Antediluvian Civilizations and more

Originally posted by Klassified

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.

Made public, yes. But none of it has changed the official line. Nor will it in the near future, IMO.
Thanks for the heads up on Slayers thread. I'll have to give that a look see.

That is because no ancient city has been found (yet) that should change the "official" line. Despite what posters in Slayer's thread may have stated. Note that Slayer himself doesn't even make such a claim, in his own thread.

Only a couple of cities have been found underwater that weren't already known to have existed. And these aren't old enough to change any paradigms.

Harte

reply to post by Xcathdra

No more than your assumption that mainstream archeology is 100% accurate. The Sphynx has water erosion on it, dating it back more than just a few centuries. Or is the weathering effect caused by something else?

The Sphinx was sculpted out of limestone bedrock, not bulilt which means that it was a rock formation of sorts that was made to look like it's current appearence. So water erosion showing up older than what is believed to be the sculpting date is most definately possible, because the formation that was sculpted whould have to have been there prior to the sculpting.

Info on the Sphinx:
www.unexplainedstuff.com...

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by schuyler

 

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.

...which is why 'peer review' is integral to science. To call it faith-based is a bit of a stretch, but hey, believe what you want as long as you don't scare the horses.

As much as I appreciate the "peer reviewed" facet of the scientific community, I find it is best suited for gauging consensus.

Not a stretch at all Johnny. I can take a book and a car, and prove to myself the combustion engine is sound science. I can grab my buddy's telescope, and prove to myself there are planets out there, and they move through our solar system in an orderly fashion. But I can't do that with the topic of this thread. I can only read what scientists SAY they have found to be true or not true. No matter how good the science may sound. I'm still taking their word for it in the end. Because I have no way to verify it for myself. I call that faith.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Great Thread Xcathdra!
And great discussion from all skilled ATSers! S&F!

I'm not so skilled like many other here, but what on Mohenjo Dharo?
What about the Hill of the Dead men in that lost ancient city?
It is the place of “the extremely radioactive” skeletons.
Skeletons, with traces of carbonization and calcination.
Stones and radioactive brinks melted in a huge area...

This is like an ancient Hiroshima!

The Occam razor in my mind say: nuclear explosion thousands years ago.

Originally posted by Klassified
reply to post by Byrd

 

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.

It changes some assumptions in paleontology about how these animals evolved, and will probably be hammered at by a number of paleontologists. We'll also have a bunch showing up wanting to see the bones for themselves, which we will gladly make available along with documentation. Jack Horner's recent Stygimoloch-Dracorex connection is similar and he also went through a round of peer reviews and people looking at their materials as well as his. The field of nanotechnology has changed everything, as has the discovery of semiconductors, the idea that dinosaur extinction was caused by a meteor hitting the Earth, and so on and so forth.

Not even dictators can stop this process.

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.)

Actually, you CAN form some basis on which to judge these. For instance, in the "dinosaur track" idea, have a look at pictures of dinosaur tracks. Walk barefoot on mud or on the beach and look closely at how your own footprint looks (if you can at the beach, look how it changes when it is "eroded" by waves.) See which parts are deepest and how the sand squishes up around certain areas when you walk or run. Knowing what a real footprint looks like and how tracks change as you walk or run helps you spot fakes in an instant.

And so on and so forth. If a site says "Lucy (the fossil) is a deformed chimpanzee", go look at the bones of the fossil and then at a site that shows chimp skeletons. Look at the shape of the hip bones and leg bones and arm bones. Simple research like that (looking for original evidence) helps you learn.

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.

Or you can go on faith... but doesn't that mean you have to avoid investigating anything that seems contrary to your faith? That there is only one immutable answer (such as "there are no more elements beyond the 118 we currently know that can be made or discovered") and that nothing (like building new elements with an atomic weight higher than 118) can change it?

Originally posted by Arken
I'm not so skilled like many other here, but what on Mohenjo Dharo?
What about the Hill of the Dead men in that lost ancient city?
It is the place of “the extremely radioactive” skeletons.
Skeletons, with traces of carbonization and calcination.
Stones and radioactive brinks melted in a huge area...

This is like an ancient Hiroshima!

The Occam razor in my mind say: nuclear explosion thousands years ago.

Actually, the research on it says "someone recently made up a bunch of facts about it." This is in an area where there's uranium ore ...but there's no traces of stones and radioactive brinks that have been melted. You can (or could) go see it for yourself. Many have:
www.mohenjodaro.net...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.mnsu.edu...

You don't have to wear radiation gear when going there. It's a tourist area.

Occam's razor would work if you also knew about fossils and remains from other areas where uranium is mined. They're also radioactive and when stored in museums have to be stored so that they aren't hazardous to health:
hps.org...
www.cr.nps.gov...

But if you don't have all the facts, Occam's razor can slice on the wrong side and leave you with a poor conclusion.

reply to post by Harte

That is because no ancient city has been found (yet) that should change the "official" line.

At least that you and I are aware of Harte.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Archeologists and Scientists seem to have this aversion to being open minded when the info presented challenges accepted answers.

* The world is flat
* Earth is the center of the universe
* all planetary bodies rotate around the Earth
* The Sahara has always been a massive desert
* Planets can only be formed in 1 of 2 ways
* There is no water on the moon
* Viking lander never found building blocks of life in the Martian soil
* Using 2 different types of measurement wont result in a crashed satellite
* There is no use for the electron
* Computers will never be cheap enough for the average person to own one
* Exceeding the Speed of light is impossible
* There is only 1 universe
* The Titanic cannot sink

Scientists, including archaeologists, have been crucial in all these examples. None of them could happen without scientists. The speed of light has been calculated by scientists and, if it is ever broken, scientists will be the ones to demonstrate how. Sir Patrick Moore (scientist astronomer) laughed at the idea of water on the Moon and other scientists have proven him wrong. Who do you think developed the technology that led to the first mainframes? Who calculated the displacement and mass of the Titanic? Who built her engines? Who are the guys arguing about theories that allow for the theoretical possibility of other universes?

reply to post by Byrd


Hi Byrd.
Your "hps.org" link don't work.

I find nothing about the presumed uranium mine near Mohenjo Daro. Nothing. Any link?

You don't have to wear radiation gear when going there. It's a tourist area.

I know.
Also in Hiroshima: nuclear blast only 65 years ago.

I find this interesting article

Archaeologist Francis Taylor stated that etchings in some nearby temples he translated, suggested that they prayed to be spared from the great light that was coming to lay ruin to the city. “It’s so mind-boggling to imagine that some civilization had nuclear technology before we did. The radioactive ash adds credibility to the ancient Indian records that describe atomic warfare.”

Archaeologist Francis Taylor www.britarch.ac.uk...

Originally posted by Arken
I find this interesting article

Archaeologist Francis Taylor stated that etchings in some nearby temples he translated, suggested that they prayed to be spared from the great light that was coming to lay ruin to the city. “It’s so mind-boggling to imagine that some civilization had nuclear technology before we did. The radioactive ash adds credibility to the ancient Indian records that describe atomic warfare.”

Archaeologist Francis Taylor www.britarch.ac.uk...

That bit seems to be quoted all over the place. Could you please cite the original article so that I can query Francis Taylor directly?

A couple of points on both sides of this "equation."

I don't believe Byrd nor myself are "missing" anything in your arguments. I don't believe you should believe everything printed in textbooks, either, but it's a rather pedantic point. And if it leads you to believe dinosaurs were contemporaneous with Homo sapeiens then, in my view, you've gone over the edge.

"Peer review" is not all good, nor is it an established tenant of science, but something that is a 20th century addition. It has several issues. First, it gives a false sense of accuracy. Second, it tends to favor the status quo. Third, it can be mis-used. Climategate is a perfect example. If you only have a couple of dozen scientists who peer-review each other, then you have created a potentially hazardous situation. The "science" isn't settled in that issue, yet we're making policy decisions based on it that will grossly affect our economy. In fact, Global Warming is a perfect example of science gone bad. For those of you interested, please see The Hockey Stick Illusion for an excellent diagnosis on what has happened in that field (Plus, it reads like a mystery thriller. I never thought statistics could be so fascinating.)

That's not to say peer review is ALL bad. It has its uses. A good example is the claims made by Bob Lazar. A real physicist examining Lazar's claims can tear them to shreds in a few minutes. Here it is right here.

Science done well incorporates what has already been discovered. That does not "prove" that science was wrong. Quantum Mechanics does not prove Newtonian Mechanics wrong; it incorporates it and expands into new areas. My favorite examples are those, often reported here, where a paleontologist discovers a "new species of Homo that will entirely re-write the human fossil record!!" and when you look into it, it does no such thing. It expands the record. All you're reading is journalistic hype. When I was in school years ago anthropology maintained that, perhaps, the line of evolution went something like Australopithecus to erectus to sapiens. With subsequent finds, particularly aferensis, the picture has changed somewhat. It has become more refined. The fossil record is much richer than it used to be. It's not that the old idea was exactly wrong, it was just generalized for lack of data.

Think of it this way. Science builds jig saw puzzles. When you put the first few pieces of the puzzle together you start trying to make sense of the final picture, but you'rre hampered by a lack of data, so you do the best you can. As you fill in the pieces the picture becomes clearer, so you can refine your theories to better match the increased data you have. It wasn't that your old postulates were exactly "wrong," they were just incomplete. Good science can incorporate ANY data that comes along.

A perfect example is anthropology, once again where, completely from another field, comes genetics. And guess what? Genetics and DNA corroborates what anthropology has been saying all along. They are not even close to being the same kind of science in their particulars, yet they verify each other. That's sweet.

And I take particular exception to these preposterous examples "proving" science wrong because "they" said the earth was flat, or that the Titanic couldn't sink, or that the sun revolved around the earth. These are pathetic examples that totally misconstrue what science ever said. The Greeks knew the earth was round and that the earth traveled around the sun. they even postulated atomic theory. It's not the fault of science that the church mucked all that up. And it's not the fault of science that some dweeb mistakes a sales brochure for science.

If you dismiss science to such an extent that it leads you to believe humans walked the earth with dinosaurs, you've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Your critical thinking skills aren't critical.

Having said all that, I think science is making a serious mistake by dismissing "theology" (I use the term loosely) outright. In that sense science is throwing the baby out with the bathwater because that is the next big issue to conquer and understand. I'm not saying "God did it." at all, but I am saying there is something on 'the other side' that science refuses to deal with, but has been anecdotally reported by sober people for all of humankind's history. The Answer is somewhere in there, and until we deal with it, we will continue to stay on the materialistic side of life and not advance because of it.

Originally posted by Byrd

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.

Herodotus says that in History, Book 4 does he not?

184. ….. After this at a distance of ten days' journey there is another hill of salt and spring of water, and men dwell round it. Near this salt hill is a mountain named Atlas, which is small in circuit and rounded on every side; and so exceedingly lofty is it said to be, that it is not possible to see its summits, for clouds never leave them either in the summer or in the winter. This the natives say is the pillar of the heaven. After this mountain these men got their name, for they are called Atlantians; and it is said that they neither eat anything that has life nor have any dreams.
185. As far as these Atlantians I am able to mention in order the names of those who are settled in the belt of sand; but for the parts beyond these I can do so no more. However, the belt extends as far as the Pillars of Heracles and also in the parts outside them…

Another thing ologists got wrong was saying everyones mythology is fantasy without ever having gone to the place where everyones mythology says it takes place to see if the huge buildings n stuff mythology talks about were there. That seems like a pretty silly thing to do since all the “fantasy” buildings n stuff were there.