does /x/ believe in the "plateaus are just giant petrified

eh sure why not

Well it begs the question: who the fuck cut them down?

>>19184854
Paul Bunyon obviously

>>19184857
Spoopy

File: tree drumpf.jpg (54KB, 473x333px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 473x333px

>>19184837
Why not?

>>19184833
explain more?

File: yggdrasil.jpg (163KB, 542x734px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 542x734px

>>19184833
it makes way more sense when you realize

[spoiler]earth is a tree[/spoiler]

>>19184922
how the fuck do you read this?

were is earth in this picture?

was earth one of those balls that fell down or something?

>>19184892
It's basically a new flat earth theory about prehistoric civilizations that were destroyed along with the "real trees"
This is the video that started it. There's many others backing up the claims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHkiZNT3cyE

File: gem.jpg (1MB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 960x640px

bachelors in chemistry here -

silicon-based life forms are a great thought experiment.

those jewel-like petrified forests in the US SW are fascinating. I don't know how those things occur.

I ... uhh

>believe.

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-21 at 22.44.41.png (205KB, 545x223px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 545x223px

>>19184833

>what is karst topography over millions of years

jesus this is literally geography 101

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLRlJ4JaC9s

>>19184932
that IS earth anon

>>19184962
cellular tissue is over time replaced by mineral deposits, just like every other fossil

Yeah i mean there were enormous animals and reptiles back in the day. Why not trees.

>>19184974
*eyeroll*

>>19185002

go to Africa to find the trees

or california

>>19184970


did you watch your own video? 20% of the earths surface.

>you wanna explain the other 80%?

45% of the east coast is karst topography according to the video you posts. You wanna do the math and tell me how much o the restf N. America is karst? ...hrmmm.

Not to mention...we don't know the chemistry of the earth's surface millions or billions of years ago. We can only guess...

>>19184981

under continued intense heat and/or pressure, maybe. otherwise, it's just decay from other organisms....

>>19185019

>glaciers

also, how common are plateus to begin with

where was OP taken

you cant be this stupid thinking someone has not answered this question

>>19184833
Nah
Could have been pretty crazy mountains or something though right?
Not sure the anon posting about geology makes it look like this forms from a flat plane eroded down with the plateaus remaining

>>19185017
Think bigger man

File: 1497477634377.jpg (38KB, 400x504px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 400x504px

>>19185044
>where was OP taken
Venezuela

they're suppose to be really old

>>19184836

haha i love this

File: Auyan_Tepui_01.jpg (87KB, 679x382px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 679x382px

>>19185044
>>19185070
"remnants of a sedimentary cover composed of very ancient sandstone that is superimposed on a base of igneous rocks (mainly granite) that is even older (nearly 3 billion years). These have a geological formations ranging between 1.5 and 2 billion years, which makes them one of the oldest formations in the world."

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-21 at 23.14.24.png (548KB, 538x409px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 538x409px

>>19185070

ok those are not plateaus, those are the remenents of eroded plateaus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tepui

>>19185044
wait wait wait...

glaciers covered the other 80% of the earth?

including the mountains and the "plateaus" in question?

Have you been to the western US? I mean physically driven through wyoming, new mexico, arizona, etc?

You can't see what I'm talking about on a map. The topography is unique to these kinds of places....


When you're at 8000ft in des moines, new mexico and all you can see are perfectly flat plateaus stretching for 200miles from east to west as far as you can see....come back to me.


Have you driven by and/or stopped at ancient "buttes" that are the only significant outcropping in a 500sq mile radius of flat plains that look distinctly like rotten-out tree stumps?

Tell me more about what you know outside of the books you've read...

>>19185122
50sq miles*****

>>19185122

implying the other 80 percent of the earth was formed by the same process is ludacris

glaciers are a subset of the other 80 percent

and again, as for the buttes

>>19185110
>>19185117

>>19185122
Not that guy. Been to New Mexico before I even saw this theory. Was on a mission trip and commented how the mesas look like tree stumps and everyone agreed and went hmm for a minute.

