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? If you have a personal favorite theory, that is in someway related to the Electric Universe, this is where it can be posted.
Posts: 5280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Sat Aug 06, 2022 2:12 am


After my previous long post (called DID MID CONTINENT RIFT FORM BEFORE THE GREAT FLOOD? at ... =675#p7428 ), I have something new going on. I started a "substack" at called Cataclysmic Earth History. Here's my first post there: https://cataclysmicearthhistory.substac ... -rock-ages . It will be a newsletter where I hope to get a lot of collaboration to sort out ancient history. I invite everyone to subscribe for free and, if you like, also leave good comments. Is that too much to ask?

Posts: 5280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Tue Aug 09, 2022 11:43 pm



In this recent post ... =675#p7192
I referenced a video that claimed that an oval rock formation in Turkey was Noah's ark. The evidence in the video sounded very plausible, so I regarded it as such. But lately I find evidence that the claims were false. The evidence is in these 3 articles. ... -noahs-ark ... ark-expose
Sorry for getting a little excited over nothing. I try not to be gullible.

Posts: 5280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:20 am



I previously posted the following article titles on page 23 of this thread at ... =330#p3220
I didn't include links previously, so this time I'm including links to make it easier to access the specific articles.


THOTH 1997 01 SATURN THEORY OVERVIEW.............................David Talbott ... 997.01.txt

THOTH 1997 02 SATURN THEORY OVERVIEW (2)....................David Talbott ... 997.02.txt

THOTH 1997 03 SATURN THEORY, OVERVIEW (3).....................David Talbott ... 997.03.txt

THOTH 1997 04 SATURN THEORY, OVERVIEW 4................................David Talbott ... 997.04.txt

THOTH 1997 05 THE MYTH OF THE GOLDEN AGE....................David Talbott ... 997.05.txt

THOTH 1997 06 THE MYTH OF THE GOLDEN AGE (PART 2)..................David Talbott ... 997.06.txt

THOTH 1997 07 THE MYTH OF THE UNIVERSAL MONARCH................David Talbott ... 997.07.txt

THOTH 1997 08 THE MYTH OF THE UNIVERSAL MONARCH (3)............David Talbott ... 997.08.txt

THOTH 1997 09 THE MYTH OF THE UNIVERSAL MONARCH (3)............David Talbott ... 997.09.txt

THOTH 1997 10 SATURN: THE ANCIENT SUN GOD.........................David Talbott ... 997.10.txt

THOTH 1997 11 THE MYTH OF THE CENTRAL SUN (1)................David Talbott ... 997.11.txt

THOTH 1997 12 THE MYTH OF THE CENTRAL SUN (2).....................David Talbott ... 997.12.txt

THOTH 1997 13 THE MYTH OF THE CENTRAL SUN (3)....................David Talbott ... 997.13.txt

THOTH 1997 14 THE MYTH OF THE CENTRAL SUN (4).................David Talbott ... 997.14.txt

THOTH 1997 15 VELIKOVSKY AND PLANETARY CATASTROPHE..........David Talbott ... 997.15.txt

THOTH 1997 17 VELIKOVSKY'S COMET VENUS.......................David Talbott ... 997.17.txt

THOTH 1997 18 VELIKOVSKY'S COMET VENUS..................David Talbott ... 997.18.txt

THOTH 1997 19 VELIKOVSKY'S COMET VENUS(3)....................David Talbott ... 997.19.txt

THOTH 1997 20 VELIKOVSKY'S COMET VENUS(4)...........................David Talbott ... 997.20.txt

THOTH 1997 21 VELIKOVSKY'S COMET VENUS(5)...........................David Talbott ... 997.21.txt

THOTH 1997 22 VELIKOVSKY'S COMET VENUS(6)...........................David Talbott ... 997.22.txt

THOTH 1997 23 VELIKOVSKY'S COMET VENUS(7)...........................David Talbott ... 997.23.txt

THOTH 1997 24 VELIKOVSKY'S COMET VENUS (8)..........................David Talbott ... 997.24.txt

THOTH 1997 25 VELIKOVSKY'S COMET VENUS (9)..........................David Talbott ... 997.25.txt

THOTH 1997 26 VELIKOVSKY'S COMET VENUS (10)...................David Talbott ... 997.26.txt

THOTH 1997 27 VELIKOVSKY'S COMET VENUS (11)...................David Talbott ... 997.27.txt

THOTH 1998 01 VELIKOVSKY'S COMET VENUS (12)...................David Talbott ... 998.01.txt

THOTH V2-02 VELIKOVSKY'S COMET VENUS (13)...................David Talbott ... 998.02.txt

THOTH V2-03 VELIKOVSKY'S COMET VENUS (14)..........David Talbott ... 998.03.txt

THOTH V2-04 A Hearty Welcome to Amy. . . . . . . . . . . . . .David Talbott ... 998.04.txt

THOTH V2-06 ON THE RELIABILITY OF HUMAN WITNESSES. . . . . . Dave Talbott ... 998.06.txt

THOTH V2-07 THE LOGIC OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE . . . . . . . . . David Talbott ... 998.07.txt

THOTH V2-08 A BRIEF ORIENTATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dave Talbott ... 998.08.txt

THOTH V2-09 ON THE USE OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE. . . . . . . .David Talbott ... 998.09.txt

THOTH V2-10 THE GOLDEN AGE. . . . . . . . . . Dave Talbott and Dwardu Cardona ... 998.10.txt


THOTH V2-13 RESPONSE TO A CRITIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dave Talbott ... 998.13.txt

THOTH V2-14 HEROES OF THE ILIAD. . . . . . . . . . . . . David Talbott ... 998.14.txt

THOTH V2-15 THE TWO FACES OF "PLAUSABILITY" . . . . . . . Dave Talbott ... 998.15.txt


THOTH V2-17 ON STABLE AND UNSTABLE WORLDS. . . . . . . . Dave Talbott ... 998.17.txt

THOTH V2-18 THE WARRING GODDESS ATHENA . . . . . . . . . .Dave Talbott ... 998.18.txt

THOTH V2-19 VISUALIZING COLLINEAR SYSTEMS . . . . . . . .Dave Talbott ... 998.19.txt

THOTH V2-20 THE "TERRIFYING GLORY" OF VENUS. . . . . . Dave Talbott ... 998.20.txt

THOTH 1999 01 MERCURY IN MYTHOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by Dave Talbott ... 999.01.txt

THOTH 1999 02 SACRIFICE AND AMNESIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dave Talbott ... 999.02.txt

THOTH 1999 09 SATURNIAN STUDIES . . . . . . . . by Dave Talbott and Kronians ... 999.09.txt

THOTH 1999 10 SATURN AND VENUS . . . . . . .Ted Bond, Ev Cochrane, Dave Talbott ... 999.10.txt

THOTH 1999 11 COSMIC SYMBOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . By Dave Talbott
............. RITUAL BALL GAMES . . . Dave Davis, Dwardu Cardona, Dave Talbott ... 999.11.txt

THOTH 1999 12 BY JOVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by Dave Talbott
............. ASTROBIOLOGY . . . . . Ev Cochrane, Dwardu Cardona, Dave Talbott ... 999.12.txt

THOTH 1999 13 STAR WORDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .by Ted Bond, Roger Wescott, Ev Cochrane, Dave Talbott ... 999.13.txt

THOTH 1999 14 THE MYTHIC ROOTS OF LANGUAGE . . . . . . . . . .by Dave Talbott ... 999.14.txt

THOTH 1999 15 MYTHIC ROOTS OF LANGUAGE part II . . . . . . . . .by Dave Talbott ... 999.15.txt

THOTH 1999 16 MYTHIC ROOTS OF LANGUAGE part III . . . . . . . . by Dave Talbott ... 999.16.txt

THOTH V4-03 CONJUNCTION THEMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by Dave Talbott ... otiv03.txt

THOTH V4-04 THE NATURAL REFERENCES OF MYTH . . . . . . . . . . by Dave Talbott ... otiv04.txt

THOTH V4-05 WORLD MOUNTAIN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by Dave Talbott ... otiv05.txt

THOTH V4-06 PATTERNS OF HUMAN MEMORY. . . . . by Michel Tavir and Dave Talbott ... otiv06.txt

THOTH V4-07 MEMORIES AND SYMBOLS OF PLANETARY UPHEAVAL . . . . by Dave Talbott ... otiv07.txt

THOTH V4-08 RECONSTRUCTING THE SATURN MODEL . . . . . . . . . by Dave Talbott ... otiv08.txt

THOTH V4-09 THUNDERBOLTS OF THE GODS: an intro . . . . by Dave Talbott ... otiv09.txt

THOTH V4-10 LABYRINTH AND FORTRESS OF THE GODS . . . . . . . by Dave Talbott ... otiv10.txt

THOTH V4-11 LABYRYNTHS . . . . . . . . . Kronia discussion with Dave Talbott ... otiv11.txt

