Floyd, dear friend,: : : Perhaps, but one would first have to provide evidence that there was a Noachian flood to begin with. [snip]
: : I've seen sea shells on the surface of high mountains, hundreds of miles from the oceans, is that not possible evidence?
: Well, no, not really. What you've probably seen is a result of tectonic movement. For example, when India collided with southern Asia, the force of the impact pushed what was then near-coastal rock upwards, sort of like laying a piece of paper on a table and pushing the edges toward the center, or like a head-on car crash. When such things happen, we can almost always tell that there is severe geologic deformation present. You can test this by getting dates on the shell fragments and comparing those dates with the date that you believe the flood happened (I won't assume I know when you think it happened, people have proposed several dates, and I have no idea which one you believe).
: : Actually, the recordong of the flood is in hundreds of ancient cultures, amongst those who had no contact. This is evidence of a common source, hence evidence of support that "something" happened.
: Well, it's evidence that many societies have experienced floods, but I've never doubted that floods happen, only that one single, global, flood has happened. The recurrent theme of floods is also not good evidence of a single source of the story, since flooding is sufficiently common as to make it useless as a marker of homology.
: : The sea bulge of the old equator explains that perfectly.
: Could you provide a reference that supports this claim? I am interested in finding out the source of this information. Thank you.
Dr. Victor Pearce, Evidence for Truth Ministies, Eastbourne, England.
:
: : Perhaps the several shifts happened during 1) Noahic Flood, and 2) The standing still of the sun in Joshua's famous battle.
: Well, no. You see, the most recent reversal has been independently dated to more than 100,000 years ago. Both the story of Joshua and of Noah reference technology that did not exist at the time of the last polar reversal, and so therefore must post date the event. Besides, each period of polarity lasts for hundreds of thousands of years. Although the reversal event itself seems to be relatively rapid, polarity seems to be relatively stable for a long period afterwards. Since relatively complex technology (from an archaeological perspective) is described in both Genesis and Joshua, it is not possible that either of these stories dates to the penultimate polar reversal. Both stories must be younger than the Brunhes/Matuyama event.
: This says nothing about whether or not the stories you mention are accurate historical accounts, of course, and I remind you that many interpret these stories as metaphorical, as parables that were used to try to explain complex ideas in simple ways.
: : As for paleomagnetism, the silicon of the magma in the direction of magnetic north upon hardening. This same process happens when a clay piece of pottery is baked in a kiln, the particles will align themselves with magnetic north before hardening.
: Silicon, as Farinata has pointed out, is not magnetic under normal conditions, and thus does not align to magnetic poles. It sounds like your geology teacher might not have been transmitting particularly accurately.
Sorry about the silicon gaffe. However, atoms do line up in magma to the magnetic north and south dipole when still liquid, hence recording the direction. Incidently, there is a sudden shift in polarity recorded in paleomagnetism between the Copper Stone and Early Bronze Ages. The Sahara was a jungle, not 100k years ago but mere millenia ago.
: : Perhaps I've confused you here. The waters of the deep are the oceans that would wash over the continents upon a sudden shift, not the liquid mantle. I merely described the mantle to show the different physical stratifications of the earth and their inter-relatedness.
: Hmmm. would that not leave the sea-basins empty? In which case, wouldn't this tend to violate the conditions described in Genesis of a complete global flood? And what would stop all that water just rushing back into the sea basins? Would this interpretation not also disagree with the description of 40 days and nights of rain? I learned that the 40 days and nights of rain were the inspiration for the 40 days and nights Jesus spent in the desert. Now you're suggesting that the flood was rapid, almost instantaneous apparently, and did not result from 40 days and nights of rain. Doesn't that tend to invalidate Jesus' reason for spending 40 days and nights in the desert, as opposed to some other length of time? I'm honestly curious. You are interpreting what I had previously believed to be a relatively straightforward passage in a way I have never heard before, and in a way that tends to wreak some significant havoc on the symbolism of the bible. I admit I am no bible scholar, but this seems pretty drastic to me.
Read the Genesis account. Noah records the hydrograph like a ships' captain time table. The energy exuded was tremendous. Using time scaling, the hydrograph would happen over a year's time before the sloshing and rocking of the waters subsided. Moreover, the shift in axis would create many hurricanes and other type vortices, thus explaining the great downpouring of rain. Very believable to me.
