Science Proving 'Global Flood Myth' true - Dating for Prehistoric Civilization Legitimized!

reply to post by cormac mac airt


Hey cormac -

My bad, there are numerous articles about this find and most of them quote him re: "20 times faster". Here's one of them and a link.

The discovery of ancient mangrove forest remains under the Great Barrier Reef has cast doubt on some theories about how quickly the sea level rose after the last ice age.

Most scientists believe it was a gradual rise over the past 9,000 years. But the existence of relic mangroves 70cm (27in) below the floor of the Barrier Reef, some with leaves and branches still intact, suggests an abrupt rise.

Dan Alongi, a biologist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, said it appeared that sea levels rose about 3 metres in less than 30 years, drowning forests and flooding estuaries, 20 times faster than previously thought.

"Material was very much intact, it didn't even have time to fully decompose when it was buried," he said. "So it does tell us that when climate change last happened it was comparatively quick."

A link to the article in The Guardian

And I know the dating does not currently match up exactly to what we are positing here -- (and I leave the 'door of hope' open a tiny crack that it could change as he states he needs to do more dating in the first article), but it does a fine job of showing how the sacred 'geological record' that is so often bandied about around here as irrefutable truth when discussing flooding or sea level rise, is wrong . Which I think is a pretty big deal in the context of the conversation we are having.

What do you think?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
That is a VERY interesting find, TWISI.

You know...just sitting here thinking....why would the sea level have to rise? Or, more exactly, why could the land mass not sink? Or a combination of the two?

I understand that we are being told by some that the ocean floor is a different kind of soil, and there is no way it could have been above water. How is this known? Where are the measurements taken?

Still...mangroves UNDER the Great Barrier Reef...that is amazing.

Wow... I just learned what the quote button does -- that really makes life here a lot easier....

I certainly agree about the landmass shifting as sea levels rise, no doubt. In the global cataclysm scenario we are putting forth there would seem to be both massive land shift/earthquake/volcano etc. as well as the deluge/flooding/sea rise and various areas would be affected differently. But the landmass shift would not be uniform, am I correctly parsing you here?

And, WTF?! People say the ocean floor could never have beeen above water? Is that true? Really? How are they defining floor? Obviously that's news to me, but I am admittedly far from a geologist. If we ever get done here, we could have a whole thread about that.

And if 'they' really are saying that wouldn't the article under discussion refute that catergorically? I'm sure I am missing something here.

ChiChiKiwi sounds like a geologist, maybe he could pitch in here. ChiChi?
Anyone?

What do you think?

From the last glacial maximum, circa 18,000 BC the Ice Age is already in decline.

Circa 10,900 BC an impactor is theorized to have blown apart somewhere over the North American ice sheets. I believe this is at least possible.

This event is alleged to have brought about the extinction of the megafauna, yet at least 18 of the 24 species of megafauna I'm aware of are still around for a few thousand more years. With the demise of the glacial period, the megafauna would more than likely have died out anyway, without an impactor. An impactor would have just pushed it along to some extent.

Even Dan Alongi's estimates of 3 metres in less than 30 years does not constitute a flood, i.e. the overflowing of a large volume of water in a short period of time. I'm not saying the sea level didn't rise, it certainly did. What I am saying is that it's not the 400 foot overnight Global Flood I've seen many try to make it out to be.

The meaning of the word flood is just as open to interpretation as the meaning of the word gradual. In geological terms it was short, in human terms, however, it was many lifetimes.

cormac

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt


ChiChiKiwi sounds like a geologist, maybe he could pitch in here. ChiChi?
Anyone?

Dammit

Yeah, I'll read through the thread and get back when I can...

Until then:

Ocean floor, by its very definition is crust formed under the ocean, at spreading ridges, such as the mid-Atlantic ridge. It has a particular signature that can be 'read' to determine whether it is oceanic or continental crust.
However, due to various processes it can be 'exhumed'/aerially exposed, incorporated into continental crust etc.

As I said, I will get back with a 'real' answer later...I'm at work atm so it's a bit tricky to reply now.

Be patient though, my memory isn't the best so I may forget for a few days!

Wow... I just learned what the quote button does -- that really makes life here a lot easier....

And just when I'd thought I'd heard everything. You kill me.

And, WTF?! People say the ocean floor could never have beeen above water? Is that true? Really? How are they defining floor? Obviously that's news to me, but I am admittedly far from a geologist. If we ever get done here, we could have a whole thread about that.

