Archaeological Find Challenges Standard Geology

[Giffyguy]

They presume this figurine is 2,000,000 years old, because of the "age" of the rock/basalt layers it was found in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY_CebroqJ0

Sure, they could try to disprove evolution, or show ancient aliens or whatever else ... OR they could maybe acknowledge that they don't know squat about how old those rock layers actually are.

This artifact looks like a remnant of civilization buried beneath the raining dust from a catastrophic electric discharge in the recent past.
There's no need for 2,000,000-year-old humans, if you just consider electricity might be more heavily involved in planetary formation.

[Zyxzevn]

Sadly the channel Secureteam10 has a lot of disinformation.

For things found in layers of "old" stone, I found a theory about geopolymers.
If it is true (which I doubt because of the channel) I assume some similar process.
It means that certain stone layers are formed by certain chemical reactions.
A soft mixture of stones, sand and clay can harden in a short time and capture all kinds
of human made objects. The hardened mixtures still appear very old due to the old ingredients.
This causes them to look much older than they really are.
http://www.geopolymer.org/

[chrimony]

They presume this figurine is 2,000,000 years old, because of the "age" of the rock/basalt layers it was found in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY_CebroqJ0

Sure, they could try to disprove evolution, or show ancient aliens or whatever else ... OR they could maybe acknowledge that they don't know squat about how old those rock layers actually are.

OR maybe you could acknowledge the far more likely explanation, that it's a hoax of recent origin. It pays to do a simple search:

https://ahotcupofjoe.wordpress.com/2007 ... mage-hoax/

That page quotes from a geologist writing in 1893:

When this story was told the writer [Powell], he simply jested with those who claimed to have found it. He had known the Indians that live in the neighborhood, had seen their children play with just such figurines, and had no doubt that the little image had lately belonged to some Indian child, and said the same. While stopping at the hotel different persons spoke about it, and it was always passed off as a jest; and various comments were made about it by various people, some of them claiming that it had given them much sport, and that a good many ” tenderfeet” had looked at it and believed it to be genuine; and they seemed rather pleased that I had detected the hoax. When I returned to Washington I related the jest at a dinner table, and afterward it passed out of my mind. In reading Prof. Wright’s second book I had many surprises, but none of them greater than when I discovered that this figurine had fallen into his hands, and that he had actually published it as evidence of the great antiquity of man in the valley of the Snake River.

Consider the circumstances. A fragile toy is buried in the sands and gravels and boulders of a torrential stream. Three hundred feet of materials are accumulated over it from the floods of thousands of years. Then volcanoes burst forth and pour floods of lava over all; and under more than three hundred feet of sands, gravels, clays, and volcanic rocks the fragile figurine remains for centuries, under such magical conditions that the very color of the burning is preserved. Then well-diggers, with a pump drill, hammer and abrade the rocks, and bore a six-inch hole down to this figurine without destroying it, and with a sand-pump bring it to the surface, to be caught by the well-digger; and Prof. Wright believes the story of the figurine, and places it on record in his book!

This artifact looks like a remnant of civilization buried beneath the raining dust from a catastrophic electric discharge in the recent past.
There's no need for 2,000,000-year-old humans, if you just consider electricity might be more heavily involved in planetary formation.

I can't understand how anybody takes this idea seriously. The fossil record is laid down in layers, and while you have exceptions like hoaxes or displacements, the vast majority of the evidence is consistent with long-term processes.

[comingfrom]

An average good size crater on Mars, or the Moon, can be 20 km across and 2 or 3 km deep. Supposing these are created by a plasma discharge arc, a thunderbolt, to Earth say (at some time in the past), then where did the material go? Charge is leaving the body with such density and force that it excavates a crater. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of tons of rock is excavated and carried away by the current. I presume much of the material gets deposited at the receiving end of the arc. Such arcs may be over in seconds or minutes. Many of our so-called sedimentary layers may well be electrically deposited layers.

Just thinking out loud here. If you find fault with my thinking, please do comment.
~Paul

[chrimony]

An average good size crater on Mars, or the Moon, can be 20 km across and 2 or 3 km deep. Supposing these are created by a plasma discharge arc, a thunderbolt, to Earth say (at some time in the past), then where did the material go? Charge is leaving the body with such density and force that it excavates a crater. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of tons of rock is excavated and carried away by the current. I presume much of the material gets deposited at the receiving end of the arc. Such arcs may be over in seconds or minutes. Many of our so-called sedimentary layers may well be electrically deposited layers.

Just thinking out loud here. If you find fault with my thinking, please do comment.
~Paul

Even if I were to grant that one particular layer was laid down by a single electrical event, the stack of layers shows fossils which cover a great deal of time. So the idea that a human civilization was buried to a layer dated to 2 million years ago is ridiculous, which is why you see hoaxes like this, with a single figurine, instead of a significant find, such as an entire village.

[comingfrom]

Thank you, Chrimony.

If there is any basis of truth in my hypothesis, then it was obviously not a single event, by the evidence of so many layers, all over the world. More like a continuous process, that only takes a pause now and then (in moments of orbital stability?). I was reading over in the 'Insights and Mad Ideas' forum (probably where this thread should be), I can't remember which thread right now, about the early Sardinians (I think, memory again) who made their huts with several feet thick stone walls, and some of them are buried or partially buried, by the rubble they were protecting themselves from. The surrounding landscape has evidence of what could be electrical scarring. Similar evidence found in other locations.

Don't get me wrong, the reported figurine is neither here nor there in regard with my hypothesis. It cannot be seriously regarded as evidence of anything. I find mountains of suggestive evidence everywhere though.

My thoughts were in regards to your comment that;

The fossil record is laid down in layers, and while you have exceptions like hoaxes or displacements, the vast majority of the evidence is consistent with long-term processes.

Even my hypothesized process is still a long term process, but a much shorter long term process than standard geology proposes.

If I find that thread again, I'll link it here.
~Paul

[comingfrom]

A question came to mind.

Just how long would it take, for this year's Amazonian alluvial deposit layer, spread out upon the Atlantic floor, to get buried, solidify into rock, and end up at the surface of a continent again?

Even the thought that this actually occurs boggles the mind.
Yet that is what we are expected to believe what happened, to explain the fossil fields found deep in rock strata.
To explain rock strata itself. To explain the marine fossils found atop mountain ranges.

I believed a lot of what they told me most of my life, until I discovered EU/PC and TP.
I'm rid of Black Holes, the Big Bang, virtual particles, and many other beliefs that I never was comfortable with.
Now I am seriously reconsidering many things held up to be truth about geology.

I have not thrown out all standard geology theory yet. I currently think the answer may be somewhere inbetween, and a combination of processes are at work, some of which are not yet taken into account.
~Paul

[webolife]

The clay figurine is clearly not a 2000 millennia artifact, much as that would be of tremendous support to my own catastrophic frame, were it valid... that said, much "antiquity" in standard geology is due to two seldom referenced facts, the first having to do with relative dating, the second with "absolute" dating:
1. The interstitial "hiatus" -- In general, any single stratum of rock can largely be shown to have been deposited in its entire depth in a fairly short amount of time, due to the generally observed consistency of a rock layer from top to bottom [eg. a layer of limestone, or sandstone, shale, etc]. The same holds for the layers above and below the stratum. If you take this as a general condition for all the strata in a "conformable" sequence, eg. the few miles of strata found in the Rocky Mountain cordillera, or the Himalayas, etc. there is not a huge amount of time actually observable in the rock record... so where is the alleged epochal geologic time period evidenced? Since the time of Hutton, Playfair, and Lyell, it's been hidden in the standard model's "story" of the unseen "hiatus" periods between the conformable strata, which story goes something like this:
Long slow gradual mountain uplift episodes [orogenies] accompanied/followed by numbingly slow erosive processes alleged to have happened at the present [non-catastrophic] rate resulted in massive plains of flat/horizontal plains of mud. Further long periods of compaction/cementation followed leaving an originally horizontal rock bed. This uniformitarian scenario happened over and over again leaving the rough places made plain laying flat plains of rock one atop another ad nauseum. From time to time these strata were isotatically uplifted, folded, shaken by earthquakes, metamorphosed by the pressures of slow gradual continental drift, and occasionally punctuated by intrusive eruptions; but mostly it was the orogeny followed by erosion paradigm.
Sounds very plausible until you consider that most of the story is contained in the unseen "hiatus" zone between otherwise generally conformable rocks. An objector might ask, "But don't scientists know that the processes have taken ages to occur?", or "Doesn't radioactive dating prove how old the earth is?" and other such quite reasonable questions. The answer is "No" and "No."
2. The many assumptions behind radiometric dating, and the inconsistent results obtained by these methods, along with the sheer cost of labtime to do the work, render most actual field reported dates as assumptions based on the relative dating model described in part in #1 above. The issues complicating the reliability of radiometric dating have been discussed at length on various other threads. But for a simple starter, consider how old the earth would be computed to be if the original state of zircons and other uraninite minerals were originally composed of say nearly equal parts of uranium and lead? Give or take tens or hundreds of thousands of years of error range, the earth may have been formed yesterday according to the U-Pb dating method. It must be assumed, and cannot be known, that uranium bearing minerals were originally 100% uranium at the time of crustal formation, and why should this be a better assumption than an original mixture?

[comingfrom]

Thank you for your words, webolife.

The whole evolution of life timeline would be based on (or intertwined with) that dating model too.

~Paul

[chrimony]

A question came to mind.

Just how long would it take, for this year's Amazonian alluvial deposit layer, spread out upon the Atlantic floor, to get buried, solidify into rock, and end up at the surface of a continent again?

Even the thought that this actually occurs boggles the mind.
Yet that is what we are expected to believe what happened, to explain the fossil fields found deep in rock strata.
To explain rock strata itself. To explain the marine fossils found atop mountain ranges.

I believed a lot of what they told me most of my life, until I discovered EU/PC and TP.
I'm rid of Black Holes, the Big Bang, virtual particles, and many other beliefs that I never was comfortable with.
Now I am seriously reconsidering many things held up to be truth about geology.

I find that the idea of a very long process, many magnitudes greater than a human lifetime, to be a much simpler and less mind-boggling explanation than any EU idea to explain the strata and fossil record. We can measure continental drift. We can see the result of sea floor spreading via magnetic bands. I can't even begin to imagine what kind of EU event took place to put marine fossils on top of mountain ranges.

[Lloyd]

I find that the idea of a very long process, many magnitudes greater than a human lifetime, to be a much simpler and less mind-boggling explanation than any EU idea to explain the strata and fossil record. We can measure continental drift. We can see the result of sea floor spreading via magnetic bands. I can't even begin to imagine what kind of EU event took place to put marine fossils on top of mountain ranges.

These issues have been discussed lately in my thread at http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 10&t=16025. Also, Charles Chandler found with conventional formulae that the Sun cannot be more than 378 million years old and that the Earth may be that age too. If it was warmer than normally thought for a longer time, he said radioactive decay proceeds faster when the elements have higher temperature, so conventional estimates, based on the assumption of lower long-term temperatures, are likely wrong.

Here's a problem I brought up lately on my thread, which I hope Webb may comment on ere long.

ROCK STRATA FORMATION
How did sedimentary rock strata form? ... The conventional theory seems to be full of absurdities. The Great Flood theory seems to be most logical to me, combined with the Shock Dynamics theory.
(The Great Flood theory accounts for nearly all of the fossil-strata as deposited over a few months' time during the Great Flood about 4,500 years ago. See https://www.socalsem.edu/2015/08/09/noa ... th-history. The Shock Dynamics theory at http://NewGeology.us explains that rapid continental drift due to a huge impact off east Africa and mountain uplift worldwide occurred a few hundred years after the Great Flood.)
- The conventional theory is that strata and fossils take thousands to millions of years to form. But delicate fossils and large ones could not form in conventional flood or sedimentation events (because they require either rapid burial or thick layers of sedimentation). I don't think it's even proven that conventional sedimentation forms solid strata. There has to be a lot of Lime or other cementing agent available to form rock strata. I don't know if rock can form under water until the water is drained away. Most rock strata cover hundreds or thousands of square miles. There would have to be a lot of very huge [flat-bottom] lakes that filled with sediment. The sediment would have had to move over the entire lake bottom with nearly equal thickness, whereas normally sediment only accumulates near the mouths of rivers or creeks. Erosion would have to bring in just sand with some Lime for thousands of years, then bring in just lime for thousands of years, and then just mud for many more thousands of years, because each rock type is usually separate (rather than mixed together) in strata several inches to feet thick. All of the mountains would be eroded down in a few million years, so where would the older strata come from? Would something keep building up mountains to get eroded back down? Is anything besides a Shock Dynamics event capable of building up mountains (which require horizontal compression, not vertical lift)?
- Creation scientists have shown that a global flood would be capable of cavitating the edges of a supercontinent to form continent-wide strata of sand, lime and mud sediments via tsunamis, caused by a large body (a planetoid) temporarily orbiting the Earth on a highly elliptical orbit, which would also fossilize large and delicate organisms quickly. (See link above.)
- Look at this cross-section of the Mississippi River delta: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Miss ... ection.jpg. That's what sedimentary rock would look like with slow erosion. It would only cover a small area and would have a fairly steep slope, instead of being level. In order to get strata that cover large areas, like most of North America, there needs to be huge tsunamis, at least hundreds of feet high, to spread the sediments out over a broad plain.
- I have a lot more info listed at https://public.etherpad-mozilla.org/p/U0QsftuJQO.

[Lloyd]

BY THE WAY, THIS THREAD IS ON THE WRONG BOARD. IT SHOULD BE ON PLANETARY SCIENCE OR NAIMI.

[Lloyd]

Well, we're on the right board now, but maybe the discussion is over already. Hmm?

[chrimony]

The Great Flood theory accounts for nearly all of the fossil-strata as deposited over a few months' time during the Great Flood about 4,500 years ago. See https://www.socalsem.edu/2015/08/09/noa ... th-history.

It's absurd and cannot explain the fossil record as recorded by the strata, which is neatly laid down in layers and sorted by what you would expect from long processes and evolution, not a single, world-wide catastrophe, let alone a world-wide flood from 5 thousand years ago!

Noah's Flood debunked (Part 1)
Noah's Flood debunked (Part 2)

By the way, your link resulted in a Page Not Found for me. This one works.

[Cargo]

if one is inclined to accept the Torah as truly being revelation from God to Moses, there no longer remains any good reason for not accepting at face value the Torah’s time line for the earth’s physical history

Well that says it all right there does it not?

Next.