Scientists Debunk themselves into a corner

Post Reply New Topic

It's hypothetical but plausible. DNA and archaeological evidence already indicates humans were capable of crossing the Pacific ocean in sea worthy craft 30,000 years ago.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-07-22-ea ... -years-ago

And that's hard science, not irrational nonsense.

More evidence of ancient cross ocean travel
https://www.science.org/content/article ... n-ancestry

Indian sailors were capable of building sea going vessels that travelled from India all the way to New Zealand
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/t ... ew-zealand

this technology goes back thousands of years obviously, so pre-diluvian sea going people is hardly that shocking. thus Atlantis is plausible (even if it was just a central hub for sea peoples that once thrived thousands of years before Plato).

None of that does anything to provide any evidence in support of Atlantis.

Plato's Atlantis was a 3rd hand story
Solon went to Egypt and heard the story of Atlantis from Egyptian temple Priests
Solon told his nephew who was Plato's uncle
Plato's uncle told Plato
Plato told us in his writings

I imagine there was some exaggeration. But the origin of the story is 9000 years ago there was a sea kingdom who were very powerful before being buried by rising sea levels. I'm not sure why that's such a hard story to believe, particularly since Plato was known for his integrity and sober manner he wrote events around him.

It isn't hard at all to believe that there were villages that disappeared due to rising sea levels.

What is hard to believe is all the embellishments that have appeared over the years to create the fable about Atlantis. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that such villages were any different than other villages of the time. Until there is actual evidence that some place such as the claimed Atlantis actually existed, it is insane to push those claims as if they were true.

All I'm saying is that human societies evolved in a non-linear fashion coming back from population bottlenecks and having to remember and rebuild after cataclysms caused by climate and/or meteors and war and famine etc....

There is a big step between saying that events can happen and claiming that it somehow means that there were advanced civilizations before that.

"Could happen" does not mean "did happen".

If there were advanced civilizations we should be able to find their carbon emissions in ice cores.

We don't.

I am not a spokesperson for Graham Hancock or Plato. What I am suggesting is that they and many others have uncovered that human technology has likely progressed in a non-linear way due to cataclysm and population bottlenecks potentially over 12,000 years and perhaps even further back.

What I am sceptical is the exact level of technology which is impossible to gauge due to evidence. Plato's Atlantis has been made to sound in modern times like some type of tech paradise with flying craft and undersea cities. this is largely a creation of overblown imaginations that feeds into conspiracies. When you read Plato's writings the civilisation he speaks of likely did exist. A seafaring population who were probably not unlike the sea peoples who interacted with the ancient Egyptians, the Phoenicians, ancient Indians and even Pacific Islanders (the latter were capable of using logs lashed together and travel from Easter Island in the middle of thee pacific all the way to Madagascar in the Indian ocean. If these relatively unsophisticated craft could be navigated across such vast distances of ocean then why is it so hard to believe that such seafarers established a civilisation 9000 years before Plato?

Second, the megalithic era that goes back beyond 5000BC in places Malta and Gobleke tepe shows paleolithic people were quite capable of building relatively advanced structures. Again the oldest evidence of building technology and craftsmanship in predynastic Egypt, Lebanon, Sumer, Olmec and Mayan ruins in South America, Indian Indus civilisation and Pacific Islands (Nan Madol and Easter Island) could not be replicated by later civilisations. What came after the oldest civilisations never quite reached the dizzying heights of their predecessors and left unanswered questions about moving thousand tonne blocks, laser precision craftsmanship in sculpting and masonry and the strange underwater structures including what appear to be harbours inundated in places like India 9000 years ago.

these apparent discrepancies should be investigated by geologists, engineers and chemists. Not archaeologists whose entire careers are built on fixed interpretations of history and gatekeeping who has access or who has the right to publish (case in point the attacks on indigenous geoscientists in Indonesia or Italian geoscientists in Egypt).

Simply parroting sceptics without holistically looking at the evidence is not science.

Some evidence entirely precludes the premise though.

Some of the issues here may be the result of completely different interpretations of the language.

A village is not a civilization. It may be a small part of a civilization, but it is not a civilization. A civilization is much more than a village even if the village includes some portions of what it means to be a civilization.

A village thousands of years ago might be a baby step toward a civilization, perhaps a babystep that is not followed by any more baby steps, but to grow a civilization is going to require regional cooperation between a number of villages. It also requires at the very least, a number of common institutions including government, education, religion, and business. I do not believe that it is even possible to have a civilization without widespread trade.

There is plenty of talk here about a few early communities and/or villages. Nobody is going to argue that there were no small villages in antiquity. Civilization is far more recent than that.

A real or mythical village swallowed up by rising sea levels does not make it a civilization.

A lot of the requirements you put as criteria for civilisation are based on projections from Greek and Roman times. Advanced civilisations did exist well before that time that showed no evidence of government, education or religion. the Indus valley civilisation is dated to 4000BC based on land excavations but evidence of harbours under the ocean suggest a seafaring culture that is likely 9000 years old. And not surprisingly the Sumerians refer to them as Meluha, a commercial trading partner in the east who traded (among other things) Lapis Lazuli from the hills of Afghanistan and carnine beads made in the Indus and found in bounty in Sumer. Archaeologists assume they travelled overland but why do that when ocean travel is 10 x faster.

the Indus is an example of advanced civilisation which has no form of hierarchy, no standing army, no central government and no kings or lords and no organised religion. People in this sprawling civilisation which > Sumer and Egypt combined focused purely on trade/commerce and had communal baths which appeared to be the only form of social mixing evidenced from this otherwise complex well organised/built empire. they appeared very ahead of their time as such societies didn't really emerge till communism in the 20th century.

There is a great deal that we do not know about the Indus Civilization. There are some thoughts.

A few comments, though.

In a civilization, it is crystal clear that it can encompass a wide variety of countries/nations or, in antiquity, different autonomous regions or even city-states that have, to a degree, some things in common. Each may have their own rulers, religions, ... . Their religions may or may not involve enormous temples. They might easily, in days of antiquity, have been primarily outdoors. And there may or may not have been standing armies among the various city-states or countries.

In our western civilization of today, there is no US Civilization, there is no British civilization, there is no French Civilization, there is no Australian civilization. We share our civilization and there is no common kind/ruler, no common religion, no common standing army. But we do have a wide variety of government, education, religious, and business institutions, not just one of each.

If you distill down the "accepted" criteria it boils down to:
Stable food supply - Indus valley had agriculture and supported a population > Sumer and Egypt combined
System of government - this involves leadership and in the Indus there is no evidence of hierarchy which probably means a harmonious society, something not achieved even in 2025
Highly developed culture - this is highly subjective what this means
Written language - this involves record keeping, there is some debate whether the Indus script was ever used for any other purpose other than commercial records
Social structure - Again is this necessary? heirarchy is inherited from the warlike fuedal roots of Europeans
Religious system - superstitious belief is hardly advanced, spirituality and harmony with nature is more advanced and the Indus people appear to venerate/respect animals that were important to them rather than worship. Also they seem to practice yoga so were probably more advanced in terms of Malsow's heirarchy of needs than as poor schmucks in 2025.
Advances in technology - clearly Indus people were advanced in town planning, plumbing, building technology, transport, shipping, agriculture and mining. they seemed to be a very functional people not given to frivolous pursuits.

More suppressed archaeology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_und ... _formation

It's 50,000 years old, so first they said it was natural, not man made. then came the underwater sonar


Now they say it can't be 50,000 years old

Small problem, its very deep underwater, so what do they do? any further research get's blocked.

They got all that from low quality sonar maps?

Yeah, sure.