It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Even if atomic weapons and skyscrapers are merely a stage we are passing through, . . . we will still leave the evidence that we went through it.
Our nuclear detonations have affected world-wide levels of the stability of the isotope Carbon-14 (and every other measurable unstable isotope). Something we DON'T SEE in the fossil record.
Even if we quit using skyscrapers, evidence of the ones we will have once used will remain, even as the remains of Eridu or Etemenanki show the original sites of the Ziggurats of Sumer. Egypt "passed through" the stage of pyramid-building as well, and left examples behind.
If our ancestors left no examples of skyscraper-like buildings, then why attempt to believe they actually passed through such a stage. Why make an assertion that doesn't fit known facts, when there isn't any evidence for it????
And don't you accuse me of narrow-mindedness, either. I'm as into ancient civilizations as the next fellow (my interest drove me to get that anthropology degree on my wall). I am as into this as FOX MULDER was in to ufo's: "I want to believe."
But when it comes down to it, I will choose the boring "facts" that paint a coherent picture of past civilizations, rather than all the beautiful daydreams of a thousand mystics, who are really just looking for castles in the shapes of clouds.
Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
I thought I would throw in a couple rebuttals to an above post.
Why no evidence if they built large cities? Well, a couple reasons. Lets take care of lack of metal structures. Please excuse me using this, but, it is one of the best examples ... no matter what you feel brought those two buildings down (planes/demolition) ... the fact remains TWO buildings that were the tallest METAL buildings in the world collapsed in 10 seconds and left all but no trace. Look at the site now ... were there ever buildings over a quarter mile high?
The point of people living on coastal property is another great one. Any metal buildings in the oceans from thousands of years ago, may be all but lost. The Titanic is in ruins in a small percentage of the same time ... erosion and sediment would take away most traces from what would be left.
Now ... take u.s.a. for example. most of the build up of society is on coastal areas. most of the population lives around those areas too. If the sea level rose the same amount now as it has from 10,000 years ago ... a large portion of america would be gone, submerged ... leaving the least populated areas, and least technologically advanced left
... and as of 100 years ago, taking away most evidence of technology with it. Now ... what happens to these towns even now, when the technological structure crumbles around them. No big oil, no interstate transport ... just small local communities living off the land. Technology may begin to be lost, for lack of necessity or use.
Examples ... we invented electricity ... nope. we invented concrete ... nope.
(part of paragraph removed)We take every story etched in stone as a fairy-tale if we don't understand it. We think that our dating procedures are accurate because we think we have proven them to be so. Why? Why is it the way you assume? It doesn't have to be is my point.
Originally posted by CaptainRon
There is a tendency of the west to disregard anything that over shadows their ego.
Anyway, I look forward to some more matured comments on the subject.