It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The 195,000-year-old date coincides with findings from genetic studies on modern human populations. Such studies can be extrapolated to determine when the earliest modern humans lived.
A researcher analyzing the sounds in languages spoken around the world has detected an ancient signal that points to southern Africa as the place where modern human language originated. The finding fits well with the evidence from fossil skulls and DNA that modern humans originated in Africa. It also implies, though does not prove, that modern language originated only once, an issue of considerable controversy among linguists.
Nomadism - A form of social organization where people and animals move from place to place in search of pasture. The itinerary of movement may take the form of a routine pattern but, as rainfall varies, there may be movement away from this routine. True nomads have no fixed abode and no sedentary agriculture. (Susan Mayhew, A Dictionary of Geography)
As for the whole of this account of the Atlanteans, some say that it is unadorned history, such as Crantor, the first commentator on Plato. Crantor also says that Plato's contemporaries used to criticize him jokingly for not being the inventor of his Republic but copying the institutions of the Egyptians. Plato took these critics seriously enough to assign to the Egyptians this story about the Athenians and Atlanteans, so as to make them say that the Athenians really once lived according to that system.
Nearly every culture in every region of the world has a myth about a great flood that was sent to earth from a higher being in order to punish humans for their transgressions and cleanse the world of impurity. In Europe, there are Greek, Germanic, and Irish versions of the tale; there are Sumerian, Hebrew, and Babylonian renditions in the Middle East; the Americas are home to Aztec, Hopi, Incan, and Mayan interpretations; there are Indian, Chinese, and Indonesian versions in the East; and Australian Aboriginal and Polynesian adaptations come out of the Pacific region
With this in mind, we know that any technically advanced civilization, at least from about 100,000BC to 10,000BC, would have been confined to a very small geographical area.
The minimum amount of agricultural land necessary for sustainable food security, with a diversified diet similar to those of North America and Western Europe (hence including meat), is 0.5 of a hectare per person. This does not allow for any land degradation such as soil erosion, and it assumes adequate water supplies. (Source)
New evidence suggests that the development of farming in the two regions was not just coincidental but was a direct response to climate change and its interaction with soil resources, which had a critical impact on the viability and sustainability of early agriculture in these cooler, maritime regions of north-west Europe. (Climate Change and the Adoption of Agriculture in North-West Europe)
The term "Atlantis" will be defined as an ancient civilization that's advancement rivals or exceeds our current one, predates the ancient civilizations that are included in the current historical narrative, and has for some reason been lost to the official record.
We shouldn't assume 21st century technology when theorizing about Atlantis.
This was a great debate to read and I must admit that it seems PatrickGarrow17 had a tough task ahead of him considering the topic itself.
There is no doubt that PatrickGarrow17 made the case that it is entirely possible Atlantis existed, but adjensen's rebuttals were too strong to ignore.
adjensen was able to point out the most important flaws in an Atlantis theory including the origin of Plato's account, geological evidence that contradicts the theory, the technological state of Man during that period and the lack of necessary resources in a centralized location that would enable an advanced civilization to be considered as advanced as humans are today.
In the end, adjensen's final post drove the last nail home and therefore I must give the debate to adjensen.
Atlantis Existed Debate:
Your opening statement was constructed well. Your asking of readers to take a leap of imagination in believing consequential evidence, i feel was a wrong move. Considering you are trying to prove that Atlantis existed, it is probably unwise to ask the very members you are trying to persuade to take a leap of faith in believing consequential information (no matter how spectacular that information may be). I feel that it weakened your opening statement somewhat. Instead, you could have strengthened it by bypassing that initial request and going straight into proving the possibility of the existence of Atlantis, and just how it could be related to other societies. Furthermore, you could have used some information from the other ATS threads you linked to.
Moving on, your second half of the opening statement is more of what is needed, hard evidence, which may very well link societies together. One thing i would have liked to see in your opening statement would be further links between ancient societies. You quote:
"These civilizations that are proposed to have developed independently share many striking characteristics in architecture, philosophy, and language. "
You went on to prove where modern language originated from...you could have done the same with architecture and philosophy. All in all, you could have done a slightly better job, but i feel your opening statement was adequate.
Your opening statement is very well constructed and completely rips apart PatrickGarrow17's one. The use of Critias, Plato's very own source for the furthering of your opinion was very well done, and completely destroys PatrickGarrow17s' claim of Atlantis being a technologically advanced civilisation.
Adjensen continued to rebut PatrickGarrow17's statements effectively in regards to early human history. Still, i would have liked to see linked sources, just to back up said claims.
Winner: Adjensen takes the 1st round, simply due to the effective use of Critias and his/her knowledge on early human history.
Your Body Statement, is again, well written, but it could have had more substance. The sources used could have been better (for example, you had used a thread from Yahoo as evidence)...also, i would have liked you to incorporate further quotes from your sources. For example, you never quoted any material suggesting that Philo had actually believed in the existence of Atlantis, instead you linked to a lengthy source.
A major source you used in your body statement in regards to major flooding being recognised the world over by ancient humans is unreliable, as i quote directly from the source itself:
"The stories below are flood stories from the world's folklore. I have included stories here if (1) they are stories; (2) they are folklore, not historical accounts or fiction by a known author; and (3) they involve a flood."
Furthermore, while it may be true that the glacier melting could have caused floods of coastal cities (as you claimed), you failed to produce any source backing up those claims. Again, your body statement was well written, but the failure to produce credible sources (and minimal reliable ones) harmed it greatly.
Again, your Body Statement is constructed well. You successfully rebutted PatrickGarrrow17 by using the map as a source to prove just what areas were uninhabitable during the time of early humans.
You continued to rebut the point that Atlantis may have been a technologically advanced civilisation, even though PatrickGarrow17 had ceased with that claim. This i feel, was unnecessary, even though the points you made were still relevant to an Ancient society (which could have rivaled Egypt or Greece).
Winner: In my opinion, adjensen won the Body Statement, through the use of successful rebuttal points and adequate sources (with the exception of one count of Wikipedia).
Patrick, your closing statement was well constructed, but your use of sources severely damaged its potential. Furthermore, the touching on the "Paranormal-eque phenomena" was, in my opinion, a wrong move. Simply because the field that some of the noted individuals "specialised" in have not yet been fully examined, thus questioning their legitimacy.
My final point in regards to your Closing Statement is that your assertion that Atlantis existed around the time of the Toba catastrophe, in Indonesia is wrong. This is seen by the fact that the Toba catastrophe occurred between 69,000 and 77,000 years ago, whereas Atlantis was said to have existed only 9000 years ago.
You finish your closing statement off well, claiming that there needs to be more research and exploration done, which is very true.
Your closing statement was constructed well, also. You adequately rebutted PatrickGarrow17's claim that the participants shouldn't assume 21st century technology in regards to Atlantis. You done this through quoting his very own definition, which was an excellent move.
You further rebutted PatrickGarrow17's claim that Atlantis existed "in or around" Indonesia by providing a map, thus proving that advanced civilisations did not exist around the South East Asian area until well after the time of Atlantis. Furthermore, the sources you used were reliable, unlike the ones used by PatrickGarrow17 (e.g. Wikipedia). You concluded your statement extremely well.
Winner: The debate was a good one, but i feel that PatrickGarrow17 struggled to get off the ground so to speak. You could have improved your side of the debate by including actual evidence of how Ancient civilisations were connected with each other (perhaps you could have found something to try and connect Atlantis with others for example). Relying on the viewers to take a leap of imagination, only to accept consequential evidence was the major driving force which led to your down fall in my opinion.
Adjensen performed extremely well throughout, and that is why i chose him/her as the winner of this debate.
Well done both fighters.