The idea of 'Climate Change' and 'Global Warming'

[User Name]

There was a map made in the 1500s by a mapmaker named Piri Ries that he made as a copy from maps much older than his. His map shows Antarctica before it was covered with ice with such accuracy it wasn't until in the 1950s that we could verify his map because before that no one had to tools to look down through the ice to see what was under it.

We can see the Piri Reis Map bears no resemblance at all to Antarctica. The 600-mile wide Drake Passage is not shown, nor are the large islands in the Weddell Sea. The latitude is thousands of miles off.

So in response to people who ask how to explain why the Piri Reis Map shows the coastline of Antarctica accurately, the answer is - it doesn't. It especially doesn't show the subglacial coastline of Antarctica, which corresponds to the existing coastline of Antarctica around most of the continent anyway.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20130813090645/http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/PiriRies.HTM

 

[Right Divider]

What all this points to is that earth's temperature has varied widely from one time to another.

This is also why we must be careful not to overreact when we are told that, for example, this is the warmest summer ON RECORD. Those records don't go back very far.

 

[Gary K]

We can see the Piri Reis Map bears no resemblance at all to Antarctica. The 600-mile wide Drake Passage is not shown, nor are the large islands in the Weddell Sea. The latitude is thousands of miles off.

So in response to people who ask how to explain why the Piri Reis Map shows the coastline of Antarctica accurately, the answer is - it doesn't. It especially doesn't show the subglacial coastline of Antarctica, which corresponds to the existing coastline of Antarctica around most of the continent anyway.

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20130813090645/http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/PiriRies.HTM

You are arguing with some highly skilled experts in cartography and Antarctica who have actually studied the map in detail.

http://csglobe.com/piri-reis-map-ancient-civilization/

The Piri Reis map was found in Turkey. A Turkish Navy officer sent the map to the U.S. Navy Hydro Graphic Bureau in 1953. M.I. Walters, the Chief Engineer of the Bureau, sent the map to Arlington H. Mallery to be evaluated.
Mallery determined that Piri Reis map was completely accurate and may have been copied from a map made 6,000 years ago.
Confirming the Piri Reis Map

The Piri Reis map of Antarctica is very accurate. Using seismic soundings and sonar, researchers found that underneath the ice-cap the coastlines, mountain ranges, plateaus etc. on the Piri Reis map matched the Queen Maud land, Antarctica.

....


Olhmeyer, leader of the British-Swedish expedition to Antarctica wrote Hapgood the following letter:
Dear Professor Hapgood,
Your request of evaluation of certain unusual features of the Piri Reis Antarctica map of 1513 by this organization has been reviewed. The claim that the lower part of the map portrays the Princess Martha Coast of Queen Maud Land, Antarctic, and the Palmer Peninsular, is reasonable.
We find that this is the most logical and in all probability the correct interpretation of the map.
The geographical detail shown in the lower part of the map agrees very remarkably with the results of the seismic profile made across the top of the ice-cap by the Swedish-British Antarctic Expedition of 1949.
This indicates the coastline had been mapped before it was covered by the ice-cap. This part of Antarctica ice free. The ice-cap in this region is now about a mile thick.
We have no idea how the data on this map can be reconciled with the supposed state of geographical knowledge in 1513.
Harold Z. Olhmeyer Lt. Colonel, USAF Commander

The map was said to be authentic by experts from both the US Navy and Air Force as well as the British-Swedish expedition that studied Antarctica on site. They said it was accurate in great detail. It also used spheroid trig which was not supposed to have been invented until the 1800s.

The reason this map is controversial is because it blows huge holes in evolutionary theory. Deny it is you want. To me it seems reasonable with the evidence for its authenticity and accuracy sworn to by expert cartographers. I'll take their word over yours every day of the week. They had no axe to grind.

 

[Gary K]

This is also why we must be careful not to overreact when we are told that, for example, this is the warmest summer ON RECORD. Those records don't go back very far.

Agreed. Our modern day records go back only a century or two at most. The fact that the whole of northern Europe was at one time covered with glaciers is evidence that the earth has been warming for a long time. Long before we humans began dumping CO2 into the atmosphere in large quantities.

There are also entire cities under water in the Caribbean Ocean that have sea walls built around them which proves that the levels of earth's oceans were much lower than they are now. This warming has been going on for centuries. In the book of Job we read about ice and snow in the middle east showing that it was much colder in Job's day than it is now.

 

[Stripe]

Agreed. Our modern day records go back only a century or two at most. The fact that the whole of northern Europe was at one time covered with glaciers is evidence that the earth has been warming for a long time. Long before we humans began dumping CO2 into the atmosphere in large quantities.

There are also entire cities under water in the Caribbean Ocean that have sea walls built around them which proves that the levels of earth's oceans were much lower than they are now. This warming has been going on for centuries. In the book of Job we read about ice and snow in the middle east showing that it was much colder in Job's day than it is now.

There are river channels at depths that should have been filled in by now were they millions of years under the sea.

 

[User Name]

You are arguing with some highly skilled experts in cartography and Antarctica who have actually studied the map in detail.

http://csglobe.com/piri-reis-map-ancient-civilization/

My source is the University of Wisconsin. Who is your source?

 

[Stripe]

My source is the University of Wisconsin. Who is your source?

Darwinists love it when the discussion is over who said what.

They think it's evidence.

 

[Gary K]

My source is the University of Wisconsin. Who is your source?

It's pretty obvious you didn't bother even reading my post. You're sources are arguing with expert cartographers from the US Navy and Air Force. Both the Navy and the Air Force need highly accurate maps and experts from both services said the Piri Reis map was a very accurate map of Queen Maud Island when they compared their maps to the Piri Reis map.

You go ahead and stick with your bias and I'll stick with mine. I could place absolute proof in your hands and you'd still dismiss it because it contradicts evolution.

 

[User Name]

You're sources are arguing with expert cartographers from the US Navy and Air Force. Both the Navy and the Air Force need highly accurate maps and experts from both services said the Piri Reis map was a very accurate map of Queen Maud Island when they compared their maps to the Piri Reis map.

Some have supposed the land shown to the south of the Atlantic Ocean to be a depiction of Antarctica, predating the continent’s discovery in the 1820s by three hundred years. This representation of prehistoric Antarctica is supposed to have been copied from ancient maps made tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of years ago. Of the several writers who have made this claim, the best known is Charles Hapgood, author of Maps of the Ancient Sea-Kings (1966). But there appears to be little basis for such assertions, beyond the fact that the Piri Reis Map illustrates a land located south of the Atlantic Ocean, and Antarctica also is located south of the Atlantic Ocean. Piri was not the first or the last to show this southern continent. …

Hapgood assumed that the original source maps, resulting from an ancient survey of Antarctica, were accurate. He also assumed that the differences between the depictions on the Piri Reis Map and the depictions on these accurate (but unknown) source maps were the result of copying errors made during the compilation of the Piri Reis Map. With these two basic assumptions it was an easy matter for Hapgood to move landmasses, adjust scales, alter orientations, rearrange landforms, redraw coastlines, twist the geographical depictions, and “correct errors” on the Piri Reis Map to match his hypothetical source maps.

Additionally, to identify features on the Piri Reis Map with features on a modern map, Hapgood ignored the place-names inscribed upon the map—inscriptions that not only tell us what Piri Reis himself said the features were, but also match the place-names of many other maps from the early sixteenth century to the present.

Source: https://www.fringepop321.com/the-piri-reis-map.htm

 

[User Name]

Darwinists love it when the discussion is over who said what.

They think it's evidence.

It's called vetting your sources: https://myelms.umd.edu/courses/1082...d-source-determining-the-validity-of-evidence <-- Look it up. Learn it, love it, and live it. There is a lot of misinformation and disinformation being passed around on the internet as if it were gospel truth. If you guys would vet your sources, you'd embarrass yourselves a lot less often.

 

[Stripe]

It's called vetting your sources: https://myelms.umd.edu/courses/1082...d-source-determining-the-validity-of-evidence <-- Look it up. Learn it, love it, and live it. There is a lot of misinformation and disinformation being passed around on the internet as if it were gospel truth. If you guys would vet your sources, you'd embarrass yourselves a lot less often.

:yawn:

 

[Stripe]

There is a lot of misinformation being passed around on the Internet. If you Darwinists would vet your sources, you'd embarrass yourselves a lot less often.

 

[Gary K]

Some have supposed the land shown to the south of the Atlantic Ocean to be a depiction of Antarctica, predating the continent’s discovery in the 1820s by three hundred years. This representation of prehistoric Antarctica is supposed to have been copied from ancient maps made tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of years ago. Of the several writers who have made this claim, the best known is Charles Hapgood, author of Maps of the Ancient Sea-Kings (1966). But there appears to be little basis for such assertions, beyond the fact that the Piri Reis Map illustrates a land located south of the Atlantic Ocean, and Antarctica also is located south of the Atlantic Ocean. Piri was not the first or the last to show this southern continent. …

Hapgood assumed that the original source maps, resulting from an ancient survey of Antarctica, were accurate. He also assumed that the differences between the depictions on the Piri Reis Map and the depictions on these accurate (but unknown) source maps were the result of copying errors made during the compilation of the Piri Reis Map. With these two basic assumptions it was an easy matter for Hapgood to move landmasses, adjust scales, alter orientations, rearrange landforms, redraw coastlines, twist the geographical depictions, and “correct errors” on the Piri Reis Map to match his hypothetical source maps.

Additionally, to identify features on the Piri Reis Map with features on a modern map, Hapgood ignored the place-names inscribed upon the map—inscriptions that not only tell us what Piri Reis himself said the features were, but also match the place-names of many other maps from the early sixteenth century to the present.

Source: https://www.fringepop321.com/the-piri-reis-map.htm

So, to you a site named fringepop321 sounds like a real reliable source of information. Why? Explain why it is unbiased, reliable, and soundly vetted.

One more question for you. When you evaluate data do you start at a completely neutral, completely unbiased starting point, and use that as your starting point for evaluating the data in front of you? Or, do you start with your own set of bias points and underlying paradigms?

 

[Right Divider]

So, to you a site named fringepop321 sounds like a real reliable source of information.

:rotfl:

 

[Gary K]

It's called vetting your sources: https://myelms.umd.edu/courses/1082...d-source-determining-the-validity-of-evidence <-- Look it up. Learn it, love it, and live it. There is a lot of misinformation and disinformation being passed around on the internet as if it were gospel truth. If you guys would vet your sources, you'd embarrass yourselves a lot less often.

Wow. Who would ever have thought of all that? You evolutionists must be some kind of super geniuses to come up with those ideas. We creationists must be complete fools not to vet our sources. Oh, by the way, who vets your sources for you? More evolutionists?

 

[Gary K]

:rotfl:

LOL. It wasn't meant to be funny. It was just an observation on user name's concept of vetted, reliable sources.

 

[Stripe]

Links and sources are all that user name has; when he tries to speak for himself, it quickly becomes obvious how little he understands.

It's fine not to understand; the problems arise when they refuse to recognize their ignorance.

 

[User Name]

So, to you a site named fringepop321 sounds like a real reliable source of information. Why? Explain why it is unbiased, reliable, and soundly vetted.

:rotfl:

The author of the "fringepop321" article is Dr. Michael S. Heiser. Who is Dr. Heiser? He is a biblical scholar and an authority on ancient history. Here is a link to his Wikipedia page for more detailed information about him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_S._Heiser

As you can see, Dr. Heiser is a credible, reliable source.

The author of the other article I linked to (The Piri Reis Map) is Steven Dutch, who is Vice President of the Department of Natural and Applied Sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Green Bay. (He also happens to be a Christian.) Another reputable, credible, reliable source.

Both of these sources refute the claims made about the Piri Reis Map regarding Antarctica. Dr. Heiser goes one step further in this video:

Dr. Heiser - Piri Reis Map

At the 9:22 mark in the above video, Dr. Heiser explains that Charles Hapgood (the source cited in the article Freeloader linked to) fraudulently edited the Piri Reis Map in an attempt to use the map as evidence to justify his pseudoscientific theory of "crust displacement."

And that, my friends, is how you vet your sources.

 

[Right Divider]

The author of the "fringepop321" article is Dr. Michael S. Heiser. Who is Dr. Heiser? He is a biblical scholar and an authority on ancient history. Here is a link to his Wikipedia page for more detailed information about him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_S._Heiser

His Wikipedia page says this about him.

His area of expertise is the nature of the spiritual realm in the Bible, namely the Divine council and hierarchy of the spiritual order.

Hardly the expertise that we were looking for.

 

[User Name]

His Wikipedia page says this about him.

Hardly the expertise that we were looking for.

Gregory C. McIntosh is a scholar of the history of cartography and geographical explorations, particularly of the Americas in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, and vice president of the California Map Society. This article was adapted from his book, The Piri Reis Map of 1513, published by the University of Georgia Press:

Some have supposed the land shown to the south of the Atlantic Ocean to be a depiction of Antarctica, predating the continent’s discovery in the 1820s by three hundred years. This representation of prehistoric Antarctica is supposed to have been copied from ancient maps made tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, of years ago. Of the several writers who have made this claim, the best known is Charles Hapgood, author of Maps of the Ancient Sea-Kings (1966). But there appears to be little basis for such assertions, beyond the fact that the Piri Reis Map illustrates a land located south of the Atlantic Ocean, and Antarctica also is located south of the Atlantic Ocean. Piri was not the first or the last to show this southern continent, but because of Hapgood’s book his map has become famous for its supposed depiction of prehistoric Antarctica.

Hapgood assumed that the original source maps, resulting from an ancient survey of Antarctica, were accurate. He also assumed that the differences between the depictions on the Piri Reis Map and the depictions on these accurate (but unknown) source maps were the result of copying errors made during the compilation of the Piri Reis Map. With these two basic assumptions it was an easy matter for Hapgood to move landmasses, adjust scales, alter orientations, rearrange landforms, redraw coastlines, twist the geographical depictions, and “correct errors” on the Piri Reis Map to match his hypothetical source maps.

Additionally, to identify features on the Piri Reis Map with features on a modern map, Hapgood ignored the place-names inscribed upon the map — inscriptions that not only tell us what Piri Reis himself said the features were, but also match the place-names of many other maps from the early sixteenth century to the present. Of course, it is not too difficult to make a coastline on an old map look like another coastline on a modern map if one is allowed to change it.

In the 1960s several popular writers, including Erich von Däniken, adopted Hapgood’s conclusion that the Piri Reis Map depicts an ice-free Antarctica, and repeated it as proven. To explain this “fact” the writers asserted that the survey of Antarctica must have been made by extraterrestrials (or, alternatively, people from Atlantis) who left accurate maps later copied into the Piri Reis Map. However, the depiction of the southern land on the Piri Reis Map does not even look like the coast of Antarctica — with or without its mantle of ice — as these writers claimed. There is little or no resemblance between Piri’s southern land and Antarctica...

Source: http://www.diegocuoghi.com/Piri_Reis/McIntosh/McIntosh_PiriReis.htm