THOTH V4-12 MALE GODS . . . . . . . . .by Dave Talbott and Rens van der Sluijs ... otiv12.txt

THOTH V4-13 A UNIFIED THEORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by Dave Talbott ... otiv13.txt

THOTH V4-14 SATURN'S REVOLVING CRESCENT . . . . . . . . . . by Dave Talbott
........... LOCALIZATION OF THE WARRIOR-HERO. . . . . . . . by Dave Talbott ... otiv14.txt

THOTH V4-15 ONE STORY TOLD ROUND THE WORLD. . . . . . . . . . by Dave Talbott
........... HUMAN NATURE AND SATURNIAN RITUAL . . . . . . . . by Dave Talbott ... otiv15.txt

THOTH V4-16 EGYPTIAN WHITE CROWN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by Dave Talbott
........... RENS' OUTLINE OF MYTHICAL THEMES . . . . . . . by Rens van der Sluijs, Ev Cochrane, Dave Talbott ... otiv16.txt

THOTH V5-01 YEAR TWO THOUSAND AND ONE. . . . . . . . . . . . .by Dave Talbott ... othv01.txt

THOTH V5-04 THE THUNDERBOLT IN MYTH AND SYMBOL. . . . by Dave Talbott ... othv04.txt

THOTH V5-05 OF THUNDERGODS AND CELESTIAL MARVELS . . . . . . . . Dave Talbott ... othv05.txt

THOTH V5-06 POLAR CONFIGURATION AND COSMIC THUNDERBOLT. . . . . .Dave Talbott ... othv06.txt

THOTH V6-07 SERPENTS OF CREATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dave Talbott ... othv07.txt

THOTH V2-07 MORE THAN ONE TYPHON . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dwardu Cardona ... 998.07.txt

THOTH V2-10 THE GOLDEN AGE. . . . . . . . . . Dave Talbott and Dwardu Cardona ... 998.10.txt

THOTH V2-11 VENUS AS THE DOVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Robert Lugibihl, Comments by Dwardu Cardona ... 998.11.txt

THOTH V2-19 TIDBITS ------------------------ Notes and comments by Dave Talbott, Dwardu Cardona, and Wal Thornhill ... 998.19.txt

THOTH 1999 06 THE BIG BANG AS A RELIGIOUS WORK . . . . . . . .by Dwardu Cardona ... 999.06.txt

THOTH 1999 08 SATURN CONFIGURATION DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . .Wal Thornhill, Robert Lugibihl, Dwardu Cardona ... 999.08.txt

THOTH 1999 09 ARE WE GETTING THERE? . . . . Dwardu Cardona and Wal Thornhill ... 999.09.txt

THOTH 1999 11 RITUAL BALL GAMES . . . Dave Davis, Dwardu Cardona, Dave Talbott ... 999.11.txt

THOTH 1999 12 ASTROBIOLOGY . . . . . Ev Cochrane, Dwardu Cardona, Dave Talbott ... 999.12.txt





THOTH V4-03 THE NEUTRINO QUESTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . .by Dwardu Cardona ... otiv03.txt

THOTH V6-01 THE CAPTURE QUESTION AGAIN . . . . . . . . . . . .Dwardu Cardona ... ovi-01.txt

THOTH V6-08 BIRTH OF VENUS . . . . . discussion with Ken Moss, Dwardu Cardona, and Wal Thornhill ... ovi-08.txt

Posts: 5280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Thu Aug 11, 2022 4:47 am


I noticed this discussion as I was posting the Thoth Mythology links in the previous post above.

THOTH V6-08 BIRTH OF VENUS . . . . . discussion with Ken Moss, Dwardu Cardona, and Wal Thornhill ... ovi-08.txt

Ken Moss began: It is my [belief] that Tony Peratt thinks Venus was always part of the Saturnian configuration, which I tend to agree with myself. However, Wal Thornhill and Dwardu Cardona claim Venus was, or may have been, born out of Saturn within man's memory.

DWARDU CARDONA replied: Speaking for my own position on this, "may have been," rather than "was," is where I now stand. The problem here is that both hypotheses, Peratt's and mine, raise problems. See more below.

MOSS: That is, Venus was the core of Saturn that was pulled out or ejected by some means when the Saturn system came in 'contact' with the solar system. But there is an important difference between the two ejection scenarios. Wal says Venus came out equatorially and Dwardu thinks it came out Saturn's pole, the same one Mars and Earth was 'under.'

CARDONA: ... Yes, I do hold that *IF* Venus was ejected from Saturn, it would have been ejected poleward.

MOSS: Can mythology and physics combine to show what really happened?

CARDONA: Seeing as the mytho-historical record is limited to what was seen from Earth's perspective, its value in correctly surmising what really took place in space is limited in this particular instance. All that we can glean from the record is that VISUALLY Venus had not always been there. So that, if it WAS there, it was not visible to Earth-bound eyes. The record implies that Venus appeared SUDDENLY after long ages of proto-Saturnian stability. As for physics, as Peratt has stated, the implication seems to be that all of the configuration planets were formed at the same time. Personally, I have problems with this, DESPITE LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS.

MOSS: My recent reading of Egyptian myth supports Tony in that the appearance of Venus is treated in a rather low-key way. The sun-god One is alone in the heavens then Tefnut/Venus and Shu/Mars are either quietly spit out (no sense of real force is implied) or they simply become visible at some point, one in front of the other and both in front of the disk of Saturn, from Earth's perspective.

CARDONA: But there you have it. Whether forcefully or not, Venus IS said to have been "spat out." In other words, it had not been visually apparent before that event. And as for whether the "spitting" was violent or not, we have to analyze other than just the Egyptian myth. From my own study of this subject, I can safely say (without being adamant) that the first appearance of Venus WAS a violent event.

MOSS: On the other hand, Wal's view is supported by the birth myth of Athena/Venus who suddenly burst out of the forehead of Zeus fully armed and ready for battle. This does sound like a far more dramatic appearance and fits the equator ejection model as Venus would have been seen to suddenly appear out to the side of Saturn and not between Mars and Saturn.

CARDONA: The correct translation is "skull" not "forehead." Even so, I do not see how that necessarily translates as an EQUATORIAL ejection. And, in any case, that was Hesiod's take. There are other Greek versions of the birth of Athena.

WAL THORNHILL adds: The equatorial ejection model is supported by Venus' retrograde spin. As Eric Crew made clear in his electrical core expulsion model, the ejected matter is given a retrograde spin by the very nature of its birth. If Venus had been born from the pole of Saturn in some unspecified manner, then it would be expected to mimic Saturn's axial alignment and spin rate. It does neither.

CARDONA: You are here assuming that Venus spun retrogradely from its very inception. I can argue that it did not. And, no, I am not saying that Venus stopped spinning and then resumed in the opposite direction. It's spin did not change. But it did go through a tippe-top inversion, very much in the manner that Warlow hypothesized for Earth. As seen from Earth, the effect would have been the same as if Venus changed its direction of spin.

MOSS: The more contentious scenario, to me, is Dwardu's and the problem has more to do with the physics than any mythology. If Wal is right, that it was a combination of attraction (between the sun and the core) and sudden electric charge difference (between Saturn's outer shell and core) that drove the ejection, how could that happen in the already-aligned configuration consisting of Saturn, Mars and the Earth? For the core to come out of the pole that Mars and the Earth were 'under' it would mean that the configuration came into the solar system TAIL FIRST (Saturn being the head and Earth the tail of the string of planets).

CARDONA: The problem here, as in many other cases, is the Sun. Why are we assuming that Venus was "pulled out" of proto-Saturn by the gravitational pull of the Sun? That, surely, is NOT the manner in which planets are born. So that whether the proto-Saturnian systems entered the Sun's domain tail-first or head-first has no bearing on THIS particular issue. (To be sure, this question HAS to be answered, but in relation to an entirely different problem.)

MOSS: And if this were so, surely the Earth, being the closest body to the sun, would have been subject to tremendous forces. Surely these forces would not have left us in peace while reaching over us (and Mars), so to speak, in order to pull out Saturn's core?

CARDONA: Saturn's core, IF THAT IS WHAT VENUS WAS, was not "pulled out" by anything. Again, that is not the way in which planets are born.

THORNHILL agrees: See my article in Aeon VI:1. The gravitational attraction of the Sun had little to do with the birth of Venus. It might have contributed an offset in the expulsion from proto-Saturn's equatorial plane -- which may be reflected in the fact that Venus' spin axis does not line up with any of Earth, Mars and Saturn. But the major effects would have been felt when crossing the Sun's plasma sheath at some great distance from the Sun and well beneath the ecliptic. (That accords with the shared axial alignments of Earth, Mars and Saturn, together with the observed revolving crescent of sunlight seen from Earth on the body of Saturn).
The plasma sheath is the region of the Sun's virtual-cathode where almost the entire voltage difference between the Sun and the galactic plasma exists. The effect upon Saturn would have been, I imagine, spectacular and catastrophic, leading to the expulsion of Venus in an effort to adjust electrically. A part of the process would see Saturn accelerated from the center of its small planetary system, leaving the more distantly orbiting satellites to trail behind. That is the only way, dynamically, that I can see a close polar configuration forming.
BTW, the preferential constant acceleration of Saturn, as the most highly charged body in the assembly, toward the Sun fits perfectly with the observed constant deceleration of charged spacecraft moving away from the Sun. A dynamic polar equilibrium could only be sustained by such a constant tug on proto-Saturn.

Posts: 5280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Sun Aug 14, 2022 2:21 am


(I thought I'd expand on what Cardona said above.) ... facts.html
In regards to the birth of Tefnut, the Heliopolitan creation myth states that the solar deity, Atum-Ra, created twins Shu and Tefnut when he sneezed in the ancient Egyptian city of Heliopolis. However, in the Coffin Texts, creation panels suggest that Shu and Tefnut were spat out or vomited out by Atum-Ra. Feb 6, 2022
_There are a number of variants to the myth of the creation of the twins Tefnut and Shu. In every version, Tefnut is the product of parthenogenesis, and all involve some variety of body fluid.
_In the Heliopolitan creation myth, Atum sneezed to produce Tefnut and Shu.[4] Pyramid Text 527 says, "Atum was creative in that he proceeded to sneeze while in Heliopolis. And brother and sister were born - that is Shu and Tefnut."[5]
_In some versions of this myth, Atum also spits out his saliva, which forms the act of procreation. This version contains a play on words, the tef sound which forms the first syllable of the name Tefnut also constitutes a word meaning "to spit" or "to expectorate".[5]
_The Coffin Texts contain references to Shu being sneezed out by Atum from his nose, and Tefnut being spat out like saliva. The Bremner-Rind Papyrus and the Memphite Theology describe Atum as sneezing out saliva to form the twins.[6]

The Spitting Image(s) of the One - Shu and Tef-nut ... d-tef-nut/
_The dual Shu and Tefnut represent the initial act of creation forming the universal bubble The pair of Shu and Tefnut represented as a husband and wife is the characteristically Egyptian way of expressing duality and polarity. This dual nature was manifested in Ancient Egyptian texts and traditions, according to recovered archaeological findings.
_The most ancient texts of the Old Kingdom, namely the Pyramid Texts §1652, express the dual nature:
_"…and thou[] didst spit out as Shu, and didst spit out as Tefnut."
This is a very powerful analogy because we use the term “spitting image” to mean exactly like the origin. In addition the saliva contains the DNA with all that implies!
_The Ancient Egyptian concept of the universe is like a box. The first thing the Divine created is a kind of bubble in what is otherwise an infinite ocean of water. The sky is the skin of the infinite ocean that contains what we call the atmosphere, which was caused by two forces that the Ancient Egyptians called Shu and Tefnut. Both Shu (heat) and Tefnut (water/moisture) mean 'atmosphere'. Nun (the pre-creation cosmic ocean) is the root out of which Shu and Tefnut were created.
_Heat (Shu) and water (Tefnut) are the two most universal shaping factors of life forms. These terms correspond to fire (heat) and moisture, respectively, and are to be understood as metaphors and actual correspondences for the abstract qualities that they represent. Shu, represented by fire, air, and heat, corresponds to the quality of expansiveness, rising, centrifugal forces, positive, masculine, outgoing, outward extroversion, etc.
_Tefnut, represented by moisture and the objective material basis of manifestation (Nut, the suffix), corresponds to contraction, downward movement, centripetal forces, negative, feminine, receptive, inner, introspection, etc.

COMMENT: ASTROLOGY says Venus is feminine/water/emotion and Mars is masculine/fire/energy. Looks like that came from the ancient Egyptians as per the above. Below I found a myth in which Kronos spat out gods. By the way, Heliopolis was named after Helios, which was Saturn, so it probably referred to the Saturnian city in the polar sky.

How Zeus was king in Greek mythology
One day, Zeus and his mother designed to give Kronos a large dose of the drug. Kronos felt very uncomfortable after taking the medicine, and soon began to vomit. The first thing Kronos spat out was the large stone that had been swallowed in place of Zeus. Kronos was shocked to see the stone, and he didn't know how it had run into his stomach. Then, one by one, he spat out his five children one after another. The five babies that had been swallowed had grown as tall as Zeus in their father's belly. The five older siblings of Zeus, who had been spat out, rightfully agreed with Zeus and his mother's plan and were determined to unite in the struggle against Kronos. The war lasted for ten years

COMMENT: I think Zeus and his mother were Mars and Venus, but I don't know what the other gods would have been which Kronos spat out. And there was also a stone that he spat out. Off hand, it seems that these are not the same celestial events. The Egyptian myth above seems to be what Cardona was describing. I guess this myth describes events that led to Saturn's departure. Right?

Posts: 5280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Thu Aug 18, 2022 12:41 am



I posted a Bibliography on my new Substack at:
https://cataclysmicearthhistory.substac ... bliography
I'm able to update it at any time, so it will probably get updated occasionally. I can't update posts here, but I'll post my present Bibliography here too. I was surprised to find that 2 of Velikovsky's books are available online and so is Pensee' magazine. All of the other links in the Bibliography also go directly to the textual material, except for the link to Cardona's books, which have to be ordered. They may be available through inter-library loan too.

.1. ​FORUM THREAD: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism ... ?f=11&t=13

.2. WORLDS IN COLLISION ... lision.pdf

.3. EARTH IN UPHEAVAL ... heaval.pdf

.4. PENSEE’ MAGAZINE: Velikovsky Reconsidered

.5. THOTH NEWSLETTER: Talbott & Cardona on Ancient Myths or Shorter Thoth Index


.7. AEON: (SATURN THEORY ARTICLES) Road to Saturn; Interview with David Talbott;
Samson Revealed [MARS]; Aphrodite Urania [VENUS]


.9. CATASTROPHISM.COM Search Page ... zoom_query







.16. WALTER BROWN: Origin of Radioactivity etc ... ngTOC.html



Posts: 5280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Thu Aug 18, 2022 4:37 pm


Online Book in the Making
https://cataclysmicearthhistory.substac ... opics-plan
The following are the topics and the order in which I plan to discuss them, but the numbers indicate a sort of chronological order with -1 being the beginning, followed by 1, 2, 3, etc. I'll explain my thinking below. This is all UNDER CONTSTRUCTION, so my plans are flexible and could change at any time. I think each topic will morph into a chapter in an online book.


I start the list with SORTED STRATA because by explaining the sorting process I can pretty well prove there was a GREAT FLOOD. Then I'll describe the Flood. Next I'll describe EARTH & MOON IMPACTS as the main cause of the Flood. The impacts & tidal forces caused MEGATSUNAMIS, which deposited MEGASEQUENCES of sediments on Pangaea. I'll explain STRATA FORMATION in more detail there. That leads to FOSSIL CONDITIONS and COAL & OIL FORMATION. The TIME BETWEEN MEGASEQUENCES is a topic that has been hard to determine. I'll try to narrow it down. At that point I plan to discuss evidence for and against YOUNG EARTH. Then I'll discuss the supercontinent PANGAEA FORMATION and describe the PANGAEA PARADISE when Earth had different conditions in its ATMOSPHERE, HYDROSPHERE, BIOSPHERE. Those 4 topics were pre-Flood topics. Next I'll resume with the natural chronology, discussing the PANGAEA BREAKUP which involved CONTINENTAL DRIFT and OROGENY, i.e. mountain building, and production of SEAFLOOR MAGNETIC STRIPES and CONTINENTAL RADIOACTIVITY, as well as VOLCANISM. Then I'll discuss EXTINCTIONS from the Flood. When the Flood was over the ICE AGE began in higher latitudes. ANCIENT MYTHS probably mostly began after the Flood. There may have been ADVANCED ANCIENT CIVILIZATION before the Flood, but it likely declined during and after the Flood and had to be rebuilt. That may be a good place to discuss the SATURN THEORY, which discusses the former planetary arrangement which existed before the Flood and before the supercontinent Pangaea formed. Returning to the natural chronology, I can cover the YOUNGER DRYAS EVENT and the temporary JUPITER SYSTEM. Next came frequent localized HALLOWEEN cataclysms during the BRONZE AGE. Finally, in the IRON AGE such cataclysms became rare events. I'll discuss the evolution of RELIGION in the context of cataclsmic history. And lastly I want to cover DATING METHODS.

Posts: 5280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Fri Aug 19, 2022 2:18 am



Continents on Ancient Earth Were Created by Giant Meteorite Impacts, Scientists Find ... e-impacts8
[NOTE: I'll evaluate this article by using: V,I,U,y,n,m,?,p: V for VeryImportant; I for Important; U for Unimportant;
y for yes - over 67% probable; n for no - under 33% probable = improbable; m for maybe - 33-67% possible; ? for don't know; p for plausible.
I'm also numbering each statement for reference. I'll comment below.]
V.y_5_... Earth's landmass was concentrated in one big supercontinent.
V.y_6_Since that's not what the planet looks like today, something must have triggered that supercontinent to break apart.
V.p_7_Now, we have new evidence to suggest that giant meteorite impacts played a significant role.
V.p_8_The smoking gun consists of crystals of the mineral zircon, excavated from a craton in Western Australia, a piece of Earth's crust that has remained stable for
V.p_11_... and the zircon crystals within it contain evidence of ancient meteorite impacts before the continents broke apart.
V.p_12_"Studying the composition of oxygen isotopes in these zircon crystals revealed a 'top-down' process starting with the melting of rocks near the surface and progressing deeper, consistent with the geological effect of giant meteorite impacts," explained geologist Tim Johnson of Curtin University in Australia.
V.p_17_The research team carefully analyzed isotopes of oxygen; specifically, the ratios of oxygen-18 and oxygen-16, which have 10 and 8 neutrons, respectively. These ratios are used in paleogeology to determine the formation temperature of the rock in which the isotopes are found.
I.?_18_Based on these ratios, the team was able to distinguish three distinct and fundamental stages in the formation and evolution of the Pilbara Craton.
I.p_19_The first stage is the formation of a large proportion of zircons consistent with partial melting of the crust. This partial melting, the researchers show, was likely the result of bombardment by meteorites, which heated the planetary crust on impact.
I.?_20_The oldest cluster of these zircons, according to the team's interpretation,
V.p_21_... was the result of a single giant impact that led to the formation of the craton.
I.?_22_The second stage was a period of reworking and stabilization of the crustal nucleus,
I.p_23_... followed by the third stage – a period of melting and granite formation.

COMMENT: Statement 6 says something triggered the former supercontinent to break apart, implying that one or more impacts did so. But the article doesn't actually indicate that anywhere. It just indicates that cratons were formed by meteor impacts. My view has long been that Mike Fischer's model of a huge Pangaea impact at is a fairly accurate explanation of how the supercontinent broke apart. This article doesn't address that, but the scientific paper that the article was discussing apparently did, according to this video by Anton Petrov at about the 8 minute mark. Anton vaguely suggests that the impact broke up the supercontinent which then began spreading apart slowly, although in reality it was surely a rapid spreading as Fischer's site explains. This article tends to confirm the 2013 article "Large cratonic basins likely of impact origin" by Michael J. Oard. I'll provide some excerpts.


__Large cratonic basins likely of impact origin
_A cratonic basin [is a] feature[] of the interior of [a] continent[], a saucer-shaped feature filled with sedimentary rock ... but the mechanism of subsidence is unknown [to the mainstream].
_It has been discovered by seismic and gravity anomaly methods that the crust below a basin is commonly thinned. Artyushkov states: “Considerable thinning of the crystalline crust occurs under most deep basins located on continents.”15 Along with a thinned crust, the Moho, the boundary between the crust and mantle, is commonly raised (see figure 2).
_The saucer-shaped profile will remain relatively stable for a short period and may either subside or uplift depending on other variables, such as whether a phase change occurred in the lower crust or upper mantle caused by impacting, the temperature of the rock, and the type of rock. Generally, the impact crater is out of isostatic equilibrium from losing portions of the crust and will tend to uplift with time. On the other hand, if the oscillations of the central uplift stopped too soon, the Moho can be considerably raised with a high gravity anomaly, such as the mascons on the moon. Such basins will subside with time.
_Many other variables will determine the amount of uplift or subsidence of the impact crater after the first hour. Rapid uplift in a matter of days to weeks can occur soon after a basin is formed; it does not take thousands to millions of years. If the crater is strongly out of isostatic equilibrium and if the temperature is high at the bottom, the crater will rebound upward at a relatively rapid rate. By this time, it could be filled with sediments.
_Practically all uplift occurs after the sediments have been deposited and turned to sedimentary rock. During uplift, the sedimentary rocks are folded and faulted with the top eroded. Such uplifted sedimentary rocks form many of the mountain ranges of the world today and would not impress anyone that they were once in a deep basin.
_After the first hour, the basin is modified very slowly. This gives time for the hole to collect a great amount of sediment. With one isolated impact, extensive filling of sediment from outside the crater seems unlikely. However, the Flood impact submodel postulates thousands of impacts occurred early in the Flood. One major effect of such a large amount of impacts is to blast a huge amount of debris up into the air in the form of ejecta. All this sediment would end up in the floodwater and would eventually be deposited.
_So, early Flood impact craters are expected to rapidly fill with sediments, since the crater acts like a sediment trap.
A second major effect of so many impacts is that powerful currents would develop, sometimes interfering with each other. So, the combination of powerful currents and a huge amount of sediment would be rapid sedimentation in deep basins where currents are expected to be weaker and allow sedimentation. So, early Flood impact craters are expected to rapidly fill with sediments, since the crater acts like a sediment trap (see figure 8a). Sedimentation was likely so rapid that the sediments were little deformed by subsequent movements of the crater bottom and walls.

Posts: 5280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Sat Aug 20, 2022 9:05 pm


NOTE: Since the Great Flood likely occurred between 3,200 and 2,400 BC, any of the following dates older than 3,200 BC are likely wrong, since Sumeria and Egypt etc were built on strata deposited by the Flood.

Sumerian Cosmic Geography ... graphy.pdf
_Deriving from earlier stamp seals, cylinder seals first appeared in the
____[c. 3500 BC] fourth millennium BCE and remained popular for some three thousand years.7
_#7 E. Porada, “Introduction,” in ed. E. Porada, Ancient Art in Seals (Princeton, 1980), p. 4.
_It remains an open question just how far back in time such lunar calendars can be traced. Early testimony attesting to the Moon’s role in setting the calendar, perhaps, was offered by Rim-Sin, the last ruler of the Larsa Dynasty
____(c. 1800 BCE): “[Nanna], fixing the month and the new moon, [setting] the year in its place.”31 There is some evidence for lunar calendars from the Ur III period
____(c. 2000 BCE).
_#31 M. Cohen, op. cit., p. 3. It is curious to note, however, that during Rim-Sin’s time there existed a calendar which included months of up to 48 days and month cycles of up to 54 months.

The Case of the Missing Sun ... ng-Sun.pdf
_The petroglyphs carved at Loughcrew [Ireland] are typically dated to the tail-end of the fourth millennium BCE (roughly
____[c.] 3300-3000 [BC]). The fact that virtually identical artworks are to be found from ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt during this same general time period is consistent with the hypothesis that the sun only recently presented a radically different appearance.2
_#2 See the images depicted in J. de Morgan, Memoires, Vol. 12 (Paris, 1912), p. 79.
_It is equally common to find the sun depicted in the form of a four-petaled flower.4
_#4 Attested already during the late Ubaid period at Tepe Gaura
____([c.] 4000 BCE). See here figure 240 in A. von Wickede, Prähistorische Stempelglyptik in Vorderasien (München, 1990). See also figure 34 in D. Collon, First Impressions (2005), p. 21
_The earliest literary texts from Mesopotamia date from the Early Old Babylonian period
____(ca. 2000-1800 BCE).39
_#39 J. Hayes, A Manual of Sumerian Grammar and Texts (Malibu, 2000), p. 394.
_An early Neo-Sumerian text celebrating the planetary aspect of Inanna is the royal hymn of Iddin-Dagan, the third king of the First Dynasty of Isin
____(c. 1974-1954 BCE). ...41
_#41 Daniel Reisman, “Iddin-Dagan’s Sacred Marriage Hymn,” JCS 25 (1973), p. 185.

The Drilling of Fire and the Origin of the Sun ... he-Sun.pdf
_#75 S. Beaulieu, Eve’s Ritual: The Judahite Sacred Marriage Rite (Montreal, 2007), p. 42 notes that Inanna was associated with the “Nippur ritual of the king’s crowning” already during the Early Dynastic II-III period
____(2500-2000 BCE).”

Written in the Stars: On the Origins of Writing ... -Stars.pdf
_According to current best estimates, writing is believed to have originated in the latter half of the fourth millennium BCE
____([c.] 3500-3100 [BC]), most likely in the ancient Near East and Egypt. At Uruk, an early urban center in Southern Mesopotamia, the rudimentary beginnings of an early form of writing were unearthed in 1912. It is the proto-script from Uruk that later gave rise to the full-blown writing system of the early Sumerians.4
4 D. Schmandt-Besserat, When Writing Met Art (Austin, 2007); J. Cooper, “Babylonian Beginnings: The Origin of the Cuneiform Writing System in Comparative Perspective,” in S. Houston ed., The First Writing: Script Invention as History and Process (Cambridge, 2004), pp. 71-99.
_A decisive clue is provided by Mesopotamian artworks, wherein images of “sun-like” objects are commonplace in the earliest periods
____(4000-2000 BCE). ...16
_#16 Adapted from B. Teissier, Egyptian Iconography on Syro-Palestinian Cylinder Seals of the Middle Bronze Age (Fribourg, 1996), figure 111.
_Commonly known by the name UD.GAL.NUN after the writing of the god Enlil’s name in the system, it is attested already during the Fara period
____(2600 BCE) and apparently persisted for thousands of years. ...33
_#33 I. Finkel, “Strange Byways in Cuneiform Writing,” in A. de Voogt & I. Finkel eds., The Idea of Writing (Leiden, 2010), pp. 11-12.
_As evidence for the claim that the rebus principle best explains the semantic range associated with the logogram TI, scholars point to an archaic text from Jemdet Nasr
____([c.] 3000 BCE) wherein the god Enlil is mentioned alongside an arrow. ...54
_#54 J. Bottéro, Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods (Chicago, 1992), pp. 79-81.

