Have we done this all Before and Before and Before...?

reply to post by littlebunny


thats really intriguing there littlebunny now i can tell them a littlebunny told me and it be literal!

anyway what else you got explain that last part...got anything for this 4 6 3 8 a l g m o r 2 4 y x 24 89 r p s t o v a l?

reply to post by UberL33t


well for starters - there is no credible evidence of any alleged " ancient civilization " using uranium / plutoniom fissile technology for energy plants or weapons

yes i know there are several claims - but the evidence is , to put it bluntly - laughable

The answer is *probably* not.

There's no evidence to support the idea of previous ancient civilizations from prehistory. In fact, one of the reasons we consider it is because we struggle to comprehend such a vast timescale and the evolution that led to the current inhabitants of this blue planet.

According to the best evidence the Earth was geologically hyperactive in its earliest development. Far too hostile for any life as we know it to evolve...and right on the doorstep of abiogenesis. The evidence that Earth went through this period of molten plasticity and poisonous atmosphere is to be found in the rock strata beneath out feet and in the tectonic plates that are pushing up mountain ranges ever since. Metamorphic and igneous rocks underly sedimentary layers.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6ea2085b12f3.gif[/atsimg]

Life began during the PreCambrian

This interval represents more than 80% of the geologic record and thus provides important evidence of how the continents evolved. The Precambrian is divided into the Archean and Proterozoic eons, with the boundary between them at 2.5 billion years ago. It was originally defined as the era that predated the emergence of life in the Cambrian Period. It is now known, however, that life on Earth had begun by the early pre Cambrian.

So for 80% of Earth's history there was little or no life. 3.5 billion years ago, the first evidence of life begins to show up in the fossil record. Protokaryotes..single-celled critters with no cell nucleus. Eukaryotes followed up to a billion years later. All very dull and spanning a vast period of time! The spread of life affected the atmosphere of Earth and began to create an environment and atmosphere more suited to life as we know it. Millions of years of photosynthesis pumped oxygen into an atmosphere that previously had little or none.

The Cambrian Explosion is when it all kicked off. This is the period when the Earth's seas became a teeming mass of evolving life. Recognisable life forms began to appear...critters that have features we can identify today. This had a massive effect on the environment and atmosphere. The changes are recorded in the fossil record. The atmospheric changes are recorded in ice-core samples and geology. These can be dated and cross-referenced against other analyses to present a time line of life's evolution. It ended around 480million years ago and still the Earth was probably devoid of life.

To the best of our knowledge, it took 4 billion years to get to crustaceans. The following 500 million years has led up to us. The fossil record leads us dimly through these vast time spans. It's a familiar story and I won't go into detail. Fish to amphibian. Natural selection, speciation and specialization across a backdrop of ice ages, land mass migration. The rise and fall of dinosaurs and the tons of fossils that remain. The rise of mammals, smaller reptiles, diversity of insects etc.

The common ancestor of the primates had been evolving and diversifying since the late days of the dinosaurs. Some 60 million years ago the first recognisable primate fossils are laid down.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3fe0ab152d2d.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/13b6cf288ea9.jpg[/atsimg]

The idea that humans have evolved and then disappeared to evolve again. That we have had cataclysms that killed us off or world floods that made us largely extinct? There's no evidence to support it. Sure, there are gaps in our knowledge...huge voids and the fossil record isn't a finished tapestry. What we DO know is well accounted for by evidence...

This is probably one of the very few threads that i undoubtedly completely agree with 100%.
There is soo much evidence that tells us that there has been many advanced civilizations on this planet throughout its history.
What they have tought us in history books are lies and the proof is out there(you just have to look where they dont want you to) .


You should try reading this book written by Maxwell Igan called Earths Forbidden Secrets its non profit which is why i believe it to be legit.

Heres a link to his website:
www.TheCrowHouse.com

Heres a link to the book Earths Forbidden Secrets:
Earths Forbidden Secrets.

I would recommend learning more about evolution. There is simply not enough time for life of our intelligence to evolve many times. Evolution is an extremely slow process. Mammals have only been around for 200 million years! Animals have been on land for only about 400 million years! There was over a billion years of single celled organisms. OP's logic if flawed in my personal opinion. Maybe all of you posting in support don't believe in evolution and modern science?

I was just discussing this thread with my 13 year old son and he raised a very valid point. He wondered why, if our civilisation has arisen to an advanced state many times over, then why have we not completely exhausted our natural resources by now?

reply to post by Kandinsky


I can't say if there wer countless civilizations before ours.
There is no reason to say there has been.

We can learn a lot from science, but a we are always limited to what the earth has left us with.
This reality means we will probably never learn to see a complete picture.

However, our current history starts at a point where there is already a civilisation at it's peak. With knowledge where we do not have a good understanding of how they got it.

Along with structures small and in city like formations on the ocean floor.
An ocean floor what could very well was dry land sometime in the past.

A civilisation needs time to grow and evolve one step at the time.
And Humans were a lot longer walking the earth as our 6000 years of written history.
The opportunity for previous civilisations to start and be completely destroyed is a really possible possibility IMO.



[edit on 14/2/10 by Sinter Klaas]

Interesting thread, S&F. I, like many believe we have gone through this cycle many times, but the more questions answered, the more questions to answer.

I think their must be evidence somewhere that points to advanced human/humanoids in the earths history. I bet some evidence lies in the vatican vaults, never to appear and cast doubt on the religion.

I also wonder if the wars in Iraq and Afganistan are also about finding a known hidden artifact or artifacts that will without doubt prove our existance many millions of years ago. Whether we see it, now thats another question....or, maybe finding it or them will be the spark that starts a one world religion.

Interesting.


Respects

Originally posted by azhure heart
I was just discussing this thread with my 13 year old son and he raised a very valid point. He wondered why, if our civilisation has arisen to an advanced state many times over, then why have we not completely exhausted our natural resources by now?

Its all renewable, advanced doesn't mean they needed to use oil (which is renewable just takes a long time). even simple wood is a simple source of energy and if the previous population wasn't near ours, that could be all they need. water and solar are being used now. mayb they were better than us and figured out an even better source we don't know about.

but mayb they didn't even need any of that. I guess most places you need something to keep you warm, but besides that, what transfer of energy is really needed?

Good post,

Strange synchronism here, I have been thinking about this very subject the past few weeks.

I believe it's all cyclic, civilizations have progressed in an upward fashion (if you can imagine a line graph), peaking at a certain point where they have advanced technology and understanding and then through some kind of friction (war, natural disasters) mankind is brought into a renaissance and comes crashing back to to a pre-technology era.

If you visualize it all as being cyclic it makes sense, explains a lot of the archaeological findings that are being unearthed and goes about to some degree, to explain what might happen around 2012 (or just after).

I think this current age of civilization is no different to the past ones, difference being our technology is present in a different form to the past but not any lesser or greater.

This leads me to believe that we are reaching a climactic point and we will enter another renaissance period whether it's through an act of war or some natural event (or both).

Originally posted by azhure heart
I was just discussing this thread with my 13 year old son and he raised a very valid point. He wondered why, if our civilisation has arisen to an advanced state many times over, then why have we not completely exhausted our natural resources by now?

He has a point but remember we are lacking in the case of 'technological advancement'. if we gave the exact same timeline of the current human civlization the other civilization would be anywhere from 100 to 1000 years ahead of us technologically. Not to offend christians but because of the followers of the anointed we were sent into a technological dark age.
Under that assumption we can say that we would of surpassed the current usable resources hundreds of years ago therefore not consuming as much as we have so far.

You have to remember not to use the pretense of the status quo when talking about other civilizations and possibly 'E.T' races. we have a lacking progression of technology, it has been confirmed by many. It is based upon greed, we will only research and explore profitable sciences and with that companies and governments will hold back technology because its not profitable enough or a product has not been out long enough.

you must also take into account the family tree they came from and racial or societal temperament. just saying.. saying.


Be well,

Khounur


P.S. sorry for spelling or grammar errors.

EDIT: had to add a sentance

[edit on 14-2-2010 by Khounur]

I am surprised no one has mentioned Sitchen's books. The idea that we were made here by someone who traveled here from else where completely tilts the evolutionary scale. That the ancients that built here before us came from the stars, the heavens, those that came down from heaven. The history's all point to this conclusion.
You are correct when you state that the proof would be found at Rome. That is if they haven't destroyed it all together. That is the single most crime ever in the history of man, destroying our past for there own selfish advancement and greed.
Just my opinion

Uberl33t, your arithmetic is correct, but I believe you have overlooked one basic assumption: it didn’t take 20,000 years for our civilization to be as advanced as it is now; it was more like six million years, because that’s how long it took our first simian “concestor” to get to the point where we could even consider reaching an evolutionary point where we could develop a civilization in the first place.

If you’re familiar with the work of Richard Dawkins (probably the world’s pre-eminent evolutionary biologist), you’d notice that it takes millions of years to evolve to a life-form where the ratio of cerebral cavity-to-body mass (i.e., big-brained) is high enough for “civilization” (at least the way we recognize it) to be possible.

The fossil record, incomplete as it might be, shows many instances of animals evolving in specialized ways, including growing and shrinking in size, developing armor, losing armor for increased speed, developing and losing color and stereoscopic vision, increasing the efficiency of the cardiovascular system (e.g., compare two- , three- ,and four-chambered hearts), and many others.

Yet nowhere in this record do we see any animal evolving larger and larger brains for mentation and (putatively) development of civilization -- except for a time in north Africa where Australopithecus afarensis or one of its cousins started on an evolutionary walk that led to us.

reply to post by old_god


I'm not aware of any evidence at all which points to a lost technological civilization in our past.

Of course, advancements tend to ebb and flow a bit; our culture (at least in the West) was less "advanced' between 700 and 1400 AD than we were during Greek and Roman ascendancy of 400 BC - 400 AD.

And certainly there were engineering feats in classical times, such as Imhotep's design and project management techniques with the pyramids, the development of the Greek antikythera machine, the "Baghdad battery", etc. that showed tremendous flashes of brilliance.

But this certainly isn't evidence of a cyclical advance and decline of technological civilizations, it's just another example of the fact that ancient people, although lacking a overarching level of technology, were quite capable of flashes of genius.

Great thread, OP

This is what keeps me coming back!

You have motivated me to get off my butt and finally go discover & explore Glenn Rose, TX, I live close to there.

reply to post by UberL33t


Excellent post!

I think it is very possible as well that there have been earlier civilizatios ose technology/knowhow may surpass what we have today.

From what I understand it doesn't take very long for the earth to "gobble up" evidence of human settlements. I think that for longevity sakes we need to stop printing books and start carving our stories in stone, lol!

It's neat to think that not only could there have been earlier civilizations of people but that it's even possible that there have been civilizations made up of other creatures. I can't comment on the veracity of this story but I've read (likely on this forum lol) that the inhabitants of Lemuria were in Reptillian in nature.

im sure of it.

for like 5000 years.. maby ALOT more.. but "yey"soon 2012 we will all be free \ or dead :S

How do scientists know how old the earth is when soil is dated by fossils and fossils are dated by the soil they are found in there are huge things wrong with their finding hence why there are so may descrepencies in all the data collected.

Also about the amount of earths we have had from other things i have read there is belief that we do move on through the cycles so we have had four previously now we will make it through the fifth but not unscathed.

Also with the other person who wrote what scientists believe how old our earth is, scientists can't sure about anything they are just coming up with some idea that they come up with as a collective then when new evidence contradicts it's put it to the side. This is wrong but this is how it is done I for one do not believe that we came from evolution as it is just a crock and hopefully one day we will find the truth.

We have past this way before and the best kept secret is right in the open for

the world to see. It is not what and where you think there are millions and even

billions of years of information stored for we humans of this time frame to

decipher. This is but the tip of the iceberg. ^Y^

www.biblebelievers.org.au...

reply to post by vkturbo

How do scientists know how old the earth is when soil is dated by fossils and fossils are dated by the soil they are found in there are huge things wrong with their finding hence why there are so may descrepencies in all the data collected.

Scientists from many fields use a variety of dating methods...

Potassium-argon dating

Optical Dating (luminescent)

Carbon Dating

Ice Core Samples

Fossil Diatoms

Fossil Sequential Dating

Erosion Rates

There are more, but I think these make the point. None of them are 100& accurate. All have a margin of error. When combined and/or cross-referenced they provide fairly good results.