Ancient Civilizations In High Mountains
- Thread starter OilIsMastery
- Start date
Yet another pseudoscientific crackpot "theory."
This should be in the Pseudoscience subforum at best. The cesspool, ideally.
This should be in the Pseudoscience subforum at best. The cesspool, ideally.
That's the typical reaction and language of a religious fundamentalist whose faith has been profaned.
I have no religion. You're a crackpot.
Agnosticism and atheism are religions. So is your fanatic and fundamentalist devotion to constant size Earth inspite of all disconfirming scientific evidence.
That is not a rational or scientific argument but I realize why you have none.
If you make extraordinary claims that are contrary to actual scientific evidence, using only that data which are pseudoscientific or incomplete, you are a crackpot.
You've made extraordinary claims that are contrary to actual scientific evidence, using only that data which are pseudoscientific or incomplete.
Therefore, you are a crackpot.
There. logic.
You've made extraordinary claims that are contrary to actual scientific evidence, using only that data which are pseudoscientific or incomplete.
Therefore, you are a crackpot.
There. logic.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
The interesting thing about the evidence of sedimentary sequences throughout geologic time is that sea levels vary. This variation has multiple sources. Sometimes the land sinks, locally. Sometimes the volume of the oceans increases or decreases - for example as ice melts or forms in quantity.
In Houston the International Airport is about forty miles from the sea, yet is still less than 100' above sea level. Sea level has varied by more than 100' over the last 100,000 years. It doesn't take much to move somewhere many miles closer to or further from the sea.
The quoted author has singled out instances where places are now further from the sea. He has neglected to talk about the locations that are now underwater. In short, as Skin has suggested, the research is rather inadequate. (That's British understatement for total crap.)
In Houston the International Airport is about forty miles from the sea, yet is still less than 100' above sea level. Sea level has varied by more than 100' over the last 100,000 years. It doesn't take much to move somewhere many miles closer to or further from the sea.
The quoted author has singled out instances where places are now further from the sea. He has neglected to talk about the locations that are now underwater. In short, as Skin has suggested, the research is rather inadequate. (That's British understatement for total crap.)
There is nothing logical or scientific about ad hominem fallacies. It's ok though, I understand that you have no data to support your theology.
I have no "theology" that you've demonstrated and, while it may be perceived as pejorative or ad hominem, it still doesn't change the fact that you're a crackpot.
Indeed, even if it were a logical fallacy it is still a part of logic and the premises and conclusion are cogent and sound.
You're a crackpot. For this I'm sorry to announce and embarass you publicly, but there are other, impressionable minds that visit Sciforums looking for homework help, etc. and we wouldn't want them to see your bullshit unchallenged and think that it was acceptable or <gasp> "scientific."
To those minds, let me be clear: the OP is a crackpot and a pseudoscience proponent. Take anything he says with two grains of salt.
Indeed, even if it were a logical fallacy it is still a part of logic and the premises and conclusion are cogent and sound.
You're a crackpot. For this I'm sorry to announce and embarass you publicly, but there are other, impressionable minds that visit Sciforums looking for homework help, etc. and we wouldn't want them to see your bullshit unchallenged and think that it was acceptable or <gasp> "scientific."
To those minds, let me be clear: the OP is a crackpot and a pseudoscience proponent. Take anything he says with two grains of salt.
I'd suggest two pounds instead - that would dissolve a slug like him. (But he probably wouldn't believe that - since it's purely logical and he has no use for logical thinking.)
Is this a logical or scientific argument? You're a crackpot. You're a crackpot. You're a crackpot. If you say it one more time will it make you feel better about the expanding earth?
Your cracked-pottery does not imply that the earth is actually "expanding."
BTW, is your real name Neil Adams?
BTW, is your real name Neil Adams?
Sumer was on a flood plain. The Nile is a flood plain.
The confluence of the Tigris/Euphrates was in a different location just a few thousand years ago and is an ever-changing geographic location. The Nile river delta of lower Egypt, likewise, changed drastically in just a few thousand years.
We can see these changes by examining bathymetry and sediment cores of the regions, tracing the former channels in both shape and location. Ports and settlements in these regions become inundated with silt and, the primary building material being mudbrick, little is left in the way of arhcaeological evidence, though some good work has been done to reveal ceramic and lithic remains.
Also, there's no reason to accept the anecdotal information of historical and semi-historical figures like "Sinbad" or even Herodotus since, as was a literary habit, these authors frequently 'borrowed' the words of others. Like a "Chinese whisper," the contexts become distorted and misapplied.
This is a common enough occurrance to render ancient "historical works" as questionable and in need of verification and coroboration to gauge their truth values. Indeed, an ancient historical text might contain an easily verified "fact" in one paragraph and a complete fabrication in another if only because the author is relying on 2nd, 3rd and sometimes beyond, information.
We can see these changes by examining bathymetry and sediment cores of the regions, tracing the former channels in both shape and location. Ports and settlements in these regions become inundated with silt and, the primary building material being mudbrick, little is left in the way of arhcaeological evidence, though some good work has been done to reveal ceramic and lithic remains.
Also, there's no reason to accept the anecdotal information of historical and semi-historical figures like "Sinbad" or even Herodotus since, as was a literary habit, these authors frequently 'borrowed' the words of others. Like a "Chinese whisper," the contexts become distorted and misapplied.
This is a common enough occurrance to render ancient "historical works" as questionable and in need of verification and coroboration to gauge their truth values. Indeed, an ancient historical text might contain an easily verified "fact" in one paragraph and a complete fabrication in another if only because the author is relying on 2nd, 3rd and sometimes beyond, information.
If I had no logical or scientific argument to support my fundamentalist pseudoscientific religion I would resort to childish ad hominem fallacies as well.
Just curious: where is the line in the coo-coo sand that makes it okay to call a nut a "nut" without it being "childish ad hominem?"
I mean, we can pretty much agree (most rational people, anyway) that Hitler and Charles Manson were nuts, right? But, okay, they actually killed people, etc.
How about the nuts of most recent history that aren't as famous and believe shiny-suited aliens from Venus visit them on Tuesdays? What of the guy who launched weather balloons and claimed to be "Prophet Yahweh" who could "summon UFO's?" How about the guy that pretends to bend spoons with "the power of his mind", even after being exposed as a fraud? Or the guy that thinks its okay to sell the liver or kidneys of albinos because they're "lucky?"
Can't we variously call these people kooks, cranks and "a bit of a nut" without seeming "childish[ly] ad hominem?"
I'd say, yes. And it also follows that we should be able to say that nutty ideas such as that which you are claiming are "nutty." If so, then their claimants, likewise, sound "like a bit of a nut."
I mean, we can pretty much agree (most rational people, anyway) that Hitler and Charles Manson were nuts, right? But, okay, they actually killed people, etc.
How about the nuts of most recent history that aren't as famous and believe shiny-suited aliens from Venus visit them on Tuesdays? What of the guy who launched weather balloons and claimed to be "Prophet Yahweh" who could "summon UFO's?" How about the guy that pretends to bend spoons with "the power of his mind", even after being exposed as a fraud? Or the guy that thinks its okay to sell the liver or kidneys of albinos because they're "lucky?"
Can't we variously call these people kooks, cranks and "a bit of a nut" without seeming "childish[ly] ad hominem?"
I'd say, yes. And it also follows that we should be able to say that nutty ideas such as that which you are claiming are "nutty." If so, then their claimants, likewise, sound "like a bit of a nut."
That's your scientific argument for subduction and plate tectonics? You've got to be kidding.
No. This is the Pseudoscience forum where we talk about pseudoscience, pseudoscience proponents, kooks and cranks. Sometimes to expose pseudoscience, sometimes to deconstruct the psychology of nuts, sometimes to ridicule nutty beliefs.
The scientific efficacy of geologic processes such as subduction and plate tectonics are only in question to the degree you suggest by nuts, kooks and crackpots. There's little point in having that discussion with you, so I'd rather discuss something more interesting like the psychology of the pseudocientific woo-woo and nutbar.
Furthermore, the questions above weren't really directed to you but to anyone that visits the thread. But I'm curious what you might think at any rate.
The scientific efficacy of geologic processes such as subduction and plate tectonics are only in question to the degree you suggest by nuts, kooks and crackpots. There's little point in having that discussion with you, so I'd rather discuss something more interesting like the psychology of the pseudocientific woo-woo and nutbar.
Furthermore, the questions above weren't really directed to you but to anyone that visits the thread. But I'm curious what you might think at any rate.
If I had no logical or scientific argument to support my fundamentalist pseudoscientific religion I would resort to posting dubious quotes from unknown people over and over again in multiple threads.