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.

 

Mankind Older Than Previously Beleived

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   
I've been resarching what may be called the lost history of mankind, and I have found that mankind may have been around for up to one hundred million years. The average person does not realize that mankind has not been here for one million years like we are taught. Mankind has been on earth for so long because we are so adaptable. The fact that you exist is amazing in it of itself. I believe man could have walked the earth with the dinosaurs.




posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Care to share this "research" with us?

Plenty of people may reply saying "Yeah, I have thought that all along", but a number will also want more than just groundless speculation.

Ta.

Rob.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I have listened to Alan Watt mp3's extensively on cuttingthroughthematrix.com, you should check it out if you want a new look at history and the study of human behavior. There are over twenty hours worth of mp3's at that site.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I would need more than one person's opinion about how old humankind is. In fact, it would take alot to convince me that we're 100 million years old, I just don't believe it. We've never found ANY evidence that says that humans and dinosaurs ever existed together, no skeletons, no tools, nothing.

Creationism isn't based on science, it's based on the Bible. I don't think the Bible can be held to be the utmost authority on science.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by greydawn
I've been resarching what may be called the lost history of mankind

Neat trick. How'd you find it if its lost?


and I have found that mankind may have been around for up to one hundred million years.

Whats the evidence?

I believe man could have walked the earth with the dinosaurs.

All evidence seems to contradict this.

I have listened to Alan Watt mp3's extensively on cuttingthroughthematrix.com,

Can you please explain why you beleive that man is 100 million years old?



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Tell me, have you been reading The Hidden History of the Human Race, by Michael Cremo?

It's a decent read, and it talks about a lot of the hard empirical evidence that has been found which dates human beings (in their current form) for hundreds of millions of years. It discusses everything from "impossible" archaeological finds, such as iron mines which were mined tens of thousands of years ago, to fosillized bone which bear knife-marks typical of animals which have been butchered.

The problem is that anomolous evidence is sacrificed on the "Alter of the Known," as I like to call it. Where people ignore or discredit anything which challenges what they hold to be true. This happened in when the theory of evolution threatened creationism, and continues to happen on both sides of that particular argument.

It's happening now, when people ignore evidence which contradicts their current concept of the age of humanity.

Whats strange is that almost every time we discover something which even the mainstream scientific community ackknowledges, it always places "modern" humans further back than we "had previously thought."

The funny thing is, all this "evidence" wouldn't hurt or hinder the beliefs of either the creationists or the evolutionists. In evolutionary terms, we'd only have evolved sooner than we had thought.

[edit on 13-11-2006 by BlaznRob]



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:23 PM
link   
The reliable sources tell a different story.
Scientists have spent a great deal of time and money researching the history of man and nothing indicates Gorgo the caveman ever fought a dinosaur.




Oldest Human Fossils Identified
Hillary Mayell
for National Geographic News
February 16, 2005

Human fossils found 38 years ago in Africa are 65,000 years older than previously thought, a new study says—pushing the dawn of "modern" humans back 35,000 years.

New dating techniques indicate that the fossils are 195,000 years old. The two skulls and some bones were first uncovered on opposite sides of Ethiopia's Omo River in 1967 by a team led by Richard Leakey. The fossils, dubbed Omo I and Omo II, were dated at the time as being about 130,000 years old. But even then the researchers themselves questioned the accuracy of the dating technique.

The new findings, published in the February 17 issue of the journal Nature, establish Omo I and II as the oldest known fossils of modern humans. The prior record holders were fossils from Herto, Ethiopia, which dated the emergence of modern humans in Africa to about 160,000 years ago.
news.nationalgeographic.com...



Going further back in time to the early hominids, I would think of them as more of an animal than a human.
They sure didn't look very much like we do today.



Based on the associated animal remains, the team believes that the hominid fossils are likely between 3.8 to 4 million years old. This will place the new fossils in time between the earlier 4.4 million year old Ardipithecus ramidus partial skeleton and the younger 3.2 million year old "Lucy" partial skeleton of A. afarensis. The team hopes that the new discoveries will allow scientists to connect the dots -- furthering our knowledge of this important time period in human evolution. Numerous highly important scientific issues will be tackled by the researchers as work continues. However, it is already clear that planned scientific studies of this once in a lifetime discovery will tell us much about how our four-million-year-old ancestors walked, how tall they were, and what they looked like.
www.selamta.net...


Lucy was a fine figure of a female in her day, but she was not human.
She missed seeing the dinosaurs by about 60 million+ years.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by greydawn

Mankind has been on earth for so long because we are so adaptable. The fact that you exist is amazing in it of itself.




I agree with these statements - and find a great deal of hope in the thought.

My research tells me that we're in a period of extremely rapid evolution - and many believe we won't survive as a species.

...I do though, and I believe we will adapt simply because we have so many times before. We may change, again, but we will survive imo.





posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Well,according to Cremo, while civilization is generally dated only about 200,000 years old, there have been artefacts founjd that date back 800,000 years. I don't know the legitimacy of these claims,but that is what he claims,nonetheless.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

Well,according to Cremo, while civilization is generally dated only about 200,000 years old, there have been artefacts founjd that date back 800,000 years.




It all comes down to definitions:

1. What's human?

2. What's civilization?

...and of course, recognizing that

3. What is relative.





.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Country Soul
Scientists have spent a great deal of time and money researching the history of man and nothing indicates Gorgo the caveman ever fought a dinosaur.


Considering our very limited knowledge of humankinds mysterious past, there is nothing to indicate that mankind was not present when the dinosaurs populated the planet. Of the millions and millions of animals and dinosaurs that have lived on this planet, how many (or how few) have made fossil records or left any trace of their existence. Just the few that happened to get caught in tar pits or tree sap or the few cought in some environmental cataclysm.

Money, time spent researching, credabitily, and academic titles are all great reasons to fudge, cover up, or disregard data.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Okrutniki


Money, time spent researching, credabitily, and academic titles are all great reasons to fudge, cover up, or disregard data.



I am sure they do on a regular basis. There has been nothing to suggest otherwise. Let's be honest, things that do not support the status quos' agenda does not get funded.



posted on Nov, 13 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   


Considering our very limited knowledge

speak for yourself


there is nothing to indicate that mankind was not present when the dinosaurs populated the planet

i think everyone has something to bring to a conversation
now this is just my recomendation to you but I think what you should bring in future is silence



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Awww. Marduk

I know you know better than to be so rude.




...As you know, hmanity's "age" has been rised upward substantially every few years for a while now. Who knows how definitions - and perspectives - may change?

imo - this topic has the potential for interesting philosophical discussion and education, even though the scientific evidence may be lacking.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   


I know you know better than to be so rude

i added a smiley face to show it was a humourous statement
this one
see




As you know, hmanity's "age" has been rised upward substantially every few years for a while now.

actually last time i checked it had been 100,000 years for homo sapiens sapiens and 250,000 years for homo sapiens archaic for decades.
maybe youre thinking of Sitchin or even Alan Alfords claims that we are older


[edit on 14-11-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Ok, I know the mods aren't big fans of multiple quotes, but I want to illustrate what I see as an ongoing problem here. Let's look at this exchange from the 1st three posts in this thread:


Originally posted by greydawn
..... I believe man could have walked the earth with the dinosaurs.


Originally posted by d60944
Care to share this "research" with us?


Originally posted by greydawn
I have listened to Alan Watt mp3's extensively on cuttingthroughthematrix.com


Now, I'm not trying to insult the thread creator here, but this is indicative of a problem with many threads here.

Someone reads/watches something on some website that gets them thinking, and all of the sudden the reader is convinced of the item's authenticity. I mean, it sounded good, right? Gotta be real!


The motto here is "Deny Ignorance", not "Perpetuate Ignorance". The free exchange of ideas is wonderful, but we, as posters, have to exhibit a modicum of responsibility and do a little checking around, source checking, etc, before we start the rote parroting of what we read on other sites.

This particular thread would be well served by the thread creator locating a little corroborating evidence. Maybe linking to some opinions on the topic from respected paleontologists. Then we might have a real, logical, fact based discussion that we can participate in and maybe surface other sources that add to the theory.

This thread is an example of the prime reason that people like us get labeled as kooks. Let's take the responsibility on our own shoulders and do our homework.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   
I'm not sure how long these bodies we inhabit have been in existence. Perhaps humans exist on other planets? Who knows, humans could extend far, far back?

I don't buy fully into evolution. It doesn't work very well, at least not as a standalone theory, when you factor in all of mans experiences and discoveries here on this planet. So many gaps, so many gaps in evolution. I still seek the "in-between" ape with language skills and human vocal cords. I just don't think evolution is going to lead to any real meaningful answers. When you factor in creation; I mean creation as in the dictionary definition, not confined by any specific religion, then you have a whole new view on everything. A lot of things are now possible. UFO sightings are more of a possibility. Crazy artifacts are now a better possibility. People flying in India thousands of years ago is more possible. Past lives are more possible. OOBEs are more possible. Reptillians are more possible. Ghosts could be more of a possibility. Gods are possible. Heck, the greys might even be sitting right outside my door right now., and maybe that guy really did shape shift at Burger King? With creation we aren't bound to comparing our discoveries to evolutionary theory anymore. It's like a step up in awareness, and your vision broadens. Evolution to me, is more of a mental trap that we have the pleasure of being in. And the teacher says "Look here class, this is all your are. Look into this microscope at this single celled creature. That's your great uncle UUGGHHH. See that mud over there, that's aunt MMMFFF." As for me, that monkey may still be a monkey after a million years, that is, if the monkey doesn't go extinct first.

And none of what I just said, says evolution cannot exist, but I just don't think we will find the really deep meaningful answers with evolution. Evolution is too narrow. I believe that life, comparable to, and/or quite different to ours may have stretched back a lot further than 100 million years. 100 million years might only be but a piece of the larger piece? And we can't completely go by artifacts here on planet earth, because there may be a whole big large chunk of history sitting right out there in the stars, and we just don't have artifacts of this. Well, maybe we have some of those artifacts.


There I went on a tangent again, but what can you do when you talking about how far back mankind went?

Take care folks,

Troy



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk


there is nothing to indicate that mankind was not present when the dinosaurs populated the planet

i think everyone has something to bring to a conversation
now this is just my recomendation to you but I think what you should bring in future is silence



I see that Marduk has brought something. A derisive, negative put down, with a smiley face to make it all better.
It's still a diss.
I hope that the next thing Marduk brings is more positive, and hopefully even a relevent addition to the thread.

What I have seen that suggests the possibility humans lived in the days of the dinosaurs are pictures of footprints next to dino prints which look very much like human ones.
Also, why do so many ancient peoples so far apart all have dragon myths? How did they all come up with such a similar, accurate dinosaur description?



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlaznRob

It's a decent read, and it talks about a lot of the hard empirical evidence that has been found which dates human beings (in their current form) for hundreds of millions of years.


Trouble is, none of the evidence actually exists. There are plenty of accounts of discoveries which might be deemed evidence - mostly from the 19th and early 20th century. Nothing recent at all.

And suppose we found evidence of mining or use of tool dating back 10 millions? Why presume it must be evidence of humans? Are we suggesting we're the only tool bearing species ever to have existed in the universe?

Other tool bearing species may have appeared and disappeared on Earth. I'm not sure of any candidates from the past 65 million years off hand, but we can't dismiss the possibility. Out of place artefacts may equally be evidence of aliens or time travellers



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 06:16 AM
link   
I have seen discovery claims as recent as the 1950's, though I cannot think of any more recent than that, which is a good point worth noting.
The early 20th century was an era filled with charlatans, frauds, hoaxes, and con men. That likely explains the profusion of claims from that time, but doesn't prove all claims are such.
From the earliest times, people have passed on tales of previous civilizations. There is something to that. And I feel that there is some evidence visible to anyone, but whether they conclude that it is evidence is another matter. I see the great pyramid of gizeh as the biggest, most obvious piece of evidence, but many people do not see it that way.
The portolans and piri reis maps are another anomaly, and the commonalities among many widely separated cultures' legends and myths, ie. the flood, is a clue that they are all relating a common event, or else just an amazing coincidence. Some feel it is due to Jungian archetypes being common to all of us, but I feel it is more likely due to a shared memory of some event of global proportions.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join