Steven Avery

Since I gave numerous undisputed references, both of current scholars and historical understandings, why would you use the charged word "bogus" ?

(Perhaps the mods should have acted however they seem to be very, very slow to notice skeptic integrity accusations. And perhaps 'bogus theory' is a grey area.)

So, noting the moderator dormancy ... exactly what did I write about the Exodus and Arabia that is supposedly "bogus" ?

Specific "bogus" words, s'il vous plait.
And your claimed proof or evidence of bogusity.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven

RED DAVE

No derails. Let's stick to the OP.

RED DAVE

Steven Avery

This logic escapes me. Perhaps you can explain your years for the beginning of the nations per this chronology. Let us say the flood was 2500 B.C. and the nations began soon after and are mentioned in secular histories at 1700 B.C. Clearly there would be a terminus post quem of some time after 2400 B.C. for the writing. I fail to see a terminus ante quem for the writing at all.

So please try to explain this again, perhaps using a set of conjectured years.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven

Hex

So ... 15,000 + feet what? Below modern ground surface?

Above sea level?

Help me out here ...

If you're talking altitude, look to the Himalayas ... Produced by the Indian subcontinent's impact (over millions of years) with Asia ... :wave:

Steven Avery

Nope. When an integrity accusation is made ("bogus theory") it is not remotely a "derail" to ask for specific support or evidence of the charge or a retraction thereof.

Which one will it be ?

You were the one who tried the driveby so you make the decision.

Shalom,
Steven

Hex

:rolling:

Ever hear of an example?


Plate tectonics is not just a theory, it's not just a good idea, we can watch it happen. It just goes really slowly ...

It's all about large hunks of cooled rock (continental plates) 'floating' on the liquid of magma below and toward the core of the Earth. Some places the magma pushes upward more here or there and produces new material for the crust (like the mid-Atlantic Ridge), which also pushes the plates into each other, slowly, but with lots of force.

Now ... take some playdoh, and make two slabs, and push them toward each other on a table. What happens? When one goes under the other, we see 'subduction', which raises one plate, whilst pushing the other down and melting some of the plate back onto magma.

But sometimes they just 'smush', and the resulting pile goes higher and higher. Hence you get something like the Himalayas. (And if you need to be sure, check Sedimentology and genesis of the Cenozoic sediments of northwestern Himalayas (India), by R. S. Chaudhri; International Journal of Earth Sciences, Volume 64, Number 1 / December, 1975, pp. 958-977)

I'm guessing you missed out on Earth Science back in school, huh?

Steven Avery

Hex, it's your theory so you supply the numbers. You tell us at what elevation those fossils began their trek. And if you have no idea simply say "dunno" but then I suggest you don't offer up the theory with such a huge hole.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex If you're talking altitude, look to the Himalayas ... Produced by the Indian subcontinent's impact (over millions of years) with Asia ...

Did you know that one of the primary evidences that this neat movement, with layers of nice marine fossils, occured is .. the marine fossils on the high mountains. So I'm asking you about the physics involved and to avoid circular reasoning.

The moderators tend to try to move these discussion into the other den. I would prefer not as we have a discussion crew here and I am limited as to how many threads and sections on which I will post.

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

RED DAVE

RED DAVE

Hex

Please, it really makes you look foolish trying to duck the question this way. You know, as well as RED DAVE and I do that you were posting on the 'Why No Archaeological Evidence for the Exodus' thread, and using what amounts to junk science to posit that the Mt. Sinai of the Exodus is in Saudi Arabia. You refered to non-archaeologists as archaeological experts, or ones who have a known bias and lack of archaeological evidence to back up their claims.

RED DAVE has merely been asking:
That's the topic of this thread and you've been ducking it for weeks.

Please, the suspense is killing me here. Just answer those questions ...

Hex

Just another really nice reference that isn't quite as dramatic as the full-blown Himalayas, but does includes stuff on 'sea floor spreading' and 'geotectonics', in case you need, praxeus.

Foraminiferal Biostratigraphy, Biogeography, and Environment of the Callovian Sequence, Rajasthan, Northwestern India, Prabha Kalia; Sudip Chowdhury, Micropaleontology, Vol. 29, No. 3. (1983), pp. 223-254.