Slashdot Mirror
Sunken City Found Off Of India
Raindeer writes "A city only known from old myths about seven pagodas and thought by Western scientists not have existed, was found off the coast of India. The myths speak of six temples submerged beneath the waves with the seventh temple still standing on the seashore. The myths also state that a large city once stood here which was so beautiful the gods became jealous and sent a flood that swallowed it up entirely in a single day. " With the purported discovery of a city off of Cuba, as well as the the finding of Herakleion underwater archaeology is doing well.
And when can I buy my flight-enabling crystal?
(intended as humor)
~ now you know
So does this mean that we will have to watch more rotten Disney movies?
Mod me mad.
Sure... it's all fun and games until someone's hometown gets sunk.
Just maybe, human civiliation is a lot older and spread much wider, earlier, than we tend to believe.
My blog
According to the article, the date of discovery was April 1st. Can't think why they didn't announce it immediately...
Trev - used to be interesting. Honest.
From where we sit in modern times, ancient myths and legends are often considered little more than fairy tales. But given what we know about the effects of natural catastrophes - namely their ability to eradicate all traces of any civilization that once stood in their path - there is probably much that is buried, inundated or otherwise obscured from view.
One interesting question that is perhaps particularly revealing is, why are are so surprised whenever we find this stuff?
I'm interested in how exactly finding a city a few hundred or even thousand years old is evidence of creationism?
I'm neither an evolutionist or a creationist, I beleive in God and think that not matter how we got here, the fact is he made it happen, or at least provided the environment for it to happen.
My beleifs aside, I don't see how this proves creationism.
~ now you know
It might be R'ley or Leng.
Or even something worse.
Did they found any seals of the elder gods out there ?
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
Robert Ballard who found the wreck of the Titanic. According to the article he is searching the Black Sea "where four 1,500-year-old wooden ships were found two years ago. He's looking for evidence of a great flood, possibly linked to the story of Noah's ark"
http://www.kubuntu.org/
Actually, this city has sunk because the sea levels have risen since the last ice age. U see, during the last ice age, much of the ocean's water was locked up in ice. Sea level was about 300 feet lower than it is today. As the ice melted over several millenia, sea levels rose to their present levels.
Anyway, I think we would see some real evidence for a world engulfing flood that occured only 5,000 years ago. Using the bible's genealogy and stuff, scholars have pinpointed the year of Noah's flood according to the bible. It supposedly was around 2700 BC. Funny that the egyptians and the Sumerians never seemed to notice it!
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
OMG! That's horrible! You must work in the Foreign Policy department at the white house...
:)
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
You do realize that this city is over 5000 years old, and homo sapien was still homo sapien, even back then.
This is not evidence, either for or against creationism, or evolutionism. Sure, it's evidence of a particular legend possibly being true, but that's it. When you, and Indiana Jones, go and find the Ark of the Covenant, or the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, let me know. Until then.....
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
no one doubts the flood. Hell, there have been many theories about how the story originated. It most likely did happen.
I don't see how the finding of this city (or any other city) or that some city was flooded proves there is a god, and He created us.
Why is this "interesting?" The above comment is sheer nonsense, flaimbait at best.
Floods happen. End of story. How is this "proof" of creationism? How does this "disprove" evolution? This discovery does neither.
exactly what I was thinking!
more vindication for my theory that the Flintstones is, in fact, a documentary... They can't hide the truth forever.
No man is an island, but Gary is a city in Indiana.
I really not sure how this exists as evidence against evolution... one really has nothing to do with the other. changes in climates may change water levels resulting in a city being drowned. If you are arguing that this is somehow some "act of god," though this may be suggestive of such a thing, there is no evidence that confirms your position. or have I just been trolled?
I can't believe it's not lard!
I've never understood why academia seem so intent
on believing that civilization has only been
around
for the last 4 or 5 thousand years or so. After
all, if the genetic record is correct homo sapiens
have been around for a few hundred thousand years
at least and I find it far harder to believe that
in all that time all humans did was hunt and gather as opposed to them building cities and
towns. Carving blocks of stone , building roads
etc isn't rocket science and if some race had built
a city 100,000 years ago VERY little of it would
still be around today (Ice Ages notwithstanding).
Look at how little is left of most Roman ruins and
they're only 2000 years old!
Though Graham Hancock may come out with a lot of
BS at times , I think in this case he's spot on.
Let's see how quickly the evolutionists try to cover this one up.
Well, scientists have been proven wrong numerous times before, that's the difference between science and pseudo-science, you can't prove pseude-science wrong because they are based on a belive in themselves. (I.e. you can walk through that wall if you stop beliving it's there (and all of scientology's 'technology'))
The evolutionists will simply adapt to new facts (if there is anything that needs adapting, that is)
Science is a process, not a belive.
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Confused and thick.
Don't they teach anything at school these days?
What do you think happened at the end of the
ice age when all the ice melted? This is mentioned
in the article , perhaps you should try reading
it before posting.
Personally, if I heard a legend about 7 temples, and the 7th temple was not only already discovered standing on land, but also one of the most photographed temples in India, then I'd be inclined to believe the other 6 temples existed, wouldn't you? Call me wacky...
Back in high school Chem class, we had to argue pro or con for a Nuke plant to be built locally (one, rural Nevada... why bother?). Me, always being an argumentative dickhead, chose to Devil's Advocate the task, and sided with the whiny, anti-nuke hippies.
Aaaanyhow, one of the arguments that I had used was that there are extinct civilizations that have only died out as recent as FIVE HUNDRED YEARS AGO, and we, with all our fancy European-style education have yet to come within reasonable nearness to decyphering their written language.
So, I argued, what if... Something catastrophic happens again, and in a few thousand years, after civilization has dragged itself back up through the ashes to the point where its out exploring the seas again in galleys and colonizing the farthest reaches of the globe. What if... What if they stumble across the Yucca Mountain dump?
Now, they have absolutley no knowledge of what that yellow and black circle, divided up into sixths means. They're seeing metal signs with an indecypherable alien text on them. They find these vaults, and manage to tunnel in and are exposed to radiation. Potential catastrophy there...
Anyhow. Since I got to thinking about that, then I start thinking some more. What if it had already happened once? What if Jericho weren't really the "First City?" What if we humans became significantly advanced (pre-industrial age or so?) then got wiped out by the encroaching glaciation? Which would explain the decided lack of structures and monuments, with the notable exception of the alleged sunken cities in the Sea of Japan, off India and Cuba.
I read somewhere that the temples at Ankor could be upwards of 12k years old. Which predates the "Fertile Crescent" civs by at least a thousand years...
Just the ruminations of a crazy drunk that's been up for three days. Responses would be keen, a full-fucking-fledged discussion would rock.
Why is it when I hit ^R that ZSH calls me a cocksucker?
Does anyone else find it interesting that the article says:
"The discovery was made on 1 April by a joint team of divers from the Indian National Institute of Oceanography and the Scientific Exploration Society based in Dorset."
Sounds like it might have been a joke that the BBC picked up on about 10 days late...
Mac
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
The Earth has a climate, to think man has any larger influense on that is
it's in my head
Let's see how quickly the evolutionists try to cover this one up.
How do you make this leap of logic based on the article? And why we are here, why is it that evolution and religion have to be mutually exclusive? I am a hard core scientist (neurophysiologist), that also happens to believe in God. What is there to say that God cannot work through evolution? To deny evolution exists is to be blind to the world around you.
Think about the following:
Why is it that bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics? Evolution. This is a reality and we have to deal with it daily.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
I am so very glad to see something that doesn't obsess over games or get overly chipper about a new piece of hardware that is 0.01 percent faster. Finally, something with a human element.
Nothing to raise water levels? Other then the ice age ending, natural temperature changes over time, etc. Yeah, just because all us nasty anti-Luddites weren't there belching out hydrocarbons from our SUVs doesn't mean that the seasonal temperatures remained constant over all those years.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Actually, the ancient "Floods" were contained to only the black Sea area. They were caused by the melting glaciers and a slight rise in sea level that over flowed a portal that protected the area that was around the black sea which was under sea level. Also, the biblical flood is actually strangely similar to the story of Giglemesh (SP?). This story was told in Babylonian courts and is thought to have been borrowed by early Jewish people that were seeking refuge in the Babylonian court. There has actually been a lot of scientific research done in this area proofing a large localized flood. Such as remains of aquatic life that was fresh water being replaced by salt water organisms very quickly. Do a google search on Black sea flood or something for more info.
Isn't that this city was there. It is that it's story has been passed down through oral tradition from what they think is 5000 years ago.
Its always the same isn't it. Years and years and no citties to be seen. Then suddenly three turn up at once! ;-)
First, the surviving temple is certainly not 5000 years old: it dates from the 7th or 8th century AD.
Second, Hindu civilization itself is old but not that old. For temples of this kind, 1000 BC would be an optimistic early limit; 3000 BC is out of the question.
From this article it seems that the claim of 5000 years comes from Graham Hancock, a controversial writer about "lost civilizations". I'd like to see the opinion backed by some credible evidence.
I went to the city because I wished to live without deliberation.
Found on April 1 with a team leader by the name "Monty Halls?" Sounds like a prank to me...
Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
I don't know why it has to be a "global" flood - didn't they even imagine the earth as a globe back then? Or flat w/ Heaven above the clouds? Anyway, it is possible that, say, the black sea was once a landlocked area below sea level with some cities and settlements - you know, people didn't really travel much or communicat over vast distances then, so "the world" was pretty much your local town and outlying areas - so that once the ocean rose enough or eroded the barrier enough the below-sea-level area could have experienced a catastrophic flooding, possibly flooding out some towns. It's entirely possible that someone could have gotten advance word from a traveler that it was going to happen and built a boat and wrote a morality play about the wickedness of mankind into the whole geological event. We'll just have to collect more evidence.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
From the article: Expedition leader Monty Halls said...
Light cup, beer drink, thin so chain, neck turtle fat, man I won't say it again
If this proves correct, it would date the discovery at more than 5,000 years old.
Actually I thought the sea level rose about 120 meters at the end of the last ice age (starting about 20,000 years ago)
There are some interesting graphics here: One, Two, Three
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
One of the people quoted in that article, Graham Hancock, is often on the Art Bell show. Regardless of what you think of Art or the show, it is always interesting when Graham is on.
http://www.artbell.com/
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
Here is the text as requested by some users:
An ancient underwater city has been discovered off the coast of south-eastern India.
Divers from India and England made the discovery based on the statements of local fishermen and the old Indian legend of the Seven Pagodas.
The ruins, which are off the coast of Mahabalipuram, cover many square miles and seem to prove that a major city once stood there.
A further expedition to the region is now being arranged which will take place at the beginning of 2003.
'International significance'
The discovery was made on 1 April by a joint team of divers from the Indian National Institute of Oceanography and the Scientific Exploration Society based in Dorset.
Expedition leader Monty Halls said: "Our divers were presented with a series of structures that clearly showed man-made attributes.
"The scale of the site appears to be extremely extensive, with 50 dives conducted over a three-day period covering only a small area of the overall ruin field.
"This is plainly a discovery of international significance that demands further exploration and detailed investigation."
During the expedition to the site, divers came across structures believed to be man-made.
One of the buildings appears to be a place of worship, although they could only view part of what is a huge area suggesting a major city.
Jealous Gods
The myths of Mahabalipuram were first set down in writing by British traveller J. Goldingham who visited the South Indian coastal town in 1798, at which time it was known to sailors as the Seven Pagodas.
The myths speak of six temples submerged beneath the waves with the seventh temple still standing on the seashore.
The myths also state that a large city once stood here which was so beautiful the gods became jealous and sent a flood that swallowed it up entirely in a single day.
One of the expedition team, Graham Hancock, said: "I have argued for many years that the world's flood myths deserve to be taken seriously, a view that most Western academics reject.
"But here in Mahabalipuram we have proved the myths right and the academics wrong."
Scientists now want to explore the possibility that the city was submerged following the last Ice Age.
If this proves correct, it would date the discovery at more than 5,000 years old.
"Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can." -EV
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I love how you boldly make this statement yet you offer 0 reasons as to why this would favor creationism.
"Can't sleep. Clowns will eat me"
Southern Baptist -- "See? They worshipped their gods and look what our God did to them!"
Hindu -- "We were right all along."
Creationist -- "Let's see how long it will be before the evolutionists try to cover this one up."
Evolutionist -- "Where is my shovel?"
Historian -- "Legends really do rave a basis in fact, whoda thunk it?"
Captialist -- "Get your 6 temple tour here today!"
Di$ney -- "We are working on our new film, Searh for the six temples. PLease pay our Congressmen accordingly."
Mafia -- "Oh damn, there goes our hiding spot."
</humor>
<serious>
Our world is so huge and our history is so enormous. Why is it that when a site of great historical impoartance is found that there are always dozens of holy rollers that try to twist it more than what it is? (That being an archaeological find.) I find it amazing that we could be so close to something so signifigant and think it wasn't there for 2000 years. Kinda makes me wonder about Atlantis.
Secondsun
There is nothing wrong with being gay. It's getting caught where the trouble lies.
They have discovered what they think to be the site of the great flood, around 5500BCE around the Black Sea. The idea is that it was a large, freshwater lake before then judging from the shellfish they've dug up in core samples. After the 5500BCE layer they find only saltwater shellfish. The earth wall at istanbul collapsed and the sea rushed in, doubling the size of the Black Sea.
The Babylons did notice, for there is a legend of Gilgamesh searching for the survivor of the great flood, which eventually turned into the Noah story in Genesis from what I understand of it.
And even if it isn't the origin of the biblical flood, it's still a pretty cool discovery.
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
The article mentions the 'researcher' Graham Hancock. This same guy has written a few books and hosted a few shows about his alternative history of the civilization in ancient times. Basically he contradicts the history that most of us probably know wrt Egypt and the Aztecs. He's considered somewhat of a quack.
He does has some good points though. One of which is that every major civilization has a flood myth of some fashion. This doesn't mean that this is evidence for a creationist view of the universe. What he argues is that there most likely existed a global environmental disaster, most likely a flood, that occured in ancient times and was incorporated into the myths of many cultures.
-?-
Didn't you read the article?
Quote:
"...a large city once stood here which was
so beautiful the gods became jealous and
sent a flood that swallowed it up entirely in a single day. "
-- &&
Uh, oh...
All this talk about flood myths, and, hey, wasn't there a lot of water in that Attack of the Clones preview?
I Think that thats too long a time sacle for humans. Weve been "human" for the past, call it 500,000 years give or take, which is nothing in goelogical, continental drift terms. THe continents probably moved a mile or two in that time.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
You didn't read that comment, did you? Ballard is looking for evidence of a great not global flood.
Best Slashdot Co
A flood at the end of the last Ice Age (ca. 9,000 BC)? I am shocked, shocked to learn that the melting of planet-girdling glaciers could somehow be linked with deluges of water.
The case against seems to be that (a) the earliest settlements accepted by most archeologists go back perhaps 6000 or 7000 years, and these are flimsy houses built of wood, reeds, thatch etc - not monolithic dressed stone covering many thousands of acres. Secondly, if these civilisations existed, they would surely have built in OTHER places than right next to shore lines -- where are their ruins on land? In one of the programs he looked at a stone-age Japanese society (one I hadn't heard of previously) - however these are " only " 5000 years ago, and built using wood.
Of course there are plenty of lunatics, new age freaks and other riff-raff -- the "jesus was a spaceman, UFOs built Atlantis" types -- who should of course deserve nothing more than laughter, pity and contempt. (Try to explain the distinction to my girfriend though... *sigh*... a great way to teach oneself patience and forbearance... =)
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
So, what do they call it internally, the Nation-Wide Web?
Go figure. Well despite being a poorly documented academic, his stuff tends to read like creationist babble and tends to frequently single source for theories that support his ideas, he's doing a pretty good job of pursuing his theories and attempting to make the traditional scientific community (archaeological) reconsider their current theories. If nothing else his books put together various theories in a way that make you think. He's been pretty obsessed about Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings by Charles Hapsburg.
I'm impressed, he may eventually get past crack pot status.
Archaeology is doing so well because archeologists finally grew brains and started incorporating geology into their work.
For years, archaeologists have thought like this "these people liked to live by rivers, so lets dig around by rivers and see what we find!", when in fact, they should have been thinking like this "these people liked to live by rivers and hung around here about 10,000 yeras ago, lets figure out where the rivers were 10,000 years ago and dig there!".
Sea level has risen significantly since the last ice age. Most population centers in the world are right on the coast, and that hasn't really changed for a long time. Therefore, to find old population centers, one must look where the shoreline USED to be, which is now underwater.
Don't be surprised if you start hearing about more and more of these types of discoveries - none of them are Atlantis.
...civilization on the other hand...
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Similar stories of a great flood are recorded within many cultures besides the Judeo-Christian Bible. For example, as I am sure everyone here as already heard in many history/literature classes, The Epic of Giglemesh. The American Indians also have a tail of a man getting into a boat because of a great flood. One could debate as to whether the flood covered the earth, only part of the earth, or possibly it appeared to these people that is was the whole earth because the known earth to them at this time was quite vast, but in reality it was only a part.
This site although in Japanese, does have some very nice photos of the shore temple that didn't sink. One thing to note is, these monuments were all carved from one stone.
As seen in this photo here this is all ONE rock.
Very impressive.
I think all the Nostradamus sooth-sayers are slacking off, I'm pretty sure the current world events (including this) were all described.
Pi Spiral Theory Illustration
Hammer of Truth
Every couple years somebody annouces the "discovery" of an ancient underwater city. They're usually characterized by massive, blocks of stone neatly organized in the formation of a wall. (Couldn't tell if that was what this article was talking about - not enough detail.)
However, what usually happens is the general scientific community decides that it's actually orthogonal jointing of beachrock - which it turns out is pretty common (Bimini Road, Tasmanian Parking Lot, the referenced story about Cuba, etc.). There was actually a pretty interesting segment on TLC (I think) about this a couple weeks ago.
A similar, fairly recent find is the controversial "pyramids" found off the coast of Japan. There are many web sites about this site, but a pretty decent one can be found at http://www.lauralee.com/japan.htm. There is a lot of debate about whether these structures are man-made or natural. Either way, there are some pretty cool pictures:
http://www.lauralee.com/japan/japan1.htm
http://www.lauralee.com/japan/japan2.htm
Send/track messages to 100K people: www.xPressAlert.com
Hmm. So humans just are too minor to have any substantial effect? While the other things you say are true, that is TOTALLY over the top. Regardless of how the planet is going on its own, we're doing a fair bit to screw it up as well.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Humans evolved to their current form (more or less) almost half a million years ago. That leaves plenty of time for societies to rise up and disappear into dust in a relative blink of an eye. It seems we only remember those who leave massive monuments that endure across the millennia.
I know it seems impossible right now, but I wonder if we will be forgotten 10,000 years from now. I bet those who build the pyramids thought they had the universe under their thumbs, just like we do today. Call me pessimistic, but somehow I don't see our civilization as the enduring type.
Maybe a day will come when people worship our telecommunications "gods" as they glide across the sky.
ummmm.....sarcasm anyone??
As a Christian myself, I do not accept this date or the methodology used to derive it. In fact, I find it an insult to my intelligence. I'm surprised that you do not have a better sense of self-worth.
-H
This city is part of the Indus valley civilisation. Most scholars believe the Indus language and culture were Dravidian, that is pre-Aryan and (probably) pre anything like Hinduism.
Hancock disagrees, but then, as you say, he's not the most reliable source of evidence.
Maybe you should ask yourself why is Venice sinking?
There are many reasons a city could sink - icecaps melting, built on poor soil, erosion, earthquakes (especially along certain types of faults), etc. Pick one.
Herculaeum sunk from a massive earthquake, at least according to old records about the city. 7 pagodas apparently from a rapid flood. I vaguely recall this legend from studying Asian mythologies (mainly for use in RPGs) but I can't remember any more details off the top of my head.
It's only a matter of time :)
Let's get drunk and delete production data!
...is a nutter. Pure and simple. He's right there in the nutter squad with such people as David Icke and Whitley Streiber.
Just because they may have found some ruins in the sea doesn't mean these ancient myths are true.
"Information wants to be paid"
>>Actually, this city has sunk because the sea levels have risen since the last ice age.
Um, the glaciers receded by about 10,000 BC, give or take 2,000 years.
This city supposedly dates maybe around 5,000 years ago (~3,000 BC).
Are you trying to say that it took 7,000 years for the water to reach this city?
I forget...are we at war with Eurasia or East Asia?
dude.. you ever get laid?
What I find most interesting is that Indian mythology also has a story very similar to Noah's ark.
To me, this points to one of two things:
1. A great flood (of some magnitude) or
2. A common cultural origin (more likely)
Mmmm.. Donuts
Rome was a republic, and bore little resemblance to what we might consider a democracy.
The city magistrates were elected (until Imperial times), but by (what would seem to us) a really screwy procedure. The popular assemblies, which qualify as direct democracy, only really became powerful at the time of the Gracchi, in the 2nd century BC. The Senate was a plutocracy (given that the primary qualification was a specific level of personal wealth).
Why however is Rome the canonical "really ancient civilization", and not, say, Sumeria? 753 BC, nothing.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
Objection overruled!
> Funny that the egyptians and the Sumerians never seemed to notice it!
They were too busy treading water.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Thank the poster of this comment for some common sense :)
Many people of a scientific persuasion (including Einstien) believe/believed that the fact that there is a ecosystem of such robustness and a universe that seems to have underlying order is as good an argument as any for a god....
Rational thought is the only true freedom
I'd email you, but you have no email listed. I have some very OT questions for you. Please drop me a line.
Why is it that bacteria can develop resistance to antibiotics? Evolution. This is a reality and we have to deal with it daily.
True... but this is a form of micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is something else. Even some creationists believe in micro-evolution
As Creationism is wrong (the science you are rejecting is based on the same principles as the science that allows you to use the internet), how can this be still more anything other than misunderstanding on your part? So what if theres a shelf of rock that looks manmade; so what that it is under water? It doesnt mean anything except that people might have lived there a long time ago; it doesn't mean they were "civilised" or advanced...just dead! Science, people!!!! Not wishful imaginings!!
I just read thearticle, but could this be a little late come April fool's joke?
Also, note the name Graham Hancock. Isn't this the Fingerprint of the Gods guy?
I am rather skeptical of the discovery. I, for one, had never heard of the seven pagodas of Mahapariburam. South Asians don't use the word pagoda, in the first place, I think. Pagoda is a word used in Southasian Buddhist architecture context.
doens't that put them a few thousand years too late to be Noah's ark? i'm of course assuming the Old testament was written before 500 AD.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
The problem with the ever present "ancient civilizations" theorey is the course of our own civilization.
Working of metals from early bronze days to the industrial revolution was really only possible because the raw ores themselves were either found on the surface or very near it. Even with a glacial age it would not explain the preponderance of such ores in many areas (some of which would not have been affected by glacial ice)
Let alone the fact that some of the advanced metals (or not so advanced - your choice) that we have today will easily survive glacial ice or be found in such quantity to reveal that "something" did exist.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
And you offer 0 reasons why this doesn't devastate evolution.
I'm not making bold statements about the correctness of evolution. I am merely calling on you to back up your statement.
Reasons? Okay, first of all, evolution says that the Bible is false.
Wrong. Evolution does not mention anything about the bible. It mereely describes how organisms have developed over time. Certain people use the theory of evolution to show the bible is incorrect in some respects. In actuality the Bible and evolution go hand in hand if you go back to the ancient Hebrew interpertations. The word translated to day in most English Bibles actually means period of time in Herbrew.
The Bible says that there was a global flood.
Modern science says there was a global flood. Modern sciecne also says evolution is correct. Your methodology is flawed.
I love how you have attempted to disprove a theory with incredible amounts of evidence with a one sentence corrolation.
"Can't sleep. Clowns will eat me"
Try to search for the books that these guys write. You will mostly find reviews of there books explaining why there logic is critically flawed. I read a Josh McDowell book. His assertions are leaps of faith off a cliff. -Israel
The outer parts of older Alexandria are underwater too. Perhaps there is faster subsidence in some seashores.
The Feb 11, 2002 issue of India Today had the story of the discovery of Cambay off the coast of Gujarat in January of this year. The India Today website is subscriber only, but here is the teaser.
The article is somewhat sensationalist, but here are the highlights: Wood from the site has been dated between 5500BC and 7500BC. Structures found include stone roads, a bath complex, and acropolis-style raised platforms. Among the artifacts were large numbers of semiprecious stones and beads.
Genesis was based on the older Sumerian tale, you know. "Forest Gump" can been verified to be true also. Think about it.
perhaps the ancient civilizations that existed were moe like the aztecs who did not use any metals in construction and only presious metals in ornamentation. that way, he presious metals would ahve not been disernable from a huck of naturaly found stuff and the clay bricks and wooden swords would have been neatly returned to the eco system.
advanced civilization is possable with out using the resources that we use.
no need for what we have to be consdered advanced, just need a large population, a mature governmental system, and law enforcement. that is all.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Exactamundo!! Science looks to find answers, and is based on methodology. Pseudoscience tries to describe square pegs as being round, and fit them into triangular theories....
There was a set of links that showed up with this post including one regarding a French study. The author concluded that there actuall are several drowned islands, just west of Gibraltar, that were submerged about 11,000 years ago. Sea level at the height of the Pleistocene was about 400 feet (120 meters) below its present level. So, in fact there is a substantial piece of real estate now underwater that once was dry land when you consider the planet as a whole. The French author plans to dive on these "islands" this summer. It is worth noting - to us archaeologists any way - that this is the second drowned city found off India. Another was found last year in 120 feet of water off southwest India - the other side of the subcontinent from the latest find. My colleagues are unconfortable with the radiocarbon dates from this site, which reportedly run about 9,000 years old. This would tack a good 5,000 years onto the archaeology of civilizations, as opposed to less complexly organized societies.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
I'd email you, but you have no email listed. I have some very OT questions for you. Please drop me a line
Sure, I'd love to but your email address gives me Reason: Illegal host/domain name found and http://hookah.truedork.net:8080/ gives me no reply.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Expedition leader Monty Halls said: "Our divers were presented with a series of structures that clearly showed man-made attributes. The scale of the site appears to be extremely extensive, with 50 dives conducted over a three-day period covering only a small area of the overall ruin field."
Right, and now they're going to find tons of overly powerful items and monsters which are not dangerous considering the characters.
The Bible is a collection of lengends, some derived from actual events. -Israel
It doesnt need to be covered up. The more it exposes itself to rigorous scientific examination, the more flaws are exposed. (just like creationism) I saw the TV show that was made highlighting the discovery, and found it boring....all conjecture and BAD science. science is about fining out new things about the world, the universe, ourselves....not about fitting spurious data to tendentious argument. Even still, there is not doubt that there were people around long before us, and there were civilisations that prospered (in south America, a civilisation that prospered in peace for 1000 years has been found) What this should tell us, is that we are not special; that our ways are not progressive just because we think so, and that the world has a way to obliterate our memory, if we let it.
A lot of people have big issues with this guy.
The implications of many of his writings are that the people we *think* built great civilizations aren't capable of being that smart. For example, say the aboriginal Maya peoples of Central America couldn't have build all those great cities and pyramids, let alone figured out all that astronomy, etc.
Instead some other "greater" previous civilization is responsible. Whatever.
I have to agree. Metallurgy was one of several technologies that primarily developed for the purposes of war. (Secondary uses in agriculture and what not were happy accidents) If there was only one significant civilization (or a small number spread out geographically) there would be little incentive to worry about metals.
people with religious beliefs as their core values should at least try to acknowledge, that proof is not notional, or based on prayer, or even belief. Proof comes from the answers found to investigations carried out by ever questioning the current ideology; this comprises the greatest difference between religion and science. It is not a question of fitting what suits to the argument already proposed. Science frequently fails us with this same flaw, but has a self checking mechanism that ultimately corrects the problem. (in this case, proper scientific analysis of the data, rather than offhand conjecture) Religion generally suggests that to question is blasphemous.... Proof as a concept has a very definite meaning in scientific terms. People have built cities and settlements in bad locations since they started to build...if California falls into the sea after a major earthquake, would that provide evidence of something biblical to future generations that might discover the ruins....? Or just that the people of the time didnt feel the risk was enough not to go ahead and live there? Ultimately, there is no substitute for independent thought!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,682 031,00.html
Curiously, the expedition does not seem to include any professional archaeologists:
http://www.india-atlantis.org/
Graham Hancock, the most prominent member of the expedition, is well known for what might kindly be described as 'fringe' theories of ancient civilizations, Faces on Mars, etc:
http://www.grahamhancock.com/
For a critical view, see:
http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk/
Sounds a lot like the story of the Minoan Crete island, Thera/Santorini - the gods also became jealous, and the nation was sunk in a single day. For those not familiar, this is probably the city/nation referenced to by Plato (or is it Socrates? I get their works confused sometimes) in his account of Atlantis, which subsuquently is a story he got from a man in Egypt, who got it from his father, who was a supposed escapee from the 'sinking Atlantis'. It's quite a fascinating story, but kind of sad that things like Atlantis are debunked instead of being found in their whole glory. However, the Minoan society -was- quite advanced - their houses had cold -and- warm running water fixtures that came from pipes! Their society was destroyed by a large volcanic explosion that errupted from teh center of their island. No remains have been found of humans, so it's suspected there were earthquakes that warned them to leave. This Theran volcano is probably what destroyed the Crete civilization.
It's kind of interesting how there are multiple accounts of 'great cities/nations that sink into the sea, never to be seen again' throughout various cultures. I suspect we'll have such Atlantean rumours in the future as well - New York after the polar ice caps melt, anybody? "A city that never slept, with pillars that reached to the sky, holding the world together" - I can see it now. Very, very interesting indeed.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
And can we pick the city?
:-)
I vote for Redmond.
"Just because you're a genius doesn't make you a smart guy!" -- Narrator, Powerpuff Girls
actually, not quite true.... The rising sea levels will come not from ice melting, but rather from the basic law of physics that heating causes expansion. So they vast oceans will expand as they heat up; this is already happening and will continue......and has a far greater impact than just ice melting adding to the volume of water....
You are right to be open minded about such things.
... without significant evidence they are just that ... claims. I think it is quite possible ancient civilizations have risen and fallen, and had their every trace eradicated by glaciers, erosion, and who knows what else. However, without physical evidence one should view these things as hypothetical possibilities, not probabilities. As for the alien slant I agree with you entirely ... show me the alien, or stop wasting my time with nonsense. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
... when some natural catastrophe (possibly a yellowstone-like so-called super-volcano, possibly disease or climatic change) nearly wiped the species out.
However, others are right to be skeptical of many of the claims
Other interesting things are that geneticists have worked out that ALL current human beings are descended from around 2,000 humans at a point around 80,000 years ago.
Clarification. IIRC all humans are descended from a few thousand humans 80,000
However, everyone outside of Africa is believed to be descended from about 500 people who emigrated more recently. That's right, something like 90-95% of human genetic diversity is in Africa. The rest of us, be we European, Native American, Asian, or whatever, are all much more similar, having only 5-10% of the genetic diversity. I'll leave it as an excercize to the reader as to which group some future humans, having survived some arbitrary change in survival requirements and conditions, is most likely to come from (hint, the math can be done by any 10th grade algebra student).
That is why humanity is not like other animals like dogs for which there are a myriad of different shapes and forms.
First, dogs are not naturally occuring creatures. They were bred for specific characteristics and traits, indeed inbred extensively, which is why there are so many varieties of dogs, some taking very odd form. A better example would have been different wolves, or bears, whose differences exist because of natural selection and not human intervention.
Second, that bottleneck is one possible contributing factor to humankinds homogeneous nature. Other factors which may have been more important were the destruction of the Neanderthal and perhaps other intelligent primates we don't know about (i.e. the ethnic cleansing of a differing kind of primates, leaving homo sap alone to dominate the world), our ability to modify our environment (easing some evolutionary pressures that wolves and bears must endure), and probably numerous other things as well.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
so many sunken cities are known to people in India whats the big deal? ice ages arent the only reason for rise and fall of local sea level. tectonic events commonly cause changes in elevation of large area. If theyre near the sea, well..
all along the seacoast of india there are sunken "cities". archeology is expensive, especially marine underwater archeology. usually new findings are secondary to strategic ocean floor mapping for submarines or mineral-oil prospecting or plain snooping. Expect many more sunken cities to be "found".
As long as we are on this subject, there is a hugh ruin(?) discovered off the coast of Japan.
http://www.morien-institute.org/yonaguni.html
I said '?' is because nothing distinctly man-made (e.g. writings etc.) has been found, but a large number of structures that are too rare to happen just by erosion. Stuff like a perfect cube "stages" and lots of right-angled platforms just boggles the mind.
it is more correct to say that we are messing up OUR environment, rather than THE environment.... when Pangea split to form the continents, THE environment at the time was rather uniform, but altered radically as a result: the geological upheavals, the different oceans; the differece that brought in terms of precipitation and cloud formation....so the climate of this rock has always been changing... the worst we can do is make this place inhospitable for ourselves...(but sadly we believe that we are divine, and so this couldn't possible, ever, in a million years happen....(unless nostradamus said so...))
Not to mention Michael J. Fox finding Atlantis last year.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Spongehead Bob
Although.. he seems to been have encrusted with lots of mollusks
Live web cams
when will we find the lost Towers of Hanoi?
=]
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
Some of the people that make the claims are at least trying to find proof, although it would be helpful if they didn't claim that every submerged city was 8000 years old or so before any dating had been done!
That Yellowstone super-volcano is scheduled to erupt within the next few hundred years isn't it?
Say 10,000 years ago a group of 40 people left africa and went to india. Assume that there are two surviving offspring per person, and that a generation is 25 years. 40 people are not going to build a city, but 25 years later there are 120 people + children, 25 years after that 240 people + children, then ~500, then ~1000 and so on. A couple of hundred years and you have a need for several joined communities (10-20,000 people). Someone else can do the maths assuming a lifespan of around 40-50 years and more accurate survival rates for offspring, and maybe the generation gap was as low as every 15 years... add a few droughts and other population killers into the mix, and sell the result to Maxis.
"yes, this is pretty interesting, this is basically scientific proof of the genesis flood (you know, the one that evolutionists swear up and down "could NEVER have happened!") heh. 8-) my faith in Scripture grows each and every day. "
Uh, yeah
Scientists are people just like creationists, and prone to the same personality and ideological inconsistencies. Every ideology should be judged based on the merits of whats being proposed, and the manner in which it evolves (can I use that word safely?) and not on the people making the argument. Ultimately the difference is that one theory evolved, and the other was created!!! Ha Ha
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_as
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Cambay+und
It's beginning to seem plausible that much of what we know about prehistory is clearly wrong..
Excavations at Santorini (the Aegean Sea) have found four and five story buildings with indoor plumbing and heating systems.. dating back to before 1800 BC.. They are buried under as much as 200 meters of ash from the huge volcanic eruptions there..
:)
This is not conjecture.. it's scientific fact...
"Ancient ruins of sunken dot coms dating back to 2000 AD discovered!"
(* Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. *)
It is not quite that Boolean. Evidence can be broken into at least these 5 categories:
1. I am certain beyond a reasonable doubt that X is true
2. X is probably true
3. I hesitate a conclusion, but the mystery deserves more study
4. Interesting mystery, but not worth investigating
5. Mystery is probably nonsense and a complete waste of time
What chaps me is those who suggest that if it is not 1 or 2, then it must be 5. UFO's fall into #3 IMO. The eyewitness evidence that something odd goes on is enough to convict a million OJ's. Yet, some skeptics try to lump everybody into the nut-case category, even suggesting that TV and media makes them actually *hallucinate* things that aren't there. How can pilots, cops, etc. do there jobs if they were so prone to TV-show-based hallucinations?
Table-ized A.I.
Read what I said, jackass. I didn't support creationism or the claim that the discovery proves it. I wanted an explaination of how one could arrive at the logical conclusion that this discovery proves creationism.
~ now you know
***Set sarcasm mode ON***
Then W00t! for Global Warming! We sure are giving that Ice Age what-for! Greenhouse gases? Hell, we are doing the Earth a favor by driving our big SUVs and using chloroflurocarbons!
***Set sarcasm mode OFF***
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Im not doubting you, really. ;) I'm interested in paleloclimatolgy and found a bunch of links about that and recently lost them, and was hoping to not have to dig for them all over the internet again.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
you had me laughing my ass off. Hail Eris. Have you eaten your hotdog today?
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Hey! None of the comments after yours were funny because you forgot to close your tag. Thanks a lot.
Remember the tooth!
[no further comment]
To quote:
...
"The discovery was made on 1 April by a joint team of divers from the Indian National Institute of Oceanography and the Scientific Exploration Society based in Dorset."
Clue number one.
"Expedition leader Monty Halls said: "Our divers were presented with a series of structures that clearly showed man-made attributes.""
Clue number two.
Let me guess, they found an extensive warren of underground treasure troves, right?
Sigh. Second oldest trick in the book, after having a halfling vampire "trapped" in a coffin banging on the lid, trying to get out.
Gets them every time
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
I've tried looking for this piece of news in the Indian Press (Try http://www.samachar.com for a list of and links to various Indian newspapers and magazines) but have failed. I can't help but wonder about the credibility of this news report -- I'm not disputing that something may have been located beneath the waves at Mahabalipuram but am sceptical as to whether the find is really as significant as claimed.
I suppose I shouldn't post unless I know for sure, but I believe the current theory is that the lower gravity is caused by the fact that the earth is not a perfect sphere, nor of a consistent density.
Funny how nothing is ever "found" until the British get there...Were still waiting on em to "find" salvation.
And the soma ritual may also go back to Indus times. The matter is far from closed, but the best evidence comes from the language: people have mapped Indus valley script onto something like Dravidian quite convincingly. Attempts to map it onto a Sanscrit like language are much less convincing.
My bet would be that modern Hindu culture includes aspects of the ancient Indus culture, and aspects of the Aryan invader's culture.
I suppose I shouldn't post unless I know for sure, but I believe the current theory is that the lower gravity is caused by the fact that the earth is not a perfect sphere, nor of a consistent density.
That's part of the effect, but the effect of the earth's rotation is more important. As the Earth spins, objects on its surface have to continally accelerate inward (to the Earth's center) to avoid flying off into space. At the equator, this is a large effect, but near the poles there is very little motion (think of the edge and center of a top) so the effect is much smaller.
Gravity, of course, provides this acceleration - part of the gravitational field keeps you from flying away, and the rest (99% of it) holds you against the ground. At the poles all 100% presses you to the ground, so you feel what seems to be a stronger gravitational field.
Why is this all significant? Well, major portions of the world have religious sentiments that date after these cities existed. Islam tends to discourage too much emphasis on history before Islam arose. Similarly, the mindset of Christianity has largely been that nothing important happened until about 6000 years ago.
These findings are very graphic evidence that humanity has a history much older than either Islam or Christianity. Even the academic orthodoxy today tends to be that everything of value came of of the middle east-this now appears to be that everything important came out of the middle east. This appears to be far from true.
Randall Burns
I heard about this underwater city being discovered at least three months ago. The question in my mind is why the official news about it is moving so slowly as is (apparently) the archaeology community. Perhaps it could have something to do with the early estimates I saw that this city is over 9.000 years old. If so then a lot of theories about the history of early civilization come into question. Stay tuned.
I mean, here we are finding sunken cities and all, where people though they didn't exist and people who said they existed were considered crazy. I mean come on, use common sense people. The earth *has* gone though catistropic geologic changes before.
I'm actually surpised that the main stream media is just catching on, this has been in the lesser publications for atleast a year or more. Hell it was even on art bell awhile back.
Just remeber that what you think you know, it's always what you know for sure.
Om, nomnomnom...
It's not just the date that's off by a power of 10 in Platos story, but also the dimensions. This consistency makes it seem very likely that it's simply a result of a greek mistake while interpreting egyptian numbers.
The island is also called Santorini, btw, and it was not the capital of the Minoans, at least during the times we know of, and neither was Minoa... the capital was Knossos on Crete, Minoa is closer to Thera. However, hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't remember any reason to rule out the hypothesis that Thera was the site of the Minoan capital in prehistoric times, before the explosion?
Anyway, it's a far better fit than any other site I've seen for the Atlantis story, the details all seem to fit, as long as we change the actual numbers consistently by factors of 10.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
The crew find stone ruins: CITY OF ATL[rest is obscured by seaweed].
Professor: Could it possibly be? Are the old legends true?
[Leela clears the seaweed, revealing the rest of the city's name]
All: Oooh.
Professor: It is! It's the fabled lost city...of Atlanta!
Apparently no one noticed this bit:
The discovery was made on 1 April by a joint team of divers...
.
Quickly, I don't understand why the "radiation symbol" should not be used. So future peoples may see the symbol, do a background ratiation check, and ignore the rest of the message. We want to convey the dangers of the radioactive material - if they already understand radioactivity, then why is the rest of our message so important? This seems to be overstating our importance, and the importance of our message, rather than allowing for the competence of later peoples. What if our hazardous waste becomes a valuable resource for their more advanced energy harnessing needs?
Not that I think the current approach is really wrong, but lets pretend for a minute that I do.
Instead of "We are a great culture, this is important to us" there should be more emphasis on penance and shame in relation to visitors There should be an emphasis on "you" the visitor, and our guilt on what we perpetrated against you. Why should a great civilization care about this place so much to invest so greatly in it? "This is our shame. We were wrong to make this. This is a plague. We cannot save you. You should avoid this mistake. We are guilty of leaving this burden here for you."
Now I really think that this style, emphasizing the visitor's importance should be incorporated into the linguistics of the message. The tone near the end of the report should maybe be given more attention. The entire report emphasized messages of great importance and greatness. Maybe there should be more of a sense of penance and regret, or even a sense of understatement out of shame.
Is the right approach really to embark on our civilazation's greatest and most ambitious work to date? How does this compare to, e.g. the Great Wall of China, which can be seen from outer space with the naked eye?
How do "cultures", as in "ways of life" end? What happened to the Egyptians, for example? The Greeks were assimilated into the Romans, so that important knowlegde was carried over into the next culture. The Romans "fell to barbarians", or collapsed under their own weight, how ever you want to look at it. In the following "Dark Ages" some knowlege of the Romans was preserved, but was lost to the general populace. The elite few religous scholars had most of the transmitted knowlege, but even if they subjugated the masses via religous ritual, it seems unlikely that the medieval scholars would have let humanity be irradiated by an ancient Greek WIPP.
More significant breaks in cultural meme transmission are widespread cataclysmic events, like a pandemic plague, globally significant meteor impact, or many imaginitive events. At this point, who cares? Where do we draw the line of responsibility? Some "native American" tribes have a law that they are responsible for seven generations of successors. Will a post apocalypic people care about any warnings we can give, or will they just be intrigued by any proof of prior civilization? Are we responsible to protect the hostile succesoors to the human race? What about just leaving the site nondescript and undifferentiated so that it can be forgotten for 10K years? Will any disconnected culture (assumed less technologically capable) be able to dig down 4 miles? Perhaps the post-apocalyptic culture will be a burrowing underground civilization, how will we protect/warn them with our surface markers?
Of course while it may be presumptuous of us to think we are keener than 10000 years of post humanity, I fully support this kind of cross disciplinary research, and value the fruits of foresight. Alternative perspectves are good, especially if they may slow down certain aspects of our current "civilization", and allow a more organic, sustainable culture of meditation and self reflection. I like the sentiment of holding responsibility to our next seven generations as being a limiting factor to some of our folly. While I am encouraged by the creativity that can occaisionally be expressed my out industry, I can't help but feel that this isn't enough. This report almost has a sense of not having been put under much public review - there are even a few minor typographical errors. At least a sentence is spared to reflect on the possiblity that this report itself is an indication of our current error.
-castlan
Sorry, no.
A theory is a "unifying principle that explains a body of facts and the laws that are based on them" (Chemistry, 3rd ed., by Chang)--evolution, atoms, gravity, etc. all have theories describing them, made up of observed (directly or indirectly) facts. I think you are confusing "theory" with "hypothesis". Most basic chemistry or physics textbooks will give you a good rundown of theory, hypothesis and law.
Why are the most arrogant asses like skeptical inquirer usually the scrub scientists, who never really discover anything new and/or significant.
Why do the arrogant asses who get ticked when science doesn't prove (or disproves) their personal worldview feel the need to push their unproven beliefs on everyone else, usually with the claim that their "science" is being supressed by arrogant asses? And they always seem to think that the Scientific Method doesn't apply to them and any attempt to question their claims are taken as personal attacks on their "revolutionary" ideas by "scrub scientists".
Mahabalipuram (or Mamallapuram) is now a moderately large town and a pretty nice resort. I grew up not far from there (in Vellore, Tamil Nadu). I've seen the seventh temple - there are lots of very nice temples and rock-carvings by the seaside. Anyway, the existence of six submerged temples has always been taught as fact, at least when I was in school, and I think that preliminary diving expeditions had already found evidence of a submerged city there. The new discovery doesn't really surprise me.
India has another submerged city : Dwaraka, the legendary abode of Krishna, located (probably) off the west coast a little north of Mumbai (formerly Bombay). I'm pretty sure archaeologists have found some submerged ruins in that area as well, but nothing specific.
My other sig is also a
I'm pretty sure gold, which does not oxidize, would still be around, and any worked or fashioned gold jewelry would be a dead givaway. I don't believe that there are any examples of that in existance which are known to be "inexplicably old".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
A Portuguese academic has some rather interesting (and exhaustively researched) ideas on Atlantis, stating basically that the legends of Atlantis actually refer to the large area south of China, west of India, and near Indonisia which would have been an above-water continent during the last Ice Age. (There's a nice map available here. I wonder how close this is to the recent discovery?
The site overall is worth a look at http://www.atlan.org/
It's nice to see some of this guy's theories get validated! =)
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Um, the glaciers receded by about 10,000 BC, give or take 2,000 years.
This city supposedly dates maybe around 5,000 years ago (~3,000 BC).
Well, the melting of glaciers was gradual. It occured over many thousands of years. It's not like, "Boom" and we were out of the ice age. There have even beem sunken cities due to sea level changes less than 2,000 years ago. Parts of Alexandria are now submerged.
From the article:
Scientists now want to explore the possibility that the city was submerged following the last Ice Age.
However, you make a good point. Now I wonder if it was just built during a very cool period (as opposed to the end of the last ice age) and it has just been submerged by today's comparatively warmer climate. I don't know.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
Keep passing the open windows...
hmmm gold jewelry buried in the ground for 6 or 7 thousand years.....it would seem to me that most of it would have been ground into hunks of shapeless crap by glaciers and siesmic activity.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Mt. Olympus, mythical home of the gods and the tallest mountain on earth - many times the size of Mt. Everest - was recently discovered by a team of explorers in Hackensack, New Jersey.
When asked how the biggest mountain on earth cound go unreported fo so long the explorer said "Well, we just never noticed it before. It was in New Jersey after all. Nobody pays any attention to Jew Jersey with New York right next door. We plan to explore other overlooked palaces such as Canada as well."
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
(* It took me over 30 seconds to figure out that the light was Jupiter and somehow by looking at it through the top of a set of trees partly lit by the street lights Jupiter seemed to dance back-n-forth as I moved my head from side to side. it was an optical illusion which I could repeat and knowing that the light was Jupiter did NOTHING to stop me from thinking that it was moving. *)
Flashing, jumping lights close to the horizon are generally discarded anyhow by serious investigators, since there are too many causes. Besides, a regular inspection of the area and sky charts would likely reveil Jupiter, the trees, and the street lamps.
Table-ized A.I.
"The word translated to day in most English Bibles actually means period of time in Hebrew"
Ummm... no.
"Vayikra elokim l'oar yom u-l'chosech karah layla, vayihi erev vayihi boker yom echad." (transliteration, Genesis 1-5)
"And god called the light day, and the dark he called night, and it was evening and it was morning of the first DAY" (Genesis 1-5)
To go through the last part of the phrase, "yom echad", or "day one," is a very good translation, because "yom" means day. Nothing else, no more, no less.
Many people attempt to reconcile modern astrophysics with the bible, and most will tell you that you should not take the word "yom" literally, but not one will tell you it should be translated as "period of time." There is much literature written on the subject, but I would be amazed if you could find a single book that was published that claimed the word "yom" does not translate as day.
In essence, you are correct that there is no single aspect of the bible (understood only somewhat symbolically) that disagrees with any part of evolution that is scientifically accepted. The most common point I have seen raised is that evolution would work better if one postulated the existance of certain creatures. Each of the "explosions" that is discussed in biological histories corresponds well with a certain interpretation of the time scale, which is not linear.
I agree with you, but you argue the point so badly it is painful.
I'm a concientious