Did Giant Comet Help Hobbits Reach Flores?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by common_sense_seeker, Sep 16, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Moderator

    Messages:
    6,697
    Polynesian people managed to seed much of the Pacific with little more than the technology of 'ancient man'.

    Just because the Aborigines haven't had need for boats for a long long time doesn't mean they never used them.
    And yet you don't know the mainstream models of gravity. So you have spent all that time avoiding learning Newtonian gravity, vector calculus and relativity. I started reading pop science books on relativity when I was about 15 or 16. I'd read pretty much the entirety of the pop science section in my local WHSmiths by the time I applied to university. You obviously haven't put much effort into learning physics.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    CSS,
    thank you for correcting the quote boxes. You made this objection

    "This is only the interpretation of a cave painting by one man, which he suggests is of a period at least 17,000 years old. This is not proof in the slightest!"

    CSS, you offered the link and the cave painting interpretation as evidence in support of your speculation. How come when I point out it actually supports my contention that ocean travel was not a problem for our ancestors, you turn around and dismiss the relevance of your own quote.

    I have been quite harsh on your comments and ideas in several threads. This is an example of why. You do not use common sense, or logic, or proper analysis of data, or any aspect of scientific methodology. It is very frustrating to observe and comment on.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    You mean the question which was answered by Ophiolite?

    Funny, I rather thought my agreement with his statement was implicit in my not correcting him.

    Oh well.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    No he doesn't, it's nothing that isn't already accounted for 'normal' continental drift.

    You've demonstrated that you don't actually understand Isostasy.


    It's not credible, becajuse there is precisely no evidence to support it.

    There is, however, credible, direct evidence of stone age cultures making extended ocean going journeys.

    No.
     
  8. Bricoleur Registered Member

    Messages:
    98
    Back on track (well almost), it seems that the seafaring capabilities of humans in the Pleistocene is generally considered advanced enough for island hopping. The region in question has islands in view of one another "from Java to Timor, the destination shore was clearly and easily visible prior to each of the several crossings, at any sea level." Robert G. Bednarik in a book review here

    I looked further into Bednarik's research, pretty extensive body of work, a lot on rock art from India to Australia. It includes this: "Seafaring in the Pleistocene"

    Abstract

    Archaeological data from Wallacea (Indonesia) and elsewhere are summarized to show that the history of seafaring begins in the Early Pleistocene, and that this human capability eventually led to Middle Palaeolithic ocean crossings in the general region of Australia. To understand better the technological magnitude of these
    many maritime accomplishments, a series of replicative experiments are described, and the theoretical conditions of these experiments are examined. The proposition is advanced that hominid cognitive and cultural evolution during the Middle and early Late Pleistocene have been severely misjudged. The navigational feats of Pleistocene seafarers confirm the cultural evidence of sophistication available from the study of palaeoart.


    I also found this article by him, but I shouldn't just rely on one author, and will research further.

    My feeling is that it wouldn't take more than the traditional technology extant in northern Australia to island hop, like single hull hollow logs, or bark canoes. I don't think it needs to be as advanced as rafts of reeds or logs, or multi hull craft of the Polynesians to get to Flores.

    Now its starting to become a hijack of the original thread!
     
  9. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Interesting information Bricoleur. On a slight aside I have found the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis intriguing since I first heard of it. If you are not familiar with it the idea is that man became bipedal through the adoption of a partially acquatic lifestyle. The idea is dismissed by most anthropologists, but has - to my mind - a certain elegance and symmetry.
    As an extension of that it seemed to me that if it were true we should find evidence of very early seafaring skills amongst early man, more advanced than he is gneerally credited with. Bednarik seems to have come up with such evidence. However, as you point out, this is the view of a single researcher.
     
  10. Bricoleur Registered Member

    Messages:
    98
    I remember that aquatic theory, at high school in the 70's. Saw a video about it, basing some of the theory on hair growth or something!
    The problem with any seafaring technology of that age is it would be highly unlikely to find remains to positively prove it. Therefore Bednark bases his assertions on rock art content.

    Regards,
    Bric
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    Moderator note: 13 off-topic posts have been deleted.

    These concerned specious arguments about 2+2 equalling 5 and the like. Just worthless nonsense.
     
  12. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Thank you common sense seeker. You are aptly named.

    NP. Just ignore Trippy. He believes in miracles like marsupials teleporting across the Pacific Ocean and desert iguanas taking 3 year rafting trips to Fiji and Tonga but no other island of the 30,000 in the Pacific.
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    This is a lie.
     
  14. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    The Cretaceous Period according to Plate Tectonics mythology.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    If marsupials evolved in China 125 million years ago, how did they teleport to Australia and South America? Witchcraft or divine intervention?
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2008
  15. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
  16. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    Wrong as usual. The earliest known marsupial Sinodelphys szalayi was discovered in the same quarry as the earliest known mammal Eomaia scansoria.

    That's consistent with the plate tectonics hypothesis.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    It is not known that marsupials evolved in China and then spread elsewhere.

    But note that Australia and South America were connected by Antarctica, providing clear passage for marsupials to travel between those countries.
     
  18. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    The earliest known marsupial was found in China 125 mya.

    According to plate tectonics, not in the Creataceous. See map above.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    My previous statement stands.

    Irrelevant.
     
  20. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    This is a blatant lie and mis-representation of my position (as has been pointed out).
     
  21. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    I thought you believe in plate tectonics. So how did marsupials get to South America in the Cretaceous?
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    OIM has been banned for 1 day for trolling.
     
  23. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Your being dishonest again.

    The map your deliberately misrepresenting is the earth in the late cretacous.

    Here's the same map, from a different source, dated 94 mya:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    (it's either that or this one, at the KT boundary)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Meanwhile, the earliest fossils we find of marsupials is during the Aptian period of the Cretaceous 112-125 mya.

    During this time period this is what the earth actually looked like:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    As you can clearly see, at this stage in the Cretaceous, the break up of Pangea had only just begun. 130 mya, the continental margins as we recognize them were still in contact with each other, and even in the top part of the map, it's quite clear that during the time period in question, that if they weren't connected by land bridges, they were only seperated by shallow inland seas.

    Addendum:

    I have found that OIM's own source explicitly states that the map he is producing as being representative of, and relavent to his argument, was in fact that of the earth 90mya, 30 ma after marsupials first evolved, so it can be demonstrated that OIM is misrepresenting the situation (or is ignorant of information his own sources could have provided him).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LateCretaceousGlobal.jpg

    So, to sum up, I am surmising that Marsupials were able to migrate to Australia and south america from china, because at the time Marsupials are thought to have evolved, these continents were, in fact connected either by land bridges, and inland seas.

    Further, I would like to point out that the generally accepted path of migration is through south east asia, and into Australia. While this might at first seem contrary, at the time, there was an island chain between Australia and Southeast asia.

    I should also point out, that contrary to what OIM has been saying, it is commonly believed/accepted that Marsupials evolved in North America, and migrated into China through Europe. Seemingly supporting this idea is the simple observation that no Marsupials have been observed in India.

    If OIM's hypothesis was accurate, than there should be some fossil evidence of Marsupials in India.

    So to recap: OIM's arguments in this threadhave been based on misrepresentations of evidence, logical fallacies, and directly contradict what we have observed so far.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page