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: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinline
With this new science, our history and the theory of evolution may change dramaticly.

Its called 'methylation', and you're right, its fascinating. However, its not quite new, and it doesn't dramatically alter our understanding of evolution. Methylation of genes is a method of gene regulation.


BlackGuardXIII
but what about the times when they were collected properly, by accredited archeologists?

I find in those cases that the objects are open to interpretation, or, at least, aren't very clear cut. "human footprints' with trilobite fossils in them, or modern looking hammers 'supposedly collected from ancient geodes' are more in line of what I am thinking, rather than, say, the piri res map, which is disputeable, but not, to my knowledge, considered a fraud.


marduk
so you're saying that a total absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence
well sorry thats exactly what it means

It most certainly is not. I don't think for a minute that there were humans 65 million years ago, or that aliens created human civilization, but the mere fact that we don't have evidence for it DOES NOT mean that it didn't happen, it merely means that we don't have evidence. A decade ago we didn't have any evidence of feathered dinosaurs, now we do. You couldn't say a decade ago that, beause there are no feathered dinosaur fossils, that there must not have been any feathered dinosaurs.



nextguyinline
To begin to believe that any theories on human history and development are even close to being 100% correct is in my opinion absurd. [because...]we've dug and found fossil and geographic evidence, in which I would boldly hazard a guess, exponentionaly less than 1% of accesible areas.

While its true that the fossil record is a poor, spotty, and sparse remain of the huge amount of diversity that would've existed, that does not mean that we can't make any conclusions from it.
Based on the evidence, we have been able to reconstruct a nice, solid, surprisingly well detailed account of man's evolution.
Its perfectly true that that understanding could be overturned tommorow with a new discovery, but that fact doesn't mean that our current understanding is worthless.


byrd
fossil material, but it's around in abundance... there

Yes but byrd, its a tiny proportion of what was there. There are, what, 7 t.rex specimins out there? And far less for many other species. True enough, there are enough calcium carbonate plankton remains to build the cliffs of dover, but even that represents a small portion of the actual number and mass of plankton that have lived there throughout history. The minority of species, probably, get preserved and found in the fossil record, I would guess.


nextguyinline
but was all 3 tons, actual fossil material or material that had pertinent info to evolution?

I doubt its 3 tons of dinosaur fossils, but you can definitly get 3 tons of microfossils from other sites. The ocean floor, in many locations, is sedimented with microfossils, and they are 'pertinent' to evolutionary studies. There's a tremendous amount of fossil material out there. Its really incredible when you start considering it.

The only true device i have to measure are eyes mine own. Digs are not in abundance in any measure, certain spots around the globe for sure, but that is infantecimal.

Consider it like this. A person is studying cars. He finds some pecies of cars. Can he make sense of them, both on their own and in relation to one another? We'd think that he'd be able to figure out what an alternator might do, or at least how it operates, and perhaps hypothesise on the relationships between tires, wheels, and axels, maybe even figure out that they tend to go on the bottom of the car.
Does the fact that he's working with only a small portion of the car mean that he can't figure out how the peices that he does have operate? He could discover a new peice, and that might reveal more connections for him, but does it mean that he no longer understand the alternator or valves on their own?

Its perfectly possible that we are completely wrong about human evolution, BUT, at the same time, our hypotheses about the evidence seem to be pretty darned good, they seem to be pretty darned resilient. We're not likely to be looking at the car parts and thinking 'this is medical equipment'.




posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII

Originally posted by NygdanThe problem is that cremo and others like him are pretending that these 'evidences' are solid, when they're not. What usually happens is that the 'finds' haven't been properly collected, so we don't even know where/when they are really from, or they are simple frauds, or they are being improperly interpreted, etc.

I agree that that usually happens, but what about the times when they were collected properly, by accredited archeologists? BG 13


Not to parrot Marduk here Blackguard, though he is a friend, but would you care to provide information about these so-called anomalies that have been, according to you, "...collected properly, by accredited archeologists..." ?


Harte



posted on Nov, 17 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by nextguyinline
With this new science, our history and the theory of evolution may change dramaticly.

Its called 'methylation', and you're right, its fascinating. However, its not quite new, and it doesn't dramatically alter our understanding of evolution. Methylation of genes is a method of gene regulation.


Thanks. I took epigenetics straight from the article. Discovery magazine Nov. 2006.




nextguyinline
To begin to believe that any theories on human history and development are even close to being 100% correct is in my opinion absurd. [because...]we've dug and found fossil and geographic evidence, in which I would boldly hazard a guess, exponentionaly less than 1% of accesible areas.

While its true that the fossil record is a poor, spotty, and sparse remain of the huge amount of diversity that would've existed, that does not mean that we can't make any conclusions from it.
Based on the evidence, we have been able to reconstruct a nice, solid, surprisingly well detailed account of man's evolution.
Its perfectly true that that understanding could be overturned tommorow with a new discovery, but that fact doesn't mean that our current understanding is worthless.


I didn't mean to imply that it is worthless, nor that we can't make educated guesses, just that to believe that the current theories are close to 100% correct in light of the fact of the miniscule amounts of areas dug compared to the whole.




nextguyinline
but was all 3 tons, actual fossil material or material that had pertinent info to evolution?

I doubt its 3 tons of dinosaur fossils, but you can definitly get 3 tons of microfossils from other sites. The ocean floor, in many locations, is sedimented with microfossils, and they are 'pertinent' to evolutionary studies. There's a tremendous amount of fossil material out there. Its really incredible when you start considering it.


I do understand really, the amounts of material collected. I've seen 'stocks' so to speak, in my museum travels. And I can garner a good idea of what may actually be out there. Like I said, I was being nit picky. I actually should have never made the point, it was moot. Sorry.





The only true device i have to measure are eyes mine own. Digs are not in abundance in any measure, certain spots around the globe for sure, but that is infantecimal.

Consider it like this. A person is studying cars. He finds some pecies of cars. Can he make sense of them, both on their own and in relation to one another? We'd think that he'd be able to figure out what an alternator might do, or at least how it operates, and perhaps hypothesise on the relationships between tires, wheels, and axels, maybe even figure out that they tend to go on the bottom of the car.
Does the fact that he's working with only a small portion of the car mean that he can't figure out how the peices that he does have operate? He could discover a new peice, and that might reveal more connections for him, but does it mean that he no longer understand the alternator or valves on their own?


Good point, but when you know what the whole is(in the case of the cars) it's a tough analogy. I know what you mean. But what if in 100 years we find out that homo sapiens have only been around for 25,000 years, due to some unknown chemical processes under the earth that give false dating information. Or that we've been around for 5 million years because it took another 100 years of digging to find more skeletal evidence. I know those two ideas can be picked apart, but I hope you know what I mean.



Its perfectly possible that we are completely wrong about human evolution, BUT, at the same time, our hypotheses about the evidence seem to be pretty darned good, they seem to be pretty darned resilient. We're not likely to be looking at the car parts and thinking 'this is medical equipment'.


Going with the answer previous, I think maybe you think current theory is close to what the truth is. That WOULD make the evidence thus far seem pretty darned good.
You may not think that. I'm happy to be wrong.



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   


Hope you didn't put alot of effort into that post

It wasn't what I'd call taxing
you guys can debate this as much as you want but just to let you know I am descended from apes. I checked and theres a real big give clue hanging between my legs that lets me copulate face to face with a partner
and the only other species that does that is an ape

ok



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
As an archaeologist this thread almost doesn't deserve a reply but,

1. Cremo is a Hindi creationist read his "work" with the proper goggles on.
2. Alan Watt is in the same boat with Graham Hancock and Alex Jones do with that what you will.
3. If you want to start real research on human origins (I could give hundreds of reliable sources) start with this one:www.becominghuman.org...
4. A favorite source for good reading and all the rest:www.antiquityofman.com... (thanks to Harte for this lead)

But......I do agree with the thread title Mankind is older than we have evidence for but not in the ballpark with dinosaurs. I'd hazard a semi educated guess of 1.5 million years ago for the first "humans". Proto-Human development may be in the range of 3.5 to 5 million years ago.

Remember to keep it casual!



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 09:06 PM
link   


1. Cremo is a Hindi creationist read his "work" with the proper goggles on.

he's also an incredibly bad Public speaker




I'd hazard a semi educated guess of 1.5 million years ago for the first "humans".

based on what evidence ?
as an archaeologist I'm sure you'll have some


[edit on 18-11-2006 by Marduk]



posted on Nov, 18 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by CasualOne
As an archaeologist this thread almost doesn't deserve a reply but,

...I do agree with the thread title Mankind is older than we have evidence for but not in the ballpark with dinosaurs. I'd hazard a semi educated guess of 1.5 million years ago for the first "humans". Proto-Human development may be in the range of 3.5 to 5 million years ago.

Remember to keep it casual!






Moi, I am interested in speculating on the characteristics and intellectual qualities of those proto-humans - and as well, investigating homo sapiens' hubris, arrogance and presumptive nature.




posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Once again this is a good place to start: www.becominghuman.org...

For a bit lighter: www.archaeology.org... just a news brief.

or www.sciam.com...

this also is in last months National Geographics.

and www.mnh.si.edu....

Source for more links: www.indiana.edu...


Now as far as keeping up on anything in the news: www.archaeologica.org....

And a last little food for thought, hmmmm how long would evidence last? www.newscientist.com...

Hmmm critical thinking will get you through and remember, "In the abundance of water the fool is thirsty." Bob Marley



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Not to sway away from "fossil digs" and such, but to simply go back to the original heading about "Mankind Older Than Previously Believed", what are your thoughts on the Sumerian civilization. Their beliefs are that the Anunnaki journeyed to Earth, some 450,000 years ago, when the planets, Earth and Nibiru, came into close proximity.

Nibiru has been symbolized in numerous societies, particularly Egyptian, in caves and such, as winged disks, a planet with a ring around it, etc.

A SUPER read on early civilizations is called, "Rule By Secrecy", by Jim Marrs. If you ever have anytime to look at this, please do. It will change the way you think about mankind.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   


Their beliefs are that the Anunnaki journeyed to Earth, some 450,000 years ago, when the planets, Earth and Nibiru, came into close proximity.

well "Anunnaki" is an akkadian word the sumerians said "Anuna"
and "Nibiru" isn't a word in any language except sitchinese
it does sound a bit like nēberu the akkadian word for "quay, port; crossing, ford"
psd.museum.upenn.edu...
and the Sumerian creation myth says nothing about space travel whatsoever
but apart from that you're on the right track



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by texaspike
Not to sway away from "fossil digs" and such, but to simply go back to the original heading about "Mankind Older Than Previously Believed", what are your thoughts on the Sumerian civilization. Their beliefs are that the Anunnaki journeyed to Earth, some 450,000 years ago, when the planets, Earth and Nibiru, came into close proximity.


Completely spurious, and (no offense) getting wilder as time goes past.

Civilizations leave traces (mines, farming areas, rubbish heaps, lost manufactured goods and materials, etc, etc.) We can find traces of hominids back that far and farther -- the oldest human fossils we have (homo habilis, etc) date back 1.5 million years or so. We've very good evidence that fire was discovered 500,000 years ago by human beings. Modern homo sapiens evolves about 450,000 years ago and their remains are found in sites along with stone chipped tools. Very modern humas appear 90,000 years ago.

Now, if these were "incredibly advanced" humans or even reasonably advanced ones (to the level, say, of Bronze Age Troy), then we'd also find jewelry and artifacts and swords and so forth with them. Not chipped rocks.

We find campsites. We find primitive art. We find shell necklaces. Eventually we find woven grass mats and tools that integrate fiber and wood and stone. We find graves and "graveyards"/burial areas.

In all these areas, no advanced artifacts have ever turned up.

And no, none of these are "carbon dated." They're dated by other methods.


We find settlements and, starting about 9,000 years ago we find settlements with structures including organized graveyards.

Cities and towns leave traces. The weight of the buildings and the farming of the land changes the soil texture in ways that are fairly distinct.



Nibiru has been symbolized in numerous societies, particularly Egyptian, in caves and such, as winged disks, a planet with a ring around it, etc.


Actually, it hasn't. The Egyptians knew only the visible planets and their constellations were different than the ones we define.

In many cases, the people giving this "evidence" show you a picture without the accompanying text (written in the language of that culture) or ignore the fact that the picture has text beside it. We can read Egyptian hieroglyphics (I taught myself; there's a number of ways you can do this online and with books) and I can confirm that there's no Egyptian texts/mentions of anything like Nibiru.

I know a bit about North American rock art, and the symbols you describe aren't part of the culture. Ditto Sumeria.

I think you might change your mind if you took the daring path and started reading what the archaeologists (the academic ones) said about this and started testing their assumptions. Learn to read the languages or at least learn about the symbols and check out the access to many ancient texts from these civilizations that's available online.

Many of us have done that since coming to ATS. I think you'll find it very enlightening.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Oh... and "Nibiru" is a "throne name". When kings in ancient times took the throne, they often added titles and names for themselves. They stress the king's position as god/rightful ruler and his alliegance to certain gods.

So, an Egyptian pharoah might take on a name that meant "Horus strikes" or "Wrath of Horus" or "Two Powers At Peace":
www.touregypt.net...

Read the Enuma Elish... REALLY read it (it's not that long) and see how the throne name fits into the schema (but the naming of a planet doesn't... not at all) :
www.sacred-texts.com...



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by CasualOne
Once again this is a good place to start: www.becominghuman.org...

For a bit lighter: www.archaeology.org... just a news brief.

or www.sciam.com...
...

Hmmm critical thinking will get you through and remember, "In the abundance of water the fool is thirsty." Bob Marley



Thanks CasualOne. ...Especially because you reminded me of a favorite site I have neglected for 2 or 3 years.


Anthropology in the News, Texas A & M


It's more cross-disciplinary, and really darn good.


.



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   


Oh... and "Nibiru" is a "throne name".

I think the word you are looking for is epithet



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk



Oh... and "Nibiru" is a "throne name".

I think the word you are looking for is epithet


Nope. "Throne Name" is the correct term for this type of name (an official name-title.) An epithet is something else (and may be either good or bad or a less formal title.)



posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Either way Neberu isn't a throne name of any Mesopotamian king I've ever come across
its been used to refer to the movement of Jupiter (planet of the crossing) by the akkadians which was later given the appelation "Marduk" in Babylonian times but the normal ahem "throne name" that was applied to kings was "Enlil" or in later times "Marduk". names of gods because the kings themselves claimed to be incarnations of the gods and thusly claimed provenance to rule.
as in "hang on a minute you can't be the king you're just a gardener"
"aha but I am also the living incarnation of the great god Enlil"
"oh ok go on then"

Sitchin of course knows all this very well but is making too much money to care

in my honest opinion those egyptian kings were all dead obsessed bonkers anyway
so who cares what they wanted to call themselves j/k



posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
Either way Neberu isn't a throne name of any Mesopotamian king I've ever come across


That's correct. It's the throne name of a deity.


its been used to refer to the movement of Jupiter

I'd like to see a citation here. I haven't seen it used in any context that refers to movement patterns. I do agree that Jupiter was associated with Marduk, however.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join