The 10,000 year old civilization which was more advanced than us

reply to post by Gazrok
Maybe all the advanced civilizations were destroyed and the primitive societies of today; i.e. Amazonian tribes, survived.

Also, look at Pompeii... a volcano destroyed that entire city, caused a 'nuclear winter' and buried the city in over 6 feet of ash. Maybe a nuclear war, with much more powerful weapons than us occurred and destroyed it all, or maybe an asteroid or something... I don't know, I'm not trying to disprove anyone, I'm just giving some ideas.


Oh yeah, also, I understand it's just a video game but look at Fallout 3. There were weapons in the game which were able to turn matter into ash. What if they had weapons or bombs with this capability if they are so much more advanced than us?



[edit on 5-4-2009 by Bassman86]

reply to post by Indigo_Child


Well done Indigo

Yes we can move on of the top of my head I cannot think of an earlier outdoor piece of iron. The Chinese iron pagodas are about 5-600 years younger.

Soft knowledge, yep but when the soft data is contra-indicated by the lack of hard evidence you have a problem. Translation bias is always a problem.

Basically the type of civilization you are describing wouldn't just disappeared unless it was hit by natural forces of immense size that would leave easily seen evidence of their effect.

There is no evidence for this civilization while there are millions of artifacts and thousands of sites for all the other civilizations.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

All I am showing by pointing out that ancient production techology was more advanced than production technology in the 18th century is that modernism is not a valid philosophy. That advanced technologies and advanced knowledge can exist even in ancient times. I am also highligting that the label modern which refers to only Western history is a dubious label, the West were behind non-western cultures in modern times, and still are behind in many areas.

You use the word "advance" way too much. So you are saying that a blacksmith using a mud based kiln with a bellow made out of wood and raw animal hide is more advanced than blast furnaces of the 1800s? Wootz steel is good for weapons, but is too brittle for building, so I fail to see steel framed building from that era, I also fail to see this steel made in any mass produced manufacturing technique.

I have a pet theory that throughout our history there were super geniuses (180 to 200 plus IQ)born that in their short life spans they pushed a civilization forward in leaps and bounds, but those civilizations stopped once that person died. In the case of Wootz steel it seems someone hit on a great method and recipe, but there were no further advancements as we see in the modern world.

Communication is the key. You speak of language, but reality is that we communicate around the world with anyone in the world in a matter of seconds, and this has created an exponential curve of advancement. As too the title of this post, there just was not a civilization with tools at hand to have this type of exponential growth in advancements. Some were well advance in small areas to anything within 500 years of them, but none were advancing in every direction as we see today, or even 500 years ago. This ability to advance in every direction is the key to an advance civilization.

They had great weapon’s steel, and a complex language but what did they do with these great things and were did these and a few other advancements lead them as a society as a whole? Since our advancement in the past was calculated in 1000s (or even 10,000) of years then for a civilization to be 1000 years ahead of another one I do not find out of the norm. Today that 1000 years of the past is about a decade now, and so some time after the 15th century advancements started to accelerate in all directions, but after 1900 they went into warp speed.

You use the word "advance" way too much. So you are saying that a blacksmith using a mud based kiln with a bellow made out of wood and raw animal hide is more advanced than blast furnaces of the 1800s? Wootz steel is good for weapons, but is too brittle for building, so I fail to see steel framed building from that era, I also fail to see this steel made in any mass produced manufacturing technique.

I understand your point and agree with your point. I am not saying that India in 500BCE was technologically advanced, what I'm saying that India had inherited an oral tradition from an advanced culture. So while in terms of materials it was not advanced, other than the advanced materials it could develop like steel, zinc and corrosion proof technology, it was incredibly advanced in terms of knowledge and that knowledge all comes from the Sanskrit oral tradition.

I have a pet theory that throughout our history there were super geniuses (180 to 200 plus IQ)born that in their short life spans they pushed a civilization forward in leaps and bounds, but those civilizations stopped once that person died. In the case of Wootz steel it seems someone hit on a great method and recipe, but there were no further advancements as we see in the modern world.

I agree with your theory that we have had super geniuses from time to time that have advanced our knowledge considerably. However in the Sanskrit tradition it seems everybody is a supergenius: Panini is a supergenius, Kapila(founder of of metaphysics) is a supergenius, Patanjali(founder of of psychology) is a supegenius, Dhanavantri, Sushrata and Charaka(founders of medicine) are supergeniuses, Gotama(founder of logic) is a supergenius, Pingla(founder of music) is a super genius, Vyaasa is a supergenious. The seers of the Vedas are supergenius. Everybody who has found a major area of Sanskrit science is a supergenius. It seems basically everybody that was a part of this tradition was a supergenius.
This elite tradition is super-genius itself.

The problem is there is no explicit history of development of how any of these sciences formed. All of the founders state the origins of all these sciences to be in the Vedas. In the past the Vedas was divided up into hundreds of branches and each branch dealt with a science. Then each science had their corresponding school. There are literally tens of thousands of Sanskrit texts on a range of subjects all part of this tradition. Some dealing with the science of clouds, some with the science of horiticulture, still others dealing with astrophysics, aeronautics etc.

The kind of civilisation we find in the Sanskrit tradition is impossibly advanced. New dating has pushed this tradition back to at the latest 4000BCE, this means this incredibly scientific tradition existed back then in the stone age. This means this tradition goes back into pre-glacial times. And that is exactly what Indian records show us, Manu who survived the floods and retreated to the Himalayas, descended from there and reestalished civilisation.

For me the evidence is overwhelmingly indicating we've had advanced civilisation before 10,000 years ago, perhaps many and there are periodic cycles of destruction of civilisation. The strongest memory we have of our forgotten past is the Vedas.

[edit on 6-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

The problem is there is no explicit history of development of how any of these sciences formed. All of the founders state the origins of all these sciences to be in the Vedas. In the past the Vedas was divided up into hundreds of branches and each branch dealt with a science. Then each science had their corresponding school. There are literally tens of thousands of Sanskrit texts on a range of subjects all part of this tradition. Some dealing with the science of clouds, some with the science of horiticulture, still others dealing with astrophysics, aeronautics etc.

And with all this knowledge nothing came of it...why? I think you mix Legends with facts and vice a versa.

Gotama lived in the second century AD, but Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato lived 700 years before he did, and their logic lives on, why the difference?

[edit on 7-4-2009 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by Xtrozero


They are pure guesses. Here is where Gotama may have lived according to different sources:

500 BCE

books.google.co.uk... l=en&ei=z1PbSZ-FLtGTjAftsInRCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#PRA1-PR11,M1

300 BCE

www.scribd.com...

(Do a search for the word "Gotama" in the search box.)

To give you an idea of just how conflicting dates for Indian history is before the common era, I will refer you to this site which records all the dates proposed for various texts and personalities:

www.himalayanacademy.com...

It's a mess to be honest and hence why dating the Sankrit tradition in my research has been very frustrating. I do not even side with Indian scholars on this, I still think everybody is guessing. But one thing is for certain: early colonial Indologists and their dates are bunk. The 1000BCE timeframe they forced Indian history into was not at based on scientific research, but racist and religious politics. This is admitted by Mueller himself who proposed this 1000BCE timeline. The astronomical and archeaological evidence of modern research has pretty much killed his theory.

Dates after Buddha are subject to little dispute, while dates before Buddha have been decided as much by current opinion and politics as by scientific evidence. The overwhelming tendency of Western scholarship has been to deny the great antiquity of Hinduism. Indian scholar S.B. Roy points out that the commonly accepted chronology of German-born and Oxford University educated linguist Max Muller (1823 - 1900) is based "on the ghost story of Kathasaritasagara." Indologist Klaus K. Klostermaier agrees: "The chronology provided by Max Muller and accepted uncritically by most Western scholars is based on very shaky ground indeed." Muller admitted his covert intention to undermine Hinduism. In a letter to his wife in 1886 he wrote: "The translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the root of their religion, and to show them what the root is, I feel sure, is the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last 3,000 years.''

