There is other amazing examples of how they like many have speculated with tthe egyptians that they older work is more advanced than the later period work.

Not exactly correct, the Egyptian went thru well documented building phases from wood, to mud brick, to stone (often cutting the stone to look like the wood it was replaying. ) to massive use of stone, to less use of stone, facing stone on mud brick, mud brick, during that time of course they continued to build some all stone buildings but their appears to have been lesser dependence on it. Later in the Greek and Roman periods a revival of more extensive stone working (doing this from memory).

Incan went from crude working up to great stuff but the majority of it wasn't as good as their best.

One of the greatest things I love about this topic is the assumption that advanced equates to our destructive culture and technology.

One common theme we've seen throughout our civilizations advancement, is the use of readily available materials for building. Stone, dirt, and wood. These things don't last forever, certainly not as any recognizable structure at an age of 50000 yrs old. Any number of events would easily erase even a tall temple structure in that amount of time.


Plastics made from starch would have degraded by now. Blimps or hot air balloons made from wood and cloth would no longer be around. Most metal tools would have disintigrated. Basic electricity generator would no longer exist.

Back then, there weren't as many humans alive as we see today. A small society of 20,000 people could easily be lost. The society and culture we live in today is based on greed due to so many people living so close to one another. With 6.7billion people and less land going around, it isn't surprising that we have greed and war. Back then could have been different and so wouldn't have needed to develop new technologies to kill one another.

They could have had better medicines made directly from the plants around them rather than through synthesized chemicals in which we don't know the long term effects of. Good medicine, hygiene, and a proper diet could have extended their lives to such a length that primitive people around them would consider them gods. Then one day, poof, they're gone, but the gods gift of knowledge gets written in mythology and long forgotten.

We use steel, wood, and concrete, not because it's better than stone and dirt, but because we can centralize it easier and control it easier and profit off it easier. Building codes are a new thing developed specifically for these materials. A house made of cob or adobe wouldn't need building permits or codes. The material is right there already at the building site.

The idea that it took us 500,000 yrs to become technologically advanced in only the last 100 yrs is ridiculous. They weren't primitive or dumb, they were us as we are now. We put faith in our children to develop and learn new things as they age on their own, why can't we assume the same for a child 50,000 yrs ago?

Astronomy, agriculture, irrigation, city planning, these are all simple things that anyone can figure out on their own. Even a group of people 50000 yrs ago. Just because their culture wasn't based on greed like ours, and never needed the need to develop weapons and technology to kill or spy on one another, doesn't mean they couldn't have existed.

All it would take is a flash flood to wipe them out, and then an oral tradition is born from the few remaining survivors about a great deluge that ended the world...

Well said.

The absence of proof is not the proof of absence.

If there advanced civilisations on this planet that were submerged we would not know about it. Anyway new evidence pointed out by Hancock un his "Underworld" clearly shows there were civilisations before 10,000 years ago and these were submerged.

The earth climate is so unstable and predictable that it regularly undergoes cataclysmic periods - ice ages, floods, earthquakes, struck by meteorites, tectonic shifts. We saw how just one South East Asian Tsunami in just a few hours was able to submerge entire land masses. Note how our skyscrapers become a pile of rubble so easily in 9/11. If nobody has seen WTC or heard about it, would they even know it ever existed there? It would only take a few thousand years for all signs of civilisation to erode.

So basically the objection that there is no proof of advanced civilisations therefore there weren't any is invalid. There is simply no way of knowing for sure. Personally I think there were because the ancient knowledge was more advanced than our own knowledge and various anomolies like the Baghdad battery, the planetary machine, the Iron pillar, the texts describing constructions of aeroplanes all point to a culture with advanced knowledge.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
So basically the objection that there is no proof of advanced civilisations therefore there weren't any is invalid. There is simply no way of knowing for sure. Personally I think there were because the ancient knowledge was more advanced than our own knowledge and various anomolies like the Baghdad battery, the planetary machine, the Iron pillar, the texts describing constructions of aeroplanes all point to a culture with advanced knowledge.
[edit on 19-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Not necessarily more advanced than ours. But advanced nonetheless in their own right. They most likely had no need to develop nuclear weapons, or nuclear reactors, or even cars. Simple things like hot air balloons or blimps, and even electricity could have been figured out easily by a society of thinkers trying to learn the wonders of the world around them.

Our culture is on the wrong path imo. We learned to destroy each other, to rape the planet, and destroy our environment. I would hardly equate such a society as advanced. Sure, we can build amazing tools to destroy more and more, but those tools are born from greed and not need. The advanced culture of the past I envision wouldn't have these same tools, they wouldn't need them. We don't even need them today. We're just too greedy to care.

We don't need to mine the earth to make metal tools to survive. Everything we need, we have right under our feet and surrounding us. We can still attain flight or build cities, have flushing toilets and good sanitary practices. What we don't need is overpopulation, or pollution, or wasteful usage of resources.

The advanced society from the past was more in tune with the natural order of things. Held more importance on learning to be in harmony with his surroundings, more respectful of it. This is why we can't find it, they didn't develop giant metal planes or oil rigs in the oceans. They knew they had everything they could ever want and need, and they were thankful for it. I wish it were still that way today. Life would be so much more easier.

There is this view that an advanced spiritual society does not need technology. I do not think this is a valid view to be honest. An advanced spiritual needs transport, materials, tools, weapons, machines as much as a non-spiritual society does. Why would an advanced spiritual society not want vehicles to travel over long distances? If they relied on horseriding it would be a very slow, cumbersome and inefficient means of travel, so the need arises for more efficient and faster means of travel, and that is where technology comes in. A spiritually advanced society would be well-aware of problems like ineffiency, speed etc.

Likewise consider things like medicine. A spiritually advanced race would be well aware of problems like disease, germs and viruses, injuries and birth problems. So they will develop tools to do so say a surgey. The first tools will be obviously primitive and thus the need will arise for more advanced tools.

So basically technology is a part of the evolutionary process and not just a cultural choice. A spiritually advanced society should be also be technologically advanced.

[edit on 19-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by sirnex
The idea that it took us 500,000 yrs to become technologically advanced in only the last 100 yrs is ridiculous. They weren't primitive or dumb, they were us as we are now. We put faith in our children to develop and learn new things as they age on their own, why can't we assume the same for a child 50,000 yrs ago?

Eh? You're missing a key component there, with the kids. We dont put faith in our children to develop and learn new things on their own: we put them in school. And high school of course. And then college. And then maybe university. In fact, if a human 50,000 years ago would spend the same time learning as we do, they'd sit in school half their life (or more). Or rather, they'd all be dead of starvation because they didnt have the time to hunt for food.

So no, I wouldnt personally assume the same for a child 50,000 years ago unless he had a private teacher and a microwave oven in his cave.

Originally posted by sirnex
So what higher forms of education were there that lead to the advances in agriculture, irrigation, masonry, pottery, etc in ancient times? They didn't have such a rigid educational structure like we have today. There were no k-12 schools, no community colleges, or universities. What classes did the ancient egyptians take to learn howto construct a pyramid? What classes did the children of ancient greece need to come up with the antikythera mechanism? What classes were needed to design the baghdad battery?

You're absolutely right, and there you stumble on reason WHY it has taken this long to get to this point.

When you cant learn things right away, it takes time to learn it. 2000 years or 200 years, irrelevant. Some day people will just have the bright idea to do something, either because they need to or because they stumble upon it. The Egyptians didnt take classes to learn how to build a pyramid, they spent many lifetimes. Hundreds of years, passing the knowledge down the line.

Because that's really the reason for most of our technology, you see. The time it takes to do things. And the technology increases exponentially so we can get more time because we never seem to get enough. The ancients took a very, very long time to do things because they didnt feel the pressure we do, for some reason.

probably i reckon. but i think the reason we havent found the hard evidence/traces (i.e. a ufo or advanced tech device) that everyones waiting for is becuz intelligence agencies have got any that have been dug up and are keeping it under wraps. just my opinion, from reading a lot of stuff.

Same reason the new chamber in the great pyramid was never publicised/announced. this was a major discovery. totally silenced (they admitted there was a door, but maintained there was nothing behind it, so no point opening it. even tho japanese scientists had located many 'cavities' in the pyramid in a previous study.); in my opinion. hancock talks about it in his books.

What if, before the dinosours and everything else we know of, there was an advanced civilization? This entire world may have been inhabited by intelligent life, advanced way beyond our technologies, and they saw a giant asteriod coming or something of that nature ( destructive, as in all of civilization) and they found a way to leave? Or all were killed and it has been so long ago that we have never discovered their bodies as they would lie beneath those of the dinosours and what ever else may have come before those.

The biggest evidence against the possiblity of a past civilization is the lack of exploiting the earths iron deposits.
These iron deposits are world wide and are uniformly deposited.
If any civilization had been before us they would have had to use the iron in the progression through the various stages of development.
During ww2 the US used up all of its deposits of hematite, the best grade of iron ore.
The exploitation of these ores leaves unmistakable marks on the earth.
That ore cannot be replaced ever, as it was created during the creation of the earth.

We must tell MythBusters to test the myth where the Radiocarbon dating is inaccurate!.

Originally posted by masonicon
We must tell MythBusters to test the myth where the Radiocarbon dating is inaccurate!.

I'm a fan of mythduo but I'm not sure they could do more than what has already been done.

That is testing carbon rich subjects of known documented age and comparing it to the result from a machine test then calibrating using either tree rings or the other methods.

The myth of inaccuracy is one promoted by the creationist and young-earthers.