Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9180 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,259 Year: 5,516/9,624 Month: 541/323 Week: 38/143 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atlantis
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 20 (383613)
02-08-2007 5:10 PM


My Chicano studies class is slowly and surely turning into quite the freak-show as far as presented theories are concerned. As an alternative to the (apparently) far too "Euro-Centric" view of American native inhabitants arriving via the Bering Land Bridge, my professor has put forth the theory (though not entirely of her own invention--as you will see) that the American natives may have originated from the lost continent of Atlantis, which may have also been the point of origin for African humans (and thus all the world's people).
The text we were reading which prompted her to offer this "theory" up was Aztec Myths and Cosmology by Arnold Carlos Vento, Ph.D. Here are some excerpts from the text, which can be found here:
[These quotes can all be found on page 15 of the text]
quote:
After comparing
historical legend and science regarding prehistory,
there is no question that geographically, the earth has
undergone many changes and the evidence points to the
existence of large land masses (now represented by thousands
of islands) in the Pacific as well as the Atlantic.
  —"Vento p. 15"
quote:
Esoteric
literature refers to Aztlan as a massive continent that
included a very large island portion of that continent.
Hopi medicine men see the Native American coming
from the "mythic" Atlantis first mentioned in the West by
Plato in Timaeus (5 B.C.). Pliny, the Roman naturalist,
discusses this ancient continent in his Natural History in
1 A.D. Most interesting is the inclusion of this continent
by early Arabian geographers; it was admitted by French
essayist and intellectual, Voltaire and Montaigne; likewise
by the brilliant mind of Francis Bacon. Even American
archaeologist Edward Thompson gave credence to its existence.
The problem is not one of existence of continents in
different locations of our evolving planet but rather one of
time.
  —"Vento p. 15"
quote:
It is also possible that the biblical and universal Great
Flood may have occurred during these cataclysmic periods.
Finally, the word “Atlantis” or “Atlantic” is Aztec in
origin. In Aztekah-Náhuatl the word Atlantike means “we
live by the sea,” as may have been the case with the ancient
Atlantic continents. In summation, Aztlan refers to the
place of origin of the Aztin or Uto-Aztecan tribes who left
their homeland out of necessity crossing a body of water in
Acalli (boathouses), reaching what is now the mainland of
the United States and stretching into Mexico and possibly
portions of South America.103 It is likely that their ancient
continent disappeared in connection with the rising sea
levels after the last glacial period circa 8000 B.C.
  —"Vento p. 15"
My own opinion on this is that Atlantis was a crock (at least in the sense of it being the origin for humans and a point for migration to America from the West), and that this guy needs to remove his head from his arse (if only for just a second), to realize that humans originated in Africa, and migrated into America during the last glacial period by crossing the Bering Land Bridge.
Does anyone else have an opinion in this?
J0N

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by kuresu, posted 02-08-2007 5:29 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 3 by jar, posted 02-08-2007 6:00 PM Jon has replied
 Message 7 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-08-2007 8:30 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 12 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2007 1:24 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 18 by Doddy, posted 02-09-2007 5:59 PM Jon has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2630 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 2 of 20 (383627)
02-08-2007 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
02-08-2007 5:10 PM


After comparing
historical legend and science regarding prehistory,
there is no question that geographically, the earth has
undergone many changes and the evidence points to the
existence of large land masses (now represented by thousands
of islands) in the Pacific as well as the Atlantic
this guy is not familiar with tectonic theory. this alone refutes his hypothesis. we have had several "pangeas" and "panthassalas".
problem for him, is the last pangea started breaking up around 600 mya. the atlantic is only slightly larger now than it was 40,000 or 4,000,000,000 years ago. the setup today is young (compared to earth's history), but has been around a while.
It is likely that their ancient
continent disappeared in connection with the rising sea
levels after the last glacial period circa 8000 B.C
so, we should then, see evidence of a massive continent under the seas. there is no such landmass. the islands don't count, either. here he's saying that the continent was buried by water. not that it was destroyed by massive volcanism (even yellowstone can't destroy N. America). And if it is truly a continent, then it should be made of continental crust (which differs in composition from oceanic crust). There are no massive areas of continental crust totally covered by water. oh, and they all have a vast majority of their surface above sea level. another problem, is that sea levels didn't rise thousands of feet after the end of the last glacial period--more like hundreds of feet. this means that the supposed continent would have to be within 1000 feet of the surface.
As to the origins of "atlantic", I'll look it up later.
yeah, you're teacher's a crackpot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 02-08-2007 5:10 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-08-2007 6:38 PM kuresu has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34136
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 3 of 20 (383647)
02-08-2007 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
02-08-2007 5:10 PM


