Evidence of Ancient Global Cataclysm

[Lloyd]

Mo, do you mean you don't think life could have evolved since Earth attained its present orbit? If so, why not?

High Speed Continents
Gordon said: I have difficulty accepting the friction-free mechanism of the SD.
Gordon, have you read up on long runout underwater landslides that Mike referenced? Why would that not apply to sliding continents? Mike said a similar long runout landslide was seen on Mars. And why could not the continents have slid on the Moho layer? Charles says that layer is plasma about one meter thick. Wouldn't plasma be nearly frictionless? Charles says racetrack playa rocks also slide due to electrical levitation of the rocks during windy episodes. Those are very low friction events. In my last reply to Mike I asked what it is, if anything, that might make it impossible that the continents could have moved apart in more than 26 hours. So I hope to find out if he has a strong argument for that or not.

Quasi-Expansion
I'm not fascinated by planetary expansion theory. While there is spreading in some places, like on Europa, there seems to be shrinking in another locale, although that's probably really hard to ascertain on Europa. But on Earth, you can see expansion in the Atlantic, but there's shrinkage in the Pacific where the Americas obviously slid over the ocean ridge partly. Fred Juenemann's theory seems better than expansion theory. His idea was that the Earth, and possibly other bodies, was prolate, or oval, with the long axis through the poles and the smallest diameter at the equator. When the Earth later changed from prolate to spherical, the equatorial area would have appeared to expand and although the polar diameter would have shrunk, the surface at the poles would also have appeared to expand, like smashing a grapefruit half onto a softball or soccerball. He figured that Earth may have been squeezed in a magnetic pinch under Saturn.

[webolife]

Moses,
I have some similar thoughts regarding the tilt of the earth, but I play it out a bit differently, minus the elliptical orbit, which is difficult to alter in a short time period:
1. Near the beginning of the cataclysm as the attacking "planetoid" approached it "tidally" threw the stable [gyroscopic] orientation of the earth off into a severe wobble.
2. This enabled the polar effects you suggested. Here is yet another factor in the disposition of the atmosphere at the beginning of the flood, along with the matar, the infusion of condensation nuclei into the air from both meteoritic and volcanic sources.
3. The wobble remains on a period of a dozen millenia as well as a significant tilt, replacing the pre-flood global greenhouse with the post-flood season-based climate.

[moses]

Hi Lloyd,
So you are saying that the Earth got in it's present orbit in Cambrian times and then the geological column came after that.

Well that just dismisses Velikovsky outright. I'm into Velikovsky.

Hi Webo,
Are you suggesting that there was no or little ice on the poles before Earth went into a wobble, and this wobble produced the ice. Or are you suggesting that the wobble produced the ice ages. I'm not into either idea.

It is like you have the Earth in a circular orbit near where it is now and these other planets go into odd elliptical orbits and run into Earth. Well I don't think that the Earth had special privilages. I think the Earth was in a random orbit having a few interaction before it settled into a very elliptical orbit, which beautifully explains the ice ages, and then interacted with another planet and after many electrical interactions with Venus and Mars came to the present orbit.

The geological column came when Earth was in another planetary configuration. What I describe above came after that.
Cheers,
Mo

[Michael Anteski]

The Cambrian event of 450 million years ago would appear to have been caused by a similar event as Velikovsky described the Venus cataclysm, i.e., a planet-size body brushing earth without colliding with it.

Velikovsky's "cometary Venus" event is found in numerous folk tales, cited in great detail in his "Worlds in Collision." Therefore, Velikovsky's cometary Venus event had to occur within the timespan of man, say tens of thousands of years ago at most.

A cosmic body much smaller than the planet is heading toward a planet (e.g., Shoemaker-Levy, toward Jupiter), it heads straight in and collides with the planet due to simple inertial momentum. But if the planet and the other body are close to the same size, their magnetic energy fields will interact resonationally, and therefore non-inertially, with each other, producing a "brush-by" event instead of a collision.

I believe the Cambrian-event-body shot through the solar system without becoming a planet, whereas Venus did become one.

[Lloyd]

Mo, Webb and I both think the Precambrian occurred before the Great Flood on the Supercontinent and most of the strata above the Precambrian came during and after the Flood about 4,400 years ago. Is that right, Gordon?

[Lloyd]

Young Earth vs Old Earth
Charles found a webpage that has a lot of arguments for Old Earth and against Young Earth. It's here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origi ... ience2.htm.

Of course, those of us who consider only the surface of the Earth to be young, rather than the entire Earth, aren't bothered by some of the evidence. But there's some that does apply to us too. We probably ought to review them and see if we don't have answers for any of them. If not, we'll need to look for answers, or revise theory.

Radiometric dating may be the hardest to refute. Does anyone know of better sources than what I listed earlier? Maybe that's good enough, but I want to be sure.

[moses]

The one issue that haunts me is how long did it take to make those different creatures found after a great geological catastrophe. Electrical plasma effects on DNA could have done it, maybe, but considerable time seems a better bet. Was the Grand Canyon formed out of hard rock, or was the rock soft. I'm certainly leaning towards a flood, or many floods doing it, rather than an electrical effect. It is difficult to imagine the GC being formed quickly if the rock was set hard.

So all told I don't think that we have the answer. And I definitely don't think that the bible indicates that the geological column was created quickly. It is a curious question.
Cheers,
Mo

[Lloyd]

Flood Deposited Strata
Mo, the Noah's Flood paper says the sedimentary rock strata consist of 5 megasequences, where the strata are conforming, meaning they're parallel to each other like pages in a book, and there are 6 unconformities between them, where strata immediately above and below each of them don't conform, apparently because there was time for some erosion to occur or the lower strata shifted or something. The theory is that all of the conforming layers in each megasequence were deposited about the same time by a 2,500 m high series of tsunami waves, which calmed down for a few weeks, then happened again 6 times, about once a month, so each megasequence was followed by a pause, then another tsunami. Berthault's experiments prove this is possible, if not probable. The strata were deposited wet and it took many years to dry out and harden. The tsunamis may have been caused by gravitational attraction to a large body that was circling the Earth about once a month on an elliptical orbit. The best candidates seem to be the Moon, or Mars, or Venus.

Either the animals immediately after the Flood survived on Noah's ark or a space ship or something, or the Flood failed to cover some of the land. As Mike Fischer says, the strata were deposited during the Flood, but the mountain ranges didn't form till a few centuries later, when the Shock Dynamics impact broke up the supercontinent and caused some flooding too. As Gordon says, the Grand Canyon eroded soon after the main Flood when the two large lakes there, Grand Lake and Hopi Lake, drained through the canyon. When the Shock Dynamics event occurred later, the strata were folded into mountain ranges by compressive heating after they were already somewhat hardened.

[moses]

What sort of alien puts different kinds of animals on the Earth only to have the next tsunami obliterate them. So it is either a DNA electrical effect or else lots of time to change the creatures. So forget about tsunamis.

No supercontinent for me either. The oceans were carved out electrically and produced a lot of the geological column sediment. And also those supposed inland seas. I suppose that the first lot of sediment could have had a lot of water with it and this drained out on the west coast of America and started the Grand Canyon. And so when the next lot of sediment came with a lot of water, again, then it would naturally drain out in the same place, etc.

Lots of theories,
Cheers,
Mo

[Lloyd]

I used to think the Grand Canyon may have been carved electrically, but then I found out that there were two large ancient lakes that just happened to break open and drained through the Grand Canyon. They obviously drained when the sedimentary strata were still not very hard, which is why the canyon became so huge. I think that was a few centuries after the Great Flood, during the Shock Dynamics event.

[Grey Cloud]

(Working through the thread and off the top of my head) Some observations and thoughts:

Atlantis. Why would Solon (Athenian) or the Egyptian priest be using a Cretan script?

The Oera Linda book, while very interesting, is of disputed provenance. 'Altland' = old land and has nothing to do
with Atlantis (the book makes no such claims or inference). If memory serves, it was in the North Sea or possibly
the Baltic. There were elephants and coconuts on Atlantis (according to Plato).
Incidentally, there is a similar English book known variously as The Kolbrin, The Book of Kolbrin and the Kolbrin
Bible, which contains the story (twice) of something called 'the Destroyer' which arrives in the sky and destroys
much of life on Earth.

Aquarius is not a water sign, it is an air sign.

The biblical flood story is a straight lift of the Sumerian story from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Mount Ararat was not
called Ararat in ancient times. Wasn't the OT Ark of equal length and width? In the Phoenician version, they, a
sea-faring people, take the vessel out for sea trials before the flood and it's dimensions are more realistic.

Khem is as far as I know the 'black land'. Egyptian 'Thoth', Greek 'Hermes' and Hebrew 'Cush' have no known
etymological or philological connection.

If you are going to use the OT as a source then I suggest the Septuagint as it is the earliest version or at least
compare various versions. The KJV is probably the worst translation-wise.

Virgin. This is a complicated or complex subject. It can refer to the constellation Virgo and also the universe or
the soul for example. e.g. the virgin mother-goddess (the universe) gives birth but remains in her original
condition - think closed system.

"fountains of the great deep". What would Sumerians/Hebrews know of mid-ocean rift zones? Or if they did know, how would a people living in southern Iraq/Middle East know they had opened? To me 'great deep' would refer to space.

I don't subscribe to Plate Tectonic theory. To me it makes more sense that earthquakes cause the cracks rather than
the cracks causing the quakes. Could someone explain the mechanism for the plates pushing against each other? If the Earth is revolving on its axis at over 1,000 mph then would not centrifugal force pull them apart? (I have a BA in
Politics and Contemporary History which is about as far away as you can get from this subject).

I agree with Moses that the Rockies and Andes are new. I see them as the result of earthquakes. As an analogy think of when you are making the bed and you shake out the sheet and the way it lands. (Unless you are a woman, in which case the sheet lands flat and smooth every time. How do they do that?).

CATASTROPHISM WEAKEST POINTS. On the science side there is a necessity to accept some mainstream science whilst at the same time rejecting some. On the ancient textual side there is the infuriating lack of dates, the sheer volume and diversity of the sources and the dubious translations. I agree with Webolife that catastrophism is a paradigm rather than a theory. It makes me laugh when people call me a 'climate skeptic'. If they knew my views on
catastrophe/ism they would have sleepless nights.

Not sure where you are getting the idea that this was one-off event. The ancient textual evidence points to at least
two. Science points to several. e.g. Middle Bronze-Age collapse and Late Bronze-Age collapse.
The MBA and LBA collapses happened in the eastern Med/ME, China and northern Europe. They may well have affected other regions, e.g. the Americas and Africa but scholars tend to not mention these.

Rather than global flood I tend to think more in terms of global flooding. e.g. There are three separate floods in
Greek myth - of Ogyges, Dardanus and Deucalion. Ogyges was something which happened to Attica; Dardanus lived on Samothrace and ended up in Anatolia, giving his name to Dardania and founding the original city of Troy; Deucalion is Thessaly and is corroborated by modern geology. The plain of Thessaly is a dried up lake bed. Lake was surrounded by moutains, quake split the mountains (Vale of Tempe?), water exited.

With regard to the OT, are you familiar with this guy?
https://www.custance.org/

Never yet come across an ancient text referring to Saturn as the first sun. In fact I rarely come across mentions of
Saturn at all. The main actors appear to be Venus, Mars, Jupiter and the Sun (this one).

El is the Phoenician(?) word for Lord.

My current focus of study in on the LBA collapse in the eastern Med/ME because a) there are more sources and more English translations available and b) it can be tied to actual known historical events if not concrete dates.

[moses]

Nice comments Grey Cloud. You been in jail or should I write gaol, perhaps in the jungle for 5 years. A comatose state maybe. Anyhow, it's good that you are alive and kicking.
Cheers,
Mo

[Grey Cloud]

Nice comments Grey Cloud. You been in jail or should I write gaol, perhaps in the jungle for 5 years. A comatose state maybe. Anyhow, it's good that you are alive and kicking.
Cheers,
Mo

Thanks Mo. None of the above. Police aren't smart enough to catch me; I wouldn't last 5 minutes in a jungle; and I've never been more mentally alive.

Just been watching this:
http://cosmictusk.com/an-extraordinary- ... joe-rogan/

The cosmictusk site which I've only recently come across majors on the Younger Dryas. Lot of interesting geological stuff in the video. Well worth the watch IMO even if it's only to disagree with.

[Lloyd]

Thanks for the comments, Grey Cloud.

GC: The Oera Linda book, while very interesting, is of disputed provenance. 'Altland' = old land and has nothing to do with Atlantis (the book makes no such claims or inference). If memory serves, it was in the North Sea or possibly the Baltic.
LK: It could have been the land between Britain and Europe that flooded, could it not?

GC: Aquarius is not a water sign, it is an air sign.
LK: But I think Gray was saying that the Great Flood started when the Sun was in Aquarius.

GC: The biblical flood story is a straight lift of the Sumerian story from the Epic of Gilgamesh. Mount Ararat was not called Ararat in ancient times. Wasn't the OT Ark of equal length and width? In the Phoenician version, they, a sea-faring people, take the vessel out for sea trials before the flood and its dimensions are more realistic.
LK: No, I'm pretty sure the ark was said to be much longer than wide.

GC: If you are going to use the OT as a source then I suggest the Septuagint as it is the earliest version or at least compare various versions. The KJV is probably the worst translation-wise.
LK: KJV is probably among the worst translations.

GC: Virgin. This is a complicated or complex subject. It can refer to the constellation Virgo and also the universe or the soul for example. E.g. the virgin mother-goddess (the universe) gives birth but remains in her original condition - think closed system.
LK: As I recall, you generally assumed that philosophy came before myth-making, whereas I think the reverse is more likely. Maybe I'll present evidence eventually.

GC: "fountains of the great deep". What would Sumerians/Hebrews know of mid-ocean rift zones? Or if they did know, how would a people living in southern Iraq/Middle East know they had opened? To me 'great deep' would refer to space.
LK: I agree the great deep probably referred to space. I had a thread here about Barbara Walker's book, Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets. The deep or great deep was said to refer to space, or the heavens, and was thought of as an ocean. I'm not sure about the fountains, but they may have referred to the fountains or splashes of meteors from space hitting the terrestrial ocean. Gordon says the Hebrew word, matar, likely meant meteors.

GC: I don't subscribe to Plate Tectonic theory. To me it makes more sense that earthquakes cause the cracks rather than the cracks causing the quakes. Could someone explain the mechanism for the plates pushing against each other? If the Earth is revolving on its axis at over 1,000 mph then would not centrifugal force pull them apart? (I have a BA in Politics and Contemporary History which is about as far away as you can get from this subject).
LK: There is no subduction, except that plates can slide over each other, i.e. North America over the Pacific. It looks like subduction at the plate boundary, but the Pacific plate isn't subducting, it's moving horizontally under North America. Charles Chandler explained how the plates can continue to ratchet over each other via electrical tidal forces. The Shock Dynamics video at http://newgeology.us shows how an asteroid impact likely broke up the Supercontinent and caused rapid continental drift.

GC: I agree with Moses that the Rockies and Andes are new. I see them as the result of earthquakes. As an analogy think of when you are making the bed and you shake out the sheet and the way it lands. (Unless you are a woman, in which case the sheet lands flat and smooth every time. How do they do that?).
LK: All of the mountain ranges are new, from about 4,000 years ago, while the Flood likely occurred less than 4,400 years ago.

GC: CATASTROPHISM WEAKEST POINTS. On the science side there is a necessity to accept some mainstream science whilst at the same time rejecting some. On the ancient textual side there is the infuriating lack of dates, the sheer volume and diversity of the sources and the dubious translations. I agree with Webolife that catastrophism is a paradigm rather than a theory. It makes me laugh when people call me a 'climate skeptic'. If they knew my views on catastrophe/ism they would have sleepless nights.
LK: What are your views on Catastrophism? Or don't you want anyone to be sleepless?

GC: Not sure where you are getting the idea that this was one-off event. The ancient textual evidence points to at least two. Science points to several. e.g. Middle Bronze-Age collapse and Late Bronze-Age collapse.
The MBA and LBA collapses happened in the eastern Med/ME, China and northern Europe. They may well have affected other regions, e.g. the Americas and Africa but scholars tend to not mention these.
LK: I think the Bronze Age might be post Flood and post Shock Dynamics. What years are you saying?

GC: Rather than global flood I tend to think more in terms of global flooding. e.g. There are three separate floods in Greek myth - of Ogyges, Dardanus and Deucalion. Ogyges was something which happened to Attica; Dardanus lived on Samothrace and ended up in Anatolia, giving his name to Dardania and founding the original city of Troy; Deucalion is Thessaly and is corroborated by modern geology. The plain of Thessaly is a dried up lake bed. Lake was surrounded by moutains, quake split the mountains (Vale of Tempe?), water exited.
LK: A lot of smaller floods occurred after the Great Flood. The Mediterranean Sea I think would have flooded shortly after the Shock Dynamics event. The Black Sea likely flooded after that. The Grand and Hopi Lakes breached and carved the Grand Canyon soon after the Shock Dynamics event, I think. The other inland lakes in the western U.S. drained around then too, I presume.

GC: With regard to the OT, are you familiar with this guy? https://www.custance.org/
LK: I'm not, but I did hear of Gaps Theory recently and it looks like Custance may have invented that. It seems to allow for the Earth to be old according to the Bible. I don't care much about what the Bible suggests about Geochronology. The physical evidence strongly suggests that there was a Great Flood and a breakup of the Supercontinent a few thousand years ago.

GC: Never yet come across an ancient text referring to Saturn as the first sun. In fact I rarely come across mentions of Saturn at all. The main actors appear to be Venus, Mars, Jupiter and the Sun (this one).
- El is the Phoenician(?) word for Lord.
LK: The Sun in the various languages initially referred to Saturn. That applies to Sol, Helios, Ra and others. And I just read today that "Cronos [or Kronos - the Greek name of Saturn] is called El by the Phoenicians." [W.A.Heidel, The Day of Yahweh, p470]. I read that in Cardona's book, God Star. And the book shows that Saturn was the main god of the ancients.

GC: My current focus of study in on the LBA collapse in the eastern Med/ME because a) there are more sources and more English translations available and b) it can be tied to actual known historical events if not concrete dates.
LK: I'll try to bring up a concrete date later that may reduce the Biblical timeline by about 200 years.

[Lloyd]

(Note to self: http://seen.life )