Antediluvian Civilizations and more

I was looking around on the interwebz and came across this site and thought I would share. It has a bunch of information and links dealing with all manners of lost civilizations, antediluvian civilizations in addition to links to current projects and resources on the topics.

Antediluvian Civilizations - Main Page

Here are a few links / topics

Creationist Perspectives on Antediluvian (Pre-flood) Civilizations

* - Ancient civilizations and modern man - Were ancient cultures more advanced than many evolutionists believe?
* - Alternate Archeology and History - Bunch of sublinks / categories
* - Human Fossils
* - Preflood traditions
* - Signs of Ancient City off coast of Cuba
* - The mystery of ancient man
* - The riddle of out of place artifacts


and a bunch more. Some of the articles resources are older, but provide updated links and new info.

Looks like it will be fun to dig through. Thanks.

reply to post by Xcathdra
Before the usual fun and games begin, it’s worth underlining the difference between ‘cultures’ and civilisation.

Culture can include a loose collection of villages and settlements spread across an area and including peoples who share similar customs and languages. Civilisation is a more advanced concept.

A civilisation typically requires advanced development and society centred on City States and using infrastructure to sustain the populations through trade and agriculture with satellite settlements and neighbours. Army, government and a merchant class etc…much like our own society. They minted currency that can be found in the archaeological record of their trading partners or in museum collections. They traded goods like pots and statues that point to their society’s customs and are buried in tombs and common graves.

A culture can be lost through tidal or river flooding. Coastal settlements can be lost to eroding coastlines and catastrophe. Bad weather or unexpected events and BAM Cow Village is swept away and a few metres of silt and dirt washes back and covers it up.

A civilisation is ballsier and less likely to be caught by an unexpected bath-time. People mobilise and flee. Roads connecting to other sites would remain and their buildings too. There are dozens that have been abandoned and we know about them because there they are still. 5000 years later, the first cities remain. Some of them are tourist destinations sustaining the descendants of the original people.

Out of place artefacts, Atlantis, Yonaguni, Cuban pyramids and all the rest that comes bundled with the ante-Diluvian/lost civilisation concepts are mostly window-dressing and shiny lights to deflect from the lack of real evidence that any of them are real. Whether guys like their origins to come from that ‘red-haired, white race,’ a Creationist God or those sneaky little SOBs from space, the evidence isn’t there.

The evidence that humanity pulled its ass up from being nomadic and learning to control nature through agriculture and clever locations for settlements is much stronger. It’s enough to have built upon some ~4000 years of academic learning and thousands of libraries containing millions of books that chart our progress. The alternative view of history is more like a few dozen books and seemingly endless websites with similar images...

That time-line of events, in diverse areas of Earth, isn’t anywhere close to the finished article, but it’s pretty good and always getting better. It's a work in progress and changes by the month in some way or other.

reply to post by Kandinsky


If it makes me happy you just gotta come cloudy up my day with science & intellectualism, Kandinsky. Is it possible, however, to be too learned? I know that sounds crazy to most.

Reminds me off you most affectionately & with much respect the exchange of Festus with Paul, you being Paul in this instance:

24 At this point Festus interrupted Paul’s defense. “You are out of your mind, Paul!” he shouted. “Your great learning is driving you insane.”
 25 “I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable.
(Acts 26: 24-25)

So, there's something to be said for both arguments.

reply to post by The GUT
Yep. It's a fair point and well made.

I just had to google Festus and Paul, so there's hope for us all yet.

What's driving Kandinsky (and myself) insane is the repeated postings concerning "OOPArts" and other so-called evidence practically every week here. This despite every "OOPArt" that exists having been completely and utterly explained here at ATS over and over and over...

Harte

Originally posted by Harte
What's driving Kandinsky (and myself) insane is the repeated postings concerning "OOPArts" and other so-called evidence practically every week here. This despite every "OOPArt" that exists having been completely and utterly explained here at ATS over and over and over...

Harte

Yeah, I agree that A LOT of the oopart has been poppycock. There are a few that are fairly compelling though I think. The ancient accounts and intriguing hints here and there are what keep it fascinating for me.

MY HERO! I was seriously just looking for this type of information and had no idea how to come up with it.. Antediluvian is the word i needed lol Thanks again! S&F!

reply to post by Kandinsky


Lol Its all good.. I know the difference between the two, I just used the title of the main website I linked.

As far as the out of place artifacts comment the other poster made, I agree that some are easily explainable. Some however dont make sense though, and the one that stands out to me are the "pipes" found in the mountains in China.

The human footprints located next to dinosaur tracks is another one. Either we are totally screwing up the math to determine age, or at some point in history man and dino coinsided.

To me though the largest out of place artifact' are going to be the Pyramids. Not just in Egypt, but all over the world. This has never been adequately explained as to why civilizations all over the world, who supposedly never had contact with each other, all created the same item.

Science has done a good job explaining the significance of Pyramids in the local culture, but for some reason they ignore the 800lb gorilla in the room, which is the possibility of a world wide civilization at some point.

Kind of makes one wonder if the Atlantian civilization might be misunderstood as to its location. History says it was an Island beyond the pillars of hercules. Thinking on a galactic scale and assuming the Alantian civilization did exist, and was as technologically advanced as reported, then maybe the "island" is Earth itself and the pyramids belonged to them.

Its been determined that the pyramids all over the world use the same math / formulaes in addition to astrnomical alignment.

Its not out of the norm for a civilization to die out / leave, while another civilization moves in / emerges and just takes over whats already present. This might explain how the pyramids were built without a written language.

Anyways.. ive been kicking that around in the noggin for sometime now.. Thought I would throw it out there and see what people think.

Originally posted by srbouska
MY HERO! I was seriously just looking for this type of information and had no idea how to come up with it.. Antediluvian is the word i needed lol Thanks again! S&F!

Anytime... Check these 2 threads out as well. They contain some more info / links for this type of stuff.

ATS Thread - Our history under the sea - Lost civilizations

ATS Thread - Astro-archeology

While I find great value in the oft quoted official story of history as handed down to us from the “peer reviewed” ologists. I also find great value in those alternative theories that only make up a “few dozen” or so books. Modern ologists have become far too interested in protecting the now long established paradigm. Besides that. Since their 1000’s of books and papers are marginally evidential, at least experientially by the common layman on the street. That makes all those volumes faith based to you and I. And those who quote them religiously could teach the christians a thing or two.

Having said that, it doesn’t mean we can just throw the mainstream consensus out the window either.
I think we have to look at all sides and theories, and make individual determinations based on the data we have. Just because something is easily explained, doesn’t mean it’s correct. And just because our ologists say it’s impossible. Doesn’t mean it is. And just because it doesn’t fit the paradigm, doesn’t make it an oopart. It’s only out of place to prevailing scientific thought. It’s only out of place to those who place their faith in one, and only one doctrine. Sound familiar?

So what’s my point? Continually preaching the official story over and over again is no less a circular argument than saying there must be a face on Mars because Richard Hoagland says so. When you base all your arguments on one prevailing theory, you are going to come out with the same answers everytime. That’s why they call it a circular argument. People who blindly trust the scientific community for the gospel, are no less faithful and religious than [your religion here].

Now before anyone damages their keyboard. I too, look to science for many things. Note I said science. Not scientists. There’s a difference. Science itself is not to blame. It is those interpreting the results who bear responsibility. Why anyone would think that in a world where everything is filtered before it reaches the public with few exceptions, that prevailing scientific thought would not be, is beyond me.

IMHO, we need to look at all possible historical scenario’s. Not just the ones that fit neatly inside the box. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence out there, that says to me, we’re not being told everything there is to know. We have only been given part of the puzzle. But we’re being told we have it all. I think it’s been proven more than once, not all myths are myths. And not all ooparts are so easily dismissed. Unless we become devoid of independent thought beyond the consensus. Then of course, everything is explainable. “Because the bible tells me so”. Right?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
As far as the out of place artifacts comment the other poster made, I agree that some are easily explainable. Some however dont make sense though, and the one that stands out to me are the "pipes" found in the mountains in China.

It makes no sense if you're not familiar with geology. There's stranger stuff in geology than most people know about.

The human footprints located next to dinosaur tracks is another one. Either we are totally screwing up the math to determine age, or at some point in history man and dino coinsided.

There's two other options (which are correct):
1) Some of those are misidentified tracks of other dinosaurs. Not all of them have flat round feet and some of them have a fairly narrow foot. After weathering, they "sort of" look like human footprints. What you're not being shown is the WHOLE track... just the bits that "sort of" look like human footprints.

2) Others are outright fakes. I've seen several where the artist has NO idea how the bottom of a human foot is shaped and has never looked at bones in a dinosaur foot.

(I'm picky about this because I volunteer in a paleo lab, working on dinosaurs and other fossils.)

To me though the largest out of place artifact' are going to be the Pyramids. Not just in Egypt, but all over the world. This has never been adequately explained as to why civilizations all over the world, who supposedly never had contact with each other, all created the same item.

All the pyramids are very different. It'd be weird if they were all building the same shape with the same slope at the same time... but they aren't. Mayan pyramids are very different than Egyptian, and those are different from the Chinese (which are earth), and so on.

Science has done a good job explaining the significance of Pyramids in the local culture, but for some reason they ignore the 800lb gorilla in the room, which is the possibility of a world wide civilization at some point.

Actually, it had been discussed (and fought over) in the 1800's under the concept of "diffusionism" versus "independent discovery." It was still being wrangled over in the early 1900's. What settled the issue was finding enough material to start building time lines.

Kind of makes one wonder if the Atlantian civilization might be misunderstood as to its location. History says it was an Island beyond the pillars of hercules.

Actually, history doesn't say that. Plato said that. History has no evidence of an Atlantis.

Thinking on a galactic scale and assuming the Alantian civilization did exist, and was as technologically advanced as reported, then maybe the "island" is Earth itself and the pyramids belonged to them. Its been determined that the pyramids all over the world use the same math / formulaes in addition to astrnomical alignment.

They were built at different times (the Mayan ones were built some 3,000 years after the Egyptian ones) and they don't use the same alignments. Even the ones in Egypt aren't entirely consistent in their alignments.

Its not out of the norm for a civilization to die out / leave, while another civilization moves in / emerges and just takes over whats already present. This might explain how the pyramids were built without a written language.

The Egyptians were writing for well over a thousand years before the pyramids were built. Some of the pyramids have inscriptions in them (the "Pyramid texts") and all of the ones I've read about have temples associated with them (and they have writing on the walls, along with sculpture, painting, offering jars (with labels and dates) and so on and so forth.)

...and that's why some of us sigh when these topics come up, as has been explained.

Originally posted by Klassified
While I find great value in the oft quoted official story of history as handed down to us from the “peer reviewed” ologists. I also find great value in those alternative theories that only make up a “few dozen” or so books. Modern ologists have become far too interested in protecting the now long established paradigm.

Actually, as one of the "ologists" I can tell you that there is no profit/point/fame in protecting the "paradigm." You don't get famous or get tenure by looking over material and saying, "hey! Yeah! That's right!" You get it by making discoveries, improving translations, doing research that overturns or challenges (or proves) the greater ideas.

This is why the fields of non-Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics exist and people like Einstein became famous. That's why the continental drift theory came about and Bose-Einstein condensates. That's why the lab where I volunteer is rewriting the book on what some one group of titanosaurid dinosaurs looks like (because we have bones that we are preparing right now and they challenge assumptions made about these animals (assumptions made from lack of data, modeling them on another similar titanosaurid.)

They were built at different times (the Mayan ones were built some 3,000 years after the Egyptian ones) and they don't use the same alignments. Even the ones in Egypt aren't entirely consistent in their alignments.

Okay, but let us take the prime meridian at Greenwich. The building there is 9/60ths of a degree off true north, that's using today's tech and knowledge. The great pyramid is just 3/60ths of a degree off.

The sky does not lie, and from it we can measure. No one person is going to go through the trouble of building on such a scale to not be anally precise. The researcher of Tiahuanacu, Arthur Posnaski, came up with the date the site was built around 17,500 BCE. Why? He spent 50 years there to understand the alignment, and it was off I thin a half degree. Why? because when it was built, the earth axis was tilted differently. Not because the builders goofed up in construction.

From my perspective as an anthro major there is plenty of room in the historical record for some very amazing events, civilizations, etc., that are not in the commonly accepted record, but you need some context and perspective. For example, there is nothing in the archaeological record that would preclude a Renaissance-type culture along, let's just say, the shores of India 12-14,000 years ago. You can at least entertain the possibility without having to circumvent what we are pretty sure we know about human evolutionary time frames, etc. In other words, it is not entirely out of the question.

But we can pretty well conclude that a) We evolved here on this planet, not on some other planet, though we could have ben "tweaked." and b) No, Homo sapiens was not alive during the age of dinosaurs. That is entirely out of the question. Now, you can take of on the "ologists" for wanting to maintain the status quo if you want (and sometimes that is an appropriate position to take), but when you do it to maintain humans and dinosaurs co-existed, it just shows ignorance.

"Thinking "out of the box" is good, but the thing is, you have to recognize that there is a box there to think outside of. Criticizing contemporary theory as if there is no box really leaves you with nothing to go on. "ologists" have spent lifetimes trying to get it right and any theory that goes beyond those "accepted" will have to accommodate what we think we know already. Just dismissing contemporary theory out of hand is not credible.

reply to post by Byrd

I find it exciting that the team you work with has found new evidence that makes a correction in the books. And this is one reason I said we can't just toss the mainstream of science out the window. I know there are good people in the sciences. At the same time, IMHO, there are also people at certain levels that I very much believe have a vested interest in keeping the status quo intact. Discoveries such as your group has made, are not going to rock the boat. If they were, I believe the final research would never come to light. Or would have opponents coming out of the woodwork.

Call me cynical Byrd. But I look at the findings of the modern scientific community the same way I look at alternative theories. I can't give conclusive evidence in either case. Because all I have is one sides word against the other side. So I have to make my determination based on what I've read, and what I've been told. (Since I can't run the experiments and data for myself. And in most cases wouldn't know how.)

So that leaves me with a measure of faith. And I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that per se. As long as one remembers that's what it is.

reply to post by schuyler

Putting aside my personal biases for the moment. I think you and Byrd are missing a key point in my argument. You can read all the scientific textbooks and research papers you want for the rest of your life. But until you personally can see conclusive evidence that what you have learned from those textbooks is true. Then your education is faith based, and biased in that direction.

My own education has proven this to me more than once. What I read in the textbooks, and was taught by my instructors at college level, has not always held true in my field. So by personal experience, I now know just because something is taught a certain way, doesn't mean that's the way it is. Especially when someone senior in the field says to you, forget the books kid, now it's time for the real education. Do I still refer back to those textbooks now and then? You bet. There's some good stuff in there. But I'm now aware through many years experience where the fallacies therein are.

BTW: I didn't say dinosaurs and man walked together. But I leave room for a slight possibility.

I've been reading about a lot of new discoveries in recent years that caused a change in the paradigm.
Geology on dinosaurs, astrology and Cosmology almost any other week, biology and so on.

Saying that scientists mess up the science just isn't fair... Besides what besides a passion could drive one to become a scientist ?

The discoveries of what seem to be ruins of old cities submerged have been made public and Slayers69 thread about human history is IMO spot on.


reply to post by Klassified


I would so like to know what it is you studied

reply to post by Byrd


Well you really threw some sunshine down on that one...

However, I reject your reality and substitute my own

As far as the age of the pyramids go, its based on currently accepted dating techniques. Even then there are scientists who disagree with those numbers (the Sphynx as an example). The Great pyramid in Giza supposedly took only 23 years to build. Working that out with what we think we know, it would be impossible since they would have to lay a stone every 3 minutes.

Let me track down the article talking about the alignment of all the pyramids and the mathmatical formula used.

reply to post by Byrd


What, some actual sanity, and knowledge, on an ATS forum?

Thanks so much for you excellent posts, and for having the patience, and time, that I, and others like me, so many times lack - to our shame.

This is the way to give this site some credibility, and actually have debates that enrich our knowledge, as opposed to posts that just make us leave the site.

Well done, thank you!