It has nothing to do with that (Probably I didn't post it properly or you didn't read the article completely). I'm saying that the current localized fossil tracking methods are not efficient enough to predict the existence of an ancient civilization. Even if the bridge is 17.5 lakhs years old, there is no way by which it could be denied as was done by some scrap astrophysist (Published in Times of India). He was trying to speculate on the issue based on archeological findings linked with fossil studies saying that there was no human civilization 17 lakhs years back. Firstly, I'm suggesting that fossil theories cannot explain a possible human civilization more than 17 lakh years back which means modern man could have very well existed even at this period. Secondly, to know the exact details about the age of the bridge, a careful study of the shoal layers and coral reefs should be done with the help of government organizations.
posted on 10/21/2002 1:09:21 PM PDT
If you're refering to the "Sea Cheese", that's been shown to be a myth. It originated with a pair of drunken Burmese crab fishermen in 1932.
But seriously, what I'm saying, in a cheesy way, is that your post is more than a little cryptic. (Kinda like using white on white lettering.) I had to do some searching just to find out what the "Ramayana Bridge" is. Your post assumes that all readers know what you're talking about. A little background, or a link, would have helped. On a side note, the most useful hits from Google on the subject were to pages on FreeRepublic.com.
posted on 10/21/2002 1:18:27 PM PDT
posted on 10/21/2002 1:29:32 PM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson