Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The age of the Antarctic Ice Cap questioned


  • Please log in to reply
260 replies to this topic

#1    Riaan

Riaan

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 510 posts
  • Joined:04 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 May 2014 - 01:34 PM

Many of you will remember my posts about Terra Australis Incognita being Plato's Atlantis. In essence, I argue that Australia, New Zealand and Antarctica were all part of this super continent, and that it was inhabited 12 000 years ago (see the summary here). That would imply that Antarctica would have been ice free at that time. Scientist have dated the age of the ice cap to several hundred thousand years, which would seemingly blow a big hole in my theory (there are several other aspects of my theory that nobody has been able to explain away so far).

It has been brought to my attention that the dating of the ice cap is not universally accepted, as for example argued here. Although the author of this article obviously has a different motive for questioning the age of the ice cap (he is a Creationist), the article nevertheless appears to have valid scientific arguments.

How do or did scientists respond to the issues highlighted in the article, if at all? Is anyone aware of similar articles in scientific circles (that question the age of the ice caps)? No scientist appears to have considered the possibility that the ice cap had developed following a comet or asteroid impact (at the Scotia plate) 12 000 years ago.

Author of Thera and the Exodus, published February 2013

Details here.

#2    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,494 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 01 May 2014 - 03:16 PM

View PostRiaan, on 01 May 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

No scientist appears to have considered the possibility that the ice cap had developed following a comet or asteroid impact (at the Scotia plate) 12 000 years ago.

Firstly, this is a hypothesis, not a theory.

Secondly - how could a "comet or asteroid" create the ice caps??

"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder

#3    Peter B

Peter B

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,216 posts
  • Joined:29 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Yes We Can-berra!

Posted 01 May 2014 - 03:17 PM

View PostRiaan, on 01 May 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

Many of you will remember my posts about Terra Australis Incognita being Plato's Atlantis. In essence, I argue that Australia, New Zealand and Antarctica were all part of this super continent, and that it was inhabited 12 000 years ago (see the summary here). That would imply that Antarctica would have been ice free at that time. Scientist have dated the age of the ice cap to several hundred thousand years, which would seemingly blow a big hole in my theory (there are several other aspects of my theory that nobody has been able to explain away so far).

It has been brought to my attention that the dating of the ice cap is not universally accepted, as for example argued here. Although the author of this article obviously has a different motive for questioning the age of the ice cap (he is a Creationist), the article nevertheless appears to have valid scientific arguments.

How do or did scientists respond to the issues highlighted in the article, if at all? Is anyone aware of similar articles in scientific circles (that question the age of the ice caps)? No scientist appears to have considered the possibility that the ice cap had developed following a comet or asteroid impact (at the Scotia plate) 12 000 years ago.

My understanding is that serious mainstream scientists ignore the work of creationist scientists, for two main reasons: 1. creation scientists are pretty much looking for evidence to support a pre-determined theory (the age of the Earth as calculated according to a literal interpretation of the Old Testament), and 2. the work of creation scientists involves essentially no actual experimental work and almost all scanning of scientific literature for material to incorporate into their own works. Accordingly, before relying on the linked article, I strongly suggest you read the articles referenced to see if they're being accurately quoted.

Regarding the linked article itself, I note it was written in 1992, and contains no references later than 1990. Therefore the suggestion that the ice is up to 160,000 years old is way out of date. More recent ice cores (including from the Russian Vostok base) include ice which has been dated beyond 400,000 years. On top of that, ice core ages can be correlated to events other than volcanic eruptions, as claimed by the author.

Regarding your thought that the ice sheets might be as little as 12,000 years old, I'd suggest that's unlikely. For one thing, the ice cores display annual layers, and these layers can be counted way beyond 12,000 years into the past.

More importantly, though, the Antarctic ice sheet is much older than the ice it currently consists of. My understanding is that Antarctica began to ice up tens of millions of years ago. However the ice in the ice sheets is constantly on the move from near the centre of Antarctica to its edges, where it melts or calves. So even the oldest ice in Antarctica is much younger than the ice sheet as a whole.


#4    Riaan

Riaan

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 510 posts
  • Joined:04 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 May 2014 - 05:09 PM

View PostEmma_Acid, on 01 May 2014 - 03:16 PM, said:

Firstly, this is a hypothesis, not a theory.

Secondly - how could a "comet or asteroid" create the ice caps??

If a comet had hit the earth as I postulate, the atmosphere around the world would have been filled with dust and the sun blocked out. With an impact crater at the Scotia plate, the sea would have boiled (as recorded in South American myths), and the steam and extreme cold would have resulted in a rapidly thickening ice cap.

As a matter of interest, in the summary, which has to be downloaded, I present other arguments as well. Firstly, it is inconceivable that an imaginary continent could have three shapes, namely a solid (can anyone suggest a better description?), a ring-shaped and a C-shaped continent. These three shaped clearly depict a continent of which the central plateau was slowly being flooded by the sea. Secondly, the ocean floor topography of New Zealand closely matches Schoner's map. Then we also have the bulge on the west coast of South America which appears on several medieval maps, and a mountain range of the exact shape and position on the ocean floor west of South America.

Can anyone explain these anomalies?

Author of Thera and the Exodus, published February 2013

Details here.

#5    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,384 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 02 May 2014 - 12:14 AM

View PostRiaan, on 01 May 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

Many of you will remember my posts about Terra Australis Incognita being Plato's Atlantis. In essence, I argue that Australia, New Zealand and Antarctica were all part of this super continent, and that it was inhabited 12 000 years ago (see the summary here). That would imply that Antarctica would have been ice free at that time. Scientist have dated the age of the ice cap to several hundred thousand years, which would seemingly blow a big hole in my theory (there are several other aspects of my theory that nobody has been able to explain away so far).

It has been brought to my attention that the dating of the ice cap is not universally accepted, as for example argued here. Although the author of this article obviously has a different motive for questioning the age of the ice cap (he is a Creationist), the article nevertheless appears to have valid scientific arguments.

How do or did scientists respond to the issues highlighted in the article, if at all? Is anyone aware of similar articles in scientific circles (that question the age of the ice caps)? No scientist appears to have considered the possibility that the ice cap had developed following a comet or asteroid impact (at the Scotia plate) 12 000 years ago.

Your basic understandings are so flawed that they are not even wrong.

Specify your impact crater on the Scotia Plate. With credible dating.

Please take the time to actually understand the timelines in regards to tectonic plate movement.

Please take the time to fully understand the Antarctic coring methodologies/analyses (Vostok, etc.).

Please take the time (and inferred thought processes) to distinguish between hemispherical climatic changes.

.


#6    jaylemurph

jaylemurph

    Lector Historiae

  • Member
  • 8,826 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA

  • "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make him think." Dorothy Parker

Posted 02 May 2014 - 01:19 AM

Pfft, Swede. If you're going to insist on people /actually/ knowing things that they postulate about here, you'll decrease traffic by a good, solid 98%. Next you'll be suggesting people read and think critically, too.

--Jaylemurph

"... amongst the most obstinate of our opinions may be classed those which derive from discussions in which we affect to search for the truth, while in reality we are only fortifying prejudice."     -- James Fenimore Cooper, The Pathfinder

Posted Image

Deeply venial

#7    Thorvir Hrothgaard

Thorvir Hrothgaard

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,558 posts
  • Joined:25 Jan 2014
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Noblesville

  • Viking and Pagan at heart. Drink Mead and Hold Your Heathen Hammer High!

Posted 02 May 2014 - 02:06 AM

View Postjaylemurph, on 02 May 2014 - 01:19 AM, said:

Pfft, Swede. If you're going to insist on people /actually/ knowing things that they postulate about here, you'll decrease traffic by a good, solid 98%. Next you'll be suggesting people read and think critically, too.

--Jaylemurph

Critical thinking...and the restraint to jump to the wildest, improvable conclusions without any real evidence...is a lost art nowadays.

Orbs and Chemtrails, Bigfoot and Global Warming,
It's these hoaxes and more
That give me my sour stomach each morning...

#8    Riaan

Riaan

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 510 posts
  • Joined:04 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 May 2014 - 05:40 AM

View PostSwede, on 02 May 2014 - 12:14 AM, said:

Your basic understandings are so flawed that they are not even wrong.

Would you care to comment on the other issues I raised, or do you prefer just to ignore them?

Author of Thera and the Exodus, published February 2013

Details here.

#9    Peter B

Peter B

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,216 posts
  • Joined:29 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Yes We Can-berra!

Posted 02 May 2014 - 09:56 AM

View PostRiaan, on 02 May 2014 - 05:40 AM, said:

Would you care to comment on the other issues I raised, or do you prefer just to ignore them?

With the greatest of respect, would you care to comment on the issues I raised in my post...? Or, for that matter, the points raised by Swede.

Edited by Peter B, 02 May 2014 - 09:58 AM.


#10    Riaan

Riaan

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 510 posts
  • Joined:04 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 May 2014 - 03:22 PM

View PostPeter B, on 02 May 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

With the greatest of respect, would you care to comment on the issues I raised in my post...? Or, for that matter, the points raised by Swede.

I am fully aware that there is an anomaly, and I admit that I do not know how to reconcile the two sides - at present. I actually spent quite a lot of time studying the ice core dating techniques. However, if science is absolutely right and the ice cap is hundreds of thousands of years old, you have to accept the following:

1. That Terra Australis was indeed an invention by medieval cartographers who believed that the land mass in the north had to be balanced by a similar land mass in the south. If that is the case, how could three completely imaginary continent shapes have come into existence, which clearly seem to be related? See the image below.

Posted Image

2. That there is no correlation between the New Zealand ocean floor topography and Schoner's C-shaped TA map (below).

Posted Image

And a host of others, such as Mercator's lake in the middle of the Sahara desert, of which the remains are clearly visible on satellite images.

Posted Image

All nothing more than imagination?

Author of Thera and the Exodus, published February 2013

Details here.

#11    Quaentum

Quaentum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,551 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The number of fringe believers is inversely proportional to what is left to discover in our world.

Posted 02 May 2014 - 05:21 PM

View PostRiaan, on 01 May 2014 - 05:09 PM, said:

If a comet had hit the earth as I postulate, the atmosphere around the world would have been filled with dust and the sun blocked out. With an impact crater at the Scotia plate, the sea would have boiled (as recorded in South American myths), and the steam and extreme cold would have resulted in a rapidly thickening ice cap.

Since the Scotia Plate is south of South America, the boiling seas would only be evident to those living on the southern tip of South America.

Do any of the myths come from that region?

Further, if a comet did hit the Scotia Plate, there would have been a tsunami.  Is there any flood myths that coincide with the time of the supposed comet hit?

AA LOGIC
They didn't use thousands of workers - oops forgot about the work camps
There's no evidence for ramps - You found one?...Bummer
Well we know they didn't use ancient tools to cut and shape the stones - Chisel marks?  Craps
I still say aliens built them!

#12    Perceptivum

Perceptivum

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 301 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2014
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

  • Too many freaks, not enough circuses.

Posted 02 May 2014 - 05:39 PM

View PostRiaan, on 01 May 2014 - 05:09 PM, said:

As a matter of interest, in the summary, which has to be downloaded, I present other arguments as well. Firstly, it is inconceivable that an imaginary continent could have three shapes, namely a solid (can anyone suggest a better description?), a ring-shaped and a C-shaped continent.

Whoa boy.  I really believe you should take a step back and read what you are posting.  For instance, yes I, as well as other very intelligent people I know, believe that it is 'conceivable that an imaginary continent could have three shapes'.  Actually, my very intelligent friends and I have concluded (formed an hypothesis if you will and as a side note, were hoping you would test our hypothesis to derive a theory, but that's another topic of conversation) that an imaginary continent could not only have three shapes, it could also support only green been and cocoa vegetation, as well as African Swallows and highland gorilla habitats.  Ok, now go to work.

"Even if you are in a minority of one, the truth is still the truth". - Ghandi

"A conspiracy is a truth awaiting revelation." - Me

#13    Riaan

Riaan

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 510 posts
  • Joined:04 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 May 2014 - 08:02 PM

View PostPerceptivum, on 02 May 2014 - 05:39 PM, said:

For instance, yes I, as well as other very intelligent people I know, believe that it is 'conceivable that an imaginary continent could have three shapes'.

Thanks for your valuable opinion. How would very intelligent people like yourself interpret Mercator's lake in the middle of the Sahara desert, in the exact location where geographical evidence of such a lake exists?

Author of Thera and the Exodus, published February 2013

Details here.

#14    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,318 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 02 May 2014 - 08:09 PM

View PostRiaan, on 02 May 2014 - 08:02 PM, said:

Thanks for your valuable opinion. How would very intelligent people like yourself interpret Mercator's lake in the middle of the Sahara desert, in the exact location where geographical evidence of such a lake exists?

Wherein you are either not well informed or intellectually dishonest, because the river and lakes you see there is supposed to be the Nile and the course is based on the description of Ptolemy.  We know that that description was haphazard at best.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#15    stereologist

stereologist

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,039 posts
  • Joined:08 Sep 2009
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 May 2014 - 08:20 PM

The evidence from paleomagnetism is quite clear that none of the 3 land masses you mention have traveled far in the last 12,000 years.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users