Voyage to Atlantis

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by Yobarnacle, Sep 3, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,747
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    http://www.reformation.org/cabotia.html

    John Cabot (Giovanni Caboto), the real Discoverer of the New World!!


    It's time to throw fake "Discoverer" Portuguese "Christopher Columbus" overboard into the sea of oblivion where he rightly belongs!!

    The Fall of Constantinople to the Muslim Turks in 1453 blocked the great maritime power of Venice from the Eastern Mediterranean and the Asian spice trade. As a result, they set their eyes on a westward passage to the Orient.

    John Cabot used maps that the Venetian looted from Constantinople in 1202.


    According to many historians, both columbus and Magellan had ancient maps they got from Portugal, by means fair or foul.
    Some explain that Portugal wasn't interested in financing Columbus, because they already KNEW lands (not asia) lay across the Atlantic. :)
    Some say, the reason Queen Isabella reneged on her rewards promised columbus, because she found out he HAD maps and didn't share that information, placing him in the role of "con man".
     
  2. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,747
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Where ever you place the pillars of Hercules, the geographical description of the plain of Mesopotamia in S America DOES match the description of Atlantis, and none of those other sites do.

    I'm still excited that Atlantis may yet be discovered to be S America!
     
  3. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,829
    Likes: 385, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: North of Cuba

    hoytedow Carbon Based Life Form

    CC was not Portuguese, most likely Italian. You may be thinking of Balboa? He wasn't Portuguese but lived very near the border with Portugal.
     
  4. El_Guero

    El_Guero Previous Member

    Either the Noahic peoples, or the Minoan peoples are the only ones known to fit the descriptions.

    Deciding there must be a better fit is ok, but the two know people groups are perfect fits, and they are known to history already.

    But, I bet Fidel would love for you to write up Cuba as the center of Atlantis.

    :D
     
  5. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,743
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    An FYI for those just joining this thread: the posters here who believe Atlantis was real, despite a complete lack of corroborating evidence, are mostly the same members who adamantly reject any and all scientific evidence of anthropological climate change.

    Can we say 'double standard,' boys and girls? I knew you could....:D
     
  6. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,747
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    But Troy
    The very EXPERTS you count on for your scientific evidence are now admitting "They don't know!"
    It's lucky they have you to carry the standard now they've abdicated.

    Also

    http://www.lotsofessays.com/viewpaper/1685451.html

    "Science is different than philosophy, religion or art because it is presumed an objective discipline, while the others are subjective. Further, science is founded on empirical data that support scientific conclusions, while philosophical, religious or artistic conclusions often require a "leap of faith." Yet, many notable thinkers like Karl Popper and Paul Feyeraband argue that science is not objective, and that its methods are not superior to any other discipline in discovering the truth. As Popper relates, "The way in which knowledge progresses, and especially our scientific knowledge, is by unjustified (and unjustifiable) anticipations, by guesses, by tentative solutions to our problems, by conjectures. These conjectures are controlled by criticism; that is, by attempted refutations, which include severely critical tests. They may survive these tests; but they can never be positively justified: they can be established neither as certainly true nor even as probable (in the sense of the probability calculus)" (Popper vii).
    Thus, the dilemma becomes, if science is prone to human error or ideology and not superior to any other source of discovering truth, how do we determine what is truth and from what discipline?"
     
  7. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,747
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    modern scientific principles of objectivity?

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/05/sci-m18.html

    "In the most fundamental sense, the confidence and vigour of scientists is connected to the regeneration of a progressive political movement fighting for the reorganisation of society, so that the benefits of modern technological and scientific achievements are available for humanity as a whole rather than being the monopoly of a few."

    I'm justifiably skeptical of AGW proponents motives. :D
     
  8. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,743
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    Science isn't a religion. Unlike priests and preachers, scientists don't claim to have ultimate knowledge and final answers; anything and everything they say is always subject to challenge. And successful challenges will change the existing science. But those challenges also have to be scientifically based. 'Because God says so' doesn't work, any more than 'because it conflicts with what I'd rather believe' does.

    A leap of faith may encourage someone to go looking for evidence that disproves a scientific theory, but until they come up with that evidence it's just speculation. No matter how prettily you clothe faith and guesswork in fancy words, and no matter how much you try to downgrade and disparage science, they aren't equal.
     
  9. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,743
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    It doesn't matter who technically got there first. What matters is who made a major difference by getting there. And because Columbus's voyages were the catalyst that triggered the settling and exploitation of the New World by Europeans, he's the one who counts.
     
  10. man03
    Joined: Sep 2013
    Posts: 0
    Likes: 0, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 10
    Location: Daphne, al

    man03 New Member

    I Like The Physical World.

    But quantum mechanics is hard to ignore. Quantum mech certainly doesn’t help me take my 60‘ catamaran from concept to reality. Or does it!!!!!! UHG!
     
  11. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,747
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    I'm not disparaging science. Science doesn't say anything. scientists do. And scientists are human and make errors. They even contradict the science they claim to profess.

    How highly Einstein regarded thermodynamics can be appreciated in the following quote:

    “A law is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. (..) It is the only physical theory of universal content, which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown.”

    First Law of Thermodynamics

    The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. Also, it can not be created or destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant.

    Second Law of Thermodynamics

    Heat cannot be transfer from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact of thermodynamics, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible. This law also predicts that the entropy of an isolated system always increases with time. Entropy is the measure of the disorder or randomness of energy and matter in a system. Because of the second law of thermodynamics both energy and matter in the Universe are becoming less useful as time goes on. Everything constantly is'devolving' into disorder.


    Science isn't religion but many try to make a religion of science.

    The big bang theory, theory of evolution, theories that coalescence of gas clouds creating stars and planets and galaxies..ALL require DENIAL of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

    Something from nothing and everything becomes MORE ordered and MORE complex over time! These theories are CONTRARY to the first two laws of thermodynamics.

    Wow! What a leap of FAITH! Misplaced and unscientific. :D

    http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6e.html

    http://secondlawoflife.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/what-einstein-thought-about-thermodynamics/
     
  12. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,743
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    Oh please... evolution has nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics. Is that old chestnut still hanging around?

    To begin with, no organism evolves in a closed system. And if it were true that anything which becomes more ordered and more complex defies thermodynamics, it would be impossible for a seed to become a tree - or for an egg to become a chicken.

    There could also never be snowflakes, because their beautiful symmetry forms spontaneously from randomly moving molecules of water vapor.
     
  13. Mr Efficiency
    Joined: Oct 2010
    Posts: 10,401
    Likes: 1,029, Points: 113, Legacy Rep: 702
    Location: Australia

    Mr Efficiency Senior Member

    If Atlantis is anything more than a metaphor for a mythical lost "golden age", a persistent theme in literature since time immemorial, I will be mightily surprised !
     
  14. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,747
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Nothing to do with thermodynamics says....Troy. No experts to quote?

    http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~mmalacho/ScientificMethod.html

    Good Science versus Bad Science
    Qualities of good science:

    Not based on authority
    Testable
    Repeatable
    Universal
    Measurable (Tangible)
    Observable
    Narrow (Occam's razor)/Simple



    Yes life and the universe have observable complexity.
    The laws of thermodynamics have NEVER been shown to be wrong.
    Science has many fields but all are science and based on the above method.
    Except some theories are NOT. Some are not observable, repeatable, testable, ect.
    the theories I mentioned (big bang, evolution, gas clouds become solar systems) are among these unscientific theories that don't follow the above list of requirements.
    I can argue this very convincingly and in depth, if you wish.
    My point is this, holding science and scientists up as AUTHORITIES violates the first principle in the list above.

    Have you and others tried to hold scientists up as authorities?

    "A consensus of...."

    :D

    Let me put it slightly different.
    There is 'good' science that follows the above list of principles, and then there is 'the other kind'!
    I call the opposite of good science, 'bad' science.

    Bad science is NOT new.
    And it's taught in our schools as 'accepted' science; (as opposed to unaccepted science?)

    If you can't observe it, test it, repeat it, measure it, then you fall into the error of "taking it on authority"!

    Do you see my point NOW?
    :D

    In every case I'm aware of, 'bad' science is based on ideology, not scientific principle.
    I can argue THAT if you think it's worth while. :)
     

  15. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,743
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    How many experts do you want me to quote, Yobarnacle? And where do I start?

    You're denying the very underpinnings of modern science. So how about I just start you off with some elementary-school textbooks, and let you take it from there?:)

    Try these: http://www.mhschool.com/science/2005/student/
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.