Thread: Open Discussion: lost advanced civilzations?

Well....I don't think there are any advanced civilizations that we haven't already found...and even they were only advanced for their time. The earth is only about 6,000 years old, and try as they might, "they" can't prove otherwise.

One of the major issues I have with science in schools is that they take all of the imaginings and theories they have, put them in a book and teach them as fact. I believe the Bible to be a true accounting of the creation of the earth, man and all other life. That places the earth around 6,000 years old...and creation science can support that fact...it is provable. Check out Kent Hovind if you ever get the chance, he's an awesome creation science teacher...and can explain everything 100x better than I ever could.

Originally Posted by Interested1

The earth is only about 6,000 years old, and try as they might, "they" can't prove otherwise.

Just out of curiosity, what WOULD prove that to you?

Originally Posted by Ruhe1986

This tool, made out of obsidian-a dark, glass-like rock-dates back to 10,000 BCE. It is impossible to shape obsidian just by hitting it with a stone.

The process in creating tools from obsidian is called pressure flaking. You only use a hammer stone for the very rough shape. All the rest is done by applying pressure with a sharp-tipped instrument such as the tip of an antler or sharpened bone. With a little - or a lot depending on how nimble your fingers are - practice, any number of shapes can be formed this way. Also, the edges on flaked obsidian are sharper than surgical steel.

Just because we can't do something or don't understand how it may have been done doesn't mean others can't or haven't. Ascribing supernatural or alien interventions to amazing HUMAN accomplishments both cheapens the accomplishment and reinforces modern man's over active sense of self-agrandizement.

If we just got over ourselves, we might actually LEARN something from our ancestors instead of just thinking that we are so much better that they couldn't have possibly done something we would find difficult.

I just replied to something similar over at the thread,

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...t=52382&page=2

I'm an Architect and huge student of Architectural History. I think that everyone with a little background agrees that our current model is not 100% correct. We know that civiliztions rise and fall, and that technology develops exponentially and in bursts.

I know there are enough archaeological anomalies to question when humans settled different parts of the world and developed the use of tools, technology, ect. Our historical and geological timeline evolves as this new information is proven, accepted, and worked into the body of knowledge we already have.

There is absolutely no reason to jump to conclusions. Saying the world is 6000 years old is just rediculous. I have read enough "creation science" to be able to say it is an oxymoron. Claiming this just shows your lack of knowledge on the subject, and bias towards one fantastic view. It is extremely easy to prove the world is old. I repeat Extremely easy. There are proofs made upon direct observation without any jumps in logic, and there is absolutely no room for interpretation.

Just take five minutes to browse the articles at

http://www.talkorigins.org/

This is a one sided debate. Creationists try to debate something which everyone else has long ago closed the book on.

That being said, there is all kinds of evidence for civilization being older than we currently believe. There are a ton of fun examples of technology being developed and lost. I don't just mean carved tools. Check out the Antikythera Mechanism for my favorite example.

I love a good post apocalyptic theory as much as the next guy. Read through the Mahabharata: (6500 B.C.? I'm not sure) and then check out the sheets of fused glass found all over Africa. That gets your imagination moving. Or find an accurate translation of the old testament's descriptions of God cruising around in Flying saucers, then look at some Egyptian hieroglyphics showing what looks like airplanes.

Its easy to get carried away, but just remember my favorite motto don't believe everything you think.

EDIT: I just read through this, and just to be clear, I agree with you 100% Ruhe1986. I just dont like when people get carried away with it and attribute it to aliens or Zeus, or Jesus.

Originally Posted by saxonharp

Just out of curiosity, what WOULD prove that to you?

Proof would prove that to me...and there isn't any.

There is absolutely no reason to jump to conclusions. Saying the world is 6000 years old is just rediculous. I have read enough "creation science" to be able to say it is an oxymoron. Claiming this just shows your lack of knowledge on the subject, and bias towards one fantastic view. It is extremely easy to prove the world is old. I repeat Extremely easy.

Just as rediculous to think the world is billions of years old...when was that ever proven to be true? It wasn't...it's a theory. We can argue all day about theories and never get anywhere...because there is no proof...that's why they are theories. Just because a website claims that evolution is a fact doesn't make it so...they are completely biased towards one "fantastic view", and what they call fact is nothing more than supposed conclusions, not fact at all. And if you'll look up Kent Hovind, he explains why it isn't true...and I'm sure you'll walk away feeling exactly as I do about evolution. And it's just as easy to prove that the earth is fairly new...extremely easy. Again repeat, look up Kent Hovind...he is an amazing creation scientist, I did take the time to look at your site.

