This is obviously related .. https://phys.org/...ing.html
How much more evidence is warranted to prove the impact hypothesis..

This is obviously related .. https://phys.org/...ing.html
How much more evidence is warranted to prove the impact hypothesis..

sQ, you have a point. The problem is speculations and guesstimates are not evidence. And even accumulating data may not be conclusive proof. But rather result in more questions that will need further research. And what ever evidence may still exist? Is spread over millions of miles of continents and ocean bottom.

However, I would think that one way to gain more evidence for your supposition? Drones to check out the still orbiting remnants of the accused comet. Perhaps the isotopes or particulate materials could be confirmed? I doubt if there will be any easy answers to these puzzles.

But, that's what makes the scientific method, so damn interesting!

Those two articles do fit together rather well I agree. Another piece in the puzzle...

So... the myths of peoples around the world are being found to be correct, again? Cool.

Those two articles do fit together rather well I agree. Another piece in the puzzle...

A lot more than a thousand pieces, I'm sure...:-)

" A lot more than a thousand pieces, I'm sure...:-) "

Very probably...

Perhaps also humans are partly exonerated for hunting so many species to extinction in those general times.

Drones to check out the still orbiting remnants of the accused comet

And What kind of drones do you suggest could fly to comer fragments?

And

The problem is speculations and guesstimates are not evidence

- What makes YOU think that

"this study provides a massive amount of evidence, which we argue can only be all explained by a major cosmic impact."

-indicates that these SCIENTISTS produced a study composed of 'speculations and guesstimates'?

Those two articles do fit together rather well I agree. Another piece in the puzzle...

If I were you I'd hold my horses on that. A few of the authors of these papers have been pushing this comet hypothesis for years. Nobody else has managed to replicate their findings. I would have a read of this, and then see if you are still quite so confident in the findings:

https://psmag.com...th-31180

One of the lead proponents of this hypothesis is a Richard Firestone. One of his 'findings' was of micrometeorites in mammoth tusks. The late, unlamented, Chris Reeve was always banging on about it re his Velikovskian catastrophist woo. I read Firestone's paper, and then looked at the citing literature. One of the papers totally trashed the findings, and pointed out that meteorites of such a size would float to Earth at such a speed that there is no way they could penetrate a mammoth tusk!

Here is the free access paper I was referring to above, that rather throws a lot of cold water on the previous work of this group:

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis: A requiem
Pinter, N. et al
http://www2.nau.e.../135.pdf

So, I shall remain extremely dubious until this work has also been assessed by others.

eljo the problem with accepting fabulous fractured fairytales as proof for anything? Is where do you draw the line between reality and imagination?

Otto my man, good to hear from you. Thank you for playing my straight-man!

What I was speculating about was a mission to locate, approach & scan and if possible land probes onto the remaining larger pieces of the comet assumed to be the one that caused the catastrophe presumed in the article. Maybe capture and retrieve back to the ISS some of the smaller pieces?

A slapdash conglomerate of the Rosetta & Huygens Probes. With the Philea lander & Curiosity Rover. Using concept of Swarm and propelled by Smart-1.

Using off the shelf, proven-rugged sensors launched off world. To rendezvous with what ever orbiting junk can be retrieved for framework. Doing this all on the cheap. Ugly as sin when it's all stapled together.

Producing a swarm of cheap, disposable drones. At low mass a solar-electric drive would slowly at very low delta-v start pushing the DSP Rube Goldberg's Kludgefest towards the cometary debris. Maybe an assist with a Lunar flyby slingshot?

- cont'd -

- cont'd -
These researchers were wise enough to use the word 'suggest'. Even the headline writer used 'suggest'. Otto, you know as well as I do, what a remarkable occurrence it is, when any headline writer shows a measure of restraint.

In my comments, I urge restraint in jumping to inconclusive unverified conclusions. That the researchers speculations will probably, eventually, be proven at least partially accurate description of what may have happened.

But, we ain't there yet.

I freely offered suggestions for means of discovering supporting evidence.

As you well know, I am no fan of either AI spirit-guides or human habitation outside the Earth's biosphere.

However, I have the character to assert that perhaps I am wrong. That my speculations could be less correct than those scientists who base their conclusions on the empirical evidence of completed experiments.

"Abductive" reasoning NOT "deductive" conjecture...

In my comments, I urge restraint in jumping to inconclusive unverified conclusions

What you are is an imbecile who reads a press release and thinks he knows more about a subject than the scientists who spend months on a study and years preparing to be able to write it.

freely offered suggestions for means of discovering supporting evidence

You freely made up a bunch of garbage and thought it was a genuine contribution.

fabulous fractured fairytales

-and I really despise assholes who come here and think they can get away with disparaging scientists.

Your posts do have the quality of a genuine sicko who thinks that tricking people with a fake persona makes him smarter than them.

Do you feel smart willis?

Well, obviously smarter than you Otto...

Both articles are pay-walled...
:-((

Those two articles do fit together rather well I agree. Another piece in the puzzle...

If I were you I'd hold my horses on that. A few of the authors of these papers have been pushing this comet hypothesis for years. Nobody else has managed to replicate their findings. I would have a read of this, and then see if you are still quite so confident in the findings:

All I said was the articles fit together. Do not assume you know what I'm thinking as to whether I believe any of it, am confident of any of it or anything else other than what I said.

All I said was the articles fit together. Do not assume you know what I'm thinking as to whether I believe any of it, am confident of any of it or anything else other than what I said.

So you didn't say "another piece in the puzzle..."? Not something I would say if I wasn't confident in, or didn't believe, a particular finding.

jd, I'm the scribbler who wrote "another piece in the puzzle..."

In my defense, I tried to make it clear my opinion that the evidence presented by the researchers in this article. Was neither conclusive nor confirmed from multiple sources.

I am no fan of convenient catastrophism. However I did generously offered a possible means to accumulate more data. That may or may not confirm the speculative notions listed in this article.

Even if there are those Homo Folivora commentators who resent my offering reasoned speculations and suggesting projects to actually push the science forward.

I enjoy belaboring the professional whingers who make no effort to offer any original ideas and have no work ethic worth mentioning.

To paraphrase the Great Sibelius "Nobody builds monuments to critics!"

A great spot to extend this earthbound research into the astronomical realm would be to send a mission to the eccentric Apollo group asteroid 2004 TG10, a near-Earth object discovered by the Spacewatch survey in October of 2004. This asteroid is considered to be the source of the Northern Taurids meteor shower observed each November. Intriguingly, regarding this article, 2004 TG10 is postulated to be a fragment of Comet Encke, which is itself considered to be the source of the Southern Taurids and Beta Taurids. All this only adds to unconfirmed speculation that, in the distant past, comet Encke may have been a formidable astronomical phenomena, from Earth's perspective. Of course, it's a giant leap to link a historical greater-Encke to the cosmic impacts referred to in this article, but perhaps a mission to 2004 TG10 might be a step towards gathering solid astronomical evidence of the theorized ancient mega-strike.

@rrwillsj

jd, I'm the scribbler who wrote "another piece in the puzzle..."

No, you weren't. Look at the 4th post in this thread. It is definitely by 24volts.

"The problem with accepting fabulous fractured fairytales as proof for anything? Is where do you draw the line between reality and imagination?"

Well, one is dealing with testimonies about a crime. All legal professionals know and understand the problems that arise with testimonies, faulty memories, suggestion, etc.. But you always have to accept at face value that the testimony exists. A police officer learning about the report of a crime, would be fired if he dismisses reports from civilians he deems nutty. I see no benefit in dismissing statements from ancestors.

A legal pro/historian would look at all sorts of evidence. What you call "fabulous fractured fairytales" can hold a kernel of truth. If you throw testimonies about a crime away on first sight, and ignore indications of powder from a murder weapon, you are doing a bad job.

A single piece of evidence is not what convinces judges, it is the question whether most of the evidence supports the same view, or not

"A single piece of evidence is not what convinces judges"
Depends on the evidence and its robustness, surely ?? eg DNA can make or break a case.

"A single piece of evidence is not what convinces judges"
Depends on the evidence and its robustness, surely ?? eg DNA can make or break a case."

Precisely. But the accumulated literature, after the judiciary systems worldwide having decades of experience with mistrials and innocent people being jailed because of relying on DNA evidence, learns that the use of DNA in court cases is very problematic, and usually is not considered to be robust evidence in European criminal investigations, per se. E.g. even if contamination is excluded, it's presence on 'the' murder weapon wouldn't automatically explain its presence, nor causal role in a crime scene. More often than not, it is just one piece of evidence which needs other lines of evidence to convince, including testimony.

One does not escape the necessity for qualitative reasoning or the need in trying to accumulate separate lines of evidence which are mutually supportive.

jd, thanks for correcting me. I think I got confused with memory of comments I made for another article.

eljo, why do I have to accept your interpretation as to the meaning of what someone else claims he overheard in a tavern of raucous drunks?

If you want to meekly, blindly accept anonymous testimony as some sort of sacred text? Without the slightest shred of confirming evidence? Based on irrational suppositions and fantastical fiction? That's on you.

Cause if you have any expectations of my acceptance? You'll be a deeply buried fossil before that illuminating event.

"eljo, why do I have to accept your interpretation as to the meaning of what someone else claims he overheard in a tavern of raucous drunks? "

You don't. But I would conclude the rumor being spread in the tavern exists. And when an other line of evidence supports it. I would flesh out the details of the rumor even more carefully. (And anyway, It is not because someone is a raucous drunk, even the kind who likes to exaggerate, that he is automatically wrong). Besides, the same story has been repeated in taverns around the world and recorded in written sources.

"irrational suppositions and fantastical fiction". You obviously never had an inch deep introduction into works of the ancient Greeks or Romans or Egyptians. Read Manetho, or Herodotes and documents from the Pythagorian and Platonic school and convince me they were not capable of careful discernment. There are reliable sources to be found in any era This includes docs held in monasteries/temples as they were the schools.

@eljo

A police officer learning about the report of a crime, would be fired if he dismisses reports from civilians he deems nutty

erm... not quite

a lot depends upon:
1- officer discretion
2- plausibility (did bigfoot fly the spaceship past the Loch Ness monster?)
3- situational relationship
4- the credibility of the individual

A legal pro/historian would look at all sorts of evidence

levels of evidence are important and, in point of fact, specifically spelt in legal terms
https://www.law.c...ules/fre

science does the same thing

A single piece of evidence is not what convinces judges

depends on the evidence, as @Nik_2213 points out: DNA is far superior to hearsay evidence

it seems that you're saying (essentially, much like the courts) that multiple lines of similar circumstantial evidence can be conditionally used to focus an investigation

@eljo

Besides, the same story has been repeated in taverns around the world and recorded in written sources

erm... I hate to be the bearer of bad news but, the same religious stories have passed (or been plagiarized) for millennia but hold no bearing on reality, therefore it can't be a legitimate argument or even hold evidentiary value simply due to repetition
That is how religion or mythology works

for it to be valid there absolutely must be some physical evidence to substantiate the claim by some means

the credibility of the source is also important: if your original source was not reputable (or can't be found) then the information absolutely must be treated as circumspect if not outright dismissed for lack of evidence

this is best demonstrated by religions and the fanciful tales used to keep members in line and judge non-believers

"The hypothesis is that a large comet fragmented and the chunks impacted the Earth, causing this disaster," said Melott. "A number of different chemical signatures—carbon dioxide, nitrate, ammonia and others—all seem to indicate that an astonishing 10 percent of the Earth's land surface, or about 10 million square kilometers, was consumed by fires."

There was only one ice age - some time after the great flood because the flood with the associated volcanic activity and earthquakes set up the right conditions for it to occur.
But that won't put people off from making their own conclusions about the cause of the ice age they are talking about here, even though they have no explanation for the cause of the ice age.

@Captain Slumpy
"but hold no bearing on reality"

That is opinion, not fact. Myth, religious or not, can evolve from historical events or can describe festivals, calendars, topological features of a landscape, discuss ancient kings, talk about stellar constellations, etc.. Archeology makes its greatest finds starting from documents, even unreliable ones. Schliemann found Troy using myth, before him 'it had no bearing on reality'. When one makes authority claims, one forgets that the authority is the message of the text. The authority is instilled on the hearer. And obviously we would have to compare notes about the document you address. Ancient texts/myth require careful discernment, and usually as the product of oral transmission, they become multi layered. This is well known in language studies, philology, ethnography.

Cold cases usually get solved by looking evidence dismissed because of "credibility arguments"

There is no rational procedural substitute for an open mind

@fredthe idiot religious troll

There was only one ice age

https://78.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kq979vR0Hz1qzma4ho1_400.jpg

see also: https://en.wikipe...ice_ages

some time after the great flood

which one?
the one in Egypt that happens every year?
the one in the Amazon? Mississippi? any f*cking river system that is on earth?

or are you talking about the plagiarized delusional fable from your bible which was stolen from far, far older cultures that dreamed up a catastrophic event to scare people in line in order to control them?

https://pics.onsi...8567.png

https://78.media...._500.gif

@eljo

That is opinion, not fact. Myth, religious or not, can evolve from historical events or ...etc

true, however, I was speaking specifically of religious stories that have been not only proven false, but have been proven to be plagiarized from other cultures
context is important in that comment

the point being: until it has some physical evidence or superior evidence demonstrating it's validity, it has no bearing on reality, especially because myths and old events that are shared tend to take on a life of their own and have adaptations that embellish reality

Cold cases usually get solved by looking evidence dismissed because of "credibility arguments"

no
cold cases usually get solved because of:
1- fresh perspectives
2- looking at *all* the evidence
3- new eyes and techniques that allow for better understanding of the situation
4- persistence and dogged determination
5- the reallocation of man-hours into a proper investigation

@eljo cont'd

Schliemann found Troy using myth, before him 'it had no bearing on reality'

and this validated my point
"archaeology is still a mixture of science and art, with a hefty helping of media relations thrown in" - http://www.usu.ed...troy.htm

what this demonstrates is the point: "until it has some physical evidence or superior evidence demonstrating it's validity, it has no bearing on reality, especially because myths and old events that are shared tend to take on a life of their own and have adaptations that embellish reality"

you cannot assume that something is legit simply because of it's mythological or other status

you even state this:
"Ancient texts/myth require careful discernment"

but until they've been validated, they're nothing more than stories or made up fiction

that isn't being closed minded - that is beign logical, rational and open to the evidence

"until it has some physical evidence or superior evidence demonstrating it's validity, it has no bearing on reality"

I disagree. The extra evidence points to the fact, in hindsight, the story was true all along so claiming it had no, preexisting, bearing on reality, or a disdain for anything myth/or ancient text per se, is not a valid/useful statement/approach, but the expression of a bias. A bias from education, a method deemed rational, personal belief, but not a given. Anyone dealing with ancient texts knows a wild card is needed for things that can be embellishments, but alternatively, the embellishments can prove to be essential.

The only way to address any document is as neutrally as possible. 'Logic', and modern logic at that, is an unproductive approach. The document might be the product of syncretism, oft used in ancient texts, blending a myriad of knowledge.

Truth lies in the middle, and modern tools help, but there is no academic superiority in auto-disdain.

I want to watch when eljo tries to convince a seminar of Chinese Watershed Engineers, that there was only "One Great Flood"!

After the jeering and the hooting? See how far they can toss his ignorant ass out the door!

eljo, this 'Truth' of which you speak? I gather your meaning is that "Truth' is absolute and invariable?

At which point of time does the 'Truth' exist, before, during or after an explosion?

@eljo

The extra evidence points to the fact, in hindsight, the story was true all along so claiming it had no, preexisting, bearing on reality, or a disdain for anything myth/or ancient text per se, is not a valid/useful statement/approach, but the expression of a bias

it is not a bias to eliminate unproductive lines of investigation

case in point: there are thousands of stories about faeries, elves, trolls and other mythological creatures in history, including deities

if we accept your reasoning then we must conclude the above myths have a legitimate foundation and must exist

however, if we use logic and rational approaches typical of the scientific method, or just basic investigative procedures, then we can dismiss them unless or until there is some validating evidence supporting the claims of existence

That is determination of evidentiary validity
IOW - no validity means worthless as evidence (AKA a false lead or red herring)

2Bcont'd

@eljo cont'd

Anyone dealing with ancient texts knows a wild card is needed ...

see above re: art and science

The only way to address any document is as neutrally as possible. 'Logic', and modern logic at that, is an unproductive approach

total, utter and complete balderdash

any document is suspect until it's validated
period
full stop

it is the investigation which provides the validity into the document or it's contents, which is the point I am making above (repeatedly)

it doesn't make a wombat's dingleberry what any document says: so long as it's not able to be verified/validated, then it's nothing

See also: false lead

you can't waste valuable time or resources following false leads until you die - you need to prioritize the investigation or you will never be able to actually prove, validate or find anything other than your grave

Truth lies in the middle

no
the truth lies in following the evidence to the facts

A single piece of evidence is not what convinces judges, it is the question whether most of the evidence supports the same view, or not

Well sure, but first it has to overcome the mountains of existing contrary evidence.

"Tel Aviv University archaeologist Ze'ev Herzog wrote in the Haaretz newspaper:

This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, YHWH, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai."

-And psst there IS no Mt Sinai.

@rrwillsj @ Captain Stumpy & @ TheGhostofOtto1923

Hey guys, I appreciate the enthusiasm, but your beef seems to be with religious myth, or archaeology in the name of nationalism, like in Israel.

"case in point: there are thousands of stories about faeries, elves, trolls and other mythological creatures in history, including deities"

Yes. And thousands don't. Don't generalize.

"any document is suspect until it's validated"

With that attitude it is more likely that you won't even read it.

"you can't waste valuable time or resources following false leads"

There is no way to be certain. Just as likely that it is that a good investigator has a good feel for which people lie, it is likely that his bias towards the veracity of a testimony leads him to overlook it, while it might be the missing puzzle piece.

"if we accept your reasoning[...] the above myths have legitimate foundation and must exist."

No. You just have the openness there 'might' be truth to them.

@eljo

Hey guys, I appreciate the enthusiasm, but your beef seems to be...

well, I do have a personal beef with religion in general, but that isn't what my posts above are about

My above points are specific to any semi-competent investigator and especially in Archeology or similar sciences

With that attitude it is more likely that you won't even read it

and how, exactly, can you determine the level of evidence if you don't read it?

perhaps I wasn't clear above: there are levels of evidence (in law, science, medicine and more)
the evidentiary value of myth is not even at the same level of Eye-witness testimony - it's more along the lines of wishful thinking until something has corroborated that [x] part of said myth is based upon fact

IOW - like I noted above, and let me quote it

until they've been validated, they're nothing more than stories or made up fiction

2Bcont'd

@eljo cont'd

There is no way to be certain

yes, there is
if you can't find any reasonable supporting evidence in a timely fashion, and there is anything contradicting said evidence, then it can be dismissed

that doesn't mean it is deleted - just dismissed as a waste of resources
Investigation 101

Just as likely that it is that a good investigator has a good feel for which people lie

actually, this really depends on the liar more than the investigator
a liar that truly believes his lie (con men, sociopaths, etc) is capable of beating not only the typical interview, but also a lie detector (not like there aren't any other methods to beat a lie detector - it's only used as an investigative tool)

No. You just have the openness there 'might' be truth to them

again: no

truth comes from the investigation which leads to corroboration or validation, not from assumption before the investigation

I thought I made that clear?

"I thought I made that clear?"

Doesn't mean I agree. Besides, both of us use our brain, the difference is bias. You believe I suffer from wishful thinking, I believe the rational method leads to closed mindedness. Maybe I don't get the temporal subtlety of word "to dismiss" (Dutch).

"if you can't find reasonable supporting evidence in a timely fashion"

There is your problem. You feel the need to decide. In myth people are oft warned not to judge, simply to transmit. That truth will be revealed. What you call a waste of time, helps to memorize/pass it on. Understanding could come later; e.g. adult initiation.

As in the military, it is not necessary messengers understands the coded message. Case in point: religious myths passed on by laymen (full of references to calendar events, astronomical observations, etc.), but also
in Roman and Greek plays , some function as mnemotechnic devices to remember the position of the constellations. Taught to children, useful for adults.

yes, there is
if you can't find any reasonable supporting evidence in a timely fashion, and there is anything contradicting said evidence, then it can be dismissed

It's not only the complete lack of evidence for, but the overwhelming amount of evidence AGAINST, that convince us that the people and events described in the holy books never existed and never took place.

Case closed. The bookgods don't exist.

@eljo

Besides, both of us use our brain, the difference is bias. You believe I suffer from wishful thinking

Bias - yes
I do not believe you suffer from wishful thinking. I can see from the above that you're simply ignorant of certain basics due to lack of experience or education
this is why you follow up with

I believe the rational method leads to closed mindedness

in science, you never have a "closed mind"
the entire purpose of science is to investigate reality and explain things using a method that is clear, concise and requires evidence instead of philosophical supposition

that is where we differ: I prefer to allow the evidence to speak for itself, whereas you prefer to allow your mind to make up potential evidence based upon hints from unknown sources

that really is all the difference between us
I suggest taking some time to learn some basics for free: https://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

@eljo cont'd

There is your problem. You feel the need to decide

no
I feel the need to follow the evidence while ignoring time-wasting diversions

see also: Otto's post above

What you call a waste of time, helps to memorize/pass it on

again: no
there is a difference between the cultural aspects of myth (and their reasoning) and investigating reality

You're diverting your argument to support cultural and/or religious training
more to the point: repeating a mantra doesn't in any way enforce reality or make something a fact - it is a tool used to reinforce training, be it for nefarious or productive purpose

the military learned how to use it from the church

Myth, legend, and in general old stories have some kind of basis. The generations of people involved distort the original tale, but many times some form of the basis persists, despite the distortions.

Criminal investigations attempt to discover truth, mainly working through the filter of human distortion. Despite the validity of the evidence and its basis, the end result still comes from a process in which humans try to get other humans to invest in their particular delusion, or version of a possible reality.

The scientific method is our best attempt to rise above this kind of flawed human reasoning. As humans, we struggle to keep ourselves from bringing our flawed processes along and polluting the whole thing.

"The bookgods don't exist." Good for you. Now stop confusing myth with religion.

"myth is flawed reasoning"

Myth can have many purposes. Etiology is not the goal of all of them.

"whereas you prefer to allow your mind to make up potential evidence based upon hints from unknown sources"

Hypothetically? Sure.

"unknown sources"

Even "Anonymous" does not equal unknown/unintelligible.

"there is a difference ... cultural aspects of myth (and their reasoning) and investigating reality"

True, but the description of reality is colored by the descriptive tools of the culture you investigate, e.g. can be described in a syncretic way/symbolically. Professors in e.g. cultural studies have a diversity of methodological approaches. Some mythification traces to historic events/kings.

"...you're simply ignorant of certain basics due to lack of experience or education"

+ a link to online MIT courses? I guess in Europe we are spoiled: there still is 'reality' to our education

@eljo

Hypothetically? Sure

It's not hypothetical when you advocate that [x] is legit without actually investigating to validate

Even "Anonymous" does not equal unknown/unintelligible

nonsensical
also not the point - the evidence is the point
see @Zzzzz above

but the description of reality is colored by the descriptive tools of the culture you investigate

already known and adjusted for
it's a part of the investigation
regardless, it is also still irrelevant if the data isn't corroborated or validated

just because multiple cultures have a "flood" myth doesn't mean the earth is 6K years old

I guess in Europe we are spoiled: there still is 'reality' to our education

obviously you're wrong about that per your above demonstration

just because you fear the facts doesn't mean they will suddenly change or conform to your beliefs

and it doesn't matter how often you downrate a commenter - you're still wrong

See @Zzz above for details

"The hypothesis is that a large comet fragmented and the chunks impacted the Earth, causing this disaster,"

Comet Encke has been breaking up since the Holocene

Captain Slumpy.

Evidence. Lets try that:

If I show pictures of Adam and Eve, two distinctly humanoid natural formations in a crater of 20km diameter, and the humanoids 6 resp. 1.6 km long long and a snake 450 meters long, and two child like formations on the back of Eve each 160m long, in the middle of two alluvial patterns in the shape of two trees, would you believe that this formation in the terrain could be the source of a later myth about a couple, a snake, and a tree?

Furthermore, those alluvial patterns come together and at their base, they dig a canal that fans out into multiple rivers going off into the distance, actually more than four.

And to the right of that crater, the east, we have a volcano that when active can be called a 'flaming sword' that guards the way to the garden. And we have a child like face on the outside rim of that crater, in renaissance times called a 'cherubim'.

Would you believe that some myth could have a basis in reality?

@eljo

Would you believe that some myth could have a basis in reality?

Ignoring your above bullsh*t post

I have never disputed that some myths have a basis in reality
the problem you're having is that you want to believe something so strongly that you're willing to accept [x] is real before you know what possible evidence there is

that isn't how investigation or science works - that is how religion works
period
full stop

you even admit to this
i stated

whereas you prefer to allow your mind to make up potential evidence based upon hints from unknown sources

to which you replied

Hypothetically? Sure

you don't know if they're all a single source or not, a large prank (like crop circles) or simply repetition of a really bad nightmare from a child used to warn everyone that eating year old pizza is a bad idea

so again: you can reiterate your point all day long
it doesn't make you right
it makes you religious

Captain Stumpy

Evidence often bumps into the sociology of science.

Would evidence suffice for you? Natural geological formations...visible for everybody... big, and old...pollen in the soil that is 15.000 years old...at least 15 formations correspond with and predate 15 story elements in a known myth...statistically relevant and eliminating suspicions of pareidolia... no recent habitation...carbon datable/thermoluminiscent material in the humanoid formations that can be dated and was preserved/covered due to successive bouts of volcanism...

Would those lines of data suffice as evidence to say that a myth, known across a large geographic region that is culturally and linguistically connected, has a basis in a pre-existing reality? Even one foundational to a religion? Or would you be incredulous about what the tools of sci acquire?

Could your Bullsh*t remark be an indicator about how difficult it would be to get it published, irrespective of the merits of the evidence?

@eljo

Evidence often bumps into the sociology of science

in science, when you use the scientific method, there is evidence and there is everything else
period

Would evidence suffice for you?

here is a relatively brand new advancement that has profoundly altered not only human history but everything about what it means to be human: https://en.wikipe...c_method

Or would you be incredulous about what the tools of sci acquire?

I am pretty dispassionate about "what the tools of sci acquire"
I have no vested interest except to follow the evidence to it's conclusion

Could your Bullsh*t remark be an indicator about how difficult it would be to get it published, irrespective of the merits of the evidence?

so, you're pissed that your religious beliefs have no merit in science or reality, therefore you're here to advocate for alterations to how we view things in the hope of changing the future to accept your bullsh*t?

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Hi Captain Stumpy

Your answer demonstrates that you would not except any evidence, regardless whether it has merit or not, when it has anything to do with myth having been passed on in a religious context.

Pointing to the scientific method is fine, I am happy your teachers know it, but isn't it troublesome that, when asked, you cannot be find willing to qualify evidence as good or bad, useful or not?

Shouldn't you at least trust in your own competence? Or do you need to 'dispassionately' call things "Bulssh*t" and hide behind immaterialized future peers to take a position?

These comet investigators, an expert group, have the guts to take head wind.

I gave you a list and a chance to look through types of evidence and qualify it. But for now, it seems, you are not yet experienced enough to even risk a mistake.

You not only have no 'vested' interest, you show 'no interest at all'. So what exactly is the process to get to discuss evidence for myth, of any sort, with you?

These comet investigators, an expert group, have the guts to take head wind.

Their work has been assessed previously, and found to be considerably lacking. I have posted the link to the paper where the debunking of their previous findings was summarised. I'll post it again:

The Younger Dryas impact hypothesis: A requiem
Pinter, N. et al.
http://www2.nau.e.../135.pdf

And an article from 2011:

https://psmag.com...th-31180

So what exactly is the process to get to discuss evidence for myth, of any sort, with you?

Can't speak for CS, but I would say the process is the same as for any scientific hypothesis - make a prediction, include a method for falsifying that prediction, then go and look for the evidence of that prediction. Velikovsky made numerous claims based on mythology. All the evidence showed him to be wrong. So, you'll have to do a lot better than that.

@eljo

Your answer demonstrates that you would not except any evidence

and again: you're wrong

but isn't it troublesome that, when asked, you cannot be find willing to qualify evidence as good or bad, useful or not?

[sic]
out of context, all evidence is a random interjection of data

it's pointless to speculate that [x] evidence applies to [y] situation or hypothesis until said evidence can be reliably validated through various means

so when you inject random [x] points and point to [y] then you're saying that said evidence *must* be related but you've given no means to validate said evidence (that is one method cultures use to develop myths and religions, BTW - which you would have known had you been educated)

that is not how investigations work, in science or in other fields - had you a cursory knowledge of the basics you would understand this

...which is why I linked the MIT site to you

.

2Bcont'd

Weljo cont'd

Shouldn't you at least trust in your own competence?

I do trust my competence
I trust it because I am experienced and trained

Or do you need to 'dispassionately' call things "Bulssh*t" and hide behind immaterialized future peers

[sic]
calling something bullsh*t was a factual, clear, concise label of presented information

attempting to incite anger through your pseudoscience proclamations while attacking a principle that is the foundation of everything you see around you is specific and endemic to a class of irrational delusional uneducated people who seek to define their personal reality using a personal or shared lexicon from similar minded while seeking to validate their delusions with public feedback, typically negative which gives them a reason to "hate" and promote their ideas further

this is demonstrated in your posts above
it's also similar to cults, religions or other pseudoscience true believers

2Bcont'd

@eljo cont'd

These comet investigators, an expert group, have the guts to take head wind

irrelevant distraction from your points

I gave you a list and a chance to look through types of evidence and qualify it

out of context data is not qualifiable until or unless you can have valid investigative measures to apply

you are not yet experienced enough to even risk a mistake

on the contrary: I've made plenty, and I still have nightmares about some of my mistakes
but it's a living, and I am very, very good at my job

You ... 'no interest at all

I have no interest in attempting to validate your delusions or beliefs, that is true - because I don't share your beliefs

So what exactly is the process to get to discuss evidence for myth, of any sort, with you?

https://en.wikipe...c_method

http://www.auburn...ion.html

start with the above
then we can evaluate actual evidence in context

last @eljo

@Jonesdave makes a great point - and it's valid as well as a great starting point for discussing evidence with me (evidence of any sort)

Can't speak for CS, but I would say the process is the same as for any scientific hypothesis - make a prediction, include a method for falsifying that prediction, then go and look for the evidence of that prediction. Velikovsky made numerous claims based on mythology. All the evidence showed him to be wrong. So, you'll have to do a lot better than that.

so, he does speak for me there

more importantly: context
interjections of random "here is this physical feature" while inferring potential mythological attachment is like looking at a deep set eyed person and stating "see that heavy brow and merged eyebrow? that's evidence for cross-breeding with Neanderthal!"

just because it has feathers doesn't mean it's a pillow

also remember: source is important
so is credibility

@Captain Slumpy,

"I have no interest in attempting to validate your delusions or beliefs, that is true - because I don't share your beliefs"

Information. Well done.

I agree with your quote of Jonesdave

Now. I did discover a mythical landscape, following leads left behind in the literal interpretation of another myth. Since at least 15 elements in the scene correspond to one specific myth we all know, I must conclude that the landscape was the basis for that later myth. It can't be the other way round, because it concerns natural features. You also can't call it pareidolia, because statistics dictate that 15 grouped exact correlations with main story elements, covering the entire myth, leaves no alternatives. I also cannot unsee it, because I am familiar with myth. Terrain geology, erosion dictates that it is older than the myth. +800 pages of context discussing alternatives.

Sharing it might turn out to be for the better, but I am not looking forward to the insults.

@el dipsh*t

Now. I did discover a mythical landscape, ...I must conclude ... It can't be the other way round, because ...Sharing it might turn out to be for the better, but I am not looking forward to the insults

Listen: personal anecdote is fine for storytime around the fire, or with children
storytime is how you can indoctrinate youth or others

but it's irrelevant in this because it's not verifiable
There is no way in hell that I can even check, let alone validate your claims

This is why science is such a powerful tool

so as an investigator I have to question your motivation for sharing this data
it doesn't lend credibility
it isn't going to help validate your argument
at best it's untested claims

you claim "+800 pages" but provide no links or references, so it's too vague to be even remotely plausible

and you have a history of not comprehending basics of science or investigation

so what, exactly, should I believe in the above?

The Captain of the stubby crowd certainly seems to have a lot to say, I wonder what? Trying to sort through his mind bending drivel would be more than I could ever have time for, so I just keep him on Ignore.

"The bookgods don't exist." Good for you. Now stop confusing myth with religion

What are you talking about? The book gods ARE religion. All religions have books and their gods are described therein. These gods WRITE their own books.

Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, et al all claim to be perfect and yet write books about things we know never happened and people we know never existed.

Perfect gods cannot write flawed books. The books exist, therefore their gods dont.

Indeed there may be gods who wrote these books but they are lying, cheating simpletons, not the gods people believe in. And you certainly can't trust them when they promise to give you immortality, or to grant all your wishes, or to get revenge on your enemies, in return for rejecting evidence and being a stinking bigot.

But really, isn't it men and not gods who would concoct these evil religions for wholly human purposes?

Of course.

Oh and you certainly can't preface a scientific opinion on nonexistent gods. No matter how hard you try, or how much you believe, or how long you argue, or how plausible your theories may seem.

You're dead wrong before you even start, and there's no sense in debating the particulars.

Well Captain Slumpy,

The science, methodological bit is the easy part,it just takes discipline. it is people who I am afraid of. And you can send links to wikipedia (?) pages all day; as an investigator, you know you won't address methodological concerns in 1000 characters, not even basics.Too much unpacking.

"so as an investigator I have to question your motivation for sharing this data"

To test the waters. Criticism for venturing into controversial territory is a muscle I need to build. Especially since people get itchy when science meets religion or myth.

No, TheGhostofOtto1923, I am not talking about lending reality to supernatural beings. I found that a large body of our myths is based on a specific existing landscape depicting the story elements of those myths. It very likely was a source for inspiration of oral and written myth and this in at least 4 cultural traditions.

So reporting on that find, when done, won't exactly be popular with religious zealots either.

@eljo

it is people who I am afraid of

sounds like a personal problem for therapy, not a science news aggregate comment section

you know you won't address methodological concerns in 1000 characters

but you can do multiple posts and link to reference material to expound
kinda like when I linked stuff up there to explain

Especially since people get itchy when science meets religion or myth

no
people get itchy when others wrongly apply the scientific principle to attempt and validate myth as being factual when there is no evidence to do so

there is a huge difference
I can accept there was a historical Troy - but giving anecdotal points and descriptions of physical data while not being able to demonstrate that a statistical number of people will derive a myth from it is reaching into nonsensical pseudoscience

evidentiary science isn't the same as benefit of the doubt

@eljo: been pondering a bit on this

To test the waters

criticism is absolutely a part of the scientific method

you get critiqued when you publish in a peer-reviewed journal, when you write any thesis, and when you work on research. it is the one thing that you absolutely must have to produce good, valid science

I don't know what type of science you are interested in (*softer* sciences like psychology vs physics, etc) - but "testing the waters" at a science news aggregate is not a great idea unless you're excellent at research and you remember that science has no authorities

and remember - you can't validate who you're talking to unless you have site Admin. privileges (which you don't)

studying Oral and Written myth is soft science and you can make certain leaps, but that doesn't mean your leap is a good one, or correct: it's essentially your own unproven opinion based on [x]

consider courses in Cultural Anthropology and Communication

Same old, same old, apparently (pay-walled articles):

"The hypothesis has been contested by research showing that most of the conclusions cannot be repeated by other scientists, and criticized because of misinterpretation of data and the lack of confirmatory evidence.[4][5][6][7] ... In 2018 two new papers were published dealing with a "Extraordinary Biomass-Burning Episode" associated with the Younger Dryas Impact.[29][30]" [ https://en.wikipe...pothesis ]

The two new papers have a platinum spike dating from a certain Greenland ice core as key, according to the abstracts. "A 2013 study found a spike in platinum in Greenland ice. The authors of that study conclude that such a small impact of an iron meteorite is "unlikely to result in an airburst or trigger wide wildfires proposed by the YDB impact hypothesis."[15]"