₦airaland Forum

chukemmang:
I'm very sure there has not been an ice age in the past 2000 years. I'm very curious of how you got a satellite view of the Earth during your glacial maximum in your own ice age?

When we're satellites invented?

Below is an image of how the Earth looked 650 million years ago.

The most recent Ice Age ended some 11,000 years ago, so that is actually more recent than 650 million years ago.

How do scientists recreate images of the Earth from the ancient world? They use proxy records to get an estimate of ancient events such as ancient temperatures and use that data to recreate the globe.

BluntTheApostle:
Below is an image of how the Earth looked 650 million years ago.

The most recent Ice Age ended some 11,000 years ago, so that is actually more recent than 650 million years ago.

How do scientists recreate images of the Earth from the ancient world? They use proxy records to get an estimate of ancient events such as ancient temperatures and use that data to recreate the globe.

No matter how much data they gather to recreate the globe at a certain time, the image of the globe they project can never be as accurate as the real event.

With that being said, their representation of north Africa without ice in an ice age is wrong as the Sphinx proves otherwise.

BluntTheApostle:
Bro, you are making me laugh hard.

Glacial maximums happen at intervals within an Ice Age, and are the most severe period during the Ice Age.

If Africa was still largely habitable during that particular glacial maximum, then you should know that Ice Age does not mean that the whole Earth would be covered.

Supposing I go with your argument that the Earth was once covered by ice, how then did life resurface in such a short time between the last Ice Age? From prokaryotes? That is very impossible, because you wouldn't be able to account for why man has reached this stage of our evolution.

Go research on this, there are organisms that survive and thrive in ice.

chukemmang:
Go research on this, there are organisms that survive and thrive in ice.

No doubt about that, but that wouldn't explain how the world repopulated in just 11,000 years.

chukemmang:
No matter how much data they gather to recreate the globe at a certain time, the image of the globe they project can never be as accurate as the real event.

Your first argument was that how did I get an image of the Earth when we had not even invented telescopes? Well, that answered your question. Moreover, you have shown a poor understanding of statistics with your idea of what accuracy means. Ever heard about margin of error?

With that being said, their representation of north Africa without ice in an ice age is wrong as the Sphinx proves otherwise.

Before I write anything about the Sphinx, you must understand that many works on the Sphinx are nothing but hypothesis.

However, I will like you to tell me how the Sphinx proves otherwise?

BluntTheApostle:
No doubt about that, but that wouldn't explain how the world repopulated in just 11,000 years.

There are discrepancies in timing. Even carbon dating is not too accurate. For a very long time, we have thought human civilization began around 4,000 years ago. New archaeological evidence came out and we saw that human civilization dates as far back as 12,000 years ago.

With further archaeological findings, we now know human civilization dates as far back as 120,000 years ago.

Judging by the dates of the dinosaurs, the aeons, Paleozoic era's and what have you, it all just leaves your mind bugging. So the timing of ancient events, evolution timing and all that have unreconciled discrepancies

Even Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection cannot explain a lot of things.

chukemmang:
There are discrepancies in timing. Even carbon dating is not too accurate. For a very long time, we have thought human civilization began around 4,000 years ago. New archaeological evidence came out and we saw that human civilization dates as far back as 12,000 years ago.

With further archaeological findings, we now know human civilization dates as far back as 120,000 years ago.

Judging by the dates of the dinosaurs, the aeons, Paleozoic era's and what have you, it all just leaves your mind bugging. So the timing of ancient events, evolution timing and all that have unreconciled discrepancies

Even Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection cannot explain a lot of things.

You should never say that there are discrepancies in timing except you have evidence (s).

One characteristic of the philosophy of science is falsibility or refutability. It means science is dynamic, and that all theories can be refuted using superior arguments.

For now, these are what we have. They don't have any discrepancies until you show it with a superior argument.

BluntTheApostle:
Your first argument was that how did I get an image of the Earth when we had not even invented telescopes? Well, that answered your question. Moreover, you have shown a poor understanding of statistics with your idea of what accuracy means. Ever heard about margin of error?



Before I write anything about the Sphinx, you must understand that many works on the Sphinx are nothing but hypothesis.

However, I will like you to tell me how the Sphinx proves otherwise?

The erosion at the base of the Sphinx proves the flow of water around the Giza plateau, where the Sphinx and the Great Pyramids of Egypt are found. This is because the theory of weathering by air didn't explain the evidence found at the base of the Sphinx. Now that area is a desert or an arid region.

The only explanation for a large body of water flowing over that land to have caused the base of the Sphinx to erode is the melting of ice after the ice age over that region.

Why are findings of the Sphinx a hypothesis? The Sphinx is a fixed object and very visible to any observer. So any claims about it can be verified.

BluntTheApostle:
You should never say that there are discrepancies in timing except you have evidence (s).

One characteristic of the philosophy of science is falsibility or refutability. It means science is dynamic, and that all theories can be refuted using superior arguments.

For now, these are what we have. They don't have any discrepancies until you show it with a superior argument.

Science is not final. Science makes proclamations based on the evidence it has at the moment. True scientists never speak authoritatively on things they can't prove 100%.

Just like how Atheists stupidly beat their chests that there is no God. A true scientist will be silent about the God argument because right now we don't have the tools to empirically verify God.

Until the tools are available and scientists can begin to experiment on the existence of God, science has decided to use the word "Nature" to excuse the existence of God.

Interesting discussion.