Contemporary researchers, such as Dr. B.G. Siddharth of B.M. Birla Science Centre, Dr. S.B. Roy, Professor Subhash Kak, Dr. N.R. Waradpande, Bhagwan Singh and Dr. David Frawley, have developed a much earlier picture of India, assembling new chronologies based on dating scriptural references by their relationship to the known precession of the equinoxes. Earth's axis of rotation "wobbles," causing constellations, as viewed from Earth, to drift at a constant rate and along a predictable course over a 25,000-year cycle. For example, a Rig Vedic verse observing winter solstice at Aries can be correlated to around 6500 BCE. Frawley states, "Precessional changes are the hallmark of Hindu astronomy. We cannot ignore them in ancient texts just because they give us dates too early for our conventional view of human history." Besides such references from scripture, there is other evidence to support these scholars' dates, such as carbon-14 dating, the discovery of Indus-Sarasvati Valley cities and the recent locating of the Sarasvati River, a prominent landmark of Vedic writings.

Max Muller was an early evangelist of another, more invidious, dogma imposed on Hindu history: the "Aryan invasion" theory. Originally a Vedic term meaning "noble," then applied to the parent-language of Greek, Sanskrit, Latin and Germanic, the term Aryan soon referred to those who spoke that parent language - a supposed race of light-skinned Aryans. The idea of a parent race caught the imagination of 18th and 19th century European Christian scholars, who hypothesized elaborate Aryan migrations from Central Asia, west to Europe, south to Iran and India (ca 1500 BCE) and east to China - conquering local "primitive" peoples and founding the world's great civilizations. This theory holds that the Vedas, the heart and core of Sanatana Dharma, were substantially brought to India by these outsiders and only in part composed in India. Though lacking scientific evidence, this theory, like the alleged Aryan-Dravidian racial split, was accepted and promulgated as fact for three main reasons. It provided a convenient precedent for Christian British subjugation of India. It reconciled ancient Indian civilization and religious scripture with the supposed late 4000 BCE Biblical date of Creation. It created division and conflict among the peoples of India, making them vulnerable to conversion by Christian missionaries.

Many scholars today, of both East and West, believe the Rig Veda people who called themselves Aryan were indigenous to India, and that there never was an Aryan invasion. India's languages have been shown to share common ancestry in ancient Sanskrit and Tamil. Even these two apparently unrelated languages, according to current "super-family" research, have a common origin: an ancient language dubbed Nostratic.

Evidence substantiating the New Model for India's history includes the following. Rig Veda verses belie the old chronology: i.51.14-15 cites winter solstice occuring when the sun rises in Revati nakshatra, which is only possible at 6,000 bce, long before the alleged invasion. Carbon dating confirms horses in Gujarat at 2,400 bce, contradicting the claim that Aryans must have brought them to the region around 1500 BCE. NASA satellite photos prove the Sarasvati River basin is real, not myth. Fire altars excavated at Kali Bangan in Rajasthan support existence of Rig Veda culture at 2,700 bce. Kunal, a new site in Haryana, shows use of writing and silver craft in pre-Harappan India, 6-7,000 bce. Supporters of the New Model include B.G. Tilak, P.C. Sengupta, S.B. Roy, S.D. Kulkarni, Pargiter, Jagat Pati Joshi, Dik#, K.N. Shastri, Sri Aurobindo, Hermann Jacobi, S.R. Rao, Dayananda Saraswati, Subash Kak, David Frawley and B.G. Siddharth. The New Model states that India's native peoples founded the Indus/Sarasvati River civilization, developed Sanskrit and wrote her ancient texts, that European dates are wrong, and that the dating of the Bharata War at 3139-38 bce (not 1424 bce) is the true "sheet anchor" of Indian chronology. By this school of thought, India's history goes back perhaps 10,000 years, and India is not indebted to invaders for her traditions. Evidence shows that Vedic texts, once deemed partly mythology, are Earth's oldest factual account of human experience

After reading this I think you should very skeptical of any dates given to the Sanskrit tradition, especially "accepted" dates.

