Seafloor survey buoys Atlantis claim

[Dover]

Seafloor survey buoys Atlantis claim
Andreas von Bubnoff


Earthquake debris shores up evidence for lost city.
© Nature

"There occurred violent earthquakes and floods. And in a single day and night of misfortune... the island of Atlantis disappeared in the depths of the sea."

This account, written by Plato more than 2,300 years ago, set scientists on the trail of the lost city of Atlantis. Did it ever exist? And if so, where was it located, and when did it disappear?

In a recent paper in Geology, Marc-Andre Gutscher of the European Institute for Marine Studies in Plouzané gives details of one candidate for the lost city: the submerged island of Spartel, west of the Straits of Gibraltar.

The top of this isle lies some 60 metres beneath the surface in the Gulf of Cadiz, having plunged beneath the waves at the end of the most recent ice age as melting glaciers caused the sea level to rise.

Geological evidence has shown that a large earthquake and a tsunami hit this island some 12,000 years ago, at roughly the location and time indicated in Plato's writings..cont'd

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050718/full/050718-13.html

[donco6]

1. Atlantis has always intrigued me - skeptic that I am.

Thanks for the interesting article.

[Bill McBlueState]

2. additionally,

"The geophysics is well done, the geology excellent," says geologist Floyd McCoy of the University of Hawaii, Kaneohe, of Gutscher's study. "But most of Plato's description of Atlantis is so ambiguous and open to interpretation."

This is sort of what I'm thinking. How is it that "We found a submerged island" gets turned into "This is the former home of the specific city Plato wrote about"?

People don't think they've found Hobbiton everytime there's evidence that someone lived under a hill.

[Maple]

9. It was a conference

on Atlantis...specifically for that purpose.

And they don't say this was it...they say there are half a dozen candidates, each with it's own shortcomings.

The sunken island is one of them.

[beam me up scottie]

10. Lost city ? BWAHAHAHAHAHA !!!

So 12,000 years ago, Spartel might have been 40 metres higher than expected, and could have measured five by two kilometres.

The conference in Greece came to no firm conclusions about the city's existence. But researchers managed to agree on 24 criteria that a geographical area must satisfy in order to qualify as a site where Atlantis could have existed. The place must have accommodated such oddities as hot springs, northerly winds, elephants, enough people for an army of 10,000 chariots, and a ritual of bull sacrifice.

:rofl:

The serious investigator of the myth of Atlantis must read Ignatius Donnelly's Atlantis: the Antediluvian World (1882). In the spirit of von Däniken, Velikovsky and Sitchin, Donnelly assumes that Plato's myth is true history. Much of the popularity of the myth of Atlantis, however, must go to popular writers such J.V. Luce (The End of Atlantis, 1970) and Charles Berlitz, the man who popularized the Bermuda Triangle and the discovery of Noah's Ark. His Doomsday, 1999 A.D. (1981) comes complete with maps of Atlantis and drawings by J. Manson Valentine. Graham Hancock is doing much to keep alive this tradition of "alternative" and "speculative" history and archaeology which seeks a single source for ancient civilizations. Scientists and the BBC don't think too highly of Mr. Hancock's efforts

Atlantis and the aliens

These "alternative" archaeologists have credited the Atlanteans with teaching the Egyptians and the Mesoamericans how to build pyramids and how to write, etc., arguing similarly to von Däniken that ancient civilizations burst on the scene in a variety of different places on earth and have a common source. Atlanteans or aliens, either way the case can be made for a common source for ancient civilizations only if one selectively ignores the gradual and lengthy development of those societies. One must also ignore that the writing of the Egyptians is no clue to the writing of the Mayans, or vice-versa, and that the purpose of their pyramids was quite different. The Mesoamericans rarely buried anyone in their pyramids; they were primarily for religious rituals and sacrifices. The Egyptians used pyramids exclusively for tombs or monuments over tombs. Why would the aliens or Atlanteans not teach the same writing techniques to the two cultures? And why teach step building in Mesoamerica, a technique not favored by the Egyptians? If you ignore the failures of the early pyramid builders and ignore their obvious development over time, including the development of underground tombs with several chambers, then you might be able to persuade uncritical minds that Giza couldn't have occurred without alien intervention.

