Atlantis & Orihalcum... They existed or not

So you think that Atlantis never existed because of what a geological theory descibes? there is a certain famous qoute that I am reminded of. Oh yeah. " I reject your reality and subsitute my own". I am not saying I'm crazy. Just that while a theory might explain something, that doesn't make it true. The only real exceptions are Einstein's relativitys.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think Atlantis existed because I see no good reason to believe it did. No one has made a compelling argument. You might as well be saying, "so you think pigs don't fly without being shot from cannons because of what gravitational theory descibes (sic)?"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't recall reading anything in Plato suggesting that they were especially advanced. They certainly had a strong navy and military, but I rather envisioned their technology as being similar to that of the Athenians. I suppose that would have been "advanced" given the age in which Atlantis supposedly existed, but I don't think Plato really grasped that technology advanced as history progressed.

I think most of the "technologically advanced" Atlantis sources may have come later.

 

http://www.mysterious-america.net/bimini2007.html

How about a nice marble lintel off the coast of the Bahamas?

Not much like anything else yet discovered in that part of the world. In 100 feet of water and therefore probably not above sea level for, maybe 10,000 years.

Just a thought.

 

Oh that's "natural" rock, haven't you heard??

 

Atlantis Theories

 

Please cite the evidence that this is marble and not simply limestone bedrock with orthogonal jointing.

None of these are actually theories. Some do, however, barely qualify as hypotheses, though not very good ones.

 

Since when are marble columns and gables, as well as slabs of marble facing to be construed as jointed bedrock?

Can you give us other examples?

 

Since the credulous believe whatever the mystery-mongers tell them. Here's a link that describes the so-called Bimini Road in more detail.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-01/geologists-adventures.html

 

Apples and oranges, aka, obfuscation. The link above concerns ruins at a different location than the one under consideration.

Having summarily dismissed the irrelevant red herring above, the diligent student will now consider the information in the relevant link ...

http://www.mysterious-america.net/bimini2007.html

... and ask oneself, "Do the marble ruins pictured look like limestone bedrock"?

 

It is a STORY, not a FACT. When will people ever learn the difference?

 

Cite a primary source for these alleged "ruins" other than a website that might or might not represent a real place in the world, and then we'll have something to discuss. I see no reason to believe that "Greg Little" is anything more than a con artist along the same grain as Semir Osmanagic that claimed to have found a "pyramid" in Vissoko, Bosnia.

Where are the published proveniences and contexts of this alleged "Dr.'s" finds? Where is the site-plan of the area? Where are the analyses of pollen, phytolyths, and carbon dating? Where are the stratagraphic analyses of local geology? Etc., etc.

This is a good example of pseudo-archaeology in progress. Thanks for sharing it.

 

Do Bronze Age marble ruins actually emit pollen? Please provide evidence of such from a peer reviewed scientific paper.

 

Atlantis was most likely a mythical place. It could have been inspired by some great island civilization in the Atlantic ocean, but Plato was using it in a metaphorical sense to compare it to Athens of his time. I find this completely apparent.

The only plausible notion in all of this is the "Great Flood". No one can deny that practically every civilization had its own similar flood story that took place around the time of 'Plato's Atlantis'.

 

You're demonstrating your complete and utter ignorance. Indeed, you are an unknowing embarrassment to yourself.

In making the statement above (Bronze Age ruins actually *do* contain pollen and phytolith remains -in LARGE quantities), you assume that the site is "Bronze Age." Yet, my point remains: what is the data that shows that this is a site of human activity, much less one that is Bronze Age? There is none. This is a great example of pseudo-archaeology in action and the credulous buying into the garbage.

This isn't as plausible as you might think since the flood myths common to many civilizations occurred at times that did not coincide.

 

So are you saying that his ignorance was not complete or utter or that it was not ignorance that generated the statement? Nutter's comment was completely ignorant of archaeological method and practice; it was utterly to the point in its insistence that he was knowledgeable on a topic in which it would seem he is not.

Or are you saying that my pointing out that he created an unknowing embarrassment for himself is the ad hominem. I ask these questions so that I might fully comply with the forum rules and present a better example to my peers whilst still not settling for blatant pseudoscientific and unreasoned claims -indeed, claims that are anti-scientific.

Moreover, I insist that I was not "mocking" pseudoscience, the un- or anti- scientific, or even Nutter. I was educating him to the nature and degree of his ignorance. I would ask no less of anyone else should I demonstrate ignorance while professing to have knowledge.

Finally, I *did* in fact also educate briefly on why the assertion that Bronze Age sites contain pollens as well as phytoliths. I suppose I could have gone on further with an explanation as to how both of these have shown to be very useful in identifying and dating archaeological sites in nautical environments, particularly since the pseudo-archaeological website mentions "possible amphorae" present. Greg Little conveniently does not produce any, however, the seriation of which would also serve to date a site. If there are any actual man-made artifacts present, the most likely explanation is that they are the result of shipwrecks in this very busy sea lane.

Or perhaps a result of humans in antiquity as well as modernity living near fertile and well irrigated lands for best foraging and food production strategies, subsequently resulting in being more likely to experience the effects of floods both minor and catastrophic. I would find it more strange if the flood motif didn't make its way into human myths, stories, legends and histories.

 

1. Oh yeah? Should marble cut slabs and columns, as well as stone building foundations, be considered "signs of human activity?"

2. What Age do you suppose the megalith ruins are from, if not from the Bronze Age?

3. The contemplative student realizes that pollen is washed off by ocean currents. Now produce a peer reviewed paper where submerged
megaliths were dated by pollen on them.

 

Now there's an irrefutable retort. [insert favorite smiley]

What "marble cut slabs and columns" are you referring to? What are their provenance and contexts? What strata were they located in? Where is the site plan? Show these things that we might actually discuss them. The pseudoscience site you linked to had some pictures, but no mention of provenance (provenience to Americans) or context.

Without actually analyzing the data, I don't suppose any "Age." They might be Iron Age. Indeed, they may be Paleolithic if the site is actually the mythic Atlantis! I'm the skeptic and its interesting that I'm the more open-minded between us in this regard!

The actual student (I must be cautious about comments regarding ignorance apparently) understands that pollen and phytoliths will be present in undisturbed sediments that are trapped in artifacts created by man. These become clear evidence of human activity in many nautical sites and are most readily present in amphorae. But they can also be found in undisturbed sediments below megalithic remains (by the way, a megalith is generally any stone too large for a single man to carry); embedded in clays used in bricks, pottery, ceramics, etc.; embedded in cements and mortars; and so on.

If this is just a geologic formation, there will be no pollens or phytoliths. Phytoliths, by the way, are the microscopic silicates that develop in plants and are darn near indestructible. The seriation of these has shown to be very helpful in dating sites as well as informing on dietary habits, food subsistence strategies, etc.

I've not said anything about dating megaliths, primarily because I've yet to see evidence of "megaliths" (large stone shaped by humans). But the pseudoscience website you linked mentions amphorae and pottery. And, if it were a site of human habitation, there are likely to be artifacts beyond "megaliths." A hallmark, however, of pseudo-archaeology is when the only thing the "discoverer" can produce is "megaliths" which show ambiguous signs of "tool marks" or are "too regular" or "angular" to have been "created by nature."

Reference:

Gorham, L. Dillon and Bryant, Vaughn M. (2001). Pollen, phytoliths, and other micorscopic plant remains in underwater archaeology. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology. 30 (2), 282-298.