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.
Lloyd
Posts: 5416
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Tue Sep 13, 2022 12:35 am

Go ahead, Brigit. I don't mean to suppress anyone's input. I just now noticed your post, or I would have consented immediately when you posted, as if anyone needs my consent.

You said:
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).

Lloyd
Posts: 5416
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Thu Sep 15, 2022 2:26 am

206388

SEPTUAGINT COMMENTS?

Hopefully, Brigit will return to submit her comments on the Septuagint Old Testament.
In this post on the previous page https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... =690#p7710
I used these headlines:
SEPTUAGINT FLOOD DATE BETTER THAN MASORETIC
THREAD REVIEW OF SEPTUAGINT
CONCLUSION: MASORETIC DID NOT DATE A SECOND FLOOD -- FLOOD 3300 BC
To explain that conclusion, it seemed to me that the Masoretic Old Testament, which was written much later than the Septuagint, removed several spans of time from the Septuagint in an effort to dissuade their fellow Jews from accepting Christianity. J.P. had said that the Septuagint's dating of Methuselah implies that he lived several years after the Flood, which would contradict the story of Noah's family of 8 being the only survivors. Maybe that's what Brigit wanted to address.

PANGAEA

_ATLANTIC. Brigit also said, "Regarding the planet's surface features, I think that everything was formed right where it is." My guess is that she means she subscribes to Wal Thornhill's theory that the Atlantic Ocean was carved out by an extremely large electric discharge. That would mean Pangaea was initially a larger landmass and that the land which was removed from the Atlantic Ocean basin ended up somewhere else. I think Thornhill speculated that the land was pulverized into a powder and spread mostly across much of the remaining surface of Pangaea. Dwardu Cardona was an engineer (but I don't know if he was an electrical engineer), but he considered Thornhill's theory rather radical.
_EROSION. Thornhill has also theorized that the Grand Canyon and Valles Marineris on Mars were carved by electric discharges. However, I've only found evidence of a Great Flood, Impacts, the supercontinent breakup, erosion and minor electric discharges near impacts. I don't think Ralph Juergens ever figured that Valles Marineris was carved electrically. He said the rilles on the Moon and Mars were formed electrically. I think he thought the craters were formed electrically too, but impacts producing thermonuclear explosions would also produce lightning-carved rilles, like it does sometimes on Earth, such as at Barringer crater and Vredefort or Manicougan or something.
_STRATA. Cardona agreed with me that the continents on opposite sides of the Atlantic would not have the same rock strata and fossils if land had been removed from the Atlantic basin. I tried to imagine all that land pulled up into the air and pulverized into powder by electric discharges and spread out across the remaining continents forming strata with fossils. If that happened, the first few dust strata would have buried all creatures and there would have been no creatures left for the upper strata. And the strata would not have formed megasequences, with sandy strata at the bottom of each sequence, shale in the middle and limey strata on top. Only tsunamis would do that. Berthault's Sedimentology.fr site shows his experiments that support that.
_FOSSILS. The fossils in the strata show signs of being buried in flood waters. Many show signs of drowning. The direction of flow of the current is observable and even the velocity of the flow. The Grand Canyon was formed at the edges of two former large lakes, so it's obvious that catastrophic release of those lakes eroded the Grand Canyon. Coal formed from floating hollow lycopod tree-forests in eastern North America and Europe which were destroyed by violently turbulent tsunamis. Coal in other locations formed from normal trees. The wood which sank to the bottom of floodwaters was only able to form coal because of clay catalysts from volcanic eruptions.
_BREAKUP. There is also abundant evidence that Pangaea broke up and the continents moved rapidly to their present locations, due to a large asteroid impact. People with bias don't bother to take too much evidence into consideration IMO. I think I've considered all sides in depth.