Just dig into them? It's just stone

>>19185135

do you even know what a tree stump actually is to even compare a plateau to?

>but its rough on the side and flat on top hurr hurr, AND ITS GREY TOO

>also implying a perfectly flat tree can occur without tools

File: 1280px-TepuiRio.jpg (277KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1280x853px

>>19185117
it would stand to reason "remenents of eroded plateaus" were once plateaus

>>19185145

true

and there would be no flat piles of rock on the surface for loons to comment on saying that they were trees

File: tumblr_orv6pjloBB1rw52r2o1_500.jpg (77KB, 479x473px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 479x473px

>>19185143
They aren't all flat though

>>19184833
Where are the roots?

File: 1497473408208.jpg (27KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x375px

>>19185122
i know where glaciers stopped here in michigan you can find lots of lakes and lots of little hills made of nearly polished boulders

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-21 at 23.28.03.png (916KB, 809x544px) Image search: [Google]

916KB, 809x544px

>>19185163

Tree stu....wait a minute this is karst topagraphy where soluble minerals eroded away over millions of years

File: wat1.jpg (2MB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x1600px

>>19185143


you mean like this?

File: wat2.jpg (21KB, 263x237px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 263x237px

>>19185143

or this?

>>19184941
I can't listen to this smug russian ramble anymore.
What is the basic premise of the video?

>>19185182

>its totally petrified bark guys

this is not a tree strump, whether or not it is flat does not matter

"tree stumps" that are flat are the result of humans using tools

>inb4 giants

File: los-angeles-vegas-long-way-32.jpg (66KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1024x683px

>>19184962
>bachelors in chemistry
>petrified forests
>I don't know how those things occur.

Where did you get your degree so I can avoid that school and everyone infected by it? Was it a Bible University?

>>19185122
>ave you been to the western US? I mean physically driven through wyoming, new mexico, arizona, etc?
Used to live there and drove from Phoenix to LA all the time. Also loved driving up through Sedona and on to Goblin Natl Park.

Even in Monument Valley, the plateaus you talk about are not common. Most of the time, they look more liek pic. Nothing similar to a tree at all.

File: thismeanssomething.jpg (136KB, 638x479px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 638x479px

>>19185185
or this?

>>19185201

possible silicon(or something else) based lifeforms as trees.

the trees we think of as trees today are just "bushes" and shrubs, or even blades of grass.

The rich mineral deposits we find on earth are the remnants of huge "earth" trees that accumulated these minerals in their structure.

They were chopped down and harvested at some point in the past. All remaining mineral wealth is just "wash piles" on a large scale.

>>19185044

people also forget the wight of glaciers themselves had addtional effect on the landscape, sinking into the ground and pushing shit up around it, and picking up a bunch of rocks and dumped them when they melted miles south

anyways, im glad x is having a geology/ geography disscussion, we are now repeatgin early scientific thought and arguements,

we figure out geology/ geography and the weather first, then we move onto thermodynamics and chemistry, then biology and neurology and then we will be able to actually talk about x tier topics intelligently

>>19185218
Ah, well that sounds like a load of wank and bollox.

File: Cottages-of-Coffee-Pot-e1331314621209.jpg (110KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 800x533px

You can also notice how they always use the same pics for the theory. The same 10-15 formations from the same angles. There's a reason. Because if you took something like Coffeepot Rock in Sedona - pic related - then it might look nice and stump-like in your pic...

File: west-sedona-arizona-thunder-mountain-coffee-pot.jpg (200KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 1200x675px

>>19185239
Right up until someone goes and looks at images of Coffeepot Rock that isn't your preferred view.

Pic related - that's Coffeepot Rock way over on the right. Still look like a treestump?

>>19185239

I think the question we should be asking is where did all of the soil go and/or how did the reacted gases react with the atmosphere

>>19185206
are those supposed to be plateaus? seriously?


being an avid resident of arizona, I'm sure you know the topography of the hopi indian res, indian wells, and the petrified nat. forest to the southeast?

Interstate 10 is a little ways away from there...huh?

File: ArizonaRelief.gif (242KB, 940x1069px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 940x1069px

Really, you don't even need to go to Sedona. Just look at the pictures of the formations. See how the California Plateau breaks into smaller mesas and buttes as it transitions into the lower Mojave and Sonoran deserts in the Great Basin and Range.

Ever notice how all the silicon trees just happen to appear near where such transitions occur? Why no trees in the Great Plains? Or no trees in Mesopotamia?

>>19185273
>Why no trees in the Great Plains

the rocky mountains create a massive rain shadow, soil isnt great for trees just past them, but eventually it wears out and that is the eastern half of the midwest, which gets more rain

Iraq/Syria has trees along the Rivers

File: plateau.jpg (63KB, 550x367px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 550x367px

>>19185251
No, I'll admit that was a bad pic. I'll try to find a better one of a plateau in the distance.

Here, no idea where this is (I got the pic from a site about language) but it's a better representation of seeing a plateau off in the distance.

>>19184833
those are called Tepui, not mesas.
It means "House of the Gods
I think its a great theory, just from a kind of "amazing things" type perspective, instead of government coverups and ayy lmaos.
But no, i dont think its real.
they're made from sandstone and quartz or something iirc

File: US soil types.jpg (262KB, 1500x944px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1500x944px

>>19185293
The soil in Missouri is some of the best and most fertile in the world. Please show me the stump of a silicon tree in Missouri, or explain why they didn't grow there.

>>19185117
This looks like the remnants of giant ancient boners. Believe me i have 2 masters degrees in cock&ballology

>>19185293
not to mention the other side of the theory -

trying to see the grand canyon as a series of mining tunnels.>>19185293


Look at all of the major mountain ranges in the world.

Stick 5, 10 mile high tree canopies on them.

There's only like 50, 100 "giant" trees that cover the world.

Greenland? It was just a big tree.

Antarctica too

>>19185337

wut?

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-22 at 00.12.05.png (774KB, 720x537px) Image search: [Google]

774KB, 720x537px

>>19185313

and Mo is where the rain shadow wears off

notice the area between the rocky mountains and the green part is all high plains of the US and very dry

>>19185313
Back in the day whole west coast ead under water

>>19185366
>and Mo is where the rain shadow wears off
Great. Then...
>Please show me the stump of a silicon tree in Missouri, or explain why they didn't grow there.

Did you forget to do this? Don't worry, this is a reminder.

>>19185367
???

>>19185384
The problem with your argument is if they are silicon based life forms, why would they need to be sustained the same way as carbon based trees? Because the theory posits that the trees are not at all like the trees we are used to today.

>>19185384
bruh - mark twain nat forest?

what the fuck

>>19185391
yes, the theory is merely saying our topography was caused by these silion trees millions or billions of years ago. the mountains and the "canyons"

>>19185384

>silicon tree

im not sure where you are goinf with this?

do you mean petrified trees?

>>19185401
silicon based lifeforms

theoretically possible - not observed

>>19185407
>im glad x is having a geology/ geography disscussion, we are now repeatgin early scientific thought and arguements,
>we figure out geology/ geography and the weather first, then we move onto thermodynamics and chemistry, then biology and neurology and then we will be able to actually talk about x tier topics intelligently

now we are talking chemistry

>>19185391
>The problem with your argument
Not my argument. YOU (or whoever was >>19185293) decided that a rain shadow would affect silicon tree growth. That was the explanation for why there are no silicon trees in the Great Plains.

What is YOUR reason for there being no giant trees in these places?

>why would they need to be sustained the same way as carbon based trees?
I don't know. Do you have information on how silicon trees work? By all means explain what they need to grow. And how you know this, of course.

>>19185401
>im not sure where you are goinf with this?
Are you aware at all of what the "No trees on Earth" conspiracy theory is? That is what I am engaging with. If you don't know, then lurk and learn.
>do you mean petrified trees?
No. I mean giant, silicon trees of which we only have stumps left. That is what this conspiracy says.

