Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Polar

Plato´s Atlantis was in a River Delta

1,142 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Hanslune
3 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Oh look, another one with his holy book Wikipedia. Lol.

 

 

So you concede that the crappy books does contain bad science in it. Guess you didn't actually read it did you? LOL

Must be a real shock to realize it's full of bad info.

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Pettytalk
3 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Oh my we have a fake Christian with us who doesn't know that telling lies to try and hurt others is against the Christian faith....false witness? Do you admit to not being a Christian Pettytalk? LOL

 

I'm a Socratic Platonist, first and foremost. And Christianity is secondhand to me, although both, when properly understood, lead to the same abode, the eternal world of reality. Unfortunately for you, based on your behavior and expression of confidence in the physical world, it's going to be a long stay here, in the world of shadows.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
8 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

you really should read what he said

 

I guess you missed the memo.

What the Bible says, is what Paul says Jesus said. 

Who you following? Paul or Jesus?

 

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
3 minutes ago, Pettytalk said:

I'm a Socratic Platonist, first and foremost. And Christianity is secondhand to me, although both, when properly understood, lead to the same abode, the eternal world of reality. Unfortunately for you, based on your behavior and expression of confidence in the physical world, it's going to be a long stay here, in the world of shadows.

I can live with that. Whose second hand? My my you forgotten another commandment: " No other gods before me." Well Plato isn't a god but  I don't think that he'd take well to being placed in subsidiary position!

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
9 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Oh look, another one with his holy book Wikipedia. Lol.

 

 

Is it not amazing how these professed experts on knowledge keep using wikipedia as their source, and then criticize others for using the same source? And then they have the audacity to award the "pot and kettle" to others....... 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
Just now, Pettytalk said:

Is it not amazing how these professed experts on knowledge keep using wikipedia as their source, and then criticize others for using the same source? And then they have the audacity to award the "pot and kettle" to others....... 

 

Tell me about it. Lol

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

I guess you missed the memo.

You seemed to have missed most of the book....

When do we get your excuses or your acceptance that UB has science in it - really bad wrong science?

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
1 minute ago, Pettytalk said:

Is it not amazing how these professed experts on knowledge keep using wikipedia as their source, and then criticize others for using the same source? And then they have the audacity to award the "pot and kettle" to others....... 

Yeah and Will Due ran from those demonstrations of bad science with fear in his eyes. Wikipedia just fine for something like UB which isn't science. Care to answer why that book has all that bad science in it?

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Tell me about it. Lol

 

 

Wikipedia is far more accurate than you - you said the book had no science in it - care to explain why you didn't notice that it had lots BAD science in it?

Here is what are intellectual light weight said: Will Due pronounced to all:

Quote

The UB doesn't have any science in it. It's not a book about science. It's a misconception that there's science in the UB. 

oops

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune

Here you go - so you can explain how you missed all this:

 

  • The described formation of the solar system is consistent with the Chamberlin-Moulton planetesimal hypothesis,[103] which though popular in the early part of the 20th century, was discarded by the 1940s after major flaws were noted.[104] The currently accepted scientific explanation for the origin of the solar system is based on the nebular hypothesis.[103]
  • According to the book's descriptions, the universe is hundreds of billions of years old and periodically expands and contracts — "respires" — at 2-billion-year intervals. Recent observations suggest that the true age of the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years.[105] The book does not support the Big Bang theory.[106]
  • A fundamental particle called an "ultimaton" is proposed, with an electron being composed of 100 ultimatons. The particle is not known to be described anywhere else and the concept is not supported by modern particle physics.[107]
  • The Andromeda Galaxy is claimed to be "almost one million" light years away, repeating the understandings of the 1920s,[108] but the galaxy is now understood to be 2.5 million light years away.
  • The book repeats the mistaken idea that planets close to a sun will gradually spin slower until one hemisphere is left always turned to the sun due to tidal locking, citing Mercury as an example. Scientists at the time of the book's origin thought one side of Mercury always faced the sun, just as one side of the Moon always faces the Earth. In 1965, radio astronomers discovered however that Mercury rotates fast enough for all sides to see exposure to the sun.[106] Scientists further established that Mercury is locked in this spin rate in a stable resonance of 3 spins for every 2 orbits, and it is not slowing and so will never have one side left always turned to the sun.[109]
  • Some species are said to have evolved suddenly from single mutations without transitional species.[110] The theory originated with Dutch botanist Hugo De Vries but was short-lived and is not now supported.[111]
  • The book erroneously says that a solar eclipse was predicted in 1808 by the Native American prophet Tenskwatawa. The eclipse actually was predicted in late April 1806 and occurred on June 16, 1806.[112] In 2009, Urantia Foundation acknowledged the error and revised the book.[c]
  • Controversial statements about human races can be found in the book. Gardner believes that William S. Sadler, who wrote some eugenicist works, had a hand in editing or writing the book, and that this is how the ideas were included. Piney has been pointing out some of these false statements. They are racist and false.

How long are you going to run from these? Are you going to lie about their not existing or will accept them and note that you were wrong?

I'll leave you two rage filled Christians to think up more lies to tell - good night haters.

 

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk

Where Socrates and Plato are concerned, whether it is about Atlantis, or about good and evil directly, these staunch lovers of the shadows on the cave's wall, fail to see the kernel in understanding and putting things in the correct perspective...the soul and its immortality and The Creator, The Good (God). They take the bait, which is the physical world of the senses, and then run around with a hook in their mouth. They cannot see that everything is for the best.

Plato's Phaedo.

Nor am I any longer satisfied that I understand
the reason why one or anything else is either generated or destroyed or is at all,
but I have in my mind some confused notion of a new method, and can never
admit the other. Then I heard some one reading, as he said, from a book of
Anaxagoras, that mind was the disposer and cause of all, and I was delighted
at this notion, which appeared quite admirable, and I said to myself: If mind
is the disposer, mind will dispose all for the best, and put each particular in
the best place; and I argued that if any one desired to find out the cause of
the generation or destruction or existence of anything, he must find out what
state of being or doing or suffering was best for that thing, and therefore a man
had only to consider the best for himself and others, and then he would also
know the worse, since the same science comprehended both. And I rejoiced to
think that I had found in Anaxagoras a teacher of the causes of existence such
as I desired, and I imagined that he would tell me first whether the earth is
flat or round; and whichever was true, he would proceed to explain the cause
and the necessity of this being so, and then he would teach me the nature of
the best and show that this was best; and if he said that the earth was in the
centre, he would further explain that this position was the best, and I should be
satisfied with the explanation given, and not want any other sort of cause. And
I thought that I would then go on and ask him about the sun and moon and
stars, and that he would explain to me their comparative swiftness, and their
returnings and various states, active and passive, and how all of them were for
the best. For I could not imagine that when he spoke of mind as the disposer of
them, he would give any other account of their being as they are, except that
this was best; and I thought that when he had explained to me in detail the
cause of each and the cause of all, he would go on to explain to me what was
best for each and what was good for all. These hopes I would not have sold
for a large sum of money, and I seized the books and read them as fast as I
could in my eagerness to know the better and the worse. What expectations I
had formed, and how grievously was I disappointed! As I proceeded, I found
my philosopher altogether forsaking mind or any other principle of order, but
having recourse to air, and ether, and water, and other eccentricities. I might
compare him to a person who began by maintaining generally that mind is the
cause of the actions of Socrates, but who, when he endeavoured to explain the
causes of my several actions in detail, went on to show that I sit here because my
body is made up of bones and muscles; and the bones, as he would say, are hard
and have joints which divide them, and the muscles are elastic, and they cover
the bones, which have also a covering or environment of flesh and skin which
contains them; and as the bones are lifted at their joints by the contraction or
relaxation of the muscles, I am able to bend my limbs, and this is why I am
sitting here in a curved posture–that is what he would say, and he would have
a similar explanation of my talking to you, which he would attribute to sound,
and air, and hearing, and he would assign ten thousand other causes of the same
sort, forgetting to mention the true cause, which is, that the Athenians have
thought fit to condemn me, and accordingly I have thought it better and more
right to remain here and undergo my sentence; for I am inclined to think that
these muscles and bones of mine would have gone off long ago to Megara or
Boeotia–by the dog they would, if they had been moved only by their own idea
of what was best, and if I had not chosen the better and nobler part, instead of
playing truant and running away, of enduring any punishment which the state
inflicts. There is surely a strange confusion of causes and conditions in all this.
It may be said, indeed, that without bones and muscles and the other parts of
the body I cannot execute my purposes. But to say that I do as I do because
of them, and that this is the way in which mind acts, and not from the choice
of the best, is a very careless and idle mode of speaking. I wonder that they
cannot distinguish the cause from the condition, which the many, feeling about
in the dark, are always mistaking and misnaming. And thus one man makes a
vortex all round and steadies the earth by the heaven; another gives the air as
a support to the earth, which is a sort of broad trough. Any power which in
arranging them as they are arranges them for the best never enters into their
minds;
and instead of finding any superior strength in it, they rather expect to
discover another Atlas of the world who is stronger and more everlasting and
more containing than the good;–of the obligatory and containing power of the
good they think nothing
; and yet this is the principle which I would fain learn
if any one would teach me. But as I have failed either to discover myself, or to
learn of any one else, the nature of the best, I will exhibit to you, if you like, what
I have found to be the second best mode of enquiring into the cause.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
19 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Yeah and Will Due ran from those demonstrations of bad science with fear in his eyes. Wikipedia just fine for something like UB which isn't science. Care to answer why that book has all that bad science in it?

Some, as yourself, address Atlantis seekers as Atlantidiots, and therefore I'll address you as being a scienceidiotist. It's not a matter of bad or good science, as it's all fake science, since we are not in the real world. You foolishly believe in science, but it's all make believe, nothing more than one item contained in one of the infinite plays written by God, which are meant to entertain us in eternity.  And this one play is all about good and evil behavior. where science is used only as bait. And you have taken it all in, hook, line and sinker, as they say. I add to the saying that you have swallowed the fishing pole too.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Pettytalk
43 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Here you go - so you can explain how you missed all this:

 

  • The described formation of the solar system is consistent with the Chamberlin-Moulton planetesimal hypothesis,[103] which though popular in the early part of the 20th century, was discarded by the 1940s after major flaws were noted.[104] The currently accepted scientific explanation for the origin of the solar system is based on the nebular hypothesis.[103]
  • According to the book's descriptions, the universe is hundreds of billions of years old and periodically expands and contracts — "respires" — at 2-billion-year intervals. Recent observations suggest that the true age of the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years.[105] The book does not support the Big Bang theory.[106]
  • A fundamental particle called an "ultimaton" is proposed, with an electron being composed of 100 ultimatons. The particle is not known to be described anywhere else and the concept is not supported by modern particle physics.[107]
  • The Andromeda Galaxy is claimed to be "almost one million" light years away, repeating the understandings of the 1920s,[108] but the galaxy is now understood to be 2.5 million light years away.
  • The book repeats the mistaken idea that planets close to a sun will gradually spin slower until one hemisphere is left always turned to the sun due to tidal locking, citing Mercury as an example. Scientists at the time of the book's origin thought one side of Mercury always faced the sun, just as one side of the Moon always faces the Earth. In 1965, radio astronomers discovered however that Mercury rotates fast enough for all sides to see exposure to the sun.[106] Scientists further established that Mercury is locked in this spin rate in a stable resonance of 3 spins for every 2 orbits, and it is not slowing and so will never have one side left always turned to the sun.[109]
  • Some species are said to have evolved suddenly from single mutations without transitional species.[110] The theory originated with Dutch botanist Hugo De Vries but was short-lived and is not now supported.[111]
  • The book erroneously says that a solar eclipse was predicted in 1808 by the Native American prophet Tenskwatawa. The eclipse actually was predicted in late April 1806 and occurred on June 16, 1806.[112] In 2009, Urantia Foundation acknowledged the error and revised the book.[c]
  • Controversial statements about human races can be found in the book. Gardner believes that William S. Sadler, who wrote some eugenicist works, had a hand in editing or writing the book, and that this is how the ideas were included. Piney has been pointing out some of these false statements. They are racist and false.

How long are you going to run from these? Are you going to lie about their not existing or will accept them and note that you were wrong?

I'll leave you two rage filled Christians to think up more lies to tell - good night haters.

 

Good night, and happy nightmares!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
7 hours ago, Will Due said:

The truth doesn't need proof.

The truth is self-evident.

Of course the truth needs proof. Thats how we know its the truth.

What you think of as the truth is conjecture at best.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter Cox
4 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

Good night, and happy nightmares!

 

More avoidance..... 

You didnt reply to any questions posted to you by me or others. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
6 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

Is it not amazing how these professed experts on knowledge keep using wikipedia as their source, and then criticize others for using the same source? And then they have the audacity to award the "pot and kettle" to others....... 

When has any academic here attacked the use of Wiki? Several of us are editors. 

5 hours ago, Pettytalk said:

Some, as yourself, address Atlantis seekers as Atlantidiots, and therefore I'll address you as being a scienceidiotist. It's not a matter of bad or good science, as it's all fake science, since we are not in the real world. You foolishly believe in science, but it's all make believe, nothing more than one item contained in one of the infinite plays written by God, which are meant to entertain us in eternity.  And this one play is all about good and evil behavior. where science is used only as bait. And you have taken it all in, hook, line and sinker, as they say. I add to the saying that you have swallowed the fishing pole too.

WOW! You jealously of academics has burnt a hole in your brain pan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru

Thread closed for moderator review.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.