dr. schoch and his contribution to archaeology

[Guest]

An overgrown ancient pyramid at the Lost City of Mu'a.

But I've heard him say that much of early civilization now lies underwater since the sea level rise

remind you of anything?/

[Minimalist]

No. What??

[Guest]

But I've heard him say that much of early civilization now lies underwater since the sea level rise following the last ice age

hancock is providing proof that the flood happened but doesn't attribute it to the flood but to an ice age that is harder to believe than the flood.

tie his words in with the evidence i have come across and you will see that the biblical account gets shored up even more.

[Minimalist]

Now you are going off the deep end again.


Still purveying magic, eh arch?

[Guest]

Still purveying magic, eh arch?

no, just piecing the evidence together which you refuse to do. how is it that four different researchers,all non-religious, some in different time periods, have come across evidence in different parts of the world and it all points to one logical conclusion--that the flood happened.

just because you want to hide from the truth does it mean others have to.

[Minimalist]

YOu are not piecing together anything. You grasp at straws in a vain hope to breathe some life into that stupid book.

[Guest]

YOu are not piecing together anything. You grasp at straws in a vain hope to breathe some life into that stupid book.

that is the thing...i don't need to grasp at straws, i see the evidence available and i see where it points.

only a fool keeps dismissing or ignoring the facts. and evolution isn't the direction.

[Beagle]

I'm going to post anything on this topic in the Giza thread. This one appears to have been hijacked.

[Minimalist]

i see the evidence available

Do you see Dead People, too?

[Minimalist]

I'm going to post anything on this topic in the Giza thread. This one appears to have been hijacked.

True, Beags. Unfortunately, arch is the one who read Schoch's book so we have to let him get it back on track.

[Guest]

True, Beags. Unfortunately, arch is the one who read Schoch's book so we have to let him get it back on track.

i am not the one trying tohijack anything. i just pointed out that schoch has come to a conclusion based upon the evidence he describes in his book.

i find that schoch's weakness is that he attributes almost everything ancient to a society of pyramid builders who were present long before the egyptians.

now, Biblically this would mean that the civilization that was wiped out in the flood would be responsible for such work yet we have very little information on that society because of the mass destruction that took place and thus we could not confirm such a theory.

hapgood, in his ancient sea king book, points to an earlier civilization that mapped the whole world, including antartica long before the any real map maker had heard of the continent. but again we are faced with the same problem--minimal evidence. the only clue we have is that antartica is drawn as a normal land mass with animals.

if schoch and hapgood are right,(and i am leaning in that way) then we have more evidence to back the Biblical account and done in a scientific manner to appease those who hate religion.

the limitation that we face is that the Biblical account is not interested in the specifics of that pre-flood civilization save to demonstrate the origins of man, the lineage of man and what happens when man obeys or sins. the Bible stays true to its message and the only details given are what are germane to its thrust.

why it makes mention in passing the giants, is because their lives would be covered in general as the rest of that civilization was. also, we know such bones have been discovered and a simple explanation was needed.

[Minimalist]

then we have more evidence to back the Biblical account

Where do you get that leap of logic? The biblical account is an invention of late 7th century BC goatherders based on a Sumerian tale that they plagiarized and adapted.

Hancock is talking about a rise in sea level at the end of the ice age flooding the continental shelf which, logic and modern human settlement patterns indicate, would have been the most densely populated areas of the earth if his theory of a lost civilization is correct. It does not take a pissed off Jehovah to melt ice.


BTW, Von Daniken made the same mistake which you attribute to Schoch; the need to try to cram every anomoly into his theory. Schoch was better off when he stuck to geology and said "I don't know WHO built the sphinx....I'm just telling you WHEN it was built." He gives the Egyptology crowd an easy shot at him by stepping outside his area of expertise.

[DougWeller]

The geological evidence from Antarctica shows that it has never been habitable.

[Minimalist]

The geological evidence from Antarctica shows that it has never been habitable.

I seem to recall them (Hapgood and to a lesser extent, Hancock) basing their claim on some evidence of silt deposits from free flowing rivers from a mere 6,000 years ago. The problem with that is it overlooks the obvious answer (Occam's Razor, you know?) that fresh water would also have been the result of a summer melt down of glacial ice.

As you say, Doug, ice core samples suggest that Antarctica has not been ice free for millions of years. What pisses me off about Hancock is that he does not need an ice free Antarctica for his theory....just a dry continental shelf which DID exist.

[Guest]

The geological evidence from Antarctica shows that it has never been habitable

let's not go there

Plant and animal fossils and coal beds indicate it was once warm here

http://octopus.gma.org/surfing/antarcti ... ctica.html

not a website that i can agree with but it indicates that there was life there at one time.

one would have to be able to explain how the ice got there and was able to become so thick with the following:

Antarctica is a continent of contradictions: volcanoes erupting from a frozen landscape; miles of snow and ice, yet hardly any snow falls each year; an arid land surrounded by three oceans.

seeing that we have another land mass with ice as thick as or almost as thick as anarctica, and is partially habitable we can come to the conclusion that the antarctica could have been habitable in the near past. there is no logical, evolutionary theory wthat would satisfy the ice forming and remaining frozen for such a long time. toomany assumptionshave to be made to evenattempt to make such explanations credible.