QUOTE(crystal sage @ Jun 11 2007, 04:02 PM) [snapback]1718708[/snapback]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/796256/postshttp://s8int.com/water6.htmlDr. Menzies admitted that the discovery of what may be the ruins of an ancient city could be one of the most exciting discoveries of this century, insofar as ruins go.
Some of the columns are half buried in mud while others stand upright. Many of them appear to have a kind of writing on them.
http://www.think-aboutit.com/atlantis/hist...golden_ages.htm I'm sorry but every fact you just posted is complete rubbish
the only acceptable details for Atlantis come from just two dialogues written by Plato
as for Lemuria and Mu.................
The idea of Mu first appeared in the works of the antiquarian Augustus Le Plongeon (18251908), a 19th century traveler and writer who conducted his own investigations of the Maya ruins in Yucatn. He announced that he had translated the ancient Mayan writings, which supposedly showed that the Maya of Yucatn were older than the later civilizations of Atlantis and Egypt, and additionally told the story of an even older continent of Mu, which had foundered in a similar fashion to Atlantis, with the survivors founding the Maya civilization. Le Plongeon actually got the name "Mu" from the mistranslation of what was then called the Troano manuscript by Charles tienne Brasseur de Bourbourg in 1864, using the de Landa alphabet.
Now that we know how to translate these texts properly guess what has vanished from them ?
Though the living modern lemurs are only found in Madagascar and several surrounding islands, the biogeography of extinct lemurs extending from Pakistan to Malaysia inspired the name Lemuria, which was coined in 1864 by the geologist Philip Sclater in an article "The Mammals of Madagascar" in The Quarterly Journal of Science. Puzzled by the presence of fossil lemurs in both Madagascar and India, but not in Africa nor the Middle East, Sclater proposed that Madagascar and India had once been part of a larger continent, which he named "Lemuria" for its lemurs.
Sclater's theory was hardly unusual for his time. The acceptance of Darwinism led scientists to seek to trace the diffusion of species from their points of evolutionary origin; prior to the acceptance of continental drift, biologists frequently postulated submerged land masses in order to account for populations of land-based species now separated by barriers of water. Similarly, geologists tried to account for striking resemblances of rock formations on different continents. The first systematic attempt was made by Melchior Neumayr in his book Erdgeschichte in 1887. Many hypothetical submerged land bridges and continents were proposed during the 19th century, in order to account for the present distribution of species.
so Atlantis was an invention of Platos
Lemuria was an invention of Philip Sclater
Mu was a mistranslation by Churchward
and your posts contain no relevant details whatsoever, most of the details they claim as genuine have never been verified by real scientists
why do you think that is ?

the websites you have used for this information are not credible either
the Morien institute is a business founded on the personal beliefs of Masaaki Kimura who had claimed that Japan was part of Mu long before anyone claimed Yonaguni was evidence of an advanced culture
and quite frankly it isn't
almost identical structures have been found on mainland Japan and are well documented as being from the Jomon culture
the depth of the structure and the time it has taken to reach that depth are always exagerated
as for the S8int website perhaps you should have checked their homepage first before accepting anything they print as evidence of anything
http://s8int.com/ where they claim
QUOTE
We have a Biblical viewpoint on the world. Ooparts are evidence, we think, that the Flood actually happened. News items or magazine articles that report them may not have the same perspective that Christians do. When we read for instance, a scientific article that puzzles over our lack of genetic variability, we think of the Flood of Noah. We would include that article here, without editing, because we expect Christians to use their filters on such an article. That does not mean that we agree with the evolutionary timeframe given in said article.
the others are just as invalid