:
: : But the the point here, the mountain systems are universally parallel to each other and normal to the old north.
: Uh, Robert, you might want to take a good close look at a topographical map, or better yet, a globe, before persuing this line of reasoning. This is factually incorrect. Mountain systems are not universally parallel. In fact, for example, the Alpenino range of Italy is almost exactly perpendicular to the Alps, and the Carpathians form a roughly 70 degree angle, so they are not even parallel to themselves! Really, Robert, this assertion is simply mistaken, and it is so easy for your readers to figure this out that it might cause some of your readers to suspect that you aren't well versed in geology. This would tend to undermine the strength of your argument as a whole, don't you think?
I didn't say mountain ranges, I said systems. That is, those taken together as a whole, demonstrate a shearing action on the earth, and as expected, normal to the old north. The nuetral axis being the equator.
:
: : : On what grounds do you consider Tiuhahnaco a sea port? What is your reference? (It better not be Erik VonDaniken!)
: : It's open city design is not one for high-altitude, cold climates, rather sea level tropics instead. It has boat slips built into it on the side of the mountain. The process of getting the stones from the quarry to the site over mountains for many miles would be much easier done by ferrying, vice dragging them up and down steep and rough mountain grades.
: What is your reference for this material? What source provided you with this information? Did you read this in a book or journal? If so, who was the author? The reason I'm asking is that this is, frankly, an astounding claim, and I'd like to find out what the claim is based on. Thanks for letting me know where you heard this information.
Again, Dr. Pearce's work. But moreover go to the site. How does a seaport end up 1,000s of feet high in the Andes. Look at it this way. When you stir your tea, notice at the edges that your tea rises and in the middle it is lower. That's because the centafugal forces push the tea high on the edge. The same applies to the earth. The angular velocity of water at the equator is over 1000 miles / hour, whereas the angular velocity at the pole is nil. A sea bulge hence appears at the equator. If the polar north is shifted, then the sea levels around the world are redistrubuted. PERHAPS, that explains why we see a seaport so high in the Andes.
:
: ::It's only because the field of paleoenvironmental reconstruction was in its infancy at the time that there was ever any confusion about this at all.
: : Tigers are however a tropical animal.
: Yes, that's certainly true of some modern tigers, although it is not true of Siberian tigers. Nor was it necessarily true of the Pleistocene ancestors of modern tigers. In fact, given their residence in Europe during the most recent glaciation, it seems reasonable to suspect that they were not tropical, don't you think?
But that doesn't explain the sudden and complete freezing, in place. Waters rushing over the continents and reaching the northen reaches does.
: Several points; first, what do you mean when you say "the God of the Bible is the only one who claims transcendance"? I am pretty sure most purported gods claim this, don't they?
: Second, I don't seem to recall the chapter mentioning 4+ dimensionality. Care to tell me where, specifically, the mathematics and/or physics of this is described? You see, if the bible includes usable information on this topic, there are practical purposes to which that information could be put. Tell you what, you read the passages where God explained the 4th dimension, in detail, to Moses, and Moses accurately transcribed them, and tell me how you could use those passages in the design of a time machine. That is exactly the sort of testable biblical information I've been looking for all these years, Robert, and you have it in your hands!
There are many examples of God's trancendence in the Bible. For one, Jesus said, before Abraham was, I am. For another He passed through walls. For another He raised Himself from the dead. No one has done that.
: : Shift to WTO topic.
: : : :They come on like a bunch of "free traders", but in actual fact, they are only about CONTROLLING economies and monetised DEBT currency policies. As far as I'm concerned those things equal Imperial Communism.
: : : I think this may be one of our sources of confusion. You seem to be using the term "communism" in a...well..."unique" way here. Communism, sensu stricto, is about taking from each for the benefit of all, whereas the WTO seems more intent on taking from the many for the benefit of the few. "Imperialism" is definitely one of their traits, but their prefered economic system is clearly monopoly capitalism. Perhaps I'd be able to understand you better if you explained what you mean by your terms?
: : I use the definition "dialectic materialism" to define Communism. The WTO are using rank materialism to further their objectives. The anarchists who by appearance would seem to be their antagonists are in fact their accomplices. How, may you ask?
: : The anarchists are rank materialists as well. Look how many are evolutionists, atheists, etc.
: Oh Robert, we've been over this already. Look, I've already pointed out that anarchism is simply a belief that no earthly authority has valid jurisdiction over the individual. You agreed with this philosophy, on religious grounds, remember? And besides, how many of the protestors at the WTO meetings did you actually hear discussing evolutionary theory or theology? Or are you extrapolating from me to all of them? Or are you just making this up?
You brought it up when you mentioned your attendance at one of the street events.
As for anarchists' theory, they believe that themselves, and that's fine. But that doesn't preclude them from being used by others, now does it? Perhaps the most enslaved person is the one who thinks that he is totally free.
: :But more, it is the dialectic at work here that is achieving the real aim. A conflict of the opposites, will yield synthesis. A controlled conflict of the opposites, will yield controlled sythesis. This conflict was widely seen last week between WTO and anarchists. It was controlled, as well, by policing mechanisms and by political influences. This much is obvious.
: What is increasingly obvious, Robert, is that your understanding of Hegelian theory, and of Marxist theory, is not particularly well-grounded. There is much that I disagree with in Marxism, but I feel it is a good idea to understand a theory before I try to critique it in public. Don't you agree that this is a prudent approach?
Marxism is simply an Imperial tool to enslave people. Don't fall for all of its jibe.
: : What is this synthesis? Note that the WTO and anarchist both agree on one subtle but not so insignificant point. Globalisation.
: What the HELL are you talking about now? That comment makes no sense whatsoever. Anarchists are opposed to any form of statism, and a single global state is no less noxious than a whole bunch of smaller competing ones.
Then why are the protesters attempting to get GLOBAL treaties (ie. a euphemism for control over the average bloke by global laws and edicts) on everything from hot air to anthropomorphical egalitarianism.
: : That's right, people are being asked to choose between the WTO and anarchist, when in fact, the goals of each are identical. This is classic dialectic materialism.
: This is classic evidence that you don't really understand either the issues involved, or the theories you are attempting to mobilize to explain them.
The WTO attempts to gain globlaism, the anrchists are attempting to gain globism (whether they admit it or not). They both come from it from different directions, but the goal is the same. Most people active in these movements, either side of the fence, probably cannot see this.
: : Perhaps those who have fallen for the bait, whether they be the marchers on the streets, or the "free traders" backing the WTO, are too emotionally driven to see how they are being used. And because of this, perhaps they cannot even see that they are in fact accomplices, not mutually exclusive as they think they are. Another term for globalisation is simply Imperialism, that is, the desire to set up an earthly kingdom.
: Robert, I guarantee you that none of the protesters (most of whom were not anarchists, BTW, and those few that are being called anarchists were not either, IMO) were contemplating setting up an earthy kingdom designed to compete with heaven. The topic never crossed our minds, frankly. In addition, I consider myself a relatively clever fellow. In general, I think I'm usually smart enough to not pick, as allies, the kinds of people who spray tear gas and fire rubber bullets at me. No, Robert, those people usually don't go in my "friends" category, so I have to say you're mistaken here.
You don't have to be friends with you adversary to treason your own cause. All you have to many times is compelled into action with out knowing the real end in sight.
: : The earthly kingdom message uses fake Christianity to further its aims as well. "Millenialism", "Liberation Theology", "World Brotherhood", and a host of other earthly seeking movements block and undermine the true message of Jesus Christ. That is the individual Salvation of Souls.
: : His Kingdom is NOT of this world. It lives in the hearts of believers by the joy and happiness of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps His Kingdom will live in you someday, Floyd? I'll keep praying. God Bless.
: : Robert
: Robert, I sometimes feel like I'm talking to more than one person when I talk to you. Some of your messages seem so reasonable in tone, and then other times, like now, you sound really upset and your words don't seem to make sense. Is this something you have heard from other people in the past? I'm kind of worried about you, man. Maybe that sounds odd, coming from me, your old nemesis, but I'm serious. I hope you're ok. Best wishes;
: -Floyd
Floyd, thanks for you kind words. Perhpas we'll have to meet in person someday. Things are cool. God Bless.
Robert