Lloyd
Posts: 5416
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Sat Sep 17, 2022 5:48 am

207010

GOOD NEW CATASTROPHIST VIDEO CHANNEL

It's called "Shattered History" at https://www.youtube.com/c/ShatteredHistory

The channel seems to be only 2 months old. I like that the videos show some reasons not to accept conventional dating. And they go into details about subjects that make it easier to connect the dots of ancient history. They make a good case that there was advanced megalithic civilization before what I think was the Younger Dryas Flood and that the YD Flood severely damaged those structures and left sediment on and around them, which was only in recent centuries cleared away in large part. And the megalithic tech seems to have been lost after the YD.

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY BEFORE THE GREAT FLOOD

Video #4, by my count below, describes ancient objects embedded in coal, concretions etc. The coal beds were certainly formed during the Great Flood. This is finally the evidence I've been looking for to prove that advanced tech existed before the Great Flood. Recently, I thought Noah's Ark was such evidence, but that soon turned out to be not the Ark. An iron pot and a brass bell were found in coal in two different places and times. The iron doesn't rust and the brass doesn't include zinc as today's brass does. The video says the atmosphere was different before the Flood when those objects were made. The atmosphere may have continued to be different until about the time of the YD event.

1. Buried Ancient Structures Around the World | Evidence of an Ancient Catastrophe or a Global Flood?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuvCTZ58TA4
_The structures were all initially covered with soil and other sediment, meaning they were probably buried by catastrophic flooding after the Great Flood had deposited sedimentary rock. I suspect the Younger Dryas event with glacial meltwater flooding deposited the sediment on the ancient structures.

2. Unexplained Ancient Ruins Found Deep Underwater - Evidence of an Ancient Cataclysm or Great Flood
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjmizeYZJHE

3. Ancient Armageddon: What Destroyed These Structures? | Calamities of the Distant Past
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8AOqKNNZkM
_Just after 18' it shows an image of the Pangaea breakup, suggesting that the breakup of the supercontinent caused earthquakes, tidal waves and flooding over 4,000 years ago which did severe damage to many advanced ancient megalithic structures worldwide. I think this megalithic catastrophe occurred during the Younger Dryas event almost a millennium after the Great Flood because all of these megalithic structures were likely built on top of the megasequences of sedimentary rock strata that were deposited during and maybe some centuries after the Great Flood. Of the six megasequences only the last or upper two, the Zuni and the Tejas at the top, were deposited in the Gulf of Mexico and some miles over the edges of some of the continents. That suggests that they were deposited after the Pangaea breakup, while the earlier megasequences were deposited before the breakup. The Younger Dryas event involved numerous impacts and catastrophic melting of the ice sheet. The YD impacts may have been sufficient to cause the earthquakes and tidal waves that damaged megalithic structures.

4. Anomalous Metal Artifacts - Ancient Advanced Metallurgical OOPArts | Why Were They Made, and How?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkAgRulSG-E
_At 14' it says carbonate in Flood water would have formed concretions around organic & other matter, such as the London, TX iron hammer, which has not rusted.
_HMMM. The objects found in coal and in sedimentary rock strata are definitely from before the Great Flood. So the advanced technology developed before the Flood and continued afterward for some centuries. The video says the atmosphere was different before the Flood than now.

5. Uncanny Similarities Between Ancient Megalithic Constructions | Advanced Stonemasonry Technologies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNYDjggbj8w&t=3s

6. Ancient Nanotechnology, Electrical Devices and Machinery | Remnants of Pre-Cataclysmic Technologies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZsQesBcxyg

7. Unfinished Ancient Projects | Abandoned Due to a Worldwide Catastrophe?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS-M7KuB7VU

User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Brigit » Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:12 pm

Thanks for doing the recap on the subject on the discrepancy of the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint for me, Lloyd. And I am running late -- I did not mean to hold up your thread !

My references for the Primitive Chronology come from Associates for Biblical Research at https://biblearchaeology.org/

I think they do a lot wonderful and exciting work. I especially love Bryant G. Wood PhD's re-examination of Kathleen Kenyon's archaeological digs at Jericho. They have a very good archaeological news page and a presence on youtube. And it is Henry B Smith Jr MA MAR who has meticulously worked out the Primitive Chronology, which has been an inspiration to me in understanding the correct date for a planetary cataclysm in c 3300 BC.

There is one problem with his papers. He prefaces his work by stating that in order to support the Septuagint chronology, he must provide the reason why the Masoretic Text has deflated numbers in those chapters. In other words, he claims he must have an explanation for who deflated the numbers, and why.

This is a fallacy: it is possible that there are reasons for the difference between the MT and the LXX which he is not able to perceive or understand at this moment in history. I regret that he asserts that rabbis deflated the numbers deliberately in order to turn people away from accepting Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. I feel he is wrong in hitching his scholarship to this unnecessary explanation. That is why I do not link to his papers directly. His work would be improved by stating that while he, Henry B Smith, has come to the conclusion the the rabbis altered the numbers in the MT in order to discourage the Messianic timeline (as it was popularly understood at the time), there may be other reasons for the differences between the two texts, which will come to light in the future.

Now as far as we are concerned on this thread, the time of the planetary chaos in the solar system would, I think, necessitate that there would be an entirely new way of keeping time post-deluge, after all there are entirely new conditions on the earth which are implied by the shortening lifespans (and arguably smaller flora and fauna) in the generations following the Deluge. How would one correlate the previous ways of keeping time with the new ways of keeping time? We do not know but it is obvious in the text that conditions on earth were radically different than they are now, and for some Catastrophists, that also entails a change in the earth's position in the solar system itself. So how do you count years in two different planetary orbits?
“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…”
~Homer

User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Brigit » Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:23 pm

With that having been said ! (:

METHUSELAH’S BEGETTING AGE IN GENESIS 5:25 AND THE PRIMEVAL CHRONOLOGY OF THE SEPTUAGINT
Author: Henry B Smith Jr MA MAR
Category: Biblical Chronologies
Created: 09 May 2019
We are pleased to announce the publication of a new article, "Methuselah’s Begetting Age in Genesis 5:25 and the Primeval Chronology of the Septuagint: A Closer Look at the Textual and Historical Evidence." This article appears in the 10th volume of the Answers Research Journal. It is excerpted here on the ABR website, and is now available for reading and download on the Answers in Genesis website.

Abstract

...The Greek Septuagint (LXX) yields a chronology for this era of 3394 years, 1386 years greater than the MT. In some LXX manuscripts of Genesis 5:25, Methuselah was 167 years old when he fathered Lamech, placing Methuselah’s death 14 years beyond the Deluge.

This obvious problem often leads to a swift dismissal of any possibility that the LXX might preserve the original begetting ages and remaining years of life for each named patriarch in Genesis 5 and 11. This article will examine this issue and advance four main points:

(1) the figure of 187 for Methuselah is original to the LXX translation and to Moses;

(2) the reading of 167 in certain manuscripts of the LXX is a scribal error which occurred early in its complex transmissional history;

(3) the appearance of 167 in some LXX manuscripts does not automatically negate the overall validity of the LXX’s primeval chronology; and

(4) numerous lines of historical and textual evidence suggest the young-earth creation community should remain open and willing to contemplate the strong likelihood that the primeval chronology of the LXX reflects most of the numbers that Moses originally recorded in Genesis 5 and 11.
“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…”
~Homer

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by JP Michael » Sat Sep 17, 2022 11:49 pm

Brigit wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 9:12 pmNow as far as we are concerned on this thread, the time of the planetary chaos in the solar system would, I think, necessitate that there would be an entirely new way of keeping time post-deluge, after all there are entirely new conditions on the earth which are implied by the shortening lifespans (and arguably smaller flora and fauna) in the generations following the Deluge. How would one correlate the previous ways of keeping time with the new ways of keeping time? We do not know but it is obvious in the text that conditions on earth were radically different than they are now, and for some Catastrophists, that also entails a change in the earth's position in the solar system itself. So how do you count years in two different planetary orbits?
I have been thinking about this for some time but it is impossible to prove.

How long was a pre-flood day? How long was a week? A month? A year? Almost every creationist society assumes they were the same as they are now, and I submit that is an unprovable assumption. But we also cannot prove how long they may have been due to lack of evidence, notwithstanding comparative attempts along the lines of Velikovsky's "360 day year" chapter.

I'll need to check the LXX mss evidence cited by Mr. Henry Smith in his article, if any.

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by JP Michael » Sun Sep 18, 2022 1:22 am

JP Michael wrote: Sat Sep 17, 2022 11:49 pm I'll need to check the LXX mss evidence cited by Mr. Henry Smith in his article, if any.
Thank you for bringing that article to my attention, Brigit. I am rather impressed by the detail of Mr. Smith's scholarship. I accept his evidence; 100% persuaded. MT chronology, as it pertains to Genesis 5 and 11, can go on the scrap heap, as can the evidence-free LXX inflation theory. MT chronology may still be relevant in other areas, but when it comes to Genesis 5 & 11, I think Mr. Smith's assertions are soundly backed up with solid reasoning and evidence. The LXX chronology is preferred. The Flood occurred in 3,300 BCE according to that textual tradition, and I now accept this date on reasonable grounds as the approximate time of that worldwide conflagration.

Lloyd
Posts: 5416
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Sun Sep 18, 2022 3:44 am

207400

SEPTUAGINT ACCEPTANCE

Hey, it looks like we all managed to come to an agreement on the probable approximate date of the Great Flood. Most Creationists seem to accept the Masoretic date still. Smith's article is from 2019 I take it. Looks like Creationists should have had plenty of time to read and comment on it by now. Do either of you know of any Creationists who are preferring the Septuagint date?

ADVANCED TECH BEFORE THE FLOOD?

Now do you want to comment on my last post regarding the "Shattered History" channel videos at https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... b394#p7824 ? Do you agree that the Flood deposited nearly all of the sedimentary rock strata, including coal beds? And do you accept that artifacts of advanced technology have been found within some lumps of coal? One was an iron pot made of iron that doesn't rust. One was a brass bell, mostly copper, that also doesn't "rust". Did you notice that the end of the handle of the bell depicts probably a god of India mythology? That would apparently mean that the Saturn Configuration was apparent before the Flood. Right? Do you two believe there was only one Great Flood, since the Bible supposedly makes that statement? To me it's obvious that there was another Flood later, i.e. during the Younger Dryas event, when the ice sheet melted and tsunamis occurred due to impacts. Megalithic structures around the world were damaged and covered with sediment as one of the above videos shows and some of the structures have salt incrustation from seawater. It has to be after the Great Flood, because the structures were built on sedimentary strata that were left by the Great Flood. The flooding likely didn't cover highlands, so it didn't flood everything, but Tiahuanaco is a puzzle like it was before for me, because I think it was built near sea level and then was raised up when Pangaea broke up and caused mountains to form. Got any comments?

User avatar
JP Michael
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2019 4:19 am

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by JP Michael » Sun Sep 18, 2022 11:31 am

Lloyd wrote: Sun Sep 18, 2022 3:44 amDo either of you know of any Creationists who are preferring the Septuagint date?
Barry Setterfield is one. He's also an ardent plasma cosmologist, but rejects, like me, the Saturnian hypothesis of the Thunderbolts group.

Here's one example of his writings on the Septuagint.
https://barrysetterfield.org/Septuagint_History.html

Re: other stuff.

I don't necessarily agree that all strata were laid down by The Flood. More work needs to be done with Andy Hall's hypersonic wind deposition theory (positively or negatively) before I'll accept the proposition that all rock strata are flood strata (I reject that warrant/generalisation); some strata may have been laid down by paroxysms subsequent to The Flood, and also by post-Flood hypersonic wind deposition which simply has not received any attention or research as a deposition mechanism.

I agree in your belief that there were significant cataclysmic events post-Flood (the Bible mentions at least 3 major ones: Sodom, Exodus, Conquest, and multiple significant ones, e.g. Judges 5; 1 & 2 Samuel passim; Isaiah 24-27; Joel 2; Habbakkuk 3; Psalms 18, 29, 97, 114, etc). I'll get back to compiling my full list of biblical references and post it in this thread. The geological and mythological effects of these post-Flood cataclysms are routinely ignored by creationist societies and all focus put exclusively on the Flood as sole cause of all global rock strata. I reject this latter view currently.

There's no way to know where iron objects in coal came from, whether from pre-Flood or post-Flood civilisations, without having first determined their strata as being Flood or post-flood deposited. I retain the possibility that some strata may have been deposited by more regional catastrophes post-Flood, e.g. during the Exodus cataclysm.

Lloyd
Posts: 5416
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:54 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Lloyd » Mon Sep 19, 2022 1:42 am

207599

OBJECTS IN COAL IN MEGASEQUENCES, FLOOD, EDM
JP said "I don't necessarily agree that all strata were laid down by The Flood. More work needs to be done with Andy Hall's hypersonic wind deposition theory....
... "There's no way to know where iron objects in coal came from, whether from pre-Flood or post-Flood civilisations, without having first determined their strata as being Flood or post-flood deposited. I retain the possibility that some strata may have been deposited by more regional catastrophes post-Flood, e.g. during the Exodus cataclysm."
_Are you familiar with the 6 megasequences of sedimentary rock strata? Creationists made maps of all 6 strata for North and South America and Africa. The maps show that only the last two megasequences covered the Gulf of Mexico and over the edges of the continents. This indicates that the Pangaea supercontinent broke up and opened up the Atlantic and Indian Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico before the last two megasequences were deposited. There seems to be good indication that the Great Flood continued after the breakup and deposited those last two megasequences. There are also some possible problems with that model, so that there may have been a few centuries of time elapsed before the last two megasequences. But the coal beds were deposited within those megasequences. Destroyed Lycopod forests formed the coal beds in the supercontinent interior and destroyed forests of modern trees formed coal beds elsewhere, such as in the U.S. northwest.
_There was flooding of the Great Pyramid and other ancient structures around the world which left a few feet of mud and sand, which were not so hard to remove by hand in the past few centuries. That flood did not completely cover the Great Pyramid. I believe all of those ancient structures were built on top of any of the 6 megasequences, so they had to come after the Great Flood. And the Exodus occurred centuries after the Great Pyramid was built. The Exodus catastrophe may have been a result of the Santorini eruption and it doesn't seem to have deposited rock strata, at least not over a wide area.
_I showed before that the flatirons of Colorado have normal rock strata under them, so there's no reason to believe that they weren't formed during the megasequences deposition, along with the Pangaea breakup that caused mountain uplift. If Andy Hall or anyone can't produce the features he theorizes in the lab, I seriously doubt that his model is realistic.
_Got comments?

SATURN/JUPITER SYSTEM PATH TO SOLAR SYSTEM

Since stars likely form from imploding interstellar filaments and since filaments are rather linear, it's plausible that the Sun and the planets were initially arranged in a linear formation with greater distances between each planet. The implosions caused them to form while also shrinking the distances between them like a stretched rubber band released and snapping together. Following are the angles between the Sun's equatorial plane and each of the planets' orbital planes. Except for Pluto, they're all within 7.2° of the Sun's equatorial plane. The gas giants are all about 6 to 7°. So that seems likely to be the plane they all came in on toward the Sun.
Body Sun's equator Axial tilt
1 Mercury 3.38° 0°
2 Venus.. 3.86° 177.4°
6 Saturn 5.51° 25.3°
4 Mars... 5.65° 25.2°
5 Jupiter 6.09° 3.1°
8 Neptune 6.43° 28.8°
7 Uranus 6.48° 97.8°
3 Earth.. 7.155° 23.5°
9 Pluto.. 11.88° 122.5°

FLOOD STARTED WITH HUGE LANDSLIDES ON CONTINENTAL EDGES

I watched a couple videos from Is Genesis History this morning and took the following notes.

Where is the Pre-Flood - Flood Boundary?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pWs6ibOJhs
_At 3'32" Preflood/Flood boundary at 5 discontinuities: Erosional, Age, Tectonic, Sedimentary, Paleontologic.
_At 13' shows a paleogeologic cross section of the southwestern U.S.
_Images from the video: https://ibb.co/SsQ3MT0
_At 29'45" breccias in the 60 Mile Formation were due to tectonics near the beginning of the Great Flood.
_At 31' strata under Mohave Desert are 8 km deep [where the edge of the continent was].
_At 31'35" the unconformity goes down through the Kingston Peak Formation of tectonic breccias.
_At 33'40" an Ediacaran fossil like a very rare sea pan probably from before the Great Flood.
_At 34'30" the Kingston Peak Formation is a submarine Landslide deposit. Upper Precambrian diamictites may be submarine Landslide deposits at the Preflood/Flood boundary.
_At 38'50" the Kingston Peak Formation is breccias over a kilometer thick from tectonic activity.

What was the World Like Before the Flood?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zMf_czmebQ
_At 24' stromatolites in the Mohave are thick covering over a kilometer and seem to be found in their original setting and so should be preFlood organisms.
_At 25' stromatolites form from tides moving in and out, so the Moon must have been preFlood.
_At 27' stromatolites in the Mohave can be a kilometer in size. In Russia they can be over 10 km in size.
_At 28'40" stromatolites were reef structures formed by bacteria.
_At 33' Kingston Peak Formation diamictites have flattened striated surfaces like from glaciation.
_At 45' the flattened striated surfaces are found to have formed from sturzstroms, an avalanche of rock over a billion metric tonnes falling over a kilometer, then exploding apart, but just inches, then moving horizontally over 100 mph then coming to a sudden stop with sand between the exploded rock parts. These diamictites are found in 12 places around the world, all formed at the same time from a catastrophic event.
_At 46' the diamictites are equatorial and oceanic.
_At 48'40" the diamictites are a mile thick, actually over 3 miles thick.
_At 50' huge boulders are in the diamictites. Some are a mile in diameter.
_At 54'40" these thick diamictites run through the middle of Australia and Asia and global of the same radiometric age.
_At 55' these avalanches were apparently caused by the preFlood collapse of the edges of the continents [or supercontinent?] worldwide.
_At 57' intruded into the diamictites are a few very thick diabase lavas.

POSSIBLE CONTRADICTION

The second video makes a good case that at least some of the many rock formations around the world with flattened striated surfaces, i.e. in the southwestern U.S. are due to huge landslides instead of glaciation. I found a world map of similar rock formations in a paper about Snowball Earth at https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1600983 . The maps are at https://www.science.org/cms/10.1126/sci ... 83-f4.jpeg . The formations near the west coast of North America seem to be possibly due to Landslides, but the others would have been in the interior of the supercontinent, so I don't know if they could be similar Landslides, since they aren't near the edge of the former supercontinent.

User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Genesis, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Brigit » Tue Sep 20, 2022 3:06 am

Lloyd says »
Wed Sep 14, 2022 7:26 pm
"PANGAEA_ATLANTIC. Brigit also said, "Regarding the planet's surface features, I think that everything was formed right where it is."
My guess is that she means she subscribes to Wal Thornhill's theory that the Atlantic Ocean was carved out by an extremely large electric discharge. That would mean Pangaea was initially a larger landmass and that the land which was removed from the Atlantic Ocean basin ended up somewhere else. I think Thornhill speculated that the land was pulverized into a powder and spread mostly across much of the remaining surface of Pangaea. Dwardu Cardona was an engineer (but I don't know if he was an electrical engineer), but he considered Thornhill's theory rather radical."


Lloyd, I think what you relayed is not quite correct.



Don't get me wrong, not a lot has been published on the Atlantic Abyss. But this is what has been said:

"There's no other body in the solar system with continents and oceanic type basins like the Earth. Each planet has its own story of electrical birth and the scars of interplanetary thunderbolts in order to achieve orbital harmony.

And I would suggest that the Earth probably suffered the massive ocean basin carving as a feature of its birth."

It is "a feature of its birth". That is, the abyss and the continents are very possibly the original structure of the earth's surface.

People who choose to start with a supercontinent as a starting point have done so arbitrarily, in my view. It is probably an artifact of the fit between some of the continents, and also a reliance on skidding plates to get mountains, and most of all, a result of the theory that earth was formed by some form of accretion.
“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…”
~Homer

jackokie
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by jackokie » Tue Sep 20, 2022 10:50 pm

@Brigit I remember that quite a while ago, around the time Plate Tectonics was getting some visibility (1966 or so), an article was published in Scientific American asserting as evidence not only the "jigsaw fit" between eastern South America and western Africa, but that geochemical analysis of the relative cratons indicated they were actually parts of the same rock before the archaic "supercontinent" broke apart.

The link below is to a study from 2019 using current findings to support that hypothesis. I have not read through the posts on this forum to see what evidence has been offered to contradict the theory of Plate Techtonics (no time); I just thought this was something you'd want to address if you had not already.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... f/download
Time is what prevents everything from happening all at once.

User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Brigit » Wed Sep 21, 2022 2:27 am

Thanks jackokie.

Lloyd and I are just bickering about what Stephen Smith, Wal Thornhill and possibly Mel Acheson [have said about] the primordial conditions of the earth's surface shortly after its formation, and I think I found an accurate reference. --At least it is a direct quote from 2014. And it's quite different than the impression Lloyd had, as you can see by his description.
Last edited by Brigit on Wed Sep 21, 2022 2:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
“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…”
~Homer

User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Brigit » Wed Sep 21, 2022 2:51 am

JP Michael says »
Sat Sep 17, 2022 6:22 pm
"Thank you for bringing that article to my attention, Brigit. I am rather impressed by the detail of Mr. Smith's scholarship. I accept his evidence; 100% persuaded."

I am so glad you took the time to look at it, and that you enjoyed it JP Michael.

As I said, I think there are other reasons for the differences. It makes absolutely no sense at all to me that the Masoretes deliberately deflated the numbers in those two chapters -- after all, why would they change a few numbers in Genesis, and then not bother to change Isaiah Chapter 53? Or Ps 22? Why not remove references to the suffering Messiah, the rejected cornerstone, etc.? They did not. They simply call that chapter in Isaiah "the forbidden chapter" and leave it out of their yearly reading. (Personally, I think it is at least possible that both the LXX and MT are correct in the numbers, but the means of tracking time itself was both lost and changed.)
“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…”
~Homer

User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: Creationism, Myth and Catastrophism

Unread post by Brigit » Wed Sep 21, 2022 5:17 pm

from jackokie's link:
  • Large geographic and temporal extensions of the Río de la Plata Craton, South America, and its metacratonic eastern margin

    Abstract and Figures
    Integration of existing isotopic and geological data allows a reconsideration of the distribution and age of the Río de la Plata Craton within South America. The reinterpretation increases the area of the craton to about 2,400,000 km² with implications for the tectonic map of South America and for global reconstruction of palaeocontinents. Four areas previously considered as separate cratons (Luís Alves, Curitiba, Tebicuary, and Paranapanema) are interpreted as part of the same Río de la Plata Craton....
Thank you for that update on the fit between Africa and South America, and the figures are very pretty.

I am sure Lloyd will enjoy that, as his thread is in full support of plate tectonics and the palaeocontinents.

I am not sure it would be polite for me to come over here and challenge his premises, or present a completely different hypothesis for the mid-ocean ridges and mountain formation. I would probably not do that on allynh's thread about the expanding or "growing earth", either. I might seem to be a wet blanket. Besides, they are both great threads, just as they are.
“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…”
~Homer

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests