What's under Antarcticas Ice? -New high resolution map

reply to post by camaro68ss


What's more likely? Your interpretation of fantastical maps and bronze age fairy stories, or geological data?

See, for example:


Antarctic Ice Sheet and Climate History since the Last Glacial Maximum

and

Antarctic Glacial History Since the Last Glacial Maximum

reply to post by GezinhoKiko


none at all

www.uwgb.edu...

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
reply to post by camaro68ss

 

What's more likely? Your interpretation of fantastical maps and bronze age fairy stories, or geological data?

See, for example:


Antarctic Ice Sheet and Climate History since the Last Glacial Maximum

and

Antarctic Glacial History Since the Last Glacial Maximum

Well quoting current geological data is just that, current. It's only a few hundred years ago that science knew for a fact the earth was flat.
We can get things wrong, and we do all the time. It always seems that we think we are the most advanced we could ever have been right now and that we know it all. We don't, and we haven't even scratched the surface of the true history of life on this planet.
People are having fun in this thread, stop bringing the mood down. Just because you think current science is right doesn't mean it is.

Pine Island and Pine Island bay are curious names for a place devoid of trees. Pine=Pineal ??? If there was a pole shift 12,000 yrs ago, and Giza & Easter island were on the equator, PIne island would be quite ice free and temperate. Coincidence?

Originally posted by PinealJockey
Pine Island and Pine Island bay are curious names for a place devoid of trees. Pine=Pineal ??? If there was a pole shift 12,000 yrs ago, and Giza & Easter island were on the equator, PIne island would be quite ice free and temperate. Coincidence?

It was delineated from aerial photographs taken by USN Operation Highjump in December 1946, and named by the Advisory Committee on Antarctic Names (US-ACAN) for the USS Pine Island, seaplane tender and flagship of the eastern task group of USN Operation Highjump which explored this area.

USS Pine Island (AV-12), a Currituck-class seaplane tender, is the only ship of the United States Navy to hold this name. The ship was named after Pine Island Sound (off the coast of Lee County, Florida).

Just to add a bit of trivia, Antartica is the world's largest desert, due to it's low annual precipitation.

reply to post by AndyMayhew


You should take some time out to contemplate your signature.

We are like children compared with civilisations that have come and gone. If you think we know better than the map makers from past epochs you will never graduate kindergarten.

reply to post by AndyMayhew


Our dating is based on assumption of consistency in the decay of isotopes over billions of years. Our accuracy and knowledge of how the universe works is ever-changing.

Since we have models we create based on assumptions, then input real data into these biased models, the results will be biased; right or wrong.

We come to assume that because we find information confirming our assumptions and bias, it must mean that we are correct. But that is flawed. When you have preconceived notions, you start to have blinders to outside possibilities.

We have examples in the northern hemisphere, or massive amount of gain in loss in ice mass each year. We have a tendency as humans to think grand scale = grand time as well. Consider how much snow and ice can fall in an area in a single bad winter. Consider a series of severe winters over a few thousand years, without a high percentage of melting away.

I'm sure there are key signals in our cores that relate to specific events in time, traceable ... back again to our assumption of how the planet has developed, based on real data, included in our current paradigm.

What if parts of what we know, are off a bit? We are constantly finding things we thought to not exist, both from folklore, and our presumed ideas of how humanity progressed. We find we might need to rewrite history more often than we could believe, because with all our technology and population density, we still get it wrong a lot.

How can we say for certain, there won't be a breakthrough ... either in dating technology, or human history ... both?

I'm not claiming to know any answers, but I do think we should take a lot of answers that science throws at us, with a grain of salt, a bit of reason, and deduce our weight on the reality they present to us on our own.

I don't necessarily think the history they 'sell' to us is infallible. I certainly believe they don't have all the answers, all the data, or necessarily always have the clear, open mind to view things outside the boxes they live in and create for themselves. The boxes are good for the normal stuff ... but sometimes we have to not just think outside it, but step outside it and view things with purity and innocence ... something our indoctrinated educational systems don't prepare us for in our current society. We are taught to seek the solutions that are expected, and reprimanded if we stray from this confinement too much.

Open minds and critical thinking ... always question everything, always seek the answer that sits right for you. Our world knowledge has been wrong many times in the past, when everyone thought they were at the peak of civilization and intelligence, and we get proven wrong, learn, grow, and develop beyond those barriers time and time again.


I'm open to the possibility those ice sheets aren't millions of years old. The possibility people might have lived there at one time or that we once had the technology to scan the place. That the stories could come from long lost civilizations, passed down through folklore, or just be fanciful as well.

Thing is, we don't know, and may never know. If something catastrophic happened this year, left very few of us scattered across the globe ... what stories would they hear in 10,000 years? How fanciful would they be? There would be no infrastructure left. The metal will have rusted away, the concrete turned to dust. Depending on the event, the amount of dust and damage caused to the world could cover up or destroy just about everything else.

I decided to give a long reply to a short post, as to open your mind, not change it. I'm fine with this continent being a pristine piece of land never touched by humankind; a glimpse into the past, land and frozen fauna to study like a time capsule. That doesn't mean I can't consider other possibilities as well.

Originally posted by KBadger
Well quoting current geological data is just that, current. It's only a few hundred years ago that science knew for a fact the earth was flat.

I agree that by it's nature, science is ever changing as we learn new things,

But science has never thought the Earth was flat! That idea only really originated in the 19th/20th centuries. The ancient Greeks knew the world was round .....

This is quite a good read:

www.veritas-ucsb.org...

And just because science says Antarctic has been frozen for millions of years, doesn't mean that it wasn't.

reply to post by FreeThinkerIdealist


Do you assume all science is wrong?

Or only the bits that don't fit with your world view?

If 100,000 doctors tell you you drinking cyanide will kill you and a bloke sells you a book saying it will make you live forever, who do you REALLY think is telling the turth?

Think about it


If you can prove the science wrong, using scientific method, then fine. But don't dismiss the science on a whim just because you just don't want it to be right or because a shim-sham man sold you a tale saying something different.

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

Originally posted by KBadger
Well quoting current geological data is just that, current. It's only a few hundred years ago that science knew for a fact the earth was flat.

I agree that by it's nature, science is ever changing as we learn new things,

But science has never thought the Earth was flat! That idea only really originated in the 19th/20th centuries. The ancient Greeks knew the world was round .....

This is quite a good read:

www.veritas-ucsb.org...

And just because science says Antarctic has been frozen for millions of years, doesn't mean that it wasn't.

Well maybe not science, but again we can't know for certain as none of us were there. I'm aware the Greeks thought different, but then after the Roman civilization collapsed we went into the dark ages and people thought all kinds of daft things no doubt.
Civilizations collapse all the time in history, generally followed by a dark age. Who's to say there wasn't an incredibly advanced civilization many thousands of years ago that collapsed for whatever reason and only gets recalled in folk memory and legend?
Again we will probably never know for certain, but I for one like to think about it

Originally posted by AndyMayhew
reply to post by FreeThinkerIdealist

 

Do you assume all science is wrong?

Or only the bits that don't fit with your world view?

If 100,000 doctors tell you you drinking cyanide will kill you and a bloke sells you a book saying it will make you live forever, who do you REALLY think is telling the turth?

Think about it

If you can prove the science wrong, using scientific method, then fine. But don't dismiss the science on a whim just because you just don't want it to be right or because a shim-sham man sold you a tale saying something different.

edit on 8-6-2013 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)

I doubt anyone here thinks all science is wrong, but there is a tendency for most to blindly go along with whatever science tells them.
Open minded skepticism is always healthy and generally leads to more learning and discoveries. If we really thought we knew everything about what's gone on, or how it all works how boring would that be?

And just because I think we're drifting off topic a bit here's a link to Charles Hapgoods theory of earth crust displacement. Which I'm sure most folks on here are familiar with and puts parts of Antarctica further north in the past
Earth Crust Displacement

reply to post by FreeThinkerIdealist

Our dating is based on assumption of consistency in the decay of isotopes over billions of years. Our accuracy and knowledge of how the universe works is ever-changing.

Since we have models we create based on assumptions, then input real data into these biased models, the results will be biased; right or wrong.

We come to assume that because we find information confirming our assumptions and bias, it must mean that we are correct. But that is flawed. When you have preconceived notions, you start to have blinders to outside possibilities.

I've been quite shocked in the last year myself to find how shakey the basis really is for much of the technique used in dating things. It's downright disturbing to think that is often all the factor in a whole chain of assumptions to follow. The methods are recent by any relative measure and..well..I just don't trust them at the level they're refined and proven to for extreme dates.

That throws quite a bit into question by nature.

Originally posted by cheesy
It's Megatronn..Captain Wik wiki OTW there..

Sory just kidding..nice post sir..I am so curious as you sir..maybe other member have any nice sugestion

It's Witwiki!!!!