And I like to roam the land
- May 18, 2002
- Reaction score
I don't know that it is, but then again there's no evidence that it isn't. So it seems a bit pointless to go on about.
*Heckler glances nervously at synopsis of proposed new book and curses beneath his breath*Peripart said:than read another supposedly factual piece of claptrap writtan by someone who claims to have found incontrovertible proof that the Ark of the Covenant has been found up a tree in Wales guarded by the direct descendants of Noah, who have used the Freemasons to hide the whereabouts of etc etc..
Atlantis may well be an allegory, or a metaphor, but the meaning has changed since Platio's time. For those of us who don't have the financial wherewithal to organize a physical search, the quest to locate Atlantis is more about the investigation of "lost" cultures/places. Every distinct population group in the world has a at least one myth telling their specific version of this loss.I don't see what the fuss about Atlantis is at all: it's clearly an allegory, of the sort Plato uses all the time...So it seems a bit pointless to go on about.
If you mean that there was no one discrete island or "continent" which has come down to us under the name "Atlantis" you are almost without doubt absolutely correct.there is not one shred of evidence that atlantis ever existed - as some posters have said above
many_angled_one said:"I do think there probably was an "Atlantian" age where relatively advanced kingdoms and communities were starting to form due to agriculture, herding etc before the rising seas and floods sweapt it all away forcing them to rebuild elsewhere and abandon their civilizations. Numerous abandoned structures underwater could be testament to this fact."
Exactly. But may I point out that there is no really good reason to automatically assume that civilizations were merely "starting to form" at this point?
In fact, why do we assume that the Cro-Magnon cavern artists of 35,000 years ago were truly the high point of civilization at that period? Isn't it possible that the Cro-Magnons were simply a bunch of disgrunted "hippies" or communalists hiding out in caves because they rejected the values of the majority civilization?
I make the above statement with tongue firmly in cheek, but it's a point at least worth discussing.
many_angled_one said:"Well, the archaeological evidence simply does not support the existance of any sort of widespread relatively advanced civilization 35,000 years ago. Some sort of evidence would have survived."
WOULD IT? One of the longest-lasting artifacts of our own civilization is supposed to be the GLASS Coca-Cola bottle, which is estimated to have a life expectency (under optimum conditions) of about 8,000 years. But that's less than ONE-QUARTER of our 35,000 year period!
On the other hand, museum basements and private collections are full of "out of place artifacts" which seem to be both ancient and of unknown antiquity. Shouldn't they all be carefully re-examined now that we have reason to believe that there was at least SOME some sort of civiliization prior to 10,000 BC?
"As far as I know Sumeria is the oldest properly advanced civilization from about 3100BC. Surely if the ice age ending and the huge flooding happened thousands of years before that there would have been some evidence of something before Sumeria if there had been civilizations destroyed by the flooding?"
It's really interesting that you use the example of Sumeria. The ancient Sumerian king-lists give a history dating back WELL beyond 35,000 years! Archaeologists and linguists specializing in the Mesopotamian-area have spent generations passing 'em around for laughs. So maybe it's time to actually STUDY the written evidence the Sumerians passed down to us....WITHOUT the smirks?
many_angled_one said:"There are always artifacts that would easily survive 35,000 years in recognisable shape."
You seem so absolutely certain of this. There are early mediaeval European inscriptions which are already difficult to read, not alone because of weathering, but also from the natural flow-rate of the stone; that is, the inscribed letters are closing of their own accord. How much do you think will be left to read in 35,000 years?
Some of the greatest cities of, say, 2000 BC are nothing more than featureless mud-flats today (and indeed for many centuries past) to other than the most trained, expert eyes. But how much could even those experts detect after a period eight and one half times that long?
No Coca-Cola bottles, that's for certain, and nothing else of that ilk.
That's certainly true at present, but remember that the submarine archaeological discoveries in question - off Cuba, in the Mediterranean, off India, in the North Sea, in the Northern Pacific, among still others, have all been located within just the past five years._TMS_ said:"....barring a miraculous 'Rosetta stone' type civilisation emerging all we're really doing is making informed guesses".
WondrWmn said:"Atlantis was just one of many...."
Exactly. That's why I normally speak of an "Atlantean Age" instead. But even that's something of a misnomer when we're speaking of putative prehistoric ruins off Okinawa or India.
P. S. Are you the same Wonder Woman who was previously active on the now-defunct Para-Normal.Com?
Not so. Total mass of the asteroids is well below that of a planet.TinFinger said:imho atlantis was a planet,its now an asteriod belt iirc between mars and juptier(thers enough material for a planet)
Many ancient stories may not mention the sun either - doesn't mean it wasn't there.it would seem in very ancient storys the moon wasnt in our skys so its possible that the moon was originally in orbit around atlantis but they used it as a transport device,this is why its now in its unusual orbit arount us.
also if i was being a bit paranoid the moon would make a perfect weapons platform as it always points outward,srtange aint it.
Have done so!altough this is just my daydreaming while bored at work it would possibly make a cracking film and fits the facts as well as ive read
please find holes......
Wrong again. Almost all moons in the solar system face their primaries. (In fact, I'd have to do some research to find some that don't!)TinFinger said:And the Moon always faces towards (or away from) Earth for well understood reasons to do with gravitational Tidal Capture.
yes but its odd its the only moon in our solar system that dose this..
This is actually a coincidence in time rather than anything else...and also the only moon thats size aperars to be exactly the same size as the sun as seen from the planet.