I can't speak for anyone else, but "ocean floor" to me means "ocean bottom", "sea bottom", etc. Not the same as coastal areas that are now under water. Although it's possible that some parts of the ocean floor could have been above water in prehistoric times, I've never seen anything outside volcanic activity to say it happened during the timeframe of modern humans, HSS.

cormac

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
But the landmass shift would not be uniform, am I correctly parsing you here?

Yes ma'am, that is just about right. My position is that landmasses will rise and sink over time. Maybe not in a profound manner...but it will still happen. I further believe that they will often do so "muy rapido".

And, WTF?! People say the ocean floor could never have beeen above water? Is that true? Really? How are they defining floor? Obviously that's news to me, but I am admittedly far from a geologist. If we ever get done here, we could have a whole thread about that.

That is what i hear. But I think that the logic is flawed, or there is a major missing piece somewhere.

In the Atlantic there are stories of islands that appear and disappear. I have seen one or two from the Pacific, but history is stronger in the Atlantic.

I have looked for the article, but cannot find it. However, there was a story i read once about an island that was rather large off the coast of Spain some distance. Spanish monks even set up shop there. Obviously, this island was fairly old, as it had vegetation on its surface. One day, the ships went to deliver supplies, but the island had vanished. Obviously, the monks that had set up shop there disappeared, too.

Add to that the many, many stories of vanishing islands that can be pulled from captains logs. Emerald Island happens to be one of the more popular:

Tony Lucas: Due south of Macquarie Island in the sub-Antarctic seas there is an island which has become an enigma since its discovery. Emerald Island was discovered in 1821 by Captain Nockells and named after his vessel the Emerald, since its discovery this Island has resulted in a lot of controversy. Does it exist or doesn't it?Numerous searches for the Island have resulted in sightings of it; others that have gone to the same location have proclaimed only empty sea where it should have been.There are those that say Emerald is a haunted Island that moves from place to place, never remaining in one spot.Those who have occasionally seen Emerald Island give conflicting accounts of it, some claim it to be a Mountainous Island with steep and rugged cliff faces, others talk of green fields, and rolling hills, however, no one has ever reported making a landing on the Island; all reports are in most cases from a distance.

...snip...

The 1960 Chilean earthquake, magnitude 9.5 caused the submergence of six islands off the coast of Chile.Tectonic activity cannot be disregarded.Another great destroyer of islands is volcanic activity. The eruption of Karakatoa in 1883 caused a nearby island to completely submerge and new ones to be formed.Emerald is not the only island to exhibit a disappearing- reappearing history in the Southern Seas, the Nimrod Islands, east of the Antipodes, Company's Islands, south of Tasmania, Dougherty Island also known as Keates Island, midway between New Zealand and Cape Horn, have all exhibited exactly the same characteristics as Emerald. Searches have been conducted for these Islands also, and like Emerald, they seem to vanish from their stated positions.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
Yep, it explains my happy disposition in general and examples one of my abilities to enjoy my life without being fearful and guilty. I also eat meat, smoke and don't wear sunblock.

Dude!
I like you better already!

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt

The last pic you posted has been photoshopped. I've seen the original.

Care to prove that? How about a link or evidence to back that up? Or are we, as usual, expected to take your word for it?

TWISI,
I don't know how long you've been at ATS, but I believe I've provided at least ten times as many links here as you have.
Here's your requested evidence

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt

The scientist that "studies" this site (a Dr. Kimura) now claims it sank only 2,000 years ago. So yes, it makes me laugh. At you.

Glad bring some joy into your life. And you are the one who brought up Yonaguni, all I did was supply images that defy reasonable explanation as to how they are manmade. I know Schoch believes the are naturally occurring, and he went there, I believe in 2002. I also know that Kimura believes the city sank 2000 years ago, but in his 100 plus dives since Schoch was there Kimura has recovered actual artefacts and uncovered more of the site. He also states that since Schoch's dive ---

Kimura said he has identified ten structures off Yonaguni and a further five related structures off the main island of Okinawa. In total the ruins cover an area spanning 984 feet by 492 feet (300 meters by 150 meters).

The structures include the ruins of a castle, a triumphal arch, five temples, and at least one large stadium, all of which are connected by roads and water channels and are partly shielded by what could be huge retaining walls.

Kimura believes the ruins date back to at least 5,000 years, based on the dates of stalactites found inside underwater caves that he says sank with the city.

This is known as a LINK, you should try it sometime...

So based on Kimura's currrent dating this does not fit our timeline. What it does example is megalithic structures of unknown, possibly prehistoric, cultures that are buried benath in the ocean floor.

Man, I provided that link to Cormac who posted it in a Yonaguni thread months ago right here at ATS. Ask him if you don't believe me.

Anyway, what are we talking about here? I thought I asked for evidence of ancient civilizations. The Yonaguni "culture" (for which no ancient evidence has ever been found, BTW) that supposedly (apparently) once set their butts on a natural rock formation (there's no carving there for them to have "carved,") dates (according to Kimura - the only scientist to believe in them) to around 3,000 BC. the Jomon culture from the same general area date to 15,000 BC.

So, what's unknown here?

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
Once again you would believe wrong as Byrd only managed to get it together to illuminate us with the timeline of the Whale - see her one and only post on pg. 5 .

Harte says - Byrd's response to the comet theory does not appear in this thread. Run a search.

Then it has no place being referenced here. And "Run a search" ??! Why don't you go run a search? Have you no shame? Seriously, besides being, by far, the most unpleasant skeptic around here, you are also the laziest...

Shame? What's that?
No, I don't need to run a search. Are you saying you don't recall a conversation around here about a study that came out claiming the possibility that the large land mammals of N. America might have been wiped out by this very same cometary impact?

Maybe I get around here more than you do.

The point was that the cometary impact itself is, in fact, in doubt.

I wasn't the one skeptical about that study, Byrd was. I think if you look at where I brought it up, you'll see it was in context with the post I was referring to.

Originally posted by TheWayISeeItAs for the last portion of your post, I believe BFFT has pointed out exactly how the kind of impact that been discovered to have occurred would have global consequences. He also pointed out that you wouldn't be innanely harping on that if you had actually read the thread!

No, I read the thread and I my question was not how would a cometary impact have global consequences.

How is a comet impact in North America like a flood in Mesopotamia?

Are you telling me that you (or whoever) thinks this comet caused rainfall that led to a worldwide flood?

The earliest flood story we can find is from Mesopotamia. That's why I brought up the Sumerians - it was their story. But if you can find another flood myth that fits with the Sumerian one and with this comet impact, I suppose that will do.

Also, do you believe that this impact would have resulted in the flood the Apaches have a myth about? Why? I mean, wouldn't the effect of a cometary impact be different on the other side of the world than it was in the same neighborhood?

Wouldn't the Apaches be talking about (again) fire from the sky, a month with no Sun, a year without stars or whatever?

See what I'm getting at here?

Drink up - I know I will!

Harte

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
But the landmass shift would not be uniform, am I correctly parsing you here?

Yes ma'am, that is just about right. My position is that landmasses will rise and sink over time. Maybe not in a profound manner...but it will still happen. I further believe that they will often do so "muy rapido".

It's happening right now to parts of India, which is why we have that legend about the flooded temples - if anyone knows what I'm referring to here.

One of the temples was still visible back in the 1700's or 1800's as I recall.

Similarly, in India, an entire city once thought to possibly be mythical has been rediscovered just off the coast - all because of the process of subduction, which is when the land sinks.

Technically subduction refers to the crust going back down into the mantle for "recycling." There are several active "subduction zones" where this is occurring today. However, hundreds of millions of years ago, there were other subduction zones in other locations. These zones no longer have crust going all the way down into the mantle, but they do still suck down on the crust because they still have humongous chunks of extremely ancient crust still sinking there that were broken off millions and millions of years ago.

See, the mantle isn't exactly fluid - it's more like an extremely thick pudding - usually called plastic in scientific terms (not polypropylene or something.) Takes a while to sink down as far as you're gonna go, even if you used to be a chunk of crust the size of Oklahoma (we can only wish, right Tex? )

So, when part of a tectonic plate drifts over one of these old, "inactive" subduction zones, the crust of that plate gets pulled downward for a time, until it drifts on past the area of (former) subduction.

This is why part of the Indo-Australian plate is currently under the South Pacific, with many of the islands there simply being mountaintops of the former surface crust.

This part of that continental plate will rise back up when it finally drifts past the former subduction zone. Or if the old subduction zone finally stops sucking down.

Ask the geologist - I'm sure nobody want's to believe me without a link.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexanIn the Atlantic there are stories of islands that appear and disappear. I have seen one or two from the Pacific, but history is stronger in the Atlantic.

I have looked for the article, but cannot find it. However, there was a story i read once about an island that was rather large off the coast of Spain some distance. Spanish monks even set up shop there. Obviously, this island was fairly old, as it had vegetation on its surface. One day, the ships went to deliver supplies, but the island had vanished. Obviously, the monks that had set up shop there disappeared, too.

Maybe you are referring to the mythical island of Antillia. LINK (How's that TWISI? )

Columbus had one eye out for it when he first came this way - hence the Lesser Antilles.

Tex,

I realized I never got back to you about a previous post. I don't have time now to go deep into how much energy would be released by a tectonic plate rebounding over the time span of a few days or weeks (as compared to a million years or so,) but I can say that, IMO, a comet impact in N. America is not gonna make water squirt out in Sumeria.

We ain't livin on an orange here.

PS - Wasn't "the firmament" supposed to be in the sky?

Harte


[edit on 9/18/2008 by Harte]

I stand correcting on the term "firmament". When i checked the word, i found the latin usage for "support" and misapplied it (when the word was obviously put in use in this context during the middle English period of prose). Thank you for the correction.

However, my previous point still stands, as the water came from above and below, as stated below in Genesis 7:11

11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

www.biblegateway.com...

I find the usage of the phrase "all the fountains of the great deep broken up" to be very interesting.

Bear in mind, while i have a Christian childhood, I could be considered of a far more Eastern spiritual influence. I am not speaking from the perspective of a creationist insomuch as someone who believes that the bible's historical references represent true events.

Along those lines, it is important to note (as creationists have been wont to do) that the human lifespan shrunk considerably after this timeframe. What would cause this to happen?

reply to post by Harte

Harte said - The point was that the cometary impact itself is, in fact, in doubt.

Umm, not so much, thus far those attempting to debunk it have ended up making the case for it using the very evidence they intended to undo it with… below are the links that we launched this thread with . To summarize, once again (I think I may need to keep doing this every few pages so we all know what the point and topic of the thread is):

The cometary impact theory is not only holding up, it is from the appearance of the articles, on its way to general acceptance: LINK LINK

BFFT and I then posted James Marusek’s Global Flood theory which he postulated years before evidence of a comet of this size impacting the Ice Shelf came to light. He is an impact specialist, his creds are on, I think page 2 in one of my posts.

BFFT took-up some very interesting lines of thought in regards to what the results would be of an impactor that size imploding over the ice shelf, where they now pretty much know it to have occurred. Maruseks paper discussed the actual imbedding of the comet.

I am defending the position that this event would explain a total cataclysm that would have wiped out pre-historic civilizations that would only have been in the habitable coastal regions around the planet and that most of the evidence of them would be buried well beneath the ocean floor. I took this stance because Marusek goes into detail about how that would have been the result, in terms of the geological impact, globally.

I then contacted Marusek asking him if the new evidence of a 2 mi. comet impacting over the ice shelf would coalesce with his theory. His response to my, and in turn some of the skeptics, queries are on pages 3 and 4…

The thread picked-up again last week when Marusek sent me a link to an article that is showing the same kind of cosmic diamond dust I the Carolina Bays – this is a very big deal in going towards proving that they are related to the known comet as the creation of the Bays has been the source of much speculation.

And here we are.

I am going to put together some links on the anomalous evidence that points to prehistoric civs. -- and anyone else who would like to jump in with this, feel free, it’s the fun part! – but I really have to go now and get stuff done in the 3-d world.

PS - Harte, I noticed and appreciated the civil tone of your last posts and will to do my part to reciprocate.

And BFFT? You just keep going on with your bad self!

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I stand correcting on the term "firmament". When i checked the word, i found the latin usage for "support" and misapplied it (when the word was obviously put in use in this context during the middle English period of prose). Thank you for the correction.

No worries. I've seen just about everything you can think of referred to as "the firmament" in attempts to equate Noah's flood with this or that thing, imagined or real. One need only visit one of the zillions of creationist websites to see the word abused. You probably got it from somewhere like that or from somebody that frequents such things.

The firmament, as I understand it, actually is the sky.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexanHowever, my previous point still stands, as the water came from above and below, as stated below in Genesis 7:11

11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

www.biblegateway.com...

I find the usage of the phrase "all the fountains of the great deep broken up" to be very interesting.

Bear in mind, while i have a Christian childhood, I could be considered of a far more Eastern spiritual influence. I am not speaking from the perspective of a creationist insomuch as someone who believes that the bible's historical references represent true events.

Tex,

Believe me when I say I respect your faith. But you should understand that, when we're talking about real events in the real world, what some scribe wrote down in 1500BC holds very little water (no pun intended) when he's writing about an event that took place millenia prior to his birth.

On top of that, the Bible does describe the flood as worldwide, right? Yet we know for certain that all the world's surface has never been completely covered in water simultaneously. What is the justification for allowing that error to slip by with the usual argument ("well, they meant 'all the world' that they knew about") yet cling to the "fountains of the great deep" being opened up as if it had to be true?

I should say here that I have my own faith and I'm a Christian. But I don't think the stories in the Bible should be taken literally. Especially the flood story, which the Jews basically lifted intact from the Babylonian myth. Jahweh is not Enlil. At least, not to me he isn't.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexanAlong those lines, it is important to note (as creationists have been wont to do) that the human lifespan shrunk considerably after this timeframe. What would cause this to happen?

I think we can be pretty sure it didn't happen.

Other than scripture, we have no reason to believe that people lived longer prior to the flood that never happened.

PS. What, no reaction to my "Oklahoma" crack?
PPS. I am, myself, an Okie.

Harte

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt

I am going to put together some links on the anomalous evidence that points to prehistoric civs. -- and anyone else who would like to jump in with this, feel free, it’s the fun part! – but I really have to go now and get stuff done in the 3-d world.

PS - Harte, I noticed and appreciated the civil tone of your last posts and will to do my part to reciprocate.

TWISI,
Hey, man, I figure anyone that smokes, drinks and eats red meat has enough in common with me that why in the hell should I care if he or she believes in Noah, Atlantis, Thunderbirds and/or Underdog!

Anyway, I notice you're gonna put up some links and posts re. ancient civs. Can we first agree on what a "civilization" is?

And, don't get mad when I shoot down all your ancient civ stuff. I've been doing that for years - I bet I've got an advantage given my saved bookmarks.

Lastly, you should know I used to be a believer too.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


I am a die hard Sooner fan, so the Okie comment is "OK' with me. As a matter of fact, there is a town in the panhandle named after my family, which settled there when you could get a free quarter section of land with a 3 year homestead.

The reason i bring up the age thing is because it is relative. They apparently counted the years differently. Or people lived longer. One way or another, there was a change that caused them to count less years during ones life than previously, regardless of what caused it (that is another mystery, i suppose).

the counting of one's age is relative and experiential. Does that make sense?

"The whole world" is another issue altogether. Yes, i believe that it, once again, was stated relatively based on what they experienced at the time. As well, i believe that the inundation was different. I doubt the entire planet was covered with water....


....however, if the aquifers were to be released completely onto the surface, how much water would that be?

BTW, i noticed you are now in Tennessee. What, Oklahoma wasn't close enough to Texas, you had to move over to our screw up kid brother? Just move here and be done with it, for the love of God! (most of the "true" Texans came from Tennessee...Davy Crockett, Sam Houston, et al).

[edit on 18-9-2008 by bigfatfurrytexan]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Harte

 

I am a die hard Sooner fan, so the Okie comment is "OK' with me. As a matter of fact, there is a town in the panhandle named after my family, which settled there when you could get a free quarter section of land with a 3 year homestead.

A sooner in Texas? You must live a hard life!

I once lived in Elk City, that's sort of near the panhandle. You ever been there? On Rt. 66.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
The reason i bring up the age thing is because it is relative. They apparently counted the years differently. Or people lived longer. One way or another, there was a change that caused them to count less years during ones life than previously, regardless of what caused it (that is another mystery, i suppose).

the counting of one's age is relative and experiential. Does that make sense?

It does and then again it doesn't.

That is, I know what you mean but I don't see the need to explain extended lifespans that we can be pretty sure didn't exist. It seems to me that a great many ancient cultures made similarly unbelievable claims about their forebears. Look at the Greeks and their gigantic and long-lived heroes.
The Sumerian kings lists claim extremely long lives for their kings - even after the flood.
What about Pecos Bill? He's been around a damn long time (kidding on that last one.)

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan "The whole world" is another issue altogether. Yes, i believe that it, once again, was stated relatively based on what they experienced at the time. As well, i believe that the inundation was different. I doubt the entire planet was covered with water....


....however, if the aquifers were to be released completely onto the surface, how much water would that be?

My problem is, there's nothing "holding back" the many aquifers right now so, "released" from what?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
BTW, i noticed you are now in Tennessee. What, Oklahoma wasn't close enough to Texas, you had to move over to our screw up kid brother? Just move here and be done with it, for the love of God! (most of the "true" Texans came from Tennessee...Davy Crockett, Sam Houston, et al).

LMAO!
I was born in Cushing OK, my dad went to OSU in Stillwater. We moved to Texas (Dallas) long enough for them to shoot JFK then beat it out of there.

I've spent most of my life in Georgia, which I still love dearly.

But I am (originally) an Okie.

Nothing against Texas, though. I enjoyed it when I lived there. Like OK, you can scare up several horny toads by running a fenceline there. At the time I lived there, horny toads was good enough for me. Still are, come to think of it!

Harte

Originally posted by Harte

Anyway, I notice you're gonna put up some links and posts re. ancient civs. Can we first agree on what a "civilization" is?

Nope, sorry, we can’t and I doubt we will. Unfortunately 3-d life took precedence over my day and I have not accomplished my declared tasks – listing anomalous evidence of prehistoric civilizations. I will rely on a myriad of things, most of which I am sure you have seen before, but will try to do it in a ‘new and refreshing way!’.

But it will have to wait until Tuesday – apologies all around – as I am off to a boat go catch crabs, the good kind.

And, don't get mad when I shoot down all your ancient civ stuff. I've been doing that for years - I bet I've got an advantage given my saved bookmarks.

I won’t get mad but I will try to insist that you link to your ready-to-refute-all-comments-bookmarks.

Lastly, you should know I used to be a believer too.

And then, what, you got ground down by Byrd and Hanslune (casting a sideways glance at cormac and Essan) and threw the towel in? (sadly shakes head)....

If so, you will serve as a cautionary tale, well, unless you find your back to the fold of “Those of Us Who Will Not be Cowed by Textbook References”

Cheers!
TWISI



[edit on 18-9-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]

If it can't be agreed upon what definition is being used for "civilization" then pretty much any definition can, and possibly will, be used which makes the mention of civilization pointless.

And then, what, you got ground down by Byrd and Hanslune (casting a sideways glance at cormac and Essan) and threw the towel in?

Actually, I used to be a believer as well, until I started doing my own research and found that those I believed in were either unqualified to make the claims they did, misrepresented the facts or outright lied or a combination of all three.

cormac

Sorry to be missing this great discussion. I'm overseas at the moment and don't have the time for reading the whole tread and making long comments

One note: coastal civilizations, the great civilizations grew up on rivers, Egypt the Nile, Mesopotamia the E & T, Harrapa the Indus, Chinese the Y & Y. It was the later civs that moved to the sea coasts once they had a firm agricultural basis.

Rivers provided the fresh water needed for agriculture. Sea based food supplies in the days before preservatives have a very short survival time. It took some time for the dry/salt technology for fish to get into full swing.

Egads, Texans and Okies! Hawaiian here

Originally posted by cormac mac airt
If it can't be agreed upon what definition is being used for "civilization" then pretty much any definition can, and possibly will, be used which makes the mention of civilization pointless.

And then, what, you got ground down by Byrd and Hanslune (casting a sideways glance at cormac and Essan) and threw the towel in?

Actually, I used to be a believer as well, until I started doing my own research and found that those I believed in were either unqualified to make the claims they did, misrepresented the facts or outright lied or a combination of all three.

cormac

I'm a Cormac ditto head.

My move to the "Dark Side" happened about the time the internet started taking off and I could more easily find other points of view and other evidence that (suspiciously) went unmentioned by Von Daniken.

Harte

You know, Harte, you bring up the Greeks and their gods...

that is a whole 'nuther topic, honestly. But, something that occurs to me is that we have to be careful before dismissing them as tall tales, Certainly, there could be some "Paul Bunyan" effect. But where is the kernal of truth? Is there one?

Regardless, the parallels are not quite there. In Greek lore, the gods were responsible for the natural cycles. Mars/Apollo drove the Sun across the sky, for example. The stories of the ancients in biblical texts are much, much more mundane and representative of a daily life during fantastic events. Does that make sense?

Now, the Sumerian kings....that is a different story and relating much more aptly to the flood story as it represents less of a deity.

But I would not just dismiss it as the fanciful renderings of an ancient mind. The city of Troy is a good example of why, I would think.

I caught the good kind of crabs, they were tasty – my crew and I tore up the state of Oregon and now I am back to throw down what I consider to be evidence of prehistoric cultures. But since this is taking the thread completely off topic, I am electing to start a new one ...the link is here.

So feel free to come on over a beat me with your ‘dating’ sticks. Hope to see you there!

Cheers!
TWISI

edit: to add link


[edit on 25-9-2008 by TheWayISeeIt]