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.

 

Civilization was destroyed at least once before

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Or the artifacts are simply deep, deep below. Shame that the deepest holes dug are dug for the military and not for archaeology.




posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Ah, howdy all

The good old "everything will disappear discussion". Lots of stuff would disappear but the following will last hundreds of thousands of years, in some cases millions

Bones -yep all those garbage dumps - some will fossilize

High tech Ceramics - virtually indestructible

Radioisotopes - many will last for a very long time and many are not manufactured in concentrated form by nature

Glass - a glassbottle covered by sediment will (if filled with sediment), not collaspe and will be fully recognizable hundreds of thousands of years from now

Low tech ceramics - pottery - just like we can find pottery over 12000 years old that stuff will still be around

Certain plastics will remain

Slag heaps, "shell middens" of concentrated materials

Mines and pits

Higher quality concrete - think maginot line

Cut gems and jewelry, a cut diamond will last for millions of years

Pollen

Carbonized materials

Water logged materials in non-oxgyen environments (we found 400,000 year old wooden spears)

Etc,

One other effect will remain until the soil matrix it was formed in is destroyed - that is disturbance of the soil, from digging a hole to driving a post into it - these leave a noteable mark.

Speculation:

Early advance human civilization; Possible but unlikely that we have not detected

Alien colony; possible

Non human civilization; possible

The farther back you go the less chance you have of detecting but also the less chance of anything adding to human "myth



[edit on 26/3/08 by Hanslune]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   


Cormac Mac Airt said:

Also, do natural events, monsoons, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, ice storms, floods happen at the same time all over the globe. Obvious answer is no. So how can anyone equate one cultures natural catastrophe with another, unrelated cultures catastrophe. Without evidence, they can't.


Interestingly the ancient Greeks and the Persians both have mythology about a global flood, as did the Mayans or Aztecs. The Greeks refer to Ducalion's flood.

The interesting thing is the distribution of ancient mythologies about an overwhelming flood come from every part of the globe and are evenly distributed from South America to India to the Middle east and China.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by sy.gunson



Cormac Mac Airt said:

Also, do natural events, monsoons, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, ice storms, floods happen at the same time all over the globe. Obvious answer is no. So how can anyone equate one cultures natural catastrophe with another, unrelated cultures catastrophe. Without evidence, they can't.


Interestingly the ancient Greeks and the Persians both have mythology about a global flood, as did the Mayans or Aztecs. The Greeks refer to Ducalion's flood.

The interesting thing is the distribution of ancient mythologies about an overwhelming flood come from every part of the globe and are evenly distributed from South America to India to the Middle east and China.


Floods are one of the most common type of disaster. Whereas the people involved would have thought the "entire world" was involved - it wasn't. many regional floods happened at different times. The geological evidence against a biblical style flood is overwhelming as is glairng lack of evidence for it. Myths are myths, some are based on on reality many are not.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
sy.gunson,




So how can anyone equate one cultures natural catastrophe with another, unrelated cultures catastrophe. Without evidence, they can't.


That, from my last post should have answered your question. You are trying to compare apples and oranges. There is no evidence that the Greeks and the Mayans were talking about the same thing.

Also, something that hasn't been mentioned. Nuclear waste. Lower radioactive forms of nuclear waste will last hundreds of thousands of years, higher forms will last millions of years.

cormac



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Or the artifacts are simply deep, deep below. Shame that the deepest holes dug are dug for the military and not for archaeology.


What about erosion - not all items get buried some get exposed. Almost all ancient man remnants are surface finds or in caves.

The deepest holes dug are for oil and geological exploration and mineral exploitation, not military.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   


Not to mention all the stainless steel flatware that would obviously be preserved one way or the other through almost any imaginable catastrophe and for an almost unlimited time.


Like i mentioned earlier, their society may have taken a totally separate path than ours. They could have used different technologies or perhaps not everyone was privileged enough to own stainless steel. Besides noone said that the previous society had to be as advanced as we are. The fact that there may have been a large society that predates our own by over 10 thousand years would be enough to shake the foundations of modern understanding alone. Lets take things one step at a time here.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   
"Shake"

The discovery of the existence of an earlier society would be met with great interest and then very quickly become part of the present day reality.

One can see this in the discovery of the Minoan and Mesopotamian civilizations that were not known in the 19th century. Amazement then rapid inclusion.

This happened earlier when the Americas were discovered (from the western point of view) - that discovery was probably more influencial as it showed that both the Bible and some of the Ancient Greeks were wrong.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:03 PM
link   
metaldemon,

Unfortunately, the evidence doesn't support that theory. From the Acheulean, Mousterian, Chatelperronian, Aurignatian, Gravettian, Solutria and Magdelanian tool making cultures there is only some variation of flint, stone or bone tools. These date from roughly 1.6 million years to after the end of the Ice Age. There is no evidence of anything else during this time.

cormac



[edit on 26-3-2008 by cormac mac airt]



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by cormac mac airt
 


If all the time and money spent on discussing this type of subject over and over again could be spent on actual research and exploration...

sigh



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 





If all the time and money spent on discussing this type of subject over and over again could be spent on actual research and exploration...


I know!! **Bangs head against wall, repeatedly**

Sometimes, I think there ought to be a forum for ideas that don't stand up to scrutiny and you are only allowed to post things that haven't been rehashed, over and over again.

cormac



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Talk Origins has an excellent set up where they list every known creationist argument then provide the counter-argument with references.

I've suggested several times to Hall of Ma'at to follow a similar format - but too much work, or a general lack of interest keeps them uninterested.

...If I see one more Piri Reis thread.......The problem is of course that very little new material comes out.



[edit on 26/3/08 by Hanslune]



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 





The problem is of course that very little new material comes out.


Unfortunately true. And what does come out, added to what material is already available tends to get skimmed over then put aside in favor of ideas with little or no evidence.

Take this thread. If not us, then the only other beings there is evidence for are the Homo subspecies, Habilis, Erectus, Heidelbergensis, Neanderthalensis and a few lesser known ones. All with the same tools early Homo Sapiens had. Since we are still here and we didn't start civilization until rather recently, it tends to indicate that the other groups never did.

cormac



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 01:22 AM
link   


Since we are still here and we didn't start civilization until rather recently, it tends to indicate that the other groups never did.


Not necessarily, one could argue that our development is a fluke and has shown un even development (it has). Of course the big killer for other civilization is a lack of any evidence for same.

Who knows perhaps 14 million years ago a relatively clever badger ancestor got to thinking.......hmmm we don't have hands - so we're screwed.

I think we'll have to wait for a surprize. Asia is relatively unexplored archaeology wise so one never knows...



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 





Not necessarily, one could argue that our development is a fluke and has shown uneven development (it has). Of course the big killer for other civilization is a lack of any evidence for same.


That's why I said "tends to indicate" and not "proves" that the other Homo subspecies didn't create a civilization. Lack of evidence. It's always possible evidence might be found, however doubtful I believe that to be.

cormac



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 04:36 AM
link   
Just a few points to consider:

1. The archeological record is far from complete.

We do not have an exact picture of the ancient world, especially before recorded history. Archeological discoveries are, to be fair, quite rare. Given all the thousands of years of human habitation and thousands of square miles, we have surprisingly little in the way of solid, conclusive evidence.

New discoveries are being made all the time. The people who thought the Earth was flat were certain because, at the time, there was no proof that it wasn't.

Take Otzi the Iceman - 59 tattoos that appear to be markings (not decorations, just straight lines from what I saw) that happen to correspond to the locations where he suffered from arthritis. These apparently also correspond to important locations for acupuncture, around 3300 BC. Did the Chinese not invent it now, or what?

2. They call it an "Ice Age".

As in, sea levels were dramatically lower because huge volumes of the Earth's water were trapped in massive ice sheets. Today, 70% of the Earth is covered in liquid water. If you really want to find something, underwater would be a good place to start.

3. People still existed.

It would be nice to think that, after say, a nuclear detonation, that the "Atlantis" that had been destroyed would have been left untouched until modern archeologists got to it.

This would probably not be the case. A few generations down the line, when an "unholy" area no longer makes people sick, like the elders said it used to, people go in and find treasures. Let's be fair, if you are effectively reduced to cave-dwelling status, and you pick up a radio, the static coming out of it could be considered to be communication with a god. You might not understand it, but it sure isn't natural, and that makes it special.

Thousands of generations of humans would have plundered such a site, if it existed, and humans break things, lose things and purposefully destroy things.


To summarise, the things we know are not (ahem) set in stone. They are just the conclusions we come to by looking at what we have found. Is mythology any different?



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune


The deepest holes dug are for oil and geological exploration and mineral exploitation, not military.



In any case they are not dug for archaeology.

You will agree with me that money is invested where a profit return is expected and that archaeology would need better funding.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 05:31 AM
link   
I think many of us are forgetting that with each society and civiliazation comes diffrent technology. Its highly unlikely that they would of built engines and cars, but a type of aircraft, yes. It would be highly reasonable and logical to look towards building something that could tame the skys or the sea. Another think worth mentioning, they would most likely lack the world wide global communications we have setup, but its possible they would have a diffrent form of communicating of which we do not understand.

Next, i have noticed we are forgetting to look towards religious texts, as much as they have been altered over the years, the basics still remain the same. The bible refers to the great flood where it was supposed to wipe out practically the whole worlds population. There are many stories in the bible that are acurate to new archological discoveries.

Belive it or not though, if you want to know more about the history of North and mainly South America, look to the Books of Mormon. (yes the Mormon's 2nd bible to so to speak). Now we are not here to discuss the legtimacy of the book, but keep an open and mind and just play along for now that it could be true. It talks about how a group of people left egypt and sailed to what would be south america. 3 groups infact, the nephites, lamenites(im not very sure this is the correct name, since im a bit rusty on my church knowledge), and jaredites(jaredites came over a couple of hundred years before the other two groups did and by the time the other two groups arrived, jaredites had completely obliterated themselves) The Nephites and other group had 1000's of years of wars against each other. Recent discovers in south America have shown that there wasnt alot of civs before the Aztecs and Mayans so forth, but only 2 civs. Intresting that modern archeology would point to two civs in south america before the others evolved. Point is, no one really knows what time periods the bible and other relegious texts took place.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 04:14 AM
link   
In my opinion, the Mormon book is as valid as Scientology. As in, not at all.



posted on Mar, 30 2008 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
In my opinion, the Mormon book is as valid as Scientology. As in, not at all.

hehe, i did say play along as if it were true.
I just thought it was intresting that history is being discovered that is closely related to the bible and other religious texts.



new topics




 
15
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join