reply to post by SLAYER69
Great thread. It irks me when history shows speak in definitive terms. They find one Lucy and spin a story that weaves into an entire field of
thought, all contingent on that one skull found with little context. Historical sciences (archeology, paleo anthropology, paleology, etc.) often acts
as if finding one thing makes a complete record. So we hear silly things being presented as facts, like, the ancient Summarians were among the first
civilizations with complex social systems, institutions, a written language, etc. INSTEAD of saying what is factually more accurate which would be,
"Of the little we know, the ancient Summarians...." Because we don't know what we don't know.
Worse, science out of hand rejects things that don't fit into it's carefully crafted narratives of what was. So many out of place objects are
ignored. I've yet to read or see a mainstream archeologist dare to address the incredible anamoly that is Baalbek. Maybe one or two crane in the
world today could even lift the largest of those stones, much less transport them and fit them without mortar so tightly you can't slip a scalpel
between stones.
Only now are we really starting to explore our world under water (2/3rds the Earth!) and we are already discovering structures that turn the
conventional story of ancient civilizations on its head.
So instead of having the audacity of saying what was with arrogant certainty, I wish for some humility and honesty by always preceding statements
with, "As far as we know..."
and by the way, yes, the loss of Alexandria still makes me mournful whenever I think about it. Indeed, preserving what was considered ancient back in
300 B.C. The mind staggers at the thought.