Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 07/10/2014 12:35:31 PM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: BenLurkin

They predate the rain forest. Maybe they were just building elevated positions for better fields of fire.


2 posted on 07/10/2014 12:39:17 PM PDT by 17th Miss Regt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin; SunkenCiv
Of interest?

FMCDH(BITS)

3 posted on 07/10/2014 12:40:14 PM PDT by nothingnew (Hemmer and MacCullum are the worst on FNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

Cataclysmic astrobleme ping.


4 posted on 07/10/2014 12:44:22 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin
Can't be. We've been told that the Amazon rain forest has a bazillion specialized species that have taken a million years (at least) to evolve.

Are these scientists now telling us that all that bio diversity came into being in a mere 6,000 years?

5 posted on 07/10/2014 12:48:14 PM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

So if the jungle went away again, it’s normal and we won’t all die?


6 posted on 07/10/2014 12:50:53 PM PDT by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (HELL, NO! BE UNGOVERNABLE! --- ISLAM DELENDA EST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

7 posted on 07/10/2014 12:52:57 PM PDT by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin; blam

It has been my opinion for many years that we know very little about mans past, let alone the world in detail.

Most of what I have seen as revealed science and predictions of the future and past are uneducated guesses based on fragmentary evidence.


8 posted on 07/10/2014 12:54:13 PM PDT by Little Bill (EVICT Queen Jean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin
"It's very likely, in fact, that people had some kind of effect on the composition of the forest," Carson said. "People might favor edible species, growing in orchards and things like that, [or] altered the soils, changing the soil chemistry and composition, which can have a longer-lasting legacy effect."

Gee, really honey child?

You mean that when you have fruit producing trees in a percentage that is several hundred percent over any other "wild forest" in the world that might be a sign that people planted them?

And soil does not naturally have pot shards and charcoal pounded into it? Well, who knew!

10 posted on 07/10/2014 1:02:44 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Proud Infidel, Gun Nut, Religious Fanatic and Freedom Fiend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

The key point is that man has been radically altering the “natural” landscape for as long as he has been Man. Famously, aboriginal Australians had the whole place on fire at various times of the year - it increased the productivity, “naturally”.

Fire was the chief tool of landscape management; that’s why we should celebrate Earth Day with fire - lots of fires - it’s a good time of year to burn the ditches and such. ;^)


12 posted on 07/10/2014 1:07:28 PM PDT by headsonpikes (Mass murder and cannibalism are the twin sacraments of socialism - "Who-whom?"-Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin
The very oldest sediments didn't come from a rainforest ecosystem at all. In fact, the Bolivian Amazon before about 2,000 to 3,000 years ago looked more like the savannas of Africa than today's jungle environment.

Glowbull Warming! It's retroactive now.

13 posted on 07/10/2014 1:10:33 PM PDT by TigersEye ("No man left behind" means something different to 0bama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin
Since the 1980s, however, deforestation has revealed massive earthworks in the form of ditches up to 16 feet (5 meters) deep, and often just as wide.

That sounds like a fortification, and a pretty substantial one. I wonder if they have found destruction layers, mass graves, etc., and whether we should expect to find much of that nature given the present climate.

14 posted on 07/10/2014 2:21:56 PM PDT by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin
In fact, the Bolivian Amazon before about 2,000 to 3,000 years ago looked more like the savannas of Africa than today's jungle environment.

Now let me get this straight. It is said that the Amazonian rainforest contains plant and animal species found nowhere else in the world (save the rainforest). If the rainforest is only 2,000-3,000 years old is that enough time to evolve these unique species?

15 posted on 07/10/2014 3:19:14 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Do The Math)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

Does this mean to imply... that the climate might have changed?

No.


16 posted on 07/10/2014 3:56:07 PM PDT by Sequoyah101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

bttt


26 posted on 07/11/2014 1:48:18 PM PDT by Pagey (HELL is The 2nd Term of a POTUS who uses the terms “social justice” and “fair distribution".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

In a short article two years ago I proposed that the Amazon rain forest could only be a few thousand years old and not 55 million years as was currently believed.

See here: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/10/28/the-amazon-rainforest/
Or my web.... http://www.gks.uk.com/Sahara_Desert_Amazon/

These latest finding are a major step towards supporting my stance. I see future research ultimately confirming this.

I arrived at the above conclusion by researching my theory which proposes that the Sahara & Arabian deserts are of very recent extraterrestrial origin.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2010/arch10/100408sahara.htm
http://www.gks.uk.com/Sahara_Desert_Chaos/

I reasoned if the Sahara desert didn’t exist 3-4,000 years ago, it couldn’t have sustained the Amazon rain forest with its nutrient rich dust which blows across the Atlantic.

Gary Gilligan (catastrophist)
http://www.gks.uk.com/


32 posted on 07/12/2014 5:06:43 AM PDT by Gary Gilligan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

This is a fascinating article but I think it is important to note this is based on evidence from the BOLIVIAN portion of the overall Amazonian rainforest, which is and was on the periphery of the rainforest proper, and still at its most extreme North-east point almost 500 miles from the Amazon river.

No telling that the forest itself was smaller or not there at all, but my (uneducated ) guess would be there were still vast regions still under forest while Bolivia was savannah. The whole rainforest area now is almost the size of the US East of the Mississippi.

I wouldn’t extrapolate an overall theory about the rainforest from evidence in Bolivia alone.


34 posted on 07/12/2014 5:44:20 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: BenLurkin

So the world around us is not static? Who knew?


38 posted on 07/12/2014 8:06:31 PM PDT by Lurkina.n.Learnin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson