Put your crayon down.
I don't quite understand how you came to that conclusion. I have a nagging suspicion that it's one of the strawmen that you seem to employ habitually, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and put it down to poor communication. I don't think that the Himalayas were twice as big. Because of isostasy and erosion the Himalayas may well be about as high as any mountain range can attain on Earth.So you think the mountain ranges were twice as big, lots o' luck.
Here's what: the fact that granite crystallizes slowly means that it forms deep underground. If it was extruded, or intruded at shallower depth, it wouldn't be granite. Therefore, the granite which is today exposed in the Himalayas cooled slowly, at depth. This inescapable fact appears to contradict your claim that the Himalayas formed within human history.So what that granites take time to cool?
Indeed you did not. That is why I asked you to clarify your position on the matter. I assumed this was your belief because if tree ring records do go back further than 3500 years then we would expect to see evidence of the sudden climate change you claim.I never said the trees go back 3500 years, and tree rings are not necessarily annual, and multiple laminae per year, or weeks, or days, yes, depends on the environment.
IceAgeCivilizations:
-You are using Plato's stories as historic fact.
-Plato as had Socrates relate accounts of the afterlife and various other stories.
-If you assume that Atlantis was factual, presumably you also assume that the retelling of the afterlife was similarly as well founded?
First of all, if you'll look at what I've highlighted, you are presuming that Ice Age is assuming what you are assuming.
Thats like a triple negative.
You just beat yourself with a stick right there.
You might as well try to mis-quote someone, quote your own mis-quote, and then call your own quote an error.
Nobody's falling for it.
The fact two of the most intelligent men of the Golden era in ancient Greece talk of believing in the afterlife.........supports your negative position how?
Most religions that believe in spiritual and metaphysical phenomena have basis in fact somewhere.
An all out lie deceives no one.....even the falsest of religions have to contain some truth or no one would follow them.
These "afterlife" descriptions that you so vehemently oppose have been observed by the people of every language , nationality, and race on the face of the Earth.
You can possibly be saying you believe there's absolutely nothing to it.
They can't all be completely wrong.
The epic of Gilgamesh, the story of Atlas, the libraries of Alexandria mentioned in Plato's account...all have some ring of truth behind the tale.
Nonsense. There are no known facts established by religion, that’s why they ALL assert the need for faith – i.e. belief without facts.Most religions that believe in spiritual and metaphysical phenomena have basis in fact somewhere.
Nonsense again. People tend to believe whatever makes them feel comfortable. Truth doesn’t have to be present. But again – name any single truth established by any religion.An all out lie deceives no one.....even the falsest of religions have to contain some truth or no one would follow them.
And they all make such claims for exactly the same reasons – fear of death and permanent non-existence. Death is the one thing every race around the world has in common.These "afterlife" descriptions that you so vehemently oppose have been observed by the people of every language , nationality, and race on the face of the Earth.
Why not? You are clinging to a classic logical fallacy that because something is popular then it must be true. This is known as argumentum ad populum. Truth is not determined by a majority vote. If we used your method of thinking we would have to conclude that indeed at one time the world must have been flat to reflect the time when most people on the planet believed that.You can possibly be saying you believe there's absolutely nothing to it.
They can't all be completely wrong.