Who lived in North America originally?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay

Fascinating. Now from an objective viewpoint, the Book of Mormon is a product of the memory of Joseph Smith. He heard a lot of legends as a boy, European and Native. What fascinates me is his obvious exposure to legends of the previous civilization (moundbuilders),

My question is..have you ever read the Book of Mormon yourself? If not, how objective can you be? I'm assuming (dangerous to do) that you have not because your comments are not consistent with someone who has. When has Joseph Smith ever stated in his history that he knew abount the moundbuilders and that influenced his writing? I'm not quite sure how someone with a second-third grade education could get so many things right, archaeologically speaking.

He obviously did not have the internet or even some of the earliest books available (1828 McCauley's History of New York which came out one year after Joseph Smith received the record to translate) on the subject. Maybe, he did know about the ruins and asked himself the same question that was posed here...Where did they come from? That does not mean that his account of where he got the record from is any less truthful.

The point I was making is that there very well could be another logical answer as to how they got here and why. I could talk with you all day long about our teachings and the other things you mentioned but, that won't get us anywhere on this subject.

Question: if these legends have a basis in fact- who were these technological visitors? Our ancestors? Time travellers from the future? Or aliens?

[edit on 9-11-2004 by Chakotay]


Is it not highly possible that maybe we were just divinely created by a loving Father in Heaven who sent His Son Jesus Christ to atone for the sins of the world? That he scattered his children abroad in the world because of their wickedness (Tower of Babel, Scattering of Israel) and then sent prophets to teach and hopefully reclaim his children? That those who were on this continent were taught about God just like other civilizations had been? Much evidence unearthed (Dead Sea Scrolls, Naghamadi, The Book of Enoch, etc.) has given us insights into lost civilizations that teach the same things we do.........hmmmm

Science, proves there is a God! How can anyone watch a cell divide and not know that it takes a power higher than itself to cause this to do it. Man thinks that he has control over the universe but he doesn't. If that were true why is it that we still have death? Surely, man and all of his wisdom in science could defy death permenately. Why have we not eraticated disease if man is so knowledgeable?

How can anyone look out into the expanse of heaven and not see that it takes a God to keep these things together. It is God's power that does these things. We can call it by our earthly knowledge of whatever scientific name you want, but it is a greater being than ourselves that makes it happen. In my opinion of the science that I study about the body, makes me know that there is nothing short of a Glorified Being who could do this.

Lastly, Anyone could try and take the Book of Mormon and try to disprove it archaeologically, many have tried and failed over the past century, but instead try to attack it as "creative writting" or "lies" It is more than that to millions of people around the world. It gives us answers to life's questions. I read these posts and people are confused about who they are, where did they come from and where will they go from here.

I have peace in this world because I know that I am a child of God and that I lived in heaven before I came to earth.....
I know that I am here to be tested and proven worthy to live with God again.....
I know that when I die that I will be resurrected and judged not only according to what I believed but what I did on this earth...Faith without works is dead.
Many people will say...what if your wrong.....well, if I'm wrong and "science" is right and we will just die....then I will corrupt in the ground and never be the wiser.
However, while on this earth if I lived Christ-like principles, then I left the world a better place because I had meaningful relationships, treated others as children of God, was moral to the best of my ability, and ultimately I was happy because I believed in God. How could this be bad?

So again, Where did they come from? Maybe the Book of Mormon has the answer.





posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 09:39 PM
link   
For the record: this quote by Pepper contains dialogue I did not write in Italics:


Originally posted by Pepper

Originally posted by Chakotay

Chakotay: Fascinating. Now from an objective viewpoint, the Book of Mormon is a product of the memory of Joseph Smith. He heard a lot of legends as a boy, European and Native. What fascinates me is his obvious exposure to legends of the previous civilization (moundbuilders),

Pepper: My question is..have you ever read the Book of Mormon yourself? If not, how objective can you be? I'm assuming (dangerous to do) that you have not because your comments are not consistent with someone who has. When has Joseph Smith ever stated in his history that he knew abount the moundbuilders and that influenced his writing? I'm not quite sure how someone with a second-third grade education could get so many things right, archaeologically speaking.

