Atlantis Online
July 16, 2018, 04:39:05 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Ruins of 7,000-year-old city found in Egypt oasis
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080129/wl_mideast_afp/egyptarchaeology
 
  Home Help Arcade Gallery Links Staff List Calendar Login Register  

Geology of Atlantis

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Geology of Atlantis  (Read 981 times)
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #30 on: September 10, 2010, 11:48:28 am »

Lonestar - me thinks you too, have mis-read my posts.   

Let me high light the main issue here.


My reasoning for the non-existence of Atlantis, comes from researching what science teaches us, in a number of different fields.

You say scientific logic is a fallacy.  What other information do you propose we base our studies on?  Do you expect me to work with something that is unknown? I think that's what you are doing.  Water would never be ejected into outer space for a number of reasons.  Science was never my best subject, but it seems to me that the water would freeze and gravity would bring it back to earth.  It would never get to outer space.  I could be wrong and I don't intend to spend any time checking to see exactly what would happen. 

 It may well be that new discoveries will be made that will blow our socks off.  But until then, I can only study the information that's out there, and that information tells us when certain items were invented, when societies were formed and so on.  From THAT DATA, the conclusion is, Atlantis could not have existed as Plato states it, in the time line he gave. 

If I was to go to the trouble of getting you the core samples, would you then come back at me and say it was a fallacy?  That the people taking the cores didn't take them properly or something? 

Quote
Lonestar
The problem with your approach, here, is that these are the dates we know.

You are talking in circles.  As I said, I have to go with what we know.  What else is there?  And who teaches us what we know?  Science.

You yourself, are studying those very sciences and yet you say that those who came before you and compiled all that data for you to learn, didn't know what they were talking about. 

Quote
There have been numerous illustrations of the K-T event of 65 Mya (when the dinosaurs were destroyed). Some of those illustrations (likely all following what scientists told the artists) show water from the ocean being splashed several hundred kilometers into space.

Apparently this even never happened either.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11142304
The theory that a large impact from space killed off mammoths and other beasts 13,000 years ago has been discounted.

The theory had relied on small diamonds that would have been created in the collision however now scientists believe the initial interpretation was wrong when further examinations failed to find any traces of them.
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Ostanes
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 60


« Reply #31 on: September 10, 2010, 12:17:33 pm »

Plato did not say the ocean rose up and flooded Atlantis.  He said she SUNK.  There is quite a difference. 
Just ignore Qoais, Lonestar.  She has never read the Timaeus.

Plato never said Atlantis sunk.  What Plato actually said is the Pelasgians of Athens "sunk into the earth" whereas Atlantis "disappeared in the depths of the sea."

Disappeared does not mean sunk.  There is quite a difference.

Quote
The world WAS in the grip of an ice age during the time line for the supposed existence of Atlantis.  She sunk, 1500 years before the end of the ice age.
Again, Lonestar, just ignore Qoais.

She likes to invent her own so-called "facts" based upon less than zero evidence and then she calls it "science."  LOL.

Hodell, E.A., et. al, Abrupt Cooling of Antarctic Surface Waters and Sea Ice Expansion in the South Atlantic Sector of the Southern Ocean at 5000 cal yr B.P., Quaternary Research, Volume 56, Issue 2, Pages 191-198, 2001

Quote
Antarctic surface waters were warm and ice free between 10,000 and 5000 cal yr B.P., as judged from ice-rafted debris and microfossils in a piston core at 53S in the South Atlantic. This evidence shows that about 5000 cal yr B.P., sea surface temperatures cooled, sea ice advanced, and the delivery of ice-rafted detritus (IRD) to the subantarctic South Atlantic increased abruptly. These changes mark the end of the Hypsithermal and onset of Neoglacial conditions. They coincide with an early Neoglacial advance of mountain glaciers in South America and New Zealand between 5400 and 4900 cal yr B.P., rapid middle Holocene climate changes inferred from the Taylor Dome Ice Core (Antarctica), cooling and increased IRD in the North Atlantic, and the end of the African humid period. The near synchrony and abruptness of all these climate changes suggest links among the tropics and both poles that involved nonlinear response to gradual changes in Northern Hemisphere insolation. Sea ice expansion in the Southern Ocean may have provided positive feedback that hastened the end of the Hypsithermal and African humid periods in the middle Holocene.


« Last Edit: September 11, 2010, 02:30:49 pm by Ostanes » Report Spam   Logged
Daedalus
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 1146



« Reply #32 on: September 10, 2010, 11:01:10 pm »

Quote
Again, Lonestar, just ignore Qoais.

She likes to invent her own so-called "facts" based upon less than zero evidence and then she calls it "science."  LOL.

I prefer to think of Qoais as being so blinded by the glow of a PHD that she accepts, indiscriminately, anything one of these conservative non-comformists tells her!  She is incapable of any independent thought, and, of course rejects any new ideas soundly from anyone else.
Report Spam   Logged
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #33 on: September 11, 2010, 08:25:12 am »

Link posted by Ostanes
 Abrupt Cooling of Antarctic Surface Waters and Sea Ice Expansion in the South Atlantic Sector of the Southern Ocean at 5000 cal yr B.P.

What you get when you click on it:
Sorry, your request could not be processed because the format of the URL was incorrect. Contact the Help Desk if the problem persists. [SD-001]
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Ostanes
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 60


« Reply #34 on: September 11, 2010, 02:27:10 pm »

Link fixed: http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/qres.2001.2252
« Last Edit: September 11, 2010, 03:21:33 pm by Ostanes » Report Spam   Logged
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #35 on: September 11, 2010, 03:17:08 pm »

If the words don't show up in red, then it isn't a link at all.
Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Ostanes
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 60


« Reply #36 on: September 11, 2010, 03:21:59 pm »

If the words don't show up in red, then it isn't a link at all.
See above.  I had already fixed it in the original post.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2010, 03:23:12 pm by Ostanes » Report Spam   Logged
HereForNow
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3278


HUH?


« Reply #37 on: September 11, 2010, 04:36:55 pm »



Lonestar77 the explanation of what happened was an excellent idea. However, a feature like a moutain which was mentioned by Plato as well would be found in the location you mentioned right?
Report Spam   Logged

LoneStar77
Full Member
***
Posts: 47


Carl Martin - Writer, Artist and Software Engineer


WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 17, 2010, 01:55:25 am »

My reasoning for the non-existence of Atlantis, comes from researching what science teaches us, in a number of different fields.

Very good, Qoais. So does mine about the possible existence of Atlantis. You mention many facts that I accept completely.  The disagreement is with your conclusions.

You say scientific logic is a fallacy.

Nope. Never said it! You are misquoting something that I did say.

Quote
[What I actually said:] Your reasoning is flawed by the "argument to ignorance" fallacy.

You are not science. Neither are your conclusions.

I surmise that you didn't take the time to understand what a "argument to ignorance" is. Wikipedia defines it as something that "asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). Carl Sagan once pointed out that, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

The problem with some of your assertions is that, because we currently have no evidence of something, you conclude that we will never have such evidence. That's the fallacy. It's your fallacy, not that of science. Read this carefully: I agree that such a future lack of evidence is entirely possible, but the current lack does not prove that such evidence never existed.

If you don't understand this point, then I can't help you, except to say "study it," "meditate on it," and "pray you understand it some day." I'll pray with you. Honest!

Science was never my best subject, but it seems to me that the water would freeze and gravity would bring it back to earth.  It would never get to outer space.  I could be wrong and I don't intend to spend any time checking to see exactly what would happen.

Perhaps logic was not your best subject, either. Perhaps we've spent way too much time on the subject of "splashing water," but water in space would evaporate (or if some of it did momentarily freeze from extreme evaporation, it would then sublimate [ice to vapor]). Because of the volume of water within a splash (if not tiny droplets, but a large wave) would remain liquid until gravity pulled it back down. Just because something is in space does not mean it will remain there. Such a splash would not necessarily achieve orbital velocity. Whether or not a splash makes it to outer space depends on the speed of the original impactor (meteor, asteroid or comet), its size and its trajectory (angle of impact). And again, no, it wouldn't necessarily destroy Earth. I know enough physics, astrophysics, planetology and math to know that.

If I was to go to the trouble of getting you the core samples, would you then come back at me and say it was a fallacy?  That the people taking the cores didn't take them properly or something? 

Fallacy? Nope! Qoais, you really, really need to look up "logical fallacy." It is a term of logical debate. Facts, on the other hand, are facts. Your logical fallacies are not facts, they are erroneous conclusions based on scientific facts. You are confusing your conclusions with scientific facts. They are not the same.

Would I think "that the people taking the cores didn't take them properly or something?" Perhaps, and perhaps not. It depends on the data. If I see photos of the cores and a change of texture that is not documented in their analysis, I would question the nature of that change in texture. Did they overlook some layer? If everything appears to be documented, then I would likely be satisfied.

Quote
Lonestar
The problem with your approach, here, is that these are the dates we know.

