Posts Tagged ‘flood of Noah’

Underwater Cities and Monuments: Submerged “8,000 Year Old Civilization” on Konkan Coast, India?

Church of Darwin,, Science, Sophistication of Ancestors, The Flood of Noah, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Jun 09 2011

Photo: 8000-year-old advanced civilization in Konkan Coast?

One stretch of underwater wall off the Konkan Coast, western India.
The total wall exceeds 24 kilometers (approx. 15 miles)

Published: Thursday, May 26, 2011

Are these man-made structures — walls?

Did the Konkan coast from Shrivardhan in Raigad to Vengurla in Sindhudurga host a human habitat around 8000 years ago? Did that population have well-developed engineering skills? Was there a unique Konkan culture in existence in 6000BC?

A new archaeological discovery, below sea level along the Konkan coast, could give answers to these questions. And explorers say the answer could well be a big ‘Yes!’

Researchers have found a wall-like structure that is 24 kilometres long, 2.7 metres tall, and around 2.5 metres wide. The structure shows uniformity in its construction.

“The structure is not continuous throughout the 225 kilometres from Shrivardhan to Raigad, but it is uniform,” said Dr Ashok Marathe, professor, department of archaeology, Postgraduate and Research Institute, Deccan College, Pune.

“It has been found three metres below the present sea level. It has been constructed on the ancient sand beach, which was taken as the base for the construction. Considering the uniformity of the structure, it was obvious that the structure is man-made and not natural.”

The joint expedition carried by Deccan College and the central government’s department of science and technology, was in progress from 2005.

“We were actually studying the impacts of tsunamis and earthquakes on the western coast when we first found this structure in Valneshwar,” said Marathe. “Then we started talking with the locals and fisherfolks and we got news about more such structures below water.”

Marathe added that, the uniformity also shows that the people who built it belong to the same culture from Shrivardhan to Vengurla.
However, deciding the age of the structure was done on the basis of sea level mapping.

“There have been extensive studies about the sea water coming inside the land,” said Marathe. “The wall’s base, that is ancient sand, is about six metres below the present sea level. Based on the calculations, experts from the National Institute of Oceanography found the age of the wall as around 6000 BC.”

According to him, the sea was away from its present coastline in 6000 BC and this wall could have been an effort to prevent the sea water from coming inside the human habitat.

The discovery has raised a number of questions.

How were these huge stones of Laterite and Deccan Trap variety transported to the coast?

What exactly was the purpose behind building the wall?

If the date of the walls is true then is it from around the same time as the Indus Valley Civilisation?

Why has there been no mention of this civilisation till now?

Marathe, who will retire in July 2011, has asked more people to come forward to take his work ahead and to try to find answer to these questions.

See Also Underwater Monuments and Cities Section

The Fossil Giants of Castelnau

Church of Darwin, Giants in Those Days,, Science, The Flood of Noah, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Sep 18 2009

Mr. M. G. de Lapouge had several problems that he needed to try to solve simultaneously back in 1890. Number one, he was a prominent scientist of his time, with a good reputation so why should he be publishing an article in a scientific journal concerning human giants–and of a “type”* evolutionists considered modern?

*Here at, we believe that there is only and has only been one “type” of human being. Science has called Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon “prehistoric” and other humans modern.

Secondly, who were these giants who were modern in “type” but enormous when the two groups considered ancestral; Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal were reasonably of the same size of modern humans? Mr. de Lapouge had found evidence in a vast graveyard near Castelnau, France, in the form of fossil bones of a teenager at least seven foot tall and of another enormous man who was close to 12 feet tall.

Writing in La Nature: revue des sciences et de leurs applications aux arts …, Volume 18, in 1890, under the title “The Fossil Giants of Castelnau”, de Lapouge took a calculated risk in presenting his findings to a skeptical scientific audience, which he acknowledges.

De Lapouge noted that no one would contest the fact that giant (mega) animals had existed in the past, quite apart from dinosaurs. Wouldn’t it seem reasonable, he wrote that at the time of the existence of these giant animals that man retained the same ratio of size to those creatures that he exhibits today?

Good question. The answer to his conundrum: “there were giants in the earth in those days..”..(Gen 6) and Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal were not “ancestors”-they lived in contemporary times.

Perhaps there was a time, pre-flood when every creature was large compared to today and that after the flood some of these giants still remained? …

Excerpt from: La Nature: revue des sciences et de leurs applications aux arts …, Volume 18, 1890

“Giants figure so often in our legends and the most ancient histories of the world that it has been a serious question whether a race of gigantic men has not existed at some remote period of time—for example, during the quaternary epochs of the large mammals, the mastodon, mammoth, and so on—and whether the type may not have survived into later times.

Pigmies would have a better chance of continuing to subsist under the supremacy of the normal man. The giants, like the greater quadrupeds, would be exterminated. Our oldest human fossils, however, such as the Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon skulls, do not indicate an extraordinary stature.

Very tall skeletons have, no doubt, been found in some dolmens and barrows, but they are supposed to belong to the Bronze Age race, which is still an element of the European population. M. G. de Lapouge has recently made a discovery which tends to re-open this question.

At the prehistoric cemetery of Castelnau, near Montpellier, which dates from the eras of polished stone and bronze, he found last winter, among many crania, one of enormous size, which could only belong to a man very much over 2 meters (6 ft. 6 in.) in height, and of a morphologic type common in the dolmens of Lozère.

It was the skull of a healthy youth about 18 years of age.

Moreover, in the earth of a tumulus of vast extent, containing cists of the Bronze Age, more or less injured by superposed sepulchers of the early Iron Age, he found some fragments of incontestably human bones of enormous size. For instance, part of a tibia 0.16 meter in circumference, part of a femur 0.13 meter in girth, and the inferior part of a humerus twice the ordinary dimensions.

Everything considered M. de Lapouge estimates that the height of this subject must have been about 3½ meters (11.5 ft.)—that is to say, a veritable giant, according to the popular notion.

He must have lived during the quaternary period or the beginning of the present, but whether he was an instance of hypertrophy or one of an extinct race of giants, it is impossible as yet to say. Singularly enough, tradition fixes the valley of a giant very near the spot in the cavern of Castelnau where the bones have been taken from the tumulus.”

Source:Google Books Online: The Fossil Giants of Castelnau

The Religious Devotion to the Dogma

I love this; an eminent scientist of the time, M. Keiner, a professor of pathology at Montpeiller University, had an opportunity to examine the bones in question. He reluctantly it seems agreed that the bones were human, and that they were “twice the ordinary size”.

However, since he ascribed the size of the bones to an “abnormailty”, he was able to claim that the question as to whether there had indeed been “giants in those days” –to be “unsettled”!

Oh, science, if a twelve foot human skeleton is not evidence that giants existed, what then would be required for proof?…

A Race of Giants in Old Gaul

From the London Globe

In the year 1890 some bones of enormous size, double the ordinary in fact, were found in the tumulus of Castelnau, (Herault) and have since been carefully examined by Prof. Keiner, who while admitting that the bones are those of a very tall race, nevertheless finds them abnormal in dimensions and apparently of morbid growth.

They undoubtedly reopen the question of the “giants” of antiquity, but do not furnish sufficient evidence to decide it.

Reprinted in the New York Times, Oct. 3, 1892

Thanks to: James. S.

Oldest Animal Fossils Found in Lakes, Not Oceans

Science, The Flood of Noah, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Jul 28 2009

What if; there were only lakes and seas before the flood? What if there were no “salt water” creatures prior to the flood? What if the oceans are the result of residual waters left over from the ‘fountains of the deep” bursting open and thus, are actually younger than some lakes?

In any case, it is not a problem for creationism–it is a problem for evolution theory……

Oldest Animal Fossils Found in Lakes, Not Oceans
By Charles Q. Choi, Special to LiveScience

Conventional wisdom has it that the first animals evolved in the ocean.

Now researchers studying ancient rock samples in South China have found that the first animal fossils are preserved in ancient lake deposits, not in marine sediments as commonly assumed.

These new findings not only raise questions as to where the earliest animals were living, but what factors drove animals to evolve in the first place.

For some 3 billion years, single-celled life forms such as bacteria dominated the planet. Then, roughly 600 million years ago, the first multi-cellular animals appeared on the scene, diversifying rapidly.

The oldest known animal fossils in the world are preserved in South China’s Doushantuo Formation. These fossil beds have no adult specimens — instead, many of the fossils appear to be microscopic embryos.

“Our first unusual finding in this region was the abundance of a clay mineral called smectite,” said researcher Tom Bristow, now at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. “In rocks of this age, smectite is normally transformed into other types of clay. The smectite in these South China rocks, however, underwent no such transformation and have a special chemistry that, for the smectite to form, requires specific conditions in the water — conditions commonly found in salty, alkaline lakes.”

The researchers collected hundreds of rock samples from several locations in South China. All their analyses suggest these rocks were not marine sediments.

“Moreover, we found smectite in only some locations in South China, and not uniformly as one would expect for marine deposits,” Bristow said. “Taken together, several lines of evidence indicated to us that these early animals lived in a lake environment.”

This discovery raises questions as to how and why animals appeared when they did.

“It is most unexpected that these first fossils do not come from marine sediments,” said researcher Martin Kennedy, a geologist at the University of California at Riverside.

“Lakes are typically short-lived features on the Earth’s surface, and they are not nearly as consistent environments as oceans are,” he explained. “So it’s surprising that the first evidence of animals we find is associated with lakes, which are far more variable environments than the ocean. You’d expect the first appearance of animals to be in the most conservative, stable environments we could imagine.”

It remains possible, Kennedy noted, that animal fossils of similar or older age exist that remain to be found that are marine in origin. However, at the very least, this work suggests “that animals had already taken on the ability to deal with the environmental fluctuations one sees in lake environments,” he said. “That suggests that their evolutionary response is much more rapid that I would have supposed, and that the earliest animals were far more diverse than imagined.”

If animals did first develop in lakes, one aspect of lake environments that could have spurred on their evolution is how much easier it is for air to percolate through them, given how much shallower they typically are than the ocean.

“The most popular explanation for the evolution of animals has to do with the increase in oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere at that time,” Kennedy told LiveScience. “It’s possible that lakes were the first to benefit from that increase in oxygen.”

The scientists detailed their findings online July 27 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.