Message #54909

[Bianca]

Greg Little

Member
Member # 2829

Member Rated:
   posted 04-21-2006 09:11 PM                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Des:

Yes, the oldest dates for anything resembling a "city" goes to about 8000 BC. That is one of the major and most effective arguments against Plato's Atlantis being a literal story. (Of course, the fact that Plato went to great lengths to describe the complete destruction of it is ignored in the argument.) In his new book, Andrew Collins details a temple site in Turkey, with an associated community, dated to 8000 BC. His earlier book, "From the Ashes of Angels" details a lot of other sites in Turkey dated to about the same time.

As to others' comments, my intention is not to argue that the Americas was Atlantis. Let me say that again. I'm not saying that the Americas was Atlantis. In 10,000 BC most of North America was still uninhabitable (cold) as was a lot of the north Mediterranean region. What I hoped to do was bring some relevant facts to the irrational argument against the Americas as Atlantis. It's been said by many that there were no elephants, horses, or bulls in the Americas in the time of Plato's Atlantis, and that's not true. They were here in large numbers. They just became extinct around 9000 BC or so, the same basic time as the Carolina Bays Event. Is it coincidence? I don't know. As to chariots in the Americas dated to 10,000 years ago, I'd like to see any chariot from anywhere that is that old. Therein lies the problem. The argument that chariots were in use in the Middle East in 3000 BC is irrelevant. Where are the 10,000 BC chariots from there? Not one that old has ever been found, anywhere. So it is irrelevant that a 10,000-year old chariot has never been found in the Americas. They have never been found anywhere. Does that mean Atlantis existed in more recent times and that Plato's date was wrong? No one knows. It's probably correct to lean on the side of the argument that his date was wrong. But to me that underlies his total credibility. I specialize in criminal psychology, and from that perspective, if he was that wrong about the date, then his entire story has to be suspect. That's my perspective, no one has to accept it.

The essential problem in all of this is people are speculating about the location of a civilization that was far older than any known civilization and was also said to have been destroyed. The circular and irrational reasoning here is that since someone doesn't see the remains of Atlantis in a given place, they argue that it can't have been there.

The so-called "Old-World" appears to have been younger than many cultures in South America. What does it mean? It means we just don't know much that happened in the Old World before 3500 BC and just about nothing at all about the Americas' prehistory. There is a great mystery in this that does not seem to fit accepted beliefs.

There is nothing wrong about speculation as long as it isn't confused with science. And Atlantis is a motherlode of speculation. Based on this, mainstream archaeologist and textbook author Kenneth Feder has asserted "Atlantis never existed." He speaks for most of the mainstream. Nearly all Atlantis speculations are completely irrational, at least as many scientists see it. What exists is a story told 2300 years ago or so, said to have been passed down. The story is twisted to fit where people live, what their favored beliefs happen to be, and where it is convenient to look.

When I realized the futility of Atlantis speculation, I decided that the best approach for me was to go to specific places and conduct research to see what is actually there. In truth, that got me away from speculating and into something far more interesting. With that, I'll say good-hunting to all.