200,000 Year Old South African Civlization! color me amazed

Originally posted by pscysm

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Well actually... Wikipedia has been shown to be comparably (if not more) accurate than the Encyclopedia Brittanica.
news.cnet.com...

That link doesn't support your statement at all. It says at best, wikipedia has 32.2% more errors per article.

lol, umm... nowhere in that article does it state the percent of "32.2" or any percent for that matter.

Here is what the article said (in numbers)...

In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.

That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia.

reply to post by Gorman91


i dont mean to be rude, but wikipedia is not a credible reference or evidence source, i say this because whilst studying at university, one is not allowed to reference wikipedia, if you do, your work is thrown out.

Originally posted by apexvin
reply to post by Gorman91

 

i dont mean to be rude, but wikipedia is not a credible reference or evidence source, i say this because whilst studying at university, one is not allowed to reference wikipedia, if you do, your work is thrown out.

Once again... please see my link above. Wikipedia is actually a better source than most people think it is. It's not perfect and the sources MUST be confirmed and analyzed. But it has proven to be comparable in accuracy to the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by apexvin
reply to post by Gorman91

 

i dont mean to be rude, but wikipedia is not a credible reference or evidence source, i say this because whilst studying at university, one is not allowed to reference wikipedia, if you do, your work is thrown out.

Once again... please see my link above. Wikipedia is actually a better source than most people think it is. It's not perfect and the sources MUST be confirmed and analyzed. But it has proven to be comparable in accuracy to the Encyclopedia Britannica.

I've read complete nonsense in EB where some people write an article they have no affiliation to. I love my EB though! I guess in all research you need 2 sources or it will be flawed as you will most likely get a biased perspective.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

reply to post by Sinter Klaas

 

Incorrect. 200,000 years ago, humanity was one of several human species. We were barbarians living in caves. and we were NOT, I repeat, NOT psychologically the same.

Again, we call this Behavioral Modernity. It is a fact that our bodies are older than our minds. Behavioral Modernity is the time when we started using that intelligence like we do now. When the biochemistry of the mind, and the mind itself, evolved to open the keys to imagination and art and science. It is when the cave paintings began and when we started developing.

This was 50,000 years ago.

Humanity is 50,000 years old as we are now. 200,000 years ago we were busy killing Homo sapiens idaltu and Homo Erectus and various other groups. No society. We were still animals.

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 25-7-2010 by Gorman91]

Hi there,

Im new to the form and live in South Africa.

are the structures REAL - in a answer yes they are, they can be found in Maumalanga province and north west province, there are similar structures all over south africa.

Are they 200 000 years old? Well that's a question for the ages I suppose, lets have a look at South African PROVEN history, in the North West province there are a series of caves called the sterkfotien caves where the oldest said humanoid skeletons have been found, they date back some 1 to 2 million years old.

The next question would be is in 1.8million years to the said 200 000 year old buildings could these "people" have evolved into a group with intelligence to build? well if according to you it took 50 000 years to get to where we are today what could the "ape" man of 2000 000 years ago evolve too in 1.8 million years? As history shows us loads could have happened.

Now take the start and the alignments of adams calendar into account then we can prove that a TIME conscience people existed in South Africa some 75 000 years ago, leaving a gap of say 125 000 years of stone building to happen before they became clever enough to build a calendar? Possible I say yes it is probable maybe not, think for a second what this would mean for religion? The garden of eden then would have had to be in Africa and not Iraq, well the stone buildings reach all the way to Kenya covering the biggest built city in the entire world, and that then adds some value to the theory that life really started in Ethiopia.

This is all nice on paper but can it be proven?

Lets now look at the other side of the coin, There are old rocks piled on eachother to keep cattle in, or perhaps the great King Shaka of the Zulu's built these to channel his enemies into a narrowing where he could slaughter them one by one? Again not very probable.

Could they be built by aliens? My guess is a NO, then what else remains? Do they resemble temples of soloman and sheba? yes they do... Was there gold workings at these site? Yes there were.... Well could we than say that the great mines of solomon where the gold rich fields of South Africa? I suppose you can, can you prove a statment like that, no you cant.

To me the mystery is more of a where did the history then go? How could a 200 000 year old race go to without a trace? Where are the bones? The remains? The written history of the Abuntu? Where are the artifacts? Why is there no hype about digging the sites? Well cause in all honesty if a GREAT nation rose from the ashes of South Africa there would with little doubt there would be some record of such a nation yet there is not. You might say "peter what about GREAT ZIMBABWE?" and my answer can only be that is 800 years old and not the remains of a 200 000 year old nation, it may represent the remains of the South African rock formations but its some 19 200 year after the fact...

Yes this is a great topic and can be argued from many aspects BUT it leave to much room for doubt and to little fact... So ill wait to see what the pro's have to say on this one.

Thanks all and GREAT site.

reply to post by PeterCox


evolution doesn't work that way, nor does it work that fast.

No human before 20,000 years or so ago built much of anything beyond huts. And there were no structures before 50,000 years ago.

This site does not look like much beyond a village to me, not a city. And there are designs like it in many places. But that does not make it a city. It makes it a community of humans.

the age I strongly question, because the simple fact is that humanity did not have the mental ability to do these things until about 75,000-50,000 years ago.

All humanity originates from a collection of humans somewhere in Africa about 75,000-50,000 years ago. This is what can be proven.

This site simply is either not dated correctly, or grossly misrepresented.

You don't simply evolve suddenly from a hunter-gatherer family pack to a city building species.

reply to post by Gorman91


...and the bottom line is that the method they used to date the site use extremely circumstantial evidence. That dating method was by no means definitive -- or even close to definitive.

The stone alignment is certainly an interesting theory, but those researchers need better evidence.

it has to be pointed out that Michael Tellinger stresses that the artifacts he is referring to in his ancient civilization hypothesis are NOT the numerous cattle kraals that are also found sometimes overlaying the ruins he studies, which he says are older and deeper and more numerous and extensive