Finally, one should wonder, I suppose, if the Atlanteans were such technological geniuses who shared their wisdom with the world, why did Plato depict them as arrogant warmongers?

Unfortunately for the New Age Atlanteans, there is no credible and convincing archaeological or geological evidence for either Atlantis or Mu. That has not stopped hundreds of people from concocting theories to the contrary. To paraphrase Whitehead, the belief in Atlantis, the ancient and great civilization, is another footnote to Plato.

See also alternative science, confirmation bias, pseudoscience, selective thinking, self-deception, any entry listed in New Age Nirvana, or Mass Media Funk 22.

http://skepdic.com/atlantis.html

[Celebration]

12. it's because of the conference

There was that conference about Atlantis so everyone dusted off all their research about various undersea (now) mountains. It was an opportunity for a lot of scientific speculation. I am not sure that everyone was saying that their particular research on their particular ex-islands proved that they were necessarily Atlantis, but more that well, they possibly could have been. And a good time was had by all.

I think I would want a few artifacts--some really large sunken pyramids could convince me. Lots of ancient myths are about a big flood. Are they all talking about the same event? A mega tsunami of some sort? Or it could be just some separate rainstorms all over the world.

On a related note, Mike Wallace went to interview (through interpreters) some native islander types in Indonesia, that were spared the fate of their neighbors during the tsunami. The native elder herded people up to the hills. Why? Their ancient rituals that are practiced by them to this day included stories of the immediate precursors of tsunamis, and instructions on what to do. So, along with the animals, they were saved. It was a very interesting show.

[greyl]

38. Pivotal question.

"How is it that "We found a submerged island" gets turned into "This is the former home of the specific city Plato wrote about"?"

realism vs delusion

[Maple]

3. Gee, there even appears to be

scientists involved. Cough.

[Pepperbelly]

4. It's all been decided ...

What a waste of time! :sarcasm:

And why drag this rotting carcass into the SCIENCE forum? :wow:

[Maple]

6. Heh heh heh

Yeah, apparently so.

At least..er...locally. :D

[Dover]

7. lol! I'm really enjoying this.

So what we HAVE managed to ascertain is that islands DID sink...and quite quickly too.

Still working on the issue of advanced civilizations exiting prior to our 'modern' version.

Imagine the writings of a mere 'philospher' like Plato "set scientists on the trail of the lost city of Atlantis".

[Pepperbelly]

8. Past the pillars of Hecules ...

I spent a month in Rota once, right next to Cadiz. Beautiful climate. Very pleasant place.

Right next to the deep blue sea.

[greyl]

14. And please don't friggin forget that.

Burn it into your brain.

If you refrain from the cheapshots about scientists and males, your "arguments" would be more concise.

[peacetalksforall]

5. Thanks for posting. n/t

[Ysolde]

11. But there are other possibilities...

besides a submerged island. I saw a very interesting documentary about a city (can't remember the name) that actually subsumed due to liquifaction from a massive earthquake and the sea was able to rush in. And, this wasn't the first time that it had happened in that area of Greece as they found evidence from a Bronze Age settlement that had been underwater as well. And, the most interesting part was that these excavations are taking place in the Greek plains (not at the seashore).

[greyl]

13. "Not a Bronze Age culture as described by Plato"

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050718/full/050718-13.html

[beam me up scottie]

15. Guess they left that part out too.

Woo Woo Credo Rule #31:

Whenever you read something on the Internet, re-post it as fact. Never bother to do even basic research into the matter.

[Maple]

16. It also said

this is one candidate out of several.

[greyl]

19. And none of those fit the bill either.

"At present there are half a dozen candidates for Atlantis's location, each one with its own shortcomings."

In case you can't see it from your biased perspective I'll explain. That means "None of the Candidates Satisfy the Scientific Criteria"

[Maple]

20. Agreed

but we don't know how much of Plato's story was embroidered over time either. Probably a great deal.

