Twin Ancient Cultures On Opposite Sides Of The Pacific

page: 10
87
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Good post!

"Evolution is supposed to be advancement, so why did that advancement occur in a Golden Age but then regress?"

Maybe it was an advancement.

Societies all seem to follow the same trend. They build themselves up, then destroy themselves through overzealous application of beliefs.

Initially, forming religion and building architecture was a good thing that helped people survive by bringing them together in cooperation and giving them shelter! Of course as time goes on, the "elite leisure" class continues to grow, acting as a parasite on the workers. Eventually they demand to much, they devote to many resources to superficial things such as elaborate stone temples covered in artwork. If a man spends his whole life carving stone artwork, he has to be fed and provided for by another man. It comes to a point where a behavior that was once extremely beneficial to a group actually begins to hurt them through over zealous application. So you may view it as a de-evolution that man stopped putting resources into these basically useless temples (in terms of survival) when it reality it was an evolution because they were now putting these resources back into survival, thus making their society more "fit".




posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen



edit on 8/14/2012 by VonDoomen because: (no reason given)
edit on 8/14/2012 by VonDoomen because: (no reason given)
edit on 8/14/2012 by VonDoomen because: (no reason given)


Thank you for changing the color, I was able to read it this time. Really all the theories are just supposition. Certainly we can say cultures are somehow related and had architecture that is similar. But just suppose they built what worked for them?

We could compare today the German Bauhaus with French Provencial and find nothing in comparison even though the two cultures are close and have a common history with each other. But both styles are vastly different. Do both of those styles find their way into modern society far away from each other? Yes, the do. Some buildings in North America have similar roots in design. That's because people here like those styles and emulate it.

Perhaps the same thing happened then, someone saw what they liked and copied it. The memories of mankind are foggy. I can tell you from doing genealogy that people here in the United States do not really know about their ancestors just 4 generations ago. You are lucky if you live in the same town as your settled ancestors did just 200 years ago. People moved around in ancient times as they do now.

Genealogy is based in records, but records are only as honest as the person recording it. There are many oral traditions and legends in every family but the furthest generation from the original really has little memory or understanding of it. Even the way we speak English today is different. This is true when considering the evolution of Modern English. The Wycliffe Bible written almost 300 years before the King James Bible has German words. But if you asked an average person to read it today, chances are they do not understand it. The same goes for Shakespeare, many people do not understand it even though it is in plain English.

What we do not have is the development of taboos and societal mores from prehistory. We don't really know the context of the world they lived in but we do have clues, but those clues only lead to more supposition. We know it is a fact ancient people moved while some stayed behind. Why they did that we will never know because it was their decision. Perhaps as more and more people had babies they needed more land to sustain them? In 10 generations a person has 1,024 ancestors. If a generation counts as 20 years, then roughly 200 hundred years. We are talking about thousands of years, so the world was becoming populated. Time to move on and find someplace warmer or cooler and more fish, deer or whatever we like to eat.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Good post!

"Evolution is supposed to be advancement, so why did that advancement occur in a Golden Age but then regress?"

Maybe it was an advancement.

Societies all seem to follow the same trend. They build themselves up, then destroy themselves through overzealous application of beliefs.

Initially, forming religion and building architecture was a good thing that helped people survive by bringing them together in cooperation and giving them shelter! Of course as time goes on, the "elite leisure" class continues to grow, acting as a parasite on the workers. Eventually they demand to much, they devote to many resources to superficial things such as elaborate stone temples covered in artwork. If a man spends his whole life carving stone artwork, he has to be fed and provided for by another man. It comes to a point where a behavior that was once extremely beneficial to a group actually begins to hurt them through over zealous application. So you may view it as a de-evolution that man stopped putting resources into these basically useless temples (in terms of survival) when it reality it was an evolution because they were now putting these resources back into survival, thus making their society more "fit".


This reminds me of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

As ancient man began to meet each step, the advancement up the pyramid was fulfilled, until society had a catastrophe that led them back to the bottom to have to meet that upper need again.

We never see this among animals, they stay at the bottom of physiological needs. Mankind however, reaches the transcendent needs, whether through religion or education. This is not evolutionary, it is a pattern the occurs over and over and over again. As societies build themselves up, the natural progression occurs then catastrophe strikes and they have to again climb back up. But they always have memories of that moment of transcendence, they eventually get back to it.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


exactly. we dont need atlantis and hoverboats to explain this.

People drew inspiration from their environment. And we all live on planet earth. One of the biggest impacts on humanity was the stars. Astronomy is the basis for many religions. Im sure you've seen the movie zeitgeist and how the whole story of jesus is a parable for the movement of the heavens, and the seasons, and the sun which was then anthropomorphized.

IMO- all societies will share many traits because we are all using basically the same environment to form our beliefs.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by VonDoomen
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


exactly. we dont need atlantis and hoverboats to explain this.

People drew inspiration from their environment. And we all live on planet earth. One of the biggest impacts on humanity was the stars. Astronomy is the basis for many religions. Im sure you've seen the movie zeitgeist and how the whole story of jesus is a parable for the movement of the heavens, and the seasons, and the sun which was then anthropomorphized.

IMO- all societies will share many traits because we are all using basically the same environment to form our beliefs.


Yes, I have seen Zeitgeist but many things proposed in it does not take into account the actual historical records of the people living in the time of Jesus. Even the pagan Roman historian Tacitus records Jesus. But what is even more amazing is the Irish Annals, Conal Cearnach was an Irish gladiator in Jerusalem that went back to Ireland speaking about Jesus, long before St. Patrick was alive.

If the name and the man Jesus was found spoken of in Ireland before Christianity, it does give credence to His existence. After all, the ancient Irish were never influenced by Christianity before the Roman Church.

Christianity in Ireland

Ireland was a Druidic society when the Romans invaded Britain, they called it Hibernia because they considered it too cold to live in. The Romans never subjugated Ireland as it had done Britain. These Romans were the pagan Romans, before the Christian Roman Empire.

Tacitus did not consider Jesus to be mere myth.

The Annals of Tacitus

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind".


Jesus did not appear to be a myth, even to the pagans of whom people say Jesus was based on their religions. If those pagans then did not compare Jesus to what they already worshiped then one can only surmise that Jesus was not from pagan myths. Otherwise, those pagans would have readily worshiped Jesus by recognition.



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by reficul
this is very interesting!
can someone explain to me why the mayans have an elephant statue!!!!
that is nutty!!!

It sure is, because there's no "elephant statue" at any Mayan site.

Depending on which fringe website you got that from, what you're looking at is either a tapir or a macaw.



Its an elephant.
Tapirs and Macaws dont grow as big as elephants.


The figure in question isn't "big."

Harte



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by XaniMatriX
Fighting mister, is the most primitive act a being can do. Natives, did not have wars between each other, that was propaganda from the first missions to the newland, so that they would have an excuse to "help" them, just like today in middle east. "help" means eliminate the threat in buisness language

This is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read at ATS.

Believe me, that covers a hell of a lot of ground.

The idea that only modern people "have wars between each other" is a complete exposure of the VAST gulf of utter stupidity that exists between your ears.

It also says a lot about you that you would post such an idiotic statement without even considering what it makes you look like.

Of course, that last part could be considered beneficial, since it shows that you are quite obviously unconcerned with the image of yourself that you inadvertently project when you make such statements, which can be shown to be utterly groundless at the whim of any person with a moment to think about it.

For example, Anasazi is a Navajo word. What does it mean?

Your unconcern for what that makes you look like could be said to be evidence that you are no egoist. Now, there's a good attitude to maintain if you got nothing to be egotistical about.

Harte



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by FoosM
 


Very cool.
The elephants really blow my mind.
Because if the scientists are correct. There is no way possible for a Mayan to have ever seen an elephant.
In fact it would be impossible.

So now we are left with.


  1. Either someone described or showed them an image of an elephant.
  2. They travelled somewhere there was an elephant
  3. Someone visited them with an elephant
  4. There were elephants alive in the americas at the time the image was carved


You left off the strongest possibility:
  • 5. No elephants appear in any Mayan artwork.

    Maybe I should point out that when Mammoths and Mastodons were roaming around the Americas (and it was, apparently, mostly the Northern part of North America) the entire continent was crawling with camels.

    Where's the artwork depicting camels?

    Same place as the artwork depicting elephants.

    It doesn't exist.

    Harte
    edit on 8/14/2012 by Harte because: (no reason given)



  • posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 03:45 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Harte

    Originally posted by XaniMatriX
    Fighting mister, is the most primitive act a being can do. Natives, did not have wars between each other, that was propaganda from the first missions to the newland, so that they would have an excuse to "help" them, just like today in middle east. "help" means eliminate the threat in buisness language

    This is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read at ATS.

    Believe me, that covers a hell of a lot of ground.




    Harte,
    That was the first post ever on ATS that made me actually laugh out loud. Did that guy really say that primitive man had no wars or fought with each other? REAAAALLLY????

    Um, so then explain the need for arrowheads that were not designed to bring down animal game, but for killing each other. Oh wait, arrowheads were just decorative pieces.....

    Even every ancient oral tradition of gods always talks about wars between the gods. If they had no concept of wars or killing they could not incorporate them into their legends. The Aztecs themselves based their civilization of murder and sacrifice on the Mayans, before the Spanish even got there. The Polynesian cultures had wars, the Asians had wars, long before Europeans got there.

    Arrowheads and atlatls must have simply been toys.



    posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 04:14 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Harte

    Originally posted by XaniMatriX
    Fighting mister, is the most primitive act a being can do. Natives, did not have wars between each other, that was propaganda from the first missions to the newland, so that they would have an excuse to "help" them, just like today in middle east. "help" means eliminate the threat in buisness language

    This is one of the most ignorant things I've ever read at ATS.

    Believe me, that covers a hell of a lot of ground.

    The idea that only modern people "have wars between each other" is a complete exposure of the VAST gulf of utter stupidity that exists between your ears.

    It also says a lot about you that you would post such an idiotic statement without even considering what it makes you look like.

    Of course, that last part could be considered beneficial, since it shows that you are quite obviously unconcerned with the image of yourself that you inadvertently project when you make such statements, which can be shown to be utterly groundless at the whim of any person with a moment to think about it.

    For example, Anasazi is a Navajo word. What does it mean?

    Your unconcern for what that makes you look like could be said to be evidence that you are no egoist. Now, there's a good attitude to maintain if you got nothing to be egotistical about.

    Harte


    I do not believe they had WARS, but conflicts im well aware of, but to have WAR out on a full scale, that was never recorded in North America, not mexico people, america, i really doubt it ever escalated that far, maybe someone stealing someones crops and they had to kill the being, that's more likely.



    posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 04:28 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by WarminIndy

    Originally posted by XaniMatriX

    Originally posted by Gorman91


    Ofcourse no proof of russians, the vikings were their leaders, Russians had no leaders or a name, but Vikings when they discovered them instead of fighting them, they worked together. so if vikings went to north america so did the Russians, you just wont notice, b/c they became one and the same for some period of time.

    and that the ancients were far more advanced then us, globaly, meaning they had no reason to fight one another, unless there was an outside influence to teach them to hurt, and be okay with hurting one another, if that makes sense?
    edit on 14-8-2012 by XaniMatriX because: (no reason given)


    The modern name for Russians come from the Finnish, it was considered Land of the Rus. Actually one can consider them to be post-Scythian. The Vikings were in the Middle Ages so if we are looking at that time, the Russians (Rus) did indeed exist at that time and had their own leaders. You can find sources of the Rus in the Annals of St. Bertin in the 830s.

    History of the Russians The first ruler of the united Rus was Rurik of Novgorod, then Oleg of Kiev.

    They were concurrent with each other, but definitely the Rus had their own leadership apart from the Vikings. The did exist in some places at the same time. They sometimes were referred as each other, but had different languages much as the Norwegians and Swedes do today. But the Rus had leadership of themselves and they were descended from Slavs.
    edit on 8/14/2012 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)


    Rurik was a Viking, or at least where he came from Vikings owned that territory.



    posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 04:30 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by XaniMatriX

    Originally posted by Harte



    I do not believe they had WARS, but conflicts im well aware of, but to have WAR out on a full scale, that was never recorded in North America, not mexico people, america, i really doubt it ever escalated that far, maybe someone stealing someones crops and they had to kill the being, that's more likely.



    Definition of war

    NOUN: A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. The period of such conflict. The techniques and procedures of war; military science. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain


    Let's see where it happened in history in the Americas before the Spanish.
    Maya Wars


    The god Bolon Yookte' K'uh is associated with War and Xibalbá,



    Warfare seems to have played a part in the ultimate downfall of El Mirador (The Kan Kingdom), as a large wall surrounding the western portion of the site appears to have been built in the Early Classic. One of the only documented battlefields of the ancient Maya world was found atop the Tigre pyramid where dozens of green obsidian spear points were found scattered atop debris indicating that the battle occurred after the pyramid had already fallen into disrepair. This suggests that the forces of Siyah K’ahk’ of Tikal overran this area likely some time in the late fourth century AD.


    No wars?



    posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 04:32 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by XaniMatriX

    Originally posted by WarminIndy

    Originally posted by XaniMatriX

    Originally posted by Gorman91


    Ofcourse no proof of russians, the vikings were their leaders, Russians had no leaders or a name, but Vikings when they discovered them instead of fighting them, they worked together. so if vikings went to north america so did the Russians, you just wont notice, b/c they became one and the same for some period of time.

    and that the ancients were far more advanced then us, globaly, meaning they had no reason to fight one another, unless there was an outside influence to teach them to hurt, and be okay with hurting one another, if that makes sense?
    edit on 14-8-2012 by XaniMatriX because: (no reason given)


    The modern name for Russians come from the Finnish, it was considered Land of the Rus. Actually one can consider them to be post-Scythian. The Vikings were in the Middle Ages so if we are looking at that time, the Russians (Rus) did indeed exist at that time and had their own leaders. You can find sources of the Rus in the Annals of St. Bertin in the 830s.

    History of the Russians The first ruler of the united Rus was Rurik of Novgorod, then Oleg of Kiev.

    They were concurrent with each other, but definitely the Rus had their own leadership apart from the Vikings. The did exist in some places at the same time. They sometimes were referred as each other, but had different languages much as the Norwegians and Swedes do today. But the Rus had leadership of themselves and they were descended from Slavs.
    edit on 8/14/2012 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)


    Rurik was a Viking, or at least where he came from Vikings owned that territory.


    Viking is an umbrella term. The Rus were descended from Scythians. The Rus are Slavs whereas the Vikings of Scandinavia are not.



    posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 04:34 PM
    link   
    reply to post by WarminIndy
     


    My opinion of the whole situation.

    There was an actual man that was the basis for the story of jesus.

    This person represented change, an upheaval, to the current ruling system.

    The people in power did not want this new person subverting and weakening their power.

    The story of this man then gets stolen and changed and utilized by the ruling class for the same reason the old religion was controlled by the elites of society. To control everyone else and benefit themselves.

    And then throw on top of it, The roman church was well known to destroy and persecute ANYTHING that went against their official dogma.

    Thus making it harder for us to determine what heck was really going on.

    The only thing i can say for certain is that some people have no problem telling gullible people that there is an invisible man in the sky judging them, and that if they dont want to spend eternity in hell, they better do what the church says.

    Make no mistake, con men are nothing new.



    posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 04:47 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by WarminIndy

    Originally posted by XaniMatriX

    Originally posted by WarminIndy

    Originally posted by XaniMatriX

    Originally posted by Gorman91


    Ofcourse no proof of russians, the vikings were their leaders, Russians had no leaders or a name, but Vikings when they discovered them instead of fighting them, they worked together. so if vikings went to north america so did the Russians, you just wont notice, b/c they became one and the same for some period of time.

    and that the ancients were far more advanced then us, globaly, meaning they had no reason to fight one another, unless there was an outside influence to teach them to hurt, and be okay with hurting one another, if that makes sense?
    edit on 14-8-2012 by XaniMatriX because: (no reason given)


    The modern name for Russians come from the Finnish, it was considered Land of the Rus. Actually one can consider them to be post-Scythian. The Vikings were in the Middle Ages so if we are looking at that time, the Russians (Rus) did indeed exist at that time and had their own leaders. You can find sources of the Rus in the Annals of St. Bertin in the 830s.

    History of the Russians The first ruler of the united Rus was Rurik of Novgorod, then Oleg of Kiev.

    They were concurrent with each other, but definitely the Rus had their own leadership apart from the Vikings. The did exist in some places at the same time. They sometimes were referred as each other, but had different languages much as the Norwegians and Swedes do today. But the Rus had leadership of themselves and they were descended from Slavs.
    edit on 8/14/2012 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)


    Rurik was a Viking, or at least where he came from Vikings owned that territory.


    Viking is an umbrella term. The Rus were descended from Scythians. The Rus are Slavs whereas the Vikings of Scandinavia are not.


    I dont know what your getting at, but Rurik was and is a German or Viking, w/e u wanna call it.

    And to the other reply, im talking about NATIVES, not mayans. I already agreed those guys were good at killing, and most of the killing actually took place within the kindgom, over throwing the "leader" and what not, fighting over food and territory withing the kingdoms boundries, and from the article you gave me it says they didnt start doing all that from the start, but actually before the europeans got there Mayans got really violent for some reason.

    But the NATIVES, that lived in the woods, and in tipy's, had pow wows, you know the guys im talking about, those NATIVES, did not have wars, but they sure did have conflicts, small ones like theft.



    posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 04:54 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by VonDoomen
    reply to post by WarminIndy
     


    My opinion of the whole situation.

    There was an actual man that was the basis for the story of jesus.

    This person represented change, an upheaval, to the current ruling system.

    The people in power did not want this new person subverting and weakening their power.

    The story of this man then gets stolen and changed and utilized by the ruling class for the same reason the old religion was controlled by the elites of society. To control everyone else and benefit themselves.

    And then throw on top of it, The roman church was well known to destroy and persecute ANYTHING that went against their official dogma.

    Thus making it harder for us to determine what heck was really going on.

    The only thing i can say for certain is that some people have no problem telling gullible people that there is an invisible man in the sky judging them, and that if they dont want to spend eternity in hell, they better do what the church says.

    Make no mistake, con men are nothing new.


    Tacitus existed before the Roman Catholic Church, while it was still in its infancy. There would be no way he could be influenced by the Church. I am not Catholic myself so I have difficulty when it comes to defense of it.

    I will agree that the Roman Catholic Church historically had evil men in their leadership who manipulated the minds and lives of everyone. But I make my points outside the context of the Roman Catholic Church. Throughout history there has always been Christians who were not Catholic, but they were suppressed. I would not want to make this an anti-Catholic church post because I am looking at history prior to the Church.

    One could say "All Christians derive their belief from the Roman Catholic Church" and that would be easy to say if there were no historical evidence of Christians before the Roman Church. Yes, many Christian traditions are found within the Roman Church, but it begs the question, which came first? Christianity came first, the evil men later.

    I am not Catholic and do not equate the history of Christianity to them. When you say "The Church" it may mean the Roman Catholic Church, or it may mean Christianity as a whole. I am of the belief in Christianity as a whole, and not all Christians come from the Roman Catholic Church.



    posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 05:09 PM
    link   
    reply to post by SheopleNation
     





    I apologize if me not seeing it your way doesn't sit well with you.


    Right, because you're right, and anyone else is wrong.





    Google Earth? And just how clear of a shot are you gonna get from that? Surely nothing remotely close to being there in person.


    Sure, you're always right, right? Can't be wrong?

    OH WAIT. Google Street view, and user-uploaded photography....


    Oh well, maybe you should rethink your life if you are that wrong.


    Then again, you could just keep being self righteous and always right.


    It's great when the only one you have to prove is yourself.



    posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 05:13 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by XaniMatriX



    I dont know what your getting at, but Rurik was and is a German or Viking, w/e u wanna call it.

    And to the other reply, im talking about NATIVES, not mayans. I already agreed those guys were good at killing, and most of the killing actually took place within the kindgom, over throwing the "leader" and what not, fighting over food and territory withing the kingdoms boundries, and from the article you gave me it says they didnt start doing all that from the start, but actually before the europeans got there Mayans got really violent for some reason.

    But the NATIVES, that lived in the woods, and in tipy's, had pow wows, you know the guys im talking about, those NATIVES, did not have wars, but they sure did have conflicts, small ones like theft.


    Are you talking about indigenous Americans, such as the Apache, Comanche, Sioux and so forth? Let's talk about them for a bit, those Natives that lived in tipis and danced in powwows.

    First of all, those Natives were Plains Indians. The Eastern Woodland lived in longhouses and did not dance in powwows. In fact, the powwow is recent. So going back to the Plains Indians. By the way, Navajo and Apache were not Plains Indians, they were Southwest Indians. The Navajo did not live in tipis, but hogans and some lived in rock houses.

    Wars Among Native Americans

    We know the Shawnee did have wars with the Cherokee but eventually united to form The Five Civilized Tribes and the Iroquois League.

    Read a good book by William Kessel called Encyclopedia of Native American Wars and Warfare. It has many good references and resources. I think though you do not understand exactly what Native American entails. To say "you know the ones who lived in tipys and danced powwows" means you have a limited grasp of their history. To lump them into one description is offensive. The Mayans are considered Native American, just as Canadians are considered First Nations, that means they are indigenous.

    Where did you learn about Native Americans?
    edit on 8/14/2012 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



    posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 05:16 PM
    link   
    reply to post by XaniMatriX
     





    That is exactly what im saying, when a human is born they dont hate anyone or hurt anyone unless they see someone else do it in turn, and i witnessed that first hand with many new born children.


    That's your children, not all children. I remember being a devil as a child. Nobody taught me how to deceive, it came naturally to me. No one taught me how to trick people for my own profit, it came naturally to me.

    In fact, people had to teach me how to be good from that evil. I was born evil, then taught good. And many I grew up with never learned good.




    Nature is the same way, animals do not feel hate or take revenge, somewhere at some point in time, we must have witnessed such acts, other wise i dont see nature being the one to hate, or even provide such conditions.


    That's false. Stab a whale with a spear and he'll never trust humans again in some cases. In some cases they may actively seek revenge for the deed. Treat them with respect and you will have mutual friendship. Ever hear of the Killer Whales of Eden?

    Nature has plenty of shows of revenge and hatred. Once species learn emotions, it's practically one of the largest emotions present along side love.




    Do you ever think about killing people? if no, then what makes you think others are born thinking any different, its the influence after that creates such ideas.


    Actually yes, and I'd be surprised if you never have. Once again, your experience is not the be all and end all.




    No such thing as "russians" really, it was just some people that came to the land and just lived there, no police, no politics, no churches or religion to speak of, just human beings living, which hard for a lot of people to grasp the idea. When viking came to the land and discovered the "russians" they could not fight them, so they worked hand in hand, and "Russians" are really good at taking other peoples habits and culture practices, so no evidence would be found since there "culture" is mixed.


    Where is the genetic proof?




    Now back to OP's original post, we were talking about a global civilization exsisting past 10k years, which has nothing to with the natives, but all i was saying, is that it is highly possible that a very advanced culture or civilization exsisted in the past, and that is why there are architectural similarities, because they all shared their knowledge, if they were primitive and violent, that would not be possible, and this thread would not even be here, since there would be no architecture to speak of.


    That's also false. The Muslims did not share their knowledge with the westerners. The westerners invaded their lands in defense of being invaded, and saw the architecture, medicine, and science, then brought it back to their own people.

    I see no reason why such ancient civilizations would be any different.
    edit on 14-8-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



    posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 05:18 PM
    link   
    reply to post by WarminIndy
     


    Evolution does not advance species, it adapts them. Sometimes this includes advancement. But it also can include going backwards if the adaptation cannot come about fast enough.


    Evolution is simple the tendency for the most fit organisms to live. The ones that were not, died. This does not mean advancement in all cases.





    top topics
     
    87
    << 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

    log in

    join