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.

 

Not many are denying ignorance

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Washball
Take the Bible, Indian texts, Plato's Atlantis, and even some of the Summarian texts and what you have in common is the flood account re-occuring in each text. Why is this immportant? Well, obviously they all point to one thing: a pre-flood civilization.

Well, no. Archaeology and paleontology say that there's NO flood.


So there is written documentation of a society that (as far as we are told) archeology does not back up.


That's correct. There's no proof of a worldwide flood.


However, if there is a massive flood, what happens to the landmarks that are not solidly built? They wash away, right? So is the real answer to the riddle in the great lakes, Atlantic and Pacific, Black Sea, Dead Sea, etc.? Look at the Japanese pyramyds, and the underwater roads in Bermuda (bahamas?).

Then why don't these traces show up in OTHER low-lying areas? Like caves? We find lots of mammoth bones and other bones in caves... so why don't we find the traces of other civilizations there?


As for the Incan theory, the great riddle with them is this: they are the only full fledged Civilization in known History to not have a written language. They broke the rules. I learned that in Latin American History at ASU, not the internet.

I think you need to demand a refund. Incas did have a written language (look up the word, "Codex." Then you might want to look up "Woodlands Civilizations" and "Anasazi." There were a lot of other civilizations that didn't have writing.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "full-fledged." That' not an anthropological or sociological term.




posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 05:11 AM
link   
Joe,

What I really should be asking you, is why do you think an ancient civilisation that is advanced as a western 19th century civilisation 4000 years ago, will not be more advanced than a 20th century civilisation? You got a strawman there. Good luck.



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   
As i have said before i dont think that 4000 years ago there was a civilisation that was comparable with ours. Yes they had some aspects of what could be called modern technology.

But that doesnt make them advanced, as i have said before did they match the 19th century in every way? You havent answered.
Does physical evidence exist for your outlandish claims? You wont answer

Present me with proof.

Im still denying ignorance by supporting the facts!



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 10:57 AM
link   
Joe,

Techology does not work like that. Technology is based upon a natural progression of previous technology and discovieres. It is not standalone. Allow me to give you a history lesson on electricity:


The first principles of electricity were discovered by Benjamin Franklin in 1751 when he discovered that metals conduct electricity. Then just a few years later Franz Ulrich Theodosius Aepinus proposed that electricity and magentism are similar. In 1801 Volta using the principles metals conducting electricity was able to arrange metals in such a manner that they could convert chemical energy into electricity. In 1805 the first electrochemical reactions had taken place, though it had not become an industrial process for nearly half a century from then(past the first dynamo) Just 15 year later Faraday used the principles of electricity, magnetism and metals to create a dynamo and the electrical revolution had begun.

Now, we know that 4000 years ago electrochemistry was taking place. This means that the relationship between metals, electricity and magnetism was understood. It also means that the level of science of ancient civilisation was parallel to modern western science. It only took 15 years for the electrical revolution from the discovery of electrochemistry. The actual first dynamo was nothing more than a coil being turned in a magnet.

Now, I leave it for you to argue why in 4000 years - 4 millenias - the ancients could not do, what it took modern science 15 years to do from the first electrochemical reactions. It is obvious the level of science was parallel.

You asked, what else was advanced. Everything, actually.

Steel and zinc, crucial metals for advanced socieities: 3000+ years advanced(modern: 18th and 19th century)
Modern sanitation: 5000+ years advanced(modern: 19th century)
Corrosion proof metallurgy: 1500+ years advanced(modern: 19th century)
Gunpowder and explosives: 2000-2500+ years advanced(modern: 13-17th century)
Brain surgery and plastic surgery under anaesthetics: 2500+ years advanced(modern: 19th century)
Calculus: 500-1000+ years advanced(modern 18th century)
Binary Numbers and Binomial theorem: 2000+ years advanced(modern
Hashing Algorithms and computer notation: 2500+ years advanced(modern: 20th century)
Theoretical Quantum physics: 3000+ years advanced

So, therefore the ancients were advanced in nearly everything by many millenias relative to modern western civlisation. So, now that that has been established, it is no longer outlandish to say that ancient civilisation was more advanced than modern civilisation.

Now, let's look at the 21st century and beyond technology from ancient times

Light spectrometer - constructed, tested and documented
Mercury solar-electric ion engine - constructed, flown and documented
Infrared absorbing material - fabricated and documented
Adaptive camoflage - described

What is really outlandish is denying all this evidence.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Not enough time for a proper reply to this, so a one word answer/question is called for!

Proof!!!!

Physical evidence. Not alot to ask is it? Not when attempting to rewrite 10000 years of history?



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Not enough time for a proper reply to this, so a one word answer/question is called for!

Proof!!!!

Physical evidence. Not alot to ask is it? Not when attempting to rewrite 10000 years of history?


In the spirit of your query......
One word.....
Giza.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Giza. Excellent. A place in Egypt, contains some truley remarkable examples of ancient archietecture.

Proof of an advanced civilisation that pre dates our own?
Nope, please try harder, something that really cant be explained would be nice. For instance an ancient aeroplane, spacecraft, metal hulled ship, any examples of mass produced goods or automation.

I wont hold my breath



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
Giza. Excellent. A place in Egypt, contains some truley remarkable examples of ancient archietecture.

Proof of an advanced civilisation that pre dates our own?
Nope, please try harder, something that really cant be explained would be nice. For instance an ancient aeroplane, spacecraft, metal hulled ship, any examples of mass produced goods or automation.

I wont hold my breath


An excellent point, however I can't help but wonder where the ancients got that hot air balloon and why we don't have any evidence of that, either.

Ridiculing the positions of others while making unfounded statements of your own is hardly denying ignorance.



posted on Mar, 18 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   
There is no physical evidence for a hot air ballon. No wreckage has been found. However a project undertaken in the 1960's built and flew a ballon using nothing but the materials availalbe at the time.

When the aeiral nature of the Nazca lines is taken into account suddenly the ballon seems quite possible and practical.

As for mocking the views of others, i dont mock, or at least try not to. I merely point out the lack of reasoning and logic that goes into those views.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join