I think we understand you there’s science and then there’s pseudoscience and you are a purveyor of the later.
How so? My claims seem to have the same validity and merit others have. Not much. Anyway I don't really care I just want to see an admission that some folks believe in something that hasn't actually been proven to be correct and may not be proven correct, after all this thread has now taught me that theories can change based on new evidence. To me, those people are clinging onto nothing more than a dream or a vision and that vision will fluctuate dramatically over the course of time as new evidence comes forth, which it will because I think we have yet to get passed the tip of the iceberg in regards to all things science. The more we discover the more evidence comes forth and the more those theories change. If we take for example the universe creation topic. I'll just use 3 examples. Big bang theory Big rip/tear theory And the collapsing theory. Now let's just assume that one of those is actually correct. There is factual scientific evidence for all 3 to exist and each group sticks to their theories. All based on scientific evidence. To me that comes to personal interpretation of the evidence provided for those groups to believe in what they believe in. But 2 are wrong. That must mean that two groups are chasing a lie based on scientific evidence and facts they've been given. Well not a lie but you know what I mean. And the correct one if we can call it that, really has yet to be confirmed. And that's just three theories I can think of on top of my head. Doesn't that just go to show what I've been saying? That there is no accurate Theory YET based on any evidence provided thus far. If there was we'd have that legit theory by now. So again I reiterate, chasing personal beliefs, but those beliefs are believed by ordinary people based off the information provided by scientists in which we can safely say for many instances, that information is incorrect or possibly incomplete based on nothing more than supporting evidence which I've been made aware of.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You make a very good argument I give up, I’m convinced the Gods in their infinite wisdom sent fire and destruction upon Atlantis causing the continent to sink deep into the ocean, I’m convinced Perseus, son of Zeus slayed the Gorgon Medusa and used her head to rescue Andromeda from the Kraken, I’m convinced the half man/half God Hercules completed his 12 labors and even rescued the Princess of Troy as depicted in the 1965 sword and sandal epic Hercules and the Princess of Troy starring Gordon Scott,
I take your hints of sarcasm as a sign that you still don't agree with me? All the information provided to me this morning really only helped galvanise my thoughts lol. And I'm not trying to say anyone is wrong, I'm just calling it out like I see it. Maybe whatever you believe is the right theory, I don't know. I don't have any theories on how the universe came about etc. I have cosmological ideas on solar systems, especially ours. And yes it may have something to do with extra planets, a nuclear war AND aliens, but I'm not certain... Yet. They rely heavily on historic texts and a ton more research which is why I believe we need to concentrate on learning our planet first. I can't picture the fantasy elements of science, universe creations and worm holes and all that will benefit us any until we understand the limitations and history of our own home. I'm intrigued in this new proposed continent that has been discovered under new Zealand. It would completely change the dynamics of Pangaea, a complete sunken "world". Maybe some more pyramids! One the debates with Atlantis was the animals said to have been there which gave geographical hints to its locations. Elephants were one of the problem animals, it didn't fit into the Mediterranean molds where these legends came from. But this sunken continent coud have at some point been attached to south east Asia, and there's elephants there. I find it very interesting anyway.
We could use that flat Earth-beleiving point guard right about now. Eastern Conference Finals aren't flat for sure. Court seems tilted toward the home team. Oh shit...need to be on topic... Um...Earth is cube, yo.
When you reference ancient literature you must recognize that some of that literature has been found to be reliable and some has not. For example the city of Troy was mentioned as existing circa 1184 BC by Eratosthenes, 1250 BC by Herodotus, and 1334 BC by Duris of Samos. It's also mentioned in In the Iliad, which is a written account of prehistoric events handed down by oral tradition from approximately the same time frame. As some of the literature from the authors mentioned had been found to be accurate and some had not (Herodotus recorded reports of men with goats feet.) Troy was considered a myth, an unproven written account as it couldn't be verified. It wasn't until 1868 that Heinrich Schliemann claimed to have found Troy by digging into an archaeological site named Hisarlik and thus validating the historical writings. His analysis was accepted at the time, however later research proved him to be wrong, he had miscalculated which depth of the dig contained the ancient city mentioned by the writers. It wasn't until 1988 that bronze warheads and evidence of a battle were discovered and it wasn't until 1993 that magnetic imaging (hard science) confirmed the outlines of the city. There were thirteen cities built on the same site and the sixth the from the top, Troy VIIa, is the one mentioned in the Iliad. So to recap, historical writings purported the existence of an ancient city but the writings couldn't be completely trusted, so Troy remained in the realm of myth for many years. Then an excavation revealed a city matching the description of the city in the writings....according to Heinrich Schliemann's interpretation of the writings and the excavated site. He had a theory that he had found the Iliad's Troy and he backed it up with the facts he had discovered. However later facts, partly the hard science of magnetic imaging, led to the disapproval of his theory and a new theory as to which layer of the excavation was indeed the Troy of the Iliad. That's how science works. If we consider the flat Earth theory, the theory that the Earth is flat has been found in written accounts of the ancient Egyptians, Mesopotamians and even Homer, based on the known facts of the time, but modern science has found additional facts that support a better theory. Same with Atlantis, Camelot, the planet Nibiru, etc. All considered myth and disregarded until someone uncovers facts that elevate them out of mythical status.