That doesn't mean anybody needs to shut down the search and discount the whole idea.

And thankfully, some genuine scientists are not doing so.

[greyl]

23. Agreed. Belief is not required for scientific method to function.

When faced with dumb opinions that "scientists think they know everything", "scientists don't consider hard to prove hypotheses", "scientists are dogmatic" etc please refer to the Atlantis conference as often as you humanly can.

The thrill of discovery is huge turn-on for scientists.
They just have higher standards for getting turned on than woo-woos.

When they're turned on, scientists can be reasonably sure that it's the real thing, not a junior high crush.

[Maple]

25. Not all scientists are close minded

And those willing to consider new ideas are often frozen out by the science establishment.

Also please stop pedalling the line about how excited scientists get over 'new knowledge'

Not if it overturns vested interests and grant money they aren't.

They are not some kind of nobility ya know, just plain ol' human beings. No higher standards either, sorry.

[greyl]

27. Point by point.

"Not all scientists are close minded"

Yes, most of here agree with that statement. Who would ever be so careless to blurt that scientists as a rule have closed minds?

"And those willing to consider new ideas are often frozen out by the science establishment."

Corporate corruption is a totally different topic. Why add it here?
Now, if you brought up religious, dogmatic, emotion-based woo-woo shunning of science, logic, and individual critical thinking...
that'd still be a different topic.

Anyway, a scientist is on a higher scale of evolution than the science establishment they hope to influence, as is every member of any organization. An individual can respond to dynamic quality. An institution protects it's own static quality (identity). Scientific method and rational thinking supported by passion can and do change the science "establishment" eventually precisely scientific knowledge itself is provisional - compare science with astrology and be amused by how science is still plodding along with the sacred ancient wisdom of 5000 years ago and takes unkindly to honest inquiry and new discoveries.

"Also please stop pedalling the line about how excited scientists get over 'new knowledge"

Crap and that was the first time I used it. It's damn true, and I won't stop saying so just because it violates your stereotype that scientists are cold and devoid of emotion.

"Not if it overturns vested interests and grant money they aren't."

Those are bureacrats, not scientists. Different topic, remember?

"They are not some kind of nobility ya know, just plain ol' human beings."

I never implied that they were. Stawperson argument.

"No higher standards either, sorry."

The scientific standard of analysis and argumentation (based on the branches of philosophy known as metaphysics and logic) is very high indeed.

[Maple]

28. Actually you don't appear to have a point

Mostly you're just flogging a long-dead horse.

The 'science establishment' is well-known I'm afraid, and petty, bloody academic back-stabbings and bun tosses are legendary. Vested interest in the status quo, not to mention the chance at tenure, grants and 15 minutes of fame on Oprah produces a lot of closed minds. :D

I'm afraid you're no different than Torquemada with these 'arguments' of yours. Sorry, but heresy lives. You'll just have to get over it. Your thumb-screws and stake have been revoked.

This was a conference of scientists doing exactly what I've been promoting...keeping open minds, and doing some genuine investigation.

You just can't make up your mind if you support that or not. LOL

If you do..you have no point to make. If you don't, why are you even discussing science? It's about the pursuit of knowledge you know.

I didn't say a word about scientists 'being cold and devoid of emotion'...perhaps you've confused them with Spock?

Scientists are often very emotional in fact...prima donnas par excellence...high maintenance...'princesses', male or not. LOL

And most of them would be much improved by a high colonic.

And as to this line 'Anyway, a scientist is on a higher scale of evolution'....bwahahahahahahahahaahahaha

No, better yet.... :rofl:

[greyl]

31. Keep looking nt

[Maple]

33. Nah...waste of time

You have no point. You're just trying to stay awake past your bedtime.

[greyl]

17. "ActualAtlantis" needs to be held to a higher standard than chemtrails.

I'm satisfied that scientists on the whole, and the multi-disciplinary scientists at that recent Atlantis conference are up to the task.

[Maple]

18. Two entirely different topics

Why throw them together in here??

[greyl]

21. Please meditate on my post until you understand it.

I think a comprehension of what analogy is would be beneficial before you delve into Plato.

Some understanding of logical argumentation wouldn't hurt anybody either.

I'd like to see you respond to my previous post, instead of following this low-value tangent.

[Maple]

22. I'm not into meditation thanx

and I have a degree in science.

So save the patronizing 'tude for someone else.

[greyl]

24. It was only a suggestion.

Don't close your mind to it.

Anyway, like I said before, I'd like to see you respond to the other post and not continue this low-value tangent.

[Maple]

26. I never do

I've actually tried meditation ya see.

Now perhaps you could try oiling those rusty hinges, and opening your mind.

Because so far, all you've done is become huffy over the fact some actual scientists do investigate topics outside the box.

Something I recommend to all scientists.

You have no case here. Try another thread.

[greyl]

29. That's not what I heard.

/end low-value tangent

[Maple]

30. That'll teach you to listen to rumor

LOLOL

[greyl]

32. Look, if ya only wanna trade quips and stream of consciousness

witticisms, just say so in advance.

[Maple]

34. Well you can't talk science apparently,

you just wanna complain and hoot about nothing in particular beyond some Don Quixote fantasy...so I'm afraid laughter in return is as good as it gets.

[Ian David]

40. Next you will tell me that Planet Beta III is just an analogy?

And I suppose that Landru and "The Body" are just some kind of metaphors?

Then how would you explain the pictures from this documentary?






Why would anyone (like Plato) create an imaginary world with an imaginary history just to make moral and philosophical points?

[greyl]

35. By "buoys Atlantis claim", nature.com meant that a spate of

message board threads would appear about the topic (edit:linking to their article/edit), not that there is newfound evidence that Plato's Atlantis has been discovered.

Another sad case of a sensational headline from a publication I expect better from.

[Maple]

36. Actually it meant what it said

The fact you don't understand plain English (buoys vs discovered) is your problem.

[greyl]

37. THE HEADLINE WAS MARKETING BULLSHIT.

Nature.com knows that sensational headlines assure more referred hits to their site than valid content does. Just like ABCs 20/20 knows that they could be assured a certain audience if they promised a story that "Raises the Question of Plato's Atlantis".

The conclusion of nature.com's article wasn't that there is now more evidence that Plato's Atlantis was non-fiction. The headline isn't fitting for the article and was intelligently designed to fool people into going to their for-profit site.

The story did not back up the headline.



ps. you are an ad hominem machine.

* Ad hominem means "arguing against the person", trying to undermine an argument by attacking the arguer rather than the reasons he or she cites.

[Celebration]

39. Ahem

I agree that the story did not back up the headline. And it may have had to do with getting people to go to their for profit site. Nevertheless it was an interesting article. It is also commonplace that the title of a scientific article is posted here.

Since I am sure that many who come to the DU Science Forum now are so misled by the title of this thread (and the title of the Nature article) that they are now not only misguided themselves into an incorrect belief system, and are spewing irrational nonsense all over, that I think we need a new forum!! A Science forum without thread titles--only initials.

It would also be very beneficial in keeping the rationalism here to a maximum if someone would donate web space where we could copy articles like Nature (with permission of course) sans titles, so that this irrationalism is more than one click away. All traffic would be directed to the copied page, and Nature would not see the financial benefit of their misleading title--at least not from DU.

If that is too extreme, a black box warning could be put at the top of the post--

WARNING--TITLE MISLEADING--CLICK ON NATURE ARTICLE AT YOUR OWN RISK!!

I am sure all that would take care of any objections, and articles in Nature should still be up for rational discussion here.

However, we do need to consider that there are some people here that might click on the Nature article anyway, and be misled.

We may need to go to management with this problem.

[Maple]

41. Oooh VERY good!

Goodness knows we wouldn't want someone to faint dead away over a headline!

I mean, the shock to the system alone....!

(Although buoys vs discovered seems clear to most people)