>>19185427

>What is YOUR reason for there being no giant trees in these places?

are all giant trees silicon trees?

or are all trees actually silicon?

also, Im assuming we are not talking about shit like devils tower or buttes which has already been explained to be eroded plateaus

File: tinfoil_hat.jpg (246KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 640x480px

Oh it's a mud fossil/alien mining/silicon Earth faggot. Nothing like contrarian pseudo-science based solely on the phenomenon of Pareidolia and insistence that the more counter-intuitive/contrary a notion is the more true it must be.

It's not as if this is a classic case of someone with a sub-average intellect who's wholly incapable of recognizing that their own perception or personal perspective may not be the most objective. Because, you know, nothing could possibly ever occur anywhere geologically for any reason less than the most fantastical explanation possible. Mountains? Those are just dirt piles created by space miners. Canyons? Proof of alien reptile Illuminati excavation of minerals despite said minerals being more accessible and readily available in asteroids and space itself. Oceans? Clearly puddles created from Giants pissing. Geological formations? Clearly the petrified remains of silicon flora and remains of above mentioned Giants.

>>19185444
>holy fuck the stupid

Just answer yes or no:

Do you think that I - the one who posted these
>>19185427
>>19185384
>>19185313
>>19185294
>>19185273
>>19185242
>>19185239
>>19185206

accept that there were once giant trees, and that the formations we think of as rock shown here
>>19184833
>>19184878
are actually the stump of trees?

Actually, I dont want you to get the answer wrong.

No, I do not accept that. I do not think there were trees of that size ever on Earth. I think those formations are stone, and have never been living.

I am asking why - IF YOU ACCEPT SUCH IDIOCY - are there only such stumps near where mountain ranges break into smaller rock formations? I'm asking for a picture of a giant silicon tree stump (which is not a stump, but obviously a rock formation) that ISN'T next to a mountain range. I am expecting lots of diversion and defensive tactics, and no actual picture.

I didn't expect people to somehow think I am advocating this stupid idea. I hope this clears everything up. I know it won't.

>>19185427
Silicon based life would theoretically be more likely to form in an arid environment. However earth would also have to be extremely cold and oxygen deprived to even be hospitable to silicon life. So they would have had to been around during the early earth while it was extremely cold year round. Unless we throw out paleohisotrical evidence entirely and take the creationist approach, wherein those conditions possibly could have existed because a higher being willed giant fuck off silicon trees.
http://plutao.sid.inpe.br/col/dpi.inpe.br/plutao@80/2010/06.29.20.11.27/doc/SearchForLife120.html?metadatarepository=&mirror=dpi.inpe.br/plutao@80/2008/08.19.15.01.21
the source

>>19185490

the formation of the atmosphere would have helped warm up the planet yes?

what about all the gas that was released in the dissolving of soluble limestone and such

>>19185516

from acidic rain BTW..

File: Dome A-climb_241.jpg (272KB, 1431x800px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1431x800px

>>19185490
Early Earth was incredibly hot. Besides, if what we need is cold and arid, then there should be LOTS of these trees in Antarctica. Do you have any pics of plateaus there?

Here's Dome Argus in the Antarctic Plateau. I don't see any trees or stumps.

File: 1455944495028.gif (955KB, 480x240px) Image search: [Google]

955KB, 480x240px

>>19185528
tekeli li as fuck

>>19185477
Dude relax, so what if they are giant trees

>>19184857
Honestly what evidence is there that Paul bunion wasn't real. I think it makes sense

>>19185593
So what if they aren't? Why try and convince others of your stupid idea?

If you're just stupidly navel gazing, then why not just say "Yeah, this is all bullshit but what if...?" Why pretend to be retarded and say it's real?

>>19185167
Where DID you get a photo of a skinwalker?

>>19184970
You should do some research instead of just believing whatever scientists tell you.

