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.

 

How Old is Civilization

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by GTasker
 


Thanks for the kind words.... and whoa that signature of yours is a bit creepy.




posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by dunwichwitch
It's funny how the scientific method seems to get thrown out the window by so many scientists, and therefore people who read a lot and use cold logic can come on here and pretend to be an expert.


G'morning, DWW... Could you point to some examples of scientists throwing the scientific method out the window and what they did instead of using it? I'm curious about what it is they're doing.


so when they find something that seems out of place with that indoctrination, it seems that there is a struggle for a little while, and then eventually one fact gets replaced by another fact, which again gets replaced by another, then another, then another.... so what is a fact, if the facts are always changing?


This confused me. Are you saying that scientists shouldn't change their original statements when new info comes along that shows their "fact" was wrong (like the facts about continental drift, which were roundly rejected by most scientists... who changed their minds after evidence was given for it -- or the dino-killing asteroid which most scientists laughed off when it was first introduced and changed their mind when a lot of proof was found?)

Are you saying you want science to be more like religion and unchanging and fixed? Discoveries shouldn't be made because they would cause facts to change?

That doesn't sound like any fun. It sounds like a religion.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I've come to the conclusion there have been many other civilizations before ours,could it be that man gets to a certain point then it starts all over again,I too come from a Christian upbringing,and I believe the bible to be a description of this current civilization,I have no proof but tends to make sense to me,but that is just my 2 cents



posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Don't mean to start something that ended 4 years ago, but most civilizations would start in and around 10,000 years ago and maybe thousands before but it is also not to say that when mankind started it's great migrations around the world there had to be hunter gatherers that did not take the journey and most likely they would have sat back and started a kind of township or leader system to ensure their children ruled the land they called theirs. believe i nehat you want but the fact remains man had societies in clans and groups that may not be as large as babylon or egypt, but started the idea of settlements and land.



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I have to go along with oldtimer on this one . How old is civilization? well we know how old OUR s is but for sure there have been others we find remnants of them all the time in various parts of the globe ,we don't know everything.

As far as the out of place things well I offer you this,it's photo of a possums hand




I think that 'human'print is some kind of opossum like animal,that once roamed the planet



posted on Nov, 5 2008 @ 12:10 AM
link   
As far as actual civilization goes (not counting ancient times when humans had not properly evolved)
if memory serves, it is between 6,000 and 7,000 years old



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by AmmonSeth
As far as actual civilization goes (not counting ancient times when humans had not properly evolved)
if memory serves, it is between 6,000 and 7,000 years old



Here you go Gobelki Tepe 13,500 years old !

this is OLD


yep you're reading that right TWICE as old as the civilizations you mentioned.Are there older ones? Probably,wonder what those will be like ?



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by invisiblewoman

Originally posted by AmmonSeth
As far as actual civilization goes (not counting ancient times when humans had not properly evolved)
if memory serves, it is between 6,000 and 7,000 years old



Here you go Gobelki Tepe 13,500 years old !

this is OLD


yep you're reading that right TWICE as old as the civilizations you mentioned.Are there older ones? Probably,wonder what those will be like ?


The culture that occupied that site does not meet the criteria for a "civilization."

Definitions must be agreed upon or the entire thread is meaningless.

Harte



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   
We are not the first or the last to be "civilized". We are a very primitive civilization from a holistic point of view.

Now before us there were many, many other civilizations. Many more advanced than us. But all had something in common. They lacked spiritual development.

Technological advancement without spiritual growth will inevitably lead to destruction. We are today on that same road of destruction.

The next 20 years will decide if we go back to the stone age or not. As expected traces will be left from our civilization 10.000 years after we kill ourselves. But as ussual, we think we are the most advanced and 10.000 years from now we will think as today that there was no other civilization besides us.

Atlantis/Lemuria are miths, so will New York, America become if we continue with ignorace.

It's like saying we are the only "inteligent" life in the Universe. That is how selfish and ignorant we are. To accept this fact (we're not the first or the only ones) would mean drastic changes to how we perceive life and we will no longer be the only "inteligence" to consider.

That is too much to accept for many people. How can there be another one like me? I mean we can barely accept each other due to different skin color.

The sad part is that anything we discovered as a sign of prehistoric civilization was ignored and discarded to fit our paradigm and ideas of the reality in which we live. But facts are facts, that will not change, there might come a time when we will bring these discoveries back to the light and give them the proper, unbias attention. But that requires intelecual and spiritual growth. The irony. We might destroy ourselves before that.

Life is a circle, and we will die and be born again as a civilization as many times as we need to learn our lesson.



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pericle
We are not the first or the last to be "civilized". We are a very primitive civilization from a holistic point of view.

You've missed the point entirely.

There is a definition for "civilization" which has nothing to do with how well behaved you are.

The earliest civilization we know of, using the anthropological definition, was the Sumerians. Around 2500-3000 BC.


Originally posted by PericleNow before us there were many, many other civilizations. Many more advanced than us. But all had something in common. They lacked spiritual development.

I'm not sure that your dreams should be posted in this particular section of ATS.

I mean, the above is soooo wrong that it must be from your dreams, right?


Originally posted by PericleAtlantis/Lemuria are miths, so will New York, America become if we continue with ignorace.

Depends on what you mean by "myths."

Neither Atlantis nor Lemuria appear in the mythology of any culture, past or present.

However, both Atlantis and Lemuria never existed. So, if by "myths" you mean fiction, then you'd be right.


Originally posted by Pericle
The sad part is that anything we discovered as a sign of prehistoric civilization was ignored and discarded to fit our paradigm and ideas of the reality in which we live.


What a load of bull that is.

I don't suppose you can list a few of these items "we discovered as a sign of prehistoric civilization" can you?

Harte



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


I see your position on this issue. Sumerian, yes, the first known civilization, not the first to exist. If you study Sumerian texts, history and many other parts of their culture you will find these things:

1. All they knew was given to them by the so called "Gods who came from above".
2. The Bible's ten commandments and other parts are almost identical to some Sumerian texts.
3. They talk about other civilizations.
...

Is that all fiction or myths? I tend to disagree.

Atlantis and Lemuria, yes they vanished 12.000 years ago, because of greed and conflicts. Not the first time they had such a bad time, but the last one ended their society entirely.

Proofs? Well it's underwater.


All myths, right, they never existed. Just like Jeasus, prove me he existed. It's only been 2000 years since and it's difficult. Think 12.000. There is enough evidence to make them probable and possible. There is no evidence to make them impossible, just human ignorace.

Then there are these new theories saying the pyramid/sphix are more than 10.000 years old. Hmm maybe Atlantis people made them, there are plenty of books saying that.

I wont get into details, but what I would like to underline is that many people such as you are biased towards one direction, such civilizations could not possibly have existed and thus any evidence no matter the size will become irrelevant. Just like UFOs.

Ignoring reality in order to keep your illusion of life is a common occurance in human behaviour. Need examples? We kill ourselves each day by consuming for the pleasure of now at the expense of tomorrow. No wonder the economy will collapse world wide. There is no ballance in our destruction of nature, we're a virus towards our own fall.

[edit on 6-11-2008 by Pericle]



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pericle
reply to post by Harte
 


I see your position on this issue. Sumerian, yes, the first known civilization, not the first to exist. If you study Sumerian texts, history and many other parts of their culture you will find these things:

1. All they knew was given to them by the so called "Gods who came from above".
2. The Bible's ten commandments and other parts are almost identical to some Sumerian texts.

I'd like to see some evidence of this. I have (somewhat) studied ancient Mesopotamia, enough to know that the people that believe what the pseudoscientists say have never looked into it.

As for the first thing about the gods, that's what they all say.

Originally posted by Pericle
3. They talk about other civilizations.
...

They talk about contemporary cultures. Not ancient civilizations that came before them.

One of the criteria a culture must meet to be considered a civilization is that of a written language. Sumerian Cuneiform tablets represent the earliest written language anyone has found to date. Thus by default they are the earliest known.


Originally posted by PericleAtlantis and Lemuria, yes they vanished 12.000 years ago, because of greed and conflicts. Not the first time they had such a bad time, but the last one ended their society entirely.

Dude, the word Lemuria has no history prior to the year 1864 and is thus hardly "mythical."

Atlantis appears in no mythos of any culture on Earth and hence also cannot be considered to be "mythical" in that sense of the term.


Originally posted by PericleAll myths, right, they never existed. Just like Jeasus, prove me he existed.


Who says he did? I never made this claim.

You're gonna pull out some demigod and say if he existed then Atlantis did?
HA!


Originally posted by PericleThere is enough evidence to make them probable and possible.

If you think that no evidence whatsoever, not a single iota, not an inkling, not a sliver, is the same as "enough evidence" then, okay.


Originally posted by Pericle There is no evidence to make them impossible, just human ignorace.

The former is not required, and you stating the latter is ironically redundant.


Originally posted by PericleI wont get into details, but what I would like to underline is that many people such as you are biased towards one direction, such civilizations could not possibly have existed and thus any evidence no matter the size will become irrelevant. Just like UFOs.

Just like UFO's eh?

Where's your film clip of the fall of Atlantis?


Originally posted by Pericle
Ignoring reality in order to keep your illusion of life is a common occurance in human behaviour. Need examples?

Not really, I'm conversing with a perfect one now.

Harte



posted on Nov, 6 2008 @ 06:14 PM
link   


Now before us there were many, many other civilizations. Many more advanced than us.


And your evidence for this would be what?




The sad part is that anything we discovered as a sign of prehistoric civilization was ignored and discarded to fit our paradigm and ideas of the reality in which we live.


And again, your examples of these would be what?




I see your position on this issue. Sumerian, yes, the first known civilization, not the first to exist.


As a civilization Sumeria is the first known to exist as there is no evidence, yet, of an earlier civilization. Earlier cultures, however, definitely existed.




1. All they knew was given to them by the so called "Gods who came from above".
2. The Bible's ten commandments and other parts are almost identical to some Sumerian texts.
3. They talk about other civilizations.


1. So?
2. They ought to be similar, as the Biblical texts were greatly influenced by Mesopotamian writings.
3. No they don't. As Harte stated before, they talk about other cultures.




Atlantis and Lemuria, yes they vanished 12.000 years ago, because of greed and conflicts.


No they didn't. There is no evidence of any place known as Atlantis found in historical, geological, archaeological or paleontological records, ever. Just to name a few places where evidence should occur. Lemuria was a poor attempt by someone to explain how ancient lemurs could be found in two very remote locations, before plate techtonics came to the fore. Neither place ever existed.




Then there are these new theories saying the pyramid/sphix are more than 10.000 years old. Hmm maybe Atlantis people made them, there are plenty of books saying that.


Plenty of books saying that Hogwarts is in England, but I'm not wasting my time looking for it.




I wont get into details, but what I would like to underline is that many people such as you are biased towards one direction, such civilizations could not possibly have existed and thus any evidence no matter the size will become irrelevant.


Not biased at all. No one has said that no earlier civilizations could ever have existed, just that there is no evidence that such civilizations ever existed. You'd have to have evidence before the claim of older civilizations can be made, not afterwards.

cormac



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Well, the only way I could make you guys even consider the possible existence of Atlantis or Lemuria is to show you hard facts, but even those would be insufficient because taking them for what they are would cause a big rupture in your awareness.

The first thing you would do in such a case is to deny reality. Which happens quite often with dozens of other things in our world.

Anyway if you want to read about Atlantis/Lemuria here is a nice FAQ about it.

I think common sense would tell you that it is wrong to assume that if we have no data (although there is) to prove (here eveyone is subjective, what might seem enough for me is nothing for another) the existence of Atlantis/Lemuria then we discard any possibilities of pre-historic civilizations.

Modern man is on Earth for at least 100.000 years, I find it ridiculous it took him so much time to create a civilization, it is far more probable he actually created many (thus the myths) and destroied them too since his lack of spiritual development made it impossible for him survive.

I think it is a mistake to consider myths, legends, etc. just that, fantasy.

The pyramids, which can be found in all parts of the world, from America to Africa and Asia are just one evidence of a common culture which was spread all aroud the world.

Here is an text from Plato on Atlantis:


Let me begin by observing first of all, that nine thousand was the sum of years which had elapsed since the war which was said to have taken place between those who dwelt outside the Pillars of Heracles and all who dwelt within them; this war I am going to describe. Of the combatants on the one side, the city of Athens was reported to have been the leader and to have fought out the war; the combatants on the other side were commanded by the kings of Atlantis, which, as was saying, was an island greater in extent than Libya and Asia, and when afterwards sunk by an earthquake, became an impassable barrier of mud to voyagers sailing from hence to any part of the ocean.


He talks about two sides fighting, one of them being the "Kings of Atlantis". Their island as big as a continent "Libya and Asia", was sunk by an earthquake. This might as well be a result of the war. And as a result of its destruction voyagers were unable to cross those lands anymore with their ships to any part of the ocean.

This mean that there were people able to navigate 12.000 years ago to any part of the World Ocean, which in prehistory was called the Atlantis. Now I ask you if such capabilities existed 12.000 years ago, it is wrong to think a civilization, highly advanced civilization, existed?

Now we have 2 choises, we either think Platos writing is pure fantasy and inventions and we drop any further enquiry, or we analize the data (fact) and seeks further proofs. I am on the second side.

Also how do you explain people living on all continents having similar ideas/cultures (like the pyramids) but unable to make a ship and travel between the continents? How could man exist on all continents if he only evolved in one place and he was only able do develop a "civilization" in the last 3-4000 years?

I think artifacts, texts and other items, show us that advanced technology able to make people travel anywhere on the globe existed before the so called "modern" civilization. These kind of capabilities make possible many other "modern" ideas/inventions.

And if we study the way knowledge is developed we find that it is not linear and progressivly growing. It is actually an up and down curve. A repeated bell curve.

A more interesting way to picture knowledge is this:



When believes and truths meet, we have knowledge. Where they don't meet we can still have truth and knowledge but it is undiscovered or ignored, unaccepted, passed as myths, etc.

So we have to be careful how we label things, we might be proven wrong eventualy, which is a good thing. Until then Atlantis is only a myth for most people.



posted on Nov, 8 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pericle
I think common sense would tell you that it is wrong to assume that if we have no data (although there is) to prove (here eveyone is subjective, what might seem enough for me is nothing for another) the existence of Atlantis/Lemuria then we discard any possibilities of pre-historic civilizations.

Actually its common sense (and science) to assume just that, until evidence and ultimatly proof is shown. Or would you say that it is common sense to assume that a civilization of bowlegged cowboy-pirates with 3 arms existed 20,000 ago? Uhm, no... We discard that possibility.


The pyramids, which can be found in all parts of the world, from America to Africa and Asia are just one evidence of a common culture which was spread all aroud the world.

Common culture would assume common design. Yet all the pyramids vary wildly both in purpose and design.



Here is an text from Plato on Atlantis:


Let me begin by observing first of all, that nine thousand was the sum of years which had elapsed since the war which was said to have taken place between those who dwelt outside the Pillars of Heracles and all who dwelt within them; this war I am going to describe. Of the combatants on the one side, the city of Athens was reported to have been the leader and to have fought out the war; the combatants on the other side were commanded by the kings of Atlantis, which, as was saying, was an island greater in extent than Libya and Asia, and when afterwards sunk by an earthquake, became an impassable barrier of mud to voyagers sailing from hence to any part of the ocean.


He talks about two sides fighting, one of them being the "Kings of Atlantis". Their island as big as a continent "Libya and Asia", was sunk by an earthquake. This might as well be a result of the war. And as a result of its destruction voyagers were unable to cross those lands anymore with their ships to any part of the ocean.

This mean that there were people able to navigate 12.000 years ago to any part of the World Ocean, which in prehistory was called the Atlantis. Now I ask you if such capabilities existed 12.000 years ago, it is wrong to think a civilization, highly advanced civilization, existed?

Now we have 2 choises, we either think Platos writing is pure fantasy and inventions and we drop any further enquiry, or we analize the data (fact) and seeks further proofs. I am on the second side.

All that without mention the fact one of the "two sides" is Athens, which we know didnt exist 12,000 years ago. Did you say something about analyzing data?



Also how do you explain people living on all continents having similar ideas/cultures (like the pyramids) but unable to make a ship and travel between the continents? How could man exist on all continents if he only evolved in one place and he was only able do develop a "civilization" in the last 3-4000 years?

With the ice age landbridges, you could cover just about most of the world.

Personally I've always thought the idea of civilizations having similar ideas/cultures to be such a silly question: Man thinks in the same way. No matter how you twist and turn everything we've done, we're the same bloody animal with the same bloody brain! There IS such a thing as a universal idea. In fact I think that's why we're the sole surviving humanoid to begin with. Our "superior" brain isnt so much smarter than previous humanoids, but rather more effiecient at seeing the logic of simple things. Well, most brains anyway


[edit on 8-11-2008 by merka]



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd


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


Again....



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 02:50 AM
link   



One of the criteria a culture must meet to be considered a civilization is that of a written language. Sumerian Cuneiform tablets represent the earliest written language anyone has found to date. Thus by default they are the earliest known.

If I understand you correctly, then there was no such thing as an inca civilisation?



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 04:17 AM
link   
I guess time will tell. We might become another future myth to be ignored by the "modern" people of tomorrow.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Civilization is always 24 hours old.
It starts again everyday at 12am.
That's when the beings from the dark city stop everything reset it all then start it all back up again.



posted on Nov, 9 2008 @ 06:20 AM
link   
I think it depends on how you define civilization. You could say it starts with a pyrimid or a rocket ship, I say it starts with fire.

Fire? Yes Prometheus gave fire to humans and everything changed. It marks the time when humans were no longer totally controlled by their environment but began to control the environment. Sitting around a fire also allowed the exchange of ideas while watching fire-tv (culture).

So in this belief system, civilization began 300,000 years ago: cas.bellarmine.edu...




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join