Hopi?
You know I was lucky enough to know quite a few Hopi and spend considerable time with them, yet not one seemed to think they came from Atlantis.
I have a feeling someone is just making shit up.
Here is their Emergence Myth

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 02-08-2007 5:10 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Jon, posted 02-09-2007 6:16 PM jar has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 20 (383666)
02-08-2007 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by kuresu
02-08-2007 5:29 PM


this guy is not familiar with tectonic theory. this alone refutes his hypothesis.
If you assume tectonic theory is correct, yes. There are other theories too, ya know...such as Crustal Displacement, for example.
so, we should then, see evidence of a massive continent under the seas. there is no such landmass.
Crustal Displacement theory points to Antartica as a possible Atlantis. I realize this isn't applicable to you point of there not being an underwater continent, I just wanted to mention it because you seem to be unaware of this theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by kuresu, posted 02-08-2007 5:29 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by subbie, posted 02-08-2007 6:50 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 6 by anglagard, posted 02-08-2007 7:26 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 02-08-2007 8:35 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 9 by kuresu, posted 02-08-2007 11:04 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 20 by anglagard, posted 02-09-2007 6:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1372 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 5 of 20 (383670)
02-08-2007 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by New Cat's Eye
02-08-2007 6:38 PM


Crustal displacement
If I were you, before I started talking publicly about "crustal displacement," I'd find a more authoritative source than this woman:
Crystalinks Home Page

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-08-2007 6:38 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 954 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 6 of 20 (383682)
02-08-2007 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by New Cat's Eye
02-08-2007 6:38 PM


Crustal Displacement Baloney
Catholic Scientist writes:
There are other theories too, ya know...such as Crustal Displacement, for example.
It would take a long post to point out every flaw in this article, so I'm just going to take out the mechanism that supposedly drives this 'crustal displacement.'
In the article it states that the earth has a liquid layer some 100 miles beneath the surface. This is false according to what is known and can be observed concerning the behavior of waves in solids and liquids.
Ever wonder how geophysicists came up with the model of the earth's interior with its solid crust, denser mantle, a liquid outer core, and a solid inner core? It is because of the way waves travel in solids and liquids. There are different kinds of waves created by earthquakes: pressure waves, shear waves, Love waves, and Raliegh waves. Pressure waves travel through solids and liquids, shear waves do not travel through liquids, they only travel through solids. You can not 'shear' a liquid.
The reason why geophysicists know that the outer core is liquid is because if an earthquake occurs, there is a sizeable area on the other side of the earth where there are only pressure waves but no shear waves. If there was a layer of liquid 100 miles deep, this sizeable area on the other side of the earth where only pressure waves and no shear waves are picked up would be a lot larger.
Therefore the proposed driving mechanism for crustal displacement, a liquid layer 100 miles down, flat-out does not exist.
That, and as Subbie pointed out, the source of your information appears to be a looney that believes in everything except science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-08-2007 6:38 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4045 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 7 of 20 (383696)
02-08-2007 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
02-08-2007 5:10 PM


um, Thera?
it is my opinion, that sociologists make everything up. like feminist studies people who claim that we have to abandon math and science because they're formed on masculine principles and thus are flawed.
*readies for the yelling*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 02-08-2007 5:10 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2007 1:33 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 8 of 20 (383697)
02-08-2007 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by New Cat's Eye
02-08-2007 6:38 PM


lol
Crustal Displacement theory points to Antartica as a possible Atlantis.
Didn't you know that Cuba is a remnant of Atlantis???
http://www.andrewcollins.com/page/articles/atlantiscuba.htm
Or .... was it ...
Haktanir Blog - Earn Knowledge

