Atlantis

as well as not. maybe it was a prophesy about washington dc. it's half surrounded by water...

Plato claims the source of his tale to be the ancient Egyptians. If this is truly the case, then the nature of the story makes perfect sense. The Egyptians were greatly amazed at the precise cycle of flooding on the Nile--it flooded at exactly the same time every year, and this flooding was crucial to the survival of the Egyptians.Their creation myth also speaks of the Earth starting out as nothing but endless dark water, from which arose a mound of dirt, etc. They believed the world would end in the opposite way, with the waters coming back to reclaim the land. The yearly flooding of the Nile was just a reminder for them that one day this story would come true.Of course, there're many other civilizations that have flood myths enough to be the inspiration for Atlantis, along with other civilizations that went through similar tragedies and could've easily passed the story down.J0N

No, the word 'Atlantis' is similar to an Aztec word. Correlation does not imply causation.Atlantis, which means 'Island of Atlas', was named after the Atlantic Ocean (Sea of Atlas), perhaps because it was the sea to the west of the Atlas Mountains.The etymology of 'Atlas' however is debatable, because there appears to have been two Atlas figures in mythology (the greek titan and a Mauretanian king) but appears to be an old Berber name for their mountains, or perhaps from an Indo-European stem tel' meaning to 'bear' . The name was used for the mountains, and because the Greeks saw those mountains as the foundation for the sky, they could have named the 'king of the last lands of the Earth' after those mountains or the mountains after their titan (who was supposed to be standing either there in the mountains or in the sea of atlas, holding the heavens in place). It's all very difficult to work out just where the name originated, but it doesn't appear to be Aztec anyway.

---

"Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur Schopenhauer

I think I am understanding now:

quote:

---

Gogyeng Sowuhti then covered the sipapuni with water, so that it resembled an ordinary pond and one would not know it was the place through which the people emerged from the world below. She then said, "When the sun rises tomorrow the tribes will separate."

---

I have a feeling that this is the part of the myth that Vento has taken horribly out of context and exaggerated in importance. Certainly he should've known better.J0N1CU5

Crustal Displacement Theory has more problems than just the lack of a feasible driving mechanism. It does not explain paleomagnetism data or observed rates of plate movements.For example, the Hawaiian Island chain clearly shows that the Pacific Plate has been moving at a steady rate over the static plume currently below the main island. This has been going on for IIRC 220 million years without any sudden 'displacements.' If the crust shifted over such a plume to any significant degree in a shorter period of time than plates are moving today, we would see the Hawaiian Islands as several chains rather than one continuous chain from Mauna Loa to the seamounts going clear to the Aleutians and Kurile Islands.Also, Antarctica has ice cores dating back to nearly a million years in the center. This would mean a considerable amount of time would have transgressed between Atlantis and classical civilization. I would say considerable enough to render the point of any linkage moot as it would amount to the Homo Erectus of Atlantis revealing their advanced technology to the Homo Erectus of Africa.Also, the proposed idea that Antarctica ever had human habitation prior to modern times has never been substantiated by evidence in any form.These are just a few objections I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure that if this line of reasoning is pursued, I can come up with many more.