477 replies to this topic

[Mario Dantas]

Cormac,

I have read your reply and the first thing that comes to my mind is to quit this thread at once.  I thought i could discuss and learn something from you, but i sense there will not be any such thing...

I cannot stress enough how inteligent people can be prejudicial and really dumb regarding the unknown. You speak as if you had all figured out, too bad for you.

I admit that i can be wrong, do you?

Regards,
Mario Dantas

[cormac mac airt]

Mario Dantas, on 07 November 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:

Cormac,

I have read your reply and the first thing that comes to my mind is to quit this thread at once.  I thought i could discuss and learn something from you, but i sense there will not be any such thing...

I cannot stress enough how inteligent people can be prejudicial and really dumb regarding the unknown. You speak as if you had all figured out, too bad for you.

I admit that i can be wrong, do you?

Regards,
Mario Dantas

The only thing you've done so far is make up a story, ignoring the entire geological/chronological timeframe both for Greenland as well as humans, and thinking that that should replace actual history. It doesn't. If you have a problem with the known geological/chronological timeframes for both then prove them wrong. So far you haven't even put a scratch in either.

cormac

[DieChecker]

Mario Dantas, on 07 November 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

DieChecker,

When you say:


I would argue that the problem here is not whether humans or Homo Erectus lived during these far away periods, millions of years ago, but if the actual geologic time scale is the correct one...

Regards,
Mario Dantas

So, you would put forward that the Human end of the timeline is correct? That there basically was no humans, or homonids, in Europe past several million years ago?

And would also put forward that it is the Greenland timeline that is incorrect? That perhaps the Greenland migration happened on the order of tens of thousands, instead of hundreds of millions of years ago???

Are you a Young Earth Creationist? That model might be used to explain the greatly accellerated movement of Greenland, at least in part.

I'm not a geologist, but I think that altering a timeline by an order of 10000 would be something modern science would have noticed. We also know that the ice on greenland has been there from before humans walked on Earth. That is due to ice core sampling and various isotope dating and other methods, which show clearly that Greenland has been where it is for several million years.

I think we all need to look for Atlantis elsewhere. Mark Greenland off the list as a NO, and move on.

[Quaentum]

Mario Dantas, on 07 November 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

Quaentum




You are entitled to have your own opinion. Please, bear in mind that in this theory, the geologic timing is ruled out. Once you do that, all types of evidences start to happen.

Regards,
Mario Dantas

If you are going to use Plato as a reference for Atlantis, then remember, Atlantis was more than a location, it was a civilization.  For your theory to work, humans had to exist on the Earth millions of years before conventional research indicates.  You must provide evidence for humans existing on this planet that far back else the concept of Greenland being Atlantis fails.

[DieChecker]

Quaentum, on 09 November 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

If you are going to use Plato as a reference for Atlantis, then remember, Atlantis was more than a location, it was a civilization.  For your theory to work, humans had to exist on the Earth millions of years before conventional research indicates.  You must provide evidence for humans existing on this planet that far back else the concept of Greenland being Atlantis fails.

If he uses Plato? Is there any other source? Not that I know about....

Agree that without evidence of Greenland having moved less then a hundred thousand years ago, or of humans existing hundreds of millions of years ago, that the idea is a Fail.

Plus, Plato, the only source, said right off it was 10,000 years ago.

Quote

The Egyptians, Plato asserted, described Atlantis as an island comprising mostly mountains in the northern portions and along the shore, and encompassing a great plain of an oblong shape in the south "extending in one direction three thousand stadia [about 555 km; 345 mi], but across the center inland it was two thousand stadia [about 370 km; 230 mi]." Fifty stadia [9 km; 6 mi] from the coast was a mountain that was low on all sides...broke it off all round about... the central island itself was five stades in diameter [about 0.92 km; 0.57 mi].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis

Mario.... Iceland would be a much better fit, don't you think? The plain of Atlantis would have been around 60,000 sq miles. And iceland is about 40,000 sq miles. And Iceland is volcanic, which could have led to a tsunami that wiped out its own coastline civilizations. Or, even dropped off much of the southern part of a larger island thousands of years ago. This is entirely made up, but still hundreds of times more likely, IMHO, then Greenland being Atlantis. Especially trying to say that Greenland was off the Spainish coast 10,000 years ago.

Edited by DieChecker, 09 November 2012 - 11:06 PM.

[Mario Dantas]

cormac mac airt, on 07 November 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

The only thing you've done so far is make up a story, ignoring the entire geological/chronological timeframe both for Greenland as well as humans, and thinking that that should replace actual history. It doesn't. If you have a problem with the known geological/chronological timeframes for both then prove them wrong. So far you haven't even put a scratch in either.

cormac

Thought experiments aren't limited by anything, that is why they are "thought experiments", remember? An experiment not attainable in the "real" world, under normal conditions can be replicated, analysed and registered in a thought experiment.

I ask:

Are you not aware (or do you not agree) that, eventually, if a seizable enough outer body had impacted our crust, 10.000 years ago, to the point of modifying previous continental “arrangement”, the chronology would have to be necessarily, inaccurate and therefore wrong?

There is still no definite proof that something this big happened. But that doesn’t mean it did not. Actually, my experiment says it did!

There is this subject that comes to my mind which is Darwin’s views on the Santiago island (Cape Verde) regarding a strange sedimentary ribbon (in  The Voyage of the Beagle

Chapter 1 - St. Jago -- Cape de Verd Islands

by CHARLES DARWIN):

“The geology of this island is the most interesting part of its natural history. On entering the harbour, a perfectly horizontal white band, in the face of the sea cliff, may be seen running for some miles along the coast, and at the height of about forty-five feet above the water. Upon examination this white stratum is found to consist of calcareous matter with numerous shells embedded, most or all of which now exist on the neighbouring coast. It rests on ancient volcanic rocks, and has been covered by a stream of basalt, which must have entered the sea when the white shelly bed was lying at the bottom. It is interesting to trace the changes produced by the heat of the overlying lava, on the friable mass, which in parts has been converted into a crystalline limestone, and in other parts into a compact spotted stone Where the lime has been caught up by the scoriaceous fragments of the lower surface of the stream, it is converted into groups of beautifully radiated fibres resembling arragonite.”
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-voyage-of-the-beagle/chapter-01.html

There are other similar sedimentary deposits in Santiago, Maio, Boavista, Sal and S. Nicolau islands, and one (Maio island) is considered to have the oldest sediments in the Macaronesia group (Azores, Canary islands, Cape Verde and Madeira). I have studied some of these deposits in different islands, but especially in Santiago:



Santiago
https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722/PortoDaPraiaIV
https://picasaweb.go...RainSAGonnaFall
https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722/SFrancisco
https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722/TARRAFALSantiago

Maio
https://picasaweb.go...ontinentalDrift
https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722/MaioIslandII

What does this have to do with Greenland, you might ask?

The geological profile is pretty much the same between Greenland and the Macaronesia: Meta volcanic and sedimentary deposits in coastal areas...

“Greenland’s subsequent geological development was dominated by the formation of sedimentary basins along the margins of the Precambrian shield, where 5-10 kilometre thick successions of sediments were deposited. These deposits are preserved today in coastal areas, with the thickest successions offshore on Greenland’s continental shelf.”
http://www.geus.dk/viden_om/voii/ilulissat-uk/voii05-uk.html

The fact that both (Greenland and Macaronesia) share a same geology should be considered itself suspicious and might even be the reason why there is a lack of continental fit (between north Africa and north America) and the two continents chronology don’t match either, exactly in the region where Greenland appears to have been in the north Atlantic:

https://lh3.googleus...rsimulation.jpg

A recent thick layer of highly dense basalt rapidly covered numerous Cretaceous limestone in many spots in the Cape Verde islands and elsewhere (in the Macaronesia, e.g. in the Canary islands). Moreover, the Cretaceous period, as we know, probably ended with some violent cometary or meteoric extinction event.

Darwin visited the island of Santiago and was particularly intrigued by the extent of the white limestone layer that cross the entire island of Santiago (about 50 Km long). I will post some new albums with pictures of the phenomena:

Quail Island
https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722/QuailIslandAndCharlesDarwinCapeVerde18322012

Plateau (Praya)
https://picasaweb.go.../Plateau_layers
https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722/Plateau

Monte Branco
https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722/Monte_BrancoCretaceousTheChalkPeriod

Sal
https://picasaweb.google.com/106047243612755133722/SalIslandQuarry

Regards,
Mario Dantas

[cormac mac airt]

Mario Dantas, on 13 November 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

Thought experiments aren't limited by anything, that is why they are "thought experiments", remember? An experiment not attainable in the "real" world, under normal conditions can be replicated, analysed and registered in a thought experiment.

I ask:

Are you not aware (or do you not agree) that, eventually, if a seizable enough outer body had impacted our crust, 10.000 years ago, to the point of modifying previous continental “arrangement”, the chronology would have to be necessarily, inaccurate and therefore wrong?

There is still no definite proof that something this big happened. But that doesn’t mean it did not. Actually, my experiment says it did!

Regards,
Mario Dantas


~SNIP~

In other words you like to play "lets pretend". Gotcha!

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt, 13 November 2012 - 10:18 PM.

[Mario Dantas]

I uploaded new albums just to show you what i have been investigating and that is what you have to say about it? I really feel like there is no point in continuing...

[DieChecker]

Assuming Greenland was off the coast of Europe about 10,000 years ago, we'd find evidence of the seafloor there being only 10,000 years old. But, what we see there is sedimentation that corrisponds to hundreds of millions of years of seafloor, and not new volcanic plains/mountains.

[cormac mac airt]

Mario Dantas, on 13 November 2012 - 10:53 PM, said:

I uploaded new albums just to show you what i have been investigating and that is what you have to say about it? I really feel like there is no point in continuing...

We're not talking about "eventually". We're not even talking about "if". We're talking about what evidence exists now. And the evidence that exists now does not support the contention that the tectonic plates moved drastically at any point within the last 200,000 years (for Homo sapiens) or the last 12,000 years (for Plato's Atlantis). Trying to get around it with a hypothetical impact that only moves the crust (as a whole) over the mantle without so much as leaving evidence of having done so is not an answer. It's wishful thinking.

cormac

[Oniomancer]

Crustal structure and origin of the Cape Verde Rise

"...geological observations suggest that these rocks have been tilted and uplifted about 4 km from the ocean floor"

"The Cape Verde rise is one of the largest swells in the world's oceans, rising some 2.2 km above the expected depth of the cretaceous seafloor according to depth-age relationships"

https://docs.google...._mzBnvc4FQwYABg

[Mario Dantas]

DieChecker, on 07 November 2012 - 09:13 PM, said:

So, you would put forward that the Human end of the timeline is correct? That there basically was no humans, or homonids, in Europe past several million years ago?

And would also put forward that it is the Greenland timeline that is incorrect? That perhaps the Greenland migration happened on the order of tens of thousands, instead of hundreds of millions of years ago???

Are you a Young Earth Creationist? That model might be used to explain the greatly accellerated movement of Greenland, at least in part.

I'm not a geologist, but I think that altering a timeline by an order of 10000 would be something modern science would have noticed. We also know that the ice on greenland has been there from before humans walked on Earth. That is due to ice core sampling and various isotope dating and other methods, which show clearly that Greenland has been where it is for several million years.

I think we all need to look for Atlantis elsewhere. Mark Greenland off the list as a NO, and move on.

DieChecker,

Sorry, but what do you mean by "Human end of the timeline"?

I am not a "young Earth Creationist"!

Firstly, i should stress that it is just an experiment (for lack of a better word).

Greenland's ice is not that old, actually it is considerable younger than Antarctica's...

You all are speaking as if scientific knowledge is not flawed, science needs to be flawed to move on...

Regards,
Mario Dantas

[Mario Dantas]

Quaentum, on 09 November 2012 - 09:28 PM, said:

If you are going to use Plato as a reference for Atlantis, then remember, Atlantis was more than a location, it was a civilization.  For your theory to work, humans had to exist on the Earth millions of years before conventional research indicates.  You must provide evidence for humans existing on this planet that far back else the concept of Greenland being Atlantis fails.

I disagree, Atlantis is to be readily found when proper geologic evidence is forwarded. Until then it can only be considered a wishful thinking. No one knows how far back did Atlantis exist, if it exited at all. Plato told the story of a large island existing in the north Atlantic, that suddenly disappeared into the depths of the sea with a tremendous earthquake. In my opinion, these are the most important information given to us. I do not have to show anything!

That is maybe the least problem for Atlantis being true or not...

Regards,
Mario Dantas

[Mario Dantas]

DieChecker, on 09 November 2012 - 11:05 PM, said:

If he uses Plato? Is there any other source? Not that I know about....

Agree that without evidence of Greenland having moved less then a hundred thousand years ago, or of humans existing hundreds of millions of years ago, that the idea is a Fail.

Plus, Plato, the only source, said right off it was 10,000 years ago.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis

Mario.... Iceland would be a much better fit, don't you think? The plain of Atlantis would have been around 60,000 sq miles. And iceland is about 40,000 sq miles. And Iceland is volcanic, which could have led to a tsunami that wiped out its own coastline civilizations. Or, even dropped off much of the southern part of a larger island thousands of years ago. This is entirely made up, but still hundreds of times more likely, IMHO, then Greenland being Atlantis. Especially trying to say that Greenland was off the Spainish coast 10,000 years ago.

[Mario Dantas]

DieChecker, on 13 November 2012 - 11:27 PM, said:

Assuming Greenland was off the coast of Europe about 10,000 years ago, we'd find evidence of the seafloor there being only 10,000 years old. But, what we see there is sedimentation that corrisponds to hundreds of millions of years of seafloor, and not new volcanic plains/mountains.

The timing you are speaking, is not allowed in this experiment, sorry. I ask what kind of changes would want to be seen in the north Atlantic or in the world? There are several evidences that point to severe geologic disruption, albeit during millions of years back in time. What if you stop the geologic clock? I personally get to think that the most important periods of our dear life on this planet are somehow connected to this specific event, the demise of Atlantis. Mythologies have an important role in this whole story, in the sense that they are based on oral information of an ancient past, that we could be ignoring altogether. The reason why the earth's plain is tilted, or why is the largest gravitational anomaly on earth situated in the north Atlantic, in front of Gibraltar, is one of other similar interconnected elements that seem to form an unquestionably coherent pattern, in my opinion.



Regards,
Mario Dantas