Robert, my best enemy;: : : 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.
Yes, this is true. The problem is that it doesn't really support your point.
: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.
Uh, no, not really. The first assertion (magnetic reversal in recent era) is simply not true. The second is arguably true, depending on how many millenia you are talking about. You'll have to be more specific.
: Read the Genesis account.
I have, many times. It's a beautiful parable for the love of a God for his faithful. I really do wish you'd stop assuming that I am ignorant of all things biblical, simply because I don't agree with your interpretation. I suspect I could hold my own in conversations on exegetics with most Christians, frankly.
: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.
Perhaps it is believable to you. Unfortunately, as I've already pointed out to you, magnetic reversals don't have this type of effect. I'll try to explain what really happens. The earth is constantly spinning in one direction (eastwards). The spinning generates magnetic energy because it is not spinning in a frictionless environment. All magnetism has polarity (positive and negative). For reasons that are not yet entirely clear, the polarity of the earth (and presumedly of other planets) sometimes "reverses." This causes the pole that was once positive to become negative, and vice versa. The only thing that is actually "reversed" is the polarity of the magnet. The planet doesn't flip upside down, nor does it start spinning in the opposite direction. In fact, to an observer on the planet as it undergoes magnetic reversal, the only obvious sign of the occurrance would be that a magnetic compass would point in the opposite direction.
In order to generate the kind of disturbance you are describing, the earth's rotation would have to be reversed. (There is no evidence of this ever happening, to my knowledge.) A reversal of magnetic polarity would not have the effects you describe, any more than draining your battery would make your car flip upside down.
: 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.
Well, you'll now have to tell me how you're defining "systems" as opposed to "ranges." I realise I can't assume you are using these terms the same way I am. I still suspect you'll find that most chains of mountains are more parsimoniously explained as the results of tectonic movement, rather than magnetism, as I explained earlier.
:
: :
: : : : 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.
I'm still not convinced that the site is a seaport at all. Dr. Pearce wishes to interpret these structures in this way, but I'm afraid it'll take more than his assertion to convince me. First, long, thin, parallel structures are not necessarily "boat slips," so Pearce may just be misinterpreting the structures.
Second, there is no evidence of large, ocean-worthy vessels that would need slips appearing anywhere in the Americas before the arrival of Europeans in the late 15th century. Third, re. the distance the stones were moved from the quarry; the fact that something would be more efficiently done in a certain way is not, in itself, sufficient evidence that it was done that way. In fact, the stones would have been much more efficiently moved by helicopter, but that fact is not sufficient to convince me that this was the case. It seems more parsimonious to postulate the existence of a bunch of slaves and a guy with a whip than to postulate that much of a change in sea level.
: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.
No, again, a magnetic reversal would have no obvious effect on this. What you're talking about, again, is a change in either the direction or the axis of rotation, both of which are entirely unrelated to magnetic polarity.
:
: :
: : ::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.
No, it wouldn't. Water is, by definition, not frozen. Ice, when it passes over continents in the form of glaciers, can hardly be considered as "rushing." Animals falling into crevases in the glaciers, or dying and being covered by snow are perfectly capable of explaining these (admittedly amazing, but not mysterious) finds. You see, Robert, glaciers build up slowly. If an animal dies in winter (which is quite common in high northern latitudes) and is covered with snow relatively quickly, biotic processes of decay are slowed or halted (for the same reason you put food in the freezer). Any environmental regime in which more snow falls than melts is undergoing glaciation. Glaciers build up slowly, and quite gently, and it is quite likely that these animals were preserved in precisely this way.
The hypothesis that a massive wall of water swept over the whole planet is unsupportable on empirical grounds. To date, there is no unequivocal evidence of such an event. Every piece of evidence that I have heard proposed as suggestive of a Noachian flood is more parsimoniously explained by recourse to measurable, observable phenomena.
:
: : 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.
Yes, perhaps, but you see, in none of these examples does he explain how he achieved the effect. That's the kind of information I'm talking about, the mechanisms. I mean seriously, I could say "before Abraham was, I am" but doing so does not answer my questions about extra-dimensionality. Don't believe me? Try to get a doctorate in physics using this as an argument.
:
: : : Shift to WTO topic.
: : 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.
So you're extrapolating from me to everyone else there, as though I was an accurate representative of the whole. I'm not, Robert, I am an individual, as were each of the protestors. I am not a "type" of person, I am a person. What you're doing is not logically warranted by the evidence at hand. You can not assume that my presence at this event is indicative of the political opinions or scientific training of any other person in attendance. The only thing all the protestors had in common that you can reasonably assume from their attendance was their dislike for one or more aspects of the WTO and/or their agenda.
: 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.
Oh, "freedom is slavery" now? Hmmm...that sounds familiar, Robert. I wonder if you ever considered that this critique might also be applied to your beliefs. "Oh, sure, Robert thinks this is true, but he's really just a tool of the global conspiracy and he doesn't know it." Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? That's because it is ridiculous, and no less so when it refers to me than when it refers to you.
:
: : :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.
As I said, there is much about Marxist theory with which I disagree, but I felt it was important for me to actually understand it before forming an opinion. Do you, or do you not think that this is a good strategy?
:
: : : 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.
Most of the protestors opposed a lowering of real wages and labor standards and/or a softening of environmental protections. The protestors were not in any position to make global treaties, only the people inside the convention center could do that. The protestors were the "average blokes" that you accuse us of trying to oppress. Yes, I would like it if my children are able to earn a livable wage and drink clean water, and yes, I will work to make this the case. Yes, this may mean imposing restrictions or sanctions on capitalist multinational corporations, but the people who own these businesses are not "average blokes," Robert, they are oligarchs who are each doing a lot more to oppress the "average bloke" than all the protestors combined could ever manage.
:
: : : 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.
Just as I can't see the invisible dragon in my garage, Robert, and for the same reason; it isn't there. When you say "you're a tool of the conspiracy, and denying it proves that you're an unwitting dupe," I take a bit of offense. You clearly think I'm an ignorant fool, or you would not say such a thing. I believe this opinion is unjustified, and I don't recall any instance that might have inspired you to hold such an opinion. Please desist in your condescending and insulting aspersions. Thank you.
:
: : : 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.
Again, your assumption of my ignorance is, I believe, misplaced. Thank you for not assuming this again.
:
: : : 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.
By the way, I was wondering something. You argue that there is such a thing as "fake Christianity," and that the believers of this "fake Christianity" think they are practicing real Christianity (i.e. they don't knowingly believe something that is not true). Given this, how do you know your approach is not also "fake Christianity?" You believe it is true, and that is one of the symptoms of "fake Christianity" is it not? In other words, how can you tell "real" from "fake" versions?
I'm honestly curious.
Thanks for writing.
-Floyd
