Explorers View 'Lost City' Ruins Under Caribbean

Reuters ^ | December 6, 2001 | Andrew Cawthorne

[spycatcher]

I guess it's an estimate from this quote: "in Paulina's opinion the complex belongs to 'the pre-classic period' of Central American history"

[rwfromkansas]

I am afraid your grandchildren are being taught error. I do not believe evolution. I understand carbon dating is often wrong. BUT, the idea that the earth is only a few thousand years old....give me a break. I am a right-wing Christian, but I try to at least base things on SCIENCE when the issue is scientific.

[Soul Citizen]

Exactly, the press is wrong again.

The original explosions destroyed the bow section of the Maine.

When it was raised, the bow was cut from the vessel and the hull was bulkheaded so it would be airtight for the stern tow to sea.

The area was mapped as to where the vessel was towed and finally sent to her grave.

The only real uncertainty was how far as she sank, that she actually strayed from the coordinates as best that could be determined at the time, as they didn't have GPS then.

The announcement was an official acknowledgement to the American people that the wreck is an American Memorial Site.

[Soul Citizen]

Earth believed to be approximately 5 billion years old.

[spycatcher]

6000 B.C. is just an estimate but happens to be very close to the Black Sea flood date.

From the same National Geographic Article...

"Last year, Ballard and his colleagues found proof that a catastrophic flood inundated the Black Sea in the region north of Turkey. The place and date of the flood—which may have occurred around 5,500 B.C.—correspond to the time and location of the Old Testament account of Noah."

It appears the dating of "Noah's Flood" is in dispute. Of course there may have been more than one great flood.

[Eternal_Bear]

Our Cherokee folklore tells us that some of our ancestors came from a sunken land off the coast of America. The Mayans were probably direct descendants of those who built the lost city.

BTW, we primitive Indians don't see any problem with the universe being billions of years old. We also believe that other planets are inhabited with sentient beings.

[Orbiter]

"...there wasn't any contact between the west and east hemispheres!

When making such sweeping and authorative statements it is generally more acceptable to follow same with your name and the letters Ph.d.

An exclaimation point doesn't carry quite the same weight.

[Rogmonster]

bump

[RightWhale]

there wasn't any contact between the west and east hemispheres!

How do you mean? Exchange of government ambassadors? Sea trade? Migration?

[Anotherpundit]

First: those mummies that supposedly contained nicotine, etc., have been debunked as forgeries and contaminated samples.

Second, by "contact," I mean contact enough for the myths, stories, and legends of the "new" world to reach back to Plato in Periclean Greece.

i highly recommend people go to www.skepdic.com, or even just snopes and look some of the stuff you keep quoting up, instead of just accepting it without question. A little research goes a long way.

[blam]

"First: those mummies that supposedly contained nicotine, etc., have been debunked as forgeries and contaminated samples."

Sorry mate. You are 100% wrong about the mummies. The tests have now been duplicated by other labs.

[MississippiMan]

Zelitsky said the structures may have been built by unknown people when the current sea-floor actually was above the surface.

YA THINK? Or might unknown people have built it while it was below the surface? Geez.

MM

[hinckley buzzard]

I heard this same argument used to explain the "intergenerational satanic child sex-abuse cult."

Reports came from all over and were so much the same...the implication is that where there is smoke there must be fire. The problem is that naive observers mistake dust for smoke.

All references to "Atlantis" originate with Plato. NONE PREDATE his writings.

To say that some-one, some-where, told a story about an island that sank, is NOT corroboration of reality, nor is it the same as the Atlantis myth. To picture a lost island off the coast of Cuba is fine, if you want to indulge yourself, but it violates the defining descriptors of Atlantis as FIRST described by Plato.

It is only a demonstration that much of human imagination is not so unique.

I am intending to be good natured about this, but I also am trying to be clear: if you enjoy mythology fine, but DO NOT try to pass ancient BS off as some kind of truth. You will be ripped to shreds by scientists far more rigorous and knowledgable than I am.

I know about the discoveries regarding the Black Sea and the Flood myth. They are fascinating ONLY because there is physical evidence. Such evidence is totally lacking for the Atlantis myth, unless you want to say that any destruction story anywhere in the world, no matter how many ways it differs from Plato's first account, refers to Atlantis.

And if so, you can believe what you wish, but I just won't buy that sh*t.

[hinckley buzzard]

Huh??

[hinckley buzzard]

Scientists have discovered ancient statues of men with beards that date back thousands of years...

And this is suppose to prove what? (PLEASE don't try to tell me that no men in the "New World" grew chin whiskers...)

[hinckley buzzard]

I didn't call anyone an idiot....I only suggested that we should seek to separate truth from myth.

[spycatcher]

Don't expose yourself as an idiot if you're going to try to debate subjexts you know nothing about. Native Americans did not grow beards. The few whiskers they had were usually plucked out.

[BrucefromMtVernon]

Check into Zecharia Sitchin's books. There's plenty of material on Antediluvian Times.

[watcher1]

The Mayans were probably direct descendants of those who built the lost city.

The problem with that argument, is that the Maya have linguistic links with ancient tribes from the Indian subcontinent

[crystalk]

How can you possibly be so sure? I can imagine a certitude that it DID exist, being based maybe on inadequate data, but how much LESS sensible is an attitude like what you have expressed, that you can already know based upon no data at all, what the ultimate result of possibly centuries or millennia of scientific investigation will be! Arrogant.

Don't tell me, but think to yourself: What discovery could be made that would change my mind. If the answer is "none," then you are not a scientist but a mystic, and not even a smart mystic.