Is it possible that the explanation for an advanced, central, ancient culture, and the same megalithic structures, built in the same ways, with crossing consistencies between separated cultures and land masses, who all seemed to endure some sort of violent global cataclysm, is the sudden and violent split of Pangaea into its first segments? Some places would flood, some would sink, some would move, and those all seem to have happened. What we may be mistaken about is the rate at which it happened. It may have initially been a sudden and violent release of geological energy, which would have been of sufficient force to dislodge large portions of itself.
I think of how Atlantis disappeared, "in one terrible day and a night." Imagine for a moment if Atlantis was an island that was actually the top of an enormous volcano that existed at sea level, and there is an enormous geological event which happens. This could trigger quakes there, as well, and even cause the top of the volcano to collapse, taking Atlantis with it.
I think that the geological progression of the planets continental drift may be incorrectly dated, just based on the idea that we simply do not know how the land masses first separated from each other and therefore the other information which we can date correctly may present a conflict that doesn't make sense when the information is taken in its totality.
Consider the inexplicable maps which appear to show features that predate our own knowledge. After the great split of Pangaea, it might have been of prurient interest to go in all directions, and note how the land has changed, thus creating the purpose, and explaining the accuracy of maps which predate what we think of as having modern cartographic accuracy. I'm interested to hear others thoughts on this.
I think of how Atlantis disappeared, "in one terrible day and a night." Imagine for a moment if Atlantis was an island that was actually the top of an enormous volcano that existed at sea level, and there is an enormous geological event which happens. This could trigger quakes there, as well, and even cause the top of the volcano to collapse, taking Atlantis with it.
I think that the geological progression of the planets continental drift may be incorrectly dated, just based on the idea that we simply do not know how the land masses first separated from each other and therefore the other information which we can date correctly may present a conflict that doesn't make sense when the information is taken in its totality.
Consider the inexplicable maps which appear to show features that predate our own knowledge. After the great split of Pangaea, it might have been of prurient interest to go in all directions, and note how the land has changed, thus creating the purpose, and explaining the accuracy of maps which predate what we think of as having modern cartographic accuracy. I'm interested to hear others thoughts on this.