How Old is Civilization

Hi all.

Found this article rather interesting and would just like to know what your take is on it..?

paranormal.about.com...

Interesting read!

I believe civilisation is actually 'hundreds' of thousands of years old.

From the Reptilian Colonisation of earth in Lemuria (Which Australia is the largest part of in the present) to that of humanoid colonisation in Atlantis.

Civilisations come and go, and unfortunately the truth about history is distorted and kept from us. We have to search within ourselves to find the answers, because all knowledge is held directly in our genetics and also within our connection to god-mind.

Kind Regards
Merger

So merger would i be correct in assuming that you saying the bible is not entirely accurate?

*Shrugs*, as I mentioned before, I was born in a protastant family, I chose to become a christian 5 years ago, then became mormon, then became muslim, then scientologist, and now I'm in my own spiritual path.

I've tried to read the bible, and in essence, its teachings are a blessing. However from my research i've come to these points.

The Torah, otherwise known as the Old Testatment, was written by the beings of Sirius A.
Moses's 10 Commandments were instructions by the Sirians of Sirius A
New Testament was re-written, and totally taken off subject by the illuminati at the time. This is the Piso Illuminati family during the Roman Empire.
Revelations was re-written so many times to fit the agenda of the illuminati.

Revelations WILL come true, because this is what they want, god simply isn't behind it though, its man on earth.

Again, you can take or leave what I write, you have your views and I'll have mine, if it works for you, then go for it, because christianity used to once work for me (I used to speak in tongues) and I believed it.

However religion made me sick and depressed, I believed I was doomed to hell for eternity, and then I became so ill in the mind believing this that it manifested into physical ailments........thus why i moved on, and feeling more happier about it.

Kind Regards
Merger

its much older than the mainstream scientist like and want to acknowledge.

there is proof enough that its much older than claimed currently.

1945..Hiroshima. Life began again for postwar Japan. History is re-written about the conflict. Written by men. Of an event that happened. A past re-created with some truth and interpretated.

Thousands of years ago..something happened on Earth. History was re-written. Of an event that happened. A past re-created mix with some truth and interpretated.

Who wrote the bible? A line of infallible mortal men? What if the Bible is true record of something that happened in mankind's history, but events cause time to be memorically shortened? Do we have carbo dating of biblical's objects that can be traced to Cain and Abel, if not Eden, to determine that Creation started only a mere 4000 years ago?

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
there is proof enough that its much older than claimed currently.

I have asked you before and I will do again.

Display this proof, that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Civilisation is much older.

-sphinx
-inca structures
-mayan culture
-Nuclear radiation in asian dessert
-bible flying objects
-and the footprints older than can be possible by todays standards
ect.

Originally posted by Heat169
Found this article rather interesting and would just like to know what your take is on it..?

paranormal.about.com...

It's a rehash of some common concepts. The writer should be shot, since he just accepted the information without checking it (something that's a real no-no for writers.)

Had he actually done some fact checking, he would find that a number of his "evidences" (Dropa Stones, Ica Stones) are actually hoaxes... and the people who started them confessed they were hoaxes. Others are misinterpretations (the "hand" fossil is not a hand but a dinosaur footprint.) Still others result from someone with no knowledge of a subject speculating about things (the sparkplug in the limestone is not a fossil, but simply a concretion. Caves and other areas are places where solutions containing limestone will form balls of rock around objects within a few years. In "Cave Without A Name" in Boerne Texas, we saw a bat that had died and fallen on top of a stalagmite. It had died only 20 years previously, but was mostly covered with stone from the dripping stalactite above it.

We've discussed each of these many times. You might find some of the older threads here very interesting (even if they ARE ancient history!)

Oh... to answer your question "how old is civilization"... that's actually hard to answer, because you have to define civilization.

We usually take it to mean (by standard definition) "the time period during which people started to build cities and live in cities." This is an era where they develop complex laws (because it's not easy to run cities) and complex social structures (guilds and so forth.)

People have been living in tribes as far back as we can find (Australopithecenes, our very distant 5 million+ year old ancestor lived in small groups or tribes.) We're social critteers, and living in groups is the best way for everyone to survive long enough to throw rocks at the wolves. Some of the archaeological sites I visit have living areas that are thousands of years old -- one dig that I actually analyzed material from was of a group of American Indians living here in Texas, and the material dated to before 6,000 BC.

But we've only been living in cities for 8,000 years or so. The oldest ones confirmed are found in India. The Egyptian and Middle Eastern cities we've found are around 7,000 years old. New World civilizations in South America begin about 6,000 years ago though in North America they don't develop to the level of elsewhere.

So.. on the average... about 6,000 BC is when the great civilizations started to rise.

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
-sphinx

Not proof. I tend to agree it is Older than people say, but there is no evidence to back up this arguement.

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
-inca structures

What's so special about them? Yes, they are amazing feats but they can be explained.

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
-mayan culture

Again what's so Special?

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
-Nuclear radiation in asian dessert

Wasn't it India?

And this has yet to be proven as well.

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
-bible flying objects

If I imagine a 5headed monkey, does it make it real? No.
Welcome to the World of a Story.

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
-and the footprints older than can be possible by todays standards
ect.

The ones on Lava? Yep, I guess early humans could also work on lava? Or...shockingly..dun,dun,dun! They are likely not real as to be honest, they do not look real.

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
there is proof enough that its much older than claimed currently.

I have asked you before and I will do again.

Display this proof, that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Civilisation is much older.

Perhaps you could display proof that it's not?

Seems to me that tossing out a demand for proof on one side of an equation and not having proof of your side is a bit lacking....

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen

-Nuclear radiation in asian dessert

Some sort of irradiated glow-in-the-dark rice pudding?


[sorry, just had to throw that in]

Originally posted by Odium
I have asked you before and I will do again.

Display this proof, that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Civilisation is much older.

Originally posted by Desert Dawg
Perhaps you could display proof that it's not?

Seems to me that tossing out a demand for proof on one side of an equation and not having proof of your side is a bit lacking....

They are making a claim, without them displaying evidence to back up this claim. I could say, I can "fly", does the other party have to display proof I cannot or do I have to display I can?

He is making out, that history is wrong, he is trying to change history so he has to display the proof. My evidence is in this book; "Atlas of World History" and many others I have - as well as the history qualifications I hold, as well as Byrd holds.

Display that our education is wrong, that accepting history is wrong. He says he has proof, so show us.

[edit on 27/12/2005 by Odium]

Originally posted by Desert Dawg

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by MarkLuitzen
there is proof enough that its much older than claimed currently.

I have asked you before and I will do again.

Display this proof, that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that Civilisation is much older.

Perhaps you could display proof that it's not?

Seems to me that tossing out a demand for proof on one side of an equation and not having proof of your side is a bit lacking....

Actually, what Odium asked is reasonable.

In our proof of the current age of civilization, we have records (things people wrote back then), king lists (they dated things by "year x of the reigh of Pharoah Whomever), various kinds of dating including tree ring dating and other radioisotope dating. We have ancient cemetaries and ancient sites and so forth. By a chain of evidence (including trade goods) we have dates for what we say is the age of civilization.

The proof is monumental, and we couldn't post all of it or more than perhaps a sip of it here. But the library is full of old books by explorers and historians and archaeologists and anthropologists (I know... I got on this reading jag as a teenager and read everything on the topic i could get my hands on).

The picture of these civilizations is built up from study of a lot of ancient cities, millions of ancient artifacts, libraries of trade documents, libraries of letters that rulers wrote to each other, thousands and thousands of monuments and so on and so forth.

Then someone comes up and waves around 10 artifacts (some of which are misstated and some of which are hoaxes and some of which aren't THAT old) -- and says that based on these erronious pieces of data, all that we learned from millions of bits of data is wrong.

So the burden of proof is on them.

And they need to show that they know what they're looking at. Misidentifying dino footprints as human handprints is pretty lame, you know?

Yet, at the same time Byrd, one must accept the possibility that what we "know", or think we know rather, could only be but a shadow of the truth. The initial question posted is "How Old is Civilization". To that I ask, which one? I find it peculiar that no one has even given thought to the possibility that there could have been an ancient civilization before our's came along.

And before you ask, no I don't have proof for these claims, but I don't portend to have any either. I'm simply playing a devil's advocate. The truth of the situation is that no one knows, nor can we know for SURE how old it is, even though we have HUGE stockpiles of relics from ages past. Who's to say that those relics aren't from another civilization? Who's to say that the hieroglyphics in the pyramids weren't placed there by the Egyptians like modern graffiti? No one can know for sure anything of the kind, unless some amazing new discovery takes place. Until then though, we're left to speculate.

To all those screaming for proof, I understand the desire to know, but try to refrain from badgering people for not providing any. I'm sure we're all here for the same reasons, and I would encourage anyone that has any kind of proof whatsoever to come forward with said proof, but don't feel like we demand it. We simply want it, like the rest of the educated world.

The Borg, I agree with your comments.

The simple fact is, if things such as these had 'proof' then it wouldn't be a mystery anymore. If things like aliens or illuminati had 'proof' then they wouldn't be conspiracies anymore.

The 7 wonders of the natural world are mysteries. If there were proof of who and what made them, they wouldn't be as wonderful as people would like to believe.

Kind Regards
Merger

That our history books teach history as learned from artifacts gained from a certain period of time, does not mean there is proof that there was nothing civilized beforehand.

Sumer's discovery (or re-discovery, I should say) is relatively recent. Does that mean that before Sumer was rediscovered, there was proof in your history books that it never existed? Obviously not; that wouldn't make any sense. But that seems to be the same kind of logic that you are using when you cite history books for evidence that civilization is no older than currently claimed by the history books.

Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, you know? That's assuming there's no evidence, anyway.

Originally posted by Merger
The Borg, I agree with your comments.

The simple fact is, if things such as these had 'proof' then it wouldn't be a mystery anymore. If things like aliens or illuminati had 'proof' then they wouldn't be conspiracies anymore.

The 7 wonders of the natural world are mysteries. If there were proof of who and what made them, they wouldn't be as wonderful as people would like to believe.

Kind Regards
Merger

That's assuming that you have access to that information. Sometimes, it's privy to only those that are safeguarding it. It's my personal opinion that there are people that know the truth, but keep it from coming out as a means to control the people. The ignorant don't know, nor do they care; "out of sight, out of mind anyone?". In some respects, I suppose that makes it sound like a conspiracy. and in some ways it is, but it's been done forever by different civilizations ever since creation.

modern man has been around what... roughly 100,000+ years in uur current form?

We've been enjoying our level of growth and technology for the past 200ish years now out of the 6000 years of current recorded history.

That's a small fraction of how long we've been here. 200 years out of 100,000 years :/ We weren't any more stupid back then, then we are now. What would be so different in the last 200 year's to get us where we are now that man 100,000 years ago couldn't have done himself then?