Was there an "Atlantis" in the Arabian Peninsula?

Originally posted by Marduk
whats advanced about us exactly ?
you don't think that coming down from the trees was a big mistake then ?
what about leaving the oceans ?

I like that point quite a bit, marduck.

We have something in common with aquatic mammals: a thick layer of subcutaneous fat. Its only known purpose is buoyancy and warmth in the water. Most land mammals lack this trait.

Nice point.

Originally posted by Marduk
whats advanced about us exactly ?
you don't think that coming down from the trees was a big mistake then ?
what about leaving the oceans ?

I can't argue with the definition of advancement,does that make sense?

Im half blind I can't think and I am forgeting how to spell.

anyway,what did you think of the link, mardukster?

en.wikipedia.org...

The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis (AAH): The hypothesis that water has acted as an agent of selection in the evolution of humans more than it has in the evolution of our ape cousins. And that, as a result, many of the major physical differences between humans and the other apes may be explained, to a large extent, as adaptations to moving (wading, swimming and/or diving) better through various aquatic media and from greater feeding on resources that might be procured from such habitats.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Originally posted by Marduk
whats advanced about us exactly ?
you don't think that coming down from the trees was a big mistake then ?
what about leaving the oceans ?

I can't argue with the definition of advancement,does that make sense?

Im half blind I can't think and I am forgeting how to spell.

anyway,what did you think of the link, mardukster?

it was the biggest pile of stinking new age Male Bovine dung i have read since the last time I read something as bad as that
yesterday I think


[edit on 16-6-2007 by Marduk]

If nothing else you are consistent.

Did you read it, actually, Marduck?

Bovine
en.wikipedia.org...



say I didn't know you could get restricted from a topic I posted on a topic last night and now I am restricted,or is the topic closed,?

anyway, I still don't know where atlantis is.

The mods around here will close a topic quick enough to make your head spin if it is a rehashing of other threads, or seems to be going nowhere.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
If nothing else you are consistent.

Did you read it, actually, Marduck?

a paper pn the language of Atlantis ?
are you serious
the place used greek for its name
what do you think they were speaking ?
Atlantean ?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahaha
you been at atlantis rising too long
ahahahahahahahah
ahahahahaha
ahahaha
ahaha

LOL, as i said, if nothing else you are consistent. Like an old friend. If i list you as a Foe it would be most accurate, as i truly do value your opposition, Marduck.

I agree that the concept, on its face, is silly. However, consider the underlying implications of a shared lineage...that is the perspective I am looking at it from

then you need to study linguistics
there is no possibility of a lost language from Atlantis
just the same as there is apparently no lost Atlanteans in the genetic record

Originally posted by Marduk
then you need to study linguistics
there is no possibility of a lost language from Atlantis
just the same as there is apparently no lost Atlanteans in the genetic record

and how would you be able to say this?

My first thought is, does an Atlantis language have to be a precursor to a current language to be connected somehow with it? Could it not be a separate branch? Could there not be some level of masking at play considering the base language that all languages came from?

Honestly, knowing the way humans work, do you honestly believe it possible for language to have cropped up in one location only, spreading subsequently? Or is it possible that they have all ended up fused together?

The same thing can be said of DNA and genetics. Most genetics can only account for certain levels and certain instances of "bottlenecking". Your presumption of certainty is a little premature, as we still lack a crystal ball to actually prove all the fancy suppositions supported by people such as your self. Until we can directly measure it, all you have done is create a fancy "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon" academic house of cards.

We can never be sure how deep our compound ignorance runs. We just don't know what we don't know.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
, all you have done is create a fancy "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon" academic house of cards.

let me remind you that its you who is claiming that a city that didn't exist had a language that is lost spoken by a group of people who didn't leave any trace of their existence

if anyones playing with cards here its you

show me the facts and I'll investigate them
till then ya got nothing.................

Originally posted by Marduk

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
, all you have done is create a fancy "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon" academic house of cards.

let me remind you that its you who is claiming that a city that didn't exist had a language that is lost spoken by a group of people who didn't leave any trace of their existence

if anyones playing with cards here its you

show me the facts and I'll investigate them
till then ya got nothing.................

No sir, those are not my claims. Please re read my post and aim for comprehension on this attempt.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

No sir, those are not my claims. Please re read my post and aim for comprehension on this attempt.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

My first thought is, does an Atlantis language have to be a precursor to a current language to be connected somehow with it? Could it not be a separate branch? Could there not be some level of masking at play considering the base language that all languages came from?

Originally posted by Marduk

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

No sir, those are not my claims. Please re read my post and aim for comprehension on this attempt.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

My first thought is, does an Atlantis language have to be a precursor to a current language to be connected somehow with it? Could it not be a separate branch? Could there not be some level of masking at play considering the base language that all languages came from?

Hmm...still don't see where i am making a claim. Could you point it out?

I do see where i asked you where "an" Atlantean language, if it existed, could not have been a parallel language to the "Rot" language spoken of by people who have overactive imaginations and PhD's.

I just was asking you your opinion (which you failed to provide....seems to be a trait of yours: ignore that which you don't want to poke fun at). That is a good exercise: discuss things that may or not be actual to gain the experience of conceptualization of said subject. You should try it...the air outside your little box isn't toxic (regardless of what you have been taught during brainwashing, er, school).

So, what is your opinion? Could it not have existed and developed alongside our root language(s)?

hmm youre still not getting it are you
thats because you've been wasting your life over at A R
there was no such place as Atlantis
the name itself is actually greek
there is no evidence that the Atlantean culture ever existed
there is no evidence that Atlanteans ever existed
therefore there is no evidence that a language was spoken by them
so basically once again despite dressing up your post with flowery liberal talk you still don't know what youre talking about
but really
i didn't expect any less

Originally posted by Marduk
hmm youre still not getting it are you
thats because you've been wasting your life over at A R
there was no such place as Atlantis
the name itself is actually greek
there is no evidence that the Atlantean culture ever existed
there is no evidence that Atlanteans ever existed
therefore there is no evidence that a language was spoken by them
so basically once again despite dressing up your post with flowery liberal talk you still don't know what youre talking about
but really
i didn't expect any less

Yet, after all your fancy liberal talk i notice you still avoided answering a direct question. I have now asked you direct questions in three separate forums, and you have dodged in each. What gives, are you just a heckler?

I can agree that there is really no evidence for Atlantis. Never really cared much about Atlantis. There are ancient cultures, but I don't know what you could call them.

Regardless of whether i believe Atlantis, as a single place, existed, the concept regarding language still bears weight as there are other, extinct languages not recorded and forever lost. You really have no clue, you just pretend you do because the books you read tell you it is so. And yet you still fail to see that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Marduk
hmm youre still not getting it are you
thats because you've been wasting your life over at A R
there was no such place as Atlantis
the name itself is actually greek
there is no evidence that the Atlantean culture ever existed
there is no evidence that Atlanteans ever existed
therefore there is no evidence that a language was spoken by them
so basically once again despite dressing up your post with flowery liberal talk you still don't know what youre talking about
but really
i didn't expect any less

Yet, after all your fancy liberal talk i notice you still avoided answering a direct question. I have now asked you direct questions in three separate forums, and you have dodged in each. What gives, are you just a heckler?

I can agree that there is really no evidence for Atlantis. Never really cared much about Atlantis. There are ancient cultures, but I don't know what you could call them.

Regardless of whether i believe Atlantis, as a single place, existed, the concept regarding language still bears weight as there are other, extinct languages not recorded and forever lost. You really have no clue, you just pretend you do because the books you read tell you it is so. And yet you still fail to see that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

he proper quote is
Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence
and in this case it is totally evidence
there is zero evidence of the exstence of Atlantis
I have not avoided any of your questions because you havent asked any

did you actually look at that Atlantis lost language page ?
if i was to go through it with a red marker I would need a box of them
it starts off with the statement

old Arabic, Hebrew, Greek and Roman alphabets are very close together, both in the shape of letters and their succession: alif/ba/gim... alpha/beta/gamma... aleph/bet/gimmel... This suggests a common origin, which the bible says to be antediluvian:

now do you have the ability to tell me whats wrong with that statement ?
if so you can answer your own question
if you can't then you're not even on a debating level with me
maybe you should read some more sci fi and then try to tell me that it will open my mind eh
laughable

Originally posted by Marduk
(T)he proper quote is
Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence
and in this case it is totally evidence
there is zero evidence of the exstence of Atlantis
I have not avoided any of your questions because you havent asked any

did you actually look at that Atlantis lost language page ?
if i was to go through it with a red marker I would need a box of them
it starts off with the statement

old Arabic, Hebrew, Greek and Roman alphabets are very close together, both in the shape of letters and their succession: alif/ba/gim... alpha/beta/gamma... aleph/bet/gimmel... This suggests a common origin, which the bible says to be antediluvian:

now do you have the ability to tell me whats wrong with that statement ?
if so you can answer your own question
if you can't then you're not even on a debating level with me
maybe you should read some more sci fi and then try to tell me that it will open my mind eh
laughable

I could almost see your brain through your elevated nose, and your posting smacks of some truly detestable snobbery.

So, that being said, I will agree to disagree with you.

[edit on 18-6-2007 by bigfatfurrytexan]

so basically you admit you are clueless to my question which is the same as the question you have been asking me
thats what I thought
why don't you run home to mummy