695 replies to this topic

[Swede]

the L, on 22 October 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

Study of history maybe isnt science but history is science. Therefore its self correcting.
Thanks on your timeline Swede. Some new info and also somehow partly explain why human history is written 10000 BC differently. But that doesnt explain why Swedes didnt colonize America and Australia. Why didnt your people developed prinitng, paper,gunpowder,compass? Why Mayas have writting system and others natives didnt?
Why Navajo didnt developed wheels? ...Why aboriginials didnt built ship and sail around?

Re: History/science - This statement is highly debatable, despite influences such as "Metanexus". Perhaps the following would be informative:

http://www.nature.co...science-1.11078

As to your other queries, this may be a good opportunity to attempt to stimulate you to perform some research on your own. Let us start with the concept of a Nordic colonization of the Americas.

Here are a few elements for you to research:

Medieval Optimum.

Little Ice Age.

Impact of these climatic changes on the Nordic populations of Greenland and Iceland.

When you have researched these factors, and given them some thought, feel free to inquire in regards to further clarification.

.

[Abramelin]

cormac mac airt, on 23 October 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

Which doesn't appear to apply to the Berezovka Mammoth:



http://donsmaps.com/bcmammoth.html

Considering its location in eastern Russia, several hundred miles away from anything remotely glacial I find it hard to believe, nor does the evidence suggest, that 18,000 pounds of flesh (its weight) froze solid in one day.

cormac

It was more of a general suggestion, just in case 'someone' comes up with 'aliens zapped them', or 'a sudden world wide Biblical Deluge'.

=

But you forget that in eastern Russia there was one of the largest  ice lakes on the planet around that time.

Another thing: you think it's unlikely that that amount of flesh could freeze solid in one day, but it was in ice age Siberia. The corpse was wet and would lose heat very fast, certainly if a wind was blowing when it was 20 degrees Celsius below zero.

[cormac mac airt]

Abramelin, on 24 October 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

It was more of a general suggestion, just in case 'someone' comes up with 'aliens zapped them', or 'a sudden world wide Biblical Deluge'.

=

But you forget that in eastern Russia there was one of the largest ice lakes on the planet around that time.

Another thing: you think it's unlikely that that amount of flesh could freeze solid in one day, but it was in ice age Siberia. The corpse was wet and would lose heat very fast, certainly if a wind was blowing when it was 20 degrees Celsius below zero.

A core sample taken from Lake El'gygytgyn dating as far back as 250,000 BP shows that the timeframe for the Berezovka Mammoth (not too far away), which falls within Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 3, was a warm period and doesn't appear to be suggestive of the 20 degree below zero climate you're suggesting. Also, the Ice Age is a period in time not a specific climactic condition. Not everywhere was glaciated just because it was "the Ice Age".

cormac

[Harte]

Abramelin, on 24 October 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

Another thing: you think it's unlikely that that amount of flesh could freeze solid in one day, but it was in ice age Siberia. The corpse was wet and would lose heat very fast, certainly if a wind was blowing when it was 20 degrees Celsius below zero.

Why would it need to freeze in one day?

You know, beef is hung for weeks at temps above freezing before it is cut into steaks.

Harte

[cormac mac airt]

Harte, on 24 October 2012 - 05:20 PM, said:

Why would it need to freeze in one day?

You know, beef is hung for weeks at temps above freezing before it is cut into steaks.

Harte

Harte, it goes back to the fringe claims that these mammoths were "flash-frozen". They weren't.

cormac

[lightly]

They were frozen... before their bodies decomposed.   With food in their stomaches.      So..  it sounds like they were frozen shortly after death?      Mystery solved lol.
Cause of death could be anything that mammoths normally died of...  then it got COLD.
Winter can freeze things fairly quickly  around here.    It's more of a mystery how they stayed frozen until found?

[cormac mac airt]

lightly, on 25 October 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

They were frozen... before their bodies decomposed.   With food in their stomaches.   So..  it sounds like they were frozen shortly after death?   Mystery solved lol.
Cause of death could be anything that mammoths normally died of...  then it got COLD.
Winter can freeze things fairly quickly  around here. It's more of a mystery how they stayed frozen until found?

'Shortly after death' and 'fairly quickly' only means that they were frozen faster than they decomposed. Which is not necessarily the same as they were frozen within 24 hours. And if they were browsing before they died then of course they'd have food in their stomachs.

cormac

[lightly]

i agree with you cormac.     Like i said,  the larger mystery to me is how they managed to stay frozen.    Animals die with food in their stomaches all the time..  not many freeze and remain frozen for thousands of years?

[cormac mac airt]

lightly, on 25 October 2012 - 12:57 AM, said:

i agree with you cormac. Like i said,  the larger mystery to me is how they managed to stay frozen. Animals die with food in their stomaches all the time..  not many freeze and remain frozen for thousands of years?

Unfortunately lightly, some want to make it more of a mystery than it really is. Not that I think that's what you're doing, I don't. But I think you can see some of that with 'Harsh's' posts.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

cormac mac airt, on 25 October 2012 - 01:26 AM, said:

Unfortunately lightly, some want to make it more of a mystery than it really is. Not that I think that's what you're doing, I don't. But I think you can see some of that with 'Harsh's' posts.

cormac

We had an interesting mammoths and mastodons exhibit last year at the Field Museum, and the centerpiece was the baby mammoth named Lubya that was found by reindeer herders in Russia:



Lubya was nearly perfectly preserved, right down to stomach contents. As research has determined, Lubya froze instantly in Russia while on a trek to reach Noah's ark. Her male counterpart was never found and it's suspected he was devoured by a T-rex (which also didn't make it to the ark). This means Lubya and the ever-hungry T-rex both lived around, what, 6,000 years ago?

None of that is true. I made it up. Lubya's real, however. Ain't she cute?

[Harsh86_Patel]

Arbitran, on 23 October 2012 - 06:50 AM, said:

Mud slides, tar pits, and severe blizzards can cause death very rapidly, and in burying the victim, preserve it quite well. Nobody's suggesting that those mammoths died of starvation or old age; given some of them are only months old, and many of them had food in the stomachs when they died, both of these possibilities can be categorically discarded.

Harte, on 23 October 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

No, it suggests it died with food in its stomach and nothing more.

IOW, it likely did not die of starvation.

Any other hypothesis is, ahem, fantasy.

Harte

There are not one or two instances of these but thousands.Do you suggest all the mammoths that we find frozen right now fell in a pit and got frozen?There were no scavengers and other predators eating of the dead mammoths lying around in a pit to be frozen?The explaination of tarpits and blizzards can be cagtegorically discarded.The freezing occured spontaneously hence they are so well preserved and not half eaten by scavengers etc.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Swede, on 24 October 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

Re: Bolded #1 - As previously mentioned, you may wish to expand the level of your studies. For example:

http://www.fc.up.pt/...hewitt_1996.pdf

http://www2.hawaii.e...er_1969_Sci.pdf

http://server2.icav..../SAPINTO1/5.pdf

http://www.eawag.ch/...Schluter_09.pdf

https://www.msu.edu/...Nature 2004.pdf

http://129.123.92.20...NATURE 2006.pdf

Bear in mind that the above are, again, merely a small sampling of the available research. It would be hoped that you will take the time to read these papers/articles thoroughly.

Re: Bolded #2 - The quoted definitions were taken directly from the source cited. As noted in the referenced source, definition #1 is taken directly from:

Collins English Dictionary - Complete and Unabridged, Harper Collins, 2003.

Quotation #2 is taken directly from:

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Houghton Mifflin, 2009.

In response you provide, as "citations", "Google" search pages. Please provide specific citations for your quotations. Would not personally choose to belabor this matter. However, it is an aspect introduced by yourself.

And please provide credible documentation for an "evolutionist world view regime".

.

Evolutionist world view regime is you people,proof is not required since it is self-evident.

The links you provide are not even touching the amount of research done on the same subject,there is 150 years of research behind evolution and hence you can imagine the amount of resources and time wasted behind this futille storytelling.There is absolutely no proof for Macroevolution or evolution on a large scale,all these examples are cases of adaptations and variations observed in single cellular bacteria/virus,until there is empirical and experimental proof of class transitions etc,they remain stories.

[Harsh86_Patel]

kmt_sesh, on 25 October 2012 - 02:39 AM, said:

We had an interesting mammoths and mastodons exhibit last year at the Field Museum, and the centerpiece was the baby mammoth named Lubya that was found by reindeer herders in Russia:



Lubya was nearly perfectly preserved, right down to stomach contents. As research has determined, Lubya froze instantly in Russia while on a trek to reach Noah's ark. Her male counterpart was never found and it's suspected he was devoured by a T-rex (which also didn't make it to the ark). This means Lubya and the ever-hungry T-rex both lived around, what, 6,000 years ago?

None of that is true. I made it up. Lubya's real, however. Ain't she cute?

Or may be the crust of the Earth did spontaneously displace as suggested by Hapgood.

[Oniomancer]

Harsh86_Patel, on 25 October 2012 - 04:52 AM, said:

There are not one or two instances of these but thousands.Do you suggest all the mammoths that we find frozen right now fell in a pit and got frozen?There were no scavengers and other predators eating of the dead mammoths lying around in a pit to be frozen?The explaination of tarpits and blizzards can be cagtegorically discarded.The freezing occured spontaneously hence they are so well preserved and not half eaten by scavengers etc.

Correction, while tusks and bones belonging to thousands of individuals have been found, the number of preserved carcasses is considerably lower. From wiki:

"By 1929, the remains of thirty-four mammoths with frozen soft tissues (skin, flesh, or organs) had been documented. Only four of them were relatively complete. Since then, about that many more have been found. In most cases, the flesh shows signs of decay before its freezing and later desiccation. Stories abound about frozen mammoth carcasses that were still edible once defrosted, but the original sources indicate the carcasses were, in fact, terribly decayed, and the stench so unbearable that only the dogs accompanying the finders, and wild scavengers, showed any interest in the flesh.^[43]"

[Arbitran]

Harsh86_Patel, on 25 October 2012 - 04:52 AM, said:

There are not one or two instances of these but thousands.Do you suggest all the mammoths that we find frozen right now fell in a pit and got frozen?There were no scavengers and other predators eating of the dead mammoths lying around in a pit to be frozen?The explaination of tarpits and blizzards can be cagtegorically discarded.The freezing occured spontaneously hence they are so well preserved and not half eaten by scavengers etc.

You seem to be insinuating that no mammoth remains which were scavenged have ever been found. You have not qualified such an assumption. Again, a mud slide could bury animal, and scavengers would be incapable of accessing it. And incidentally, tar pits and ice lakes are not selective in their victims: they would trap and freeze scavengers and predators as much as they would mammoths. The freezing could not have occurred spontaneously, but it did happen very rapidly (over the course of days or weeks).