Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

The Ocean Water

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:29 pm

Seasmith asked: And where does your water come from to fill up the oceans?
* According to Talbott's and perhaps others' findings, the ocean water was likely held in the plasma column at the north pole until the breakup of the Saturn System. When the plasma column dispersed, the ocean water came pouring down over the north pole and spread out in all directions from there, causing the Great Flood. The plasma column had a tornadic vortex associated with it, which tore up the ground in the Arctic and piled it up in great mounds of soil, ice, animal bones, trees etc, which cover large parts of Siberia and Alaska. That all occurred prior to the Saturn System breakup and the Great Flood.
* See http://kronia.com/thoth.html.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

The Atlantic

Unread postby Lloyd » Sat Jan 31, 2009 7:28 pm

* On the "planetary mechanics" thread next door, Steve Smith said the following, but it fits this thread better, so I'm importing it here.

As you know, I don't subscribe to the idea that the continents were "fractured" and drifted apart.


* Shock Dynamics says the continents were fractured by an impact [which I say was electrical], but didn't drift apart; instead they were jolted apart at 150 meters per second and took about a whole day to come to a stop about in the positions where they are now.

Plates (as in tectonic plates) are theoretical constructions that don't exist. If there was a single continent at one time, it is still with us -- it has simply been cut to pieces and maybe, in some instances, masses of stone as big as Australia might have been thrown from where they were once located. Because many giant landforms (Chief Mountain, the Matterhorn) are hundreds of miles from where their bedrock "roots" are located -- the Matterhorn is upside down compared with the strata surrounding it-- it seems plausible that explosive discharges could have tossed some of the land masses around.


* Okay, so we're pretty much on the same page there, except, if electrical explosions can throw Australia for a loop, why couldn't one fracture a supercontinent and propel the pieces in all directions, especially if friction under the continents etc is greatly reduced by electrical forces? By the way, I'd be very interested in hearing where those mountains originated.

However, the major geological features like the continental shelves, the mid-ocean ridge, the arc-shaped archipelagoes, fjords, Chesapeake Bay, bathymetric seamounts on long sinusoidal curves, etc. show me that there was something else involved.
I see what's happening in the minds of many of the forum members: the scale of these cataclysms is too vast. The entire planet experienced electrodynamic forces sufficient to wrench it out of its rotational alignment, push it into a higher orbit (from 360 days to 365.25 days), invert the magnetic field more than once, change the climate, destroy both high latitude hemispheres, and obliterate thousands, if not millions of species. Oceans were created, oceans were evaporated, continents were sterilized, the atmospheric chemistry was changed. Considering that it was electrical activity that did this means that there's no need to resort to other mechanisms with theoretically undemonstrable forces.


* Again, I agree that electrical forces are probably largely responsible for all, or most, of those things. Obviously electricity isn't the only force involved in cataclysmic geology. When electrical forces throw a mountain into the air, it's gravity that brings it back down. If electrical forces form volcanoes and cause them to erupt, gas pressures are involved and again gravity brings the ash and rocks to the ground and determines the flow of the lava. Chemical forces are always involved too.
* You seem to favor the idea that the ocean basins were carved out by EDM, but, if electrical forces can raise mesas, instead of carving out all the sedimentary rock around mesas, why can't they raise continents, instead of having to carve out 3/4ths of the Earth's crust to leave basins behind?
* The weakest argument of EU theory re the continents and seafloors is regarding the Atlantic etc. The fact that the opposite shores of the Atlantic fit together so well and, according to Cardona, the rock types also match on opposite shores, strongly suggest that those shores were once adjoining. Electrical forces seemingly should be able to fracture a supercontinent and push the pieces apart. Isn't that at all conceivable to you?

If there were "mantle plumes" shallow or deep, they were caused by the secondary discharge pathways erupting out of the Earth to meet the oppositely charged leaders descending from the planet, or plasma cloud, or Birkeland current that was the initiator.


* Shock Dynamics does not include plume theory.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Unread postby Kapriel » Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:32 pm

allynh wrote:Check out the Neal Adams video about why Pangea as a starting point doesn't work.

You have to remember, that any discussion of subduction has to explain why there is no mountain of muck and silt along the subduction zone. No matter what the mechanism for subduction as described, there would be massive amounts of silt scraped off in the process.


There is where I live, actually; Sonoma County, California is one big piled-up piece of accretionary wedge. Added to this, or rather smashed up against the coast there, is one of the most studied geologic formations in the world- called the Franciscan Melange. This formation is composed of sediment-covered oceanic-plate material that has made its way to the coast, been partially subducted beneath the continental plate, and then dragged back up by the San Andreas fault system (more or less). I've spent some time out there where it lies exposed on the beach. It's quite interesting.

Theoretically, sea-floor that is moving towards continental shelves could carry radiolarian-cherts, hydrothermally altered pillow basalts, limestones, fragments from seamounts, greywacke (silty sandstone), and others. Once it collides with the coast these can become metamorphosed to a certain extent (those portions that are supposedly not dragged entirely under the continental plate), forming such things as serpentinite (California's state rock), blueschist, greenstone, eglogite, and others. There is a great variety, many of which as I said are visible along the California coast as part of this Franciscan Melange.

Most people don't know that the famous San Andreas transform fault is a new comer to the California coast. Anciently, there was a subduction trench just off the coast, which explains the oceanic materials that have been plastered against the beaches.

In fact, ancient pillow basalts are found far inland of the coast (- I visited some this past week at Nicasio Reservior), along with the much-weathered remains of a volcano chain (trust me when I say MUCH-weathered...you'd be hard pressed to identify most of them without a guide). In short, the same family of volcanic arcs visible and active now along the Oregon and Washington coasts were once active along the California coast. They migrated, I guess you could say because there really is no other way to say it.

So what became of the trench itself? No one seems to know. But the Sonoma Wine Country owes its fabulously rich and fertile soils to this ancient volcanic domain, and to the oceanic deposits that later was shoved up against and over the top of it.
Doubt is not proof.
User avatar
Kapriel
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 9:17 pm

Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Unread postby Kapriel » Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:32 pm

allynh wrote:Check out the Neal Adams video about why Pangea as a starting point doesn't work.

You have to remember, that any discussion of subduction has to explain why there is no mountain of muck and silt along the subduction zone. No matter what the mechanism for subduction as described, there would be massive amounts of silt scraped off in the process.


There is where I live, actually; Sonoma County, California is one big piled-up piece of accretionary wedge. Added to this, or rather smashed up against the coast there, is one of the most studied geologic formations in the world- called the Franciscan Melange. This formation is composed of sediment-covered oceanic-plate material that has made its way to the coast, been partially subducted beneath the continental plate, and then dragged back up by the San Andreas fault system (more or less). I've spent some time out there where it lies exposed on the beach. It's quite interesting.

Theoretically, sea-floor that is moving towards continental shelves could carry radiolarian-cherts, hydrothermally altered pillow basalts, limestones, fragments from seamounts, greywacke (silty sandstone), and others. Once it collides with the coast these can become metamorphosed to a certain extent (those portions that are supposedly not dragged entirely under the continental plate), forming such things as serpentinite (California's state rock), blueschist, greenstone, eglogite, and others. There is a great variety, many of which as I said are visible along the California coast as part of this Franciscan Melange.

Most people don't know that the famous San Andreas transform fault is a new comer to the California coast. Anciently, there was a subduction trench just off the coast, which explains the oceanic materials that have been plastered against the beaches.

In fact, ancient pillow basalts are found far inland of the coast (- I visited some this past week at Nicasio Reservior), along with the much-weathered remains of a volcano chain (trust me when I say MUCH-weathered...you'd be hard pressed to identify most of them without a guide). In short, the same family of volcanic arcs visible and active now along the Oregon and Washington coasts were once active along the California coast. They migrated, I guess you could say because there really is no other way to say it.

So what became of the trench itself? No one seems to know. But the Sonoma Wine Country owes its fabulously rich and fertile soils to this ancient volcanic domain, and to the oceanic deposits that later were shoved up against and over the top of it.
Doubt is not proof.
User avatar
Kapriel
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 9:17 pm

Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Unread postby Total Science » Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:16 pm

Steve Smith wrote:Someone seems to think plate tectonics and so-called "planetary expansion" are the only two theories out there.

Who would that be?
"The ancients possessed a plasma cosmology and physics themselves, and from laboratory experiments, were well familiar with the patterns exhibited by Peratt's petroglyphs." -- Joseph P. Farrell, author, 2007
Total Science
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:10 am

Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Unread postby dahlenaz » Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:04 pm

Lloyd, Here is something you may find interesting as relates to your suggestion of electrical processes involved
in lateral movement, and possibly several other variations of faulting. About half way through the video is what i am pointing you towards. d...z

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IriiQrRD ... re=related
User avatar
dahlenaz
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:58 am
Location: SD Arizona

Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Feb 01, 2009 9:17 pm

Re Kapriel's "Sonoma County, California is one big piled-up piece of accretionary wedge", Shock Dynamics seems to explain that well as a ridge that was run into and piled up on the coast, which helped increase the resistance against the motion of North America, helping bring it to a halt from it's slide.

Re DZ's video link, I saw a dark layer forming in a jar of sand with electrodes touching the sand, but I couldn't understand whether the dark layer was forming a liquid or solid. Can you explain, DZ?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Answers to Shock Dynamics theorist's questions

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Feb 01, 2009 9:24 pm

* The guy at http://newgeology.us just replied to my email from a few days ago and here are his questions and my answers.

* Hi Mike. Glad to hear back from you. I'm sending a copy of this to the EU team. Now let's see how well I can answer your questions.

1. You asked, "what led you to place the time of continental separation at 5000 years ago"(?)
* I may have this mixed up a little, but the general story that follows should be close to correct. Our experts on "myths" and ancient history are Cardona, Talbott, Cochrane, v.d.Sluijs et al and I'm trying to paraphrase my understanding of their findings, as well as findings of some of our astronomy and engineering experts et al.
* Earth was apparently a moon of Saturn until the time of the Great Flood a few centuries before Abraham. An encounter with Jupiter disrupted the Saturn System at that time, leading to the Flood. But I think it also led to your Shock Dynamics impact that broke up the supercontinent Pangea, although that may have been a little later at the time of Peleg. Before the Great Flood the ocean basins were largely empty. This is shown by the gulleys carved into the sides of the continental shelves. We think these gulleys (and most features on Earth and other celestial bodies) were carved by electrical discharge from charge differences mainly between nearby planetoids. Whether the gulleys were carved by electricity or water or other fluids, it seems they cannot have formed under water, therefore, the ocean basins must have been mostly empty. The flood came from the sky, which the Bible and many of the ancients called the "Great Deep".
* Since Abraham lived about 2300 BC, 4300 years ago, a few centuries would place the Somali Basin impact at 4500 to 5,000 years ago.
* Cardona found about 20 years ago that Jupiter apparently initially disrupted the Saturn System. I don't know if he still holds to this scenario though. At the time of Abraham the fire and brimstone that destroyed Sodom and 3 other cities on the plain by the Dead Sea likely came from Jupiter's moon Io, via electric discharge, or possibly from Jupiter itself. Brimstone is basically sulphur and fire likely meant lightning. Io is known to be brimming with sulphur volcanoes, which shoot plumes far above the surface. We think those volcanoes and plumes are electrically formed, since the volcanoes are observed to move many miles and the plumes shoot so high and Jupiter's electric field is known to impinge on Io.

2. You asked, "how does one distinguish between a meteorite impact crater and an electric discharge target? The 170 craters on land identified as meteorite-caused generally have residual evidence associated with them, including shatter cones, tektites, and platinum group elements."
* Meteorite fragments, like the 3 or 4 foot diameter iron one at Meteor Crater, AZ, are all that's ever found at craters on Earth, I believe. I don't think they're found under impact sites though. But the "impacts" are caused mainly electrically, rather than gravitationally etc. Electric discharges follow conductive paths through the sky, so, when meteors enter the atmosphere, electric discharge accompany them, following the ion trail behind them, and cause them to brighten like an arc welder. If the stroke reaches the ground, a crater may form.
* I don't find any mention of shatter cones at our site, but they're likely caused by electrical stress, rather than mechanical. If you'll read some of the material in the articles below, most of your questions should be answered.
Craters formed electrically
http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/120707electriccraters.htm
Craters in the Lab
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041126craters-lab.htm
Tektites
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/070807tektites.htm
The iridium layer
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch06/060130crater.htm
Lots of articles on craters formed electrically
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fthunderbolts.info+craters+lab&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Answers to Shock Dynamics theorist's questions

Unread postby dahlenaz » Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:28 am

Lloyd wrote: The flood came from the sky, which the Bible and many of the ancients called the "Great Deep".


Lloyd, I suspect you primary source for this notion is Cardona. You may be well adivsed to check some other sources
on that translation.
Just from my initial investigation into that translation i found that he is most likely misusing the translation of terms
which clearly specifying earth's environment rather than beyond earth.

Here is what i have so far, it is a work in process. http://para-az.com/T-thoughts-s#debate

When thinking about water chambers we need to think about; what happened as the surface of the earth cooled and became a hard crust, how the interior of the crust cooled and did condensation of fluids occur. Remebers that the earth was watered by a vapor. This could mean that steam was rising in great quantities as cooling occured below the surface. Material contracts when cooled so the crust would likely develop voids below as the material below cooled. Here is where the subteranian chambers may have formed and gravity 'rules' when it comes to fluids.

We cannot forget the interrelationship of processes while doing this reconstruction.

d..z

http://www.dahlendesigns.com
User avatar
dahlenaz
 
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:58 am
Location: SD Arizona

Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:38 am

Hi Zane.
* I first got the information about 5 years ago that the Great Deep in ancient times meant the sky from Barbara Walker's book, The Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets. Earth was often referred to as the underworld, while Saturn was thought of as heaven, the overworld. It was only last year that I learned that Cardona made the same finding about the Great Deep.
* I think it's very plausible that there was no rain before the Great Flood and that animals and plants were watered by a mist from the ground. I doubt if there was much steam coming from the ground before the Great Flood, because I don't think there were hot spots. I think electrical heating during encounters with other planets or moons formed the hot spots during or after the Flood. Cardona says Saturn periodically flared up many times before the Flood, but I don't think they had much effect on Earth's geology. Since humans and some other animals appear to have "evolved" by living in warm bodies of water, I'm guessing the water simply seeped out in springs or the like. The mist from the ground may have watered plants, but I don't know if that would be able to water animals and humans as well. There appear to have been no mountains before the Great Flood, and no oceans either. So there were likely no great rivers either, just small streams from seep springs.
* http://NewGeology.us suggests that landslides from continental shelves down to the seafloor need no water chambers to slide for long distances on the seafloor. Hydroplate theory supposes that there was a horizontal layer of water chambers something like 10 miles below sealevel and that the continents slid apart over that theoretical layer. But that's impossible, because the continents' cratons extend from above sealevel down more than a hundred miles. The cratons are also hundreds of miles wide in their horizontal dimensions. If the continents slid apart, they had to slide on the bottoms of their cratons, which are not horizontal, but cone- or bowl-shaped. Shock Dynamics says they slid on a shock wave or crustal wave at 150 meters per second. The site even shows that the shock waves seem to have frozen in place when the continents finished sliding. And these waves are called plate boundaries. See http://www.newgeology.us/presentation10.html.
* Shock Dynamics supposes that the continental cratons were formed by shock or stress from the Somali Basin "impact", but I think the shock or stress was largely electrical rather than mechanical. I think the cratons tend to be depleted of water and several elements common in most other crustal rock, so I suppose electrical discharge and or "stress" is what depleted them of those items.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Unread postby webolife » Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:51 pm

Whoa... a couple of clarifications from "plain" reading of the scripture:
1. Before the flood, there were indeed oceans... God separated the dry land from the waters and called the waters seas, and the dry land earth. The inference is one section of oceans, and the other of dry land.
2. The "harar" [lit: high places] prior to the flood were undoubtedly not very high, not the continent-boundary ranges of post flood, which appear in conjunction with volacanoes as the waters receded into the newly deepened ocean basins.
3. So the river systems rose from the ground [also the direct meaning of the word translated "mist"] as springs, and divided to spread across and irrigate the ground, just the opposite of modern day watersheds, more like an "old age" delta system.
4. The fountains of the great deep today are midocean rift volcanics, black smokers, etc. venting both lava and water. But at the beginning of the flood, in the seafloor spreading view, these would have appeared across mid sections of the "original" continent, to be submerged as the continents divided and seawater rushed in. Thus in retrospect, the "fountains of the great deep" though now under a few kilometers of ocean, originated from "deep in the earth."
5. Thus the flood is depicted as coming from the earth [the fountains...] then from the sky [the windows of heaven, ie the atmosphere], this being a natural consequence of volumes of nuclei of condensation being added to the previously rainless sky. This rain is referred to as "geshen", as distinct from the "matar" of note #6.
6. Not in contradiction to #5, the actual beginning of the flood occurs a verse or two earlier, when God sends the "matar" [rain lit: stuff falling from the sky... meteors, eg.], inferring the astronomical origin common to several EU theories, as well as gravitationally based ones. There is no reason to exclude asteroids or megalightning as possible types of "matar".
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2527
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:07 pm

Hi Web.
1. Interpreting the Bible in light of other ancient "myths" leads, I'm pretty sure, to the catastrophist conclusion that the ocean was considered by the ancients to be in the sky. Barbara Walker's book also strongly suggests that, even though she is probably not familiar with catastrophism much, if at all. God divided the water from the dry land, which means the dry Earth with very little water on it. All the water was in the sky. It was actually mostly in the plasma column vortex, which later spilled its contents onto the Earth via the north pole area.
4 & 5. The fountains of the Great Deep were more likely in the area of the polar column in the sky over the north pole, since the sky was thought to be the Great Deep, where the Ship of Heaven sailed around Saturn, thought to be the Kingdom of Heaven high above the north pole. The ship was actually a crescent shape, which was the more visible part of Saturn's atmosphere, just like the Moon looks like a crescent, or ship, in some of its phases.
* There were lots of archetypes that were equivalent or closely associated. The sky was also called a cauldron, or witch's cauldron, the witch being the polar configuration. It was called an ocean of blood or menstrual blood, because Saturn and the sky were initially a maroon red color, with rather subdued light. There was no night or day, because there was initially no sun. Saturn's light was brighter than our present moonlight, but dimmer than our present sunlight.
2, 3 & 6. I'm in probable agreement with you on these, your other points. Your last point is the most significant one for me. I'm not clear on when exactly the "impact" occurred which broke up the continents and pushed them apart. The Jupiter/Io Sodom destruction event seems pretty clearly to have occurred during Abraham's time, which I think Cardona said was 2300 BC, but this timeline http://www.wordsight.org/btl/000_btl-fp.htm says Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed in 1898 BC. The impact may have occurred at the time of Abraham's ancestor, Peleg (because Peleg is said to mean "divided"), or at the time of the Great Flood. This Bible timeline http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Bible says the Great Flood occurred in 2268 BC and that Peleg lived about 2140 BC. If matar referred to meteorites, then the Great Flood event may be when the Somali Basin impact occurred.
* By the way, I just came across this, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3649054.ece, which says: Clay tablet identified as asteroid that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Reply to Criticisms of Shock Dynamics

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:13 pm

* Pln2bz asked another member 2 questions about Shock Dynamics
1.Can a shock wave from a meteor impact actually travel through the entire landmass of a supercontinent while maintaining amplitudes sufficient to raise mountains at discrete locations over the entirety of it?


* This question seems to imply a misunderstanding of Shock Dynamics. A shockwave is not what is thought to have built up mountains. An impact [and or in my view an electrical explosion] fractured the supercontinent and jolted them apart. The jolt reduced the friction at the base of the continents and the momentum from the impact caused them to slide to near the present positions of the continental pieces.
* Consider a slab of ice laying on an icy pond. If the ice sets there for a few days, it adheres to the ice underneath it, so you can't move it with a light push. You have to kick it pretty hard to free it. Once it's freed up, it slides easily with very little friction and can go a long distance. Likewise, a hard blow from a sledgehammer will break the slab into pieces and each piece will move away from the point of impact and slide a considerable distance.
* The lower mountains were built up first on the sides of the new continental pieces that were nearest to the impact, such as the east coasts of the Americas and south Australia. They built up as the momentum from the impact was beginning to overcome the friction under the supercontinent. The mountains on the far sides of the new pieces built up as friction was finally overcoming momentum from the impact.

* The second question was:
2. Could a shock wave produce a fluidized crust that would allow crustal rocks to flow freely, and then to almost immediately thereafter freeze them (otherwise unchanged from their original compositions) into a new shape?


* Again, I think there's a misunderstanding. The continents didn't melt or flow. Only the bottoms of the continents broke loose and slid over the lower lithosphere and there would have been melting at the points of contact only. Where mountains formed, they were mostly fracturing into large blocks and only the surfaces of the blocks were melting from friction and probably electrical forces. There were fractures that allowed magma to flood areas on the surface in places. Volcanoes erupted in some of the mountain chains.
Last edited by Lloyd on Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4350
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Unread postby webolife » Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:58 pm

I agree with many/most of the conclusions reached by the author of the previous post. [Lloyd, pln2bz, or...?]
My interest in shock dynamics is the relevance of the shock [whether induced by impact or electrical stress] to the initiation of seafloor spreading and continental drift.
But regarding the watery atmosphere, Lloyd, I should have included the next scripture which indicated there were waters placed both above and below the "raqia" atmospheric shield. I don't buy the plasma column vortex, and I'm mildly interested in, though not an admirer of the Saturn theory in general. Your timing of the no-day-and-night seems mixed up to me...perhaps I misunderstand. The scripture indicates that period of indistinguished day-and-night came before all the other early earth events and long before the flood, around 17 centuries... it would be difficult to justify any of the next several chapters if it were the case that the day and night were not distinguished until in connection with the flood.
And I have little to no respect for Barbara Walters' expertise on the subject.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2527
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Breakthrough on How Continents Divided

Unread postby webolife » Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:13 pm

As for where the water came from that filled the oceans, the entire earth was purportedly covered with it during the "darkness" period. Only a relatively small amount of it need come from the sky during the flood, contrary to the children's storybook tale. Yes it rained [geshen] steadily for 40 days and 40 nights, but with persistent, redundant tsunamis overwhelming a relatively low topography [previously alluded to] and a sudden and sustained catastrophic seismic rending of the crust, astronomical tidal and mega-electric effects [matar], etc., the [geshen] rainwaters need not have played the popularized predominant role in the flood. The ocean waters need not have come from space, though I don't dispute the possibility... I'm not an adherent to the "dirty snowball" comet model, which has been offered by some as a flood progenitor.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2527
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests