'Lost Civilisations'

SusanB-M1

Incurable Optimist
SusanB-M1
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
3,766
I would be grateful for a little help here, please. I have asked the poster concerned for a link to info about the site referred to here, but so far no answer. Could someone - Marduk if he's reading? - give me the correct counter-argument to the claim made that this is the site of an ancient, lost civilisation? Thank you.

Susan,
A sunken city stretching 9 km on both banks of an ancient river, 30 miles out into the Gulf of Cambay, was found by side-scanning sonar(used to find the Titanic), with walls, streets intersecting, structures square, rectangular and round. This is no "what if"! It is there, and mainstream archaeology ignores it
Click to expand...
 
Professor Yaffle
tThank you for the links - I'll follow them up. The GH board is where I'm posting!!:) (Susan Doris there)
 
SusanB-M1 said:
I would be grateful for a little help here, please. I have asked the poster concerned for a link to info about the site referred to here, but so far no answer. Could someone - Marduk if he's reading? - give me the correct counter-argument to the claim made that this is the site of an ancient, lost civilisation? Thank you.
Click to expand...
I saw this and immediately thought "Marduk" lol :)
 
Having read the first link, I put in a rational reply! And the response was less way out!
 
theres nothing there
heres the sequence of events
1 2001 Niot discovers anomaly
2 Minister for ocean development announces its a lost city, fringers rejoice
3 Niot dredges up a piece of wood which doesnt prove anything
4 real Indian academics line up to debunk it
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1905/19050670.htm
thats all, the obvious question to ask here is as the claim for a submerged city was made by an unqualified politician without any evidence, what has happened to any supporting evidence in the decade since then, no one managed to take a photo yet,
;)
 
Last edited:
Classic "Willful Ignorance Fallacy"... :rolleyes:

When someone finds archaeological counter to your historical line, the only real question SHOUD be "where's the evidence?"

---

Finding stuff where we haven't looked shouldn't be surprising...or unacceptable.

Glaciers tend to scrape the land free of evidence, usually right into the sea. With a following rise in oceans level one should expect to find evidence of ancient civilizations 'under the oceans'...

At last count the Earth is a couple of billion years old right? How absolutely arrogant is it to hold solidly and without regard to contradicting evidence that 'advanced intelligent life' is only 5-6,000 years old? That before that, only 'primitives' roamed.

I think it is FAR more likely that many civilizations and cultures have risen, fallen, and indeed disappeared...utterly lost to history, as to how they did what they accomplished. And we have only touched the surface of Earth's actual history.
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
Classic "Willful Ignorance Fallacy"... :rolleyes:

When someone finds archaeological counter to your historical line, the only real question SHOUD be "where's the evidence?"

---

Finding stuff where we haven't looked shouldn't be surprising...or unacceptable.

Glaciers tend to scrape the land free of evidence, usually right into the sea. With a following rise in oceans level one should expect to find evidence of ancient civilizations 'under the oceans'...

At last count the Earth is a couple of billion years old right? How absolutely arrogant is it to hold solidly and without regard to contradicting evidence that 'advanced intelligent life' is only 5-6,000 years old? That before that, only 'primitives' roamed.

I think it is FAR more likely that many civilizations and cultures have risen, fallen, and indeed disappeared...utterly lost to history, as to how they did what they accomplished. And we have only touched the surface of Earth's actual history.
Click to expand...

Think what you like. Believe what you like. But where's the evidence ?
 
Steve001 said:
Think what you like. Believe what you like. But where's the evidence ?
Click to expand...
Scraped off the face of the earth underneath a glacier and then dumped at sea, apparently.

How KotA expects any artifacts to survive a grinding over centuries by a glacier, I don't know.
 
King of the Americas said:
How KotA expects any artifacts to survive a grinding over centuries by a glacier, I don't know.
Click to expand...

i think it's perfectly reasonable to expect artifacts to survive grinding over centuries by a glacier, for certain values of "surviving." undoubtedly we can learn a great deal from water logged grit and grooved stones at the bottom of the ocean.
 
Last edited:
Marduk said:
theres nothing there
heres the sequence of events
1 2001 Niot discovers anomaly
2 Minister for ocean development announces its a lost city, fringers rejoice
3 Niot dredges up a piece of wood which doesnt prove anything
4 real Indian academics line up to debunk it
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1905/19050670.htm
thats all, the obvious question to ask here is as the claim for a submerged city was made by an unqualified politician without any evidence, what has happened to any supporting evidence in the decade since then, no one managed to take a photo yet,
;)
Click to expand...

Very many thanks, as always. I shall post accordingly!:D
 
King of the Americas said:
I think it is FAR more likely that many civilizations and cultures have risen, fallen, and indeed disappeared...utterly lost to history, as to how they did what they accomplished. And we have only touched the surface of Earth's actual history.
Click to expand...
Regardless of dates, I presume you consider any group of people as being part of a continuous line of the human species? In other words, not ETs etc!
 
Given how long there have been cities in India it would not be surprising to find one that had the misfortune of getting flooded out by a rising ocean or river. I'm sorry they bungled the archeological research there, it sounds fascinating.

However this can hardly be taken as evidence of a "lost civilization". It was at best a small port town of some civilization we already know about.
 
After reading KotA's posts (as well as Rramjet's, among others) I shall use this thread and now cast in electrons the "Wooful Ignorance Fallacy". Its when a woo ignores scientific data which contradicts his/hers pet beliefs/fantasies.
 
To spin this further: the "Wooful Ignorance Fallacy" is quite regularly used as a second step in digging ones hole deeper after application of the "making stuff up fallacy" :).


King of the Americas said:
Classic "Willful Ignorance Fallacy"... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


Using that term again and pretending it to be something widely accepted by using it in combination with classic (after repeatedly being called out on having coined it yourself), does not exactly work out in favor for your overall credibility.
 
Georg said:
To spin this further: the "Wooful Ignorance Fallacy" is quite regularly used as a second step in digging ones hole deeper after application of the "making stuff up fallacy" :).





Using that term again and pretending it to be something widely accepted by using it in combination with classic (after repeatedly being called out on having coined it yourself), does not exactly work out in favor for your overall credibility.
Click to expand...

OMG...LOL...

(both of those are officially words now, simply because they became popular usage)

The "Willful Ignorance Fallacy" is the same thing, regardless of who is ignoring evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom