Major component of evolution theory proven wrong

You are running with it. You have taken inconclusive ongoing archaeological research and concluded to for yourself that it's Atlantis, when none of the people who are actually DOING the research have said anything like that.


You cannot get around that.



Thusly You are misrepresenting their work to prove a point. This is not evidence for Atlantis.

I'm not misrepresenting anything or anyone and i'm linking to their actual articles and websites.

However, we have to remember that according to the beliefs of skeptical scientists, materialists, atheists, and evolutionists, there shouldn't even be anything like these underwater structures existing.

Yet those who researched Atlantis, Pyramids, Astrology, Bimini road etc. would have predicted this as completely possible.

So we can clearly see who was correct here........ and obviously this is Atlantis if it's not natural. So far the data itself is not consistent with a natural origin.

Right where we would expect Atlantis to be? You mean in the countless different locations that Atlantis is said to have been at the various ages? As Good Wolf said, you're taking evidence for various cultures and claiming its Atlantis.

Umm, I'm just wondering when this thread got derailed into an 'Atlantis, fact or fiction' thread??? Isn't this supposed to be about how evolution has been proven wrong? (Which it hasn't, just for the record!)

Guess that's my bad for asking for evidence for what would be the find of the century.

Well I can tell you now, you haven't been given any.

reply to post by Hollywood11

---

Wow! So Plato's analogy actually is a real place. Weird all this 'evidence' you put forward is ignored by these atlantis-hating scientists! Damn their rational appraisal of evidence! Damn their objectivity!

Come on, Hollywood11 - do you really believe this nonsense? Do you think that you are right and the thousands of historians, anthropologists, archaeologists and the such are wrong? If so, that's quite an ego you have

One version of the Theory of evolution states we evolved from single cell creatures to very complex creatures.

One version of creation states that we truly did evolve yet with the guidance of a higher power.....God, Higher power, Aliens...guided the process.


As I grew I became very interested in the fossil record (in fact my oldest daughter is finishing her geology degree as she picked up the fever of being a rock hound)

It always puzzled me that I could find so many fossils...both mammals (ie Leptomrix..small antelope) and Dinosaur fossils in the same area... ..same cut bank....(ie teeth and jawbone of a Allosaurus)

Then as I studied other rock hound fossil collections many would say the same thing...wierd if you know the common theory of evolution.

Then to find the footprints of a primate beside the footprints of a Dinosaur makes one question the theory all together. (Texas)

Some things in the fossil record fly in the face of the common theory of evolution.

To try and explain this to somebody who has never examined the fossil record first hand in the field is like trying to tell a fundamentalist Muslim that his Prophet was a little bit off at times.

YouTube Link

I am exploring the different scenarios again as it seems we have a lot of new information. I am open to change in my world view.


( I apologize for the religeous stuff and poor production in the video...i just wanted to show that we have a lot of wierd finding in the fossil record....so if you can suffer through the bible stuff and try to focus on some of the findings without drawing a conclusion...just allow yourself to question )

[edit on 23-10-2008 by whiteraven]

reply to post by whiteraven

---

Nothing in the fossil record flies in the face of the theory of evolution. Nothing. It might fly in the face of some people's flawed understanding of the theory of evolution, but the theory is sound.

Um no, the location of Atlantis was revealed over 50 years ago to mankind
www.dreamscape.com...

Not all scientists are ignorant of Atlantis, however, the majority definitely are. It is not because of being "rational", but rather, them not understanding real history or the real history of mankind is due to their ignorance

reply to post by Hollywood11

---

I think it has more to do with the fact that everyone knows Plato was talking allegorically when he mentioned Atlantis, and that there is no evidence for its existence what-so-ever.

Or I guess all of science is wrong, the scientific method is wrong, and you and some irrational people on the internet are all right.

Please.

The true intention of Plato and the story of Atlantis is very hottly contested and debated in the scientific world. Many believe it is based on reality actually.

FirstSciencetv investigates several locations where remains of Atlantis may be
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 23-10-2008 by Hollywood11]

reply to post by Hollywood11

---

Well I would agree. I think it may be a mish mash of old legends with many features over baked. A strong case can be made that the majority of the legend was based on the Minoans.

Remember that these "finds" off of Cuba need to have evidence of elephants among other things.

Yeah, although i do believe Plato's account is describing the flooding at the end of the last ice age, since that is the date he gives afterall, it wouldn't surprise me if aspects of the legends from Santorini, Crete, the Minoans etc. got mixed in there too.

The date could have just as easily been fudged and probably was too. But the thing is that nothing in the Atlantis legend suggests that men materialised into being and hence didn't evolve, it only has bearing on anthropology just like your claims about the earliest man in America. For it to be significant to evolution it would have to be hundreds of thousands of years not just aound 10,000.