Eels of Atlantis
Ray Martinez
the following observation: "Instinctual animals cannot learn from
experience. Eels have been ruled by instinct since the Cretaceous Age.
They are unaware that Atlantis no longer exists, that the current
circling around the Sargasso Sea is broken. And even if they did know,
they could not change their instinctual lifestyle." The author
concludes: "The eel has, it seems, a better memory than man. It cannot
forget the land in the east. Every larvae, every one of the courting
eels, bears silent witness to Atlantis." "
http://www.returntoatlantis.com/retc/migration.html
Atlantis sank in one catastrophic night during the Flood. Eels cannot
possess bias and they become excellent evidence for the existence of a
land mass that is no longer there.
Ray
Free Lunch
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1160010455.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:
That is just amazing. I really want some of what he's smoking.
Rich Townsend
I would have thought that the rifting of Gondwanaland --- being the breakup of a
supercontinent during the early Cretaceous --- would have represented to the
eels (if indeed they existed back then) a far more significant redistribution of
landmass than the alleged loss of one solitary island 9,000 years before Plato's
time.
But that's just me.
Ray Martinez
In other words you are unable to refute.
It is evidence FOR Atlantis, its not conclusive, it is just some
evidence.
This thread is really about the Darwinist and his refusal to admit
anything that conflicts with his preconceived notions.
Ray
Rich Townsend
This post is excellent evidence of a bullshit filter that is no longer there.
Ray F-L
What "Flood?"
Dr. Raymond Freeman-Lynde
Department of Geology
University of Georgia
Ken Rode
Do me a favour, Ray. Find a bathymetric map of the Sargasso Sea area
(that would be a map of the ocean bottom) on the Web and locate
Atlantis for me, please.
Free Lunch
>
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On 4 Oct 2006 18:07:35 -0700, in talk.origins
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> <1160010455.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:
>> >"In his book "The Secret of Atlantis", German author Otto Muck makes
>> >the following observation: "Instinctual animals cannot learn from
>> >experience. Eels have been ruled by instinct since the Cretaceous Age.
>> >They are unaware that Atlantis no longer exists, that the current
>> >circling around the Sargasso Sea is broken. And even if they did know,
>> >they could not change their instinctual lifestyle." The author
>> >concludes: "The eel has, it seems, a better memory than man. It cannot
>> >forget the land in the east. Every larvae, every one of the courting
>> >eels, bears silent witness to Atlantis." "
>> >
>> >http://www.returntoatlantis.com/retc/migration.html
>> >
>> >Atlantis sank in one catastrophic night during the Flood. Eels cannot
>> >possess bias and they become excellent evidence for the existence of a
>> >land mass that is no longer there.
>>
>> That is just amazing. I really want some of what he's smoking.
>
>In other words you are unable to refute.
I don't know enough about it to see any reason to try to refute it.
>It is evidence FOR Atlantis, its not conclusive, it is just some
>evidence.
That is the hallucinatory part. How do you think it is evidence for
Atlantis? Nothing at all supports the supposition that Atlantis ever
existed. The peculiar behavior of some eels is not evidence for it.
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160010455.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> "In his book "The Secret of Atlantis", German author Otto Muck makes
> the following observation: "Instinctual animals cannot learn from
> experience. Eels have been ruled by instinct since the Cretaceous Age.
> They are unaware that Atlantis no longer exists, that the current
> circling around the Sargasso Sea is broken. And even if they did know,
> they could not change their instinctual lifestyle." The author
> concludes: "The eel has, it seems, a better memory than man. It cannot
> forget the land in the east. Every larvae, every one of the courting
> eels, bears silent witness to Atlantis." "
>
> http://www.returntoatlantis.com/retc/migration.html
Well, Ray, that's a rather interesting story, but who was "Otto Muck", and
why should we accept his claims? How does the fact that European eels
spawn in the Sargasso Sea add up to a "lost continent"?
>
> Atlantis sank in one catastrophic night during the Flood.
What evidence do you have for this assertion? You have not even
established that Atlantis existed, much less when it "sank".
> Eels cannot
> possess bias and they become excellent evidence for the existence of a
> land mass that is no longer there.
Since eels don't spawn on land, how is this evidence for a "land mass"?
DJT
rupert....@gmail.com
Sorry, Ray. This website proves that Atlantis was between Fiji and
Tahiti: http://www.niwascience.co.nz/pubs/an/20/migration
>
> Ray
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160011218.4...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
snip
>> >Atlantis sank in one catastrophic night during the Flood. Eels cannot
>> >possess bias and they become excellent evidence for the existence of a
>> >land mass that is no longer there.
>>
>> That is just amazing. I really want some of what he's smoking.
>
> In other words you are unable to refute.
Ray, what's there to "refute"? A colorfully written tale is not physical
evidence.
>
> It is evidence FOR Atlantis, its not conclusive, it is just some
> evidence.
It's not even that, it's wishful thinking, with a large sprinkling of
mythos.
>
> This thread is really about the Darwinist and his refusal to admit
> anything that conflicts with his preconceived notions.
Then why is it about a bizarre claim by an unknown German crackpot?
DJT
Gordon Hill
Ray Martinez wrote:
> "In his book "The Secret of Atlantis", German author Otto Muck makes
> the following observation: "Instinctual animals cannot learn from
> experience.
I guess Eric Kandel has to return his Nobel Prize from 2000 for the
work he did in how experience alters memory in sea snails.
Of course that's only an instinct, but I'm learning.
See http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2000/
Sorry Eric.
bullpup
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:vom8i2dcatiq10tin...@4ax.com...
No, you don't. It might cause permenant brain damage.
Boikat
>
bullpup
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160011218.4...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
See? Permenent brain damage.
Boikat
Lee Oswald Ving
> "In his book "The Secret of Atlantis", German author Otto Muck makes
> the following observation: "Instinctual animals cannot learn from
> experience.
Nor, apparently, can New Age (rhyhmes with "sewage")-ers or Creationists.
> Eels have been ruled by instinct since the Cretaceous Age.
> They are unaware that Atlantis no longer exists, that the current
> circling around the Sargasso Sea is broken. And even if they did know,
> they could not change their instinctual lifestyle."
Then again, there's no reason presented to believe the eels need a landmass
to breed, which renders the whole thing nonsense.
> The author
> concludes: "The eel has, it seems, a better memory than man. It cannot
> forget the land in the east. Every larvae, every one of the courting
> eels, bears silent witness to Atlantis." "
>
> http://www.returntoatlantis.com/retc/migration.html
>
> Atlantis sank in one catastrophic night during the Flood.
Yeah, that's why Plato documents Ye Olde Floode so well.
> Eels cannot
> possess bias and they become excellent evidence for the existence of a
> land mass that is no longer there.
Or that selectively credulous whacks will come up with no end of nonsense,
never learning from their past mistakes.
That paper of your will be a doozy. Why aren't you working on it instead of
providing us with comic relief?
Jim Willemin
Ray, since you seem to have a real problem accepting facts that are
inconsistent with your unique worldview it is certain that you will not
accept this as a refutation, but the idea that a landmass existed in the
Atlantic Ocean in the Sargasso Sea is simply absurd. Present water
depth there is something on the order of 4,500 meters; the sediments on
the bottom are undisturbed abyssal oozes and muds with no trace of the
disruption that must have occurred during such a catastrophic event as
the submergence of Atlantis. The rocks of the underlying crust are
typical oceanic crust - well studied and well understood, oceanic crust
is both thin and dense; there are no extensive bits of oceanic crust
above sea level because it is too heavy and weak to stay above the water
(exceptions like Iceland occur on the mid-ocean volcanic spreading
centers). Were Atlantis to have existed in the Sargasso Sea, the
catastrophe must have changed the chemical composition of the very
rocks,or somehow make them vanish completely without a trace. Further,
the seismic structure of the crust under the Sargasso Sea is continuous
with the crust all around - there is no trace of any underpinings of a
former island. There is no geological or geophysical evidence *for* a
former land mass in the Sargasso Sea, and much geological and
geophysical evidence *against* it.
As an analogy, you are telling us that a giant file cabinet was standing
in a room while layers and layers of dust settled on the floor. We see
no trace of that file cabinet now - you tell us it sank into the floor.
But the layers of dust are undisturbed and continuous across the entire
room - there is no sign that a giant file cabinet was ever there. The
only possible way for what you say to be true is if someone used magic
to take that cabinet away and replace it with layers of dust.
There are other possible explanations for behavior of animals; if you
plan to use this argument in your paper, I urge you to consider
alternative explanations that do not involve Atlantis, and to reconsider
making any mention of Atlantis - because if you insist on mentioning
Atlantis as if it were real, then I'm afraid nothing else you say will
have any credibility whatever.
I have tried to provide evidence from the study of the ocean floor and
from geophysics that refutes the story of Atlantis; further, I have
tried to present an analogy that illustrates what that evidence means.
I suspect you will dismiss this as a Darwinian rant, even though I am a
geologist, not a Darwinian - it is my hope that some of the evidence I
have presented may be unfamiliar to some; it is only a small sample of
the multiple lines of evidence that overwhelmingly and compellingly
refute the legend of a sunken land mass in the Atlantic Ocean.
--
Jim
"Value nothing but truth, compassion, and love"
Mike Painter
Well for Atlantis to have any bearing on the problem eels would have had to
breed on land and evolve to ocean breeders when the island sunk.
Either that or they don't exist.
John Wilkins
Might?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
B Richardson
I think he snagged a couple of cigars from Dr. Gene Scott
back in the day.
Josh Hayes
news:Xns9852DB6A48886...@208.49.80.188:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1160010455.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Eels have been ruled by instinct since the Cretaceous Age.
>> They are unaware that Atlantis no longer exists, that the current
>> circling around the Sargasso Sea is broken. And even if they did
>> know, they could not change their instinctual lifestyle."
>
> Then again, there's no reason presented to believe the eels need a
> landmass to breed, which renders the whole thing nonsense.
It is difficult to figure out what Ray is on about (as usual); the facts
are these: eels (Anguilla anguilla and A. rostrata) return to the
Sargasso Sea as adults to spawn. (I'm pretty sure they're semelparous,
but I'd have to do a little checking up to make sure.) The larvae --
fascinating things, eel larvae: they're shaped like little leaves, which
explains the descriptive name for that sort of larva: leptocephalus --
drift outward from the Sargasso Sea gyre and are picked up in the Gulf
Stream; those that paddle their way landward to North America are
American eels (A. rostrata), whilst those who dawdle in the current a
while longer wind up in Europe and are granted a different specific (A.
anguilla).
They swim up freshwater streams, and are capable of coursing over dry
ground to reach landlocked waters, where they, well, do eely things, for
a while, until they get the URGE TO MERGE, and they mate and head down
to the sea in slips, to the Sargasso, and the beat goes on.
Now, why this requires some Atlantean landmass is, to me at least,
unclear at best. I suppose I'd better ask an eel, who is likely to be
more comprehensible than Ray.
-JAH
I KNEW that ichthyo course would come in useful!
Wakboth
Ray Martinez kirjoitti:
Indeed; it's not there, and has never been there.
Ignoring, for the moment, the fact that you have neither scienfitic nor
biblical support for your claims, could you tell me why would the
Atlantis have remained sunken after the flood abated, when all the
other continents became dry land again?
-- Wakboth
Iain
Ray Martinez wrote:
<snip>
> Atlantis sank in one catastrophic night during the Flood. Eels cannot
> possess bias and they become excellent evidence for the existence of a
> land mass that is no longer there.
What flood?
~Iain
Mark Stahl
"Josh Hayes" <jos...@spamblarg.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9852EC2063A...@216.168.3.44...
See? This is why this place is so great. Even a batshit-crazy post like
Ray's here can lead to me learning something. Thanks!
Iain
What evidence? I see no evidence, just a claim.
You've given us nothing to refute.
~Iain
Iain
Ray Martinez wrote:
>Eels of Atlantis
Wasn't that a film about a young boy and a telepathic eel?
~Iain
Jim Willemin
2rJbnYnZ2dn...@giganews.com:
>
> "Josh Hayes" <jos...@spamblarg.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9852EC2063A...@216.168.3.44...
[snip]
Heartily seconded! Thanks, Josh.
Maybe since salmon spawn in fresh water somoeone with not a whole lot of
sense felt that eels must also spawn in fresh water, and did so in the
crystal streams of Atlantis.
CreateThis
wrote:
>"In his book "The Secret of Atlantis", German author Otto Muck makes
>the following observation: "Instinctual animals cannot learn from
>experience. Eels have been ruled by instinct since the Cretaceous Age.
>They are unaware that Atlantis no longer exists, that the current
>circling around the Sargasso Sea is broken. And even if they did know,
>they could not change their instinctual lifestyle." The author
>concludes: "The eel has, it seems, a better memory than man. It cannot
>forget the land in the east. Every larvae, every one of the courting
>eels, bears silent witness to Atlantis." "
>
>http://www.returntoatlantis.com/retc/migration.html
>
>Atlantis sank in one catastrophic night during the Flood. Eels cannot
>possess bias and they become excellent evidence for the existence of a
>land mass that is no longer there.
>
>Ray
I had a really snappy answer for this post, but I can't stop laughing
long enough to type it.
Bwaaahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!
[gasp] Thanks, Ray, you're a riot...
Bwaaahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
CT
CreateThis
<jimwi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>... The only possible way for what you say to be true is if
> someone used magic
In the future, please show appropriate respect for Ray's scientific
expertise by capitalizing "Someone".
CT
Lee Oswald Ving
>
Yeah, that's the other reason I love participating in T.O. It's our own
little "Spin the Loony" to find out which subject you get to brush up on
today. Good mental exercise, plenty of laughs.
Darrell Stec
am Josh Hayes perhaps from jos...@spamblarg.net wrote:
> They swim up freshwater streams, and are capable of coursing over dry
> ground to reach landlocked waters, where they, well, do eely things,
> for a while, until they get the URGE TO MERGE, and they mate and head
> down to the sea in slips, to the Sargasso, and the beat goes on.
>
> Now, why this requires some Atlantean landmass is, to me at least,
> unclear at best.
For the same reason salmon swim upstream in fresh water -- an ancient
memory. They remember being fed by Paul Bunyon and keep going back
each year in expectation of more vittles.
> I suppose I'd better ask an eel, who is likely to be
> more comprehensible than Ray.
>
> -JAH
>
> I KNEW that ichthyo course would come in useful!
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
SeppoP
> "In his book "The Secret of Atlantis", German author Otto Muck makes
> the following observation: "Instinctual animals cannot learn from
> They are unaware that Atlantis no longer exists, that the current
> circling around the Sargasso Sea is broken. And even if they did know,
> concludes: "The eel has, it seems, a better memory than man. It cannot
> forget the land in the east. Every larvae, every one of the courting
> eels, bears silent witness to Atlantis." "
>
> http://www.returntoatlantis.com/retc/migration.html
>
> Atlantis sank in one catastrophic night during the Flood. Eels cannot
> possess bias and they become excellent evidence for the existence of a
> land mass that is no longer there.
>
> Ray
>
Wow...
Did your mommy ever tell you that you're mad?
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Kermit
Ray Martinez wrote:
> "In his book "The Secret of Atlantis", German author Otto Muck makes
> the following observation: "Instinctual animals cannot learn from
> experience.
This is incorrect, or are you saying that dogs and horses cannot be
taught anything? (Or are you saying that they are not "instinctual")?
> Eels have been ruled by instinct since the Cretaceous Age.
What ruled them before that? Or is that when their species first
evolved into reasonably modern forms?
> They are unaware that Atlantis no longer exists, that the current
> circling around the Sargasso Sea is broken. And even if they did know,
> they could not change their instinctual lifestyle." The author
> concludes: "The eel has, it seems, a better memory than man. It cannot
> forget the land in the east. Every larvae, every one of the courting
> eels, bears silent witness to Atlantis." "
Actually, it seems to be stronger evidence that they simply read Plato.
Occam's Razor, Ray.
>
> http://www.returntoatlantis.com/retc/migration.html
>
> Atlantis sank in one catastrophic night during the Flood.
Muck says it *caused the Flood. Is he a reliable source of knowledge,
or not?
Anyway, there was no Flood.
1. There was no source of water.
2. There was no where for the water to go.
3. The animals could not have reached the ark, nor returned afterwards.
4. The had nothing to eat on the ark - there would have been no room
for it.
5. They didn't have enough circulation, they could not have breathed.
6. The ark would have broken apart on water.
7. What did the lions eat while waiting for the antelopes to
repopulate?
8. The genemes of living species indicate a variety greater than could
hav ebeen achieved in 6000 years.
9. Other cultures, like India, China, and Egypt, didn't notice the
Flood.
10. The population could not have grown quickly enough to produce great
civilizations within a few generations.
11. The bible says it didn't rain until the Flood. Why not? Why didn't
evaporation and condensation work? How did people cool off is sweating
didn't' work?
12. The bible says there were no rainbows until after the Flood. Why
not? If light diffraction didn't work, how could people see?
13. The fossil record is not consistent with all animals being alive at
once, nor with being laid down during a flood.
14. All of the plants would died, dorwned in water. What did the
herbivores eat after the Flood? And many species of plants alive today
could not reproduce from seeds waterlogged for a year.
15. The geological evidence refuting a global flood could fill a book;
I'll simply make one mention.
> Eels cannot possess bias
And therefore they make no mistakes? Must be why dogs never get lost.
Here in the Pacific Northwest, USA, salmon return upstream to spawn. Is
that evidence for Lemuria?
>and they become excellent evidence for the existence of a
> land mass that is no longer there.
We are talking about the Atlantean Land Eels, I suppose?
>
> Ray
Otto Muck... the Nazi. Can we trust their science? Here's a site with a
book review:
http://www.sidis.net/The%20Nation%20-%20Atlantis.htm
'I review Atlantis books once a decade, whether they need it or not.
First up in 1978 was The Secret of Atlantis by Otto Muck, a German
scientist predisposed to Spenglerian rinse-cycles. Muck went up
(working on the V-2 rocket) and Muck went down (inventing the U-boat
snorkel). In between, he theorized an Atlantis on the Azores hump in
the Atlantic Ridge, populated by seven-foot Cro-Magnons who spoke
Basque and were kind to eels. It was destroyed by a giant asteroid that
messed with the earth's axial rotation, punched holes in the ocean's
floor and sent up vapor clouds into a smog ball that lasted 2,000
years. Its sudden sinking caused the Flood that made Noah famous, ended
the Ice Age by allowing the Gulf Stream to lick the tenderloins of
Europe, embarrassed many woolly mammoths, accounts for the migratory
nuptial urge of eels to lay their atavistic eggs in the Sargasso Sea,
and explains the heretofore mysterious Mayan calendar, said by Muck to
mark the moment when Atlantis went down: 8 pm, June 5, 8498 BC. In the
New York Times, I said: "I believe every other word of it."'
Kermit
Desertphile
> In other words you are unable to refute.
>
> It is evidence FOR Atlantis, its not conclusive, it is just some
> evidence.
Er, no. It is excellent evidence that Plato had some knowledge of
astrology and the Greek myths involved in the Zodiac.
If you insist Atlantis once existed, then surely you will have to
conceed that ".... Poseidon fell in love and [shje] bore him five pairs
of male twins. The eldest of these, Atlas, was made rightful king of
the entire island and the ocean (now the Atlantic Ocean), and was given
the mountain of his birth and the surrounding area as his fiefdom.
Atlas's twin Gadeirus or Eumelus in Greek, was given the easternmost
portion of the island. The other four pairs of twins - Ampheres and
Evaemon, Mneseus and Autochthon, Elasippus and Mestor, and Azaes and
Diaprepes - 'were the inhabitants and rulers of divers islands in the
open sea.'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis
Desertphile
"A Boy and his Eel."
Kermit
Ooh! I read that one. By Harlan Eelison, right?
Kermit
Ray Martinez
You didn't say there was no evidence.
[I can play the same game too]
> You've given us nothing to refute.
>
> ~Iain
Look at what we have here:
A Usenet full of Darwinists who mouth their expertise in nature, yet
not a one can offer an explanation of the behavior of the eels and
migratory birds (in the link evos, engage your brains).
Muck and others say the behavior is evidence of a land mass that is no
longer there. Until you can provide a BETTER explanation the evidence
stands: score one for the existence of Atlantis based on the behavior
of birds and eels.
Ray
Jim Willemin
[snip]
>
> Look at what we have here:
>
> A Usenet full of Darwinists who mouth their expertise in nature, yet
> not a one can offer an explanation of the behavior of the eels and
> migratory birds (in the link evos, engage your brains).
>
> Muck and others say the behavior is evidence of a land mass that is no
> longer there. Until you can provide a BETTER explanation the evidence
> stands: score one for the existence of Atlantis based on the behavior
> of birds and eels.
>
> Ray
>
>
What about the geological evidence, Ray? If Atlantis existed where you
claim it did, there would be some trace of it in the geology, and there is
not. There is nothing on the ocean floor beneath the Sargasso Sea but
featureless, undisturbed mud and ooze lying above equally undisturbed
abyssal sedimentary rocks, which in turn are resting on undisturbed oceanic
crust. If there were a submerged continent there we would see it in the
gravity field, in the seismic structure of the region, and in the
bathymetry. We see none of this - it is exactly as if Atlantis never
existed at all. Until you can address the geological evidence for the non-
existence of Atlantis, any behavioral evidence must be secondary.
jet
You mean like the Sargasso Sea provides a rich, relatively safe
environment for the larva to develop in? Yeah, I can see how an
fictional land for which there is no evidence and which the believers
can't even agree on it's location provides a better explanation. You've
made a believer out of me. Praise Dr. Scott!
Dr. Scott.
Ah!
Janet!
Dr. Scott!
Janet!
Brad!
Rocky!
Janet!
Dr. Scott!
Janet!
Brad!
Rocky!
Janet!
Dr. Scott!
Janet!
Brad!
Rocky!
Mitchell Coffey
John Wilkins wrote:
> bullpup <bul...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > "Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
> > news:vom8i2dcatiq10tin...@4ax.com...
> > > On 4 Oct 2006 18:07:35 -0700, in talk.origins
> > > "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > > <1160010455.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:
> > > >"In his book "The Secret of Atlantis", German author Otto Muck makes
> > > >the following observation: "Instinctual animals cannot learn from
> > > >experience. Eels have been ruled by instinct since the Cretaceous Age.
> > > >They are unaware that Atlantis no longer exists, that the current
> > > >circling around the Sargasso Sea is broken. And even if they did know,
> > > >they could not change their instinctual lifestyle." The author
> > > >concludes: "The eel has, it seems, a better memory than man. It cannot
> > > >forget the land in the east. Every larvae, every one of the courting
> > > >eels, bears silent witness to Atlantis." "
> > > >
> > > >http://www.returntoatlantis.com/retc/migration.html
> > > >
> > > >Atlantis sank in one catastrophic night during the Flood. Eels cannot
> > > >possess bias and they become excellent evidence for the existence of a
> > > >land mass that is no longer there.
> > >
> > > That is just amazing. I really want some of what he's smoking.
> >
> > No, you don't. It might cause permenant brain damage.
>
> Might?
Post hoc, ergo prompter hoc? You of all people! Reminds me of when an
impatient Lord Carnarvon telegraphed Howard Carter "So what have you
dug up this season?" Responded Carter, cooly, "Tut, Tut, my friend...
."
MItchell
Desertphile
You know how they knew Carter was a member of the USA Republican Party?
Because he uncovered a young boy.
Deadrat
news:1160085728.6...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
After this, therefore more quickly?
Deadrat
Shane
And dr_p the _'s _f c_urse.
Ye Old One
Only two species of eels breed in the area commonly known as the
sargasso sea. Both use the gulf stream as a transport to reach their
area they will mature in. Both evolved at a time when the Atlantic
ocean was a lot smaller than it is today.
>migratory birds (in the link evos, engage your brains).
Birds migrate for a vast number of reasons.
>
>Muck and others say the behavior is evidence of a land mass that is no
>longer there.
Then they are clearly wrong. No such land mass has ever existed in the
area and the behaviour of just two types of eels in not reflected in
all eels.
> Until you can provide a BETTER explanation the evidence
>stands: score one for the existence of Atlantis based on the behavior
>of birds and eels.
Score zero for intelligence Dishonest Ray.
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
Shane
Poor Ray, he just doesn't get it does he? he wants something to be so,
so it just is. Why Atlantis? Why not some other long forgotten island
that sank, as islands are want to do?
Shane
The weight of water pushed it down, you've heard of heavy water haven't
you?. And guess what, directly opposite Atlantis, in the creationist
sense, which means actual measurements may vary, are the Himalayas,
which were obviously covered with light water and so popped up when
Atlantis went down. It's called the global waterbed theory.
macaddicted
Isn't the SciFi channel doing a reality series about Atlantis right now?
--
macaddicted
fides quaerens intellectum
Gary Bohn
> "In his book "The Secret of Atlantis", German author Otto Muck makes
> the following observation: "Instinctual animals cannot learn from
> experience. Eels have been ruled by instinct since the Cretaceous Age.
> They are unaware that Atlantis no longer exists, that the current
> circling around the Sargasso Sea is broken. And even if they did know,
> they could not change their instinctual lifestyle." The author
> concludes: "The eel has, it seems, a better memory than man. It cannot
> forget the land in the east. Every larvae, every one of the courting
> eels, bears silent witness to Atlantis." "
>
> http://www.returntoatlantis.com/retc/migration.html
>
> Atlantis sank in one catastrophic night during the Flood. Eels cannot
> possess bias and they become excellent evidence for the existence of a
> land mass that is no longer there.
>
> Ray
>
>
And of course their migration habits cannot be explained more simply...
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
bible.
John Wilkins
Therefore tell me my lines...
>
> >You of all people! Reminds me of when
> > an impatient Lord Carnarvon telegraphed Howard Carter "So what have
> > you dug up this season?" Responded Carter, cooly, "Tut, Tut, my
> > friend... ."
> >
> > MItchell
> >
> >
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Gary Bohn
news:Xns9852EAB54BEF4ji...@216.196.97.142:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1160011218.4...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>> Free Lunch wrote:
>>> On 4 Oct 2006 18:07:35 -0700, in talk.origins
>>> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> <1160010455.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:
>>> >"In his book "The Secret of Atlantis", German author Otto Muck
>>> >makes the following observation: "Instinctual animals cannot learn
>>> >from experience. Eels have been ruled by instinct since the
>>> >Cretaceous Age. They are unaware that Atlantis no longer exists,
>>> >that the current circling around the Sargasso Sea is broken. And
>>> >even if they did know, they could not change their instinctual
>>> >lifestyle." The author concludes: "The eel has, it seems, a better
>>> >memory than man. It cannot forget the land in the east. Every
>>> >larvae, every one of the courting eels, bears silent witness to
>>> >Atlantis." "
>>> >
>>> >http://www.returntoatlantis.com/retc/migration.html
>>> >
>>> >Atlantis sank in one catastrophic night during the Flood. Eels
>>> >cannot possess bias and they become excellent evidence for the
>>> >existence of a land mass that is no longer there.
>>>
>>> That is just amazing. I really want some of what he's smoking.
>>
>> In other words you are unable to refute.
>>
>> It is evidence FOR Atlantis, its not conclusive, it is just some
>> evidence.
>>
>> This thread is really about the Darwinist and his refusal to admit
>> anything that conflicts with his preconceived notions.
>>
>> Ray
>>
>
> Ray, since you seem to have a real problem accepting facts that are
> inconsistent with your unique worldview it is certain that you will
> not accept this as a refutation, but the idea that a landmass existed
> in the Atlantic Ocean in the Sargasso Sea is simply absurd. Present
> water depth there is something on the order of 4,500 meters; the
> sediments on the bottom are undisturbed abyssal oozes and muds with no
> trace of the disruption that must have occurred during such a
> catastrophic event as the submergence of Atlantis. The rocks of the
> underlying crust are typical oceanic crust - well studied and well
> understood, oceanic crust is both thin and dense; there are no
> extensive bits of oceanic crust above sea level because it is too
> heavy and weak to stay above the water (exceptions like Iceland occur
> on the mid-ocean volcanic spreading centers). Were Atlantis to have
> existed in the Sargasso Sea, the catastrophe must have changed the
> chemical composition of the very rocks,or somehow make them vanish
> completely without a trace. Further, the seismic structure of the
> crust under the Sargasso Sea is continuous with the crust all around -
> there is no trace of any underpinings of a former island. There is no
> geological or geophysical evidence *for* a former land mass in the
> Sargasso Sea, and much geological and geophysical evidence *against*
> it.
>
> As an analogy, you are telling us that a giant file cabinet was
> standing in a room while layers and layers of dust settled on the
> floor. We see no trace of that file cabinet now - you tell us it sank
> into the floor. But the layers of dust are undisturbed and continuous
> across the entire room - there is no sign that a giant file cabinet
> was ever there. The only possible way for what you say to be true is
> if someone used magic to take that cabinet away and replace it with
> layers of dust.
>
>
> There are other possible explanations for behavior of animals; if you
> plan to use this argument in your paper, I urge you to consider
> alternative explanations that do not involve Atlantis, and to
> reconsider making any mention of Atlantis - because if you insist on
> mentioning Atlantis as if it were real, then I'm afraid nothing else
> you say will have any credibility whatever.
>
> I have tried to provide evidence from the study of the ocean floor and
> from geophysics that refutes the story of Atlantis; further, I have
> tried to present an analogy that illustrates what that evidence means.
> I suspect you will dismiss this as a Darwinian rant, even though I am
> a geologist, not a Darwinian - it is my hope that some of the evidence
> I have presented may be unfamiliar to some; it is only a small sample
> of the multiple lines of evidence that overwhelmingly and compellingly
> refute the legend of a sunken land mass in the Atlantic Ocean.
>
>
As they say in another forum which shall remain unnamed -
*Thunderous Applause*
Scooter the Mighty
Ray Martinez wrote:
> "In his book "The Secret of Atlantis", German author Otto Muck makes
> the following observation: "Instinctual animals cannot learn from
> experience. Eels have been ruled by instinct since the Cretaceous Age.
> They are unaware that Atlantis no longer exists, that the current
> circling around the Sargasso Sea is broken. And even if they did know,
> they could not change their instinctual lifestyle." The author
> concludes: "The eel has, it seems, a better memory than man. It cannot
> forget the land in the east. Every larvae, every one of the courting
> eels, bears silent witness to Atlantis." "
>
> http://www.returntoatlantis.com/retc/migration.html
>
> Atlantis sank in one catastrophic night during the Flood. Eels cannot
> possess bias and they become excellent evidence for the existence of a
> land mass that is no longer there.
>
So...eels swim to the sargasso sea, a place described in your link as
teaming with food, and spawn there. Gee, must be the site of Atlantis,
it couldn't be something as simple as an eel spawning ground. No, it
makes much more sense if it were a place where land used to be, because
eels have so freaking much use for land. No doubt they had their
duplicate bridge tournaments there.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Kermit"
<unrestra...@hotmail.com>:
Yeah; Ray gets eaten by the eel.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Ray Martinez"
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On 4 Oct 2006 18:07:35 -0700, in talk.origins
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> <1160010455.5...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>:
>> >"In his book "The Secret of Atlantis", German author Otto Muck makes
>> >the following observation: "Instinctual animals cannot learn from
>> >experience. Eels have been ruled by instinct since the Cretaceous Age.
>> >They are unaware that Atlantis no longer exists, that the current
>> >circling around the Sargasso Sea is broken. And even if they did know,
>> >they could not change their instinctual lifestyle." The author
>> >concludes: "The eel has, it seems, a better memory than man. It cannot
>> >forget the land in the east. Every larvae, every one of the courting
>> >eels, bears silent witness to Atlantis." "
>> >
>> >http://www.returntoatlantis.com/retc/migration.html
>> >
>> >Atlantis sank in one catastrophic night during the Flood. Eels cannot
>> >possess bias and they become excellent evidence for the existence of a
>> >land mass that is no longer there.
>>
>> That is just amazing. I really want some of what he's smoking.
>
>In other words you are unable to refute.
One doesn't attempt to "refute" a fantasy. Would you care to
refute the Silmarillion?
>It is evidence FOR Atlantis, its not conclusive, it is just some
>evidence.
No, it's no sort of evidence at all. There's zero evidence
that a continent ever existed where the Sargasso Sea exists,
there's zero evidence that a world-wide flood ever took
place, and there's zero evidence that catadromous eels are
looking for anything other than salt water in which to
spawn; do you think they're leaving fresh water on one
continent and crossing salt water in order to find fresh
water on a missing continent in which to spawn?
>This thread is really about the Darwinist and his refusal to admit
>anything that conflicts with his preconceived notions.
....says the Biblical fundamentalist. Good thing my
IronyMeter's well-shielded.
rupert....@gmail.com
Why do you think the eels ever needed land to spawn? The Sargasso Sea
certainly suits them now. Eels that could only spawn on land would have
been extinguished by the overnight loss of their spawning grounds.
> and
> migratory birds (in the link evos, engage your brains).
Yes, it refers to Catopsilia as a bird. They are, in fact, butterflies.
The mass suicide of butterflies in the Atlantic, just like lemmings
(also mentioned) diving off a cliff, has never been observed.
I'm interested that you think that the location of Atlantis in the
Sargasso Sea makes it somewhere that Norwegian lemmings could swim to,
given that they are not observed to swim more than 1-2km in the wild.
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160081432.8...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
snipping
>> > It is evidence FOR Atlantis, its not conclusive, it is just some
>> > evidence.
>>
>> What evidence? I see no evidence, just a claim.
>>
>
> You didn't say there was no evidence.
>
> [I can play the same game too]
The claim about the eels is not evidence that supports your claim about
Atlantis.
>
>> You've given us nothing to refute.
>>
>> ~Iain
>
> Look at what we have here:
>
> A Usenet full of Darwinists who mouth their expertise in nature, yet
> not a one can offer an explanation of the behavior of the eels and
> migratory birds (in the link evos, engage your brains).
Ray, why do you assume that no one can give an explanation for the behavior
of eels and birds? Eels spawn in water, not on a missing landmass.
Birds migrate to present land, not land that's supposedly missing.
>
> Muck and others say the behavior is evidence of a land mass that is no
> longer there.
Muck and others, however have not presented sufficient evidence to support
that claim. Moreover the evidence we have shows that no such land mass was
ever there.
> Until you can provide a BETTER explanation the evidence
> stands: score one for the existence of Atlantis based on the behavior
> of birds and eels.
The behavior of the birds and eels does not support your case, and is better
explained without invoking a mythical landmass.
DJT
CreateThis
Sorry, but scientific evidence = inability to refute. Welcome to the
Ray Martinez Zone.
CT
Desertphile
Bob Casanova wrote:
> On 5 Oct 2006 11:45:23 -0700, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "Kermit"
> <unrestra...@hotmail.com>:
>
> >
> >Desertphile wrote:
> >> Iain wrote:
> >> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> > >Eels of Atlantis
> >>
> >> > Wasn't that a film about a young boy and a telepathic eel?
> >>
> >> "A Boy and his Eel."
> >
> >Ooh! I read that one. By Harlan Eelison, right?
> Yeah; Ray gets eaten by the eel.
And the eel promptly dies.
"Why didn't you say so?! LINE 'EM UP!" --- a boy
Mike Painter
Klaus
Look moron,
The migration of (some species)eels shows they spawn in the Sargasso
Sea. Eels do not spawn on land. Atlantis was based on a garbled
recounting of the devastation wrought in the Mediterranian
Sea by the cataclysmic eruption of Thera. Or, possibly, it could be pure
myth.
Klaus
Ray Martinez
Jim:
How many expeditions have attempted to locate Atlantis ?
Ray
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
More than enough.
--
Bob.
Gerry Murphy
> >"In his book "The Secret of Atlantis", German author Otto Muck makes
> >the following observation: "Instinctual animals cannot learn from
> >experience. Eels have been ruled by instinct since the Cretaceous Age.
> >They are unaware that Atlantis no longer exists, that the current
> >circling around the Sargasso Sea is broken. And even if they did know,
> >they could not change their instinctual lifestyle." The author
> >concludes: "The eel has, it seems, a better memory than man. It cannot
> >forget the land in the east. Every larvae, every one of the courting
> >eels, bears silent witness to Atlantis." "
> >
> >http://www.returntoatlantis.com/retc/migration.html
> >
> >Atlantis sank in one catastrophic night during the Flood. Eels cannot
> >land mass that is no longer there.
>
>
Is he smoking eels? 8-}
John Wilkins
Dogma Discharge
Jim Willemin
You mean expeditions specifically funded to go look for Atlantis in the
Sargasso Sea area? I don't know - I suspect fewer than ten, probably fewer
than one. On the other hand, there have been a whole lot of expeditions
that would have seen a submerged continent if it existed - that area is
between the east coast ports of the US and a region of the Mid-Atlantic
Ridge that has been intensively studied for at least 15 years (the FAMOUS
area, if you'd care to look further). The neat thing about oceanographic
research vessels is that they tend to leave the bathymetry equipment
running as they steam to and from research areas, so there is really quite
a lot of depth data for the western Atlantic (take a look at the actual
ship tracks at http://map.ngdc.noaa.gov/website/mgg/trackline/viewer.htm).
What the map of ship tracks means is that if Atlantis existed, it would
need to be small enough to fit between those ship tracks, since we know
what the bottom look like along those lines. Another neat thing is modern
multibeam bathymetry covers a wide swath of sea bottom, so the actual data
is far richer than a single line. What this all shows is that if Atlantis
existed it would have to be very small, and have very steep sides, almost
like a pillar extending up from the sea floor for nearly 4000 meters (over
2 miles). Now, if a pillar like that existed and collapsed, we would see
the rubble scattered over the sea bottom (we do see such mega-landslide
debris on the sea bottom near Oahu in the Hawaiian Islands). We see no
such rubble. Further, I'm sure I don't have to explain how unstable a two
mile high pillar of rock would be - Atlantis would have never made it to
the surface before collapsing. Even further, there is the question of the
deep structure of such an island - it would leave a strong geophysical
signature in the gravity and seismic structure. We don't see anything like
that either - the gravitational signature would affect the orbits of
satellites, and GPS wouldn't work.
I guess the upshot here is that there is an awful lot of geological
evidence that Atlantis never existed: bathymetry, gravity, and seismic
structure. Before you assert that behavior patterns in eels and
butterflies has anything to do with Atlantis you really need to address the
physical evidence that shows it was never there. There is not only absence
of evidence for Atlantis in the Sargasso Sea - there is abundant evidence
of absence.
Desertphile
Probably as many morons who have tried to locate "Noah's Ark." And much
the same people.
Mitchell Coffey
My bad. I thought it meant "Romans go home."
Mitchell Coffey
CreateThis
That's a great, informative post - for everybody but Ray Martinez. He
has an affliction that makes actual information invisible to him. As
evidence of that, notice that he'll never respond to this in a way
that indicates he has actually seen it.
CT
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Scooter the Mighty"
<Grey...@hotmail.com>:
Don't be silly; eels don't play duplicate. Rubber bridge
only...or Sargasso Slime'em.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Gerry Murphy"
<gerry_...@comcast.net>:
I seem to recall something about a "surfeit of lampreys"
being less than good for the health. Maybe we'll get lucky.
Josh Hayes
news:w--dnamSIabEtrvY...@comcast.com:
I tried smoking eels once, but they kept going out.
-JAH
entry for "world's oldest joke"
rupert....@gmail.com
Millions. Millions every year. Unfortunately my library does not
subscribe to Eely Research Quarterly, so I don't know what they've
found.
>
> Ray
er...@swva.net
> Iain wrote:
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > Free Lunch wrote:
> > > > >"In his book "The Secret of Atlantis", German author Otto Muck makes
> > > > >the following observation: "Instinctual animals cannot learn from
> > > > >experience. Eels have been ruled by instinct since the Cretaceous Age.
> > > > >They are unaware that Atlantis no longer exists, that the current
> > > > >circling around the Sargasso Sea is broken. And even if they did know,
> > > > >they could not change their instinctual lifestyle." The author
> > > > >concludes: "The eel has, it seems, a better memory than man. It cannot
> > > > >forget the land in the east. Every larvae, every one of the courting
> > > > >eels, bears silent witness to Atlantis." "
> > > > >
> > > > >http://www.returntoatlantis.com/retc/migration.html
> > > > >
> > > > >Atlantis sank in one catastrophic night during the Flood. Eels cannot
> > > > >land mass that is no longer there.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It is evidence FOR Atlantis, its not conclusive, it is just some
> > > evidence.
> >
> > What evidence? I see no evidence, just a claim.
> >
>
> You didn't say there was no evidence.
>
> [I can play the same game too]
>
> > You've given us nothing to refute.
> >
> > ~Iain
>
>
> A Usenet full of Darwinists who mouth their expertise in nature, yet
> not a one can offer an explanation of the behavior of the eels and
> migratory birds (in the link evos, engage your brains).
>
> Muck and others say the behavior is evidence of a land mass that is no
> longer there. Until you can provide a BETTER explanation the evidence
> stands: score one for the existence of Atlantis based on the behavior
> of birds and eels.
>
> Ray
Well, I'm half German, and I say the eels are swimming around under the
flight paths of invisible flying saucers, hoping for a handout of table
scraps. Until you offer a better explanation, the invisible flying
saucers stand.
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
It's the penalty from Romans. It causes fundamentalists to be "ate up
with the dumb-ass," as we used to say in the Army.
> CT
Eric Root
CreateThis
The invisible flying saucers explanation is clearly superior to the
invisible lost continent explanation and must stand until bested,
pursuant to the terms of the contest.
The table scraps convinced me.
CT
MRB
[gibberish]
May I submit that "Eels of Atlantis" is truly a great name for a rock band?
Perplexed in Peoria
"MRB" <bro...@com.gmail> wrote in message news:eg7elr$hi5$1...@news5.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
> Ray Martinez schreef:
> [gibberish]
>
> May I submit that "Eels of Atlantis" is truly a great name for a rock band?
Not as good as The Dead Sea Squirrels.
Kleuskes & Moos
Ray Martinez schreef:
Don't know....
I _do_ know we have a good candidate for Atlantis, with loads of
evidence to support the notion. Check out the island of Santorini and
the ancient town now called Akrotiri. It fits all the descriptions.
It's not in the atlantic ocean, though...
Martin Kaletsch
> I _do_ know we have a good candidate for Atlantis, with loads of
> evidence to support the notion. Check out the island of Santorini and
> the ancient town now called Akrotiri. It fits all the descriptions.
>
> It's not in the atlantic ocean, though...
After having read a bit about this whole Atlantis thing some while ago, I
think this theory has the same problem all Atlantis theories have.
It is not needed, in my opponion!
There is no evidence of an Atlantis "myth" befor Platos writings. So,
following Occams Razor I'd just assume the Atlantis is a literary creation.
And even if Atlantis were some old greek folklore, I still don't know why so
many people insist that every legend has to be based on real events. One
example of that is of course (and we're on-toppic again!) the biblical
creation myth, another are the arthurian legends.
Why can't we just accept myths and legends as examples of more or less good
storytelling?
--
Martin Kaletsch
John Wilkins
A lot of the Atlantis myth depends on the identification of the
"pillars of Hercules" mentioned in Plato's Timaeus and Critias (which is
incomplete). Scholars think that this was a trilogy, with a third book
to come. These two dialogues are largely hermetic in their intent - it's
thought by some that the Timaeus is in fact an allegorical work
expounding Pythagorean doctrines esoterically.
It seems to me that Plato has taken a folk tale of the Santorini
explosion or perhaps several events around the Mediterranean as an
allegory for these secret doctrines and the ideal society based on them.
Platoo clearly put the island in the Atlantic, but given there is a
Spanish city that also slid into the sea, he may have conflated the two,
and even added in elements of stories, possibly by Phonecian sailors, or
Ireland, which matches the geographical description in the Timaeus.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3766863.stm
"He obviously blended fantasy and fact. But the question is not whether
he made something up. It's if he made everything up--or if he based it
on some real data," Erlingsson said.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/08/0819_040819_atlantis.htm
l
Kleuskes & Moos
John Wilkins schreef:
Thanks! That's the first i heard about this site. It seems very
interesting.
> "He obviously blended fantasy and fact. But the question is not whether
> he made something up. It's if he made everything up--or if he based it
> on some real data," Erlingsson said.
>
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/08/0819_040819_atlantis.htm
It's obvious i did not keep up with my cryptothallasology. Thanks for
the interesting reads. How a ill-informed post can lead to something
good. I fact we have more than one candidate and Plato was lying
through his teeth ;).
Desertphile
> > >> Might?
And here I thought it meant "People called Romanes they go the house."
Ray Martinez
ATLANTIs = ATLANTIc
mazATLAN (Mexico) = ATLANtis
ATLAS (mountains) = ATLAntiS
The lost continent obviously provided the name for the Atlantic ocean,
Mazatlan, Mexico, and the Atlas mountains.
Being an evolutionist you should have no trouble seeing the linguistic
evolution and similarities - right ?
May I remind that Atlantis precedes any other name origins as they all
descend from the source (the sunken continent).
Ray
Free Lunch
You seem not to understand that things don't exist just because stories
are told about them.
*glingle, glingle*
DJT
Ray Martinez wrote:
snip
> >
> > I _do_ know we have a good candidate for Atlantis, with loads of
> > evidence to support the notion. Check out the island of Santorini and
> > the ancient town now called Akrotiri. It fits all the descriptions.
> >
> > It's not in the atlantic ocean, though...
>
> ATLANTIs = ATLANTIc
Ray, we've been through this before. Your forced eytomolgy was shown
to be wrong. Both the Atlantic Ocean, and the Atlas mountains derive
from the same root, i.e the Greek Titan Atlas.
Atlas. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary. Retrieved October
07, 2006, from Dictionary.com website:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Atlas
>
> mazATLAN (Mexico) = ATLANtis
Remember, Ray? "Mazatlan" is a Native American word for 'Place of the
Deer". The town itself is on the Pacific Ocean. It has nothing to
do with the mythical continent of Atlantis.
http://www.vacation-addicts.com/allinclusivevacations/mexico/mazatlan/
>
> ATLAS (mountains) = ATLAntiS
>
> The lost continent obviously provided the name for the Atlantic ocean,
> Mazatlan, Mexico, and the Atlas mountains.
Or, as the evidence above shows, the "continent" was named after the
same root the Atlantic Ocean and the Atlas mountians.
atlantis. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1). Retrieved
October 07, 2006, from Dictionary.com website:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=atlantis
MLA:
>
> Being an evolutionist you should have no trouble seeing the linguistic
> evolution and similarities - right ?
Not when the "lingusitic similarities" are a coincidence.
>
> May I remind that Atlantis precedes any other name origins as they all
> descend from the source (the sunken continent).
May I remind you that you haven't supported that claim?
DJT
Desertphile
> Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
> > > How many expeditions have attempted to locate Atlantis ?
> > Don't know....
> >
> > I _do_ know we have a good candidate for Atlantis, with loads of
> > evidence to support the notion. Check out the island of Santorini and
> > the ancient town now called Akrotiri. It fits all the descriptions.
> >
> > It's not in the atlantic ocean, though...
> ATLAnTIS = AtLaNtIC
>
> MazatLAN (MExiCO) = ATlANtIs
>
> AtlaS (moUNtainS) = atLantis
>
> ThE loSt ConTINEnt ObvIOuSlY ProvIdeD THE NaMe fOr ThE atlAntIC OcEAn,
> MAZATlan, mEXicO, anD THe AtLAS mOuntaIns.
>
> beIng an eVoLUtIONIst YOu SHoULd HaVE no tRouble SeeINg THe LinguiStIC
> eVolUtiOn aND siMiLariTIes - RIGhT ?
>
> may i rEMiND ThaT AtLaNtIs pRecEdES AnY oTHeR Name OrigInS aS thEY all
> DeSCEND fRoM The sOuRce (The SuNkeN contINenT).
This is just... just.... well, goddamned sad to see. Here we have the
Atlantic ocean, named after the Greek god Atlas, being turned into the
mythical "lost continent of Atlantis" by a Creationist who cannot think
past his occult indoctrination to see he has placed the cart before the
horse (or in this case, the golden chariot before the unicorn).
Just imaging the "thought" processes required to believe the Atlas
mountain rage was named after Atlantis, and not the other way around.
Golly that's sad.
Iain
Indiana Jones and the Eels of Atlantis?
~Iain
Ye Old One
You are a very stupid and ignorant person, as well as a dishonest
person Ray.
I well remember you being corrected several times before on your
linguistic stupidity - why do you find it impossible to learn?
>
>Being an evolutionist you should have no trouble seeing the linguistic
>evolution and similarities - right ?
Wrong - as usual.
>
>May I remind that Atlantis precedes any other name origins as they all
>descend from the source (the sunken continent).
There never was an Atlantis, nor a flood to sink it.
--
Bob.
Ken Rode
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Kleuskes & Moos wrote:
> > Ray Martinez schreef:
> >
<snip>
> ATLANTIs = ATLANTIc
>
> mazATLAN (Mexico) = ATLANtis
>
> ATLAS (mountains) = ATLAntiS
>
> The lost continent obviously provided the name for the Atlantic ocean,
> Mazatlan, Mexico, and the Atlas mountains.
>
> Being an evolutionist you should have no trouble seeing the linguistic
> evolution and similarities - right ?
>
> May I remind that Atlantis precedes any other name origins as they all
> descend from the source (the sunken continent).
Ray, stop it. You're embarrassing yourself.
By the way, have you found a bathymetric map of the Sargasso Sea that
supports your contention that Atlantis was at one time located there?
No? How about on this chart:
http://whale.wheelock.edu/whalenet-stuff/MAPSindex/images/NorthAtlanticBathymetric.jpg
Can you point out where Atlantis was? The Sargasso Sea is in the large
dark blue area to the west of the mid-Atlantic ridge, about 1/3 up from
the botton of the image. There's no sign of any "sunken" continent
there, Ray. Why is that?
Jim Willemin
[snip]
>
> ATLANTIs = ATLANTIc
>
> mazATLAN (Mexico) = ATLANtis
>
> ATLAS (mountains) = ATLAntiS
>
> The lost continent obviously provided the name for the Atlantic ocean,
> Mazatlan, Mexico, and the Atlas mountains.
>
> Being an evolutionist you should have no trouble seeing the linguistic
> evolution and similarities - right ?
>
> May I remind that Atlantis precedes any other name origins as they all
> descend from the source (the sunken continent).
>
> Ray
>
Ray, what about the geological evidence? In the face of very plausible
alternative interpretations for the behaivior of eels and butterflies,
and certainly more accurate etymologies, perhaps you ought to explain why
the geological and geophysical evidence doesn't prove that Atlantis never
existed in the Atlantic ocean.
Hmm.... according to assertions made by a recent poster, the -ology
suffix implies that those practicing a certain discipline have elevated
the subject of that discipline to divine status. Does that mean that you
regard word histories as divine? Your fascniation with them, and your
belief that coincidental similarities in how words sound imply some deep
historical connection doesn't seem wholly inconsistent with that.
This whole word idea of word similarity implying some sort of link
between referents is pretty silly. For example, consider MARTINI and
MARTINez -- is there a link between two? Ray, I would ask how would you
analyze this, but I would much rather you thought about the geology of
the Atlantic basin.
Wakboth
Jim Willemin kirjoitti:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1160241306.8...@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > ATLANTIs = ATLANTIc
> >
> > mazATLAN (Mexico) = ATLANtis
> >
> > ATLAS (mountains) = ATLAntiS
> >
> > The lost continent obviously provided the name for the Atlantic ocean,
> > Mazatlan, Mexico, and the Atlas mountains.
> >
> > Being an evolutionist you should have no trouble seeing the linguistic
> > evolution and similarities - right ?
> >
> > May I remind that Atlantis precedes any other name origins as they all
> > descend from the source (the sunken continent).
> >
> > Ray
> >
>
> Ray, what about the geological evidence? In the face of very plausible
> alternative interpretations for the behaivior of eels and butterflies,
> and certainly more accurate etymologies, perhaps you ought to explain why
> the geological and geophysical evidence doesn't prove that Atlantis never
> existed in the Atlantic ocean.
"Demands for evidence = inability to refute!"
-- Wakboth
rupert....@gmail.com
More divine word histories:
Genetics is named for Dr. GENE Scott, as is Scotland.
Roentgen named X-rays for RAY Martinez.
Politicians are so-called because of their excessive politeness.
Television is so named because it is transmitted over telephone wires.
Oh, this is fun! Fun, of course, is a contraction of fundamentalist,
which is why they never have any.
Tom McDonald
Jim Willemin wrote:
<snip>
> For example, consider MARTINI and
> MARTINez -- is there a link between two?
You know, this may explain a lot.
Ray Martinez
Jim Willemin wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:1160241306.8...@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > ATLANTIs = ATLANTIc
> >
> > mazATLAN (Mexico) = ATLANtis
> >
> > ATLAS (mountains) = ATLAntiS
> >
> > The lost continent obviously provided the name for the Atlantic ocean,
> > Mazatlan, Mexico, and the Atlas mountains.
> >
> > Being an evolutionist you should have no trouble seeing the linguistic
> > evolution and similarities - right ?
> >
> > May I remind that Atlantis precedes any other name origins as they all
> > descend from the source (the sunken continent).
> >
> > Ray
> >
>
> Ray, what about the geological evidence? In the face of very plausible
> alternative interpretations for the behaivior of eels and butterflies,
But you have provided none - why is that ?
> and certainly more accurate etymologies,
Contrary assumptions do not harm the direct lingusitic evidence
supporting the claim. Darwinists see evolution in spite of the fact
that gaps reaching hundreds of millions of years in the fossil record,
yet the direct linguistics is ignored = proof Darwinists are not loyal
to evidence, which honest persons already knew.
> perhaps you ought to explain why
> the geological and geophysical evidence doesn't prove that Atlantis never
> existed in the Atlantic ocean.
>
When I asked how many expeditions have attempted to locate Atlantis you
typed a reply that exceeded four letters: NONE.
>
> Hmm.... according to assertions made by a recent poster, the -ology
> suffix implies that those practicing a certain discipline have elevated
> the subject of that discipline to divine status.
Deliberate distortion. I said SOME suffixes, and I listed some of them.
> Does that mean that you
> regard word histories as divine? Your fascniation with them, and your
> belief that coincidental similarities in how words sound imply some deep
> historical connection doesn't seem wholly inconsistent with that.
>
I can play the same dishonest game too:
Regarding ToE: your fascination with homology coincidences....
In addition, your special pleading attempting to disregard the
linguistics evidence provides no alternative answer since Atlantis
predates the many other etymologies, thus they all diverged from the
earliest source.
> This whole word idea of word similarity implying some sort of link
> between referents is pretty silly. For example, consider MARTINI and
> MARTINez -- is there a link between two? Ray, I would ask how would you
> analyze this, but I would much rather you thought about the geology of
> the Atlantic basin.
> --
The whole idea and concept of homology implying common ancestry is
silly since we know Genesis is accurate and atheists need something.
Brutus (son of Chalcol and Darda (Dardanus of Greece), 1Kings 4:31 =
founder of Britain/Brutus.
Saragossa Sea = Zaragossa, Spain = Zarah, the birthright twin of
Genesis 38 whose descendants migrated there.
Hibernia = Hebrew.
Denmark = Dan's Mark = Tribe of Dan = DANube river.
Popular Nordic surname: Isaacson = sons of Isaac = Biblical PatriARCH =
direct evidence of his existence.
The Bible says David was ruddy (red).
Jim: where is the only red race on this planet ?
Exodus 15:3 "The LORD is a man of war the LORD is his name"
Jim
"Value nothing but truth, compassion, and love"
Except direct linguistic evidence when it contradicts your worldview.
Ray
Ken Rode
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Jim Willemin wrote:
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > news:1160241306.8...@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
<snip>
> > Hmm.... according to assertions made by a recent poster, the -ology
> > suffix implies that those practicing a certain discipline have elevated
> > the subject of that discipline to divine status.
>
> Deliberate distortion. I said SOME suffixes, and I listed some of them.
Deliberate distortion is correct, Ray, but the distortion is yours.
Here is what you said:
--- begin quote ---
"ology" indicates what precedes is considered supernatural or Divine.
Christology is the study of Christ as God, as is Buddhaology (the study
of Buddha as God). Demonoogy is the study of persons who think demons
are Divine. Maryology is the belief that Mary is Divine etc.etc.
--- end quote ---
There is no mention that this only applies to some suffixes. Your first
statement was absolute, and is reinforced by the "etc.etc." at the end
of the paragraph. If you can't even remember what you said 5 days ago,
and are too lazy to look it up, how are we to trust that you can even
relate the teachings of Dr. Scott accurately. I'm guessing that you've
thoroughly cocked those up.
<snip stuff that Ray says that can't be trusted>
rupert....@gmail.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Jim Willemin wrote:
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > news:1160241306.8...@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >
> > > ATLANTIs = ATLANTIc
> > >
> > > mazATLAN (Mexico) = ATLANtis
> > >
> > > ATLAS (mountains) = ATLAntiS
> > >
> > > The lost continent obviously provided the name for the Atlantic ocean,
> > > Mazatlan, Mexico, and the Atlas mountains.
> > >
> > > Being an evolutionist you should have no trouble seeing the linguistic
> > > evolution and similarities - right ?
> > >
> > > May I remind that Atlantis precedes any other name origins as they all
> > > descend from the source (the sunken continent).
> > >
> > > Ray
> > >
> >
> > Ray, what about the geological evidence? In the face of very plausible
> > alternative interpretations for the behaivior of eels and butterflies,
>
> But you have provided none - why is that ?
Eels spawn in the ocean, not on land. Eels that spawn in parts of the
ocean that are rich in nutrients will have a better chance of their
offspring surviving to adulthood.
I expect you to ignore this alternative explanation.
>
> > and certainly more accurate etymologies,
>
> Contrary assumptions do not harm the direct lingusitic evidence
> supporting the claim. Darwinists see evolution in spite of the fact
> that gaps reaching hundreds of millions of years in the fossil record,
> yet the direct linguistics is ignored = proof Darwinists are not loyal
> to evidence, which honest persons already knew.
Honest = ho + nest, i.e. a brothel.
>
>
> > perhaps you ought to explain why
> > the geological and geophysical evidence doesn't prove that Atlantis never
> > existed in the Atlantic ocean.
> >
>
> When I asked how many expeditions have attempted to locate Atlantis you
> typed a reply that exceeded four letters: NONE.
You gave a specific location for Atlantis. That location has been
surveyed, and there are no remains of sunken islands in the vicinity.
If I say there is a 30' lizard in Times Square, you don't need to send
someone there to specifically find it. The people who are already there
can tell you.
>
>
> >
> > Hmm.... according to assertions made by a recent poster, the -ology
> > suffix implies that those practicing a certain discipline have elevated
> > the subject of that discipline to divine status.
>
> Deliberate distortion. I said SOME suffixes, and I listed some of them.
So "-ology" means "divine" except when it doesn't. Would you please
either give us an exhaustive list, or a rule whereby we can tell the
difference?
>
>
> > Does that mean that you
> > regard word histories as divine? Your fascniation with them, and your
> > belief that coincidental similarities in how words sound imply some deep
> > historical connection doesn't seem wholly inconsistent with that.
> >
>
> I can play the same dishonest game too:
>
> Regarding ToE: your fascination with homology coincidences....
If it was just coincidences, we would argue about the homologies of
bird wings with bat wings and insect wings. But since scientists
actually test their ideas, instead of throwing out the first thing that
pops into their heads, we know that these structures are very
different.
Bird wings and bat wings are, of course, homologs at the level of
tetrapod forelimbs.
>
> In addition, your special pleading attempting to disregard the
> linguistics evidence provides no alternative answer since Atlantis
> predates the many other etymologies, thus they all diverged from the
> earliest source.
You think the titan Atlas was named after Atlantis. Can you give
another example of a word that is older than its root?
>
>
> > This whole word idea of word similarity implying some sort of link
> > between referents is pretty silly. For example, consider MARTINI and
> > MARTINez -- is there a link between two? Ray, I would ask how would you
> > analyze this, but I would much rather you thought about the geology of
> > the Atlantic basin.
> > --
>
> The whole idea and concept of homology implying common ancestry is
> silly since we know Genesis is accurate
Genesis does not mention Atlantis.
> and atheists need something.
We need many things. However, none of what we need can be found in the
bible.
>
> Brutus (son of Chalcol and Darda (Dardanus of Greece), 1Kings 4:31 =
> founder of Britain/Brutus.
A myth. The British Isles were occupied and deserted several times over
the last 10,000 years.
>
> Saragossa Sea = Zaragossa, Spain = Zarah, the birthright twin of
> Genesis 38 whose descendants migrated there.
Or possibly just named so by the Spaniards who were the first to sail
there. Were they as divinely inspired as the authors of Genesis?
>
> Hibernia = Hebrew.
Hibernia is a Roman name. I think the Romans were capable of telling
the difference between Ireland and Judea.
>
> Denmark = Dan's Mark = Tribe of Dan = DANube river.
Look at a map, Ray. The Danube does not go anywhere near Denmark. The
people who live along the Danube speak several languages, but none of
them are Danish. The most closely related language to Danish is
Swedish. The Danube also does not flow through Sweden.
>
> Popular Nordic surname: Isaacson = sons of Isaac = Biblical PatriARCH =
> direct evidence of his existence.
YES! You have proved the existence of the name Isaac. I always thought
Isaac Newton's parents made it up, but I guess you put me right.
>
> The Bible says David was ruddy (red).
>
> Jim: where is the only red race on this planet ?
People have called me ruddy, too. I am not a Native American.
>
> Exodus 15:3 "The LORD is a man of war the LORD is his name"
>
> Jim
> "Value nothing but truth, compassion, and love"
>
> Except direct linguistic evidence when it contradicts your worldview.
Except made-up kindergarten-level etymologies of random words that
prove nothing except that Ray is incapable of critical thought.
>
> Ray
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160262933.7...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
snip
>>
>> Ray, what about the geological evidence? In the face of very plausible
>> alternative interpretations for the behaivior of eels and butterflies,
>
> But you have provided none - why is that ?
He did, in an earlier posting, which you ignored.
>
>> and certainly more accurate etymologies,
>
> Contrary assumptions do not harm the direct lingusitic evidence
> supporting the claim.
That's because there is no "direct linguistic evidence". Lots of languages
have similar sounding words. That doesn't mean they derive from the same
source.
> Darwinists see evolution in spite of the fact
> that gaps reaching hundreds of millions of years in the fossil record,
Evolution is seen in many different ways, not only in the fossil record.
The 'gaps' are not as signifcant as you seem to feel.
> yet the direct linguistics is ignored
Not 'ignored' but largely discounted due to lack of evidence.
>= proof Darwinists are not loyal
> to evidence, which honest persons already knew.
Ray, are you pretending that you are an honest person?
>
>
>> perhaps you ought to explain why
>> the geological and geophysical evidence doesn't prove that Atlantis never
>> existed in the Atlantic ocean.
>>
>
> When I asked how many expeditions have attempted to locate Atlantis you
> typed a reply that exceeded four letters: NONE.
Ray, how would an expedition to a mythical place proceed? Finding some
evidence that the place existed would be a good first step, and apparenlty,
no one has managed to get past that step.
>
>
>>
>> Hmm.... according to assertions made by a recent poster, the -ology
>> suffix implies that those practicing a certain discipline have elevated
>> the subject of that discipline to divine status.
>
> Deliberate distortion. I said SOME suffixes, and I listed some of them.
Ray, you backtracked after it was shown your claim was silly. You tried
claim that some usages of 'ology' referred to the divine, but were not able
to support it. No one was fooled by your clumsy attempt to cover up your
mistake.
>
>
>> Does that mean that you
>> regard word histories as divine? Your fascniation with them, and your
>> belief that coincidental similarities in how words sound imply some deep
>> historical connection doesn't seem wholly inconsistent with that.
>>
>
> I can play the same dishonest game too:
Ray, a dishonest game is the only one you know how to play.
>
> Regarding ToE: your fascination with homology coincidences....
The theory of evolution explains the homology of body parts in different
linages. You tried to claim that they were conincidental, without any
success.
>
> In addition, your special pleading attempting to disregard the
> linguistics evidence provides no alternative answer since Atlantis
> predates the many other etymologies, thus they all diverged from the
> earliest source.
Circular logic, Ray. You are assuming that Atlantis predates the other
meanings, in order to support your claim that it predates them. Plato's
story of Atlantis is younger than the legends of the Titan Atlas. Also,
"Mazatlan" is not connected in any way to the Atlantis legend.
>
>
>> This whole word idea of word similarity implying some sort of link
>> between referents is pretty silly. For example, consider MARTINI and
>> MARTINez -- is there a link between two? Ray, I would ask how would you
>> analyze this, but I would much rather you thought about the geology of
>> the Atlantic basin.
>> --
>
> The whole idea and concept of homology implying common ancestry is
> silly since we know Genesis is accurate and atheists need something.
Actually, Ray, we don't know that Genesis is accurate, and in fact the
evidence shows the contrary. Atheists don't need any particular creation
story.
>
> Brutus (son of Chalcol and Darda (Dardanus of Greece), 1Kings 4:31 =
> founder of Britain/Brutus.
What evidence, other than strained "linguistics" do you have for this?
Isn't it just possible there was more than one person named 'Brutus" in the
world? How does "Brutus" become "Britian" anyway?
Incidentally, the name "Brutus" does not appear in the Bible. According
to Wikipedia the derivation of Britian is from the Celtic Pritani, "painted
people/men". The connection of "Brutus" with "Britian" appears to be a
medieval invention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britian
>
> Saragossa Sea = Zaragossa, Spain = Zarah, the birthright twin of
> Genesis 38 whose descendants migrated there.
The Sargasso Sea, is named not after "Zaragossa" (really Zaragoza), Spain,
but the seaweed sargassum which is found in the area.
http://www.bermuda-triangle.org/html/sargasso_sea.html
Zaragoza, the city in Spain is named after Caesar Agustus, and was
originally called "Caesaraugusta" It's not named after anyone in the Old
Testament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaragoza
>
> Hibernia = Hebrew.
Hibernia derives from either the Latin for "wintry", or the Greek
"Ilvernia". There's no evidence that the word "hebrew" is a cognate for
Hibernia.
>
> Denmark = Dan's Mark = Tribe of Dan = DANube river.
There's no evidence that the Danes derive from the hebrew tribe of Dan.
>
> Popular Nordic surname: Isaacson = sons of Isaac = Biblical PatriARCH =
> direct evidence of his existence.
Isaacson is not a popular Nordic surname. In any case, Norse naming
practices, surnames were patrinomic, and changed every generation. All the
name "Issacson" would indicate that at the time (late 19th Century) when
Nordic countries started to adopt perminent surnames, the name Issac was in
use. The name "Issac" is never seen in the ancient Norse culture before
the introduction of Christianity.
>
> The Bible says David was ruddy (red).
Which appears to mean he had red hair.
>
> Jim: where is the only red race on this planet ?
There is no "red race" Ray. All humans are various shades of brown.
>
> Exodus 15:3 "The LORD is a man of war the LORD is his name"
The Bible also says: Obadiah 1:3
"The pride of your heart has deceived you"
>
> Jim
> "Value nothing but truth, compassion, and love"
>
> Except direct linguistic evidence when it contradicts your worldview.
"Direct linguistic evidence" of the sort you present above is prone to
abuse, and is not very useful in serious investigation. It makes a fun
parlor game, but otherwise it's worthless.
DJT
Jim Willemin
>
> Jim Willemin wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:1160241306.8...@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
[snip]
>>
>> Ray, what about the geological evidence? In the face of very
>> plausible alternative interpretations for the behaivior of eels and
>> butterflies,
>
> But you have provided none - why is that ?
>
Geological evidence or behavioral evidence? I think I provided a fair bit
of geological and geophysical evidence that Atlantis never existed. I
provided no interpretations of behavior for two reasons: 1) Others have
done so higher in this thread, and 2) I am a geologist, not a biologist;
wildlife behavior is not my field of expertise. I would just as soon not
pretend to knowledge I do not posess.
>> and certainly more accurate etymologies,
>
> Contrary assumptions do not harm the direct lingusitic evidence
> supporting the claim. Darwinists see evolution in spite of the fact
> that gaps reaching hundreds of millions of years in the fossil record,
> yet the direct linguistics is ignored = proof Darwinists are not loyal
> to evidence, which honest persons already knew.
>
>
>> perhaps you ought to explain why
>> the geological and geophysical evidence doesn't prove that Atlantis
>> never existed in the Atlantic ocean.
>>
>
> When I asked how many expeditions have attempted to locate Atlantis
> you typed a reply that exceeded four letters: NONE.
>
Ray, when you search the house with a flashlight to find your car keys, you
do not usually need to make a seperate search to determine that you didn't
park the car the living room. While I do not know of any expeditions
specifically funded to search the sea floor of the Sargasso Sea for traces
of Atlantis, please tell me you understand that every last one of those
myriad ship tracks shown on the map I linked to earlier was searching for
Atlantis indirectly - searching for it and not finding it. Each of those
ships was continuously recording the depth to the sea floor along those
paths - the raw data is available to anyone from the National Geophysical
Data Center (specifically, DVDs with continuously recorded bathymetry are
availble from
http://oas.ngdc.noaa.gov/products/ngdc_products.disc_prods?disc=G33)
Please feel free to look at the data for yourself.
Now, the only places that a special Atlantis expedition could go to
discover something new are those areas between the ship tracklines. None
of those areas are big enough to hold a big island, let alone a continent.
If you disagree, perhaps you could explain why.
[snip amusing but irrelevant linguistic digression]
[though this bit is just too good to let slip into oblivion:]
>
> In addition, your special pleading attempting to disregard the
> linguistics evidence provides no alternative answer since Atlantis
> predates the many other etymologies, thus they all diverged from the
> earliest source.
Okay, similar words imply a common ancestry... you seem to claim that
pretty strongly. (By the way, what special pleading?)
>
>
>> This whole word idea of word similarity implying some sort of link
>> between referents is pretty silly. For example, consider MARTINI and
>> MARTINez -- is there a link between two? Ray, I would ask how would
>> you analyze this, but I would much rather you thought about the
>> geology of the Atlantic basin.
>> --
>
> The whole idea and concept of homology implying common ancestry is
> silly since we know Genesis is accurate and atheists need something.
But here you say the whole idea is silly. So which is it? You seem to be
changing your story within five lines.
[snip list of absurd folk etymologies]
--
Wakboth
Ray Martinez kirjoitti:
> The whole idea and concept of homology implying common ancestry is
> silly since we know Genesis is accurate and atheists need something.
>
> Brutus (son of Chalcol and Darda (Dardanus of Greece), 1Kings 4:31 =
> founder of Britain/Brutus.
>
> Saragossa Sea = Zaragossa, Spain = Zarah, the birthright twin of
> Genesis 38 whose descendants migrated there.
>
> Hibernia = Hebrew.
>
> Denmark = Dan's Mark = Tribe of Dan = DANube river.
>
> Popular Nordic surname: Isaacson = sons of Isaac = Biblical PatriARCH =
> direct evidence of his existence.
>
> The Bible says David was ruddy (red).
>
> Jim: where is the only red race on this planet ?
I think this bit of beautiful insanity needs to be immortalized in the
annals of Chez Watt!
-- Wakboth
Iain
What? Britain was NOT named after Brutus, you ignoramus.
Britain is named after the Britons, most likely a self-named Celtic
tribe. They predate The Roman occupation by centuries! Haven't you
heard of the adjective "Brythonic"?
You obviously have no respect at all for intellectual authority -- no
sense of what is and isn't reliable a source.
You rake the mis-information superhighway for crap like "Eels of
Atlantis", "Britain named after Brutus", etc, etc, oblivious to how
absurd it appears to anyone with half even an education.
~Iain
Iain
> Jim Willemin wrote:
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > news:1160241306.8...@c28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >
> > > ATLANTIs = ATLANTIc
> > >
> > > mazATLAN (Mexico) = ATLANtis
> > >
> > > ATLAS (mountains) = ATLAntiS
> > >
> > > The lost continent obviously provided the name for the Atlantic ocean,
> > > Mazatlan, Mexico, and the Atlas mountains.
> > >
> > > Being an evolutionist you should have no trouble seeing the linguistic
> > > evolution and similarities - right ?
> > >
> > > May I remind that Atlantis precedes any other name origins as they all
> > > descend from the source (the sunken continent).
> > >
> > > Ray
> > >
> >
> > Ray, what about the geological evidence? In the face of very plausible
> > alternative interpretations for the behaivior of eels and butterflies,
>
> But you have provided none - why is that ?
>
> > and certainly more accurate etymologies,
>
> Contrary assumptions do not harm the direct lingusitic evidence
> supporting the claim. Darwinists see evolution in spite of the fact
> that gaps reaching hundreds of millions of years in the fossil record,
A gap in the fossil record is only a problem for evolutionary theory if
the geological time within it is too _short_ to accommodate the
intermediates, even if there are none.
A gap that goes:
ABC KLMN
Is alright.
Only a gap that goes:
ABCKLMN
Is a problem.
~Iain