Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

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?
Lloyd
Posts: 4920
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Wed May 05, 2021 5:36 pm

56474

STILL COMPARING KEN MOSS & DWARDU CARDONA RE THE SATURN THEORY

Below, C stands for Dwardu Cardona from his book Newborn Star and M stands for Ken Moss from his Aeon article "Opening of the Mouth Ritual" in which Isis left Osiris & he died, then Isis returned and Horus revived Osiris & then returned to Isis.

C1. (p.31+) SATURN WAS A RED/BROWN DWARF STAR OVER THE NORTH POLE THAT WARMED THE ARCTIC

C2. (p.76+) THIS WAS THE TIMELESS ERA BEFORE THE SATURN CRESCENT FORMED

C3. (p.63+) THE SATURN SYSTEM CAME FROM OUTSIDE THE SOLAR SYSTEM AS EVIDENT BY DIFFERENT RATIOS OF GASES IN THE SUN AND SATURN SYSTEM PLANETS

C4. THE POLAR COLUMN: (p.52+) SATURN HAD A SOUTH POLAR ASTRAL JET, A PLASMA FLUX TUBE; PERATT CONSIDERED IT TO BE AN INTENSE AURORA

LK1. THE SATURN SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED THE HELIOSPHERIC CURRENT SHEET

C5. (p.78+) THE ASTRAL JET WITHDREW, LEADING TO A NOVA, WHICH BLEW OFF MUCH OF EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE
[I WONDER IF IT BLEW OFF ANY OF VENUS', TITAN'S, OR MARS' ATMOSPHERES. I ASSUME SO, SINCE THEY WERE CLOSER TO SATURN.]

C6. (p.12+) SATURN EMERGED FROM ITS CHAOS DISK AS A NOVA; AFTER THE NOVA IT RESEMBLED A BROKEN EGG WITH THE ROUND EGG YOLK (SATURN) AND THE EGG WHITE (CIRCUMSTELLAR DISK); SATURN WAS CALLED GOD EL

M1. A POLAR COLUMN CONNECTED EARTH'S NORTH POLE TO MARS, VENUS & SATURN RESPECTIVELY; VENUS & MARS LOOKED LIKE AN EYE ON THE FACE OF SATURN

C7. (p.108+) THE YOUNGER DRYAS EVENT WAS CAUSED BY THE [LAST] SATURN NOVA, WHICH ENDED THE NORTH AMERICAN ICE AGE; (p.130-131) SOME EVIDENCE OF THE NOVA ARE YD SPHERULES ETC; (p.128-129) THERE WAS NORTHWARD MIGRATION AFTER THE NOVA AS INDICATED BY DNA STUDIES

C8. (p.177+) SATURN WOBBLED & A GAP DEVELOPED BETWEEN SATURN & THE DISK

M2. VENUS/ISIS MOVED OUT OF ALIGNMENT; COSMIC DUST FROM VENUS/ISIS OBSCURED SATURN/OSIRIS
[MARS/HORUS MUST HAVE MOVED OUT OF ALIGNMENT TOO, MAYBE NOT AS MUCH, BUT BELOW SATURN/OSIRIS]

M3. MARS/HORUS MOVED CLOSER TO EARTH, APPEARING TO GROW LARGE IN SIZE


C9. (p.190) SEVEN COILS FORMED AROUND THE EGG/SATURN; (p.191) THE FIRST COIL WAS CALLED OUROBOROS; (p.192+) THE 7 COILS WERE ALSO SEEN AS THE SEVENFOLD RIVER

C10. (p.200+) SATURN APPEARED TO HAVE INTESTINES & UNDULATIONS (THE LATTER DUE TO EARTH WOBBLE)

C11. (p.223+) THE 7 COILS WERE SEEN AS 7 SEAS WHICH BECAME CONFUSED WITH 7 DAYS OF CREATION & THE SATURN CONFIGURATION CAME AFTER THE 7TH COIL/SEA FORMED; (p.238+) THERE'S DATING OF THE PETROGLYPHS OF THE EVENT, ALSO (p.257+) DATING OF THE SATURN SYSTEM DOT IN CIRCLE PETROGLYPH; (p.241+) SATURN'S PRESENT RINGS WERE SEEN FORMING

M4. ELECTRICAL FORCES FORMED STACKED PLASMA TOROIDS IN THE POLAR COLUMN, WHICH LOOKED LIKE A BACKBONE OR LADDER

M5. VENUS/ISIS SWEPT AWAY THE COSMIC DUST & RETURNED TO SATURN/OSIRIS, NOW VISIBLE AGAIN

M6. MARS/HORUS CLIMBED THE LADDER TOWARD HIS DEAD FATHER SATURN/OSIRIS; THE JAW OF SATURN/OSIRIS WAS THE BIFURCATED TOP OF THE POLAR-COLUMN/BACKBONED; THE SHORT DISTANCES BETWEEN THE 4 PLANETS WOULD HAVE MADE THE BACKBONE & JAW BRIGHTER & STRONGER

M7. MARS/HORUS USED HIS FINGER OR SPEAR, I.E. THE POLAR COLUMN ABOVE MARS, TO SET SATURN'S/OSIRIS' JAW

M8. MARS/HORUS CONTINUED UP & OVER THE JAW; THE JAW WAS CALLED THE GATES OF HEAVEN; MARS/HORUS APPEARED TO SHRINK & REACHED THE CENTER OF THE EYE, I.E. VENUS/ISIS; THE EYE ALSO LOOKED LIKE AN OPEN MOUTH, AS IF SATURN/OSIRIS WAS REVIVED; THE BACKBONE THEN DISSIPATED


C12. (p.285+) ANCIENT STRUCTURES OF THE TIME REQUIRED ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS

MY QUESTION IS: ARE THESE AUTHORS DESCRIBING THE SAME EVENTS? MOSS WAS DESCRIBING A SMALLER PART OF THE SATURN THEORY, WAS CARDONA DESCRIBING THE SAME PART?

Lloyd
Posts: 4920
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Fri May 07, 2021 5:14 pm

56956

PIECING TOGETHER A COHERENT SATURN THEORY

I'm using info from C. = Cardona, M. = Moss, T. = Talbott and LK. = my miscellaneous sources.
Note that I have the Golden Age lasting only a few decades, ending about 2200 BC.
I expect to keep working on this quite a while yet.
PS, here are some sources:
Interview with David Talbott: The Saturn Thesis Aeon IV:3 (Dec 1995) https://www.aeonjournal.com/articles/ta ... lbott.html
The Road to Saturn https://www.aeonjournal.com/articles/ro ... aturn.html
[Mars] Samson Revealed https://www.aeonjournal.com/articles/samson/samson.html
[Venus] Aphrodite Urania https://www.aeonjournal.com/articles/ap ... odite.html


