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.

 

Some things to consider.

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
So, I'm pretty new here. If you've been following anything I've written you'll see I'm definitely a skeptic. But I am here for a reason, and it isn't just to shoot down everybody's ideas. So I'm making this thread to hopefully keep track of a few things that keep my mind open about lost civilizations...

1. The age of the Earth - Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Relatively young for a planet - there are probably tens of billions of planets in our galaxy that have been around much longer than that. I don't think this fact proves anything, or even suggests anything. But it definitely means we can't just out of hand dismiss the possibility that there are, somewhere out there, civilizations that might be billions of years more advanced culturally and technologically than we are. Earth's history is also punctuated by more than a few biological "reset" events - asteroid impacts and the like that would effectively wipe out any intelligent or civilized life on our planet, putting our species at even more of a disadvantage in terms of the time we've had to develop. I think it's unconscionably conceited to think that we are necessarily nature's most grand achievement to date.

2. Archaeology is a fairly young science. It's tempting to trust every conclusion that archaeologists have come to. But archaeology is a science, and proper science always makes very conservative judgments. I'm sure archaeologists are right about a great many things, but we shouldn't just take this week's determinations in that field and assume they are absolute natural laws. The great majority of our planet has, so far, never been developed by human civilization, much less excavated and studied.

3. Ancient stone structures. At first it seems primitive - why build gigantic monoliths out of rock? Our own society builds large structures with steel and glass. But stone has the unique property of being able to survive very long periods of time without maintenance, against all kinds of elements - even being buried beneath the ocean. If I were an advanced society that knew something awful was going to happen and wanted to leave something behind for future generations, I would leave it in the form of enormous, stone buildings. Of course, this doesn't mean that this is why megalithic buildings were constructed, it's just something to keep in mind.

4. Concerning how ridiculous it seems to hear claims of ancient aliens, we should remember that it's no more or less ridiculous than the idea of gods and angels. Is it not at least a little bit curious that nearly all cultures gods came from or live in the sky? If humans developed religion strictly on our own terms, why would we not choose the sea or the mountains or coconuts or something else? All of those things are represented, sure, but not nearly as ubiquitously as the stars.

Maybe I suffer from an internal desire to believe some of this stuff. But it does seem a little weird, at the very least.




posted on May, 12 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
These are the points I've been presenting for years. I'm glad rationality is starting to shine through the other drivel you encounter on this site.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by vexati0n
 


Some nice points here. I like when someone can admit that they are a skeptic but also stay open minded about things. Its s refreshing change to see

edit on 02/02/1987 by clintdelicious because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Another question about ancient cultures and the sky: why were so many ancient societies obsessed with the stars? They went quite far beyond the level necessary for decent waterway navigation and keeping track of the seasons. Sometimes everything about their way of life was dictated by the movements of heavenly bodies. You'd think primitive people would have much more pressing concerns than the stars, but everywhere they are fixated on them, even when they had no navies to speak of or weren't all that concerned with agriculture. Just seems weird to me that they wouldn't base their religions on something ostensibly more important, like running away from tigers or something.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by vexati0n
 



I think it's unconscionably conceited to think that we are necessarily nature's most grand achievement to date.


I guess this is in the eye of the beholder; ants, sharks and whatever else can be thought of as grand achievements for nature. Humanity might not be the greatest achievement, but we are the most distinctive species for being instrumental in adapting the environment to our own needs. Has any other known species had the potential to cause the extinction of so many others...or leave the Earth?




2. Archaeology is a fairly young science. It's tempting to trust every conclusion that archaeologists have come to. But archaeology is a science, and proper science always makes very conservative judgments. I'm sure archaeologists are right about a great many things, but we shouldn't just take this week's determinations in that field and assume they are absolute natural laws. The great majority of our planet has, so far, never been developed by human civilization, much less excavated and studied.


These are fairly reasonable points, but we shouldn't overlook how archaeology is connected to all the other sciences too. For example, it isn't archaeology that has determined that life began in the oceans so many millions of years ago. When the oceans began to teem with life it altered the atmosphere of the planet. The chemical signatures in coal and oil fields aren't dependent on the conclusions of archaeologists or the atmospheric snapshots captured in ice-cores. The fossils that represent sign-posts of life's evolutionary history are likewise subject to multi-disciplinary analyses that generate a rough idea of the time-lines involved.




Ancient stone structures. At first it seems primitive - why build gigantic monoliths out of rock?


Put simply, they didn't have many other materials to work with. Stone and bone tools were used to create stone and rock monuments. Earthworks don't survive the environment as well so it's the megaliths that remain with us.




Concerning how ridiculous it seems to hear claims of ancient aliens, we should remember that it's no more or less ridiculous than the idea of gods and angels. Is it not at least a little bit curious that nearly all cultures gods came from or live in the sky? If humans developed religion strictly on our own terms, why would we not choose the sea or the mountains or coconuts or something else? All of those things are represented, sure, but not nearly as ubiquitously as the stars.


The history of human beliefs includes gods from just about every object and location conceivable to our imagination. We've believed in spirits, gods and entities from earth, water, fire, air and skies. If we imagine life thousands of years ago, the skies would represent a huge part of life. Weather, sun, moon and the motion of stars would be observed every day and night. It's in our nature to look for patterns and to attempt to systematise nature.

If you think about it, it would be much stranger if humanity didn't have a fascination with the stars. With some 7 billion people on Earth right now...how many millions are looking at the stars as you read this? The night sky is beautiful, mysterious and very fascinating.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by vexati0n
Another question about ancient cultures and the sky: why were so many ancient societies obsessed with the stars? They went quite far beyond the level necessary for decent waterway navigation and keeping track of the seasons. Sometimes everything about their way of life was dictated by the movements of heavenly bodies. You'd think primitive people would have much more pressing concerns than the stars, but everywhere they are fixated on them, even when they had no navies to speak of or weren't all that concerned with agriculture. Just seems weird to me that they wouldn't base their religions on something ostensibly more important, like running away from tigers or something.


One of the things that the ancients may have considered is that Gods are unattainable unless they want to be, so you specify locations for them to live which are unattainable to humans, whether it be beneath the seas or oceans, or in the sky, these are places that man can not go to find them.

The ancients liked to associate different things with a purpose, and it usually involved also being assigned a god or spirit.

Tremendous downpours that kept the land covered in water and made it harder for them to do gardening, and even impaired hunting, would be given a supernatural entity, and since the rain falls from the sky, that must be where the God or spirit lives that controls the rain, and the same would go for the Gods of thunder, lightning, snow, wind, and etc. Eventually since so many came associated with the sky, even ones who controlled earthly things might be placed in the sky for a home as well.

Just a few thoughts to chew on.
edit on 5/16/2011 by AlienCarnage because: Clarification



new topics

top topics
 
4

log in

join