TPODs Explain Why Surface Features Must Be Recent * Although conventional dating methods say that rock strata are millions of years old, there's much evidence that they formed much more recently. So I looked for TPODs that say this. Here they are.
How Long Ago? Part Two - http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090625longago2.htm - Jun 25, 2009 "Great Trango peaks appear young", not millions of years old, as usually dated. "The lakes in the area are not filled with silt, although they are refreshed each year by snowmelt and have no outlets".
Ice Core Findings - http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040907ice-core.htm - Sep 7, 2004 Primitive human beings passed down stories of fantastic events [which means they may have witnessed them a few thousand years ago; so they would not be millions of years old.]
The Dead Sea - http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/081020deadsea.htm - Oct 20, 2008 Dead Sea area features are young: "proportions of sodium and magnesium in the Jordan River and the Dead Sea" = "5000 years". "Tacitus & other classical historians also described the ""cities of the plain"" and their sudden obliteration", so the events were witnessed.
The Mountains of Patagonia - http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/071218patagonia.h~ - Dec 18, 2007 In this area, "lakes have not been filled in with debris from the eroding mountain ranges"; "there appears to be no debris remaining from the eroded lava"; "the talus slopes are very small"; "there are no boulders, heaps of gravel or glacial moraines on the valley floor"; "pothole shaped depressions incised into the top of the ridges are sharply defined"; "they do not appear to be eroded by wind or water"; all of which suggests that these mountains are very young.
60 min. showed the "wingmen" segment again. They were flying off a mountain in Norway. They helicoptered up to a flat peak of about 5,000 sq ft, covered with boulders. There were also some slabs that appeared to have been broken from large boulders from freezing. But the smaller rocks were rounded, making walking to the edge of the vertical drop off a problem.
How do so many roundish boulders end up on top of a mile high peak?
fosborn_
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
Seems to me it would be accurate to think that the current surface of the earth is young. And just like a lot of parking lots it gets resurfaced from time to time.
Lloyd
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
* There shouldn't be much re-surfacing any more, since our main re-surfacer, Saturn, has abandoned us, and since Venus and Mars and possibly others have settled into distant orbits. HUMAN FOSSILS IN SAME ROCK STRATA AS DINOSAURS! * I haven't heard this discussed before, but it's apparently been known since 1971, so I'm surprised I haven't heard of it. - Amazing Discovery Near Montrose, Colorado http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%20MUSEUM/DinosaurWorl~ - Dinosaur_National_Monument - Malachite_Man_1971 — In 1971 a heavy equipment operator made a startling discovery in a layer of Dakota Sandstone which is part of the Lower Cretaceous strata. The Lower Cretaceous strata is known for its dinosaur fossils and according to the evolutionary time table and is supposedly 140 million years old. This is the same rock strata where numerous dinosaur fossils have been found at Dinosaur National Monument. - Malachite_Man_closeupThe skeletons of ten perfectly modern human beings were found fifty eight feet down in the Dakota Sandstone. At least four of the individuals were female, one was an infant, and the rest were men. The amazing thing is that some the fossils were articulated or found in their natural body positions which indicates they were quickly buried by some sort of catastrophic flood and mud slide. - The bones have been partially replaced with malachite which is a green mineral and turquoise thus they have been named "Malachite Man". - Some have argued that this group of people may have been involved in a mining operation and their tunnel may have collapsed. This does not answer the question why women and an infant would be 58 feet underground in a mine . . . and it has been observed that not digging or mining tools have been found. - Malachite_Man_Site http://www.discoverynews.us/images/Malachite%20Man/malachit~ - This group of people were buried by mud and became part of the Dakota Sandstone strata as a lasting testimony that something catastrophic happened years ago, probably at the same time that millions of dinosaurs were buried alive in the same rock strata. - The point, is, man and dinosaur obviously lived at the same time. This totally destroys the philosophical theory of evolution that declares that dinosaurs disappeared from the earth millions of years before the evolution of man. - Malachite_Man_femur — Dr. Don Patton is shown here in 1990 holding a human femur which had been found at the site. He had personally excavated this leg bone just moments before this photo. Note the green malachite that replaced the original bone. - Malachite_Man_truquoise_jaw — This perfectly modern human jaw bone with teeth has also been excavated from the site. Notice the turquoise that replaced the original bone during the fossilization process. - Malachite_bulldozer_driver — Pictured here is the heavy equipment operator who first unearthed this remarkable fine of human bones in the same rock strata that dinosaur bones are found at Dinosaur National Monument.
"Proof of the pudding…" - There are circumstances that provide opportunities for testing. Dinosaurs which are supposed have lived at least 60 million years ago, should not yield dates of thousands of years. Rocks known to have formed in historical times should not yield dates of millions of years. - Dinosaur Bone (Illium bone of an Acrocanthosarus) Radio carbon dated at 19,000 years old! - Wood embedded in "110 million year old limestone" Radio carbon dated at 890 years old! - Carbonized stick embedded in "110 million year old limestone" Radio carbon dated at 12,900 years old! - Mt. St. Helens The new lava dome (dacite) from the at Mount St. Helens was formed in 1986. In 1997 five specimens were taken from this dome at five different locations and subjected to conventional Potassium-Argon dating. The results indicated ages of less than one half to almost three million years old, all from eleven year old rock. (Click on photo for high resolution) - We know when this dome formed. When we date rock of known age we test the claims and we see obvious failures. But, when we date rock of unknown age, we are assured that the results are accurate.
The Columbia River Basin includes a canyon called the Columbia River Gorge that is up to 1200 meters deep, running for about 130 kilometers. The canyon provides an easy route through the Cascade Mountains, since it is the only waterway between the Columbia River Plateau and the Pacific Ocean. ... However, at the end of the last Ice Age, about 19,000 years ago, some speculate that the so-called Missoula Floods cut the steep walls that are present today. ... Electric Universe theorists postulate that approximately 10,000 years ago, Earth was engulfed by electric arcs that prehistoric eyewitnesses called "thunderbolts of the gods". Those gigantic lightning bolts dissected the continental geography, forming what consensus science says are eons-old structures, in an instant.
fosborn_
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
With all the controversy, wouldn't there be some references to pier review papers ? The whole site seems bogus to me. Do you have any other corroborating sources, other than that site?
Seems like if man and dinosaurs crossed paths, there would be world wide evidences like the cave paintings and rock carvings. Dinosaur bone and tooth, tools etc. I
Lloyd
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
* Peer review is just a means to suppress any knowledge that the establishment doesn't want people to know or believe. Don Patten has been published in Catastrophist periodicals. That's good enough for me and more impressive than peer review. Velikovsky also found evidence that dinosaurs lived into the age of man. And I have no reason to disbelieve any of the statements made in the links above. I'm for skepticism, but applying it to the mainstream as much as to anything else.
nick c
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
fosburn wrote: Seems like if man and dinosaurs crossed paths, there would be world wide evidences like the cave paintings and rock carvings. Dinosaur bone and tooth, tools etc.
Evidence exists, one example is given below. Creationists and young earthers have latched on to this in order to support their positions. I for one, cannot worry about the agenda of some of these websites. One should judge the evidence objectively and it should be criticized for it's logic and content, not by an implied agenda. Of course one runs the risk of "guilt by association," well then so be it, it is worthwhile risk. So asking for evidence that was published in a peer reviewed journal, and contradicts the conventional time scale, is not a realistic request. The "peers" who do the reviewing regard the textbook time scale as sacrosanct. This time scale is considered to be fact and not subject to dispute, therefore any evidence to the contrary is summarily dismissed and never considered for publication. So such a request creates an inevitable Catch 22. There have been threads on these boards disputing the accepted geological timescales, which are based upon assumptions of the slow deposition of material and radiometric dating.
In the redstone wall of the Supai Canyon in the region of the Grand Canyon in northern Arizona were discovered figures of animals cut by some prehistoric man. "The fact some prehistoric man made a pictograph of a dinosaur on the walls of this
canyon upsets completely all our theories regarding antiquity of man."(21) "The fact that the animal is upright and
balanced on its tail would seem to indicate that the prehistoric artist must have seen it alive."(22) Dinosaurs were in
the vicinity, as is established by footprints not more than one hundred miles from the picture.
Near the carviings of dinosaurs there are images of elephants and other animals that were extinct in North America by the time of the arrival of Columbus. Curiously, there are pictures of ibex, an animal not known, from the fossil record, to have existed in North America. Furthermore the carvings are noted to have been covered in desert varnish indicating that they are of great age.
tholden
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
Lloyd wrote: * Peer review is just a means to suppress any knowledge that the establishment doesn't want people to know or believe. Don Patten has been published in Catastrophist periodicals. That's good enough for me and more impressive than peer review. Velikovsky also found evidence that dinosaurs lived into the age of man. And I have no reason to disbelieve any of the statements made in the links above. I'm for skepticism, but applying it to the mainstream as much as to anything else.
I get a sort of a disconnect trying to find things which look like dinosaurs in literature. In the old world, three apparently were dinosaurs within the age of man but descriptions of them in midrashim read like they are describing a handful of leftovers which were still walking around just prior to the flood and were viewed as oddities.
What you get in the Americas, including all of the art work and Vine DeLoria's descriptions of Indian oral traditions sounds more like humans having to deal with dinosaurs on a more regular basis.
Anaconda
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
Issues, actually, contradictions to the validity of radiological dating are well known. I subscribe to the proposition that radiological dating is problematic, certainly it's not above reasonable scepticism and debate.
So, geological dating is problematic in my opinion.
Having that background scepticism, the timing of geological events and related biological events in Earth's history is subject to investigation.
I read the "dinosaur figurine" links and the evidence is significant. If the dinosaur figurines are authentic, then, somehow, Man became aware of dinosaurs. Now, that could mean different things:
The Earth in general is younger than accepted in mainstream geology.
Man is much older than accepted in mainstream anthropology.
A combination of both.
Dinosaurs lived for a longer geologic time period, and closer to the present day than currently accepted by mainstream paleontologists, yet, there does seem to be an absence of dinosaur bones in the most recent geological strata.
Is there any possible way Man in antiquity could become aware of dinosaurs, their correct biomechanics (the right physique and posture), without actual direct personal observation?
Could the dinosaur figurines be a product of other, earlier representations, created by an even more ancient civilization (how much earlier), which, in turn, handed down those representations to the ancient producers of the dinosaur figurines, who then produced their figurines?
It's possible, but still the issue arises: Somebody saw the dinosaurs, alive, or is it also possible that ancient Man was advanced enough to discover dinosaur bones and be able to come up with the proper analysis & interpretation of those bones?
But the dinosaur figurines apparently number an incredibly large amount of different dinosaur types, a large catalog.
Of course, the attack (when silence could no longer suppress the knowledge of these dinosaur figurines), and, now, again, silence, of mainstream science depended on calling these dinosaur figurines a hoax or fake, yet, per the links and Dr Dennis Swift Ph.D.'s reports, the proofs of authenticity are many.
Could the Earth be younger, or at least this present surface, crust, and supporting geologic structures, than commonly accepted or could Man be older than commonly accepted?
If the dinosaur figurines are genuine, it raises serious questions... but not necessarily absolute answers.
Such is the quest of science, searching for answers, causes, but often times only coming up with more questions.
If the dinosaur figurines are genuine and produced by men who personally observed the dinosaurs, then, it follows that dinosaur bones would also be found in the same geologic strata as the figurines, themselves. Does that hypothesis make sense? If so, has any dinosaur bones been found in the same geologic strata as the figurines in the same region. Or did other representations, descriptive reports, make their way to the region of the figurine makers from other localities distant & remote?
See how many questions can arise.
Lloyd
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
Anaconda said: Dinosaurs lived for a longer geologic time period, and closer to the present day than currently accepted by mainstream paleontologists, yet, there does seem to be an absence of dinosaur bones in the most recent geological strata.
* Did you overlook my post above where I quoted: HUMAN FOSSILS IN SAME ROCK STRATA AS DINOSAURS!? It said: Amazing Discovery Near Montrose, Colorado http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%20MUSEUM/DinosaurWorl~ and it showed an image of the human bones discovered in the dinosaur strata. That surely means the strata is/are recent, if it/they contains human bones too. It seems likely that most conforming strata were laid down at the same time, otherwise erosion would make adjacent strata non-conforming. And there are dozens or hundreds of conforming strata wherever we look. http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/Thomas/lteng/engeimg/eng~ * Here's an illustration of disconformities (5, 4, 3) and an unconformity (2) and a nonconformity (1). The strata between each pair of numbers, such as 1 and 2 are conforming strata, all likely deposited at the same time. And in that case strata were laid down only 5 times in the area of the Grand Canyon. And according to Cardona's finding about Saturn flares depositing detritus on Earth every few thousand years, each set of conforming layers above each number were likely deposited every few thousand years, amounting possibly to no more than 100,000 years for all of the sedimentary rock, although granite itself is considered likely to be metamorphized sedimentary rock.
fosborn_
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
by Lloyd » Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:14 pm * Peer review is just a means to suppress any knowledge that the establishment doesn't want people to know or believe. Don Patten has been published in Catastrophist periodicals. That's good enough for me and more impressive than peer review. Velikovsky also found evidence that dinosaurs lived into the age of man. And I have no reason to disbelieve any of the statements made in the links above. I'm for skepticism, but applying it to the mainstream as much as to anything else.
Thanks for the response. The Velikovsky helps with a alternative source request.
by nick c » Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:18 pm
Evidence exists, one example is given below. Creationists and young earthers have latched on to this in order to support their positions. I for one, cannot worry about the agenda of some of these websites. One should judge the evidence objectively and it should be criticized for it's logic and content, not by an implied agenda.
Thanks for the advice. I'm not that well informed about a lot of subjects, so I have to rely on" the lay of the land" so to speak, of the sites I check out. If I see lots of bias, I place the source on my suspect list. Just like I do peer review. It's not wise to think in terms of catagories, but sometimes it's too convenient not to.
Of course one runs the risk of "guilt by association," well then so be it, it is worthwhile risk. So asking for evidence that was published in a peer reviewed journal, and contradicts the conventional time scale, is not a realistic request. The "peers" who do the reviewing regard the textbook time scale as sacrosanct. This time scale is considered to be fact and not subject to dispute, therefore any evidence to the contrary is summarily dismissed and never considered for publication. So such a request creates an inevitable Catch 22.
I agree, but due to my poor communication, I think I wanted to convey that I didn't care for a positive or negative peer review, just any to back up the accuracy of the story they told about the carvings.(The current events of the story).
In an article titled "Were All Dinosaurs Reptiles?" Kronos Vol. II #2, (1976), Velikovsky cites a report of the Doheny Scientific Expedition, to the Hava Supai Canyon, Northern Arizona (1925): In the redstone wall of the Supai Canyon in the region of the Grand Canyon in northern Arizona were discovered figures of animals cut by some prehistoric man. "The fact some prehistoric man made a pictograph of a dinosaur on the walls of this
Thanks.
Anaconda
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
Lloyd,
You presented my statement:
Anaconda said: Dinosaurs lived for a longer geologic time period, and closer to the present day than currently accepted by mainstream paleontologists, yet, there does seem to be an absence of dinosaur bones in the most recent geological strata.
And you responded:
Lloyed wrote: Did you overlook my post above where I quoted: HUMAN FOSSILS IN SAME ROCK STRATA AS DINOSAURS!?
No, I didn't overlook that post nor the specific link. I read the link and it's another significant piece of evidence that I found valuble. Thanks for presenting the link and the "dinosaur figurine" link.
Here are the opening paragraphs of the link:
In 1971 a heavy equipment operator made a startling discovery in a layer of Dakota Sandstone which is part of the Lower Cretaceous strata. The Lower Cretaceous strata is known for its dinosaur fossils and according to the evolutionary time table and is supposedly 140 million years old. This is the same rock strata where numerous dinosaur fossils have been found at Dinosaur National Monument.
The skeletons of ten perfectly modern human beings were found fifty eight feet down in the Dakota Sandstone [Lower Cretaceous]. At least four of the individuals were female, one was an infant, and the rest were men. The amazing thing is that some the fossils were articulated or found in their natural body positions which indicates they were quickly buried by some sort of catastrophic flood and mud slide.
Yes, if authentic (and, again, there are significant indications it is authentic), then the geologic strata is Lower Cretaceous. I wrote, "yet, there does seem to be an absence of dinosaur bones in the most recent geological strata."
My point was that there haven't been dinosaur bones found in shallower (generally, layers closer to the surface) geological strata. And, yes, as I stated in my original post, there are reasons to be sceptical about the reliability of radiological dating, and, therefore, reasons to be sceptical about the supposed ages of geological strata. However, there does seem to be an absence of dinosaur bones from the geological strata which is layered closer to the surface, thus, presumably more recent.
Now, let me say, "I get it." The issue is whether what has been labeled as Lower Cretaceous is actually 140 million years old or is that an erroneous conclusion.
So what does this mean?
Authenticity of the human bones being in the same geological stata as the dinosaur bones is critical.
The fossilization of the human bones found in the stata is a significant indicia the bones were there a long time:
From the link:
Dr. Don Patton is shown here in 1990 holding a human femur which had been found at the site. He had personally excavated this leg bone just moments before this photo. Note the green malachite that replaced the original bone.
This perfectly modern human jaw bone with teeth has also been excavated from the site. Notice the turquoise that replaced the original bone during the fossilization process.
For the sake of discussion, let's accept authenticity, then, it would appear that Man and dinosaur existed at the same time. Obviously, that's a controversial conclusion!
And, again, it could mean that dinosaurs roamed the Earth more recently than commonly accepted or Man was in existence long before commonly accepted, or some combination of both.
StalkingGoogle
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
I don't see any reason to overlook the obvious conclusion that malachite and turquise is not bone, so these could very well be fake.
nick c
Re: Earth's Surface Formed Recently
I don't see any reason to overlook the obvious conclusion that malachite and turquise is not bone, so these could very well be fake.
I am not sure what you are stating here? Of course, skepticism is a good thing, but the fact that it is stone and not bone in no way implies fraud. Fossilization takes many forms, and one of the common forms would involve the replacement of bone with minerals which form into stone. I am inclined to accept the legitimacy of the find, that is that fossilized human remains have been found in strata that contains dinosaur remains. Consensus geologists have to explain this, the alternative being the falsification of the conventionally accepted timescales. It could just be dismissed as fraud, or, given an alternative explanation consistent with the conventional timescale. The website mentioned that the find was explained as a prehistoric mining accident, that is, a shaft was dug into the ground as humans mined for minerals, and at some point there was an accident burying humans whose remains became fossilized in a pre human strata. It would seem to me that fossil experts would be able to determine whether or not a fossil was made by nature or the hand of man. That an alternative explanation, which is consistent with conventional timescales, was offered, suggests to me, that the fossil is not a fake.
