JoNny Pot sMokeR
Active Member
Who knows man its like my man said up top could be an old jazzed up story, could be the workings of the "Great Devine". It's not for us to know nor will we ever know.
* 'Noah's Ark' found in Turkey!
- Thread starter Big P
- Start date
Big P
Well-Known Member
i saw it too
look at the black sea here it used to be empty then that little land mas separating it from the mediteranian could have gave way in a huge massive rush,
but these guys say its not true that it filled up in a huge flood 9000 years ago, i say whats the diff it still flooded and must of sucked ass for everyone except the guy who had a huge boat
Black Sea wasnt formed because of huge flood?
February 23rd, 2009 - 6:22 pm ICT by ANI
-
Washington, Feb 23 (ANI): Scientists say that the Black Sea didnt come into being following what is called as the “Noah’’s Flood, but after something much more catastrophic that happened 9,500 years ago, leading to the formation of the only inland sea in the world.
The Black Sea, which is surrounded by Turkey, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine, Romania, and Bulgaria, was once a freshwater lake surrounded by rich and fertile plains.
However, about 9,500 years ago, sea levels rose as the climate warmed, and saltwater poured in from the Mediterranean through the Sea of Marmara.
One of the theories has suggested that a huge flood drowned the landscape, forcing some of the planet’’s first farmers to move elsewhere.
“I would say there was never a big flood. What we showed was that it’’s impossible,” Discovery News quoted Liviu Giosan, a geologist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and lead author of the study, as saying.
However, the new work has instigated a debate about the geologic history of the Black Sea.
Fossil record has clearly showed a shift from freshwater to saltwater species around the time, but scientists are still not clear whether the change happened gradually or dramatically.
Soviet studies have not provided many details about the history of the region, but in the mid-1990s, a team led by Columbia University geologist William Ryan concluded that there had been a massive, catastrophic flood, which they dubbed “Noah’’s Flood, but their theory has been controversial since then.
However, researchers in the new study, instead of looking underwater, drilled a 42-meter (140-foot) hole in the Danube delta — a flat plain that has formed out of sediments deposited by the Danube River as it pours into the Black Sea.
By every layer, their core samples were found to go back more than 10,000 years, which enabled them to see what happened both before and after the flood.
By dating sediment layers as well as clam shells that were still closed shut, researchers determined that the Black Sea was 30 meters (98 feet) below present its level at the time of the flood, not 80 meters (262 feet) as Ryan’’s team maintains.
Thus, the researchers suggested that the flood was much smaller than originally thought.
“It moves the balance of evidence from this being a big, catastrophic event to its not being such a big event,” said oceanographer Mark Siddall, of the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom.
Giosan said that he had invited Ryan to join him in an effort to replicate and extend the results by drilling more cores in the Danube delta. (ANI)
More on how was the black sea formed : BlackBerry unveils new Bold and Pearl smartphones
look at the black sea here it used to be empty then that little land mas separating it from the mediteranian could have gave way in a huge massive rush,
but these guys say its not true that it filled up in a huge flood 9000 years ago, i say whats the diff it still flooded and must of sucked ass for everyone except the guy who had a huge boat
Black Sea wasnt formed because of huge flood?
February 23rd, 2009 - 6:22 pm ICT by ANI
- Washington, Feb 23 (ANI): Scientists say that the Black Sea didnt come into being following what is called as the “Noah’’s Flood, but after something much more catastrophic that happened 9,500 years ago, leading to the formation of the only inland sea in the world.
The Black Sea, which is surrounded by Turkey, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine, Romania, and Bulgaria, was once a freshwater lake surrounded by rich and fertile plains.
However, about 9,500 years ago, sea levels rose as the climate warmed, and saltwater poured in from the Mediterranean through the Sea of Marmara.
One of the theories has suggested that a huge flood drowned the landscape, forcing some of the planet’’s first farmers to move elsewhere.
“I would say there was never a big flood. What we showed was that it’’s impossible,” Discovery News quoted Liviu Giosan, a geologist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and lead author of the study, as saying.
However, the new work has instigated a debate about the geologic history of the Black Sea.
Fossil record has clearly showed a shift from freshwater to saltwater species around the time, but scientists are still not clear whether the change happened gradually or dramatically.
Soviet studies have not provided many details about the history of the region, but in the mid-1990s, a team led by Columbia University geologist William Ryan concluded that there had been a massive, catastrophic flood, which they dubbed “Noah’’s Flood, but their theory has been controversial since then.
However, researchers in the new study, instead of looking underwater, drilled a 42-meter (140-foot) hole in the Danube delta — a flat plain that has formed out of sediments deposited by the Danube River as it pours into the Black Sea.
By every layer, their core samples were found to go back more than 10,000 years, which enabled them to see what happened both before and after the flood.
By dating sediment layers as well as clam shells that were still closed shut, researchers determined that the Black Sea was 30 meters (98 feet) below present its level at the time of the flood, not 80 meters (262 feet) as Ryan’’s team maintains.
Thus, the researchers suggested that the flood was much smaller than originally thought.
“It moves the balance of evidence from this being a big, catastrophic event to its not being such a big event,” said oceanographer Mark Siddall, of the University of Bristol in the United Kingdom.
Giosan said that he had invited Ryan to join him in an effort to replicate and extend the results by drilling more cores in the Danube delta. (ANI)
More on how was the black sea formed : BlackBerry unveils new Bold and Pearl smartphones
smokefrogg
Active Member
well that's a trip, 13,000 feet up and they haven't found any sign of humans living in a village or whatnot above 11,000 feet up, trippy trippy man!
OregonMeds
Well-Known Member
Bingo!
It's a common natural occurrence. I also saw the show on tv about this and they did not find anything that proved to anyone it was even a boat they had found.
Some shaped wood left from a rotted structure, could have been a building. Doesn't a building make more sense? Yes, yes it does but guess who found these rotted leftovers of a wooden assembly of some sort?
Nutbags looking for an ark, ready to call anything an ark, and then the story built and people wanted to hear what they wanted to hear and letting it go on gets more viewers to the tv shows etc etc...
What a load of shit!!!
It's a fucking building on top of a fucking mountain!!!
People who thought getting on top of mountains got them closer to god were very very very common back then, just about everyone and I bet it was fucking cold on top of that mountain for the few who could climb it so they built a little building to stay fucking warm. People so dedicated they would drag wood all the way up a stupid mountain one piece at a time...
No floods reach 13k feet, and if they did the little wooden boat wouldn't have survived it period, nor would it's occupants. It would have been a massive wall of water that would flat crush the boat and absolutely everything in it's path instantly not just drowning everyone but crushing them under huge pressure. Not survivable period not even with modern technology the weight of a wall of water 13k feet high is enough to crush anything even if the boat were sealed completely.
That boat pic is a really sleazy trick even with the disclaimer.
But people want to believe so they will believe.
Stop the spread of stupidity. It's all money driven. The show took a full half hour or hour to say What you could say in less than a minute.
"We can't say what we found, we found some shaped wood, but just imagine what this means if this is the ark."
That's all there even is to the entire story.
Louis541
Well-Known Member
I would also like to point out that that story was written before people realized that when it rained the water came from the oceans and lakes in the first place.
Not to mention if it DID flood the earth, all the marine animals would have died because the salinity levels would plummet.
Not to mention if it DID flood the earth, all the marine animals would have died because the salinity levels would plummet.
Not necessarily so - lots of marine species migrate regularly into fresh water - sharks, snook, tarpon, snapper, yellowtail jacks to name a few I've personally seen.
Balzac89
Undercover Mod
They have claimed to view this same thing from the sky. It was called the mount ararat anomaly. Look it up on google and you will see sate. imagery of this.
The story is actually pretty old, but no one ever had the chance to go up there and check it out. It was marked some kin of military zone.
The story is actually pretty old, but no one ever had the chance to go up there and check it out. It was marked some kin of military zone.
Balzac89
Undercover Mod
From 2000
http://www.noahsarksearch.com/anomaly.htm
[FONT=Courier New, Courier, mono]In 1991, five archaeologists near the mountain were kidnapped by Kurdish rebels -- the same year the Turks closed Mount Ararat to outside visitors.[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New, Courier, mono] [/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New, Courier, mono]The mountain is permanently snow-capped and is often covered in clouds. The peak rises 16,945 feet and is located not far from the Armenian and Iranian borders. [/FONT]
http://www.noahsarksearch.com/anomaly.htm
[FONT=Courier New, Courier, mono]In 1991, five archaeologists near the mountain were kidnapped by Kurdish rebels -- the same year the Turks closed Mount Ararat to outside visitors.[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New, Courier, mono] [/FONT]
[FONT=Courier New, Courier, mono]The mountain is permanently snow-capped and is often covered in clouds. The peak rises 16,945 feet and is located not far from the Armenian and Iranian borders. [/FONT]
OregonMeds
Well-Known Member
So you are saying those few species survived and in only a few thousand years everything else we have that can only live in saltwater evolved from those?
Nothing of the sort, I just stated a fact that many marine species can and regularly do migrate and live in fresh water.
Big P
Well-Known Member
you do have a point,
how the hell could the water level have risen that high up 13,000 ft then like the ship pulls up to the mountain at 13,000ft but its like a wet beach back then with liquid water so then how was it frozen later in such good condition. and why didnt they fix the boat up and use it again?
maybe the waters receeded suddenly?
anyway good myth busting I shall investigate this topography issue & 13,000 ft thing
Big P
Well-Known Member
found this on another website
55. found at 13,000 ft??
lets see. If all the ice in all the glaciers and mountains of the world melted sea levels would rise what, about 100 or 200 ft? And this "Ark" was floating on water at 13,000 ft? Or maybe the bible thumpers can accept carbon dating to 4,800 years ago but plate techtonics is bullshit if scientists point out that there is no way Mount Ararat was thrust up to an altitude of 13,000 ft in only 4800 years...
55. found at 13,000 ft??
Big P
Well-Known Member
ok looks like sea levels have risen about 300 ft since the last ice age and temps gone up 16 deg
Global warming during Earth's current interglacial warm period has greatly altered our environment and the distribution and diversity of all life. For example:
Approximately 15,000 years ago the earth had warmed sufficiently to halt the advance of glaciers, and sea levels worldwide began to rise.
By 8,000 years ago the land bridge across the Bering Strait was drowned, cutting off the migration of men and animals to North America.
Since the end of the Ice Age, Earth's temperature has risen approximately 16 degrees F and sea levels have risen a total of 300 feet! Forests have returned where once there was only ice.
( view full size map)
[SIZE=+1]The World 18,000 Years Ago[/SIZE]
Before "global warming" started 18,000 years ago most of the earth was a frozen and arid wasteland. Over half of earth 's surface was covered by glaciers or extreme desert. Forests were rare.
Not a very fun place to live.
(view full size map)[SIZE=+1]Our Present World[/SIZE]
"Global warming" over the last 15,000 years has changed our world from an ice box to a garden. Today extreme deserts and glaciers have largely given way to grasslands, woodlands, and forests.
Wish it could last forever, but . . . .
Global warming during Earth's current interglacial warm period has greatly altered our environment and the distribution and diversity of all life. For example:
( view full size map)
[SIZE=+1]The World 18,000 Years Ago[/SIZE]
Before "global warming" started 18,000 years ago most of the earth was a frozen and arid wasteland. Over half of earth 's surface was covered by glaciers or extreme desert. Forests were rare.
Not a very fun place to live.
(view full size map)[SIZE=+1]Our Present World[/SIZE]
"Global warming" over the last 15,000 years has changed our world from an ice box to a garden. Today extreme deserts and glaciers have largely given way to grasslands, woodlands, and forests.
Wish it could last forever, but . . . .
Big P
Well-Known Member
it could have been covered in ice and pushed further up the mountain through glacial movment.
its sounds crazy that glaciers and ice can move uphill and carry rocks and boulders with it but this guy seems to think it happens
CHAPTER VI.
WAS IT CAUSED BY CONTINENTAL ICE-SHEETS?
WE, come now to the theory which is at present most generally accepted:
It being apparent that glaciers were not adequate to produce the results which we find,
the glacialists have fallen back upon an extraordinary hypothesis--to wit, that the whole north and south regions of the globe, extending from the poles to 35° or 40° of north and south latitude, were, in the Drift age, covered with enormous, continuous sheets of ice, from one mile thick at its southern margin,
to three or five miles thick at the poles. As they find drift-scratches upon the tops of mountains in Europe three to four thousand feet high, and in New England upon elevations six thousand feet high, it follows, according to this hypothesis, that the ice-sheet must have been considerably higher than these mountains, for the ice must have been thick enough to cover their tops, and high enough and heavy enough above their tops to press down upon and groove and scratch the rocks.
And as the striæ in Northern Europe were found to disregard the conformation of the continent and the islands of the sea, it became necessary to suppose that this polar ice-sheet filled up the bays and seas, so that one could have passed dry-shod, in that period, from France to the north pole, over a steadily ascending plane of ice.
No attempt has been made to explain where all this
{p. 24}
ice came from; or what force lifted the moisture into the air which, afterward descending, constituted these world-cloaks of frozen water.
It is, perhaps, easy to suppose that such world-cloaks might have existed; we can imagine the water of the seas falling on the continents, and freezing as it fell, until, in the course of ages, it constituted such gigantic ice-sheets; but something more than this is needed. This does not account for these hundreds of feet of clay, bowlders, and gravel.
But it is supposed that these were torn from the surface of the rocks by the pressure of the ice-sheet moving southward. But what would make it move southward? We know that some of our mountains are covered to-day with immense sheets of ice, hundreds and thousands of feet in thickness. Do these descend upon the flat country? No; they lie there and melt, and are renewed, kept in equipoise by the contending forces of heat and cold.
Why should the ice-sheet move southward? Because, say the "glacialists," the lands of the northern parts of Europe and America were then elevated fifteen hundred feet higher than at present, and this gave the ice a sufficient descent. But what became of that elevation afterward? Why, it went down again. It had accommodatingly performed its function, and then the land resumed its old place!
But did the land rise up in this extraordinary fashion? Croll says:
"The greater elevation of the land (in the Ice period) is simply assumed as an hypothesis to account for the cold. The facts of geology, however, are fast establishing the opposite conclusion, viz., that when the country was covered with ice, the land stood in relation to the sea at a lower level than at present, and that the continental periods or times, when the land stood in relation to the
{p. 25}
sea at a higher level than now, were the warm inter-glacial periods, when the country was free of snow and ice, And a mild and equable condition of climate prevailed. This is the conclusion toward which we are being led by the more recent revelations of surface-geology, and also by certain facts connected with the geographical distribution of plants and animals during the Glacial epoch."[1]
H. B. Norton says:
"When we come to study the cause of these phenomena, we find many perplexing and contradictory theories in the field. A favorite one is that of vertical elevation. But it seems impossible to admit that the circle inclosed within the parallel of 40°--some seven thousand miles in diameter--could have been elevated to such a height as to produce this remarkable result. This would be a supposition hard to reconcile with the present proportion of land and water on the surface of the globe and with the phenomena of terrestrial contraction and gravitation."[2]
We have seen that the surface-rocks underneath the Drift are scored and grooved by some external force. Now we find that these markings do not all run in the same direction; on the contrary, they cross each other in an extraordinary manner. The cut on the following page illustrates this.
If the direction of the motion of the ice-sheets, which caused these markings, was,--as the glacialists allege,--always from the elevated region in the north to the lower ground in the south, then the markings must always have been in the same direction: given a fixed cause, we must have always a fixed result. We shall see, as we go on in this argument, that the deposition of the "till" was instantaneous; and, as these markings were made before or at the same time the "till" was laid down, how could the land
[1. "Climate and Time," p. 391.
2. "Popular Science Monthly," October, 1879, p. 833.]
{p. 26}
possibly have bobbed up and down, now here, now there, so that the elevation from which the ice-sheet descended
SKETCH OF GLACIER-FURROWS AND SCRATCHES AT STONY POINT, LAKE ERIE, MICHIGAN.aa, deep water-line; bb border of the bank of earthy materials; cc, deep parallel grooves four and a half feet apart and twenty-five feet long, bearing north 60° east; d, a set of grooves and scratches bearing north 60° west; e, a natural bridge.
[Winchell's "Sketches of Creation," p. 213.]
was one moment in the northeast, and the next moment had whirled away into the northwest? As the poet says:
". . . Will these trees,
That have outlived the eagle, page thy steps
And skip, when thou point'st out?"
{p. 27}
But if the point of elevation was whisked away from east to west, how could an ice-sheet a mile thick instantaneously adapt itself to the change? For all these markings took place in the interval between the time when the external force, whatever it was, struck the rocks, and the time when a sufficient body of "till" had been laid down to shield the rocks and prevent further wear and tear. Neither is it possible to suppose an ice-sheet, a mile in thickness, moving in two diametrically opposite directions at the same time.
Again: the ice-sheet theory requires an elevation in the north and a descent southwardly; and it is this descent southwardly which is supposed to have given the momentum and movement by which the weight of the superincumbent mass of ice tore up, plowed up, ground up, and smashed up the face of the surface-rocks, and thus formed the Drift and made the striæ.
But, unfortunately, when we come to apply this theory to the facts, we find that it is the north sides of the hills and mountains that are striated, while the south sides have gone scot-free! Surely, if weight and motion made the Drift, then the groovings, caused by weight and motion, must have been more distinct upon a declivity than upon an ascent. The school-boy toils patiently and slowly up the hill with his sled, but when he descends he comes down with railroad-speed, scattering the snow before him in all directions. But here we have a school-boy that tears and scatters things going up-hill, and sneaks down-hill snail-fashion.
"Professor Hitchcock remarks, that Mount Monadnock, New Hampshire, 3,250 feet high, is scarified from top to bottom on its northern side and western side, but not on, the southern."[1]
This state of things is universal in North America.
[1. Dana's "Manual of Geology," p. 537.]
{p. 28}
But let us look at another point:
If the vast deposits of sand, gravel, clay, and bowlders, which are found in Europe and America, were placed there by a great continental ice-sheet, reaching down from the north pole to latitude 35° or 40°; if it was the ice that tore and scraped up the face of the rocks and rolled the stones and striated them, and left them in great sheets and heaps all over the land--then it follows, as a matter of course, that in all the regions equally near the pole, and equally cold in climate, the ice must have formed a similar sheet, and in like manner have torn up the rocks and ground them into gravel and clay. This conclusion is irresistible. If the cold of the north caused the ice, and the ice caused the Drift, then in all the cold north-lands there must have been ice, and consequently there ought to have been Drift. If we can find, therefore, any extensive cold region of the earth where the Drift is not, then we can not escape the conclusion that the cold and the ice did not make the Drift.
Let us see: One of the coldest regions of the earth is Siberia. It is a vast tract reaching to the Arctic Circle; it is the north part of the Continent of Asia; it is intersected by great mountain-ranges. Here, if anywhere, we should find the Drift; here, if anywhere, was the ice-field, "the sea of ice." It is more elevated and more mountainous than the interior of North America where the drift-deposits are extensive; it is nearer the pole than New York and Illinois, covered as these are with hundreds of feet of débris, and yet there is no Drift in Siberia!
I quote from a high authority, and a firm believer in the theory that glaciers or ice-sheets caused the drift; James Geikie says:
"It is remarkable that nowhere in the great plains of Siberia do any traces of glacial action appear to have
jebus is comming
its sounds crazy that glaciers and ice can move uphill and carry rocks and boulders with it but this guy seems to think it happens
CHAPTER VI.
WAS IT CAUSED BY CONTINENTAL ICE-SHEETS?
WE, come now to the theory which is at present most generally accepted:
It being apparent that glaciers were not adequate to produce the results which we find,
the glacialists have fallen back upon an extraordinary hypothesis--to wit, that the whole north and south regions of the globe, extending from the poles to 35° or 40° of north and south latitude, were, in the Drift age, covered with enormous, continuous sheets of ice, from one mile thick at its southern margin,
to three or five miles thick at the poles. As they find drift-scratches upon the tops of mountains in Europe three to four thousand feet high, and in New England upon elevations six thousand feet high, it follows, according to this hypothesis, that the ice-sheet must have been considerably higher than these mountains, for the ice must have been thick enough to cover their tops, and high enough and heavy enough above their tops to press down upon and groove and scratch the rocks.
And as the striæ in Northern Europe were found to disregard the conformation of the continent and the islands of the sea, it became necessary to suppose that this polar ice-sheet filled up the bays and seas, so that one could have passed dry-shod, in that period, from France to the north pole, over a steadily ascending plane of ice.
No attempt has been made to explain where all this
{p. 24}
ice came from; or what force lifted the moisture into the air which, afterward descending, constituted these world-cloaks of frozen water.
It is, perhaps, easy to suppose that such world-cloaks might have existed; we can imagine the water of the seas falling on the continents, and freezing as it fell, until, in the course of ages, it constituted such gigantic ice-sheets; but something more than this is needed. This does not account for these hundreds of feet of clay, bowlders, and gravel.
But it is supposed that these were torn from the surface of the rocks by the pressure of the ice-sheet moving southward. But what would make it move southward? We know that some of our mountains are covered to-day with immense sheets of ice, hundreds and thousands of feet in thickness. Do these descend upon the flat country? No; they lie there and melt, and are renewed, kept in equipoise by the contending forces of heat and cold.
Why should the ice-sheet move southward? Because, say the "glacialists," the lands of the northern parts of Europe and America were then elevated fifteen hundred feet higher than at present, and this gave the ice a sufficient descent. But what became of that elevation afterward? Why, it went down again. It had accommodatingly performed its function, and then the land resumed its old place!
But did the land rise up in this extraordinary fashion? Croll says:
"The greater elevation of the land (in the Ice period) is simply assumed as an hypothesis to account for the cold. The facts of geology, however, are fast establishing the opposite conclusion, viz., that when the country was covered with ice, the land stood in relation to the sea at a lower level than at present, and that the continental periods or times, when the land stood in relation to the
{p. 25}
sea at a higher level than now, were the warm inter-glacial periods, when the country was free of snow and ice, And a mild and equable condition of climate prevailed. This is the conclusion toward which we are being led by the more recent revelations of surface-geology, and also by certain facts connected with the geographical distribution of plants and animals during the Glacial epoch."[1]
H. B. Norton says:
"When we come to study the cause of these phenomena, we find many perplexing and contradictory theories in the field. A favorite one is that of vertical elevation. But it seems impossible to admit that the circle inclosed within the parallel of 40°--some seven thousand miles in diameter--could have been elevated to such a height as to produce this remarkable result. This would be a supposition hard to reconcile with the present proportion of land and water on the surface of the globe and with the phenomena of terrestrial contraction and gravitation."[2]
We have seen that the surface-rocks underneath the Drift are scored and grooved by some external force. Now we find that these markings do not all run in the same direction; on the contrary, they cross each other in an extraordinary manner. The cut on the following page illustrates this.
If the direction of the motion of the ice-sheets, which caused these markings, was,--as the glacialists allege,--always from the elevated region in the north to the lower ground in the south, then the markings must always have been in the same direction: given a fixed cause, we must have always a fixed result. We shall see, as we go on in this argument, that the deposition of the "till" was instantaneous; and, as these markings were made before or at the same time the "till" was laid down, how could the land
[1. "Climate and Time," p. 391.
2. "Popular Science Monthly," October, 1879, p. 833.]
{p. 26}
possibly have bobbed up and down, now here, now there, so that the elevation from which the ice-sheet descended
SKETCH OF GLACIER-FURROWS AND SCRATCHES AT STONY POINT, LAKE ERIE, MICHIGAN.
[Winchell's "Sketches of Creation," p. 213.]
was one moment in the northeast, and the next moment had whirled away into the northwest? As the poet says:
". . . Will these trees,
That have outlived the eagle, page thy steps
And skip, when thou point'st out?"
{p. 27}
But if the point of elevation was whisked away from east to west, how could an ice-sheet a mile thick instantaneously adapt itself to the change? For all these markings took place in the interval between the time when the external force, whatever it was, struck the rocks, and the time when a sufficient body of "till" had been laid down to shield the rocks and prevent further wear and tear. Neither is it possible to suppose an ice-sheet, a mile in thickness, moving in two diametrically opposite directions at the same time.
Again: the ice-sheet theory requires an elevation in the north and a descent southwardly; and it is this descent southwardly which is supposed to have given the momentum and movement by which the weight of the superincumbent mass of ice tore up, plowed up, ground up, and smashed up the face of the surface-rocks, and thus formed the Drift and made the striæ.
But, unfortunately, when we come to apply this theory to the facts, we find that it is the north sides of the hills and mountains that are striated, while the south sides have gone scot-free! Surely, if weight and motion made the Drift, then the groovings, caused by weight and motion, must have been more distinct upon a declivity than upon an ascent. The school-boy toils patiently and slowly up the hill with his sled, but when he descends he comes down with railroad-speed, scattering the snow before him in all directions. But here we have a school-boy that tears and scatters things going up-hill, and sneaks down-hill snail-fashion.
"Professor Hitchcock remarks, that Mount Monadnock, New Hampshire, 3,250 feet high, is scarified from top to bottom on its northern side and western side, but not on, the southern."[1]
This state of things is universal in North America.
[1. Dana's "Manual of Geology," p. 537.]
{p. 28}
But let us look at another point:
If the vast deposits of sand, gravel, clay, and bowlders, which are found in Europe and America, were placed there by a great continental ice-sheet, reaching down from the north pole to latitude 35° or 40°; if it was the ice that tore and scraped up the face of the rocks and rolled the stones and striated them, and left them in great sheets and heaps all over the land--then it follows, as a matter of course, that in all the regions equally near the pole, and equally cold in climate, the ice must have formed a similar sheet, and in like manner have torn up the rocks and ground them into gravel and clay. This conclusion is irresistible. If the cold of the north caused the ice, and the ice caused the Drift, then in all the cold north-lands there must have been ice, and consequently there ought to have been Drift. If we can find, therefore, any extensive cold region of the earth where the Drift is not, then we can not escape the conclusion that the cold and the ice did not make the Drift.
Let us see: One of the coldest regions of the earth is Siberia. It is a vast tract reaching to the Arctic Circle; it is the north part of the Continent of Asia; it is intersected by great mountain-ranges. Here, if anywhere, we should find the Drift; here, if anywhere, was the ice-field, "the sea of ice." It is more elevated and more mountainous than the interior of North America where the drift-deposits are extensive; it is nearer the pole than New York and Illinois, covered as these are with hundreds of feet of débris, and yet there is no Drift in Siberia!
I quote from a high authority, and a firm believer in the theory that glaciers or ice-sheets caused the drift; James Geikie says:
"It is remarkable that nowhere in the great plains of Siberia do any traces of glacial action appear to have
jebus is comming
ColoradoLove
Well-Known Member
You know what else is a wooden structure with compartments to hold animals in?
A barn....
You know what you really need at 13,000 feet? (no not a boat)
Shelter...
Treeline is at 12,000ish ft roughly. I can tell you when you go above there it can get windy and nasty, especially in the winter. Imagine finding a shelter up there...
A barn....
You know what you really need at 13,000 feet? (no not a boat)
Shelter...
Treeline is at 12,000ish ft roughly. I can tell you when you go above there it can get windy and nasty, especially in the winter. Imagine finding a shelter up there...