He obviously did not have the internet or even some of the earliest books available (1828 McCauley's History of New York which came out one year after Joseph Smith received the record to translate) on the subject. Maybe, he did know about the ruins and asked himself the same question that was posed here...Where did they come from? That does not mean that his account of where he got the record from is any less truthful.

The point I was making is that there very well could be another logical answer as to how they got here and why. I could talk with you all day long about our teachings and the other things you mentioned but, that won't get us anywhere on this subject.


Chakotay: Question: if these legends have a basis in fact- who were these technological visitors? Our ancestors? Time travellers from the future? Or aliens?

[edit on 9-11-2004 by Chakotay]


Yes, Pepper, I have read as much Mormon literature as I can get my hands on. I take it all with the same scientific skepticism that Byrd and I both apply to all legends and theories. I advise everyone to respect all viewpoints, listen to all sides, and keep an open mind until the proof is in. What you find helpful, use and pass on. There are gems of wisdom in the words of all people. With great respect for you and your beliefs, my comments are those of one who has read and continues to search for proof.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by Chakotay]



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Hi all,
Firstly I would like to say that I dont claim to be well informed as to the known history of North America, however, I am interested in Science of early man in all regions of the globe.
Ocupation may be a lot older than currently thought.I have a theory why there is scant evidence of this as there were many species that ate carrion as well as many predators. There is a site that explains why there might be a lack of rock art evidence but you would need to be better informed than I with the geological features of the region.
I quote Robert Bendarick, The worlds most published Arcchaelogical Author in History
"The ability of petroglyphs to survive in the open, i.e. exposed to precipitation, is governed largely by the rock they were made on. Those on limestone have a taphonomic threshold of well under 2000 years (Mandl 1996), while those on granite can easily survive from the Pleistocene, and recent dating evidence suggests that their threshold might be in the order of 30 000 or 50 000 years under some conditions (Bednarik 2001). Other relevant variables are climate and geochemistry. Taphonomic logic demands that rock art of the various types was produced before all of these thresholds, but evidence of it should be either unavailable or extremely rare. Occurrence and distribution, as well as various characteristics of surviving rock art are all determined by taphonomic factors. Therefore it would be meaningless to state that a particular tradition produced only deep line petroglyphs, or painted only in caves, or left no open-air engravings. All characteristics of rock art that might contribute to their longevity (e.g. depth, location, type of rock support, morphology of site, composition of paint) are of no relevance to defining a tradition, because taphonomy selects in favour of them. For instance, the probably most common technological form of petroglyph is the sgraffito, made by the removal of a patina or weathering zone to reveal a differently coloured surface beneath. Sgraffiti tend to be obliterated by repatination processes within two or three millennia, therefore it is pointless to observe that the earliest petroglyphs of a region are consistently those that are deeply engraved. This observation, while valid, leads to misinterpretation of the sequence, unless moderated by taphonomic logic.
The ability of petroglyphs to survive in the open, i.e. exposed to precipitation, is governed largely by the rock they were made on. Those on limestone have a taphonomic threshold of well under 2000 years (Mandl 1996), while those on granite can easily survive from the Pleistocene, and recent dating evidence suggests that their threshold might be in the order of 30 000 or 50 000 years under some conditions (Bednarik 2001). Other relevant variables are climate and geochemistry. Taphonomic logic demands that rock art of the various types was produced before all of these thresholds, but evidence of it should be either unavailable or extremely rare. Occurrence and distribution, as well as various characteristics of surviving rock art are all determined by taphonomic factors. Therefore it would be meaningless to state that a particular tradition produced only deep line petroglyphs, or painted only in caves, or left no open-air engravings. All characteristics of rock art that might contribute to their longevity (e.g. depth, location, type of rock support, morphology of site, composition of paint) are of no relevance to defining a tradition, because taphonomy selects in favour of them. For instance, the probably most common technological form of petroglyph is the sgraffito, made by the removal of a patina or weathering zone to reveal a differently coloured surface beneath. Sgraffiti tend to be obliterated by repatination processes within two or three millennia, therefore it is pointless to observe that the earliest petroglyphs of a region are consistently those that are deeply engraved. This observation, while valid, leads to misinterpretation of the sequence, unless moderated by taphonomic logic."

