Questions About Adam and Eve

[Borachio]

Yes. I do concede. Quite naturally. I made an inexcusable error. Though what's Bristol rules?

What I should have said is that Australia wasn't discovered, at all, by Europeans until 1607.

And the whole coast line wasn't mapped until very much later.

 

[peter grimes]

I made it up, 'twas a feeble attempt at an Anglicism:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/shipshape_and_Bristol_fashion

 

[Borachio]

Oh. There's the Queensbury rules, of course.

"Shipshape and Bristol fashion" is well known. Though Bristol is notorious for being the English part of the triangular trade.

Bristols is also Cockney slang for tits, if a bit dated, btw.

 

[timtofly]

Yes. But you see if the continents move at between 1 and 10 cm a year, 14,000 years give a drift of between 140 and 1,400 metres. This isn't really a significant amount out of a map covering 40,000 km. It's, if my arithmetic is correct, in the order of less than 0.001%.

Where's your evidence that plate tectonic rates of drift were several thousand times greater than they are now?

Isn't it just more likely that the cartographer (from whose work Fine borrowed) was basing his drawing on a lot of speculative misinformation, and just filled in the blanks? What did he have to lose?

Australia itself wasn't discovered, at all, until 1606 (?), 50 years after the map was drawn.

I am not talking about drift. I am talking about a sudden shift. The last Ice Age ended about 15,000 BC. Between then and 8,000 is only 7000 years and not enough time for just drift to account for the displacement. There were three major catastrophic events: one in 9545 BC, one in 7545 BC. and the Black Sea flood, which most would call Noah's or Gilgamesh's flood. There were several freezes and thaws that were blamed for these events, except for the first one in 9545 BC. during which there was a comet that allegedly broke up and 7 large chunks hit seven different places. It was this event that was said to cause the rapid plate movement. There is a city Tiahuanaco containing huge monolithic blocks in the Andes that currently sits 4km above sea level, but was actually a sea port. It has been decided that it was built between AD 500 and 1000, since no one could have possibly built it before 8,000 BC. Yet the damage done seems to point to the 9545 BC. event that also shifted the plates. It seemed to have also pushed up the Andes at the same time 4km. So yes, the Western Hemisphere could have been mapped and settled between 14,000 and 10,000 BC. but no one wants to accept that.

 

[Borachio]

Well, where does one begin?

Tiwanaku

Yes, the buildings there feature some truly monumental stones. The largest apparently is just over 130 tonnes. And many are about 40 tonnes.

In comparison, Stonehenge standing stones weigh a mere 25 tonnes. Yet some of the Stonehenge stones came from a hundred miles away. While the Tiwanaku came from much nearer - a mere (!) 10 km.

I'd say it's a phenomenal achievement for a pre-industrial civilization. But, still, it's not impossible for them to have done so. Evidently. I don't think it indicates that the Andes must have suddenly shot into the sky 15,000 years ago.

Where is the evidence that it was a sea port?

 

[Arakhor]

As far as I recall, Australia was discovered by the British when sending a ship to the Java Straits to observe Halley's Comet in 1758 or so.

 

[Berzerker]

OK. It's just that you seem to be a little unclear about the whole plate tectonic thing.

I'm not sure what you're claiming. Is it just that you dispute that plates move slowly? I don't know why you'd think this.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/cosmology-and-astronomy/earth-history-topic/plate-techtonics/v/plate-tectonics----evidence-of-plate-movement
This link might not be relevant. But without an overall view of the subject it's hard to know where to begin. Still...

Is it that you just don't think the same processes that are occurring today happened at the same rate 6000 years ago? In which case, I don't think there could be any way to persuade you otherwise.

we agree, the plates move slowly and aint relevant to human history

 

[Borachio]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willem_Janszoon

Dutch navigator and colonial governor, is the first European known to have seen the coast of Australia - in 1606.

 

[Arakhor]

Maybe it was New Zealand then. I'm not sure.

 

[Borachio]

Are you thinking of Cook's first expedition which set out to observe the transit of Venus across the sun? And in the process hit the Australian east coast in 1770 for the first European footfall?

 

[Arakhor]

That sounds right. A voyage ordered by the Royal Navy, featuring Lt. James Cook, to study one of Edmund Halley's astronomical predictions.

 

[timtofly]

Well, where does one begin?

Tiwanaku

Yes, the buildings there feature some truly monumental stones. The largest apparently is just over 130 tonnes. And many are about 40 tonnes.

In comparison, Stonehenge standing stones weigh a mere 25 tonnes. Yet some of the Stonehenge stones came from a hundred miles away. While the Tiwanaku came from much nearer - a mere (!) 10 km.

I'd say it's a phenomenal achievement for a pre-industrial civilization. But, still, it's not impossible for them to have done so. Evidently. I don't think it indicates that the Andes must have suddenly shot into the sky 15,000 years ago.

Where is the evidence that it was a sea port?

You are not going to find it there. And modern humans would be hard pressed moving those stones, much less one's 2000 years ago. They more than likely left them in their original locations and built a civilization around them. There is a slight hint where it says that the Gate of the Sun is not complete and probably not in it's original position. It is near a lake that contains marine animals and signs that it was once at sea level, and a sea port would indicate more than just one lake, but oceanic travel. Even in 1595 when it was 4km above sea level no one thought to ask why it had the remnants of a sea port. The article does say that in 1945 Arthur Posnansky used archaeoastronomical techniques dating it around 12,000 BC, but like I said the majority opinion will not concede such an idea.

 

[Berzerker]

if you want megaliths check out the trilithon at Baalbek

 

[peter grimes]

Please go on.

 

[Hygro]

Aha! Finally you show your True Imperialistic Colours!

Australia already had people in it when Captain Cook alighted, friend. Were they intelligently designed to be there? Harummph!

You have been caught fair and square, so I expect you to cede, in keeping with Bristol rules

haha that was badass.

 

[classical_hero]

I have trouble believing that the Flood could have killed the Tree of Life. That'd be a letdown.

All of the creatures the breathed life died and much of the

Continents just don't move at those speeds, though. They inch around much much much much slower than that.

So the present is key to the past. Doesn't limestone take millions of years to form? So if the present is key to the past, then this is clearly wrong. There is a watermill in South West WA that was built in the early 19th century and yet it was only a matter of decades before it turned into limestone. http://creation.com/frozen-in-stone If you don't believe this link because of "lying creationists" then just Google "Cape Leeuwin water wheel" and you get confirmation. There are other examples of things that are supposed to take long times to form, but only take a short time in comparison. petrified-flour fascinating-fossil-fence-wire the-clock-in-the-rock toy-car-rocks-million-year-belief

Just so many things are rocking the standard view that anyone who holds the long age belief is basically fooling themselves.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Amount of evidence that continents moved at those speeds in previous post: 0

But there's an encrusted water wheel. So continents must have moved at those speeds.

Well guys, I guess the game is up. We're busted

 

[Berzerker]

do toilets encrusted in lime prove the continents moved faster in the past?

we can estimate past movement by looking at magnetic reversals in cooled magma, continental drift shows YEC is false.

 

[peter grimes]

That link about the toy car is going to upend the entire science of geology. I can't believe that we've been lied to for so long!

I mean, the evidence is irrefutamable: a blob on the beach looked like a rock, so therefore it IS SANDSTONE, and therefore all minerals everywhere don't take a long long long time to form.

That's Rock Solid

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I never clicked any of the other links, but thank you so much for putting my attention to it.

That Toy Car is hilarious.

Clearly the rock was not millions of years old. It could only have been 10 or 20 years at the most. Yet it ‘looked’ old.

And therefore we conclude:

Rocks don’t need millions of years to form—they just need suitable conditions.

I double-checked whether that wasn't an Onion like piece to discredit Creation-dot-come-on.

Anyway, back to limestone:
http://geology.com/rocks/limestone.shtml

Now, Classical Hero. I challenge you to read that and come up with the answer why you have been duped into thinking that limestone wheel thingy was a good article to illustrate your point.