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.
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
Where do YOU think civilization started?
if evolution is right, what were homo sapiens doing for all those years before the rise of civilization?
Originally posted by The Vagabond
The Carbon 14 hoax has made a huge mess of archaeology.
It's bad enough that we're finding Homo sapiens 3 miles beneath the surface of the Earth, but if you're creative enough you'll get past that.
But when you know those remains are only 50,000 years old or less, and yet you get a date of over 12 million, there's really no telling where to go. Some say it means humans are really old. Others say it means nothing is really old. And neither side really knows how 3 miles worth of burial ever happened to something that is still intact. Shouldn't it be drilled up as oil after all that time? So anyway, dating Homo sapiens is ugly anyway, and I'm not automatically inclined to believe that anything is millions of years old.
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
Byrd -
Yes, I am well aquainted with anthropology, including college material. However, current anthropology works on some big, unfounded assumptions. The largest is that the rise of civilization to modern times was (by and large) a straight trip up.
As a point though, it is not good ettiquite to assume someone to be uneducated and in need of education. You do it all the time, and, to be honest, its rather offensive. To ask if I have studied, thats cool. To say hey, get an education, when i have one, that's not so cool.
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
While I am not sure what specific examples vagabond is referring to, he does have a valid point. Carbon 14 dating, sediment dating, etc, all works well if the overall models of several areas of science hold true.
But if there is an error in geology as to how long certain geological processes take, or a wrong assumption concerning, as vagabond mention, past placement and movement of the earth's crust, or if there have been errors concerning the amount and frequency of radiation is the past, then all of the current dating method go arwy, because while they are all based on seperate sciences, they are cross-calibrated. The only truly concrete dates are those concerning times that are already recorded in known history. Before that, there are definate questions. It doesnt meant those method are wrong, but it does mean that they can be validly questioned. If someone can propose a model that is based on solid fact, but that does not line up with dates using current dating methods, yet can account for those discrepencies through possible method errors, it is certainly a plausible model acceptable for further research.
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
By saying a "straight trip up" I was referring to the assumption that the traits of civilization - society, art, science, etc - Are treated largely like say...a ladder.
Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
Byrd -
Yes, I am well aquainted with anthropology, including college material.
Originally posted by The Vagabond
I wouldn't call him ignorant under any circumstances. I don't understand the value of making an unsupported claim that Byrd (or anyone for that matter) must be a liar or an ignoramus, but that seems to be what you're doing.
I have trouble with the statement " the farther back we go, the less sophisticated people are"
In studying ancient peoples, there pops up again and again the question of how they were able to discover and invent, what we need computers for today; the mayan calculated star and planet movements, backwards in time over 500,000 years. The Mayan also calculated lunar eclipses, on the other side of the earth no less, for the next 1500 years. There is no explanation any astonomer i talked with could give me. we simply do not know.