This is his site and I recomend it for good scientific reading

mc2.vicnet.net.au...

There is also a partition there for the protection of a rock art site in my region and I along with countless others would appreciate your help in its protection



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by St Udio
alas Byrd, these are findings of recent origin...not of Antiquity !
-
-consider- a human bone pile is found in a cave, dated at ~70,ooo BCE,
...the accepted reasoning would be, small family groups migrated here, they lived in caves, yadda yadda...


To an archaeologist, one bone pile does NOT a civilization make... or anything else. You're assuming things about how archaeologists think that aren't true. The archaeologist would simply say that it's a skeleton and if there's no other traces of other human habitation around, they would have NO conclusions about this.

This has been drilled into my brain by my prof this year. You can't say a lot of things about finds, though you might like to speculate. Archaeology deals only in fact.

ahha...the ivory tower syndome...well, if ?enough? bone pile discoveries are authenticated, a consensus is made, and that 'logical' assumption becomes the 'proof' (but the bone pile(s) may actually have resulted from my original statement of a 'nutty hermit' in scattered locations)


foundation of premis...it is a universal concept, that mankind had a
beginning in a edenic world...then (entropy) fell into chaos and the
remnants of 'people' had to fashion a world out of hardship &
struggle


This kind of civilization would leave traces, though. Magnetometer surveys and other methods show when the ground has had buildings sitting on it (there's soil changes where humans live.)

lets see...the 'great dust bowl' is one event, Mt St Helens was another, and that was only 50 years...how much change would it take to obliberate traces of a nomadic population?? There were no building foundations to
reconstruct...the campsites on the East coast Applachians have long since
eroded away, like the mountains themselves...scat piles and meat source
bone piles are relics of the social structure that has led to our present
civilization....



,,,,, so there is a fuzzy arena on which to base the proposition
that there were ancient civilizations fluorishing on the western hemisphere
way before columbus, spain, vikings, clovis, kennewicks, retreat of
glaciers. etc


...and your proof of this is... what?

the global archtype found in every myth & religion of humans...we 'fell' from 'grace, living in a paradise...' into the violent competitive world that is
around us now...and mans striving by thought & technology to regain
the 'talents' he once had and lost...



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dan West
"The ability of petroglyphs to survive in the open, i.e. exposed to precipitation, is governed largely by the rock they were made on. Those on limestone have a taphonomic threshold of well under 2000 years (Mandl 1996), while those on granite can easily survive from the Pleistocene, and recent dating evidence suggests that their threshold might be in the order of 30 000 or 50 000 years under some conditions (Bednarik 2001).


Great post, Dan. There is a scholarly book available called Indian Rock Art of the Southwest by Polly Schaafsma, and some of the pictures in there will blow your mind. There are the usual 'Ancient Spacemen' of Von Danniken lore, but, there is also a petroglyph of a barred spiral galaxy with a large being pointing to a spot about a third of the way in from the edge. What is eerie about that is, this book was published years before anyone KNEW that in fact the Milky Way IS a Barred Spiral (sb) galaxy, and that the petroglyph was made long before the book. This kind of evidence, along with megalithic astroarchaeology and alignment encodings such as we see at Pueblo Bonito, make me highly interested in just who or what was in contact with our Ancestors. The past, future, other worlds, aliens? In any case, Columbus found us here. We, the Native Americans, have been here a long time. Makes us happy to see some newcomers now and then


If you find rock art, please take digital photos and share them on the Net. People deface it, and nature and pollution destroy it; document your photos with time of day, date, and compass orientation so we can do astroarchaeology with the data, and please- don't share the GPS co-ordinates with anyone except serious research institutions. People go out and saw rock faces off for coffee tables- unbelievable but true.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
For the record: this quote by Pepper contains dialogue I did not write in Italics:

I take it all with the same scientific skepticism that Byrd and I both apply to all legends and theories.



Sorry Chakotay for getting my posts mixed up. Still new and trying to figure it all out.

However, I love science and was wondering what is the scientific method that you apply to all legends and theories that brought you to the conclusions you have about the Book of Mormon being memories rather than actual events in history? I am sincerely interested in that process so, that I may better understand what others use as evidence compared to what I see as evidence. Maybe, I don't apply the right method.






posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chakotay
For the record: this quote by Pepper contains dialogue I did not write in Italics:

[ I take it all with the same scientific skepticism that Byrd and I both apply to all legends and theories. With great respect for you and your beliefs, my comments are those of one who has read and continues to search for proof.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by Chakotay]


Chakotay, I'm sorry for getting the posts messed up. I'm still new and still trying to figure it all out.

I also love science and was wondering, If you don't mind what scientific method do you apply to all legends and theories that brought you to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon was just memories rather than actual history? I am sincerely interested in your method for the purpose of understanding how other people approach the book and look for evidences. I personally find many evidences of established history and want to know what "proofs" you and others like you are looking for that are different from mine.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pepper
I also love science and was wondering, If you don't mind what scientific method do you apply to all legends and theories that brought you to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon was just memories rather than actual history? I am sincerely interested in your method for the purpose of understanding how other people approach the book and look for evidences. I personally find many evidences of established history and want to know what "proofs" you and others like you are looking for that are different from mine.


Well done, Pepper. Many skeptics reject the Book of Mormon out of hand as a figment of the imagination of Joseph Smith. I do not. I recognize that like other testaments, a) the book exists; b) it is the product not of an isolated individual imagination but at least of what Gurdjieff refers to as the Collective Unconscious; c) there is at least a possibility that it is true in whole or in part, or at least that it represents a retelling of something with some basis in fact that Joseph Smith heard from others or even from 'God'; (d) that certain of his ideas represent amazingly advanced technical concepts for a farmer of the time to dream up; (e) that time travel and space travel are within the realm of technical possibility and therefore contact with 'angels' is not out of bounds. Therefore it is on my Interesting Book Shelf under May Be True In Whole or Part. As a scientist, I think of the book as a fascinating collection of hypothesis to be investigated, proven, disproven, or left open. The entire Jesus phenomenon seems to me to be indicative either of a fundamental psychosis of humankind, or evidence of intervention by aliens and/or time travellers in human affairs.

Proofs are mathmatical, logical, consistant, reproducible, universal. Tangible physical evidence. Without such I cannot pronounce fact. Without such I cannot cry fraud. I would LOVE to forensically examine one gold plate. Imagine the data. Fascinating religion.

I apply the same rules of logic to any religion or hypothesis. I may tell you that the Cherokee legends say that humans descended from Galunlati, the World in the Sky. Now ask me if I believe that. The answer is maybe. It is not outside the realm of possibility. But I have no proof. Until then the question remains open and I enjoy the search for answers. The Cherokees also tell outsiders that the Cherokee National Anthem is Amazing Grace. I can tell you that it is not, as I learned the old songs firsthand from Elders who retain petroglyphic records. This is rather solid proof. I can give you a four sigma probability that Amazing Grace is not the ancient Cherokee National Anthem, but rather only the modern national anthem. I can tell you with 100% accuracy that my great-grandmother was named Manerva Ross, and that she was born in Tahlequah, Oklahoma because I know her and have been there. I will not certify faith as absolutely true as I feel that would be intellectually dishonest- although I do have faith. My faith is personal, private, and I do not share it freely with strangers. I will say publicly, with the Cherokee, that there is A Great Creator.

[edit on 10-11-2004 by Chakotay]



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Post by Chakotay.....

(d) that certain of his ideas represent amazingly advanced technical concepts for a farmer of the time to dream up;

Therefore it is on my Interesting Book Shelf under May Be True In Whole or Part. As a scientist, I think of the book as a fascinating collection of hypothesis to be investigated, proven, disproven, or left open.

Proofs are mathmatical, logical, consistant, reproducible, universal. Tangible physical evidence. Without such I cannot pronounce fact. Without such I cannot cry fraud. I would LOVE to forensically examine one gold plate. Imagine the data. Fascinating religion.

I will say publicly, with the Cherokee, that there is A Great Creator.

[edit on 10-11-2004 by Chakotay]



Chakotay, you bring some interesting points to the table. Just to comment a few of them, I also find the amazing ability of Joseph Smith to be able to get so many things correct that were not available as knoweledge during his time period. I was 19 years old when I first read the Book of Mormon, the same age JS was when he received them from Moroni (Angel). I find it hard to fathom that for his education he was able to create such a work without divine intervention. The book is definately the work of someone who was educated.

Although, my testimony of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith is not based on physical evidence, it has been nice to have those evidences continually being made available for me to study. I thrill to learn about the ancient customs, traditions, phraseology, etc that is prevelant throughout the BoM that enriches my understanding and insight into the ancient world of the Old Testament.

When I was a child my parents studied the Dead Sea Scrolls, Naghamadi, etc. translations and they would teach them to me. As an adult I have continued that study for the purpose of finding things that parallel what JS taught. While I would also LOVE to see the Gold Plates, I am satisfied that it did happen because of all the tangible evidences of like findings throughout the world.

My first deeper interest lies in what does the book contain for my understanding concerning "salvation" and my relationship with God?
Next, I desire to know and understand the customs, phraseology and traditions that link us all together as brothers and sisters, everything else I take it as it comes and rejoice when I find it.

One orgainization that you might be interested in is Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies...farms.byu.edu

Since the book is on your "interesting shelf" and needs more investigation catagory, Would it be safe to say that what you have studied so far, has not been conclusive and therefore what you really meant was that you at this time "believe" that the Book of Mormon "could" be the product of the legends that Joseph Smith heard as a child? If that is the case, I hope that someday you will find what you need to prove it either way.

Great comments and thought process, Chakotay!


[edit on 12-11-2004 by Pepper]



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Around 13000 years ago during the end of the last ice age is when the first people walked on the American continent,most likely it were the Inuites.They originated from Greenland.The word 'Inuit' means people,its singular form is 'Inuk'.The Athapascan speacking tribes of Alaska and Canada used to address the Inuit people with the offensive term of 'Eskimo' which means "Eaters Of Raw Meat".



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I saw a program on the Discovery channel that said there is a theory of people coming from Australia(Aborriganies) To the Americas through ships. They said that they found Bones that match that of Australian Aborriganies in south america.



posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 07:19 AM
link   
```
thanks for that, the info keeps piling up, eh?

```

this is a day late, but that's not anyones fault, it just the order of priority...

-Wed Nov 17, 11:09 PM ET-

Fire Pit Dated to Be Over 50,000 Years Old
news.yahoo.com...

'In the growing debate about when people first appeared on this continent, a leading archeologist sais Wednesday he has discovered what could be sooty evidence of human occupation of North America tens of thousands of years earlier than is commonly believed.'

...at the bottom the is a 'fair-&-balanced' disclaimer sentence, saying this charcoal residue in a hearth? might just be a natural phenom....

~~~~~~~~~~~

-(personal comments)-
well, if there were paleolithics around, wouldn't they just live and encamp around the abler & more sophisticated peoples? just as wildlife is shy and scarce in todays suburbs and urban areas...but live in proximity to them- as potential resources, foods and other things might be available...

? were our ancestors? nothing better than scavangers, 'land-fill scourers',
permitted to encamp around those nomadic families, clans, tribes??
fufilling a role similar to the dung-beetle??


^^



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 02:58 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by The Vagabond
 


The Voids are real, I have seen various records of companies that prospect for oil, I don't work in Oil but rather Bio Diesel and what is being looked for in the SW here is actually Water to make crops possible in the desert. But the equipment and research is one and the same

I invent allot of theories for sake of argument, in practice I have yet to encounter anything but I have found a couple of very, extensive chambers

I detail my best find in physical manner here, but know there are far deeper chambers and they are gigantic cave dive

But as to chambers your not being lied to.



posted on Dec, 5 2008 @ 03:28 AM
link   
It is difficult to find remains of older civilizations on this continent, but that early man was around for 500,000 years and never washed ashore is not very possible.

Why then didn't civilization take hold? At least not for long at best would be the real question.

What you want to be asking is not when or how people got here, but what was making them vanish whenever they did arrive.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join