You are talking in circles.  As I said, I have to go with what we know.  What else is there?  And who teaches us what we know?  Science.

Qoais, apparently you didn't read the rest of my paragraph. And most certainly you do not understand what "argument to ignorance" logical fallacy is all about. Please look it up.

Talking in circles? Not at all.

Yes, you have to work with what you know, but you jump to some unfounded conclusions from what is known. For instance, you talk about the earliest dates of horse domestication. You are, by your reasoning, taking this as gospel and absolute, which it ain't. That's not science. That's illogical. Science gives us a date, but it's not absolute. It is only the currently known date. That could change. Like the example I gave in the same paragraph that you apparently didn't read. The earliest dates of the use of boats has apparently been pushed back to at least 130,000 BC! The New York Times article is pretty neat. You should check it out. Prior to this discovery, many scientists would not have believed such a date. But like you said, we go with the evidence science discovers. But please, please! PLEASE! Do not confuse your conclusions with facts of science. They are not the same. Got it?

And 130,000 BC for the first known sea travel! That's about 120,000 years before the demise of Atlantis. Could humanity have had boats when Atlantis came around? If Atlantis existed, perhaps so.

You yourself, are studying those very sciences and yet you say that those who came before you and compiled all that data for you to learn, didn't know what they were talking about. 

For shame, Qoais! Again you claim that I said something that I didn't. You are not reading carefully enough. And when you make such a claim, wouldn't it be helpful to quote exactly what was said? You do that sometimes, but when you make a claim about what someone else said, it is particularly helpful to quote word-for-word, so any misunderstandings may be cleared up.

Not only did I never say such a thing, I have never believed such an idea. Scientific misconduct, though not rare, is thankfully in a minority of cases.

Quote
There have been numerous illustrations of the K-T event of 65 Mya (when the dinosaurs were destroyed). Some of those illustrations (likely all following what scientists told the artists) show water from the ocean being splashed several hundred kilometers into space.

Apparently this even never happened either.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11142304
The theory that a large impact from space killed off mammoths and other beasts 13,000 years ago has been discounted.

The theory had relied on small diamonds that would have been created in the collision however now scientists believe the initial interpretation was wrong when further examinations failed to find any traces of them.

I'm sorry to say, Qoais, that this just goes to prove my point. You don't read carefully enough! I was talking about the event 65 million years ago which destroyed the dinosaurs, and you counter with the apparent disproof of the event 13,000 years ago which destroyed the mammoths. Dinosaurs do not equal mammoths. They are completely different creatures living at completely different epochs of Earth's past. 65 million years ago does not equal 13,000 years ago. Enough said!

Ye gads, Qoais! I've had bad days, but you seem to be striking out left and right.

And even if we were talking about the same event (which we weren't!), the fact remains that artists' technical renditions are typically based on what the scientists tell the artists. If scientists were to tell artists to paint waves 300 kilometers high, then they would likely paint them reaching above the atmosphere (temporarily), arcing to fall back to Earth. Got it? I hope so.

Warm regards,  Wink
Rod Martin, Jr.
Report Spam   Logged

LoneStar77
(Carl Martin)
"Now we have proof that something BIG happened right when Plato's Atlantis subdided. We have the 'smoking gun.'"
www.MissionAtlantis.com
LoneStar77
Full Member
***
Posts: 47


Carl Martin - Writer, Artist and Software Engineer


WWW
« Reply #39 on: September 17, 2010, 02:13:41 am »

Lonestar77 the explanation of what happened was an excellent idea. However, a feature like a moutain which was mentioned by Plato as well would be found in the location you mentioned right?

Good question. Which "mountain" are you talking about? I believe Plato talked about many mountains surrounding the fertile valley -- the breadbasket of Atlantis. Based on the rough description of size, Atlantis (if it existed) likely stretched from near Gibraltar (and Gadira) to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at the Azores. Each of the islands in that area (possibly including the Madeira Islands, and very likely including the Azores) is in essence a mountain reaching up from the sea floor. In the case of the Azores, the base of each island is itself on an underwater plateau (the core of Atlantis?).

The indistinct nature of the plate boundary west of Gibraltar may be a result of the destruction of Atlantis. An 11 or 12 on the earthquake scale is outside the experience of historical man, yet Atlantis sinking would likely have been that strong of a temblor. Would some mountains become flattened on the ocean floor with that strength of a quake? I suppose it depends on the nature of the subsidence. If, as I suspect, Atlantis collapsed from post-glacial isostatic adjustment (from the opposite of "rebound"), then many mountains may have been levelled.

The current Terceira Ridge (spreading center) is a result of the current Africa plate rotation with respect to the Eurasia. Was this caused by a pivotal collision with Atlantis? That remains to be seen. Much more evidence is needed to confirm that hypothesis.
Report Spam   Logged

LoneStar77
(Carl Martin)
"Now we have proof that something BIG happened right when Plato's Atlantis subdided. We have the 'smoking gun.'"
www.MissionAtlantis.com
Qoais
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3423



« Reply #40 on: September 17, 2010, 10:18:41 am »

Quote
I'm sorry to say, Qoais, that this just goes to prove my point. You don't read carefully enough! I was talking about the event 65 million years ago which destroyed the dinosaurs, and you counter with the apparent disproof of the event 13,000 years ago which destroyed the mammoths. Dinosaurs do not equal mammoths. They are completely different creatures living at completely different epochs of Earth's past. 65 million years ago does not equal 13,000 years ago

OHMYGOD!!  What a terrible mistake.  I'll have to be taken out and shot at dawn Cheesy

It still all boils down to one thing.  We can only base our conclusions on the facts that have already been proven.

The statement "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is sooo over done.  What we have is what we have.  IF in the future, evidence is discovered to change what we know now, then of course our conclusions will change as well.  That's the scientific way.  Until that happens, we can only use what we have.  Anything else is pure speculation.

I think it's wonderful that science is continually discovering new information, eg:  the boats being older than previously thought, so perhaps in the future, we'll find that wheels and chariots etc., are older than we now think as well.  Will we find a lost civilization in the Antarctic?

I doubt it. 



Report Spam   Logged

An open-minded view of the past allows for an unprejudiced glimpse into the future.

Logic rules.

"Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong."
Ostanes
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 60


« Reply #41 on: September 17, 2010, 07:19:04 pm »

We can only base our conclusions on the facts that have already been proven.
If that's true then how come you base your assumptions on the rejection of proven evidence and on no evidence whatsoever?

Quote
The statement "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is sooo over done.
Not surprising coming from someone who doesn't believe in scientific evidence or the historical record.

Quote
What we have is what we have.
What you have is Meinong's Jungle; what Plato had is called reality.

Quote
IF in the future, evidence is discovered to change what we know now, then of course our conclusions will change as well.
LOL.  Even if Atlantis was discovered you still wouldn't believe it.

Quote
That's the scientific way.
That was certainly Plato's way; sadly not the pseudoscientific way.
 
Quote
Until that happens, we can only use what we have.  Anything else is pure speculation.
Your assumption that Atlantis does not exist is pure speculation.

Quote
I think it's wonderful that science is continually discovering new information, eg:  the boats being older than previously thought
LOL.

You're welcome.

Quote
so perhaps in the future, we'll find that wheels and chariots etc., are older than we now think as well.
Already been done.  However you wouldn't believe the evidence if I showed it to you.

Quote
Will we find a lost civilization in the Antarctic?

I doubt it.
You know because God has told you.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2010, 07:20:22 pm by Ostanes » Report Spam   Logged
HereForNow
Superhero Member
******
Posts: 3278


HUH?


« Reply #42 on: September 17, 2010, 07:22:04 pm »

Lonestar77 the explanation of what happened was an excellent idea. However, a feature like a moutain which was mentioned by Plato as well would be found in the location you mentioned right?

Good question. Which "mountain" are you talking about? I believe Plato talked about many mountains surrounding the fertile valley -- the breadbasket of Atlantis. Based on the rough description of size, Atlantis (if it existed) likely stretched from near Gibraltar (and Gadira) to the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at the Azores. Each of the islands in that area (possibly including the Madeira Islands, and very likely including the Azores) is in essence a mountain reaching up from the sea floor. In the case of the Azores, the base of each island is itself on an underwater plateau (the core of Atlantis?).

The indistinct nature of the plate boundary west of Gibraltar may be a result of the destruction of Atlantis. An 11 or 12 on the earthquake scale is outside the experience of historical man, yet Atlantis sinking would likely have been that strong of a temblor. Would some mountains become flattened on the ocean floor with that strength of a quake? I suppose it depends on the nature of the subsidence. If, as I suspect, Atlantis collapsed from post-glacial isostatic adjustment (from the opposite of "rebound"), then many mountains may have been levelled.

The current Terceira Ridge (spreading center) is a result of the current Africa plate rotation with respect to the Eurasia. Was this caused by a pivotal collision with Atlantis? That remains to be seen. Much more evidence is needed to confirm that hypothesis.


