I thought everyone knew that Atlantis is just another name for the Richat Structure.
The theory comes with several hypotheses which have not been validated or invalidated yet. to invalidate the theory would require significant (strategically chosen) archaeological surveys of the Sahara and the richat structure. The theory is falsifiable, and has not been falsified yet. That doesn't make the theory of Atlantis true, it just makes it undetermined.
Falsifying a vague hand-wavy theory of Atlantis, I agree with you. But the specific theory that Richat structure was the home of a large city 13,000 years ago that was destroyed in a flood? I wholeheartedly disagree. It's falsifiable and probably could be done with less than 1/100th the archeological investment that's been made into Egypt.
"Is it possible that there was an advanced civilization that somehow left virtually zero evidence? Yes, but why?"
Several cataclysmic meteorite strikes that ended the ice age, triggered younger dryas, caused biblical flooding, rapid environmental change, etc.
I don't think the geological evidence of this is being refuted, just the consequences of it on our understanding of human civilizational history.
2. Is there any evidence of either glaciation or flooding at the Richat structure?
3. If no on 2, then why should their civilization leave virtually zero evidence, even if it collapsed? Macchu Pichu is still there. Teotihuacan is still there. The Nasca Lines are still there. Chan Chan is still there. The Minoan ruins are still there. If this was just an abrupt collapse. why should it leave no trace?
2. There is evidence of tremendous flooding, yes. You can actually see it on google earth yourself if you go look...
3. The theory assumes there was massive flooding, which is why we have to look harder for evidence (careful subsurface excavation) compared to sites like Macchu Pichu. Also Macchu Pichu is 600 years old, and the theory of the Richat structure housing a city assumes it was destroyed 12,900+ years ago.
4. Keep in mind that it's widely accepted that 13k years ago the Sahara was lush grasslands and forests.
You're wrong about this. There's not a lot of evidence for the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis. In particular, the best evidence--an actual meteoric impact crater--is completely missing. This is why proponents have instead suggested either that it was a series of large airbursts or an impact in the Laurentide ice sheet itself, to be able to keep a large crater from forming.
The current consensus hypothesis is that it's a reconfiguration of the glacial lake outflows on the margin of the Laurentide ice sheet that induced a breakdown of the thermohaline circulation system, which also explains some peculiarities of the Younger Dryas (like its effects were a lot worse in North America than the rest of the world).
Times like this I wish I could edit older comments. I would update it to incorporate what you are saying and diminish the confidence in the impact hypothesis.
And I'll try to return the favor. If they were airbursts, and so were providing heat but not stuff thrown up into the atmosphere, then I could maybe see meteors ending an ice age.
The article would be good if it asserted "we don't know".
But we do, Plato made them up.
For someone to post a comment like "I thought everyone knew" is so egregiously deceptive and misleading that the comment should be flagged. It's tantamount to posting "I thought everyone knew area 51 recovered aliens from Roswell." It's a conspiracy theory masquerading as an ordinary remark.