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.
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.
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]
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?
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?
Originally posted by merka
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.
Originally posted by punkinworks
reply to post by Hanslune
Ok, you've convinced me on the gemstones.
But most people VASTLEY underestimate the destruction that a full scale nuclear war would cause.
The WWII era weapons were lady finger fire crackers compared to the modern weapons, in some cases thousands of times the yield of the nagasaki and hiroshima weapons.
And there wouldnt have been only one per city but dozens in some cases, air bursts first to maximize the heat and blast, then ground bursts to dig out any survivors and to just cause the most physical destruction.
But even if such a fate did befall any sociecty it would still leave behind un-mistakeable traces for millions of years, the glass fields, radiation, and the twisted wreckage of a thousand cities.
Given enough time though nature will erase even those things we deem indestructable.
A few cycles of glaciation willbury or grind up and wash into the sea most anything we can construct.
Originally posted by masonicon
We must tell MythBusters to test the myth where the Radiocarbon dating is inaccurate!.