2241 replies to this topic

[Proclus]

Harte, on 08 February 2013 - 01:56 PM, said:

If any evidence arises, I'm ready to change my opinion.

Hm, first you say it is "safe" to say that it did not exist, but then you say you are willing to change your mind if any evidence arises. Can't you see your self-contradiction here? You cannot be "safe" if you are willing to change your mind under certain circumstances.

"safe" means: 100%, not 99% of certainty.

Harte, on 08 February 2013 - 01:56 PM, said:

After a correction provided by me:

You did not correct me. I quoted somebody else (you?) who said that Crantor saw it on pillars and added an "allegedly". You live in illusions. You still have not realized that Crantor is a witness of the story independent from Plato, be he trustworthy or not. You screw this all up right from the beginning with your black-and-white schemes.

Harte, on 08 February 2013 - 01:56 PM, said:

The fact is, the subject is known as Classicism, which as you state is a branch of philosophy.  Philosophy is not science, nor is it scientific, though science is philosophical.

Hm, X is not Y, but Y is X. Interesting theory you have, we could make a Platonic dialogue out of this, me in the role of Socrates, you in the role of the ... errr ... less educated person :-)

Ever heard of Karl Popper? Hypothesis and falsification, etc.? Not valid for text interpretation? But indeed!

PS:

Quote Harte:
> Why Crantor would mention pillars can be found in the Critias itself, where Plato states
> that the Atlanteans had their laws and their kings list inscribed on pillars of orichalcum.

I can't get it! This is so outrageous! You confuse the law pillar of Atlantis with the alleged Egyptian pillars with the war report on the war between Atlantis and Egypt! *sigh*


_

Edited by Proclus, 08 February 2013 - 02:50 PM.

[Harte]

Proclus, on 08 February 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

Hm, first you say it is "safe" to say that it did not exist, but then you say you are willing to change your mind if any evidence arises. Can't you see your self-contradiction here? You cannot be "safe" if you are willing to change your mind under certain circumstances.

"safe" means: 100%, not 99% of certainty.

Now it appears that, not only am I far more educated in Classicism than you, but that also I have a far better understanding of the English language than you.

Perhaps you should do some reading every now and then.  It is known to me that such activity can increase not only your vocabulary, but also the depth of your understanding of same.

Proclus, on 08 February 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

You did not correct me. I quoted somebody else (you?) who said that Crantor saw it on pillars and added an "allegedly". You live in illusions. You still have not realized that Crantor is a witness of the story independent from Plato, be he trustworthy or not. You screw this all up right from the beginning with your black-and-white schemes.

My previous post speaks for itself, and I didn't edit a word of the inane and ignorant statements you made that I quoted in it.

As I said, I have educated you.  If you don't accept it, then that's simply your choice.  You see, since we here can read, we can see where you actually learned that you were wrong and corrected it, once I taught you the error of what you had claimed.

Making some childish claim that it never happened is a waste of time when we're talking about posts of yours (and mine) that are too old to edit.

Proclus, on 08 February 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

Hm, X is not Y, but Y is X. Interesting theory you have, we could make a Platonic dialogue out of this, me in the role of Socrates, you in the role of the ... errr ... less educated person :-)

Errr.

Is every element of the set of real numbers a rational number?

Note that I assume that you might be able to comprehend this analogy, which shows you how y can be x, but x not y, although you failed to comprehend the much simpler fact that philosophy is not science.  This stands in stark contrast to your statements concerning my intelligence, which has outshone your own (or lack thereof) at every turn in each interaction we have had here.

Proclus, on 08 February 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

Ever heard of Karl Popper? Hypothesis and falsification, etc.? Not valid for text interpretation? But indeed!

Of course I have.  Have you?  The real question is, do you have any real understanding of the terms you mention above and how they apply to science, specifically, how data come into the consideration?

Proclus, on 08 February 2013 - 02:34 PM, said:

PS:

Quote Harte:
> Why Crantor would mention pillars can be found in the Critias itself, where Plato states
> that the Atlanteans had their laws and their kings list inscribed on pillars of orichalcum.

I can't get it! This is so outrageous! You confuse the law pillar of Atlantis with the alleged Egyptian pillars with the war report on the war between Atlantis and Egypt! *sigh*

No, Crantor did, not me.

I quoted the pertinant part.  Why didn't you?

I suppose you still believe that Plato never mentioned pillars?

You are free to reject your own education, of course.

Harte

Edited by Harte, 08 February 2013 - 04:12 PM.

[Proclus]

Harte, on 08 February 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

Now it appears that, not only am I far more educated in Classicism than you, .............
Perhaps you should do some reading every now and then. ...........
As I said, I have educated you.  ............
Making some childish claim that it never happened is a waste of time ...........
This stands in stark contrast to your statements concerning my intelligence, which has outshone your own (or lack thereof) at every turn in each interaction we have had here.

Oh, I am so silly, poor in intelligence and soooo uneducated, whereas you are the grandmaster of Classic Studies! Applause for the great Harte! Don't miss to bow your knee before him! He surely even read Gill, Rosenmeyer, Heidel, Vidal-Naquet etc. on Plato's Atlantis which is quite an achievement and gives him authority beyond measure! He is the master of repetition. And is science something else than repeating what authorities told us?

Harte, on 08 February 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

Is every element of the set of real numbers a rational number?

That comparison falls short. You dared to suggest that the interpretation of text does not follow scientific standards like hypothesis / falsification, etc. So interpretation of historical sources, historical-critical interpretation of biblical texts, etc. -- all not following scientific standards according to you.

Harte, on 08 February 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

No, Crantor did, not me.
I suppose you still believe that Plato never mentioned pillars?

No, you did!
Crantor did not talk of an Atlantian law pillar (sgl) but of Egyptian pillars (pl) with the Atlantis story.
Plato did not talk of Egyptian pillars (pl) containing the Atlantis story, but of an Atlantian law pillar (sgl).
Plato did talk of Egyptian scrolls or the like with the Atlantis story (Timaeus 24a: ta grammata labontes, if you know Greek)

Come on, give up! You lost this game so clearly ... no sportsmanship on your side?
I await your unconditionel surrender and will answer with mercy.

_

[Harte]

Proclus, on 08 February 2013 - 06:11 PM, said:

Oh, I am so silly, poor in intelligence and soooo uneducated, whereas you are the grandmaster of Classic Studies! Applause for the great Harte! Don't miss to bow your knee before him! He surely even read Gill, Rosenmeyer, Heidel, Vidal-Naquet etc. on Plato's Atlantis which is quite an achievement and gives him authority beyond measure! He is the master of repetition.

Now you're getting it!

Proclus, on 08 February 2013 - 06:11 PM, said:

And is science something else than repeating what authorities told us?

Certainly not.  But a large part of Classicism is.

Proclus, on 08 February 2013 - 06:11 PM, said:

That comparison falls short. You dared to suggest that the interpretation of text does not follow scientific standards like hypothesis / falsification, etc. So interpretation of historical sources, historical-critical interpretation of biblical texts, etc. -- all not following scientific standards according to you.

No, it's classicism, except in the case where actual data can be found that supports or falsifies hypotheses, such as in the case of the Bible, or other historical documents.

So, are you now trying to classify Plato's Timaeus and Critias as historical documents?

If Plato was alive, he'd laugh even harder at your ignorance than I am right now.

Science requires data, or it isn't science.  That's not an opinion.  Also, it's not my fault that you don't comprehend this most basic truth of science.

Proclus, on 08 February 2013 - 06:11 PM, said:

No, you did!
Crantor did not talk of an Atlantian law pillar (sgl) but of Egyptian pillars (pl) with the Atlantis story.
Plato did not talk of Egyptian pillars (pl) containing the Atlantis story, but of an Atlantian law pillar (sgl).
Plato did talk of Egyptian scrolls or the like with the Atlantis story (Timaeus 24a: ta grammata labontes, if you know Greek)

Come on, give up! You lost this game so clearly ... no sportsmanship on your side?
I await your unconditionel surrender and will answer with mercy.

Again, your previous and present ignorant posts stand as testament for all to see... your own "pillars" of ignorance.  The previous ones are now uneditable, so anyone that reads them can see how I've corrected you time and time again.  Yet, like a segmented worm under my heel, what's left of you still twists and turns and meekly cries out inanities about a nonexistent culture invented by an ancient philosopher as a moral tale reflecting his thoughts on the Athens of his day.

Harte

[Everdred]

Abramelin, on 08 February 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

You mean this part?

Could Atlantis have suffered from the
effect of rebound compensation? Could it have
been "sucked" down to make up for the crustal
rise in North America and Northern Europe?
If Atlantis had already been weakened by
the extensional forces of gravity and rotation
around the initial region of plate boundary
damage, then rebound compensation could
have accelerated the weakening and ultimate
collapse. Atlantis may have been the weakest
link, globally. With two regions of energetic
uplift on both sides of the Atlantic, Atlantis in
between likely suffered the brunt of the
required compensation for the American and
European rebounds.

That part, and this:

"Continued weakening of the
uplifted sea floor from Africa plate rotation
and post-glacial adjustment caused the final
subsidence of Atlantis at about 9620 BCE. And
the effects of this one-day collapse included a
megatsunami which broke the freshwater cap
on the thermohaline cycle. This abrupt collapse
also produced volcanic events, the debris of
which found its way to Greenland. And the
evacuation of the Atlantis landmass from the
North Atlantic left a void which, when filled,
lowered ocean levels worldwide by roughly
two meters."


Both represent a severe abuse of the geological concepts discussed, not to mention the silly proposed evidence.

[Proclus]

Harte, on 08 February 2013 - 07:03 PM, said:

... lot of strange words ...

Just *giggle* in disbelief :-)

_

Edited by Proclus, 08 February 2013 - 08:36 PM.

[Abramelin]

Everdred, on 08 February 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

That part, and this:

"Continued weakening of the
uplifted sea floor from Africa plate rotation
and post-glacial adjustment caused the final
subsidence of Atlantis at about 9620 BCE. And
the effects of this one-day collapse included a
megatsunami which broke the freshwater cap
on the thermohaline cycle. This abrupt collapse
also produced volcanic events, the debris of
which found its way to Greenland. And the
evacuation of the Atlantis landmass from the
North Atlantic left a void which, when filled,
lowered ocean levels worldwide by roughly
two meters."


Both represent a severe abuse of the geological concepts discussed, not to mention the silly proposed evidence.

You will have to be a bit more specific than that.

[Abramelin]

The next happend long after Atlantis was supposed to have sunk, but Mt. Etna is located on the same fault line as the fault line Martin talks about:

Ancient Tsunami Smashed Europe, Middle East, Study Says

http://news.national...i-israel_2.html


Scientists: Towering Tsunami Hit the Mediterrean 8,000 Years Ago

http://www.underwate..._id=04237158106




The destabilizing of that same fault line could have triggered an eruption/collapse of Mt. Etna much earlier than 6000 BCE.

.

Edited by Abramelin, 09 February 2013 - 08:20 PM.

[Everdred]

Abramelin, on 09 February 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

You will have to be a bit more specific than that.

OK.  First, the idea of post-glacial rebound was introduced with the example of Scotland and England.  The premise is that the glaciers on Scotland weighed it down, and after they receded it popped back up, causing England to sink a bit.  This happened because they are a continental landmass.  The hypothetical Atlantis, on the other hand, was an island unreached by glaciers.  It wouldn't suffer the compensation of America and Europe because it was not part of these continents and thus not subject to those forces.

In the second quote he suggests that Atlantis is somehow weakened by rotation of the African plate.  But this rotation, as he noted, was caused by the Terceira Rift.  A rift functions through magma flows erupting from the center of the right and settling down the sides, creating new land and pushing the old land outward.  Depending on the exact position of his Atlants, this rifting would either just push it along with the rest of the sea floor, or perhaps split it (though the initial split would have been millions of years before the alleged Atlantis civilization).  There's no mechanism through which land would "weaken" such that it would collapse because of the slow spreading motion of a rift.

Another larger problem he had was with the creation of his Atlantis.  He insisted that the Africa plate moved northward into the Eurasia plate.  But this ignores the Mid-Atlantic Ridge which is actively pushing both the Eurasian and African plates eastward, which gives a northeastern direction of motion to the African plate.  So his idea of a subduction blockage where the African and Eurasian plates meet near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is difficult, not to mention that there is little evidence of compressional forces there (rather the region is marked by rifting, faulting, and probably hot-spot driven volcanism. And it should also be noted that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge would have pushed any island far to the east over the 50+ million years he's postulating, so it wouldn't possibly exist around the present-day Azores.  Finally, it should be noted that reconstructions of the break up of Pangaea (like this one) are quite at odds with his proposed sequence of events.

Finally, I'll address the aforementioned silly evidence.  He cites a specific time of 9620.77 BC based on evidence of volcanic activity in the GISP2 core from Greenland.  But he doesn't provide any mechanism by which volcanic activity would result from the subsidence of an island.  The end of the Younger Dryas is pretty firmly dated a little after this date (by around 70 years), and he again doesn't give a mechanism for why the displacement resulting from the subsidence of Atlantis would affect thermohaline cycles (especially considering scientists already have a more realistic theory).  Finally, his evidence for the displacement is just stupid:



That's just not a realistic interpretation of the data.

[Abramelin]

YOU:

OK.  First, the idea of post-glacial rebound was introduced with the example of Scotland and England.  The premise is that the glaciers on Scotland weighed it down, and after they receded it popped back up, causing England to sink a bit.  This happened because they are a continental landmass.  The hypothetical Atlantis, on the other hand, was an island unreached by glaciers.  It wouldn't suffer the compensation of America and Europe because it was not part of these continents and thus not subject to those forces.

ME:

The glaciers weighed down on Scotland (not England), Scandinavia, and Northern America.

The hypothetical Atlantis was located at the point where the North American plate, the European plate, and the African plate met..

It must have felt the full force of any tectonic rise in the North Atlantic. Don't forget: miles of ice pushing down had disappeared.



In the second quote he suggests that Atlantis is somehow weakened by rotation of the African plate.  But this rotation, as he noted, was caused by the Terceira Rift.  A rift functions through magma flows erupting from the center of the right and settling down the sides, creating new land and pushing the old land outward.  Depending on the exact position of his Atlants, this rifting would either just push it along with the rest of the sea floor, or perhaps split it (though the initial split would have been millions of years before the alleged Atlantis civilization).  There's no mechanism through which land would "weaken" such that it would collapse because of the slow spreading motion of a rift.

Agreed, no mechanism known, and Martin only suggested it could be a new mechanism. Hypothetical, yes, proven, no.

Another larger problem he had was with the creation of his Atlantis.  He insisted that the Africa plate moved northward into the Eurasia plate.  But this ignores the Mid-Atlantic Ridge which is actively pushing both the Eurasian and African plates eastward, which gives a northeastern direction of motion to the African plate.  So his idea of a subduction blockage where the African and Eurasian plates meet near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is difficult, not to mention that there is little evidence of compressional forces there (rather the region is marked by rifting, faulting, and probably hot-spot driven volcanism. And it should also be noted that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge would have pushed any island far to the east over the 50+ million years he's postulating, so it wouldn't possibly exist around the present-day Azores.  Finally, it should be noted that reconstructions of the break up of Pangaea (like this one) are quite at odds with his proposed sequence of events.

Let me think about that one. So the Mid-Atlantic Ridge pushed eastward, while at the same time the Eurasian and African plates pushed against eachother.

Martin also mentions doubts amongst scientists about there actually being a hot spot below the Azores.

And, btw, he used the Pangea break up in his theory.


Finally, I'll address the aforementioned silly evidence.  He cites a specific time of 9620.77 BC based on evidence of volcanic activity in the GISP2 core from Greenland.  But he doesn't provide any mechanism by which volcanic activity would result from the subsidence of an island.  The end of the Younger Dryas is pretty firmly dated a little after this date (by around 70 years), and he again doesn't give a mechanism for why the displacement resulting from the subsidence of Atlantis would affect thermohaline cycles (especially considering scientists already have a more realistic theory).  Finally, his evidence for the displacement is just stupid:

Subsidience of an island the size of a socalled Atlantis would destabilize the plates it was in the middle of. I can imagine it would result in volcanism near the edges of the plates surrounding that area.

Atlantis, as he depicted it, would block part of the thermohaline cycle in the Northern Atlantic. It stretched  from Europe to half way the Atlantic.




Your image doesn't show up.

That's just not a realistic interpretation of the data.

Edited by Abramelin, 09 February 2013 - 09:44 PM.

[Abramelin]

I wouldn't call his theory 'stupid', and you even admitted you thought his theory was one of the best you ever read.

Yes, he may be wrong. But that is not the same as being stupid. I have read about really weird 'theories' here on UM, one of them being about Greenland ("Atlantis")  plowing through the Mid-Atlantic Ridge without changing shape from near Gibraltar to where it is now..

As far as I understand it Martin used conventional theories of plate tectonics for his theory.

He just went a bit further.

'Stupid' is not the word here, the word is 'unsubstantiated'

.

Edited by Abramelin, 09 February 2013 - 09:43 PM.

[Panos89]

cormac mac airt, on 05 February 2013 - 04:12 AM, said:

On what are you basing this contention as it would not appear to be supported by the available evidence. Actual PDF's of which can be read here:

Holocene sea-level changes along the Mediterranean coast of Israel, based on archaeological observations and numerical model

Sea-level change during the Holocene in Sardinia and in the northeastern Adriatic (central Mediterranean Sea) from archaeological and geomorphological data

Sea-level change along the Italian coast for the past 10,000 yr

cormac

Thank you for the PDFs, best analysis i've ever seen.Be sure i'll read em in time.

Edited by Panos89, 09 February 2013 - 10:57 PM.

[Abramelin]

Panos89, on 09 February 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

Thank you for the PDFs, best analysis i've ever seen.Be sure i'll read em in time.

Somehow I prefer some sort of geological proof an Atlantis could have existed before a story that tells me it did.

If the geological proof of the possibility is there, we can then further examine the stories.

[cormac mac airt]

Abramelin, on 09 February 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:

YOU:

OK.  First, the idea of post-glacial rebound was introduced with the example of Scotland and England.  The premise is that the glaciers on Scotland weighed it down, and after they receded it popped back up, causing England to sink a bit.  This happened because they are a continental landmass.  The hypothetical Atlantis, on the other hand, was an island unreached by glaciers.  It wouldn't suffer the compensation of America and Europe because it was not part of these continents and thus not subject to those forces.

ME:

The glaciers weighed down on Scotland (not England), Scandinavia, and Northern America.

The hypothetical Atlantis was located at the point where the North American plate, the European plate, and the African plate met..

It must have felt the full force of any tectonic rise in the North Atlantic. Don't forget: miles of ice pushing down had disappeared.



In the second quote he suggests that Atlantis is somehow weakened by rotation of the African plate.  But this rotation, as he noted, was caused by the Terceira Rift.  A rift functions through magma flows erupting from the center of the right and settling down the sides, creating new land and pushing the old land outward.  Depending on the exact position of his Atlants, this rifting would either just push it along with the rest of the sea floor, or perhaps split it (though the initial split would have been millions of years before the alleged Atlantis civilization).  There's no mechanism through which land would "weaken" such that it would collapse because of the slow spreading motion of a rift.

Agreed, no mechanism known, and Martin only suggested it could be a new mechanism. Hypothetical, yes, proven, no.

Another larger problem he had was with the creation of his Atlantis.  He insisted that the Africa plate moved northward into the Eurasia plate.  But this ignores the Mid-Atlantic Ridge which is actively pushing both the Eurasian and African plates eastward, which gives a northeastern direction of motion to the African plate.  So his idea of a subduction blockage where the African and Eurasian plates meet near the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is difficult, not to mention that there is little evidence of compressional forces there (rather the region is marked by rifting, faulting, and probably hot-spot driven volcanism. And it should also be noted that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge would have pushed any island far to the east over the 50+ million years he's postulating, so it wouldn't possibly exist around the present-day Azores.  Finally, it should be noted that reconstructions of the break up of Pangaea (like this one) are quite at odds with his proposed sequence of events.

Let me think about that one. So the Mid-Atlantic Ridge pushed eastward, while at the same time the Eurasian and African plates pushed against eachother.

Martin also mentions doubts amongst scientists about there actually being a hot spot below the Azores.

And, btw, he used the Pangea break up in his theory.


Finally, I'll address the aforementioned silly evidence.  He cites a specific time of 9620.77 BC based on evidence of volcanic activity in the GISP2 core from Greenland.  But he doesn't provide any mechanism by which volcanic activity would result from the subsidence of an island.  The end of the Younger Dryas is pretty firmly dated a little after this date (by around 70 years), and he again doesn't give a mechanism for why the displacement resulting from the subsidence of Atlantis would affect thermohaline cycles (especially considering scientists already have a more realistic theory).  Finally, his evidence for the displacement is just stupid:

Subsidience of an island the size of a socalled Atlantis would destabilize the plates it was in the middle of. I can imagine it would result in volcanism near the edges of the plates surrounding that area.

Atlantis, as he depicted it, would block part of the thermohaline cycle in the Northern Atlantic. It stretched  from Europe to half way the Atlantic.




Your image doesn't show up.

That's just not a realistic interpretation of the data.

He had a theory Abe, it just wasn't supported by the analysis of core samples* taken in the North Atlantic by the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP), Ocean Drilling Program  (ODP) or the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP). Of course anyone is free to have a look themselves and 'try' to prove Atlantis existed in the North Atlantic. To whomever, good luck with that.

http://www.deepseadrilling.org/

* - Earliest dates of which go back to well before we (Homo Sapiens) ever existed.

////////////////////

Panos89, on 09 February 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

Thank you for the PDFs, best analysis i've ever seen.Be sure i'll read em in time.

You're welcome.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt, 09 February 2013 - 11:11 PM.

[Everdred]

Abramelin, on 09 February 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:

ME:

The glaciers weighed down on Scotland (not England), Scandinavia, and Northern America.

The hypothetical Atlantis was located at the point where the North American plate, the European plate, and the African plate met..

It must have felt the full force of any tectonic rise in the North Atlantic. Don't forget: miles of ice pushing down had disappeared.

Let me explain it more clearly.  Glaciers form only on land.  When they recede, the rebound occurs where they were, and a subsequent sinking results in areas attached to that landmass (so England goes down when Scotland goes up, Southern Scandinavia goes down when Northern Scandinavia goes up, U.S. goes down when Canada goes up, etc.).  Atlantis, as an island, was not attached to any glaciated landmasses, and so would experience no effect.  The North Atlantic would have had floating ice, but this would have had no effect on the underlying oceanic crust, and thus no rebound would occur.  

Quote

Let me think about that one. So the Mid-Atlantic Ridge pushed eastward, while at the same time the Eurasian and African plates pushed against eachother.

Martin also mentions doubts amongst scientists about there actually being a hot spot below the Azores.

And, btw, he used the Pangea break up in his theory.

The problem with his conception was that he didn't picture the break up of Pangaea properly.  If you look at my link, you'll note that the reconstruction has Iberia and North Africa kinda stuck together--initially these would be part of the same plate, but the Mid-Atlantic ridge then started in the South, causing eastward forces on Africa, while a ridge between Africa and Antarctica started pushing Africa northward.  This causes a sort of rotation of Africa and the shrinking of the Tethys sea, which eventually becomes the Mediterranean.  And after tens of millions of years the Mid-Atlantic Ridge split northward and started to divide Europe from North America, which would have caused the faulting between Europe and Africa.  So basically there isn't a collision of the African and Eurasian plates in the western portion, which means there's no compression to create his Atlantis.

Quote

Subsidience of an island the size of a socalled Atlantis would destabilize the plates it was in the middle of. I can imagine it would result in volcanism near the edges of the plates surrounding that area.

Atlantis, as he depicted it, would block part of the thermohaline cycle in the Northern Atlantic. It stretched  from Europe to half way the Atlantic.

Yeah, it's easy to imagine some catastrophe would cause volcanism, but it's harder to pinpoint an exact mechanism.  Still, though, I would imagine a huge catastrophe would result in huge volcanism, whereas the cores show only minor volcanic activity.  But for the thermohaline cycle, the hypothetical Atlantis would be effectively blocking it for millions of years in this model, so presumably it would've been fundamentally different under this scenario.

Quote

Your image doesn't show up.

Sorry, here's a rehost:

Abramelin, on 09 February 2013 - 09:26 PM, said:

I wouldn't call his theory 'stupid', and you even admitted you thought his theory was one of the best you ever read.

Yes, he may be wrong. But that is not the same as being stupid. I have read about really weird 'theories' here on UM, one of them being about Greenland ("Atlantis")  plowing through the Mid-Atlantic Ridge without changing shape from near Gibraltar to where it is now..

As far as I understand it Martin used conventional theories of plate tectonics for his theory.

He just went a bit further.

'Stupid' is not the word here, the word is 'unsubstantiated'

.

I agree his theory isn't stupid.  I only used that term for his interpretation of the sea level data, and now that you can see the image I think you'll agree that's a fair characterization.