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.

 

Top ancient mysteries of 2011

page: 2
23
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Questionablesanity
I do not understand why Christianity and science are always seen as mortal enemies. I for one am a proud Christian, however, I have no problem with evolution and believe that anyone who postulates the universe is only a few thousand years old is a testament to our broken school system.


I completely agree. Christians are often wrongly portrayed as fundamentalists. Most Christians I know are rational people that agree with science and evolution, they just don't interpret the bible as absolute 100% literal as there is no reason to. God + evolution do not negate each other in any way whatsoever. They are completely different things.

Evolution asks, "How did life on earth become so diverse?"
Religion asks, "Why are we here? What is our purpose? What is the meaning of life"

Very different questions with very different answers.

This is actually a great thread and the original article is well worth reading!

edit on 22-12-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 22 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Okay, someone clear some things up for me.

The ruins located in Jordan seem to be in almost the exact same area as Petra; at least that's what I can tell from my google researching and the fact that when I search the name(Wadi Faynan, Jordan) in Google Earth it takes me straight to Petra. lol So, is it near enough to the Petra site to actually be considered part of it or is this just a general lack of information on exact location for non-professional sources? However, I'm going to do a little spitballing based on the first possibility if no one minds...

Now, according to the sources I've read Petra was supposedly created by the Nabataeans somewhere in the general time frame between 1550-1292 BC. Just wondering, could there be a connection? Like maybe, at least some of Petra was actually older ruins from these "original' creators of the site and the newbies just moved in later and set up shop(like with Lixus or Baalbek). Or maybe a more direct connection like the site has always been occupied by pretty much the same people who ended up adopting the architectural styles of neighboring civilizations of their times. If so, that would make it one of the longest used settlements in known human history.

Anyway, I digress. S&F for the OP.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mad Simian
Okay, someone clear some things up for me.

The ruins located in Jordan seem to be in almost the exact same area as Petra; at least that's what I can tell from my google researching and the fact that when I search the name(Wadi Faynan, Jordan) in Google Earth it takes me straight to Petra. lol So, is it near enough to the Petra site to actually be considered part of it or is this just a general lack of information on exact location for non-professional sources? However, I'm going to do a little spitballing based on the first possibility if no one minds...

Now, according to the sources I've read Petra was supposedly created by the Nabataeans somewhere in the general time frame between 1550-1292 BC. Just wondering, could there be a connection? Like maybe, at least some of Petra was actually older ruins from these "original' creators of the site and the newbies just moved in later and set up shop(like with Lixus or Baalbek). Or maybe a more direct connection like the site has always been occupied by pretty much the same people who ended up adopting the architectural styles of neighboring civilizations of their times. If so, that would make it one of the longest used settlements in known human history.

Anyway, I digress. S&F for the OP.


To digress once again: The part of Wadi Faynan that was looked at was about 9,000 years before Petra was built by Nabies. Could they have been ancestors of them, perhaps. In the desert where ever there is water there will be habitation. Info

I visited that site when I stayed at Petra, diverted there on a trip to Mount Nebo I believe



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune
To digress once again: The part of Wadi Faynan that was looked at was about 9,000 years before Petra was built by Nabies. Could they have been ancestors of them, perhaps. In the desert where ever there is water there will be habitation. Info


Also, given the way that the base rock, limestone and/or sandstone I think, is formed, you will often get two or more underground cisterns, naturally formed, side by side, or in close vicinity. The nature of both these rocks requires that they are strongest when saturated. Settlements were often built around wells or oasis that drew from these underground cisterns, over use would lead to the cistern being exhausted and the rock loosing it's stability and the cistern, with everything on top, caving in. The people would pick up sticks and move to the next watering hole. Perhaps this is just evidence of the same thing. Sometimes too, these same pockets held natural gases, or oil, as evidenced by bitument pits, causing disasters that made one place be rejected even after a considerable period of habitation. This pattern can be seen around the edge of the Dead Sea.

Either way, if the Romans are any example, most military occupations involve a settlement, or encampment, being built adjacent to the existing settlement who produce they want to control trade in. Depending upon the extent and duration of the occupation, cultural or military, will dictate whether the empirical settlement achieves dominance over the historical or industrial one.



edit on 23-12-2011 by Omphale because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


But where is it in relation to Petra proper? Since I haven't had the luck of being a person in the field and actually getting to visit this site like you have, I'll have to settle for only being able to see it on Google Earth. PM me if you think such specifics shouldn't be posted on a public forum. I give you my word I won't tell anyone(the info would only be for my own personal pleasure).

**edit**BTW, I am well aware of the difference in time between Petra and this older settlement. The lack of info on its location and relation to Petra was what piqued my curiosity. The rest...well...that's just my creative side wanting to take something and make it "entertaining". At least I'm honest about taking historical fact and making a fictional story out of it unlike certain others; you know who I mean.

edit on 12/23/2011 by Mad Simian because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mad Simian
reply to post by Hanslune
 


But where is it in relation to Petra proper? Since I haven't had the luck of being a person in the field and actually getting to visit this site like you have, I'll have to settle for only being able to see it on Google Earth. PM me if you think such specifics shouldn't be posted on a public forum. I give you my word I won't tell anyone(the info would only be for my own personal pleasure).


Oh you just want to know where it is? Wadi Faynan, with a latitude of 30.63 (30° 37' 32 N) and a longitude of 35.45 (35° 26' 43 E) It is north of Petra and to the west of Dana and south west of Tafilah. I don't recall the road number but it was on the way to mount Nebo I do believe

Detailed map of Wadi Faynan towards the end of the pdf

If you need more info go to google scholar and type in wadi faynan and you'll get a number of hits - but the exeter uni server seems to be down at the moment



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
the only mystery i see is why people are still trying to find a missing link.

where's the alligators missing link. or for that matter, where's the chimpanzee's missing link. or the eagle, or the ant's or the any of the other billions of distinct species on earth.

if i told you crocodiles used to fly and had fur you'd laugh.

but there's as much evidence to prove that as there is to prove man was an ape.

to say man was an ape, used to have fur and swung from trees is ridiculous.

every species on earth is completely taken care of. no animal has to manufacture it's clothes, has to go to work 40 hrs a week, has to pay a mortgage etc.

i've seen horses in -25 degree weather gallop around like it's hawaii. all it has is short coarse hair for warmth.
i had multiple layers of sweaters and a thermal insulated jacket and i had to go inside after 10 mins.

and horses aren't native to north america.

the people who believe in evolution say that a species always evolves for the better.

how is it better to be completely naked. man is the only creature on earth that has to clothe himself or die from the elements.

man has to cook most of his food or risk death and illness from parasites and bacteria. again the only creature that does this.

man has to build houses to have shelter. most creature's just lay in a bush and sleep. and the ones that do build shelters, like beavers, build it in a few days and don't have 30 year mortgages. they also don't need power tools, electricity, and a trip to home depot.

then there's music, art, sports, emotions, love, crying, sadness. all these things are beyond any evolutionary necessity.

if anything, if you believe in evolution, it points to simplicity and efficiency.

the fact that we are so contradictory to the theory of evolution should at least spark a sliver of common sense that somethings not right there.

the theory of evolution doesn't explain why 2 hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom makes water. or why even water exists. our existence depends on much more than the ability to spark a fire. it takes the harmony of the entire universe to sustain our existence.

we look for proof of God. we are proof of God.




edit on 21-12-2011 by randomname because: (no reason given)

we have only looked in 1% of the earth for fossils and look at how much we know and as we uncover more there will be more and more evidence for evolution because if at 1% we think evolution is right im sure were right



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 1   >>

log in

join