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-08-2007 6:38 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2630 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 9 of 20 (383732)
02-08-2007 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by New Cat's Eye
02-08-2007 6:38 PM


aside from what everyone else has said, even in the link it says that this theory is based off of continental drift (which, by the way, is explained by plate tectonics).
i won't even get started on the fact that this can't explain pangea.
Antarctica doesn't even fit for the traditional myth--wasn't atlantis consumed by fire and water over night? totally gone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-08-2007 6:38 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 20 (383743)
02-09-2007 12:01 AM


multiple replies
Subbie from Message 5
If I were you, before I started talking publicly about "crustal displacement," I'd find a more authoritative source than this woman:
Well, perhaps that is good advise. I admit that I “talked publicly” before actually looking into the authoritativeness of my source. The link was only intended to provide reference to the theory, not serve as proof of it.
Now that I look at it it looks pretty bad. This source was not my introduction to the theory but the result of a "quick google search" that seemed to provide a good outline to theory to someone who seemed to have never heard of it. I honestly did not look much past the first few lines, followed by a quick skimming page-down, of the page when I linked to it as I was short on time. It did look like a good explanation of an alternate theory to tectonic theory, that kuresu seemed to accept without question. My purpose was only to provide an alternate theory, suggesting that tectonic theory did not necessarily refute an idea that something else might have happened.

Anglagard from Message 6
It would take a long post to point out every flaw in this article, so I'm just going to take out the mechanism that supposedly drives this 'crustal displacement.'
I’m sorry that I haven’t fully read the link and am not familiar with all the flaws and mechanisms proposed.
In the article it states that the earth has a liquid layer some 100 miles beneath the surface. This is false according to what is known and can be observed concerning the behavior of waves in solids and liquids.
Is it possible that the theory does not revolve solely around this layer and could still be (partially) correct without it?
Ever wonder how geophysicists came up with the model of the earth's interior with its solid crust, denser mantle, a liquid outer core, and a solid inner core? It is because of the way waves travel in solids and liquids. There are different kinds of waves created by earthquakes: pressure waves, shear waves, Love waves, and Raliegh waves. Pressure waves travel through solids and liquids, shear waves do not travel through liquids, they only travel through solids. You can not 'shear' a liquid.
I have not had the time to fully consider the theory so you’ll have to excuse me from discussing these points right now. I’m educated in liquid dynamics and their lack of shear, by definition, so lemme look into it more before offering any kind of argument.
That, and as Subbie pointed out, the source of your information appears to be a looney that believes in everything except science.
Honestly, though, does the “looneyness” of a theory really discredit it that much?, considering that some of the currently accepted theories were pretty looney when first proposed.

RAZD in Message 8
Didn't you know that Cuba is a remnant of Atlantis???
No, never heard that before. Again I have more reading to do before taking an actual position in this thread. And again, again, the link was only there to shown an alternate theory.
I think kuresu blindly accepted tectonic theory as fact and refutation for other theories without actually “looking into” it. Perhaps this is the attitude that makes creationists view science as a religion, but that is not on topic for this thread, although it might be a good example in others.

kuresu in Message 9
aside from what everyone else has said, even in the link it says that this theory is based off of continental drift (which, by the way, is explained by plate tectonics).
Yes continental drift is explained by plate tectonics but not solely, it is one of the results, and also a result of other theories too.
i won't even get started on the fact that this can't explain pangea.
I think pangea is a result of plate tectonics theory and that if plate tectonics is not true then perhaps pangea, as currently accepted, is not either. But it doesn't take much to conclude pangea, i mean, just look at the globe and how well South America and Africa fit together, along with the fossils that cross both continents. However, the evidence for pangea does not necessarily oppose the Continental Drift theory, IIRC. I think, again IIRC, that the "pangea" of Continental Drift theory is a bit diffenrent that the pangea of tectonic theory, as far as which continents were connected and where. But I think that your point that Coninental Drift theory doesn't explain pangea is not totally accurate.
Antarctica doesn't even fit for the traditional myth--wasn't atlantis consumed by fire and water over night? totally gone?
I don’t think that Antarctica is suppose to fit into the traditional myths, the ones with the consumption you speak of. I think it is suppose to replace those.

To all:
But damn, guys, this really does exemplify the opposition you get from even mentioning an alternate theory. I mean, if anything other than mainstream science is even proposed, it is jumped on. The defense mechanism I see seems to show some of the religious attributes of science, that if you don’t “go with the flow” then everyone teams up against you. Again, this part of my response is not on-topic, and should not be replied to, but only serves as a shoehorn for other threads that suggest the religious aspects of science that you are exemplifying (Other than anglagards actual arguments against the theory). I hope you don’t reply to this part in this thread but maybe these arguments can be linked to in others. But don’t get me wrong, I don’t think that science is religious, only that it does seem to have some common attributes with religion. this thread.

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by kuresu, posted 02-09-2007 12:19 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 02-09-2007 6:57 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2630 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 11 of 20 (383748)
02-09-2007 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by New Cat's Eye
02-09-2007 12:01 AM


Re: multiple replies
um dude, i'm taking an intro to geology class. one of the first things they go over is the proofs of tectonic theory. we're going much deeper into later on. we only heard of the "crustal displacement" (it wasn't even called by that name. just mentioned as the whole surface moving like you mentioned).
i don't accept things w/o question.
ABE:
I think pangea is a result of plate tectonics theory and that if plate tectonics is not true then perhaps pangea, as currently accepted, is not either. But it doesn't take much to conclude pangea, i mean, just look at the globe and how well South America and Africa fit together, along with the fossils that cross both continents. However, the evidence for pangea does not necessarily oppose the Continental Drift theory, IIRC. I think, again IIRC, that the "pangea" of Continental Drift theory is a bit diffenrent that the pangea of tectonic theory, as far as which continents were connected and where. But I think that your point that Coninental Drift theory doesn't explain pangea is not totally accurate
dude, continental drift is plate tectonics. the former is the result of the latter. read up on the theory of plate tectonics.
Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-09-2007 12:01 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 12 of 20 (383755)
02-09-2007 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jon
02-08-2007 5:10 PM


my professor has put forth the theory (though not entirely of her own invention--as you will see) that the American natives may have originated from the lost continent of Atlantis,
unlikely. the aztecs arive in the their promised capital in the 1300's. if aztlan is atlantis, they certainly spent a LONG time somewhere else, first. the only interesting coincidence i can see is that tenochtitlan bears some passing resemblance to plato's atlantis.
quote:
Finally, the word “Atlantis” or “Atlantic” is Aztec in origin.
coicidence. like it or not, you're using "euro-centric" names derived from greek. in this case, both owe their origin to the greek god atlas.
Edited by arachnophilia, : ugly ugly line breaks!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jon, posted 02-08-2007 5:10 PM Jon has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1461 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 13 of 20 (383758)
02-09-2007 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by macaroniandcheese
02-08-2007 8:30 PM


um, Thera?
santorini (thera) and the mycenean culture that lived there is indeed a good candidate for a model for atlantis for a number of reasons. the fit the book on everything except for a few small claims
atlantis is actually supposed to be a city in a body of water, in the middle of a large plain, with mountains on one side. people often get caught up on the island part, and stop. the other big difference is time.
i've heard a number of claims, from the flood of noah, to a city of the island of cyprus, to bimini, to cuba, to someplace in south america, to a city on the straight that separates mainland greece from the islands. by far the best explanation i have ever heard is that it is simply a generalized cautionary tale, directed at athens, using common folklore, memories of cataclysms, etc.
it is my opinion, that sociologists make everything up. like feminist studies people
don't forget art majors! we're all bullshitters.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-08-2007 8:30 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-09-2007 8:58 AM arachnophilia has not replied
 Message 16 by macaroniandcheese, posted 02-09-2007 9:06 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1522 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 20 (383780)
02-09-2007 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by New Cat's Eye
02-09-2007 12:01 AM


alternate theory?
But damn, guys, this really does exemplify the opposition you get from even mentioning an alternate theory. I mean, if anything other than mainstream science is even proposed, it is jumped on.
It's not an alternate theory until it explains the existing evidence as well as the current theory - the onus is on the proponent(s) to show that this is the case - then you make a prediction based on the alternate theory that would not be true for the current theory to see which one pans out.
Without those elements it is an ad hoc concept, usually dreamt up to support some wished for result ... putting the cart before the horse.
Personally I find "Atlantis theory" rather humourous. And I agree with arach on the most likely source of this myth.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-09-2007 12:01 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4045 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 15 of 20 (383798)
02-09-2007 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by arachnophilia
02-09-2007 1:33 AM


yes, but you're supposed to make things up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by arachnophilia, posted 02-09-2007 1:33 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024