C. Saturn went nova before (and during - LK) the Great Flood.
C. Then it shone dimly like a red dwarf star in the direction of the North Star on Earth's shared axis of rotation.
C. Saturn was then obscured by the circumstellar "chaos" disk until the Younger Dryas event.
C. Saturn developed an astral jet which formed a polar column toward Earth.
LK. As Saturn encountered the heliospheric current sheet,
C. - the jet retracted into Saturn and Saturn then went nova again and emerged from the chaos disk.
C. The nova (along with asteroids and meteors) was the cause of the Younger Dryas catastrophe, which involved a widespread conflagration, flooding and impacts.
C. The Golden Age ensued, (lasting a few decades - LK)
T. - with the Saturn Configuration looming in the northern sky: Mars was in front of Venus and Venus in front of Saturn, like a face, brighter than before the nova;
C. - the crescent on Saturn marked the beginning of the Golden Age and the end of the Timeless Era.
M. Toward the end of the Golden Age, Venus became unstable and spiraled around Saturn, leaving a smoky or dusty trail that obscured Saturn,
LK. - which looked like Osiris/Saturn was in a coffin (coffin-shaped dust or smoke).
C. Venus made 7 outward spiraling revolutions, which became concentric rings, the present rings of Saturn.
LK. Mars moved toward Earth, looking like a growing child that became a giant,
M. - then it retreated back toward Saturn.
T. It may have done this several times.
M. Then Venus returned to the former position in front of Saturn, removing the obscuring smoke or dust, so Saturn became visible again.
M. The polar column developed a spine- or ladder-like appearance, like the spine of Osiris/Saturn.
M. Mars appeared to fix Saturn's crescent (Osiris' jaw), then it returned to its former position in front of Venus.
LK. The Saturn System was on an elliptical orbit.
T. Then Saturn, Venus and Mars became unstable again at Venus' present orbit.
C. Saturn had a trail of asteroids, some of which returned to Saturn, appearing like Saturn was eating his children.
LK. Saturn then left the system first, moving to its present orbit.
LK. Jupiter had been obscured behind Saturn, so it became visible when Saturn left, appearing as if Jupiter killed Saturn.
LK. The remaining planets of the Saturn System moved to their present orbits after a few months or years.
LK. The present sky without the Saturn or Jupiter Configuration began about 2200 BC.

User avatar
DJunqueira
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 2:51 am

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by DJunqueira » Fri May 07, 2021 7:57 pm

Interesting phenomena of "lava tornado" that I think EU would explain:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFMv5XNMLbY

Lloyd
Posts: 4920
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Sat May 08, 2021 11:25 pm

57320

ORIGIN OF EARTH'S RADIOACTIVITY

I discussed this a little before, but I have some more info now. I don't accept the main hypothesis of Hydroplate Theory, which is that subcontinental chambers full of supercritical water caused the mid-Atlantic ridge to open and cause rapid continental drift. Instead, Mike Fischer's Shock Dynamics model much better explains rapid continental drift due to a large asteroid impact. However, both models share some common elements, such as the bending and vibrating of the continents. Supercritical water may well have existed under the continents, producing some of the results relating to radioactivity of the crust etc, which Hydroplate Theory proposes.

Here are some quotes from Walt Brown's online book section on Radioactivity on page 3 etc.
The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... vity3.html
_The Ukrainian experiments described on page 399
[... http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... wp8517759/] show that a high-energy, Z-pinched beam of electrons inside a solid [copper, silver, platinum, bismuth, or lead] produces superheavy elements that quickly fission into different elements that are typical of those in Earth’s crust.
_Later in this chapter, you will see the well-established physical processes that — in less than 1 hour — greatly accelerated radioactive decay during the flood.
_[Radioactive decay is greatly accelerated by ionization, as during crustal movement during the Great Flood continental drift event. - LK] Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons. In 1999, Germany’s Dr. Fritz Bosch showed that, for the rhenium atom, this “decreases its half-life more than a billionfold—from 42-billion years to 33 years.”17 The more electrons removed, the more rapidly neutrons expel electrons (beta decay) and become protons. This effect was previously unknown, because only electrically neutral atoms had been used to measure half-lives.18
_The Earth was never molten. Had the Earth ever been molten, denser elements and minerals (such as uranium and zircons) would have sunk toward the center of the Earth. Instead, they are at the Earth’s surface.

Here's a video made by a supporter of Walt Brown 4 years ago.
Hydroplate Theory: Origin of Earth's Radioactivity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq6kUbLzYCc&t=92s
_At 22 minutes he said Lineaments are due to bending of granite crust, which led to formation of radioactive elements via telluric currents, underground lightning, i.e. z-pinches. At 28 minutes he says Radioactive heat conduction during crustal movement was rapid enough that the granite continents didn't melt. Also, he said the formation of radioactive elements removes almost as much heat as the radioactivity produces).

EARTH IS YOUNG

The reason I wanted to review Walt Brown's material on the origin of radioactivity is because I was reading this info below from Creation.com about two different findings that indicate the Earth, or Earth's granite crust, is only about 6,000 years old, as determined from radioactive decay of some elements. Here's the gist of the article.

Argon from RATE site confirms the earth is young - 6,000 years https://creation.com/argon-from-rate-site
_New evidence I outline here ... comes from a site that RATE had previously studied, a borehole that penetrated miles deep into the granitic rock of the earth’s crust near a volcanic crater in northern New Mexico, USA.
_Tiny radioactive crystals of zircon extracted from the borehole samples contain uranium-238 and its nuclear decay product lead-206. ... Leak rates we measured of helium from those zircons gave us an age for the rock of only (6,000 ± 2,000) years.6
_They also measured how fast argon leaks from the feldspar at various depths in the borehole.
_I calculate that the feldspar in the rock formation would have lost the observed amount of argon in only 5,100 [+3,800/–2,100] years....
_This 5,100-year argon diffusion age is consistent with RATE’s helium diffusion age of (6,000 ± 2,000) years for the same rock formation.

Lloyd
Posts: 4920
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Sat May 08, 2021 11:47 pm

OPEN LETTER TO DAVE TALBOTT & OTHER SATURNISTS
(Nick, if you have time, could you alert Dave to this, please?)

Saturn Theory Down to Earth.
The Saturn Theory has been rather vague IMO in stating when the events occurred and what specific cataclysmic effects they had on Earth. I think I've made significant progress such as follows.

YD Event Recent.
The Younger Dryas event was the most recent global cataclysm. Cardona dated it at around 12,000 years ago, but dating methods are extremely unreliable and my conclusion is that it occurred about 4,300 years ago.

Ancient Myths.
The myths followed the Younger Dryas event. The recentness of the event explains why ancient myths have been remembered so well.

Saturn Theory.
The early Saturn system was on an inbound spiraling or elliptical orbit toward the Sun. Saturn as a brown dwarf star flared when it perhaps encountered the heliospheric current sheet during the Great Flood and the later Younger Dryas event. The Golden Age and ancient myths originated after the Younger Dryas event. The early planetary alignment became unstable before arriving at perihelion near the orbit of Venus. Then Saturn left the system for its present orbit and Jupiter was seen as the new pole star for some years. Then Earth, Mars and Jupiter moved to their present orbits, with interplanetary dust causing orbits to circularize.

Great Flood.
There was major global flooding during the Younger Dryas event, but there was a global Great Flood some centuries earlier, which may have started with a Saturn nova, the "Let there be light" event. A second nova may have occurred a few months into the Flood, when the K/T, or K/P, boundary layer was deposited with an iridium spike and spherules etc. The YD event centuries later has a similar spike, apparently due to the final Saturn nova.

Sedimentary Rock Record.
The rock record is the basis for my revisions. There are three main types of sedimentary rock: shale or claystone, sandstone and limestone. It occurred to me 4 years ago (and I discussed this then on the TB forum) that any one of those rock types could not have been deposited individually to considerable thicknesses over long time periods, since there surely weren't individual types of highlands that eroded to form any individual type of deposit. I said on the forum: "The only plausible means I know of for separation of strata into such individual rock types is by major flooding over short time spans, as demonstrated by Guy Berthault. The geologic column is said to consist of 6 megasequences worldwide, each containing many conforming sedimentary strata, and each megasequence occurring over an unconformity. The best explanation seems to be that each megasequence was deposited during major flooding over a short time span of days or weeks. Since the unconformities between the megasequences seem to show mainly only sheet eroision, there must have been only short time spans of days, weeks or months between each megasequence deposit." What many catastrophists likely don't realize is that almost the entire "geologic column" of sedimentary rock was surely deposited within a short time period of a few months by a Great Flood.

Great Flood Cataclysms.
John Baumgardner published two or more papers explaining that the Great Flood was apparently caused by a large body briefly orbiting the Earth elliptically, raising tidal waves at each perigee (about once a month) that moved sediments from the Pangaea continental slopes onto the supercontinent. There were no mountains until an asteroid broke up Pangaea later during the Great Flood, so the tidal waves didn't have to be very high to drown most or all of Pangaea. Mike Fisher has explained in considerable detail how the asteroid that broke up Pangaea caused rapid continental drift and rapid mountain building. Many other lesser impacts occurred during the Great Flood as well, including Chicxulub.

Saturnists' Comments Are Most Welcome.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 483
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by JP Michael » Sun May 09, 2021 3:27 am

Lloyd wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 11:47 pm
OPEN LETTER TO DAVE TALBOTT & OTHER SATURNISTS
(Nick, if you have time, could you alert Dave to this, please?)
Dave had a stroke recently and is incapacitated. It is unlikely he will be in any shape to respond in the near future.

As for the rest, you still have no global evidence that Saturn was ever Earth's primordial sun. It's speculation on fantasy.

User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 391
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 2:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by paladin17 » Sun May 09, 2021 1:49 pm

JP Michael wrote:
Sun May 09, 2021 3:27 am
Lloyd wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 11:47 pm
OPEN LETTER TO DAVE TALBOTT & OTHER SATURNISTS
(Nick, if you have time, could you alert Dave to this, please?)
Dave had a stroke recently and is incapacitated. It is unlikely he will be in any shape to respond in the near future.
This has been quite a while ago, actually. As far as I know, he has been communicating via e-mail and even making some new videos ("Discourses" on TB channel) since then.

Lloyd
Posts: 4920
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Sun May 09, 2021 5:36 pm

57592

I'm glad to hear that Dave is recovering.
JP said "you still have no global evidence that Saturn was ever Earth's primordial sun. It's speculation on fantasy."
You seem to be highly biased. I presented abundant evidence, which you ignore. The biblical El/Elohim was Saturn for one thing, whom many of the Israelites worshiped later as Moloch. The Saturn Configuration was a global mythical/religious theme. The Egyptian Opening of the Mouth Ritual that I described recently only makes sense as a record of cataclysmic behavior of the Saturnian planets. The Saturnists have shown thoroughly that the Saturnian planets were identified all over the world as the gods, Mars, Venus and Saturn.

Lloyd
Posts: 4920
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Tue May 11, 2021 6:13 pm

58231

MOON & MOHO DURING FLOOD

For Mike Fischer's Shock Dynamics model of continental drift to work, in which an asteroid broke up Pangaea and the continents slid apart on the plasma Moho layer, there had to be a Moho layer. Charles Chandler says the Moho layer is formed by the forces of lunar tides and that the layer is only about a meter thick. So that means there was a moon at that time which produced lunar tidal forces. It could have been the present Moon or a different moon as speculated by Bellamy regarding Tiahuanaco.


POLAR COLUMN DEBRIS ON EARTH

The following is a quote from Cardona's first book, GOD STAR, page 458.

In the beginning, as I slowly reconstructed the Saturnian model and its attendant scenario, nothing perplexed me more than this effulgent ray of light stretching between our humble abode and Saturn's glorious realm. Right from day one, David Talbott had understood it as a luminescent stream of falling debris. 1 One reason I could not accept this interpretation came from the lack of recognizable cosmic material in Earth's Arctic regions. Let's face it, if the polar column was really composed of material ejected from a stationary planet located in Earth's north celestial pole, and since the column is posited to have existed for possible millennia, such constant bombardment should have strewn Earth's Arctic regions with cosmic detritus. 2 Since then, however, such material has been found in Arctic regions. Thus, for instance, "a large fall of iron meteorites" is now believed to have occurred in northwestern Greenland and the adjacent east coast of Ellesmere Island "at some undetermined time in the past." It is now apparent that this cosmic iron "was discovered by the late Dorset people during the few centuries immediately preceding A.D. 1000, and small pieces of meteoric iron are found on Dorset sites of this period." 3 The meteoric iron from northwestern Greenland "spread [through trade] at least as far west as Bathurst Island and Little Cornwallis Island and south to the northern part of Hudson['s] Bay."4 Even so, this is hardly the amount of cosmic material one expects to discover in Arctic regions, especially the area in and around the pole, if the debris had been raining down for millennia. Granted that no one has yet conducted a deliberate search for such material, not enough has yet come to light from this area to satisfy Talbott's interpretation.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 483
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by JP Michael » Wed May 12, 2021 12:10 am

paladin17 wrote:
Sun May 09, 2021 1:49 pm
This has been quite a while ago, actually. As far as I know, he has been communicating via e-mail and even making some new videos ("Discourses" on TB channel) since then.
This is exceedingly good news. Thanks for the update Eugene!

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 483
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by JP Michael » Wed May 12, 2021 12:31 am

Lloyd wrote:
Sun May 09, 2021 5:36 pm
You seem to be highly biased.
:lol: :roll:
Lloyd wrote:I presented abundant evidence, which you ignore.
I haven't seen you answer Rens' 7 questions, have I?
Lloyd wrote:The biblical El/Elohim was Saturn for one thing, whom many of the Israelites worshiped later as Moloch.
I challenge you to prove this statement with an indisputable reference in primary source material (the Hebrew Old Testament or Rabbinical Judaism) - show me 1 verse in the entire Old Testament or Oral Torah where El is equated to the wandering star-planet Saturn (Hebrew: Shabta'i), and explicate the methodological criteria by which you arrived at your conclusion.

I suspect your argument will be like that of Talbott or Cardona or similar: because Ugarit or Mari believed El = Saturn, therefore Israel believed El = Saturn. This is a fallacious argument. If you want to prove that Israel believed El = Saturn, it needs to be demonstrated from their own system of belief or source traditions (Hebrew OT or Rabbinical traditions), not by imposing the belief system of another culture/religion onto them.
Lloyd wrote:The Saturn Configuration was a global mythical/religious theme.... The Saturnists have shown thoroughly that the Saturnian planets were identified all over the world as the gods, Mars, Venus and Saturn.
I highlighted the words under scrutiny. You would do well to define what you mean by these terms. I mean global attestation of the mythic theme on every inhabited continent. So, once again: can you please supply primary source evidence that Saturn was globally regarded as the first/ancient sun AND it was located only at the north polar region as perceived on every inhabited continent? Good luck!

And Ev has the difficulty in proving exactly what entity was referred to by "morning star". Sometimes it was Mars, sometimes it was Venus, sometimes it was neither of them and something else entirely. What are you going to do with the conflicting mythical evidence, Lloyd? Ignore it?
Lloyd wrote:The Egyptian Opening of the Mouth Ritual that I described recently only makes sense as a record of cataclysmic behavior of the Saturnian planets.
No. It can be explained without reference to them. It could be any kind of interloping body. Rens makes mention of the fact that, very often in myth, the activities of generic roaming bodies (comets, bolides, perhaps planets but not necessarily) could be universally applied to a single mythical referent, e.g. Maui. So the ancients may have seen a comet and said, "Maui!" Then later an asteroid, "Maui!" Then later a roaming exoplanet, "Maui!" Some traditions did this. You need to demonstrate with each individual tradition whether this is the case, and explicate the criteria for making this discernment on a case-by-case basis.

So don't talk to me about bias, Lloyd. You're as parochial as anyone else.

perpetual motion
Posts: 162
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:04 am

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by perpetual motion » Wed May 12, 2021 4:10 am

Ooohh. Someone was brainwashed as a child. "The more a book gets rewritten the more it
becomes a myth"!
Leave Lloyd alone. He has done more research and posted the outcomes on this subject
more than any other poster on this web site.
To each their own!
('You need to demonstrate with each individual tradition whether this is the case, and explicate the criteria for making this discernment on a case-by-case basis'.)
What is it with everyone? 2+2=1

Lloyd
Posts: 4920
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Wed May 12, 2021 6:12 pm

58462

JP, I think you're asking for a huge research project or something. I'll reread your challenge more thoroughly later. I have to go to work soon.

REFERENCES RE ILIAD & ODYSSEY IN MEDITERRANEAN OR BALTIC

A HISTORY OF THE SWEDISH PEOPLE - Where did the Swedes come from? [from Troy]
http://osterholm.net/swedes.html
_This says Swedes came from Troy in Turkey by the Mediterranean, but it may make more sense if they came from Troy in Finland by the Baltic Sea.
_The remaining references discuss the theory that the Iliad and Odyssey occurred in the Baltic region. I discussed this issue a little in this thread before. Then I saw a tv show yesterday indicating that a lot of things have been found at Troy in Turkey in recent years suggesting that it's the location of the real Troy of the Iliad. I think they're wrong, but I'd like to know what ancient city the Troy in Turkey might have actually been.
_This issue is relevant to Catastrophism because the Trojan War seems to have occurred close to the time of the Younger Dryas event, possibly before the Saturn Configuration had ended.


The Nordic Origins of the Iliad and Odyssey: An Up-to-date Survey of the Theory
https://www.athensjournals.gr/mediterra ... -Vinci.pdf

The Baltic Origins of Homer's Epic Tales
https://gyaanipedia.fandom.com/wiki/The ... ric_places

DUST #14: HOMER IN THE BALTIC. THE BOREAL WIND OF CIVILIZATION.
https://michelefossi.com/2018/12/17/dus ... ilization/

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 483
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by JP Michael » Thu May 13, 2021 12:48 am

perpetual motion wrote:
Wed May 12, 2021 4:10 am
...snip...
Come back when you decide to drop the ad-hominem. We're having an adult discussion here, critically appraising ideas and evidence, a matter in which you seem to lack proficiency.

'Leaving people alone' is exactly how error promulgates itself.

Lloyd
Posts: 4920
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Thu May 13, 2021 2:55 pm

58708

NO BIAS; WHY EARLY PLANETARY SYSTEMS ARE LIKELY LINEAR

JP said: So don't talk to me about bias, Lloyd. You're as parochial as anyone else.

No, I'm not. I change my mind when I encounter enough evidence. E.g., I was a theist, then an atheist, then skeptic, and theist again. I favored Velikovsky's theory since 1969 until I learned more thoroughly about the Saturn theory around 2000. I favored Talbott's and Cardona's models until I learned about the sedimentary rock record showing the Great Flood came first and the Younger Dryas event/s had to come later. The remaining aspects of their models I still favor for the most part. The Saturnists have a lot of literature in which they explain many facets of the Saturn model and I've read a good portion of it. The critics don't seem to have nearly as good evidence as the Saturnists. But I do read the critics too to see if they have anything helpful to offer.

THE CRITICS' MAIN PROBLEM: POLAR CONFIGURATION?

I think the critics mainly just have trouble imagining that planets could line up in a polar or linear arrangement the way the Saturn theory describes. But a linear arrangement is how planets form in the first place, like beads on a string, as EU proponents say and as Charles Chandler may explain best (See http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=6031/). If the solar system and/or Saturn system is/was young, it or they could have only recently formed from a galactic filament. If stars and planets formed at points on the filament and the filament was contracting or imploding kind of like a stretched rubber band snaps together, many of the stars and planets would have been moving linearly during the whole process of their forming, all toward each other. Charles figured out that filaments are natural formations within galaxies because they're plasma with positive and negative charges separated and interspersed like +-+-+- (pos., neg., pos., net., etc.). These charges will tend to remain linear because, only in a straight line are the like charges hidden from each other by opposite charges. If a charge moves away from the linear position, it becomes less hidden and starts to be repelled by the closest like charges, which push it back to its hidden position between adjacent opposite charges. When the Saturn filament got close enough to the Sun, due to momentum, there wasn't enough opposite charge between the planets and the Sun to keep them moving linearly, so they were forced into orbits, typical of slower moving systems, and the orbiting bodies continue to repel each other, which explains the Titius-Bode law of orbiting bodies (See Charles' paper at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=15369/).

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests