What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
69 Comments
- Toon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+81No. It was lost again within the five year span since the article first came out and, just yesterday, it was found again. It was under a stack of old "Entertainment Weekly"s.
- Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26History teachers have ignored it because otherwise they'd have to learn some things over again and really don't want to change the tests they've been using for the past 20 years of their career.
Legend says some of these teachers may have actually come from this ancient civilization, but are far too old to remember it. - tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -12/+31Even though I love the finding of any lost city - this one was found almost 5 years ago.
Really old article. - Shivetya, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18mostly refuted the claims (per wiki article)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruins_in_the_Gulf_of_Cambay - daveddd, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20To protect them from the Wraith. Come on, don't you watch tv?
BTW did they find a ZPM down there? - DeadWisdom, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20God, these anti-wikipedia arguments are so lame. Think about it for 2 more seconds and realize that every facet of human knowledge is democratic in the same way. Then you can harp on the other faults of wikipedia.
- RexKwando, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Still, quite a remarkable find. I wonder what has happened with it since?
- NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Really awesome pictures. I know where to go for wallpaper when I get a 2" monitor.
- freddymercury, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Just going by sea levels the city would HAVE to be at least 9,500 years old.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci100k.html
Unless it was built by mermen. I am sure there is some settling due to it being on an alluvial plain.. but since the 120 meter depth would have occurred at the last glacial maximum at 18,500 years that would tend to support the 9,500 year date. Earlier dates would more likely be from flotsam - pbaehr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10@RexKwando:
The wikipedia entry has some more recent information, including a debate on whether or not certain artifacts are pottery or natural secretions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruins_in_the_Gulf_of_Cambay
Also, this link from the bottom of the wikipedia article seems to be pretty comprehensive in case anyone is interested in finding out more.
http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/BadrinaryanB1.php?p=1 - TreborYelaeh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Which brings up the question:
Why hasn't anybody computed where the shorelines were at the last ice age and gone searching for port cities in those areas?
Most of the large cities of modern times are by water, either ocean or river, so it would make sense to look for ruins at the sea levels of ice age times.
There are hints of long distance maritime trade in anciant times and the sailing technology to cross the oceans could have been created by peoples of the late ice age timeframe.
Think of 1492 AD voyages occuring back at the end of the ice age and you begin to see the impact of finding ruins at the late ice age sea levels.
Just a ponder... - PerroLoco, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"We have to find out what happened then ... where and how this civilisation vanished," he said.
I'd say flood is a good guess. - liuite, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6victim of an earlier global warming
- Dimensio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"It's to bad that most people blindly accept dating characteristics as a reliable facet of evidence when it remains so speculative."
I would ask you to support your claims regarding carbon dating, but I am well aware that you prefer to expend far more energy than would be required in supporting your clams by making exuses for never providing any supporting evidence for your claims. As such, I have concluded that there is no reason to trust that anything that you state should be considered reliable. - cquinnd, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6 RexKwando, sorry to be pedantic, but 'wiki' is the technology that allows a site like Wikipedia to manage its information, "Wikipedia" is the source, and no-one is saying
it should be taken as trustworthy in and of itself. Which is why it is expected that people actually read the articles that are linked, check the references for accuracy, and be willing to challenge the trustworthiness of the source material.
You are correct that too many people use Wikipedia as an end point to their argument, instead of as a starting point to more information, or as a supporting reference. - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10So they finally found lost R'lyeh...could be trouble.
- Paroparo, on 10/12/2007, -11/+15Whoa, that's like way before God created the world in 6 days!
Seriously though, very interesting. Even if it turns out to be much younger, this is still quite a phenomenal find. If this does turn out to be older than most of the great Sumerian cities, it could be one of the biggest archaelogical finds of our lives. - rathrbfishing, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7okay guys - I did a little searching and could find no articles written AFTER about march of 2002. If the 9,000 years ago statement has been proven, then why hasn't something more been written about it? Four years (almost five) is more than enought time for artifacts to be recovered, cataloged and dated. I think an excited archaeologist jumped the gun a little....
- Twango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3A reply to the 2002 'refutation' can be found here:
http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/khambat/khambat01.htm
and this long Graham Hancock (he's a diver) article is very detailed, with a lot of the evidence:
http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/BadrinaryanB1.php?p=1
On another page GH points out that coastal plains were inundated by ice-age melts from 17000BP to 7000BP ... and says we should't make up our minds until the entire continental shelf has been explored to 120 meters.
http://www.grahamhancock.com/underworld
Some of the stuff found there dates to 13,000BP and even some to 31,000BP! - Twango, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Carbon-dating has proven to be very reliable ...
a helluva lot more reliable than whipping out some book and taking it at face value ....
which may explain why "contender ministries" finds it so trying to be faced with evidence - theDevilsDue, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Interesting. I tried to do lexis search for more info but I'm not smart enough to get a VPN to work.
The funny thing about archaeology is that politics are involved there too. If you find something that would ruffle feathers, you may have a hard road to hoe. Not saying that it's the case here, though, just that the entrenched like to preserve the status-quo. - kurtu5, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Speculate - Def from bartelby.net 2. To engage in a course of reasoning often based on inconclusive evidence.
So what is inconclusive about the half life of carbon 14? What is inconclusive about the uptake ratios of carbon 14 and 12 for living organisms like fire wood?
Carbon dating is reasoning about the date of an item by measuring the relative amounts of each isotope. Most academics tend to think really hard about contamination and things like that. So I don't really know what you mean by speculation.
If there the sample's purity is in question, multiple dating techniques are used. - Esstee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"found the evidence that the Sphynx in Egypt is a lot older than 5k years"
This is very interesting information, can you share the source or location of this information?
I am interested in reading more about this. - wheaty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4edited: doh, faster posters then me...
Thanks for the great follow-ups - xenolite, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Maybe it hasn't been in mainstream news because people's heads would explode.
Things are kept simple for a reason (sigh).
Perhaps people have been around for a long time, but we keep starting over because we destroy most of the planet in some war or accident and we just don't learn.
Maybe it's localized and the advanced civilization destroys itself in an accident or power struggle. (Atlantis)
I believe that humans have been around for quite some time, because of these findings and others like foreign objects embedded in rocks. - foolfromhell, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6India FTW! We beat most civilizations to cities!
- shaggtastic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Judging from his website, that guy's a loon.
- fquednau, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Well, I found the evidence that the Sphynx in Egypt is a lot older than 5k years quite compelling, but you don't hear anything from that either...Science is often as stubborn as Religion, and in both you can argue a lot :)
- wurzelgummage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3File it alongside the 1989 "cold fusion" announcement.
- TreborYelaeh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Nah, the bible most likely refers to the flooding of the Baltic plain 7000 years ago, possibly due to rising sea levels. Multiple anciant cultures make reference to it and usually attach divine retribution to the event.
- fallenone05, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2the word "perplex" perplex me
- Twango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Graham Hancock is a nut."
Maybe. The NIOT evidence, though, is based in very up-to-date methods:
http://www.hindunet.org/saraswati/khambat/khambat01.htm - Matteos, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!!!
- Supafroman, on 12/20/2007, -0/+1Vegita, what does the scouter say about his power level?
It's OVER 9000!!!!!!!!!
What 9000!?!?!?!?!? - 121GW, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I think I can speak for 99% of practicing anthropologists / archaeologists when I say, "Graham Hancock is a nut."
I have an MA in anthropology and am working toward a PhD and I have never seen his work presented in a course.
Of course, he would say there is a vast conspiracy against him. But it's not about him, it's about his methods, most of which are unscientific an conjectural at best, and outright lies at worst. - MioTheGreat, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8Better wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis_%28Stargate%29 - CARPEDATAM, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4This may validate recent findings in genetics that 30k years ago humans migrated along the south Asia/Indian coast to Australia....
- megaloid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The problem with archeology is the size of certain archaeologists' egos. All of the sciences suffer from unbecoming interpersonal behavior, but by most accounts, archeology is in a class by itself.
- fallenone05, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Well I was consulting the book with all the answers (The Bible). and it mentions something regarding a flood and a whole bunch of animals in an ark, maybe that explains some of this...I'lll keep reading and let you know
- anagoge, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought this was going to be a spoiler for season 3 of Lost.
- ikak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good job class. Next lesson we will learn about sarcasm
- fquednau, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@EssTee: I saw it in a TV report once, the site http://www.plim.org/sphinx.htm seems to inform a bit on this. It states two arguments that were also explained in the show (erosion due to water that suggests that the Sphynx already existed when the climate was quite different, alignment with a certain star configuration that only makes sense a lot earlier than 2500BC). Another argument that came up in the show was that the body simply looks a lot more battered than the head and the head seems too small in comparison with the body, suggesting that the Sphynx had once a different head and the head was reworked by the Egyptian dynasties.
- shaggtastic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2That's fascinating and all, but I fail to see how this would validate that finding...
- xenolite, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4I don't know how long people have been around, we use carbon dating but not like carbon dating is all that accurate. (http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php)
Here are examples of stuff embedded in rocks
http://www.tsc-global.com/rock.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coso.html
What do we know? How much of what we know is the truth?
Life isn't simple but ignorance is bliss. =) - freakofnature, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1the double ""perplex" perplex" perpleks me to no end.... to be continued...
- jozb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4there is a legend that says the (south) indian people came from an island that sunk a long time ago. so i am guessing this could be the place the legend is talking about...
- rodrigo74, on 10/12/2007, -8/+8"It is scary that so many people rely on "wiki" as a trustworthy source?! That is like saying god is dead because my cousin, who is a writer, said so yesterday."
..and how would it be different from any other source, such as a magazine or the TV news? - koalkoal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0wow, this is amazing.
finds like these always perplex me. - iLEZ, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4@DeadWisdom
I so wish i could thumb you up twice.
...not in a dirty kind of way. - djskitzy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0So... I'm right then?
-
Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
Catch all of your favorite Digg shows in one place, including Digg Dialogg, Diggnation, The Digg Reel and More!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is