I'm sure that there would be coastal evidence of perhaps huge mega-tsunamis on all the continents surrounding the great Atlantic Ocean in such an event. Maybe showing more evidence of this type of cataclysm would reveal a central point of origion.  for example;


Smiley As for a mountain, we could invent a name for one if there are any.

« Last Edit: September 17, 2010, 07:52:38 pm by HereForNow » Report Spam   Logged

LoneStar77
Full Member
***
Posts: 47


Carl Martin - Writer, Artist and Software Engineer


WWW
« Reply #43 on: October 03, 2010, 11:35:56 pm »

I have always had a relatively easy time with logic. Perhaps that's why I aced mathematics in school. I would've gotten an "A" in college calculus if it hadn't required so much memorization of lengthy verbal proofs. The calculus professor warned everyone that he never gave out "A's." I should've taken his warning. Oh well.

The math part was a cinch. I even did my Monday night's calculus homework during Tuesday night's Astronomy class, because it was due for Wednesday night's calculus class, and that was the only time available. Easy, and my astronomy prof didn't mind because I knew all the answers to his questions.

I graduated with my bachelor's degree, summa cum laude. Okay, big deal. I still make mistakes from time to time. My IQ is only about 138-139. All three of my younger brothers have far higher IQ's.

There will always be someone smarter and brighter than me. The more humble I remain, the more I can learn. My theories of geology have evolved over the years as I've learned more and more.

On logical debate, my biggest boost came from my Speech 104 class in college. I learned about cognitive dissonance, balance triangles and logical fallacies. I also learned that all conclusions based on a set of facts are not created equal.

Some people make exaggerated, over-the-board, claims from a set of data, and their conclusions are non sequitur. Let me give you an example.

I currently have no evidence that Einstein ever had a childhood. So, I could conclude that Einstein never had a childhood. Some conclusions are this funny. Yes, it's true I have no evidence of it, but this conclusion is an argument to ignorance (a logical fallacy). It also ignores the fact that all humans go through a childhood phase prior to puberty and adulthood; also that there are no known instances of a human not going through a childhood phase. And there is no plausible reason to suspect that a human could ever skip the childhood phase.

No truth is ever overdone if it is constantly ignored. In fact, with humility, I've learned a great deal from reviewing simple truths multiple times. Teaching my Filipino nephews English and mathematics is giving me new insights on these subjects.

To conclude that there was no Atlantis from the fact that we have no proof of chariots earlier than say 2500 BC, is a poorly-founded conclusion. Atlantean ground assault vehicles (if they ever existed) may have been more like tanks, for all we know, but "tank" was not in Plato's vocabulary.

I have a lot of evidence that suggests Atlantis existed, yet I do not conclude that Atlantis did exist. I still do not have direct proof of that. Such a conclusion would be unfounded. By the same token, those who conclude that Atlantis did not exist are working with shaky logic, at best. All that they can say is that it is possible Atlantis did not exist. And I would agree with them 100%.

For those who have not yet seen it, I have an Atlantis video which tells, in layperson's terms, a plausible scenario for the geological formation and destruction of Atlantis. I also have a "Geology of Atlantis" article which goes into the more technical side of things, including sources and a more detailed analysis of the facts.

Rod Martin, Jr.
Azores: Buried Treasure in Atlantis
Georgia: Children of Atlantis
Atlantis Tours
Report Spam   Logged

LoneStar77
(Carl Martin)
"Now we have proof that something BIG happened right when Plato's Atlantis subdided. We have the 'smoking gun.'"
www.MissionAtlantis.com
LoneStar77
Full Member
***
Posts: 47


Carl Martin - Writer, Artist and Software Engineer


WWW
« Reply #44 on: October 03, 2010, 11:48:23 pm »

Lonestar77 the explanation of what happened was an excellent idea. However, a feature like a moutain which was mentioned by Plato as well would be found in the location you mentioned right?

Good question. Which "mountain" are you talking about?

Smiley As for a mountain, we could invent a name for one if there are any.

HereForNow, you stated earlier, "...a moutain [mountain?] which was mentioned by Plato..." but you have not yet told me where in Plato's works he mentions "a mountain." What's your reference?

And thanks for the video and the ideas on tracking the source of mega-tsunamis. Very nice.
Report Spam   Logged

LoneStar77
(Carl Martin)
"Now we have proof that something BIG happened right when Plato's Atlantis subdided. We have the 'smoking gun.'"
www.MissionAtlantis.com
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum | Buy traffic for your forum/website
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy