It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Zimnydran
Not to sound overly critical... but science educators "Teach" things as facts instead of stressing that it is a theory and nothing more.
Many researchers that go against mainstream beliefs and dare publish their findings have their careers ruined and not until after they are long dead and buried do they have their names vindicated.
So now we have a new "fact".....and a new birthday for cavemen.... and it will be taught as fact.. and someone will dare write a paper that pushes the date back a little farther....and his peers will point at him and yell HERETIC!! and make an example of him......
and bright minds will be afraid to explore new ideas and then they will learn to make the data fit the theory...or else
originally posted by: Byrd
This is not true for all science teachers, but it is true of the majority (quite often in America, the school's coach teaches science and I can assure you that they majored in physical education and not science.)
Actually, in science this is expected. Science is not the same thing as religion. The religion of our fathers is generally not questioned and you certainly don't see church doctrine being overturned on a yearly basis.
originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
why do they assume it was neanderthals?
Göbekli Tepe is a 12000 year old monolithic site. did cavemen build megaliths as well?
the archaeological community is so firmly planted in their rhetoric.
originally posted by: Syphon
Looks like a pleasure cave to me.
Given the scale of these things, I wonder if they were created by the same urge that drives us to create rooms
Feng Shui for the prehistoric cave common area the orderliness speaks that this was not a area of mass congregation...but of personal separation, privacy with a partner of opposite sex
or am I making a complex and elaborate white-elephant from a simple & primal non-entity
Because at 175k BP, it's over 100 KA older than the first HSS leaving E. Africa, it's too fat east and south for H. Altaiensis and post dates Heidelbergensis. There were no other hominids in this area at this time.
well to build GT they would have had to drink and eat right? howd early man do that. agriculture supposedly wasnt around until a few thousand years later....
and since when did early man build monoliths? why would they do that.
It's ripe for speculation so no harm making guesses.
I've looked at local topographical maps and now wonder if it's a representation of the area? Peaks and basins etc.
Crucial questions in the debate on the origin of quintessential human behaviours are whether modern cognition and associated innovations are unique to our species and whether they emerged abruptly, gradually or as the result of a discontinuous process. Three scenarios have been proposed to account for the origin of cultural modernity. The first argues that modern cognition is unique to our species and the consequence of a genetic mutation that took place approximately 50 ka in Africa among already evolved anatomically modern humans. The second posits that cultural modernity emerged gradually in Africa starting at least 200 ka in concert with the origin of our species on that continent. The third states that innovations indicative of modern cognition are not restricted to our species and appear and disappear in Africa and Eurasia between 200 and 40 ka before becoming fully consolidated. We evaluate these scenarios in the light of new evidence from Africa, Asia and Europe and explore the mechanisms that may have led to modern cultures. Such reflections will demonstrate the need for further inquiry into the relationship between climate and demographic/cultural change in order to better understand the mechanisms of cultural transmission at work in Neanderthals and early Homo sapiens populations.