise on the other end?

Now, take that a step further. What effect does the comet have on this plate? The force of impact...would it not also create a similar effect (think "fulcrum")? What if you combine the two? Have a comet impact the ice shelf, releasing millions of cubic feet of water nearly instantaneously. This release happens not only from meltwater under the glacier, but also from the energy of the blast blowing a good amount up into the atmosphere.

Take the next step....what about the underground aquifers and lakes? Would the additional pressures "upstream" not cause a swell? This would surely mirror the explanations of the firmament opening up. Water came from above AND below.

What I question is how they have dated water levels. Compound ignorance seems to preclude any real possibility of accurate dating, honestly.

Hello BFFT,

To answer your question, no the term "global flood" is not relative when it is being used in the following way, either here or in other threads.

From TWISI:

The emerging evidence supports every known culture that has a global 'flood myth' post end of YD era -- WHICH IS EVERY KNOWN CULTURE.

Nothing "relative" about that. That was pretty much all inclusive, wouldn't you say?

As I have stated previously in this thread, if you get a suddent impact there are other implications besides just finding comet fragments. TWISI has explained the "meltwater" under the glaciers. I have explained how you can see change in continental mass due to sudden changes in weight on one side of the shelf. Consider the effect of the release of all that water weight from the edge of a continental plate. Would the other end of said plate not "dip" down in response to the rise on the other end?

I understand what you're saying, but on what timescale are we talking about "sudden changes" and what evidence backs up that time scale?

Now, take that a step further. What effect does the comet have on this plate? The force of impact...would it not also create a similar effect (think "fulcrum")? What if you combine the two? Have a comet impact the ice shelf, releasing millions of cubic feet of water nearly instantaneously. This release happens not only from meltwater under the glacier, but also from the energy of the blast blowing a good amount up into the atmosphere.

Considering that no one's even sure whether the impact in question was aerial or glacial, that adds many more questions than we currently have answers for. It also allows for both to be used as a coverall for what we don't know about the situation.

cormac

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

BFFT - What I question is how they have dated water levels. Compound ignorance seems to preclude any real possibility of accurate dating, honestly.

And you are not alone questioning geological dating:

The most probable way of determining the genesis of sedimentary rocks is, first, to identify cycles of transgressive-regressive sequences by sequence stratigraphy. The results of our flume experiments are relevant in this connection. They show that in the presence of a current, strata in a sequence are not successive. Change of orientation in stratification, or erosion surfaces between facies of the same sequence, or between superposed sequences can result from a variation in the velocity of an uninterrupted current. Bed plane partings separating facies or sequences can result from desiccation following the withdrawal of water.

Having established the sequences of cycles, their paleohydraulic conditions must be determined. These would be minimum conditions, because it is possible that certain cycles, resulting from tectonic processes, attained an amplitude beyond anything comparable today.

Knowledge of paleohydraulic conditions should help to determine better the paleo-ecological zones (depth and site) of the species which, as with the sediments, were dragged along by the currents. It might also provide a better explanation of the layering of fossil zones in the sediments of sedimentary basins.

LINK

The site is comprehensive in how he, Guy Berthault, conducts his experiments and seems to lay solid foundation for his theory.

And yes, before the pile-on begins, Berthault's work has fervently been embraced and distorted by the YEC's to fit their 'the bible is a history book' inclinations. He however has not endorsed thier POV, simply conducted and published -- multiple times -- the result of his experiments which certainly give rise to the question of conventional geological dating when water is involved.

Cheers!

IN RESPONSE TO cormac's POST -

From TWISI:

The emerging evidence supports every known culture that has a global 'flood myth' post end of YD era -- WHICH IS EVERY KNOWN CULTURE.

Nothing "relative" about that. That was pretty much all inclusive, wouldn't you say?

Again, you are resorting to distorting my position, which is repeatedly ariticulated here, with a partial quote from ANOTHER THREAD, taking it out out of context to... what? I'm unclear on what you hope to accomplish in this instance.

Can we please have a discussion about what is actually being presented?

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
Hello BFFT,

To answer your question, no the term "global flood" is not relative when it is being used in the following way, either here or in other threads.

From TWISI:

Nothing "relative" about that. That was pretty much all inclusive, wouldn't you say?

No sir. If you have several events spaced hundreds of years apart, with little intra-cultural communication, and with the world as they know it being washed away, surely it would seem as though it were "global". Like the man on the island who thinks he is the only one left on Earth.

I understand what you're saying, but on what timescale are we talking about "sudden changes" and what evidence backs up that time scale?

Sudden as in "right now". Of course, you likely would see little of proof of total inundation if:

1. the coast was MUCH further out on the shelf at the time (the reason i question geologic dating of coastlines); or,
2. much of the inundation was from water that came up from the firmament when the continental shelf shifted from the force of the comet or weight of the water/ice

you take a million gallons of water, put it in the air, and then allow it to fall and run off, all you get is gradual increase of water levels (as the former ice has been freed). The aquifers would stabilize and would add little to the total ocean level (it would return to the ocean, and then be replaced by whatever water was forcing it up in the first place).

Considering that no one's even sure whether the impact in question was aerial or glacial, that adds many more questions than we currently have answers for. It also allows for both to be used as a coverall for what we don't know about the situation.

cormac

No one is sure of much anything. Science is our current best guess.

But if it were not a glacial impact, then where is the crater? We KNOW that there was an impact. Where did it hit?

(bbcode)

[edit on 12-9-2008 by Jbird]

I'm not distorting anything. You're the one who wrote it. BFFT asked if the term was relative? What you wrote wasn't relative as it pretty much included everyone. Sorry, but if you didn't mean it that way, you shouldn't have wrote it that way. I believe the guy from New Zealand in an earlier post also disagreed with you on this.

Also, from an earlier post where you talk about having posted something and then posting the intent of that post. Common sense would tell anyone if they had to explain their posts to that degree, then evidently that post wasn't very clear in the first place.

cormac

reply to post by TheWayISeeIt

TWISI - Can we please have a discussion about what is actually being presented?

Apparently not with cormac...

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

No sir. If you have several events spaced hundreds of years apart, with little intra-cultural communication, and with the world as they know it being washed away, surely it would seem as though it were "global". Like the man on the island who thinks he is the only one left on Earth.

And that's where the problem lies, I believe. There is no way to determine that all of these flood stories are even talking about the same event or even nearly contemporary events, yet someone is always assuming that they are. There's not enough information in those stories to make that kind of determination, IMO.

Sudden as in "right now".

If part of a geological area is raising while another associated area is sinking, shouldn't there be evidence of the raised area that we can date to that period (end of Ice Age) and have we?

But if it were not a glacial impact, then where is the crater? We KNOW that there was an impact. Where did it hit?

Why does it have to be a glacial impact over an aerial one? We don't even know, definitively, what this impactor was made of or how large it was. Without that, we really can't say with any certainty what the effects would be.

cormac

Originally posted by cormac mac airt

And that's where the problem lies, I believe. There is no way to determine that all of these flood stories are even talking about the same event or even nearly contemporary events, yet someone is always assuming that they are. There's not enough information in those stories to make that kind of determination, IMO.

You are correct, there is just not enough info to make that determination.

What we CAN say is that it is not far fetched to view these as contemporary.

What you must remember is, there HAS to be a starting point. Each hypothesis begins with some assumptions, and then you look for facts to support these assumptions. I believe that TWISI has done an oustanding job of forming a hypothesis, and then presenting supporting evidence. Is it airtight? Well...no. But neither is General Relativity. It hasn't stopped the mathematics derives from GR from getting us to the moon, now has it?

If part of a geological area is raising while another associated area is sinking, shouldn't there be evidence of the raised area that we can date to that period (end of Ice Age) and have we?

There is evidence of such. The Himalayas could be one such piece of evidence. Local lore in Tibet/India has the area being a nearly flat. Of course, their lore may be a bunch of BS....but in a time before geology is it reasonable to assume that these people could even IMAGINE the land before it was mountainous? That is a question that I think would need to be answered at some point.

But for what i am talking about, it is more like the shelf tilts, and then tilts back. Possibly several times as it once again seeks equilibrium. Remember, there is stuff under the ground, too. This is where the aquifers come in. The tilting or rocking action is the catalyst for the "firmament opening up". All that pressure....that water would have to go somewhere. Up might be the only option, especially in a region with lots of water wells, where the pressure would find the least resistance.

Why does it have to be a glacial impact over an aerial one? We don't even know, definitively, what this impactor was made of or how large it was. Without that, we really can't say with any certainty what the effects would be.

cormac

But if we ignore it, and choose to not seek answers to the questions, then we are no less ignorant than yesterday.

Just because it seems unknowable does not mean one should not attempt to see into its depths. This is what differentiates man from beast.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Hello again BFFT,

I know TWISI will probably have a seizure, but I agree with much of what you said.

What we CAN say is that it is not far fetched to view these as contemporary.
What you must remember is, there HAS to be a starting point. Each hypothesis begins with some assumptions, and then you look for facts to support these assumptions. I believe that TWISI has done an oustanding job of forming a hypothesis, and then presenting supporting evidence. Is it airtight? Well...no. But neither is General Relativity. It hasn't stopped the mathematics derives from GR from getting us to the moon, now has it?

No, it's not farfetched and yes there has to be a starting point. Where I take exception is when speculating on things like the origin of flood stories from around the world gets presented, directly or indirectly, as if it's a foregone conclusion that the peoples whose stories these are, are talking about an Ice Age Global Flood, or contemporary floods. It's not. It's speculation only.

There is evidence of such. The Himalayas could be one such piece of evidence. Local lore in Tibet/India has the area being a nearly flat. Of course, their lore may be a bunch of BS....but in a time before geology is it reasonable to assume that these people could even IMAGINE the land before it was mountainous? That is a question that I think would need to be answered at some point.

It's at lease possible, but nothing in what you wrote to indicate it could be dated to that time period, specifically, or that the people have been there for so long that they hadn't assumed that the local area was what their ancestors were talking about. It might not have been. More research into the area needs to be done.

But if we ignore it, and choose to not seek answers to the questions, then we are no less ignorant than yesterday.

.

I'm not saying ignore it. There is much more investigation and evidence that has to be found one way or the other. What I am saying is that there is way too little information currently known about the impact/impactor to be making the kinds of conclusions that are constantly being made. Instead of the theory fitting the facts, many times the facts, where they exist, are being forced to fit the theory.

In any case, much, much more research and evidence needs to be done or found before we can, with any specificity, say what happened, how and when.

cormac


[edit on 13-9-2008 by cormac mac airt]

cormac -

I hope you will be happy to know that I am not having a seizure -- but have to admit to a bit of a party inside

As I said in an earlier post, the point of this thread was not to say that it was proved, but it does take the stance that it is being being proved (notice the tense in the title and yes, "!" should be "?") as there is now enough evidence to reasobnably speculate how it could have happened.

The most significant missing link to Marusek's theory -- where we started -- which explains how a sudden 'global' inundation would have taken place, that would significantly alter habitable coastal regions and would coincide with the end of the YD era (based on extinction patterns that we can see), has been an impactor site over the N.A. ice shelf.

The evidence now shows that there was indeed a massive comet that impacted by implosion (hence no crater) in that timeframe . And supporting evidence seems to be emerging at how devastating and far ranging that event was.

Granted we are speculating about various possibilites from an impact of that magnitutde, but we are doing it with the guidance of a well-respected impact specialist (and BFFT'S educated and intelligent insights to various other geological implications).

My goal in this is to simply reach a place where the skeptics here on ATS will allow conversations to take place regarding the possiblity of prehistoric cultures being wiped out by global cataclysm - by allowing that there is new evidence that lays out how this could have happened.

Cheers!
TWISI


edit: for bbcode error


[edit on 15-9-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

reply to post by TheWayISeeIt


Honestly TWISI....there is nothing that could be said about the impact other than "cataclysm". You have pieces of cometary debris EMBEDDED in STONE hundreds of miles away. How energetic must this body have been to do that when it exploded?

You can find mammoths with the same debris embedded in their tusks, dropped dead at the moment of impact hundreds of miles away.

Something major happened. It must be included and discussed when we begin discussing the happenings of the youger dryas.