Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Nialler · 01-20-2002, 05:26 AM

Came across this yesterday...

<a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-2002031818,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-2002031818,00.html</a>

(My apologies if it doesn't appear correctly as a URL.

The article describes a town found underwater off teh coast of India, and the indications are that the settlement dates to at least 5,000 years preior to the previous estimates of the start of civilisation.

I know that it's too much to expect the fundies to concede the point, but it certainly would blow away the YEC claims. Additionally, there are several diferent aging techniques involved in aging this settlement, so they can't just rely on lambasting carbon-dating with their usual lies. They're gonna need a completely *new* set of lies to counter this one!

BTW, I notice that the Creation/Evolution thread at Baptistboard.com is still down. The delay is because of the 2,000+ word documents which they are processing before re-opening.

Please don't tell me that they're editing the past postings. Surely they're not involved in a form of revisionism.

tronvillain · 01-20-2002, 05:53 AM

Interesting. I think Derek Kennet is overreacting a bit though.

Kosh · 01-20-2002, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nialler:
<strong>Came across this yesterday...
</strong>

I love a good mystery as good as anybody. And I'd
love to see them find some evidence of an advanced
civilization to finally piece together all those
hints of sudden wisdom that seem to have shown
up in primitive socities (or maybe I just read
"chariots of the Gods" at to early an age... )

The reality is that we've been around with the
same mental capacity for quite awhile, once we've
gotten rolling (what, the last 200 years) we've
come a LONG way fast. I just don't want to believe
that it took so long to get rolling and that
it didn't happend once before (ala Atlantis).

BUT........ it sounded good until Graham showed
up in the article. From what I've seen, this guy
is considered a kook by the mainstream archy
community. He's basically a modern day version
of the "chariots of the gods" guy, with several
books out there. He claims that there's this
big buried city off the coast of (I think it's
Japan), but the geologists have pointed out that
they're just normal rock formations, breaking
along straight fault lines.

Asha'man · 01-20-2002, 08:28 AM

Did you see the TV show that talked about the age of the Sphynx? A geologist looked at the surface, and said that looks like water erosion, not sand/wind erosion. That places the creation of the Sphynx perhaps 4,000 years earlier, during a point in time when there was more rain in the Sahara/Egypt area.

<a href="http://www.ebtx.com/theory/sphynx.htm" target="_blank">Age of Sphynx</a>

Kosh · 01-20-2002, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Asha'man:
<strong>Did you see the TV show that talked about the age of the Sphynx? A geologist looked at the surface, and said that looks like water erosion, not sand/wind erosion. That places the creation of the Sphynx perhaps 4,000 years earlier, during a point in time when there was more rain in the Sahara/Egypt area.

<a href="http://www.ebtx.com/theory/sphynx.htm" target="_blank">Age of Sphynx</a></strong>

Yes, I saw it, and I thought the arguments were
very convincing! But then I saw it refuted, and
it seems that other geologists have alternative
arguments for it.

That's he problem for us laymen, we don't know
which "expert" to believe....

Patrick, are you following this? I would trust
your input on that whole weathering of the Sphinx
thing since you're up on geology...

ps418 · 01-20-2002, 10:16 AM

Kosh -

I saw Robert Schoch on the Discovery Channel making his case before that the body of the sphinx must be older than Khufu. Frankly I'd have to find more information before I could offer an informed opinion though.

Nialler · 01-20-2002, 10:17 AM

Oooooooppps,

Guess I got a bit too excited too quick!!

I *did* note the reservations in the article, and should really have waited before posting it. I reckon that there may be some evidence there, but it's gotta be put through the whole peer evaluation process before it can be used. Even broadsheets can be a less than reliable source in scientific circles!

Vorkosigan · 01-20-2002, 03:05 PM

Well, they got a response from Graham Hancock, who is a crank, so that makes me suspect the whole damn story.

I certainly hope it turns out to be an old underwater city, that would be really cool.

Michael

joedad · 01-20-2002, 06:24 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nialler:
[QB]Came across this yesterday...

<a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-2002031818,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-2002031818,00.html</a>

I also hope it turns out to be the real thing.

I'd then want to know why this behavior disappeared for 5000 years.

joe

Nialler · 01-21-2002, 01:29 AM

Joedad,

I agree entirely with you. The article (and its source excited me to the extent that I ascribed far too much credibility without thinking through the implications.

There might yet be some story to emerge from this, though. Time to just wait and see...

01-20-2002, 05:26 AM	#1
Nialler Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Paris Posts: 8,473	Gulf of Khambat... civilisation 5,000 years older than previous estimates? Came across this yesterday... <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-2002031818,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-2002031818,00.html</a> (My apologies if it doesn't appear correctly as a URL. The article describes a town found underwater off teh coast of India, and the indications are that the settlement dates to at least 5,000 years preior to the previous estimates of the start of civilisation. I know that it's too much to expect the fundies to concede the point, but it certainly would blow away the YEC claims. Additionally, there are several diferent aging techniques involved in aging this settlement, so they can't just rely on lambasting carbon-dating with their usual lies. They're gonna need a completely new set of lies to counter this one! BTW, I notice that the Creation/Evolution thread at Baptistboard.com is still down. The delay is because of the 2,000+ word documents which they are processing before re-opening. Please don't tell me that they're editing the past postings. Surely they're not involved in a form of revisionism.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-20-2002, 05:53 AM	#2
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Interesting. I think Derek Kennet is overreacting a bit though.

01-20-2002, 08:28 AM	#4
Asha'man Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: southeast Posts: 2,526	Did you see the TV show that talked about the age of the Sphynx? A geologist looked at the surface, and said that looks like water erosion, not sand/wind erosion. That places the creation of the Sphynx perhaps 4,000 years earlier, during a point in time when there was more rain in the Sahara/Egypt area. <a href="http://www.ebtx.com/theory/sphynx.htm" target="_blank">Age of Sphynx</a>

01-20-2002, 10:16 AM	#6
ps418 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Louisville, KY, USA Posts: 1,840	Kosh - I saw Robert Schoch on the Discovery Channel making his case before that the body of the sphinx must be older than Khufu. Frankly I'd have to find more information before I could offer an informed opinion though.

01-20-2002, 10:17 AM	#7
Nialler Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Paris Posts: 8,473	Oooooooppps, Guess I got a bit too excited too quick!! I did note the reservations in the article, and should really have waited before posting it. I reckon that there may be some evidence there, but it's gotta be put through the whole peer evaluation process before it can be used. Even broadsheets can be a less than reliable source in scientific circles!

01-20-2002, 03:05 PM	#8
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Well, they got a response from Graham Hancock, who is a crank, so that makes me suspect the whole damn story. I certainly hope it turns out to be an old underwater city, that would be really cool. Michael

01-20-2002, 06:24 PM	#9
joedad Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: PA USA Posts: 5,039	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nialler: [QB]Came across this yesterday... <a href="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-2002031818,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,3-2002031818,00.html</a> I also hope it turns out to be the real thing. I'd then want to know why this behavior disappeared for 5000 years. joe

01-21-2002, 01:29 AM	#10
Nialler Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Paris Posts: 8,473	Joedad, I agree entirely with you. The article (and its source excited me to the extent that I ascribed far too much credibility without thinking through the implications. There might yet be some story to emerge from this, though. Time to just wait and see...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.