It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


mans history

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 06:06 PM
I have an interesting theory on mankinds past. It is my theory that there have been several incarnations of man on this planet, and for the most part each time civilization across the planet is distroyed.
We currently think the earth is about 4.5 billion years old

Man is currently assumed to have been around only thousands or tens of thousands of years.

Now how long would signs of our current civilization last without us to keep it up. Thousands, tens of thousands before all or most evidence of us is gone. So in hundreds of thousands or millions of years nothing. Now from primitive man leftover or evolved from other life, civilizations starts again. It grows advances to high technology and distroy's itself again.

Give us some possible signs-ok, there is a city in India that is very old. When it was discovered, they found that sand in the city was turned to glass-very high heat, and still traces of radiation also.

There is one of my personal pet theories about the three largest pyrimads and sphnix in Egypt. The errosion on the sphinx is from water, wind errision looks and acts differently. Then there is the head which is completly out of proportion to the body. I think ancient Egyptions found these objects-a remnent of a previous civilization and clamed it as their's. By the time they reshaped the head to be one of their rulers, it was much smaller than orginally.

There have been many crystal skulls found, we don't know who made them, but we know (by looking at them with microscopes) that they are perfectly smooth-even with our best equipment there would be some sign under the microscope.

These are just some examples to support my theory.

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 06:41 PM
I have a thoery that we are the newest civilzation(for lack of better word) in this series of events, man has been the same for 150,000 years isn't it possible that a more advanced civilization could have been around then been destroyed in that time. think of it this way. . . do you think the USA or any country will still be around in 25,000 years. although there are fossils but this race could have been wiped off the planet some how (my theory is still in its infancy lol)

hope this porovokes some thoughts

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 07:01 PM
Humanity is another expression of the activity of life in our capacity in this world.

Catastrophic events are usually not global in affect unless augmented by concious direction.

Recorded human history points the rise and fall of great civilizations like the swing of a pendulum.

Could it be we decline as a result of our moving out of our place in the world, in an attempt to become more than we are designed for?

Can we better the efforts of billions of years of genetic adaptation and unfolding?

Are megaliths the last marks of an ancient civilization's death throws, or keys to a future passed on by those that succeeded - their final footprints left for all time before stepping off from this world to spread the information of life in distant realms of expression?

There are footprints of homosapiens alongside those of dinosaurs, mud now cast in stone, who can say how long humans have walked this planet?

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 10:12 PM
HERE'S another theory for you, from the man who won the Nobel Prize for mapping the DNA code. He says that DNA was brought to earth in a space ship.

posted on Jun, 15 2004 @ 11:12 PM
I find that very interesting, thanks for the link. I always find it hard to understand a hardcore scientist who is religious (nothing wrong with religious people) it just seems to conterdict being a scientist.

[edit on 16-6-2004 by mrmonsoon]

posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 10:10 PM
you have an interesting theory there mrmonsoon, and I have to ask you; have you ever read the book "Genesis Unveiled" by Ian Lawton?
Many of his theories and beliefs about the origin of man deal with the things that you mention. I will say, that I believe that I don't think that Homo Sapiens have been on the earth for much longer, if ANY longer than is currently accepted. However, I do not think that our ancient ancestors were simple hunter-gatherers until around 6000 b.c. I will agree with your theory that there have been multiple catastrphes (i.e. floods, meteors, volcanoes and such) that have repeatedly brought homo sapiens to the brink of extinction. However, I do not think that out ancient ancestors were flying around in UFO's nuking deserts in the middle east of small villages in India.

However, one must remember that the last Ice Age could've demolished many ancient cities, landmarks, buildings, temples, burial grounds, and such. Some people also believe that prehaps long ago, the entore earths crust shifted, and would've obviously destroyed many, of not all signs of civilization from that time preiod and before. Also, as with everything else, I'm sure human bones only last so long before they turn to dust.

And yes the erosion on the pyramids does seem to be consistent with that of water erosion, prehaps due to a flood as I previousky mentioned...
I have also heard that the Shpinx did originally have a different face on it, but was later changed to the face of the pharaoh Cephren.

posted on Jun, 18 2004 @ 01:51 PM
Well, we keep finding things that are very old that "could not have been made by man at that time", maybe it's time to reevaluate our theories. I have not heard of or read that book.
I once read a sci-fi story that is close to this-basicly a world like earth, except everyone it scared to death of dark. Mentions just finding runes of previous civilizations that seemed to have tech about the same as them, then some disater wiped them out. It ends with something coming by in space, kills all their power and will block the sun for x years. There is then a sourse of light, but soon realized that people are burning anything to create light.

posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 12:18 AM

Originally posted by mrmonsoon

I find that very interesting, thanks for the link. I always find it hard to understand a hardcore scientist who is religious (nothing wrong with religious people) it just seems to conterdict being a scientist.

[edit on 16-6-2004 by mrmonsoon]

I believe that they view science as the medium through which god has chosen to work. Michio Kaku's book Hyperspace gave me the impression that he believes in a God who rules the world through control of physics (either which he created or which he simply controls).
When a "hardcore" scientist is religious, you can generally expect that he will either believe that God has invented physics for a reason, and uses them exclusively in all of his miracles and everything else, OR that God is just a scientist from a higher dimension who created our world in his spare time.

posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 02:23 PM
I guess I never thought about it that way. I have always seen science and religion as oposite sides of the coin.

new topics

top topics


log in