Create account

TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2283d
Their constructions all dated between 15-8000 years from now.
2 / 16
replied 2282d
Thanks for making my point for me.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2282d
What point? This is their CONSTRUCTION date, not their destruction date you twat.
replied 2282d
Destruction dates were not nearly as close as you think.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2282d
They are certainly AFTER their constructions, what da ya think?
replied 2282d
Yes... and that is relevant how?
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2282d
To determine the timeframe they would have been destroyed.
replied 2282d
Yes, and they are too far apart to be related to a global catastrophy. We know that civilisation is about 12000 years old, as that is when the climate stabilised enough for crops.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2282d
They also have been destroyed pretty much the same way.
replied 2282d
That is false.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2282d
This is absolutely true. Look up the rocks conditions. The erosion and oxydation patterns, the way they are dispelled on the ground. All identical.
replied 2282d
No doubt those flooding events killed lots of people, and left an impression in stories, and legends. Civilisation came later though.
replied 2282d
The only flooding that happened very suddenly on large, but still not global scales, was the flooding due to the melting of glaciers at the end of the ice age.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2282d
Metling of glaciers don't utterly destroy huge blocks constructions.
replied 2281d
It does when much of that melt is the size of a large lake, small sea, and suddenly bursts from an ice wall dam. That happened a lot around the ice sheets.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2282d
A global catastrophy is the only theory that makes sense. Otherwise that civilization would have somehow survived or at least would have preserve more about their culture.
replied 2282d
It wasn't global if other civilisation saw no problems at those times. It is found in places around the world, sure, but not found everywhere.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2282d
They are litterally found everywhere in every continent.
replied 2282d
Signs of disasters you mean? Various disasters have happened in lots of places. Not everywhere though. Not all at once. Various different disasters at different times, yes.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2282d
No, I mean megaliths are found everywhere in the world.
replied 2281d
Where are the ones in Norh America?
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2279d
http://www.megaliths.org/browse/region/1
replied 2279d
None of those require anything advanced.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2279d
Which is a common caracteristic of megaliths.
replied 2279d
Which means there is nothing special about them.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2279d
Except the tools to cut them without leaving trace of such tools.
replied 2279d
Nothing advanced about that at all.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2279d
Yeah that's so retarded nobody have any clue how they did it and nobody managed to do it neither in later on civilization. Good job Mr. Dissmissal.
replied 2279d
Many proposed methods, but we dont know which they used. It doesmt really matter.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2279d
Such as? Which tool exactly that doesn't leave any marks?
replied 2279d
Most of them when used properly. Not to mention whatever Mark's are easily weathered away.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2278d
A lot of blocks haven't suffered weathering because they was burried.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2278d
This is utterly false. No cuitting tool on earth doesn't leave any marks.
replied 2278d
If we are just talking easily visible Mark's then you are wrong. I do it all the time.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2278d
No, we are talking microscopically.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2282d
Maybe, but there is nothing to back this up in that time frame.
replied 2281d
There is no evidence to back a global disaster. There is lots of evidence of various disasters around the world though.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2279d
Having different events destroying everything access the globe in such a time frame is statistically unlikely.
replied 2279d
It is actually statistically likely. The time frame is pretty broad.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2279d
Something around 4000 years is broad?
replied 2279d
Yes it is.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2279d
So statistically we should have been utterly destroyed since sumer? Are we living in a time frame where we are beating odds?
replied 2279d
We see disasters happen all the time. There is zero evidence of a global disaster. Just many different unrelated disasters, spread over a long time frame.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2279d
Megaliths are one big evidence rubbing itself on your face.
replied 2279d
Evidence of what? Evidence that old structures existed? No one disputes that.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2278d
Evidence that something ponctual happened all at once. Even all ancien civilisation are saying that about themself. All of them.
replied 2278d
Lots of old civilizations had disasters. That is not evidence for a global disaster. There is no evidence for any global disaster. At least outside of mass extinctions events.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2278d
Megaliths prove you wrong.
replied 2278d
No, they dont. They didnt all have disasters at the same time.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2278d
Are you denying what all ancient civilizations said about themselves?
replied 2278d
When the sea wall bust that made the Mediterranean, and later the one that made the Black Sea, both created what seemed to be world level floods from their perspectives.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2277d
And Mayans somehow had the same perspective too?
replied 2277d
They didnt have that problem. Most deaths and civilisation collapse in the Americas was from disease spread by early exorers.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2277d
No but they still did say the civilization was destroyed by a global flood somewhere around the dawn of Sumer which is in their calander. Interesting coincidence don't you think?
replied 2277d
Not really. Lots of old civilizations talk about past disasters. The evidence doesn't back the idea though.
replied 2277d
The truth is humanity is very old and civilizations come and go because the Earth changes and habitable places do too so people forget where they once were. Simple.
replied 2277d
Yes, and no. Sure humanity is old, but we never saw big civilizations until farming crops became possible about 12000years ago.
replied 2277d
This is incorrect. The pyramids in South America are over 20000 years old. They're so old their bases are covered in forests. The vast majority of technology has been here before.
replied 2277d
I think you likely added a zero to that.
replied 2269d
Nope. 20 THOUSAND with a T, years old. The history you were taught was a self-serving history formulated by Europeans so they could steal the 'new world'. It was only new to them.
replied 2269d
I understand human migration, and no history is not lies taught by Europeans. Obviously there was people here long before European settlers, it not large civilizations that old.
replied 2269d
You have not done enough reading. https://tinyurl.com/yakxdmbl
replied 2269d
I am well aware that there was migration to the Americas before the land bridge migration. This link doesnt claim there were massive cities 20000 years ago though.
replied 2269d
It shows you that there were people here tens of thousands of years ago and that they were negros. Which is completely contradictory to mainstream history. There's more links google em
replied 2269d
Interesting change of topic. Yes I know there is evidence of African, and Australian aboriginal migration to South America. You confuse grade school history with mainstream history.
replied 2269d
Doesn't matter what you call it really. The official story line of transatlantic slave trade etc. is a lie. It was created to support European colonialism Not sure how thats mainstream
replied 2269d
That is not mainstream. That is wrong. Slavery did happen. There was a slave trade.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2277d
It's always about water and around the same time. If it walks like a duck, quack like a duck then it's a duck.
replied 2277d
Yes, and his font quack like a duck. Ancient stories, but no evidence to back them. The stories are not the same at all.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2277d
No evidences beside magaliths destroyed all across the globe, massive amount of organic squish burried under the ground, acient folklor litterally saying so etc etc?
replied 2277d
Yeah, that evidence does not back your absurd idea of a global flood. Beside the fact there isn't enough water for such a thing.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2277d
Beside, what else could actually utterly destroy the biggest stone structures ever built?
replied 2277d
If they were destroyed they wouldnt be there for you to point to. That said local disasters are enough.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2276d
Are you for real? All these is left is small remainings.
replied 2276d
Yet you extrapolate so much about them.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2275d
I don't. You do.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2277d
The Earth is covered by 70%. That's plenty of water.
replied 2277d
It is not nearly enough to drown the planet. Those who believe the flood myth dont seem to understand volume. That is okay for the bronze age the ideas came from, but not modern times.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2276d
According to? Your paradigms?
replied 2276d
According to basic math. Adding that volume of water would require too much water to be added, and it would have had nowhere to go to disappear.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2275d
Go on show me your math. Can't wait to have a good laugh.
replied 2275d
This series might help you. It is done by an actual scientist.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2275d
But now I get it. You brush off evidences because you are afraid it might shackles your dogmatic paradigm. You just exposed your yourself with such video 😂
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2275d
Beside this video is 100% off topic. Where arent talking about evolution whatsoever. You are making it a dogmatic case. I don't.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2275d
Dogmatic people doest not worth arguing with. They only care about proving their dogmas rather than finding the truth, no matter what it is.
replied 2275d
Yes, and you are the dogmatic person in this conversation. You believe religious dogma over facts.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2275d
Sure sure projecting much? I talk about megaliths, you talk about creation vs evolution like if it was slightly related.
replied 2275d
I want talking about evolution. I was talking about religious flood myths. You seem to think large old structures prove your flood myth. That series help dispel such funny ideas.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2271d
So basically you have flood myths all across the globe from all the older civilizations. You also have large structures (the largest ever built) utterly destroyed. 1 + 1 = 2
replied 2271d
Not all destroyed, and not by flooding. You see lots of similar myths from old civilizations. Doesnt mean those things actually happened. Especially with the differences in the myths.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2271d
And the difference in the myths relies with details. Exactly what one would expect to see if different cultures would talk about the same event but from their very own perspective.
replied 2271d
With the events not happening at the same time everywhere. How does a global event not happen at the same time?
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2271d
Well that's the thing, they talk about the same event otherwise they wouldn't share the same myth.
replied 2271d
So if I saw I saw a flood on the flood plains at 6000 years ago, and someone else saw a flood 5000 years ago in India, you conclude they were the same flood, and happened globally?
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2268d
No but the odds of such thing are quite slim.
replied 2268d
Well you are currently doing just that.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2267d
Otherwise how can humanity completely lose their construction techniques that was globally known and spread?
replied 2267d
We didnt lose anything. We have far better techniques now. It is like the myth that Roman's made better concrete. Just because we we often cheap out doesnt mean we cant.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2267d
I meant that the odds of such multiple desctructive events happening is such a short time frame are slimmer than a bigger happning just once.
replied 2267d
We have seen such events over a far short time span, I think you are wrong. Natural disasters happen. Especially since the disasters those places had were common to their area.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2271d
Not flooding? Then how? And how complete sites managed to be buried in the ground?
replied 2271d
Not all of them were buried. You would think there would be a massively disturbed global sediment layer around the world if there was a global flood. There is no such layer though.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2271d
I think the ones near the "event" were burried while the ones further or those protected by mountains have simply been destroyed except for the pyramids because of their shape.
replied 2271d
There is no further off, and closer, if the flood was global.it should have happened everywhere is Everest was below water. So it should be all, or not.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2268d
Obviously it was global to some extent. AFIC there were survivors.
replied 2268d
What do you mean by "global to some extent?" Are you claiming it was a global shallow flood that only hurt coasts? Are you saying it was only certain continents?
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2267d
Meaning that the coasts were probably the most affected and what would have standed behind mountains would have suffered less damages.
replied 2267d
The sediment movement something that ridiculous would have caused would have been very noticable. It would be impossible to cover up. There is no evidence to support such a wild idea.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2267d
I just mean that damages was probably not equal everywhere depending on how far you were from what triggered the water movement and the geographic landscape.
replied 2267d
Nothing could trigger something like that. It would take magic. Physics wouldnt allow the continents to sink below the ocean or for water to flow up onto land out of the oceans.
replied 2271d
Their shape offers no protection, except against gravity.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2268d
It absolutely offers protection. Water pressure on pyramidal shape would be inferior than applied on a perpandicular wall.
replied 2268d
As I said, from gravity. Which is irrelevant. The world was not suddenly crushed uned a new ocean. Oh wait, you are going to claim that coal and oil appeared suddenly during the flood.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2267d
No I'm saying that water somehow moved accross lands coming from the oceans. The water movement was horizontal, not vertical.
replied 2267d
That is an even worse idea. You are saying water decided to flow up hill out of the oceans then. God did it is the only way to explain such nonsense.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2275d
Real scientist don't laugh at people. They make arguments.
replied 2275d
Also you must not talk to real scientists much. I have. They most certainly laugh at people.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2275d
Sorry to pop your bubble but they are fake scientists.
replied 2275d
Oh, and only creationist scientists are real for you? I'll stick with the phD holders, and published researchers.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2271d
Still bringing up religion my dogmatic off topic fellow?
replied 2271d
You brought it up by using religious sources of info. Maybe you are just unaware that talkorigin is a Christian fundamentalist group.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2271d
Unawared and irrelevant. The accounts listed are all real and authentic.
replied 2271d
No, it's mostly bullshit. They will also have you believe the Earth is 6000 _10000 years old, and other such nonsense.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2271d
I'm not saying what the accounts say is authentic, I'm saying the account themselves are authentic you twat.
replied 2271d
So someone either honestly lied, or was honestly wrong. That is fine.
replied 2275d
Actually science is about debunking theories. He does that here clearly.
replied 2275d
I'll let this guy explain differences in volume to you.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2275d
I'm not gonna watch any dumb video. Show me your maths.
replied 2275d
5.1×10^8 Km^2 * 8.848 km = 4.5*10^9km^3 of added water volume to the Earth. Where did it go after the flood?
replied 2275d
5.1×10^8 Km^2 * 8.848 km = 5.7km^3 of added water volume to the Earth. Where did it go after the flood?
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2275d
A huge meteorite hitting the ocean could have made similar damages at similar scale. In both scenarios no changes of water volumes are required.
replied 2275d
Nope, that is false. It would not have caused a flood. We do know what that causes, and know when those event happened. Long before there were humans.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2271d
Sure. A meteorite hitting water won't move water. Logic isn't your strength isn't it?
replied 2271d
Move water, sure. Cause a tsunami, sure. Cause a global flood, no. Especially not one that puts Everest under water. There isn't enough water on Earth for that.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2271d
Somehow Mt. Everest is filled with fossilized marine shells.
replied 2271d
As it should be since that land was below the ocean when the Indian plate crashed into the Asian plate. This was far back, like the timeframes it takes for things to fossilize.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2275d
This can easily be explained by a change of the earth's suface geometry (mountains height and oceans depth).A rapid change could have simply trigger mass of water to move across lands
replied 2275d
How could that rapid change happen? Chemical differentiation happened long ago. Granite plates float of the mantel higher than basaltic plates. They dont suddenly sink into the mantle.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2271d
Keep digging.
replied 2271d
Oh, I have thoroughly refuted your ideas. The idea that the surface of the Earth disobeyed physics to cause the flood is absurd.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2277d
BTW the ancient stories are pretty much the same if you dare to look at them.
replied 2277d
I have looked at some, and they are not the same, and have a huge spread as to when they happened. I once read a biblical flood apologist book. Really stupid stuff in there.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2277d
Such as?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths
replied 2277d
Talkorogins... lol. I prefer valid sources of information. Religious sources of information are no good for figuring out how thigs work.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2276d
They don't talk about religion you moron. And I'm still waiting for an answer.
replied 2276d
Thru are a Christian propaganda group. One of the worst garbage sites out there.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2275d
BTW even if it's garbage Christian propaganda group which account exactly isn't real? Seriously at this point you just sound retarded and completely lack of argument.
replied 2275d
Most Christians accounts of history are not real. The most they get right is that cities existed. They are not actually history. They are stories meant to teach a lesson.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2275d
And what about the Wikipedia article? Is that too much facts for your little brain to process so you had to dissmiss it?
replied 2275d
Actually if you actually read those myths you see how they are far to spread out in time to be talking about the same event. Your own link defeats your argument.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2275d
Which one? Because the majority talks about a global wiping flood. Obviously you haven't read them.
replied 2275d
At very different times, and with a limited understanding of what the entire world was.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2275d
Exactly. Interesting isn't it?
replied 2275d
Not really. Rather trivial, and doesnt lead to any interesting conclusions.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2271d
Unless you start using your brain.
replied 2271d
That is how you see it doesnt support these wild conclusions.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2275d
Still waiting for an answer.
replied 2275d
I did answer actually. When you asked "what about these" I told you the source was garbage.
replied 2278d
I am denying that they understood the concept of what the entire world was. Their civilization being wiped out would have meant the world was wiped out from their perspective.
TrashPosterInTheDark
replied 2283d
*are


About Privacy Terms Stats