[edit on 7-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Xtrozero


it's possible some advancements are so advanced, we wouldn't recognize them if we saw them.

indigo,

i think it's safe to say at this juncture, that there is so much data we have not dug up or uncovered or recognized, that archaeology will look nothing like itself in another 300 years. by then, there'll be so much evidence to corroborate the ancient texts of all the old civilizations, it'll be a source of derision that past archaeologists and historians were so insistent that it was all fairy tales and mythology. they'll look upon our archaeologists as we look upon the clergy who promoted the earth-centric theory. they'll wonder how anyone could throw away 5000+ years of ancient historical texts (even while the materials and cities mentioned are being dug up from the ground!) and still believe they are truth seekers. more like revisionists. THE TEXT DOES NOT AGREE WITH MY PARADIGM, THEREFORE IT IS MYTHOLOGY.

gilgamesh never existed.
(gilgamesh's city is dug up)
well, gilgamesh existed but what the texts say about him is mythology.
(monument is found stating that gilgamesh was two thirds god)
well, gilgamesh existed and they BELIEVED he was two thirds god
etc
etc
ad nauseum
etc

check out this article on LATHING in ancient egyptian artifacts, as described by a machinist
www.theglobaleducationproject.org...
TUBE DRILLING
www.theglobaleducationproject.org...

i'm going to venture a guess that what we are witnessing is a global advanced civilization

(and just in case there are any questions as to my paradigm, i happen to be a christian, but i firmly believe the other ancient religious texts (in addition to the christian and judaic texts) are also witnessing real history, real events and are not mythological. there may be some wiggle room in there for all the ancient texts, even the biblical texts, but wiggle room does not mean --never happened!

the knee jerk, diametrically opposite reaction of the enlightenment period has further complicated an already complicated historical past and

they set the standard before archaeology was even a science.

here we are a few hundred years later, and it appears much of what they called mythology is being dug up from the earth. so now the new thing is to claim them as historically accurate except when they describe events unexplainable by modern science... or in the case where modern science has a similar model, they just resort back to the worn out.....we haven't found it so it never existed theory because we all know that if a modern human didn't make it first, it never existed )




[edit on 7-4-2009 by undo]

reply to post by Indigo_Child


It would be interesting if his time was around 500 BC for that would put him in the same era as those I mentioned. It is a shame that their history was not well preserved as others were. I am sure some things discovered have been lost throughout the ages, but I do think with our exponential growth that we are experiencing right now in the next 100 years our knowledge will not only keep breaking new frontiers but will uncover old tech that has been forgotten.

Our growth from day one is all based on how many people are actually involved. In ancient times there were just a few isolated people at best involved in any given subject and so growth was very slow or stopped in a particular area. With the much lower population levels and extremely slow or nonexistent communication between cultures in the past, we mainly saw everyone advancing slowing on their own. Except for times of war, such as the Romans who were able to gather knowledge from other cultures and compile it all together to continually push their own, most cultures were very stagnant except for a few areas that they specialized in. Growth also is faster when a civilization is not spending all their waking moments trying to survive too. Spending most of the day on basic survival needs doesn’t give even a genius much time to do their magic, and so this has played a big part too into the growth of a culture.

With the lack of empirical data, and hard evidence this is why I see your thoughts as a theory and not fact. This culture just doesn’t fit the mold for there wasn’t the gathering to knowledge like the Romans were able to do through war and creating a republic with lines of communication, and their population wasn’t large enough to create a beehive mentality of many mines working one problem, or to have many “super geniuses” born. With 6 billion people on our planet we have a handful today (about 10 with only 4 in some kind of science field), and so when we are talking a small culture they would be lucking to get one every 500 years.




[edit on 7-4-2009 by Xtrozero]

reply to post by Xtrozero


The ancient Sanskrit tradition had even better methods of preserving history they would note astronomical configurations at their time. This method is still used in modern India, when Hindus are born, astronomical charts are drawn.

Regarding the Romans. I think we should be careful of not being eurocentric here, Roman empire was not more developed than the Indian empires - not in science, not in materials technology, not in commerce and not in influnce. There are overwhelming records from this period which clearly show that India was an industrial, scientific and commercial hub of the world and Roman records record just how much their national treasury was drained from trade with India.

I noted this eurocentrism when I was studying Philosophy. So many claims would be made such as how Copernicus was the first to propose the heliocentric theory of gravitation. This is false, it was Aryabhatta(500AD) or how it was Newton that developed Calculus. This is false, it was the Kerela school, which was well known in Europe. Or how Psychology was founded by Freud. False, psychology is a very old Eastern scienc. Or how Saussere was the first to propose stuctural linguistics. This is false, modern linguistics has been studied even prior to times of Panini.
A lot of what we are taught in modern education about history and the history of philosophy and science is rubbish.

The truth is in virtually every area: physics, medicine, linguistics, music, psychology, statecraft, mathematics the Indians have been ahead and pioneers. There has been a systematic effort to suppress their history by Western historians and it is disgraceful.

Some of my most major points have not been answered yet. How do you account for the fact that Sanskrit is a human machine language, with precise data representational and mathematical powers. There is no evidence this language evolved, it has been maintained in Indian records this language was constricted by ancient scientists. Inherent within Sanskrit is the entire histoy of linguistics, mathematics and logic and theoretical computer science. That is to say to develop a language like this you need to go through a development arc which charts the entire history of modern linguistics, logic and theoretical computer science and beyond before you actually develop such a language.


[edit on 7-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by Indigo_Child



So with so much evidence and empirical data why today is this not all considered common knowledge? I understand how in the past people like Darwin, Freud etc would be bias to anything that wasn’t their own idea, but today that bias is long gone and people are open to the truth, so why is it all not out in the open. I can hardly Google anything about it at all but basic descriptions.

I do not buy the theory that people want to keep this all a secret, I would be more willing to believe there just isn’t proof to convince the scientific community. Also, why are no major universities involved in all this?


What I find somewhat confounding with your posts is you continually suggest everything you write is factual. When you write "How do you account for the fact that Sanskrit is a human machine language" you say this like this language actual is, and everything leads it to be related to the roots of Latin and a few other languages, so I do not see computer science involved here. Plus, why would they need a machine language when they didn't have machines that required programming as computers do?


[edit on 8-4-2009 by Xtrozero]

So with so much evidence and empirical data why today is this not all considered common knowledge? I understand how in the past people like Darwin, Freud etc would be bias to anything that wasn’t their own idea, but today that bias is long gone and people are open to the truth, so why is it all not out in the open. I can hardly Google anything about it at all but basic descriptions.

It is not common knowledge in Western education, it is common knowledge in the niche subjects of Indian Philosophy, Indology and Sankrit studies and other related subjects.

I think the idea that we are open to the truth today is slightly naive, information is still suppressed today, but that said modern historians are starting to revise history correctly. It will take time, centuries of misinformation cannot be discarded so easily.

I do not buy the theory that people want to keep this all a secret, I would be more willing to believe there just isn’t proof to convince the scientific community. Also, why are no major universities involved in all this?

Be careful on relying on authorities for your knowledge. They have been lying to your for thousands of years and still are. Why isn't Indian Philosophy taught in Western universities, because it undermines their own history. They see science and philosophy as unique to their race, and Indian Philosophy bursts that bubble. It is the same reason why certain Gospels are not included in the Church, some Gospels burst the bubble.
Why isn't Ayurveda(Indian medicine) accepted in the mainstream, because Ayurveda can cure a lot of diseases, and if they allowed that it will kill the business of allopathic medicine that relies on drug-dependency.

Come on you are on ATS you should know better than to judge your world according to what authority says. Rise above authority.

What I find somewhat confounding with your posts is you continually suggest everything you write is factual. When you write "How do you account for the fact that Sanskrit is a human machine language" you say this like this language actual is, and everything leads it to be related to the roots of Latin and a few other languages, so I do not see computer science involved here. Plus, why would they need a machine language when they didn't have machines that required programming as computers do?

It is a fact, see my other thread where this is explained, this langauge is the only language that can be used in computer programming because of its advanced data representation and mathematical abilities. It is based on a grammar that uses recursions, transformations, algaberic rules and is virtually identical to machine code. Does Latin have that? No. No other language has that. The closest we have to compare are formal programming languages, and Sanskrit beats those too, because it is both a formal programming language and it has natural language processing.

If you look at the history of logic, linguistics and mathematics from Artistotle to Chomsky you will find these sciences developed gradually over 2500 years. Whereas in the Sanskrit tradition logic, linguistics and mathematics is already developed. The logical conclusion to draw from this that Sanskrit's development stage goes back into prehistory.

The Sanskrit tradition is already fully developed by the time Greek traditions begin to develop:

Subject: Sanskrit: Western
Linguistics: 500BCE: 20-20th century
Binary logic: 200BCE: 17th century
Steel: 500BCE: 18tth century
Psychology: 200BCE: 19th century
Microbiology: 1000BCE: 19th century
Plastic surgery: 600BCE: 19th century
Scientific method: 1000BCE: 18th century
Analytical philosophy: 10000-500BCE: 17th century
Quantum metaphysics: 700BCE: 20th century
Physics(including atomic theory and classical mechanics) 600BCE: 17-18th century

I have used only 'accepted' dates above which as I demonstrated above are above. The truth all of these dates are millenias older eiher 2000BCE or 3000BCE. So going by both dates: The Sanskrit tradition is either 2500-3000 years or 4000-5000 years ahead of modern Western civilisation. So what is clear from this what we call "modern" has happened before thousands of years ago in a non-western culture. It is only eurocentricism that makes us ignore that there were previous civilisations more advanced than us. Just like English is the main global language today for commerce and education, likewise Sanskrit was the main global language of yesterday.

The truth is clear from all the evidence: We've had many "modern" civilisations in the past well beyond 10,000 years ago. There are periodic cycles of cataclysm which destroy civilisations, the last one was the super floods 10,000 years ago which completely changed the geography of the earth and submerged entire continents, and we are due in for the next one very soon.

[edit on 8-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
The Sanskrit tradition is already fully developed by the time Greek traditions begin to develop:

Yet the Mahabharata credits the clever Greeks with the invention of all the marvelous things described therein.

The Mahabharata compliments "the all-knowing Yavanas" (sarvajnaa yavanaa, the Greeks), as the creators of the vimanas[4]: The Yavanas, O king, are all-knowing; the Suras are particularly so (sarvajnā yavanā rajan shurāz caiva vishesatah).
(Mahabharata VIII.31.80 )

Source

Harte

reply to post by Harte


It is not really known what the word Yavana meant back then, it later used during Alexander times to refer to the greeks, but what it meant prior to that is unknown. What we do know is that Indians and Aryans belong to the same common ancestory, so it is entirely possible that the Sanskrit reference refers to proto-greeks before they arrived in the Mediterranian.
There is strong evidence of migrations from India into Europe and these migrations might have taken place around 1900BCE when the river Saraswati dried up. Thus explaining the Indo-European thing.

Most scholars do not agree that Yavana in Sanskrit texts prior too 500BCE refers to Greeks. If that is true then we should be finding Greek texts on linguistics in presocratic philosophy which Panini refers to, but nothing like this exists. Moreover, it is clear the presoctatics and Platonic Philosophy learned philosophy from the Indians. How they did that is unknown, because there was no India-Greek contact then. The only explanation is that Indians went to Greece and brought philosophy with them and taught it to the Minonians. Thus explaining the sudden but scattered appearance of Philosophy in Greece. There are plenty of Greek records of Indians being present in Greece and teaching the Greek.


[edit on 8-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]

reply to post by undo


Howdy Undo

Writing this from a hotel room so it will be brief.

No evidence. You speak of Gilgamish, yep a whole civilization of evidence to support him and his existence. The advanced civilization Indigo writes about has no evidence whatsoever to support it. None whatsoever - how can they be? Nor can anyone point to evidence of a natural agent that could have destroy it - which also leaves traces. Nothing

Indigo, you really need to put some effort into figuring out why you have no physical evidence for that civilization.

You sound like some sorta of ultra BJP nationalist, lol

Talk to you guys later

reply to post by Hanslune


I believe what you are asking for is "proof" not evidence. This entire thread is full of evidence, but no "proof". Well there cannot be proof, because this civilisation has been wiped out and is probably many miles under sea. The next best thing you have is reason and evidence; paper and dots.

Originally posted by undo
gilgamesh never existed.
(gilgamesh's city is dug up)
well, gilgamesh existed but what the texts say about him is mythology.
(monument is found stating that gilgamesh was two thirds god)
well, gilgamesh existed and they BELIEVED he was two thirds god
[...]
here we are a few hundred years later, and it appears much of what they called mythology is being dug up from the earth. so now the new thing is to claim them as historically accurate except when they describe events unexplainable by modern science... or in the case where modern science has a similar model, they just resort back to the worn out.....we haven't found it so it never existed theory because we all know that if a modern human didn't make it first, it never existed

)

Well, to give just one example, in The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria back in 1898, Morris Jastrow was of the opinion that Gilgamesh was based upon an historical figure. But he also, like many other scholars in his day, believed it was part of a solar myth, much like the 12 Labors of Hercules. (I'm not sure how popular that interpretation is today.)

While I greatly admire your tenacity, I think it is important to remember that these texts you use are derived from the various magical traditions of the ancient world and often absolutely defy you to take them literally. Surely nobody is going to say that the god Tum physically grabbed his penis and masturbated the world into existence.

[edit on 8-4-2009 by Eleleth]

Just for the record, the Aryan invasion of ancient vedic india never happaned.

Ancient vedic culture is not attributed to cannibalistic aryans.

Want proof that the Aryan invasion theory of india is false? watch this series of videos.

ARYAN invasion theory, proven false -- INDIA:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Be careful on relying on authorities for your knowledge. They have been lying to your for thousands of years and still are. Why isn't Indian Philosophy taught in Western universities, because it undermines their own history. They see science and philosophy as unique to their race, and Indian Philosophy bursts that bubble. It is the same reason why certain Gospels are not included in the Church, some Gospels burst the bubble.
Why isn't Ayurveda(Indian medicine) accepted in the mainstream, because Ayurveda can cure a lot of diseases, and if they allowed that it will kill the business of allopathic medicine that relies on drug-dependency.

Come on you are on ATS you should know better than to judge your world according to what authority says. Rise above authority.

It is not that I rely on authorities as much as I rely on empirical data, and this becomes the root of most issues into what one considers data to be pure empirical based so that a theory can be proved as factual.

Take Willow Bark, at one point in our history it was an herb that provided unique properities in dulling pain and reducing inflammation. This herb has had empirical data backing up all its effects and properties and today it is aspirin. When you look at pharmaceutical companies I would not say they do not always have our best interest at hand, but I can say they are always trying to make a buck, and so they spend Billions per year in extremely expensive research. If they could market anything based on Ayurveda they would in a heartbeat. Also, there are numerous other companies that would love to grab some market with Ayurveda medicine if it was doable.

This leads me to believe that it is more of a “can’t” do it then a “will not” do it scenario. The big part of can’t is that much of these type of medicines do not hold up under serious observations in a true experimental environment.

When I look at Ayurveda medicine I see it more of a way to maintain a healthy lifestyle. We do not live healthy lifestyles and that induces many problems with our health, and so as example, I can get fat and become diabetic just because I’m fat. I can then take drugs that will help, but the underlining cause is still there. My body can also retain many impurities that constantly affect my health too, so if I provided my body the proper healthy diet, and purged it of impurities on regular bases it would be a smoother running machine. All this is a great preventative practice that would eliminate a good amount of health issues in America. I do not see this though as superior medicine, but more of a superior lifestyle.

It is a fact, see my other thread where this is explained, this langauge is the only language that can be used in computer programming because of its advanced data representation and mathematical abilities. It is based on a grammar that uses recursions, transformations, algaberic rules and is virtually identical to machine code. Does Latin have that? No. No other language has that. The closest we have to compare are formal programming languages, and Sanskrit beats those too, because it is both a formal programming language and it has natural language processing.

It would be nice to see proof of this as in a program actually written in this language for as far as I can find in research is it is only theorized that it might be. This is not that it is some magical thing or incomprehensible to do, it is just that it shows "like" properties only. Does this in some way make it a superior language? I don’t know, but it is not used very much anymore and at best maybe 20k are fluent in it today. I find English language as a superior language because language is for communication, and English is constantly evolving making it very efficient in communication.

If you look at the history of logic, linguistics and mathematics from Artistotle to Chomsky you will find these sciences developed gradually over 2500 years. Whereas in the Sanskrit tradition logic, linguistics and mathematics is already developed. The logical conclusion to draw from this that Sanskrit's development stage goes back into prehistory.

The Sanskrit tradition is already fully developed by the time Greek traditions begin to develop:

Could be true, but once again why has so many other ancient sciences and philosophies survived and this one didn’t?

Subject: Sanskrit: Western
Linguistics: 500BCE: 20-20th century

I would put this inline with the Greeks with most likely the Chinese before either. We all understand that the human progression started in that part of the world long before the west which were still rather primitive even 1000 AD or there about, but once the west hit around 1500 AD the baton of advancement was past to them from the east. Yes many things were rediscovered but the progression in the west never stopped and what the world is like today is all from the wests continued progression that we see at an exponential rate today.

Binary logic: 200BCE: 17th century

Not sure here. Binary logic is using 0s and 1s to program, and it was first used in the west because computers were extremely limited, and so they really needed a very simple way to communicate and function. Binary Logic is extremely ineffective outside the computer environment, so I’m not sure what they would use it for or even why think about it 500BC…or even 1900 AD hehe.

Steel: 500BCE: 18tth century

Not sure what your are comparing here...

1800 was the start of mass produced steel, and not the invention of steel. I have explained that Wootz steel is not superior steel other than superior in weapons for its time (in that part of the world). Their culture was not a steel based culture in any sense, so there really isn't much discussion on this other than to say they made good weapon steel, period. Steel in itself is dated back to 4000BC, so 1800 means really nothing other than mass produced steel for a steel based society.

Psychology: 200BCE: 19th century

Once again I'm not sure what you are comparing other than to say the western world was not the first to think about Psychology, but I don't see how these two can be compared unless it is like comparing Aztec surgeries to a modern surgical ward. In both cases they did surgeries but not very similar.

Microbiology: 1000BCE: 19th century

So they had microscopes to actually view this world?

Plastic surgery: 600BCE: 19th century

Hmm ok I think...did they really understand the whole infection thing, that has killed more than it has ever saved?

Scientific method: 1000BCE: 18th century
Analytical philosophy: 10000-500BCE: 17th century

I would really need to see a lot more on what they actualy did in these areas to even talk about it, but I can't fain any emperical data on this.

Quantum metaphysics: 700BCE: 20th century

Ok you got me here....metaphysics...the jury is still out on this one. So what even in the 20th century is factual about this?

Physics(including atomic theory and classical mechanics) 600BCE: 17-18th century

I would really love to read their concepts on this, and how did they view this invisible world? The data would really need to be stong here....

The truth is clear from all the evidence: We've had many "modern" civilisations in the past well beyond 10,000 years ago. There are periodic cycles of cataclysm which destroy civilisations, the last one was the super floods 10,000 years ago which completely changed the geography of the earth and submerged entire continents, and we are due in for the next one very soon.

Ok, so you now suggest they got their knowledge from an even more ancient race, and were not the originators at all. Ok spill the beans on who were these ancients and why would you think they existed.



[edit on 9-4-2009 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by Bassman86
Oh yeah, also, I understand it's just a video game but look at Fallout 3. There were weapons in the game which were able to turn matter into ash. What if they had weapons or bombs with this capability if they are so much more advanced than us?

But wouldnt that be kind of noticable when studying geology? We can trace volcanic eruptions back in time already.

I believe disintegration is a better choice. Vaporize the enemy.

However, no matter how you twist and turn it, there should have been survivors and stuff left behind. Even if we where to vaporize every major and minor city on the face of the planet in this instant, that still leave gazillions of artifacts, communities, farms, vehicles, etc etc. Nothing short of blowing up Earth and reforming it will make everything vanish, I think.