They lie about giant tree stumps so they can control you.

>>19185294
Just to interject some none-fun.

People these are things called "mesas."

You don't see plateaus. They stretch for hundreds of miles. They're just flat spots that are high in elevation but aren't mountains. If it's an actual hill/mountain with a flat top, that's called a mesa.

>>19185528
>early earth was incredibly hot
Huronian glaciation
>why are there none on Antarctica
By the time Antarctica settled where it is now and turned from a more temperate climate to a ice desert, the atmosphere would have made it impossible for silicon lifeforms to exist, so it doesn't really matter anymore how "cold" something is as oxygen would make any hypothetical trees burst into flames.

Honestly though I don't believe in it either. But I like theoretical biology so it's a neat concept to mess with and theorize about.

File: Screen Shot 2017-06-22 at 01.07.36.png (897KB, 805x540px) Image search: [Google]

897KB, 805x540px

>>19185631

unless you are at an escarpment, which is truely something to behold in of itself

>>19184833
I know someone who does, and his name is literally sage kek

Nope. Idiots.

>>19185614
I'm not being retarded. In iust saying what evidence is there that they aren't tree stumps?

>>19185636
>Huronian glaciation
OK, but

>However earth would also have to be extremely cold and oxygen deprived to even be hospitable to silicon life.
>oxygen deprived

>The Huronian glaciation followed after the Great Oxygenation Event (GOE), a time when increased atmospheric oxygen decreased atmospheric methane. The oxygen combined with the methane to form carbon dioxide and water, which does not retain heat as well as methane does.

The Huronian Glaciation period happened precisely because the Earth was flooded with oxygen, which is a detriment according to you.

Not only that, we only know about the Huronian Glaciation due to geology. And that geology ALSO says that the silicon trees such as what is suggested can't have existed at that time. So either you accept the evidence for the Huronian Ice Age - in which case you must reject giant silicon trees - or you accept giant silicon trees, in which case the evidence for the Huronian Glaciation must be dismissed.

>>19185631
>>19185642
True, we've been butchering the proper terminology. I'm sorry if you are sensitive to such things. I would be as well but I don't have the categories/distinctions of this area of knowledge clear in my head.

I will stop using the term plateau, and will use the term mesa and butte instead.

File: plateau.jpg (24KB, 544x235px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 544x235px

Found this

http://seethesouthwest.com/903/the-difference-between-a-butte-mesa-and-plateau/
>Buttes are geologic features up to hundreds of feet high with steep sides, narrow pointed tops or very small flat tops. Buttes are what is left of what was once a mesa; the rest of it has been eroded away.
>A mesa started life as a flat plain. Rivers and streams have eroded away the surrounding area, leaving a flat-topped mountain. Typically, mesas have much larger tops that a butte, and many feel that a mesa can only be called that if standing water can sometimes be found.
>A plateau is an area of land that with a relatively level surface raised sharply above the adjacent terrain on at least one side and the surface area of the top of the plateau can be huge.

tl;dr - If you can walk around it in a few hours, it's a butte, if you can walk around it in a day or two, it's a mesa. If you can't walk around it in a reasonable amount of time, it's a plateau.

>>19185698
With a complete lack of anything that supports these structures being alive, and plenty of geological evidence that they are formed from erosion and plate tectonics, the reasonable null position is that they are not remnants of a unique life form that would cause most of what we know about this planet to be wrong.

To put it simply, the evidence is that they are made out of rock, and have not gone through a petrification process. Trees are not made out of rock. Show me a living tree made out of rock, and it becomes plausible.

>>19185716

language is important no doubt

maybe before x has any more threads on /x topics we need to have threads on the nature of language itself

>>19185765
>/x topics
This isn't an /x/ topic. This is geology and biology and stupid questions equivalent to "What if 2+2=3?!"

And I don't know why you responded to my post with the language bit. There was no question on the nature of language here. It was just people not knowing how to look up proper terms. There's no deep philosophy behind going around calling Corvettes "trucks," just ignorance.

>>19185238
But you believe 40 feet long iguanas roamed the planet 4 billion years ago because Discovery channel said so.

>>19185589
What is a demon fetal harvest?

>>19185913
Rosemary's Baby

>>19184922
First day on the disinfo job anon?

Protip buddy, ya cant spoiler tag on /x/

>>19185477
>accept that there were once giant trees, and that the formations we think of as rock shown here

No, fuck you.

>>19184833
yes
>>19184854
that's the only part of the theory i can't figure out an answer for. And if they really were that big, how much damage would they have done falling? they would've had to leave remains

File: 1267274153622.png (75KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 800x800px

>>19185206
"Bachelors" is just a by-word for "I don't know shit".

Degrees are fucking retarded and are just a gateway to self-directed learning for retards.

Fuck you guys why the fuck did they cut down the god-trees just so pieces of shit like you could exist?

Fuck this gay earth video related.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDJ-LJjpm18

>>19184854
Ancient industrial civilization. Before the great flood Atlantis and much more land was above water. They were eventually destroyed by natural disasters brought on by their own hubris.

>>19184833
So if they're tree stumps where are the rings?

>inb4 Stumpers BTFO

>>19185238
It sound like a reasonable load of wank and bollox. It's just wrong though.

>>19184922
>being so obsessed with a shit tier MOBA that you add characters from it to your shitposts
Back to /v/, fag

No. Why? Because gravity.
/thread

>>19184833
I do now

>>19184854
there once was a cataclysm that caused the atmosphere to burn. at the same time, the great flood happened. everything above water level was burned off and turned to dust. once the great flood diminished, only the tree stumps were left.

File: quiz2-1.jpg (29KB, 500x667px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 500x667px

>>19184962
Did you go ahead o a Christian Uni or what?
>> Chemist more like apothecary, faggot..

>>19185206
>WERE...

>>19187078
*To

>>19184833
Why don't the silicon tree stumps have tree rings?

>>19185698
Nigger, you can not prove a negative.

You can only prove a positive

>>19184833
Would need to see more evidence than "they vaguely resemble tree stumps." No one who believes it has explained, for instance, how they justify it given the various compositions of plateaus...Like, Plateaus are not some uniform thing with consistent, uniform composition. Nor is sedimentary rock petrified wood...

>>19185122
>"You can't see what I'm talking about on a map."
>"Topographic Maps are NOT a thing!"

>>19187078
>>19187078
Please tell us that worksheet is a joke? And if not, do you know its origin?

>>19185621
Kek

File: IMG_20170622_175214.png (227KB, 632x784px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 632x784px

>>19185182
Columnar jointing formed by the even cooling of magma and its contraction towards a locus point in the centre of each column. But yeah show a different rock type to the previous plateaus and call them roots.

>>19187188
Father of a child in private Christian school posted it.

>>19185880
Okay then you explain the remains

>>19186821
>the great flood happened
No it didn't.

>>19186223
Read the whole sentence. Take out the quoted posts. Feel ashamed that you are stupid. Avoid posting any admission of error.

>Do you think that I - the one who posted these - accept that there were once giant trees, and that the formations we think of as rock shown here are actually the stump of trees?

>Actually, I dont want you to get the answer wrong. No, I do not accept that.

And yet you STILL got the answer wrong. Incredible.

>>19187171
I can prove dice with six sides will NEVER give a seventh result.
I can prove on January 20th, 2017 that Donald Trump was NOT outside the United States.
I can prove it is not possible to have a consistent system of axioms that can demonstrate its own consistency.

You can prove a negative as long as the negative claim is properly structured.

>>19187078
Being a teacher and seeing shit like this makes me wonder if I'm making a difference at all.

>>19185031
no

>>19185019
we can only guess where your contempt comes from too. mine is militant retardation. what the actual fuck are these threads. you're arguing that mesas are fucking giant tree stumps because some fag looking for area 51 "huh those buttes kinda look like tree stumps huh?"

Hmm maybe they are trees after all... that means Lord of the rings was based on real life events!!

At last I truley see

I semi ironically believe the evil deity the Jews worship in the past -perhaps with help from others- cut down these trees in order to cut whites off from the truth.

>>19184932
We are 'tierra central' or midguard. Middle Earth. This is Norse mythology.

File: 1496555151777.jpg (129KB, 726x1139px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 726x1139px

>>19184833
Just that Gematria Expert idiot

>>19186217
LMFAO newfags my dude

I'll always love how well insulated /x/ is. Keep up the good fight guys. You're doin God's work.

It's easier to control people when they're on a tree stump.

>>19184857
tHe GiAnTs

>>19187078
>were you there
Oh god it all makes since now. The majority of /x/ really is bible beat half to death.

>>19185880
>4 billion years ago
I pity you

>>19184833
Is this what we're doing now? Two things look alike so they must be the same thing?
There are so many interesting things to discuss and this is what you post?

>>19184833

It's interesting. I entertain the idea of prehistoric giants, and also heard about a petrified piece in California that had a spark plug in the middle of it when it was cracked opened. Requires further study, but
maybe. I keep an open mind to it.

>>19185009
*Eggroll*

>>19185880
It was 380-60 million years ago, not 4 billion, and they weren't reptiles the Dinosaurs themselves were a separate Saurian branch of evolution (save of course for the aquatic and flying ones which were actual reptiles). We also have countless fossil remains located within identifiable strata of the Earth which illustrates its geological history quite accurately.

You are claiming that already easily identifiable and explained geological phenomena are proof of mud fossil/bible-tier nonsense because they look like something else so obviously they must be. And even if you actually had a valid point in making this claim about believing what authorities and media tell the masses then the only argument you'd really be making is that we should believe anything anyone says or no one at all.

>>19185880
This kind of ignorance has to be willful.

>>19184854
that's not what "begs the question" means

>>19184833
petrified? did somebody scare it?

>>19187249
m8, yes it did.

>>19194844
Prove it.

In the Age of Ancients,
The world was unformed, shrouded by fog
A land of grey crags, archtrees, and everlasting dragons

Miyazaki accidentally told the true story of Earth.
The ancient world was supposedly full of mythical kingdoms, beasts, and people, and dragons are depicted by completely separated cultures across the world. Obviously these are the remains of the archtrees.

>>19186228
Well I mean, not every tree is tall and thin. Could've just been ridiculously squat trees, which would make sense at their heights I guess?

>>19187201
has this phenomenon ever been observed?
I have read a paper by some guy who researched it and he could demonstrate it in a laboratory setting but, I can't remember what material he was using

can someone explain in simple terms how carbon atoms are replaced with silicon atoms during petrification?

File: 14957770._SX540_.jpg (37KB, 540x417px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 540x417px

>>19185589
TEKELI LI!

>>19191755
Hey Scully, give me back my tripod and get off /x/. And make me a sandwich.

>>19184833
you fkning serious? Tree = wood
Plateaus = stones

ever saw a stone tree!?

>>19185218
my question now: How retarded does one have to be, for believing in this? 1-10 Scale, I'd guess....OVER 9000!!!!!!1111

File: dsfsdafsdfdsaf.jpg (76KB, 1298x684px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1298x684px

>>19184854
this nigga

>>19184833
This makes the electric universe etching theory or that guy who claimed they were impact splashes look positively sane.

My answer is the same as to the latter. Why do they always have horizontal layers that just happen to precisely match local sedimentography and never, never concentric rings or similar patterns?

>>19186232
t. dropout

>>19184833
If that's true, why aren't there more of them and in greater concentrations?

File: 1466122237540.jpg (81KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1024x768px

>>19187698
>people that are shaping the young minds of tomorrow lurk and post on /x/

>>19186232
>"Bachelors" is just a by-word for "I don't know shit".
This is true. Just finished my bachelor's and holy fuck I know nothing.

>>19185167
Who's this sexy skeleton?