A Tribute to David Letterman ... ribute.pdf
_The fact that the double bull appears already on predynastic artworks
____(circa 3100 BCE) suggests that its function in the Pyramid and Coffin Texts is that of a pictograph conveying important information regarding a familiar—and visible—phenomenon in the skies overhead (see figure four).42
_#42 Visual Encyclopedia of Art: Egypt (Florence, 2009), p. 25.
_“Since the period of the Akkade Dynasty
____[c. 3300-3100 BC] (XXIV-XXII centuries BC), …the astral
symbol of Inanna (an eight-pointed star) was frequently found inscribed in a circle. Why? The answer is probably in some poetic texts of the New-Sumerian period
____[c. 2100-2000 BC] (XXIIXXI centuries BC); for example, in the hymn by Iddin-Dagan devoted to Inanna her shining in the night is compared with the light of day or the Sun…the attribute of being solar is transferred to Inanna, therefore the solar disk is becoming her symbol.”69
_#69 “The Identification of Inanna with the Planet Venus,” Astronomical and
Astrophysical Transactions 17 (1999), p. 508.
_Figure seven depicts a so-called “sun”-image from Mesopotamia, thought to originate from around
____2300 BCE.70
_#70 Adapted from L. Werr, Studies in the Chronology and Regional Style of Old Babylonian Cylinder Seals (Malibu, 1988), figure IV:4 (76a).
_Figure eight features a similar image from an Egyptian bowl dating to the predynastic period
____[c. 3500 BC] (circa mid-4th millennium BCE).71
_#71 Eva Wilson, Ancient Egyptian Designs (London, 1986), figure 8.

Suns and Planets in Neolithic Rock Art ... -rock-art/
_Indeed, it has since been shown that rock art is abundant upon all inhabited continents and spans a period of time measured in millennia (the paintings of Altamira and Lascaux are typically dated to
____ca. 10-20,000 BCE).3
_#3 See the discussion in A. Willcox, The Rock Art of Africa (Kent, 1984), pp. 1- 5.
_#5 On the age of these petroglyphs Anati writes: “The most ancient Valley carvings dealing with sun worship belong to the end of the Stone Age, to the
____[c. 2300 BC] second half of the third millennium BC. At that period the sun is drawn as an isolated disc; seldom is it accompanied by a person with hands upraised in an attitude of prayer, or by an abstract sign.” Anati, op. cit., p. 162.

The Queen of Heaven ... -Comet.pdf
_In strata conventionally dated to
____ca. 3000 BCE (Uruk IV-III), Inanna is already associated with various symbols that would become conspicuous in her later cult (the eight-pointed star and rosette, for example).
_The earliest literary texts from Mesopotamia date from the Early Old Babylonian period
____(ca. 2000-1800 BCE).2
_#2 J. Hayes, A Manual of Sumerian Grammar and Texts (Malibu, 2000), p. 394.
_The corpus of hymns allegedly composed by Enheduanna, a daughter of Sargon
____(ca. 2300 BCE) himself, is representative of this period and literary genre.
_One of the most important sources for reconstructing how the ancient Mesopotamians conceptualized the planet Venus is the so-called marriage hymn of Iddin-Dagan, the third king of the First Dynasty of Isin
____(ca. 1974-1954 BCE). ...14
_#14 Line 4 as translated in D. Reisman, Two New-Sumerian Hymns (1970), p. 166. Note: This was a dissertation presented to the University of Pennsylvania.
_In the most archaic texts from Uruk—conventionally attributed to roughly
____3300 BCE112
_#112 J. Glassner, The Invention of Cuneiform (Baltimore, 2003), p. 45.
_#123 For Joan Westenholz, “Goddesses of the Ancient Near East
____3000-1000 BC,” in L. Goodison & C. Morris eds., Ancient Goddesses (London, 1998), p. 73
_As early as Gudea’s reign
____(ca. 2150 BCE) ...161
_#161 Ibid., pp. 92-93. There Lambert writes: “The combination of these two animals to guard entrances thus attested in Gudea and Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon is a striking testimony to continuity in ancient Mesopotamia of the use of these creatures.”
_Unified under a common king as early as
____3000 BCE, Egyptian culture was characterized by its conservative nature....
_166 J. Assmann, The Mind of Egypt (Cambridge, 2002), p. 19 writes: “The unchanging fundamentals of its symbolic meaning-world extend across a a period of three and a half thousand years, from 3200 B.C.E. to 300 C.E. This unbroken unity and sense of unchanging collective identity is surely without parallel.”
_This antiquity, coupled with an extensive corpus of religious texts dating to as early as
____2350 BCE, makes Egypt a perfect testing ground....
_In the so-called hymns to the royal crown from the Middle Kingdom
____(ca. 1600 BCE) the uraeus-goddess features prominently.
_#174 A. Erman, Hymnen an das Diadem der Pharaohen (Berlin, 1911), p. 28. Translation by A. Roberts, Hathor Rising (Devon, 1995), p. 8.
_Attested in rock art from the
____[c. 3500 BC] fourth millennium BCE (see figure five), the Red Crown is distinguished by the curious “coil” spiraling upwards from the crown....188
_#188 M. Betrò, Hieroglyphics (New York, 1996), p. 194.
_... by the time of Unis’s Pyramid
____(ca. 2350 BCE)....
_... the god Horus, already identified with a star in the
____third millennium BCE....
_In the Early Dynastic Period
____(ca. 3000-2600 BCE), Horus is explicitly identified as a star. ...16
_#16 E. Hornung, Idea Into Image (Princeton, 1992), p. 158.
_Additional information regarding the star-god Horus is to be found in the Pyramid Texts
dating from roughly a half millennium later
____(ca. 2300 BCE).

The Primeval Hill ... s/Hill.pdf
_Horus is invoked as the “Lord of Appearances” in an inscription from King Userkaf’s mortuary temple dating from around
____2500 BCE....48
_#48 T. Allen, Horus in the Pyramid Texts (Chicago, 1916), p. 18, citing PT 7 and 8.
_The solar cult reached its greatest heights during the New Kingdom
____(1500-1200 BCE).

The Ladder-to-Heaven ... heaven.pdf
_... the war-god is linked to the ladder-to-heaven during the Kassite period as well
____(ca. 1500-1200 BCE).

Posts: 5280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Thu Aug 25, 2022 3:34 pm


Some of the following is re-edited from previous posts.


I recently posted PROOF OF SEDIMENTARY ROCK AGES at https://cataclysmicearthhistory.substac ... -rock-ages There I concluded that sedimentary rock is likely not much more than 5,000 years old. Yesterday I posted EVIDENCE AGAINST CONVENTIONAL DATING METHODS at https://cataclysmicearthhistory.substac ... ng-methods. There I quoted from "The lava dome at Mount St Helens debunks dating methods" at as follows.
"_In June of 1992, Dr Austin collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome [of Mt. St. Helens]. A portion of this sample was crushed and milled into a fine powder. Another piece was crushed and the various mineral crystals were carefully separated out. The ‘whole rock’ rock powder and four mineral concentrates were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA — a high-quality, professional radioisotope-dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that ‘low argon’ should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and was only 10 years old.
"_The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. What do we see? First and foremost that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method. Probably some argon-40 was incorporated into the rock initially, giving the appearance of great age. Note also that the results from the different samples of the same rock disagree with each other.
"_It is clear that radioisotope dating is not the ‘gold standard’ of dating methods, or ‘proof’ for millions of years of Earth history. When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably. The lava dome at Mount St Helens is not a million years old! At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old. In this case we were there — we know! How then can we accept radiometric-dating results on rocks of unknown age? This challenges those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating....
"__Table 1. Potassium-argon ‘ages’ for whole rock and mineral concentrate samples from the lava dome at Mount St Helens (from Austin1 ).
Sample Age / millions of years
1 Whole rock 0.35 ± 0.05
2 Feldspar, etc. 0.34 ± 0.06
3 Amphibole, etc. 0.9 ± 0.2
4 Pyroxene, etc. 1.7 ± 0.3
5 Pyroxene 2.8 ± 0.6
"_Posted on homepage: 11 May 2006
"_References and notes
1. Austin, S.A., Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano, J. Creation 10(3):335–343, 1996.
2. Potassium-40 also decays into calcium-40 as well as argon-40. This can be allowed for because the ratio of argon to calcium production is known."


_The Ukrainian experiments described on page 399 [ ... 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


AGM2015: Antineutrino Global Map 2015
_This map shows global radiation almost entirely from natural uranium and thorium decay.
_Flux units are antineutrinos/cm^2/second (ANCS) at the Earth’s surface. Map includes antineutrinos of all energies.
.The map shows that the oceans radiate the least ~10^8.1 ANCS.
.The Arctic Ocean and ocean waters near continents radiate ~10^8.33 ANCS.
.Antarctica and continental margins radiate ~10^8.51 ANCS.
.Australia, Africa, South America and Greenland radiate ~10^8.63 ANCS.
.Much of interior Eurasia and North America radiate ~10^8.7 ANCS.
.Much of the Himalayas, the Alps and eastern U.S. radiate ~10^8.8 ANCS.

_So the oceans radiate ~125 million ANCS and the continents radiate ~400 million ANCS, ~3 times as much as the oceans.

_The Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans seem to radiate about the same amount of ANCS, so the continents sliding over the Moho during the Pangaea breakup event don't seem to have increased the amount of radioactivity on the new ocean floors.

_Where the India plate slid partly under the Asia plate and raised up the Himalayas, the additional layer of crust appears to have increased the amount of ANCS radiation. Since the Alps also have increased ANCS radiation, perhaps they were raised up by part of the Africa plate sliding partly under the Europe plate.

_Mike Fischer and Charles Chandler figured that the supercontinent Pangaea formed from a large asteroid, part of which also possibly formed the Moon. The asteroid must have made a fairly soft landing and became semimolten, flattening out like a pancake about 35 km or 20 miles thick.
_Earth's former crust apparently had lower radioactivity, but the asteroid had 3 times as much.

_If the Moon radiates about the same amount of ANCS as Earth's continents, I think it's a good bet that it was part of the asteroid that formed Pangaea.

__EARTH WAS NEVER MOLTEN (from previous post at ... =180#p2135) ... wp37558235
_"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." Or it wasn't molten long enough for the heavy elements to sink far.
_And at least the supercontinent was never entirely molten, or not for long.

_Thorium, uranium, and potassium show a strong concentration towards the surface of the Earth and are enriched in the continental crust. The abundance of thorium, uranium and potassium can be estimated by two independent methods; a physical method based on heat-flow data, and a geochemical method based on geological premises. These estimates differ by a factor of two (Table 1). The estimates for the heat-flow data are from Clark and Ringwood1, and are based on a 37-km-thick two-layer crust. The upper layer is 16 km thick, resting on a layer 21 km thick. Calculations of the concentrations of thorium, uranium and potassium within each layer for different heat flows are given in Table 2. It is noteworthy that the concentrations of the radioactive elements in the 16-km layer in regions with high heat flow are comparable with the geochemical estimates made on the basis of the new abundance data by Clark et al.2. The concentrations calculated for the lower layer are similar to those in basalts. This could indicate that this layer has a basaltic composition. How ever, metamorphic processes, including generation of granite magma, and the cycling of elements within the crust could also account for the low concentrations of radioactive elements in the deep crust3–5. These processes would result in a more mafic average composition of the lower crust as compared with the higher crust3–8. There is also some indication5 that high-grade metamorphic rocks, especially those of granulite facies, have lower concentrations of thorium and uranium than magmatic rocks of comparable chemical composition, so that the upward concentration of thorium and uranium in the crust could be more marked than that of potassium.

Natural Radioactivity in the Geologic Environment ... nviron.pdf
_Relative Original Occurrence of Radioactive Elements in Rocks
_Common: Granite; Shale; Bedded Phosphate; Coal
(One type of granitic rock in which radioactive minerals are particularly common is the very coarse-grained variety known as pegmatite.)
_Occasional: Andesite; Conglomerate; Sandstone; Slate>Gneiss; Metaconglomerate
_Rare: Basalt; Limestone; Bedded Gypsum/Salt; Quartzite; Marble

_"Studying the composition of oxygen isotopes in these zircon crystals revealed a 'top-down' process starting with the melting of rocks near the surface and progressing deeper, consistent with the geological effect of giant meteorite impacts," explained geologist Tim Johnson of Curtin University in Australia.
_The research team carefully analyzed isotopes of oxygen; specifically, the ratios of oxygen-18 and oxygen-16, which have 10 and 8 neutrons, respectively. These ratios are used in paleogeology to determine the formation temperature of the rock in which the isotopes are found.
_The first stage is the formation of a large proportion of zircons consistent with partial melting of the crust. This partial melting, the researchers show, was likely the result of bombardment by meteorites, which heated the planetary crust on impact.
_The oldest cluster of these zircons, according to the team's interpretation ... was the result of a single giant impact that led to the formation of the craton.
_The second stage was a period of reworking and stabilization of the crustal nucleus,
_... followed by the third stage – a period of melting and granite formation.


_Anton Petrov discussed the same paper in a video at . At just before the 8 minute mark he indicates that the paper claims that impacts began to break up the supercontinent.
_This somewhat supports Mike Fischer's model of the Pangaea breakup at
_It also tends to confirm the 2013 article "Large cratonic basins likely of impact origin" by Michael J. Oard at in which he says impacts formed cratonic basins and thinned the crust in those locations and along with a thinned crust, the Moho, the boundary between the crust and mantle, is commonly raised, filling in the underside of the thinned crust.

Posts: 5280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Thu Sep 01, 2022 3:52 am



I made a substack post at https://cataclysmicearthhistory.substac ... reat-flood . There's no real content there yet. Instead, I put a bunch of flood-related links in the first Comment post, so it'll be easy to find each relevant post. I'd like to be able to post links in my main posts there, but I have to insert the links by hand there, whereas in the comments the links are inserted automatically, like here at TB.

It looks like it's going to take a lot of work to sort out what I want from all of the linked posts. And I still need to add more relevant posts from the last 2 pages of this thread.

I don't know if this procedure is going to work out, but I'll try it out for a while and maybe I'll have more confidence in it before long. I do like my first few posts that are finished at


Hopefully, as I keep working on this stuff, it will become clearer whether the Pangaea breakup occurred
during the latter stage of the Great Flood, or if it occurred several centuries after the Flood, or sometime in between.

It would be great to get collaborators to work on this project with me, if someone can help dig up promising clues.

Another major uncertainty is when the Saturn System became prominent in the sky and when Saturn left the system and was replaced by Jupiter and when Jupiter and the others left.

If the Pangaea breakup occurred during the Great Flood, the Saturn Golden Age must have been before the Flood, since the Ice Age occurred after the Flood. Then Jupiter might have reigned after the Flood, until the Younger Dryas events. And the remaining planets might have left after the YD. Otherwise, if Pangaea broke up centuries after the Great Flood, the Golden Age might have been after the Great Flood and ended with the Pangaea breakup Flood. And Jupiter might then have reigned after the latter Flood again till the YD events. Here's a diagram.

#1. D.A. ... S.G.A. ... <GF+PB> ... J.I.A. ... <YD> ... B.A.
#2. D.A. ... <GF> ... S.G.A. ... <PB> ... J.I.A. ... <YD> ... B.A.

(DarkAge, SaturnGoldenAge, GreatFlood, PangaeaBreakup, JupiterIceAge, YoungerDryas, BronzeAge)

Posts: 5280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Fri Sep 02, 2022 3:48 am



See my paper here: https://cataclysmicearthhistory.substac ... reat-flood
These are the topics contents so far.
More Evidence for the Great Flood

Posts: 5280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Sun Sep 04, 2022 9:44 pm



The Morrison Formation is known for containing a lot of dinosaur fossils. This site has this image with the Morrison Formation ... cross1.gif . In W. Colorado under the Morrison Formation, it shows Stump Formation, Entrada Sandstone, Carmel Formation, Glen Canyon Sandstone, Chinle Formation, Moenkopi Formation, Park City Formation, Weber Sandstone & Morgan Formatin at the bottom above basement rock.

This PDF for Wyoming shows below Morrison: Triassic, Permian, Mississippian, Devonian and Ordovician, Ordovician, Cambrian, PreCambrian (basement).

This shows the Morrison extending partly under W. Kansas, maybe at the edge of a basin or two. ... _251953851

This shows similar Australia Dinosaur Strata ... 51-gr2.jpg from this site: ... 7X14001051


Other strata covered over the Morrison Formation in most places, it looks like. But yet other strata also preceded the Morrison strata. So how did the dinosaurs end up on top of all those lower strata? Nearly all of the strata were deposited by the Great Flood. Here's a 2009 creationist article on dinosaur tracks: .
_It says, "Scientists have described a trackway of a theropod dinosaur beautifully preserved in soft mud, now turned to stone, within Lower Jurassic strata at St George in south-western Utah, USA (figure 1).1 As well as leaving a trail of footprints, they report the dinosaur left intermittent tail drags, and in one place sat in the mud and left impressions of both of its hands, its feet, its tail, and its buttocks.2 The tracks were found in the Whitmore Point Member of the Moenave Formation at the Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnson Farm, St George."
_A tsunami must have deposited the lower strata first. The dinosaurs must have been on higher ground when the strata were deposited. The strata must have dried out a little and became hardened enough to support the weight of theropod dinosaurs of 300 to 400 pounds. Something caused these dinosaurs to move back to this area from the higher ground. It's possible that the ground level was changing too, because of impacts and isostacy. The dinosaur tracks were covered with sediments that eroded easily.
_It continues, [There is] "obvious evidence of huge watery catastrophe recorded by the fossils and the rocks. The Whitmore Point Member is a 20-m-thick deposit of mudstone, shale and sandstone strata, and has abundant horizons containing dinosaur trackways (figure 2), including tracks of theropods that were larger and smaller than the ones described in the report.3 The strata also contain clawmark tracks, indicating times when the animals were swimming in deep water and just managing to scratch their claws along the sand on the bottom.4 The sediment beds are also packed with body fossils including megaplants, sharks, lungfish, coelacanths, ray-finned fish, crustaceans, clams and dinosaur remains. To preserve such an abundance of body fossils and footprints requires rapid sedimentation in order to prevent the degradation processes that would normally destroy them."
_So there must have been a high tide that came along to finish them off some days or weeks after the earlier tidal wave or tsunami. It had to be a gentle enough rise of water to avoid washing away the tracks. Once the water was a few meters deep a tsunami must have dropped the next layers of sediment. Many dinosaurs probably were able to swim or float for quite a while. It probably required a huge breaking or crashing wave to bury and quickly suffocate them.


Dinosaur fossils carbon-date to between 20 & 40 thousand years of age. Mike Fischer's following table is from
The Data: Carbon-14 in dinosaur bones

Dinosaur Lab/Method/Fraction C-14 Years BP Date USA
(a) ....... (b,c,d) (Before Present) State
Acro ...... GX-15155-A/Beta/bio >32,400 11/10/1989 TX
Acro ...... GX-15155-A/AMS/bio 25,750 + 280 06/14/1990 TX
Acro ...... AA-5786/AMS/bio-scrapings 23,760 + 270 10/23/1990 TX
Acro ...... UGAMS-7509a/AMS/bio 29,690 + 90 10/27/2010 TX
Acro ...... UGAMS-7509b/AMS/bow 30,640 + 90 10/27/2010 TX
Allosaurus UGAMS-02947/AMS/bio 31,360 + 100 05/01/2008 CO
Hadrosaur #1 KIA-5523/AMS/bow 31,050 +-230 10/01/1998 AK
Hadrosaur #1 KIA-5523/AMS/hum 36,480 +-550 10/01/1998 AK
Triceratops #1 GX-32372/AMS/col 30,890 + 200 08/25/2006 MT
Triceratops #1 GX-32647/Beta/bow 33,830 +-2500 09/12/2006 MT
Triceratops #1 UGAMS-04973a/AMS/bio 24,340 + 70 10/29/2009 MT
Triceratops #2 UGAMS-03228a/AMS/bio 39,230 + 140 08/27/2008 MT
Triceratops #2 UGAMS-03228b/AMS/col 30,110 + 80 08/27/2008 MT
Hadrosaur #2 GX-32739/Beta/ext 22,380 + 800 01/06/2007 MT
Hadrosaur #2 GX-32678/AMS/w ......... 22,990 + 130 04/04/2007 MT
Hadrosaur #2 UGAMS-01935/AMS/bio 25,670 + 220 04/10/2007 MT
Hadrosaur #2 UGAMS-01936/AMS/w 25,170 + 230 04/10/2007 MT
Hadrosaur #2 UGAMS-01937/AMS/col 23,170 + 170 04/10/2007 MT
Hadrosaur #3 UGAMS-9893/AMS/bio 37,660 + 160 11/29/2011 CO
Apatosaur UGAMS-9891/AMS/bio 38,250 + 160 11/29/2011 CO


JP had argued that the Earth and Universe were created in 6 24-hour days. But I hadn't previously thought of a statement in the Bible that undermines that idea. The statement is an early verse of Genesis that warned Adam and Eve that they would die on the day that they would eat of the forbidden fruit. This site says, "Progressive creationist Dr. Hugh Ross ... argues that the [early church] fathers believed that the days of Genesis were a thousand years in length [each] and not 24 literal hours.(7) Ross cites two writers in support of his position: Justin Martyr and Irenaeus of Lyons. ... Both of these early Christian writers argue that because Adam was told that he would die on the day that he sinned, therefore he lived for less than a thousand years which is a day in the Lord’s sight (cf. Psalm 90:4)." This would mean that creation may have lasted 6,000 years, although I don't argue that myself. I don't know or care if there was a creation or not. I don't understand time well either.

Posts: 5280
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Wed Sep 07, 2022 8:43 pm



Two date range options for Noah’s Flood (2017) ... 20-127.pdf
_Most creation scientists use and defend the MT for biblical chronology “because the other texts show evidence of editing.”36 [36. Sarfati, J., Biblical chronogenealogies, J. Creation 17:14–18, 2003; .]
_However, Sexton and Smith (2016) recently used at least 11 arguments in favour of the superiority of the LXX for the Genesis 5 and particularly the Genesis 11 chronologies.37 [37. Sexton, J. and Smith, H.B., Primeval chronology restored: revisiting the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, Bible and Spade 29:42–49, 2016.]
_[Here are their 11 arguments.]
1. A vast majority of pre-Reformation Christians endorsed the Septuagint chronology.
2. No known pre-second century history uses the MT timeline.
3. MT-defenders’ long-held speculation that LXX translators inflated patriarchal ages to conform it to Egyptian chronologies has no evidential basis. The LXX actually shows no such trend elsewhere in its text, and the copyists of that time (third century bc) were held accountable to precision record-keeping.
4. The odds that separate scribes independently inflated Genesis 11 numbers in the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch to exactly the same ages are unbelievable. That they were translated from a reliable original Hebrew source long ago better explains their identical numbers, shown in table 1.
5. Jewish historians from about 200 BC to 100 AD, including most of Josephus’ numbers, referenced the LXX chronology.
6. Five ancient texts fit a trend of Jewish scribal chronological deflations, not inflations.
7. The earliest witness to the MT chronology occurs in the Seder Olam Rabbah, which severely reduced post-exilic chronology in order to disqualify Jesus as the Messiah that Daniel 9:6 foretold.
8. The earliest witness to the MT chronology thus postdates the earliest witness to the longer LXX chronology by four centuries.
9. The MT Genesis 5 numbers fit the hypothesis that systematic chronological reduction ensured that no antediluvian patriarchs lived beyond the Flood, and yet the numbers for Noah, Shem, and Terah remained unaltered since they meshed with other chronological statements.
10. If Eber was still alive and twice Abraham’s 175-year age at death, as per the MT, then why does Genesis 25:8 say that Abraham “died in a good old age, an old man and full of years”? Rather, the LXX numbers show Eber passed away four centuries before Abraham’s death.
11. The Pharisees generally believed that the Messiah would arrive during the sixth millennium after creation. They marshalled the few remaining Scriptures available to them after Bar Kochba revolt in 132–136 AD to finalize the MT. This moment in history could have enabled their alteration of Genesis 11 and 5 to shrink the world’s chronology enough to discredit Jesus as the sixth millennium Messiah, without accountability.
_The longer chronology has a few more advantages. Geologist Steve Austin has counted Dead Sea sediment laminae and correlated specific seismites with biblical earthquakes at Jerusalem.38,39 If the laminae below these also represent annual deposits, then they extend beyond the MT-supplied number of post-Flood years. Also, the LXX’s additional Noah-to-Abraham years offer more time to accommodate archaeologically attested Mesopotamian periods from before the Tower of Babel.
__Table 1. Age at begetting of post-Flood patriarchs, plus Noah, from three textual traditions
[LXX=Septuagint c. 300 BC, MT=Masoretic c. 135 AD?, SP=Peshita c. 150 AD]
Noah 500 500 500
Shem 100 100 100
Arphaxad 135 35 135
[Cainan] [130] – –
Shelah 130 30 130
Eber 134 34 134
Peleg 130 30 130
Reu 132 32 132
Serug 130 30 130
Nahor 79 29 79
Terah 70 70 70
Flood to Terah's first born Sum: 1070 292 940

__THE BIBLE DATES THE FLOOD TO 4,500 OR 5,200 YEARS AGO. Two date range options for Noah’s Flood, Brian Thomas ... 20-127.pdf
_"Finally, two BC date estimates for the Flood, include a Masoretic placement between 2518 and 2532 bc, and a Septuagint placement circa 3168 bc." ... =360#p3472
_[Brigit said:] "There are two different dates for the global deluge. The reason is that there are different numbers given in the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, plus Josephus. I am persuaded that the correct date of the Second Deluge of Gen 6 was +-3300 BC following the Septuagint and mentioned by Josephus." ... =360#p3489
__BIBLICAL CATACLYSMS. Brigit mentioned some or all of them. 1. "Creation"; 2. Great Flood; 3. Tower of Babel event; 4. Sodom and Gomorrah event. To that I add the Younger Dryas event, which may be the same as the Flood event. I mean the Septuagint and Masoretic versions may have dated two different Floods, the Great Flood of 3200 BC and the Younger Dryas Flood of 2500 BC. ... =390#p3791
_[JP said:] "The LXX is incorrect (as is the Samaritan pentateuch). If you want to accept the LXX dating, then you are left with the absurdity that Methuselah lived 14 years after the Deluge, and an obviously incorrect recount that there were 8 people on the ark (Gen. 7:7). The LXX does not touch this verse, leaving it as a fairly literal rendering of the Hebrew: εἰσῆλθεν δὲ Νωε καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ καὶ αἱ γυναῖκες τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν κιβωτὸν διὰ τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ κατακλυσμοῦ. This is reiterated in Gen. 7:13: ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ταύτῃ εἰσῆλθεν Νωε, Σημ, Χαμ, Ιαφεθ, υἱοὶ Νωε, καὶ ἡ γυνὴ Νωε καὶ αἱ τρεῖς γυναῖκες τῶν υἱῶν αὐτοῦ μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν κιβωτόν. And again in the New Testament (2 Pet. 2:5). 8 people, not 9. ... Their reasoning is explained clearly here and here." [ and ]
_The first of these two links actually says: "The Flood probably occurred between 2600 BC and 2300 BC, but certainly between 3386 BC and 2256 BC (table 5)."


_I had previously thought that maybe the Septuagint dated the Great Flood at c. 3300 BC and the Masoretic dated a second Flood at c. 2500 BC. But now I think it's evident that the Masoretic was intentionally misdating the first Flood. JP's argument that the Septuagint misdates Methuselah is probably right, but the 11 above arguments for the Septuagint seem to me to outweigh that one opposing argument. My guess is that Methuselah's year of birth or death was misstated in the Septuagint. Of the 11 pro-Septuagint arguments above, 1 through 7 and 11 are easy to understand, but 8, 9 & 10 are not easy for me. Number 11 is the argument that seems the strongest, i.e. because the Masoretes seem to have had a strong motive to intentionally alter the original text.
_So I think the Great Flood likely did occur c. 3300 BC. But it's still not clear if Pangaea broke up during the Flood or centuries later, which would have also involved major flooding. There surely was another Flood at the time of the Younger Dryas impacts when impacts caused the ice sheet to melt catastrophically and that event was likely around 2500-2200 BC. 2200 BC seems to be when Enheduanna, a priestess of Inanna/Venus, indicated having observed Venus pour poison on the land of Sumer.


_I saw a couple interesting videos about the Great Flood yesterday and I wrote notes this morning. The video channel is called Is Genesis History? at . The videos I've seen there so far aren't real preachy. Their science seems to be excellent, far superior to mainstream geology. Not that their science is perfect. They have a strong bias toward conventional Christian interpretation of the Bible, acting as if they worship it as an infallible God. The two video partial titles & links are: 1. Fossils of Hollow Trees at ; and 2. Huge Layers of Coal at

Fossils of Hollow Trees
_Walking on a trail by an extensive rocky bluff, apparently in the Smokey Mountains of Tennessee, they look up to the side of the bluff at a hole in the rock with the imprint of a horizontal log that decayed soon after the rock formed, leaving the hole where the log was. The hole is right in the middle of some convoluted bedding, or crossbedding.
_The whole cliff is not in its original place. It slid down from above. The same cliff continues on the other side of the valley. The whole thing slid down into this valley. The valley was cut out very rapidly. This was in the Arphaxadian Epoch, directly after the Flood. But the rocks contain within them material from the Flood itself. No organism was able to survive in this sediment as it was deposited.
_Halfway up this cliff is a blotchy pattern about 6 feet thick between a layer above and a layer below. It's seismite, which is rock formed from soft sediment in a huge earthquake. As an earthquake shockwave moves through sediment, it deforms the sediment and drives water out. Normal earthquakes produce seismites about an inch thick. A huge earthquake, like the 1964 Anchorage, Alaska earthquake, about 8.2 Richter scale, can make seismites a foot thick. But this seismite is 6 feet thick and must have been made by a much greater earthquake, such as would be caused by large meteor impacts. The seismite was 6 feet of sand deposited very rapidly and then hit by a huge earthquake. (Seismite images: )
_There are crossbeds in this cliff, which was sand carried in the flood water and deposited in front of dune-like deposits. The crossbeds all face one way showing the flood was moving from east to west. This formation extends from Alabama to Pennsylvania. A lens in the stratum shows that a mass of material was sliding downward into a pile, which means the stratum was being uplifted toward the east where the Appalachian Mountains formed. The mountains formed rapidly and flood water was pouring over the mountains, knocking off the tops and carrying the debris into this stratum, depositing the sand. The sand layer extends all the way across the continent. Sand from the Smokey Mountains is found in the Grand Canyon. (Crossbedding images: -- Crossbed articles: ... )
_There are tens of thousands of feet of sediment in the rock layers in Tennessee. Some of the crossbedded stratum contains oolitic pentremites in dolomite a few hundred feet thick in which caves formed. The same unit is also in the Grand Canyon known as Redwall limestone. And the unit extends up to Montana tens of thousands of feet thick. It has caves in it such as Cave of the Winds near Colorado Springs. The unit contains fossils from the ocean such as pieces of coral, which grow only on solid rock surfaces, but which are found in lithified carbonate mud in the stratum. Simultaneous with the Flood were extreme earthquakes (as if Earth was being hit by asteroids) and mountain uplift.
_Pebbles in the stratum 3/4ths inches thick were moved by water flowing 1-2 meters per second. The two-foot diamter logs shown by imprints in the stratum must have been moving at that speed too. Water can't move slowly and carry pebbles. Tens of feet of sediment were being deposited at a time. The surface speed of the water must have been about 200 miles per hour.
_The log imprints came from trees growing before the Flood. There must have been trillions of trees floating on the Flood waters. Mount St. Helens provides an example. During the eruption, the waters of Spirit Lake washed up onto the mountain side and washed down trees, resulting in a million logs floating on Spirit Lake. Most eventually got water-logged and sank, but a quarter million logs are still floating after 35 years. The antediluvian world was apparently more lush than today. These were a different kind of trees, called lycopods, which were hollow and had rhizomes, instead of roots. Lycopod forests floated on water. During the Flood, they became floating log mats. The turbulence knocked off the bark which then sank to the bottom of the Flood waters and turned into coal.

Huge Layers of Coal
_Dayton, TN
_In this coal mine on the ceiling are imprints of lycopod logs in shale instead of sandstone. Atop the shale is a coal seam with very flat top and bottom. The lycopod log mat sank over time to form a layer of bark and rhizomes. The coal wasn't formed in swamps. Swamp debris doesn't contain identifiable bark & rhizome pieces and doesn't form flat tops & bottoms. Coal seams are interlayered with thin seams of shale. The log mats must have dropped layers of bark, then moved away by wind while a thin layer of clay deposited. In the Illinois basin this cycle repeated 120 times.
_Nautiloid beds are in a lime mud, which flowed fast enough over the bottom of a body of water that it hydroplaned, without disturbing the layer of sediment under it. The shale seams in coal beds formed similarly and sometimes contain fossils, mostly marine fossils from the ocean. This coal seam extends from Canada to under the Gulf of Mexico and from Missouri to Russia. The plants and pollen and animals in the coal are the same throughout the entire continent-wide coal bed.
_It only takes minutes to form most rocks from mineral powders under high heat and pressure. It took longer to form rocks at lower temperatures. The slowest forming rock Kurt made was coal, which took 3 or 4 weeks at about the boiling point of water. Putting only plant material into an oven never forms coal. In order to form coal, plants need a catalyst such as clay, i.e. montmorillonite, ilmenite, etc. When coal is burned, it leaves an unburnable ash, which is one of these clay catalysts. They come from volcanic ash, the fallout from volcanic eruptions.

_These two videos are also interesting to me. After the Global Flood at ... 3g&index=4 and The Extraordinary 4-Dimensional Design of DNA at


User avatar
Posts: 1068
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Brigit » Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:32 am

Hi Lloyd,

I see you have been working on the puzzle of the different dates given in the Masoritic Text and the Septuagint. Very interesting !

You have a very informative thread and I wish I was able to drop by more. -- It is as if you haven't changed in the last decade in your pursuit, which I just love.

Regarding the planet's surface features, I think that everything was formed right where it is.

So that is why I thought it best to stay out of this thread, which might better be named, "Catastrophic Break-up of the Supercontinent" or something like that. This thread is completely devoted to that view.

But if you don't mind, I would like to give you an important bit of research which addresses the Methuselah problem, and supports the Septuagint/Josephus date of the flood (+/-3300 BC).
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests