skyfloating: thanks for an interesting thread.
Did these gods create the sun? The myths say the did - do you believe that?
hans, you were asking how SF decides what is myth and what is fact, I find it hilarious you fail to see the irony in your question, since this is
EXACTLY the problem (I think) SF started this thread to point out
To be honest I think you are being deliberately disingenuous with this question. It is plainly obvious to me at least what the answer is: as far as we
know, creating a sun from scratch is impossible or at least so far beyond our level of knowledge as to be beyond speculation about the possibility
thereof. Making a flying metal 'apartment" or a "chariot that ascends to the heavens' or a "thunderbolt that destroys cities" is very much
within our level of knowledge and is known to be physically possible.
It should also be obvious that pretty much everyone is going to ask the medicine man what that big bright thing in the sky is and where it came from,
so many medicine men are going to have to answer with a similar story: so and so god made it. I fail to see why anyone living in true stone/bronze age
style would need to make up a story about
- genetic engineering
- nuclear bombs
- powerful creatures from the stars coming and talking to them.
- magnificent cities with all of the above in them ruled by creatures from far away destroyed by flood/etc
nor where they would get there inspiration for many of them. Even allowing for huge imaginations, which might allow these stories to appear once by
chance, this fails to explain why they appear in so many cultures, in so many places, at so many times, with so much correlation.
I'm sorry. you can argue that there is no HARD proof if you want, and even though i have seen enough around to pretty much convince me, i will admit
you may be right and it may ALL be fabricated/mistakes/misinterpreted. I do NOT see how you can claim there is no evidence at all though, that is
patently incorrect and to be honest, feels like something even you don't believe. Multiple matching witness statements by unrelated witnesses is
decent evidence, especially if they know things they shouldn't be able to guess/make up: the rapist had a tattoo on his ass or the flying craft took
off in a huge column of flames and smoke
as SF said: there are multiple reasons no verifiable high tech relics are known about:
-the society was apparently one of a very small group of elites with technological gadgets and a whole bunch of basically slaves, so there weren't
many gadgets to begin with and those that were around would be extremely valuable and kept hidden if found( I'm talking in the old days here).
- if there really was a high tech society back then, then the secret societies (inner circles of priests etc) would know about it and keep this
knowledge alive amongst themselves, even after a disaster wiped out general knowledge of it, whilst also trying to hide it from everyone else: eg
knowing how to make a machine gun in present day iraq where everyone can get one isnt that useful. knowing the same in 100 AD would be priceless.
- if these societies existed then it is likely that they, or other subsequent ones still exist and have inherited this knowledge, and of course would
want all relics for themselves to maintain a tech edge over the rest of the world (eg possible examples of this are the nazis in ww2, pretty much
every intelligence agency worldwide, high level Freemasons perhaps etc.
- extremely powerful groups like the Vatican also have it in there interests to keep this sort of thing hidden
- sea level rise of 100 feet? metres? cant remember, since the last ice age would have covered over any coastal/fertile river delta civilisations,
which is likely most of them. atlantis was supposed to be an island remember.
-I cant remember how many stories I have heard about discoveries of oopart's which were hushed up, stolen.or destroyed