It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Evidence Suggests People Lived in the Arctic 45,000 Years Ago

page: 3
54
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: gflyg
a reply to: Ghost147

I have a feeling that deep below that ice we are gonna find civilazations going back even further


Most definitely. Humans have existed far before 45,000, and the article in the OP is only our 'oldest find so far' within this specific geographic area. There's no reason to believe there are tidbits of information and discoveries that don't suggest an older date




posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147
You think cities will be found?



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Ghost147
You think cities will be found?


No, not cities. That would be extremely unlikely. Civilization is definitely not the word I would use, but evidence that humans lived in the area before the current older date? Yes, absolutely.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 12:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Ghost147
You think cities will be found?


No, not cities. That would be extremely unlikely. Civilization is definitely not the word I would use, but evidence that humans lived in the area before the current older date? Yes, absolutely.

High Ghost147,
Thanks for the OP,
We might find AMH in the arctic a few thousand years earlier, but not much earlier, and for one main reason.
Anatomicaly moder humans inherited the ability to metabolized fats from neanderthal, and with out the abilitty process and store fats we would not have been able to survive the harsh environment.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: namelesss
Interesting! Thanks!
Funny how inevitable it is that as soon as our illustrious scientists date something, the next week they are always finding that it was actually much older than thought (until next week, of course)!
Invariably, it seems!
I wonder why...


You're welcome


It's important to note that Science is fluid and isn't based off of absolute certainty. Many people tend to shy away from science because they come in with the thought that a scientific claim/definition is meant to be absolute, when it is simply a means for us to say "this is what we have observed so far, subject to change"

Not sure if that was what you were implying or not

No, of course not!
Obviously science is always 'circling closer'...
I'm just noticing that these 'age discoveries' seem to invariably support a more ancient time.
Is it just the 'quality' of our measuremental tools, or is there something else going on.
I am certainly not dissing science!
Science is a feeder branch of the tree of philosophy!



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

Interesting! Thanks!

Is it just the 'quality' of our measuremental tools, or is there something else going on.


Something else is going on, previously, the discovery of a Mammoth would have meant instant cash from the ivory. With the rest of the animal being abandoned.
Since, Dr Hwang Woo Sul, announced his intention to clone a Mammoth a few years ago, hunters have been reporting the carcasses to "the Revival of Mammoth' project" being run out of the city of Yakutsk, that way they get paid for the Mammoth and when the scientists have finished, they still get the tusks, which are being from long dead animals, legal to export and a globally lucrative business.

So we are now getting more reports about Mammoths, where previously we were getting none.

This Mammoth for instance was found in 2012 by an eleven year old boy.



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

I'm not surprised. The whole ecosystem changed 12600 years ago and especially human species went through a bottleneck. Of course it will take a long time before we are ready for the truth.
www.evawaseerst.be...



posted on Jan, 17 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: zandra

there was no genetic bottleneck 12.6Ka There was however a genetic bottleneck ~70Ka that coincides with the eruption of Mt. Toba



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 02:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: namelesss

Interesting! Thanks!

Is it just the 'quality' of our measuremental tools, or is there something else going on.


Something else is going on, previously, the discovery of a Mammoth would have meant instant cash from the ivory. With the rest of the animal being abandoned.
Since, Dr Hwang Woo Sul, announced his intention to clone a Mammoth a few years ago, hunters have been reporting the carcasses to "the Revival of Mammoth' project" being run out of the city of Yakutsk, that way they get paid for the Mammoth and when the scientists have finished, they still get the tusks, which are being from long dead animals, legal to export and a globally lucrative business.

So we are now getting more reports about Mammoths, where previously we were getting none.

This Mammoth for instance was found in 2012 by an eleven year old boy.

Sorry, but that was not where I was going with this.
The point is that things seem to be 'consistently' older and older, as our age measuring tools improve.
At this rate, ban will be a billion years old in a few centuries.
Is the readings of our measuring tools adequate to actually 'define' 'time'.
At this rate, it will be found that everything exists for the entire 'duration' of Universal existence!
Is science closing in on what the mystics have known for millennia?
That every moment is 'eternal'!
Like quantum science finally 'discovering' Consciousness/God!



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss

Sorry, but that was not where I was going with this.
The point is that things seem to be 'consistently' older and older, as our age measuring tools improve.
At this rate, ban will be a billion years old in a few centuries.
Is the readings of our measuring tools adequate to actually 'define' 'time'.
At this rate, it will be found that everything exists for the entire 'duration' of Universal existence!
Is science closing in on what the mystics have known for millennia?
That every moment is 'eternal'!
Like quantum science finally 'discovering' Consciousness/God!


Things are not getting older on an individual basis, which is what you are claiming,
This is the oldest Mammoth carcass found in the Arctic
Its kill date at 45,000 years ago
That's it basically, I have yet to see a mystic date anything with any credibility, in fact, pretty much any time a mystic has claimed a great age for something he has immediately been proven wrong.

I completely fail to see how this validates anything from a mystic at all. In fact, it suggests the opposite, that people were primitive hunters 45,000 years ago.



posted on Jan, 18 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss
The point is that things seem to be 'consistently' older and older, as our age measuring tools improve.


It has nothing to do with how we measure age. The reason the date gets older and older is because we continue to make older and older discoveries.

If the dating conclusion was on a single find, and that date kept increasing (or fluctuating dramatically in any direction), only then would your point be accurate.


originally posted by: namelesss
At this rate, ban will be a billion years old in a few centuries.


If a radiocarbon dating date was ever a billion years, then the measurement is obviously false. Why? Because Radiocarbon dating only dates things as old as 50,000 years.

Your understanding of how dating works is very obscure.


originally posted by: namelesss
Is the readings of our measuring tools adequate to actually 'define' 'time'.


To the second? No, however, we have a number of methods which we can cross-examine to confirm the dates found, and we we have means to know confirm those dates elsewhere too. No dating method is 100% accurate, nor does anyone claim it to be. However, we can determine accuracy, and in some cases it can be within a few hundred or a few thousand years give or take. Out of 45,000 years, is 5 thousand years off in either direction so bad? No, it's incredibly accurate. It is also the reason why you don't see dates like "45,367 on january 5th". It's always posted at "about [this date of 45,000]"


originally posted by: namelesss
At this rate, it will be found that everything exists for the entire 'duration' of Universal existence!


Your ignorance continues to grow.


originally posted by: namelesss
Is science closing in on what the mystics have known for millennia?


And it grows....


originally posted by: namelesss
That every moment is 'eternal'!


And grows....


originally posted by: namelesss
Like quantum science finally 'discovering' Consciousness/God!


Will it ever end?!?!?



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: namelesss

Sorry, but that was not where I was going with this.
The point is that things seem to be 'consistently' older and older, as our age measuring tools improve.
At this rate, ban will be a billion years old in a few centuries.
Is the readings of our measuring tools adequate to actually 'define' 'time'.
At this rate, it will be found that everything exists for the entire 'duration' of Universal existence!
Is science closing in on what the mystics have known for millennia?
That every moment is 'eternal'!
Like quantum science finally 'discovering' Consciousness/God!


Things are not getting older on an individual basis, which is what you are claiming,

NO, I am making no such claim!
Sigh, I'm doubting the point of continuing, as we seem unable to achieve the same page...
I'll try one more time, perhaps you can make the same effort to understand;
Example;
There is a rock on the ground.
Someone picked it up, once, long ago, and with no tools, logically theorized that it was here yesterday!
That it was at least a day old.
Maybe he stumbled on it yesterday.
A few years later, along comes a magnifying glass, and with this new tool, we can see some organic detritus that died off 20 years ago.
The new theory is that the rock is now 20 years and a day.
A few more years, and we have a microscope, and find the rock at least a thousand years old.
A few years later, we have a spectrograph, and carbon dating, and the theory is again revised to make the rock a million years old!
A few more years, etc... etc... etc...
Are you getting it?
This is not rocket science!
It's the same rock, being studied through ever more detailed and intricate machinery!
New testing procedures, yielding new results, again revising our tentative theories.
I am saying that with newer and newer equipment, the rock 'gets older' and older and older!
Never younger!
No, of course the rock doesn't 'change'!
Understand, yet?


This is the oldest Mammoth carcass found in the Arctic
Its kill date at 45,000 years ago

It goes beyond just your mammoth, or any single artifact.
Rather consistently, all natural artifacts seem to be constantly revised to earlier and earlier dates.
It is this pattern that I am questioning, and the direction that it appears to be headed.
If it's all just gibberish to you, that's fine.
I'm not attempting to convince anyone of anything.
I am just offering some food for thought.
I realize that just gives many indigestion.
If so, just move on.


That's it basically, I have yet to see a mystic date anything with any credibility, in fact, pretty much any time a mystic has claimed a great age for something he has immediately been proven wrong.
I completely fail to see how this validates anything from a mystic at all. In fact, it suggests the opposite, that people were primitive hunters 45,000 years ago.

I'm sorry, but if you cannot even understand the concepts of which I speak, I am not going to waste my time attempting to alleviate your ignorance of mysticism.
We can leave that another time.
Knowledge = experience, and you obviously speak from ignorance, and, rather than making the attempt to understand, you are defending and feeding your ignorance, in the face of knowledge, leading to a fruitless discussion.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 07:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: namelesss
The point is that things seem to be 'consistently' older and older, as our age measuring tools improve.

Sorry, but you haven't said anything at all worthy of a response.
Have a nice day.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss
Sorry, but you haven't said anything at all worthy of a response.
Have a nice day.


Right, I guess a direct rebuttal to your claims and information regarding how those claims are not factual, and an explanation on how they are not factual, all alongside information that accurately depicts what radiocarbon dating and other dating methods really reflects is not considered a "worth response" these days

It's alright if you're unable to come to terms with how your previous claims on the matter were wrong. Change can be difficult. Especially for a closed mind.
edit on 19/1/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)


(post by Marduk removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: namelesss
Sigh, I'm doubting the point of continuing
I already gave up.


originally posted by: Ghost147
Your ignorance continues to grow.
And it grows....
And grows....
Will it ever end?!?!?
Ignorance abounds.

Change can be difficult. Especially for a closed mind.
Where does the difficulty lie?
I don’t necessarily agree with nameless but there are many ways to get your point across. You, along with a couple others in this thread, prefer ridicule. I thought there were good questions asked in this thread yet instead of following those the thread seemed to digress into ridicule and insults. Why is that?

edit on 1/19/2016 by Devino because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Devino
I thought there were good questions asked yet instead of following those the thread seemed to digress into ridicule and insults. Why is that?


I don't consider pointing out an evident trait to be insulting.

The comment I responded to made false claims. I provided an excessive amount of information to show how those original claims were false. The response from that member who made the original comment was "you haven't said anything at all worthy of a response", despite the presence of an excessive amount of information.

The total rejection and refusal to even acknowledge new information that conflicts with your previous statements is the definition of a closed mind.
edit on 19/1/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
I don't consider pointing out an evident trait to be insulting.
This is your thread and I would think that you should have some control over the direction of it. I was very hopeful for a good discussion on this topic but that never happened.


The comment I responded to made false claims. I provided an excessive amount of information to show how those original claims were false.
I agree yet instead of attempting to show what is false why not show, for example, how radiometric dating works? Provide a positive avenue of information that one could follow and maybe learn something.


The response from that member who made the original comment was "you haven't said anything at all worthy of a response", despite the presence of an excessive amount of information.
I don't disagree with your position yet I see an excessive amount of opinions with little information.


The total rejection and refusal to even acknowledge new information that conflicts with your previous statements is the definition of a closed mind.
We cannot force open others’ minds. The best we could hope for is to open our own and lead by example.

We digress.. Care to answer a question asked on page one?

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
Interesting note on the lack of glaciation during this period in that area. Definitely seems counter-intuitive. Would you fancy an inquiring mind a couple links/sources for information on this area's climate during this period? Many thanks in advance.
When evidence shows glaciation and ice sheets cover many lower latitudes why would the Yukon Beringia area, inside the present day Arctic Circle, be host to so many very large herbivores? What little research I did on this shows a complicated system, lack of data and a few theories all of which would have been worthy of discussion here. I kind of lost interest since my focus is currently on another subject. The fact is there is a lot to learn here.



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar



Milan Italy at 45 deg 28'N. So far, these 3 cities lie roughly the same distance from the equator yet Milan has a subtropical climate similar to what we see in the Caribbean.


This is simply not true. I would say that Milan has a closer to continetal climate than subtropical because Alps and Apennines mountains are blocking circulations coming from the sea. Even the average annual temperature graphs show the distinct difference between Northern Italy and Carribean temperature fluctuations.

Here is just one more proof..



Never heard of any snow in the Carribean on the same altitude where Milan, Italy lies. So Milan is much much closer to Portland and Montreal than it is to the Carribean in terms of climate which makes your claim false.
edit on 19-1-2016 by Op3nM1nd3d because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Devino
This is your thread and I would think that you should have some control over the direction of it. I was very hopeful for a good discussion on this topic but that never happened.


We were talking about radiometric dating, he refused to continue the discussion. How is that going out of the direction of the OP?


originally posted by: Devino
I agree yet instead of attempting to show what is false why not show, for example, how radiometric dating works? Provide a positive avenue of information that one could follow and maybe learn something.


I answered every claim he made with a direct response on what really describes radiocarbon dating and other dating methods. I went into the details of it's functionality, however, I do not expect a person to even be fazed by a wall of text with precise details on the methodology of a scientific practice they clearly have an excessive amount of false premises on.

I was more than willing to go there, however, the member clearly didn't want to have a discussion at all and simply dismissed all the information in my post anyway. The time spent detailing a more precise description of the dating methods would have been a waste.

However, If you aren't familiar with the topic, or question it's accuracy, I am more than willing to help you understand.



originally posted by: Devino
I don't disagree with your position yet I see an excessive amount of opinions with little information.


Again, Why would a person who has such misinformation on the very basics of the subject, and science itself, require a detailed scientific explanation on the matter? Especially when they have no interest in learning about it in the first place.

The misinformation needs to be dealt and understood before the more complex information can be comprehended.


originally posted by: Devino
We cannot force open others’ minds. The best we could hope for is to open our own and lead by example.


I never suggested to force a person's mind open. Although, I wish it were possible.

When have I expressed a closed mind? There has not been any conversation on the matter to validly dismiss the accuracy of our dating methods as of yet. So I have yet to be able to 'close my mind' to the opposition.


originally posted by: Devino
We digress.. Care to answer a question asked on page one?


Absolutely. I must have missed it.


originally posted by: Devino
When evidence shows glaciation and ice sheets cover many lower latitudes why would the Yukon Beringia area, inside the present day Arctic Circle, be host to so many very large herbivores? What little research I did on this shows a complicated system, lack of data and a few theories all of which would have been worthy of discussion here. I kind of lost interest since my focus is currently on another subject. The fact is there is a lot to learn here.


I am not too sure, but I will research it and see if I can answer the question for you.




top topics



 
54
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join