The Silurian Hypothesis

[Barrister]

It took billions of years to build up the massive amounts of coal and oil we have found. Removing it from the Earth is not a pretty process. Mountains are ripped apart and giant sinkholes formed. If a civilization reached the stage of 20th century global exploitation of fossil fuels we would know. So any Saurian civilization must have been simpler than that.

No.

The entire point is if you go back far enough mountains ranges are eroded to nothing, and new ones formed in their place.  My whole argument with Malthus (who points to some, well, interesting but questionable research) is that the entire landscape of the earth has been completely re-worked since the pre-Cenozoic era.

[Malthus]

It took billions of years to build up the massive amounts of coal and oil we have found. Removing it from the Earth is not a pretty process. Mountains are ripped apart and giant sinkholes formed. If a civilization reached the stage of 20th century global exploitation of fossil fuels we would know. So any Saurian civilization must have been simpler than that.

No.

The entire point is if you go back far enough mountains ranges are eroded to nothing, and new ones formed in their place.  My whole argument with Malthus (who points to some, well, interesting but questionable research) is that the entire landscape of the earth has been completely re-worked since the pre-Cenozoic era.

I would not say "questionable" unless you have something I have not seen that actually counters it! 

[Duque de Bragança]

There are numerous "pillars of Hercules" in the ancient Mediterranean.

I only think of the Gibraltar straits when I read "pillars of Hercules" though, i.e the Rock and Ceuta, in North Africa. These are the most likely candidates, though the north African pillar is somewhat disputed.

[viper37]

Santorini (ancient Thera) is almost certainly what Plato's sources were describing, from everything I have seen.  Destroyed in a volcanic explosion roughly 1500 BCE (the exact date is debatable).

Agreed, and there seems to be some consensus that it inspired Plato's dialogues. What I never understood is why people presume it was a real place as described in the Kritias/Timaios (IIRC). It seems a bit as if people were looking for the island of Utopia.

Sometimes, I see people using sarcasm on the internet, in newspapers or in a Facebook comment.  Sometimes, I see/hear other people use second degree to hint at something, or to gently mock someone.
And everytime, everytime, I see some people who just don't get it.  They take the comment at face value, totally ignoring what is really meant.  A journalist recently blogged about how Quebec city was superior to Montreal because it's not a city where a large private promoted would influence public transit and get a building erected even though it does not conform to the urbanism code voted by the city a few years prior.  It was obvious he was using second degree/sarcasm to say both cities have similar problems and none should be smug about Montreal's problems with gigantic building disparaging an existing neighbourhood.  Yet, he received a fuckton of shit and nasty emails from readers reminding him of some private, questionnable, development projects in Quebec city.  He was forced to apologize for using sarcasm the day after.

So, people reading Plato's dialogues and assuming everything is 100% as it is written without any embelishment, translation errors or any kind or any distortion is not surprising at all.Heck, a lot of people believe their sacred books should be read litterally, so why would it be different with a philosopher?

[viper37]

I find it extremely unlikely that an advanced civilization can leave absolutely no trace whatsoever. 

they had giant floating cities that also served as starship and decided to move far away from here, in another galaxy, once humanoids started to evolve into modern humans and then shed their physical bodies to ascend to an higher plane of existance.

Totally plausible explanation, as good as any.

[Barrister]

It took billions of years to build up the massive amounts of coal and oil we have found. Removing it from the Earth is not a pretty process. Mountains are ripped apart and giant sinkholes formed. If a civilization reached the stage of 20th century global exploitation of fossil fuels we would know. So any Saurian civilization must have been simpler than that.

No.

The entire point is if you go back far enough mountains ranges are eroded to nothing, and new ones formed in their place.  My whole argument with Malthus (who points to some, well, interesting but questionable research) is that the entire landscape of the earth has been completely re-worked since the pre-Cenozoic era.

I would not say "questionable" unless you have something I have not seen that actually counters it! 

Dude your own links mention the questions!  Remember the title "The ancient landscapes concept: 'Important if true'"

It seems prosperous to me that landforms on earth would sit, unchanged by erosion deposition, or other geologic factors, for over a billion years, but I will concede that a few people have suggested that is true.

But you don't get to go around suggesting that these ideas are widely accepted science either!

[grumbler]

There are numerous "pillars of Hercules" in the ancient Mediterranean.

I only think of the Gibraltar straits when I read "pillars of Hercules" though, i.e the Rock and Ceuta, in North Africa. These are the most likely candidates, though the north African pillar is somewhat disputed.

That is true for you, but may not have been true for Plato (or his sources).

[Duque de Bragança]

There are numerous "pillars of Hercules" in the ancient Mediterranean.

I only think of the Gibraltar straits when I read "pillars of Hercules" though, i.e the Rock and Ceuta, in North Africa. These are the most likely candidates, though the north African pillar is somewhat disputed.

That is true for you, but may not have been true for Plato (or his sources).

Not just me, it is the most commonly accepted view, but granted we'll never be sure for Plato (or his sources), as you point out.

[Tamas]

It is an entertaining what-if but unless we talk about a very small population secluded species reaching the earliest stages of Stone Age civilisation, I just can't believe we would not have found traces of them. Not possible.

[Malthus]

It took billions of years to build up the massive amounts of coal and oil we have found. Removing it from the Earth is not a pretty process. Mountains are ripped apart and giant sinkholes formed. If a civilization reached the stage of 20th century global exploitation of fossil fuels we would know. So any Saurian civilization must have been simpler than that.

No.

The entire point is if you go back far enough mountains ranges are eroded to nothing, and new ones formed in their place.  My whole argument with Malthus (who points to some, well, interesting but questionable research) is that the entire landscape of the earth has been completely re-worked since the pre-Cenozoic era.

I would not say "questionable" unless you have something I have not seen that actually counters it! 

Dude your own links mention the questions!  Remember the title "The ancient landscapes concept: 'Important if true'"

It seems prosperous to me that landforms on earth would sit, unchanged by erosion deposition, or other geologic factors, for over a billion years, but I will concede that a few people have suggested that is true.

But you don't get to go around suggesting that these ideas are widely accepted science either!

Actually reading the articles, though, the "pro" side has cited all sorts of evidence, while the "anti" side can be summed up much like you have done: 'well, we always assumed this wasn't true, it goes against our beliefs, so it sounds unlikely'. 

What is missing, is a reasoned attack on the evidence presented.

Im no geologist, but evidence is the same everywhere: where one side has evidence, and the other is merely skeptical because it goes against their long-held beliefs and "sounds difficult to believe", I side with the evidence until it is disproved with better evidence. That's how science progresses, by demolishing what people *assumed* was true when the actual evidence points the other way ...   

[KRonn]

I find it extremely unlikely that an advanced civilization can leave absolutely no trace whatsoever. 

they had giant floating cities that also served as starship and decided to move far away from here, in another galaxy, once humanoids started to evolve into modern humans and then shed their physical bodies to ascend to an higher plane of existance.

Totally plausible explanation, as good as any.

I like this hypothesis! Give great space to ponder about what if whether one believes it or not. Someday humans on Earth will need to do the same as predictions go the Sun will super nova in three or four billion years.

Then too the Andromeda and Milky Way galaxies are on a collision course which is predicted to occur in a few billion years. Given that humans creating colonies on the Moon and Mars, are concepts being seriously pursued, it may be doable during this century or even by mid century for starters.  So if human kind on Earth can survive the endless sitcom replays and unwanted movie sequels, Halloween 1,024k    then they hopefully will have developed the tech to move into another safer galaxy.

[Caliga]

It is an entertaining what-if but unless we talk about a very small population secluded species reaching the earliest stages of Stone Age civilisation, I just can't believe we would not have found traces of them. Not possible.

I find it interesting to speculate about "what if the velociraptors reached sentience and had a stone age civilization" but I don't think anyone thinks that with our current level of technology we'd be able to uncover a primitive civilization like that.  I think the concession is that we would need a past civilization to have deposited layers of radioactive material in order for there to be any chance at all of detecting them, right?

[Caliga]

What about, though, if a previous civilization engaged in climate engineering (intentionally or otherwise)... could we possibly detect that?  Like a previous global warming or cooling event not otherwise explained?  How could we come to the conclusion it was caused by a civilization... or could we?

[crazy canuck]

Since some birds use tools today, would it be contentious to suggest dinosaurs used them?

As you suggest, the question is whether we could detect a civilization rather than simple tool use.  We can easily detect the evidence of the meteor hit that killed off the dinosaurs down to the level of sediment in which the debris is deposited.  I am not sure why it would not be possible to detect effects caused by an advanced civilization.

[Barrister]

What about, though, if a previous civilization engaged in climate engineering (intentionally or otherwise)... could we possibly detect that?  Like a previous global warming or cooling event not otherwise explained?  How could we come to the conclusion it was caused by a civilization... or could we?

Well as I understand it, we have good records through ice cores about ancient temperatures, but such evidence only goes back a few hundred thousand years.

Otherwise, we can infer what ancient climates were like through what kinds of vegetation is preserved in fossils.

Problem is if there was a rapid change in climate, that then lead to the extinction of the Silurian technological society, suich an event likely happened to quickly (geologically speaking) that not enough material would be deposited to ever be able to find.