4 ms·
It’s an entertaining idea, however unfortunately easily proven wrong. The most striking argument against it (or any “Silurian” theory) is that any form of “civi
by maebert 3y ago
It’s an entertaining idea, however unfortunately easily proven wrong. The most striking argument against it (or any “Silurian” theory) is that any form of “civilization” in the strictest sense needs permanent settlements that require permanent agriculture, and hence fertilized soil. We should hence be able to find nitrogen rich layers of soil or sediment where prehistoric civilizations resided, but that’s just not the case.
- edgyquant 3y agoNo one mentioned agriculture though, you’re attacking a straw man.