Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by Lloyd » Fri Apr 26, 2024 4:33 am

253486

Nick, do you want to have a chronology discussion as I mentioned above at viewtopic.php?p=10325#p10323 ?

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by nick c » Mon Apr 22, 2024 12:43 am

Lloyd wrote:The King’s Chamber in the Great Pyramid is known for a mysterious salt encrustation on its walls. This salt buildup was up to half an inch thick in places. The salt was also found along the Horizontal Passage and in the lower portion of the Grand Gallery. The origin of this salt buildup remains one of the greatest mysteries of the King’s Chamber1.
It sounds like it might be efflorescence . This can happen to any type of stone, but seems to be more common with more porous stone, such as limestone.

Here is a detailed and comprehensive architectural study of the present state of the 3 Giza pyramids:
Sustainability problems of the Giza pyramids

Back to efflorescence. Salts efflorescing from the stones of the Great Pyramid is cited as one of the problems faced by those who work to maintain the structural integrity of the pyramids. That would be salt encrustations on the surface of stones.
From the above linked study, specifically concerning the fossiliferous Giza limestone of the Great Pyramid (underlining is my own):
These limestones are of a grey-beige to yellow–brown colour, mostly compact but also porous in places, and they feel chalky due to marly components. Many of small-sized fossil remains are detectable but hard to identify. Occasionally, small nummulites up to 5 mm in length could be recognized at polished surfaces. During storage over a longer period, various salts effloresce at the surface, which can be washed off easily with the finger. With a hand lens, the fossils appear mostly as small nummulites, shells and other fossil remains, all irregularly imbedded and mostly secondarily calcified within the limestone matrix.

The present study confirms that the building stones of the pyramids are natural rocks and were not formed by using artificial concrete.

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by nick c » Sun Apr 21, 2024 9:49 pm

lloyd wrote:So, do you know if anyone has determined if the pyramid blocks contain fossils and other impurities? Shattered History seems to say they don't. I don't know what her sources are.
Yes, fossils of shells and bones of marine creatures are a constituent of all types of limestone.
see:
https://www.amnh.org/explore/ology/olog ... %20visible.
American Museum of Natural History wrote:Limestone is made of fossils. After small marine animals die, Their shells and skeletons build up on the ocean floor....
...Sometimes the original shells which are now fossils are still visible.

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by Lloyd » Sun Apr 21, 2024 3:32 pm

253037

CHRONOLOGY DISCUSSION/DEBATE

Nick & I have been discussing chronologies a little at these recent posts.
viewtopic.php?t=13&start=795#p10057
viewtopic.php?t=13&start=795#p10237

Nick, here are some videos below, plus my Substack post, that support the chronology of David Rohl mostly, which shortens Egyptian history by about 300 years, instead of the many more centuries that your authors favor. My Substack post includes some of the basic reasoning, as does the last video, which is by Rohl. The first 6 videos here show that most or all of the technology of the ancients was doable without Iron Age tools or other advanced tech.

Scientific method seems to require for "debates" that the proponent/s state their main argument and the main evidence in support of it, followed by opponents' main counter-arguments with the main evidence, as well as evidence against the proponent's evidence. If you agree, then you're welcome to state your main argument and the main evidence for it. Or if you prefer, I could state mine first.

Relatively How Fast was the Hordjedef Sarcophagus Cut?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm7Ow6V3SaE

Who Made the Stone Boxes in the Serapeum of Saqqara?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bop_AMJno64

The World's Oldest Intact Granite Sarcophagus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8J-Yph8TSg&t=3s

Dudes Think They Can Prove Atlantis by Measuring a Vase
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcl82hQr8xc

ANCIENT STONE CRAFT TECHNOLOGY: What Tools Did They Use?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3A_kItgymQ

Historian Reacts to Evidence for Ancient High Technology in Egypt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_NguZUDku4&t=10s

REVISED ANCIENT CHRONOLOGY
https://cataclysmicearthhistory.substac ... chronology

The Trojan War, Fact or Fiction? David Rohl
https://viking.tv/tv/this-week-on-vikin ... david-rohl

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by Lloyd » Fri Apr 19, 2024 10:34 pm

252431

Hi Nick. I discussed some of your arguments earlier on this page at viewtopic.php?p=10237#p10057 . Do you want to respond to that?

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by nick c » Sat Apr 13, 2024 1:55 am

The Ancient Architects video channel had some videos showing that Schoch was likely wrong in dating the Sphinx much older than the Pyramids. By the way, the Pyramids had casing stones on the exterior, which may have lessened erosion.
While most of the limestone casing has been removed, there is still a considerable amount of limestone casing remaining on both the Great Pyramid and the Pyramid of Khafre, and they absolutely do not display any water erosion. The fact is that the Sphinx and associated temples suffered from water erosion and the Pyramids, and all of their associated structures...walls, roads, buildings, memorials, etc. do not show any water erosion.

Note: I do not agree with Dr. Schoch that the Sphinx was built by Atlanteans or some other unknown civilization predating Egypt. The Sphinx was probably built in early dynastic Egypt between the 1st and 3rd Dynasties and during that time the weather in North Africa was very different than that of today. After a global catastrophe the Sahara and Arabian deserts were formed and the climate changed dramatically.

The problem is that Egyptian chronology has been unjustifiably lengthened. Many dynasties were contemporaneous. Ashurbanipal invaded Egypt circa 666 BCE and wrote that Egypt was ruled by over 20 Kings. High priests and rulers of nomes/districts in Egypt enclosed their names in a cartouche, which today is interpreted as signifying that the person was a Pharaoh. This has resulted in distorted chronologies of the entire Mediterranean and Near East and the artificial creation of Dark Ages in Greece and other areas by virtue of their possession of Egyptian artefacts. Five hundred years of Greek history between 1200 to 700 BCE has no existence; no buildings, no books or writings, no wars, no art, no people, no history.
The reason is that Mycenaean civilization has certain contacts with Egypt...scarabs, pottery, etc. which are dated to Egyptian history and Classical Greece which begins in the 8th C BCE also has contacts with Egypt. But those contacts require a 500 year hiatus in Greek history. This Dark Age is not found in the stratigraphy. There is no aeolian gap (wind blown layer) in the ground, which should be there if the Dark Age were real. The stratigraphy tells the story that the Mycenaean era ends and the Greek era begins within a generation or two. Archaeology is subservient to history as it is understood by Egyptologists. Yet Egyptian chronology requires a 500 year gap of abandonment and desolation.

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by Lloyd » Fri Apr 12, 2024 6:26 pm

251588

I just posted THE JUPITER TRAIN at https://cataclysmicearthhistory.substac ... iter-train
I went through this thread, the one you're reading that started 50-some pages ago, and found all the relevant info on Jupiter and collected it altogether and commented on it a little, and I posted some images that may be helpful. Possibly, this will help me get a more holistic picture of what's known about Jupiter in ancient mythology, so I can get a clearer idea of when the Saturn Train ended and the Jupiter Train started. I added the following comment on Ken Moss's criticism of having Jupiter in front of the Saturn Train instead of at the End.

MAYBE IT’S NOT A PROBLEM
{Present Comment: This planetary arrangement below {{in an image not shown here}} seems to work fine, where Jupiter was in front of Saturn and NOT visible from Earth, due to Saturn blocking the view of Jupiter, then Saturn was expelled, so the train went from consisting of JSVME to JVME. The planets likely had the same electrical charges, so they repelled each other electrically, but attracted gravitationally and maybe magnetically. When the Saturn Train encountered the heliospheric current sheet, the sheet may have caused Jupiter to put on the brakes (slow down), which would have caused Saturn to be pushed out of alignment and then to move onto a separate orbit.

In the {{same missing}} diagram below, the Saturn Train was moving leftward, spiraling toward the Sun. The yellow-green planet is Saturn, not the Sun. The number line indicates millions of miles from Earth, so Mars was about .9, Venus 1.5, Saturn 3 & Jupiter over 4 million miles. By comparison, Saturn’s present outer moon is 8 million miles from Saturn. There was a disturbance before the arrangement shown on the first panel, which caused Venus & Mars to move slightly out of alignment, but they returned to the alignment in the 1st panel. Then the 2nd panel shows Saturn being pushed out of the Train toward a separate orbit. The 3rd panel shows the arrangement after Saturn’s departure. The 1st panel shows the time of the Golden Age, possibly from the time the Train reached Saturn’s orbit till it reached the Asteroid Belt. The 2nd panel shows the End of the Golden Age. And the 3rd panel shows the Jupiter Age, as the Train moved from the Asteroid Belt inward. Jupiter likely led the Train at least to the orbit of Mars, but possibly as far as the orbit of Venus, before it returned out past the Asteroid Belt again.}

Now I'll make a simpler image to try to show the transition from the Saturn Train to the Jupiter Train.

______________________________________________________________________________

----- (Saturn Train moving left toward the Sun)
1st Panel: JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ - SSSSSSSSSSSSSS ----- V,V ----- M ----- EE

______________________________________________________________________________

----- (Saturn being pushed out of the Train)
----------------------------------- SSSSSSSSSSSSSS
2nd Panel: JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ --^--------------^-- ----- V,V ----- M ----- EE

______________________________________________________________________________

----- (Jupiter Train begins)
3rd Panel: JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ ----- V,V ----- M ----- EE

______________________________________________________________________________

Next time, I think I'll combine many of the spiraling orbit, distance and timeline images together.

One of the interesting excerpts involves the possible locations of the Saturn Train and then the Jupiter Train in the solar system and the timeline, especially regarding the Asteroid Belt being the likely location of where Saturn left the Train.

I also updated my book at https://zzzzzzz.substack.com/p/ancient- ... ry-history

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by Lloyd » Sat Apr 06, 2024 8:07 pm

250629

EV'S VIDEO ON TURQUOISE SATURN-SUN
I just posted a transcript of Ev Cochrane's recent video at https://cataclysmicearthhistory.substac ... saturn-sun . It's called Turquoise Sun – Chronicle of Creation. I included maybe a third of the images from the video.

THREAD INDEX
Yesterday, I posted MY FORUM THREAD TOPICS INDEX at https://cataclysmicearthhistory.substac ... dex-part-2 .
It has nearly all of the topics that have been covered on this forum: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism.

SATURN GOLDEN AGE
If Saturn started out turquoise, I wonder why its age was called the Golden Age. I'm still unclear about what timeframe the Saturn Golden Age belongs in. I think it was either after the Great Flood, i.e. after 3,300 BC, or after the Younger Dryas Impacts, i.e. after about 2,600 BC. My recent post on David Rohl's video connecting ancient Egypt to ancient Sumeria suggests to me that the Golden Age started after the Great Flood, but that seems to allow too much time before those major civilizations began. So hopefully I can find one of these days a smoking gun to clinch the matter (with or without anyone's help).

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by Lloyd » Sat Mar 23, 2024 11:15 pm

249607 (Last 2 posts were misnumbered)

ISO VIDEO MAKER

I want to start a video channel on Cataclysmic Earth History and I'd like to get someone to make the videos for me, while I supply the content. I'd share whatever donations or subscriptions they bring in.

PM or email me if interested. Thanks. (Click on my name.)

TOWER OF BABEL

CONFUSION & DISPERSAL. I quoted a lot of material from one of David Rohl's videos yesterday at https://cataclysmicearthhistory.substac ... r-of-babel and I added it to my book at https://zzzzzzz.substack.com/p/ancient- ... ry-history . I also commented at the end that I think the people may have dispersed from Babel/Eridu because of a cataclysm, either shortly after the Great Flood, or during the Younger Dryas event or the Sahara Flood. And I mentioned Velikovsky's theory that the confusion of languages at Babel/Eridu may have been due to electromagnetic effects from a highly electrified atmosphere, due to a close encounter with Venus or some other body.

CATACLYSMS. If the Bible is correct that the Babel incident occurred just a generation or so after the Great Flood, then, if there was also a cataclysmic event involved, it may have been one that isn't yet recognized among alternative archeologists and geologists. However, since the ancients seem to have possibly gotten several Flood events confused with each other, I think it's plausible that the Babel/Eridu incident could have occurred a generation after the Younger Dryas Flood. I go with Michael Oard's estimate of the time between the Great Flood and the end of the Ice Age as 700 years and that occurred with the Younger Dryas impacts. So the time from the Great Flood Reset till the Babel/Eridu incident would've been c. 750 years.

PEOPLES. If Bing A.I. is truthful, Noah's 3 sons are said to have had 5, 4 and 7 sons. If they also had 10 to 20 daughters, that would make 30 kids in the 3rd generation, with Noah being the 1st generation. So the first 3 generations numbered 2, 6 and 30, which is a 3-fold increase, followed by a 5-fold increase. A 2- to 4-fold increase with each generation would result in the following. A doubling per generation at 3 generations per century x 7.5 centuries = 22.5 generations, so 2^22.5 =~ 6 million and 4^22.5 > 35 trillion. Apparently, the carrying capacity of the land is the main factor. Here's more apparently from the Bible. Shem’s descendants are called Semites (Jews and Arabs). Ham's descendants were: Cush (Cushites); Mizraim (Egyptians); Put (North Africans); Canaan (Canaanites). Japheth's descendants were: Gomer (Cimmerians); Magog (Scythians or other northern tribes); Madai (Medes); Javan (Ionians or Greeks); Tubal (Tibareni); Meshech (Moschi); Tiras (tribes on the coastlands around the Mediterranean).

NIMROD. Rohl found that Nimrod was likely the founder of Babel/Eridu. The Bible says he was a son of Cush, who was a son of Ham. If each of the 3rd generation averaged 7-10 kids, they would have had 210-300 in the 4th generation. If Nimrod was king during the time of the 5th or 6th generation, there would have been 1,470-3,000 in the 5th generation and 10,300-30,000 in the 6th. If the generations were shorter, ~20 years, there could have been a 7th generation with up to 300,000 people. That's a respectable number. I assume they would have lived throughout Mesopotamia, maybe with a concentraion in Babel/Eridu.

MIGRATION ROUTE. At this site https://bible-history.com/old-testament ... nd-babylon is a map showing Ararat (where the Ark apparently landed) and the region of Mesopotamia (including Eridu near the Persian Gulf). At the time of Babel/Eridu, the gulf was very close to it. So the population apparently followed some of the rivers from Ararat and settled along them as they spread south. After the Tower of Babel/Eridu incident, Rohl found that some of the people, called Horus-worshipers, migrated to Egypt. He said they encountered indigenous people there and conquered them, but they must not have been numerous. This site https://alaudun8.blogspot.com/2012_04_01_archive.html has a map showing Ararat and Gobekli Tepe at https://lh3.ggpht.com/-18hdFvDG0vU/T4UL ... 25255D.jpg . Gobekli Tepe is near the Euphrates River just south of where the Tigris ends near the Euphrates. This article https://creation.com/gobekli-tepe has info about it. It says Haran, where Abraham came from, was just south of Gobekli Tepe. I surmise that Gobekli Tepe was one of the first large structures built as the population moved south along the Euphrates. Abraham was centuries later, long after the Babel/Eridu incident. From Haran it was apparently easy to get to the Mediterranean Sea coast, which was about 150 miles distant.

NEXT. I'm considering making a post about Rohl's findings about the migration of the Horus worshipers from Babel/Eridu to Egypt.

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by Lloyd » Sat Mar 16, 2024 9:59 pm

429536

CARDONA'S YOUNGER DRYAS DATING NAIVETE'
I posted a paper, CONFUSING CREATION & DOOMSDAY, at https://cataclysmicearthhistory.substac ... d-doomsday on March 11. I was referring to Dwardu Cardona's books in which IMO he relied too much on mainstream dating methods to conclude that Saturn went nova at the time of the Younger Dryas, which the mainstream dates at over 11,000 years ago and lasting over 1,000 years. So Cardona figured that, though the Saturn nova produced a serious heat wave, it also produced a lot of cosmic dust, which caused the extension of the Ice Age. But Michael Oard challenged the mainstream dating and concluded that the entire Ice Age only lasted 700 years. I don't know if he accepts the reality of the Younger Dryas event, but he commented on the dating based on a Greenland ice core, stating that the final cold snap lasted only some years or decades, not centuries.

CHRONOLOGY CHALLENGE Nick mentioned his thinking is that a very short chronology is likely correct, like that of Heinsohn, Rose, Ginenthal, maybe Velikovsky & others, which is maybe a thousand years shorter than mainstream. So I offered to discuss that using progressive scientific method at viewtopic.php?t=1136#p10048. I'm copying most of that post here.

You said you favor short chronologies, whereas Saturnists favor less shortened chronologies. I favor David Rohl's, which is about 250 years shorter than mainstream chronology. I think all agree that the Dark Ages of Greece and other places are wrong and need to be removed.

LK CHRONOLOGY
My model is based:
- 1st on the oldest tree being about 4,700 years old, which must have grown after the Great Flood;
- 2nd on several other features, like rivers etc being 5,000 or so years old, as per Jonathan Gray's writing, also which must have formed after the Great Flood;
- 3rd on the Septuagint Bible stating that the Great Flood occurred c. 5,300 years ago, which event deposited nearly all sedimentary rock strata;
- 4th on Michael Oard's finding that the Ice Age lasted only c. 700 years after the Flood and that the Ice Age occurred on top of the sedimentary strata deposited by the Flood;
- 5th on the Younger Dryas impacts having occurred near the end of the Ice Age, which destroyed most megafauna;
- 6th on iridium-microspherule layers being possibly caused by Saturn novas during the Great Flood and the Younger Dryas event;
- 7th on the Saturn Golden Age having started after the last nova, i.e. after the Younger Dryas;
- 8th on Moe Mandelkehr's finding of a catastrophe 4,300 years ago, which ended the Golden Age and which I suspect was due to the Indian Ocean Burckle Crater impact event;
- 9th on pyramids and ziggurats etc having been likely built after the Golden Age in commemoration of the Saturn Configuration;
- 10th on the Dead Sea event having been dated by David Rohl to 1830 BC, which I suspect was the end of the Jupiter Age, which started after the Golden Age;
- 11th on the Exodus having been dated by David Rohl to c. 1446 BC, which involved a large comet, but probably not Venus
- 12fth on David Rohl's dating of subsequent events.

{SHORT GOLDEN AGE & JUPITER AGE}
By this model, the Golden Age only lasted 300 years from 2,600 to 2,300 BC and the Jupiter Age 470 years from 2,300 to 1,830 BC and it's possible that Venus and Mars, as well as Jupiter, were still in close proximity to Earth in 1830 BC. Cardona had an article in Kronos, I think, called Jupiter, God of Abraham, which gave evidence that the Sodom and Gomorrah disaster by the Dead Sea was caused by brimstone that came from Io, a large moon of Jupiter. I think Cardona later abandoned that idea, but I still find it plausible. It may be that Jupiter was on an elliptical orbit then which brought it close to Earth on occasion, or it may have still been in the remains of the Saturn Train of planets.

{EXODUS COMET}
I suspect that Venus was not the comet of the Exodus, because Cardona said he found no evidence that anyone who talked about the comet of the Exodus ever called it Venus. Even in Worlds in Collision it seems no one was sited as saying the comet was Venus. And surely by that late date everyone at that time was well familiar with Venus as a planet, no longer as a comet. It's not settled science, of course, though. I guess the myths of the Americas provide clues that Venus could have been seen as a comet as late as the time of the Exodus, but it's odd that no one in the eastern hemisphere seems to have called the Exodus comet Venus. So it seems unlikely that the Exodus comet was Venus and it's more unlikely that Mars encountered the Earth c. 700 BC. I can quote from some Aeon articles etc about this later, if needed.
I wrote a paper, THE EXODUS COMET, on March 14 at https://acts15church.substack.com/p/the-exodus-comet . I added it to my online book at https://zzzzzzz.substack.com/p/ancient- ... ry-history , which is one of ten books I have on this Substack: https://zzzzzzz.substack.com/archive .

SATURN & JUPITER AGES
It was only about 2 weeks ago that I found that Cardona figured that the Golden Age started a millennium after the last Saturn Nova, which he dated to 10,000 & 11,000 years ago, respectively. That helped me conclude, tentatively of course, that the Golden Age started after my dating of the Younger Dryas and didn't last long, only till the next cataclysm (Doomsday, 2,300 BC) and that the Jupiter Age followed that cataclysm and lasted till the Dead Sea cataclysm. Cardona figured that the iridium layer came from a Saturn Nova. Both the Great Flood and the Younger Dryas event have iridium layers. So there could have been two recent Saturn Novas, 700 years apart, one causing or contributing to the Great Flood and the second doing so to the Younger Dryas event. Mythologically, the evidence is very strong that the Saturn Configuration was close to Earth several millennia ago, but the physical evidence on Earth isn't strong so far. If it can be proved that the iridium/microspherule layer could only have been produced by a nova, that would pretty much clinch the theory, IMO.

SATURN OVER THE ARCTIC, MAYBE NOT
Cardona had a lot of evidence for the Saturnist idea that Saturn, Venus & Mars were over the north pole and provided the Arctic with heat and light for many millennia, which caused life to proliferate there. He also found myths that said there was a huge vortex in the north which killed living things, smashing them together. He said that could explain the deep Arctic muck composed of animal and plant parts mixed with soil and ice etc.
I asked Bing A.I. about Arctic muck and got this response.
{FORMATION} Formation of Arctic Muck:
Arctic muck is a type of Histosol, characterized by its high organic content.
It forms in boreal, arctic, and subarctic regions where cold conditions slow down decomposition processes.
The accumulation of organic material, including plant remains, contributes to the muck’s composition.
{PRESERVATION} Frozen Preservation:
The permafrost in these regions preserves organic matter by keeping it frozen.
When animals die or plant material falls into the muck, it remains relatively intact due to the cold environment.
{CATACLYSMS} Cataclysmic Events:
Some researchers propose that a cataclysmic event near the end of the last Ice Age caused the rapid burial of animals and vegetation.
This event could have been a massive flood, a volcanic eruption, or another natural catastrophe.
The sudden burial would explain why so many animal bones and wood are found in close proximity within the muck1.
{DISCOVERY} Gold Mining Discoveries:
In the late 1930s and early 1940s, gold mining operations in Alaska uncovered vast amounts of frozen muck containing:
Extinct mammal bones (such as mammoths, mastodons, super-bison, and horses).
Brush, stumps, moss, and freshwater mollusks.
The presence of these materials suggests that the muck is late Pleistocene or early post-glacial in age.
Man-made artifacts were also found in the muck, indicating that humans coexisted with extinct mammals in Alaska1.
{FRACTURING} Splintering Mechanisms:
The splintering of animal bones and wood could result from:
Freezing and thawing cycles: Repeated freezing and thawing cause mechanical stress, leading to fractures.
Pressure from ice: As ice forms and expands, it can exert pressure on organic material, causing it to splinter.
Turbulent water flow: Cataclysmic events may have involved powerful water currents that broke down organic matter.
Abrasion: Movement of ice, water, and debris could have abraded bones and wood, creating splinters.
{SUMMARY} In summary, the combination of frozen preservation, cataclysmic events, and natural processes likely contributed to the presence of splintered animal bones and wood within arctic muck. 🌿❄️🦴
{REFERENCES}
1 https://grahamhancock.com/hancockg18/
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muskox
3 https://woodcritique.com/repairs/how-to ... wood-deck/
4 https://www.in-depthoutdoors.com/commun ... k-arctics/
5 https://www.isric.org/sites/default/fil ... stosol.pdf
6 https://lakewatch.ifas.ufl.edu/media/la ... 12Muck.pdf

TORNADO/VORTEX
I think Cardona considered the Saturnian polar column to be a Vortex. I don't know if there's a way to prove that. The Arctic muck could have been produced by a tornadic vortex, but also by hurrican winds, or deep, turbulent floods.

I feel like I have a good handle on Chronology from the Great Flood of about 5,300 years to the present, but what I'm trying to figure out the most is the times of both the Golden Age and the Jupiter Age. I've only settled on the tentative dates above in the last few weeks. I'm looking for more evidence to either confirm them or readjust them.

WHY SATURN MAYBE WAS NOT OVER THE ARCTIC
I think Cardona assumed that the Pangaea supercontinent breakup occurred millions of years ago. He theorized that the sea floor magnetic stripes showed how far the continents moved apart during prior Saturn nova cataclysms, when they caused the Earth to brake suddenly in its rotation. So he thought the movement was fast but took many such events to get the continents to their present positions. But Mike Fischer at NewGeology.us showed that one large asteroid impact likely broke it up all at once and it took just over a day for the continents to reach their present locations. The magnetic stripes just show that the magnetic field was wobbling during the breakup. The breakup likely occurred during the Great Flood after most of the sedimentary rock strata were deposited. It's possible that Pangaea was on only one side of the Earth because the Saturn configuration was directly above its center. So that's where the north pole would have been. If so, then the poles must have moved during the Great Flood cataclysm or later. Cardona does have some evidence that Saturn raised up the land at the present north pole and that a magma vortex formed in the Earth's mantle below the pole. That could have formed during or after the Great Flood. Well, there's no end to the mysteries that need to be solved. Is there.

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by Lloyd » Tue Feb 20, 2024 6:11 am

428623

I posted the Shattered History video transcript now at https://cataclysmicearthhistory.substac ... structures . Near the end, I discovered that she seems to subscribe to Walter Brown's old Hydroplate Theory, which I mentioned was discredited by Michael Oard some years ago. The theory involves the supposition that there were water-filled chambers about ten miles deep under the former supercontinent, which landmass somehow was caused to split apart, throwing up hot water and rocks high above the atmosphere, then raining down as snow, rain and meteorites. Aside from that, the info in the video is very interesting & plausible to me.

I added a lot of images from the video in the post.

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by Lloyd » Tue Feb 20, 2024 3:35 am

248603

PYRAMID STONES SOURCES
Nick said: In my opinion the Pyramids were built long after there was any {major} flooding.... If there were any marine encrustations found on the Pyramids (and I don't know that there were, sources?) it is possible that those deposits were on the stones before they were put into the Pyramid structure. There is no question about the source of the Pyramid stones, the quarries still exist today, and the stones are easily matched to those quarries. I think it is amazing that the Aswan Granite was transported almost 700 miles via Nile river boats to Giza. These stones ranged from 2 to 80 tons in weight.
Do you have info on how the pyramid stones were matched to quarries? The Shattered History video showed an echinoid fossil on the surface of a pyramid block. Too bad she didn't mention any study that found that the interiors of the blocks have no fossils or impurities. It seems certain that the pyramids were flooded, though maybe not totally submerged. If I go back through my posts, I can probably find one or more that mentioned that someone found that the Great Pyramid has salt encrustation at least as high as the King's chamber and the salt is thicker farther down, like in the Queen's chamber (apparently contradicted below). It appears that flood waters covered the pyramids over halfway up long enough for salt to invade the blocks and the water level fell but stayed at a lower level even longer, till it finally drained completely.
_Here's A.I.'s 2 cents:
_The King’s Chamber in the Great Pyramid is known for a mysterious salt encrustation on its walls. This salt buildup was up to half an inch thick in places. The salt was also found along the Horizontal Passage and in the lower portion of the Grand Gallery. The origin of this salt buildup remains one of the greatest mysteries of the King’s Chamber1.
1. https://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/su ... g-vonk.htm
_The Queen’s Chamber in the Great Pyramid also has a mysterious salt encrustation on its walls1. This salt buildup was up to half an inch thick in places1. The chamber is made entirely of beautifully finished limestone blocks with a gabled ceiling2. ... The origin of this salt buildup remains one of the greatest mysteries of the Queen’s Chamber1.
1. https://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/su ... g-vonk.htm
2. https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/queenschambergp/
Nick said: Ginenthal in Pillars of the Past cites the work of Dr, Schoch, a Boston University geologist, who determined that the Pyramids show no signs of water erosion, but only have aeolic (wind) erosion. In contrast, Schoch demonstrated that Sphinx and its related temple do show signs of water erosion, probably from torrential rains, which indicates that the Sphinx is much older than the Pyramids and was constructed before the Sahara desert was formed and the climate at Giza was very different than the time of Pyramid construction. Note that mainstream Egyptology does not dispute the absence of water erosion on the Pyramids and its presence on the Sphinx but rather opt for the lame explanation that Sphinx' and its temple's water erosion was the result of water percolating up from the water table beneath. The problem with this is why did this process selectively affect the Sphinx and its temple? and yet the Pyramids and their associated buildings did not suffer erosion from the same process?
The Ancient Architects video channel had some videos showing that Schoch was likely wrong in dating the Sphinx much older than the Pyramids. By the way, the Pyramids had casing stones on the exterior, which may have lessened erosion. The Sahara Desert likely formed after the Great Flood of c. 3300 BC and the structures were likely made after that too. However, Shattered History is casting doubt on that, I think suggesting that the Pyramids pre-dated the Flood. I've concluded though that there were at least 3 great Floods, so it's not like any of this is set in stone. I may get around to posting the Shattered History transcript on my Substack before long. If so, it will be a task, if I bother to post some of the pics from the video, which I feel almost obligated to do.

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by nick c » Sun Feb 18, 2024 5:38 pm

Lloyd wrote:So, do you know if anyone has determined if the pyramid blocks contain fossils and other impurities? Shattered History seems to say they don't. I don't know what her sources are.
No, I do not know of any source for that. In my opinion the Pyramids were built long after there was any flooding of the proportions required to give the stated effect. If there were any marine encrustations found on the Pyramids (and I don't know that there were, sources?) it is possible that those deposits were on the stones before they were put into the Pyramid structure.

There is no question about the source of the Pyramid stones, the quarries still exist today, and the stones are easily matched to those quarries. I think it is amazing that the Aswan Granite was transported almost 700 miles via Nile river boats to Giza. These stones ranged from 2 to 80 tons in weight.

Ginenthal in Pillars of the Past cites the work of Dr, Schoch, a Boston University geologist, who determined that the Pyramids show no signs of water erosion, but only have aeolic (wind) erosion. In contrast, Schoch demonstrated that Sphinx and its related temple do show signs of water erosion, probably from torrential rains, which indicates that the Sphinx is much older than the Pyramids and was constructed before the Sahara desert was formed and the climate at Giza was very different than the time of Pyramid construction. Note that mainstream Egyptology does not dispute the absence of water erosion on the Pyramids and its presence on the Sphinx but rather opt for the lame explanation that Sphinx' and its temple's water erosion was the result of water percolating up from the water table beneath. The problem with this is why did this process selectively affect the Sphinx and its temple? and yet the Pyramids and their associated buildings did not suffer erosion from the same process?

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by Lloyd » Sun Feb 18, 2024 5:10 pm

Nick, here's what Shattered History said on the subject.
_Although it can be difficult to identify when some structures have been heavily modified and rebuilt, no pre-cataclysmic structures are made from stratified rock composed of layers of lithified sediment. The reason why there are no pre-cataclysmic structures made from stratified rock is because the conditions had not yet occurred to create stratified rock, at least not in enough abundance to use for construction. The large masses of stratified rock that are present across the world currently were created with large amounts of sediment and debris were transported, deposited into layers and compacted during the worldwide flood. No fossils are present inside of the stone blocks composing any present acoustic structures. You will just{??} have discovered small marine fossils on the surface of some of the stone blocks composing the Great Pyramids of Giza. Despite fossils being found on the surface of the blocks, no fossils have actually been found embedded inside of any of the pyramid blocks. They are only attached to the surface, meaning that the organism, which appears to be a marine creature, called an echinoid, was deposited onto the stone block after it was carved. This implies that seawater with echinoids in it had passed over the Great Pyramids after they were built, and the echinoid was fossilized without burial due to the immense hydrostatic pressure which was exerted by the extremely deep and mineral-rich floodwaters. The only fossils in the area that have been discovered embedded inside of rocks were found in the neighboring region surrounding the Great Pyramids, but these rocks were never used to build the pyramids themselves. But the fossils in the rocks found near the Great Pyramids are clearly embedded inside of the rocks, which indicates that these fossils were intermixed with sediment during the flood, and the conglomerate became cemented and lithified during the process and during the marine organisms intermix with the sediment in the fossils.
So, do you know if anyone has determined if the pyramid blocks contain fossils and other impurities? Shattered History seems to say they don't. I don't know what her sources are.
She also claims there is some pure sandstone and limestone that were formed before the Flood, but I don't know how they could have formed without a Flood. Mike Fischer says a lot of CO2 in the air went into the formation of a lot of the limestone as atmospheric pressure was falling due to loss of atmosphere.

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

by nick c » Sun Feb 18, 2024 12:32 am

Lloyd wrote:it now seems less likely, but still I guess there's a pretty good chance. Another possibility is that the homogeneous inorganic blocks of the pyramids were made from sedimentary rock via advanced tech of some kind. But I consider that unlikely at this point.
The Pyramids were built of mostly limestone and some granite. Most of the limestone was quarried right on the Giza plateau. The limestone used for the facing was quarried at Tura, because that limestone had a desired white color. The granite was quarried at Aswan, at around 679 miles south of Giza and transported to Giza by barge.

Top