PDA

View Full Version : Mesopotamia Fact or Fiction?



Shadowulfe
October 16th, 2001, 10:24 AM
Okay now that i am thinking properly i had a crazy Idea for a thread. I want to know what everone thinks about When the earth was young, was there one giant land mass called Mesopotamia?

Maggie
October 16th, 2001, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by Shadowulfe
Okay now that i am thinking properly i had a crazy Idea for a thread. I want to know what everone thinks about When the earth was young, was there one giant land mass called Mesopotamia?

I suspect you're thinking of Pangea--they do believe that there was one great land mass.......

Regards,

Maggie

Shadowulfe
October 16th, 2001, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by Maggie


I suspect you're thinking of Pangea--they do believe that there was one great land mass.......

Regards,

Maggie

Thanx Maggie.....i couldn't remember the name of the land mass...i thought it was Mesopotamia.....just to show you how good i am with names!

Illuminatus
October 16th, 2001, 01:50 PM
Mesopotamia was very real. Nowadays it's that tract of land between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers... modern day Iraq or Iran I thinks.

Pangea was also very real :)

Shadowulfe
October 16th, 2001, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Illuminatus
Mesopotamia was very real. Nowadays it's that tract of land between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers... modern day Iraq or Iran I thinks.

Pangea was also very real :)

yes they were very real...but i figured there might be some people who "go against the flow" and not believe that either one of them are real

but on a personal note Illuiminatus, i like your way of thinking

Blessings,
Shadowulfe

Myst
October 16th, 2001, 06:08 PM
I always wonder about people who want to know if there are others who would rather ignore all basis in facts and research and just make stuff up :D :rotfl:

Shadowulfe
October 16th, 2001, 06:57 PM
all im saying is that some people dont trust Science

aquasapien
October 17th, 2001, 10:21 PM
I think so, all circumstansial evidence from the conture of the coast lines of the continents says yes.

I suppose it may not be true, but before I would even begin to think its not, I would have to be shown a mechanisim that would allow the puzzle to have the right shape and never had been together as one piece.

Twilight
October 19th, 2001, 01:17 PM
if that doesn't convince you, geological surveys of tectonic plates and faultlines shoud! the fact that our continent has earthquakes on the left coast goes a long way to show that our tectonic plate is moving west, not east.

loopy
October 19th, 2001, 09:17 PM
I definitely think pangaea was rule. It's hard to ignore all the scientific evidence. :)

zhowlingwolf
October 20th, 2001, 11:14 AM
Yes it is true !!!
although I'm afraid to ask my step-father , he is a Geologist( who will provide me with nothing less than a 1 hour response )!!!
( LoL )
Blessed Be !!! zhowlingwolf

Methanespirit
November 11th, 2001, 12:29 PM
There definitely was a Pangea. It's unitized land mass can be seen especially using under-sea maps. It is also testified to in the Bible in Jeremiah 4:23-26, which predated the Genesis 1:2 account. The word "was" (Gen. 1:2) could also be translated "became" indicating, as is stated in the Jeremiah account, that there were cities on the earth before man ( Adam) was created. It is personally held that the Gulf of Mexico is an old Asteroid crater, which also split up the central Pangea land mass into separate continents. The Bible also has an abstract account of this event in Psalms 18:7-15. This also accounts for the Bermuda Triangle's strange time-lapse phenomena, as one of the visions from there is a large space body striking the earth in that area! Also, along these lines, that if Mars was once covered in water, where is all that water now? Could it have been transferred to the earth during the flood of Genesis 6:1- 8:22? The reason for suspecting this is because the major river deltas in the world are all under about 1500 ft. of sea water! Except the Nile delta, which back then flowed into the Meditereanean Sea through Libya, and not through Egypt, as it does today. This plainly shows that the rivers once flowed into a much lower sea level than today, and that this had to occur after the Pangea break-up.

...........Methane

Aengus McTeague
November 11th, 2001, 01:06 PM
OK.

Back to science, anyone who wants to learn a bit more about Pangea and plate tectonics, the USGS has a good site here (http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/historical.html) (one of the agencies I actually don't mind supporting with my tax dollars)

BB,
Aengus

Starlight
November 12th, 2001, 12:23 PM
I read somewhere that you could put all the continents and islands and stuff together like puzzle pieces and they would just about fit perfectly! *shrug* I dunno ,I never took goegraphy! :lol:

Illuminatus
November 12th, 2001, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Methanespirit
There definitely was a Pangea. It's unitized land mass can be seen especially using under-sea maps. It is also testified to in the Bible in Jeremiah 4:23-26, which predated the Genesis 1:2 account. The word "was" (Gen. 1:2) could also be translated "became" indicating, as is stated in the Jeremiah account, that there were cities on the earth before man ( Adam) was created. It is personally held that the Gulf of Mexico is an old Asteroid crater, which also split up the central Pangea land mass into separate continents. The Bible also has an abstract account of this event in Psalms 18:7-15. This also accounts for the Bermuda Triangle's strange time-lapse phenomena, as one of the visions from there is a large space body striking the earth in that area! Also, along these lines, that if Mars was once covered in water, where is all that water now? Could it have been transferred to the earth during the flood of Genesis 6:1- 8:22? The reason for suspecting this is because the major river deltas in the world are all under about 1500 ft. of sea water! Except the Nile delta, which back then flowed into the Meditereanean Sea through Libya, and not through Egypt, as it does today. This plainly shows that the rivers once flowed into a much lower sea level than today, and that this had to occur after the Pangea break-up.

...........Methane

Oh my Goddess, I can't believe someone is quoting bible verses in the scientific forum of a pagan message board. That is just so messed up on so many levels I don't know where to begin. Actually, I do.

First, the whole bit about Jeramaiah 4:23 taking place before Genesis 1:2 and that there were cities on earth before Adam and all that crap... ??!!! WTF does that have to do with pangea?

Second, WTF do asteroid strikes have to do with pangea? The tectonic plates seem to be moving pretty much of their own accord, without any rocks hitting the earth. Geology has explained how and why they move, there is no need to dream up a wacky biblicly-endorsed asteroid-story to explain it. You remind me of the ancient greeks, sitting around a fire 4000 years ago, making up wacky stories to explain natural phenomenon. Hello! We (some of us) have advanced to more effective methods of deduction.

As for the water coming to Earth from Mars... Uh... okay. I'm just going to stop here before I break a community rule!

- Illuminatus!

SilentWolf
November 21st, 2001, 12:18 PM
Just take a look at the Americas, then look at Africa. Just by looking at it you can see they would fit together.

And Scientists discovered that the continents are still moving. They even know the rate of speed at which they move. I don't what that number is.

I've heard some scientists postulate that in a few million years, or however long, the west coast of US and Canada is going to come in contact with Asia. I don't know much truth there is to that.

But yes, Shadowulf, there was a Pangea. :)

Illuminatus
November 21st, 2001, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by SilentWolf
Just take a look at the Americas, then look at Africa. Just by looking at it you can see they would fit together.

And Scientists discovered that the continents are still moving. They even know the rate of speed at which they move. I don't what that number is.

I've heard some scientists postulate that in a few million years, or however long, the west coast of US and Canada is going to come in contact with Asia. I don't know much truth there is to that.

But yes, Shadowulf, there was a Pangea. :)

Yeah, kind of weird.

The mountain range that is Japan is someday going to crash into the mountain range that is Santa Monica... pretty heavy. But look at Indonesia and Japan - all volcanic islands, caused by lava bubbling up from a faultline where tectonic forces are joined.

Jimdragontek
November 5th, 2003, 07:26 PM
Agreement with Maggie. While time has passed, there are certain physical evidences-such as magnetism levels in rocks and the type of rocks as well as the high probability that certain geological structures in certain areas, as well as plants are related. In the case of the plants there is even, in some cases genetic evidence of same even though thousands of miles separate. Basic biological science and elementary earth science not directly related to archeologic geology itself is sufficient to lend very strong credence to such an idea. And this completely outside the basic evidence of a puzzel-board planet just from the surface view alone.

Equinox
November 6th, 2003, 10:05 AM
While we certainly shouldn’t accept anything without good evidence, we also must learn what evidence there is before we disagree with a scientific conclusion. As Myst and Illuninatus have pointed out, there is a lot of evidence out there to learn if we just take a second to look into it.

The theory of continental drift is well supported (think of “theory” here like we do for the theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, or the theory of atoms).

Just a little homework can help. I found this satisfactory site with just a google search under “pangea”:
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/lessons/Pangea/Pangea1.html, plus an earlier post listed a better link as well.

We should become educated about things, especially since many people (like biblical fundamentalists and some pagans) blindly “don’t trust science”. While we shouldn’t blindly trust anything, we also shouldn’t blindly distrust anything either. What is a good term for that? Being a fluffy skeptic?

Illuminatus – I agree with you post. Many things in the Bible are so vague that they can be (and have been) used to support anything. I mention this in points 6 and 7 here: http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~leta/TREATISE/TJXSUM/tj5xbbibprob.htm

It’s fun to think about what our earth as been like in the past – the things we are learning about lives of the early whales on the shores of the Tethys sea, and so many other time are awesome. I find little need to make up wild myths when the truth is so grand. (Though wild myths are fun too, as long as they are presented as such).

Blessed be-

-Equinox

FLipsiDE
November 11th, 2003, 07:17 PM
The concept of plate tectonics and continental drift is a well established scientific thought. We can look not only at the shapes of the continents and see how they fit together but there is more compelling evidence in the rocks themselves. Fossils of non-aquatic creatures can be found on both sides of the Atlantic ocean, in both Brazil and Africa, ditto with fossil plants. This alone would be enough to give the theory some credence but there is much more. Rocks thought to be home in Africa can be found, if you go far enough back in geological history, in South America, but not after that time. Maybe a bit more obscure but still very strong is magnetic evidence. When some types of rock cool they do so with subtle magnetism. Some types of rock cool with their constituent parts pointing North. If you look at these rocks in different continents you see thet where they point is different depending on the time they were laid down. If you chart a map of these changes through the ages it creates a smooth arc of motion... consistant with drifting continents slowly moving apart.

On Continental Drift:
http://www.bartleby.com/65/co/contin-dr.html

Cool map of the tectonic plates:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001765.html

Crystal_Raye
November 15th, 2003, 03:12 PM
Pangea had to be real. Just look at the way South America and Africa fit so perfectly together.

Alyn
November 15th, 2003, 05:49 PM
Oh my Goddess, I can't believe someone is quoting bible verses in the scientific forum of a pagan message board. That is just so messed up on so many levels I don't know where to begin. Actually, I do.

As for the water coming to Earth from Mars... Uh... okay. I'm just going to stop here before I break a community rule!

- Illuminatus!___________________________________________________________________

Nice to see so much tolerance and celebration of diversity here.

It is sad that so few pagans will set foot in the oldest wing of the archives, just beacause they thiink the christians/jews own it. Actually the bible isn't that vague and there is a lot we can learn from it. Reading it isn't going to turn you into Pat Robertson you know.

And WTF? People can talk about Dragons and Unicorns, Faries, Sprites and Magick, But they they can't throw out something like this mars theory which is actually scientifically possible (given the technology) .

WTF?

FLipsiDE
November 17th, 2003, 05:27 PM
The "water fom Mars" thing isn't a scientific question... we're not talking about water being brought there or from mars to Earth as part of a colonization or abiogenisis theory. Illum was refering to the idea that the Noachian flood waters came from Mars. If such a theory were true it would be by divine will not by science.

As a note, there is only the possibility of Water on Mars and if there was it was millions and millions of years ago, far beyond the time frame needed to explain the Noachian flood. Which there is zero evidence for anyways.

BUT.... Illum did go way too far on his reaction and Alyn was right. We happily accept thoughts others would find ludicrious (faeries, Unicorns, Magick and the like) and myth fragments from another person's faith should not be deemed somehow lesser. Some of my best conversations have been with fringe Christians or their more mainline counterparts. I add my appology to Alyn's implied one. Sorry Methanespirit.