So, did anyone listen to this and have a opinion? Human kind being 12900 years old, that surely contradicts the science and the religions. Yet there seems to be evidence of this event happening.

So what gives... the comet hit us, but human kind did not die completely?


[edit on 3-10-2007 by Copernicus]

Originally posted by Copernicus

I was listening to a interview with Graham Hancock ...
Anyway, the theory is that there was a large asteroid hitting earth 12900 years ago, wiping out all life in a enormous global firestorm and melting the ice at the poles.


He believes the Maya knew that this would happen,
and that earlier civilizations got wiped off the planet because of their negative behavior, much like current humans.

the man says in one paragraph that natural cosmic events changed the world/


in the next breath he says things occur because of negative behavior


wonder which he really means ????

[edit on 3-10-2007 by St Udio]

Originally posted by Copernicus
So, did anyone listen to this and have a opinion? Human kind being 12900 years old, that surely contradicts the science and the religions. Yet there seems to be evidence of this event happening.

So what gives... the comet hit us, but human kind did not die completely?
[edit on 3-10-2007 by Copernicus]

Copernicus, maybe it was a typo on your part, but...science believes humankind is at least 200,000 years old - science has never said humankind is less than 12,900 years old. Just a picky point.

Graham Hancock has alot of things to say and can back it up with alot of facts. His research is extremely detailed and extensive.
Thanks for posting the links to the thread, Copernicus. I will surely listen to this one.

[edit on 3/10/07 by forestlady]

Hancock has significantly changed his views since the publication of Underword then. In that book he seems to be saying that the rise in sea levels was a result of natural global warming which broke an ice dam holding back the now unfrozen water in what is now Hudsons Bay. Once the dam broke the water was released and raised the level of the oceans enough to innundate the coastal-based civilizations, hence the flood stories. This had nothing to do with a comet; it was simply the result of coming out of an Ice Age, which we are still doing, meaning Global warming may be much more a result of the natural processes than anything to do with humanity, though 'we' may be accellerating the process.

In Underworld Hancock goes into great detail about the rise of the sea levels over that time over 12,000 years ago. It did not 'wipe out humanity' at all, but did flood the sea coast cities rather suddenly. This, of course, caused a setback to civilization, but not humanity per se.

Now, the fact that there was a flood 12,900 years ago (whether or not it was caused by a comet) does not for a second undermine evolution or any of the paleontological theories about mankind's spread and progress. Evolution doesn't 'go out the window' at all because evolution is talking about far broader time scales than a few thousand years. There is ample time within current evolutionary theory for mankind to have been around in significant numbers 12,900 years ago. In fact, what we know about the 'spread of humanity,' particularly into Europe, can be well accommodated within this flood theory.

Further, Indian religion seems to confirm this as it suggests that mankind has been around for a long while. There is some detail on this in Forbidden Archaeology by Michael Cremo, if you're interested. OF COURSE it contradicts fundamentalist Christian religion, which often claims the world was made in 4004 BC on October 23rd at 9:00 a.m. I would hardly call that a criticism. However, many religions, including the large majority of Christians, can accommodate a longer time period for the age of the earth.

So bottom line is that the 12,900 BC flood theory itself does not contradict science, not does it contradict all religions.