[QUITE]This is a one sided debate. Creationists try to debate something which everyone else has long ago closed the book on.[/QUOTE]

You're correct, it is one sided...everyone in mainstream science closed the book on it without so much as a second glance.

This was labeled an open discussion, and I would love to discuss the question and why we believe what we believe...but let's not attack eachother for said beliefs. I hate agruing, and I'm not going to argue over my view just because it's different. I was just answering a question and stating why I believed my answer was correct...everyone is free to believe what they wish, without condnemnation from me. If my view is a source of argument, I'll gladly stay out of the conversation.

If I ruffled any feathers, it was quite by accident...I assure you.

Originally Posted by Interested1

Proof would prove that to me...and there isn't any.



Just as rediculous to think the world is billions of years old...when was that ever proven to be true? It wasn't...it's a theory. We can argue all day about theories and never get anywhere...because there is no proof...that's why they are theories. Just because a website claims that evolution is a fact doesn't make it so...they are completely biased towards one "fantastic view", and what they call fact is nothing more than supposed conclusions, not fact at all. And if you'll look up Kent Hovind, he explains why it isn't true...and I'm sure you'll walk away feeling exactly as I do about evolution. And it's just as easy to prove that the earth is fairly new...extremely easy. Again repeat, look up Kent Hovind...he is an amazing creation scientist, I did take the time to look at your site.

[QUITE]This is a one sided debate. Creationists try to debate something which everyone else has long ago closed the book on.

You're correct, it is one sided...everyone in mainstream science closed the book on it without so much as a second glance.

This was labeled an open discussion, and I would love to discuss the question and why we believe what we believe...but let's not attack eachother for said beliefs. I hate agruing, and I'm not going to argue over my view just because it's different. I was just answering a question and stating why I believed my answer was correct...everyone is free to believe what they wish, without condnemnation from me. If my view is a source of argument, I'll gladly stay out of the conversation.

If I ruffled any feathers, it was quite by accident...I assure you.[/QUOTE]

I have to admit, my feathers were ruffled. That's my problem though, not yours, so no worries.

I guess the thing that I don't understand is that you seem to hold science in contempt for "closing the book" on creationism, and yet you yourself say that there is nothing that could convince you that you are incorrect.

That seems hypocritical to me.

Am I missing something?

Sorry if I angerred you. This is just something I feel passionately about and am very well infomed about.

I say it is easy to prove the earth is old because the only thing you need is one piece of evidence that is more than 6000 years old, and the debate is closed. To prove the earth is young is more difficult (I believe impossible) because you need to disprove every piece of evidence more than 6000 years old.

That's the difference I was talking about. There is no theory involved. It's a remarkably easy thing to figure out, there is no reason to argue it.

Exact dating is not so easy, and the order things happened in is even more difficult. Those are the issues being studied right now in the community. Studies are being done right now to improve the accuracy of our dating. Young earth theorists jump on these new studies as proof that the 'science is wrong'. Thats not what the current arguement is about. It is about 60 billion years versus 70 billion years. Not 60 billion years versus 6000 (thats a hyperbole, by the way).

Glad it wasn't taken personally.

I don't hold mainstream science in contempt, but it is a source of frusteration for me. I think it's more human nature than anything...a sort of, if it's not down this path I want to walk...then it's not worth looking at. I think mainstream science has made some very valuable discoveries, I just don't believe the theory of evolution is one of them.

And I didn't say that nothing could convince me that I was incorrect, I just said there wasn't any proof. And I do apologize if I came accross as hypocritical...I'm not perfect by any means, but hyprocacy is something I truly cannot stand. If I was shown indisputable proof that evelution was true, it would definately give me a reason to re-think long and hard and do some serious research, to be sure.

I really think (and we are each entitled to think as we will) that one of the major issues with the whole evolution/creation argument is that neither side, can prove without a shaddow of doubt to the other side that what they are presenting is accurate. If either side were totally provable, there wouldn't be an argument...it would be like arguing over whether or not the sun will rise in the morning or if touching water would get you wet.

So, if there is indisputable evidence out there, I would gladly take a look at it with an open mind...I'm just not sure there is any.

We can have fun, let's just not be nasty with eachother...that's not fun And I too feel passionately about this.

Just out of curiosity, Robot, what tools are you refering to for determining age? That would help to know if we're going to be on the same page of discussion.

Have you read the articles at Talk Origins? I know they are biased, but that does not mean they are fabrications. Just because you don't understand something does not mean it is not real. Like I said, the only people with a gripe against it are the uninformed. You have to meet it halfway. Read the evidence, then decide for yourself. You can't just say "I havent seen the evidence, so I don't believe its out there". Thats just putting your head in the sand, then saying the sky is not blue because you can't see it.

I feel like this is getting off track from the topic the original post wanted to bring up. I think we can all agree that there are some remarkable and fascinating questions still out there to be answered. Lets focus on discussing those questions. I know I have a whole list of things I am dying to hear other people's opinions about.

Originally Posted by Robot_Butler

Sorry if I angerred you. This is just something I feel passionately about and am very well infomed about.

I say it is easy to prove the earth is old because the only thing you need is one piece of evidence that is more than 6000 years old, and the debate is closed. To prove the earth is young is more difficult (I believe impossible) because you need to disprove every piece of evidence more than 6000 years old.

That's the difference I was talking about. There is no theory involved. It's a remarkably easy thing to figure out, there is no reason to argue it.

Exact dating is not so easy, and the order things happened in is even more difficult. Those are the issues being studied right now in the community. Studies are being done right now to improve the accuracy of our dating. Young earth theorists jump on these new studies as proof that the 'science is wrong'. Thats not what the current arguement is about. It is about 60 billion years versus 70 billion years. Not 60 billion years versus 6000 (thats a hyperbole, by the way).

The quote didn't work out the way I meant it to. Mea culpa.

I was actually responding to interested1. I am not a creationist and am quite comfortable with the current scientific thinking on the age of the Earth, Solar System and Universe in general. I personally do not see any reason why science and spirituality have to be mutually exclusive.

My "ruffled feathers" come from a lot of personal baggage around closed-minded, unaccepting, intolerant, Christian Bible-thumpers who want to convert the world or discredit anything that isn't to their way of thinking.

I don't know interested1 and so for me to have those thoughts about her is unfair and inappropriate. That's why it's "my" problem and not hers. It is also the reason I was trying to understand if there was something I missed in her post or her reasoning that I could try to incorporate into my own understanding.

Lol, agreed...on all points. And my children are calling for my attention. I'll try to get to some of the articles tonight...in the meantime, I hope you all enjoy...

Originally Posted by saxonharp

The quote didn't work out the way I meant it to. Mea culpa.

No sweat. This is a super touchy subject for a lot of people. This thread has sort of degenerated into a confusing mess of everyone posting at the same time. Reminds me of a bad rap concert - five guys on stage all trying to yell at once.

Isn't it amazing what the human imagination can come up with? lol

Anyway, to change my statement a bit, I understand this now.

Every sedimentary layer on the planet laid down for the last few hundred years, especially since 1944, contains UNMISTAKABLE chemical evidence that a global industrial civilization flourished here. This evidence will persist until the earth is destroyed. Yes, our structures and monuments and all visible evidence of our presence will be gone in a hundred thousand years...but the evidence of our presence will be there if anyone looks for it.

By the same token, a case that any sort of advanced global industrial civilization existed before our own is very hard to support. Layers of pollution in ice cores and sediments would have been noticed. And the existence of man made radioactive isotopes again would have been noticed.

However, I would say that there is at least a possibility that in the past few hundred thousand years maybe there was a lost civilization that consisted of a few city states somewhere that never achieved industrialization and its attendant pollution. It's a weak theory, there is no evidence supporting it, and good arguments can be made against it. Still...remotely possible that we haven't come across those trace chemicals yet.

On the earth being 6000 years old, I have never believed that. (and being a Christian myself) believe that is radical Evanjelical thinking. There is no supporting evidence for it. I believe God created things, and believe Jesus is my savior and we have a soul, but I think alot of things in the bible are symbolic to other things. Symbolic to what? Who knows. Not enough evidence.

Originally Posted by Interested1

creation scientist

No such thing.

Originally Posted by Mark75

No such thing.

Creation Pseudoscientists to be more precise.

LOL, I actually laughed when I heard myself being called a Bible Thumper...probably because I am (if you were me, you'd be laughing too) I'm not trying to force my view...I was just sharing it. A question was asked...and I answered the way I believe. I might just stay out of this territory in the future though...I don't like the stress level that comes with debate. And Robot Butler is right, it is a touchy subject and it was like a rap concert.

Saxonharp, I know you don't know me at all & I am really new here. (This is way off topic) But if you did know me, you would know that I am one of the least judgemental, accepting, tollerant...and semi open minded (I really do try to be more open minded) people that you would ever meet. To each his own, and that's ok with me. My beliefs are based around my faith, and they really do make up who I am. I'm far from perfect, but I like me. I think it's ok for people to agree to disagree and still be able to be friends, or at least get along. I hope I haven't completely alienated you or Robot, I have really enjoyed reading both of your posts as I've been getting to know my way around here.

As for the topic at hand. And you guys are gonna love me for this one I guess there's no telling what may have been pre-flood (or what ever catastrophic event you may believe in) as all evidence of civilization before these events was, in all likleyhood, destroyed. I talked to my husband about it (who is far more knowledgable on the subject than I am and I talk to him about everything) and he made a couple of good points.

The first being that if you lived to be 900 years old, there's no telling what amount of knowledge you would have accrued...they may have found a way to clean up, entirely, what ever pollution they made or avoid it alltogether.

The second thing he said, was that he had read a book called the Giza Powerplant. It talks about the pyramids and how the stones are so large and heavy, that even today's cranes wouldn't be able to lift them. It goes on to explain how they must have been built, and the intelligence and advanced technology that these people must have had to even design, let alone, build the pyramids.

So that got me thinking (that and the earlier discussion), that there really is no telling what may have been before all evidence was wiped away...but it would be really cool to find out and I hope at somepoint in time, we all do.

Originally Posted by Interested1

Proof would prove that to me...and there isn't any.



Just as rediculous to think the world is billions of years old...when was that ever proven to be true? It wasn't...it's a theory. We can argue all day about theories and never get anywhere...because there is no proof...that's why they are theories. Just because a website claims that evolution is a fact doesn't make it so...they are completely biased towards one "fantastic view", and what they call fact is nothing more than supposed conclusions, not fact at all. And if you'll look up Kent Hovind, he explains why it isn't true...and I'm sure you'll walk away feeling exactly as I do about evolution. And it's just as easy to prove that the earth is fairly new...extremely easy. Again repeat, look up Kent Hovind...he is an amazing creation scientist, I did take the time to look at your site.

do you know why its so easy to "prove" a young earth? its because all that is needed to be done is to omit information until what is left supports your claim. some times there is so much omitted that it's easily considered pure lies

I don't think an advanced civilization could develop that quickly, because a lot of modern mental charactersitics aren't genetic, but learned. Civilization, tools, language; we may have genes that encourage the development of these things, but we don't have any which teach us how to do them well. Furthermore, other innovations necessary for civilization to continue to grow, like agriculture, ships, clothing, fire, engineering, government, the scientific method, and many more, didn't have any direct genetic basis at all.

While using these things seems easy now for humanity, developing these things must have been much more difficult, often requiring precise circumstances and a lot of luck, as you can see by examining the ones recent enough to be well-recorded history.

For example, widespread use of logic and evidence to explain things (instead of just blaming it on the gnomes or something)took thousands of years to finally come into being, only appearing a few hundred years ago, at the scientific revolution. To develop, that needed the help of other ideas, like astronomy, and developments like the printing press and the telescope.

Since new developments are aided or based on older ones, the more ideas and developments you have, the more ideas and developments they can help generate, so human development increases exponentially. This explains why the progress gets faster and faster, to the point where most of the biggest human developments were created in the past few hundred years. If humanity develops faster and faster as time goes forward, the reverse must also be true, that developments took longer and longer the further back you go. Therefore, in ancient times, any development at all would have taken very long indeed, which is why ancient people probably didn't develop civilizations at a modern level; they simply didn't have enough time.

So God put dinosaur bones in the earth to test our faith I'm guessing?

duuuuhh

Originally Posted by Serith

I don't think an advanced civilization could develop that quickly, because a lot of modern mental charactersitics aren't genetic, but learned. Civilization, tools, language; we may have genes that encourage the development of these things, but we don't have any which teach us how to do them well. Furthermore, other innovations necessary for civilization to continue to grow, like agriculture, ships, clothing, fire, engineering, government, the scientific method, and many more, didn't have any direct genetic basis at all.

While using these things seems easy now for humanity, developing these things must have been much more difficult, often requiring precise circumstances and a lot of luck, as you can see by examining the ones recent enough to be well-recorded history.

For example, widespread use of logic and evidence to explain things (instead of just blaming it on the gnomes or something)took thousands of years to finally come into being, only appearing a few hundred years ago, at the scientific revolution. To develop, that needed the help of other ideas, like astronomy, and developments like the printing press and the telescope.

Since new developments are aided or based on older ones, the more ideas and developments you have, the more ideas and developments they can help generate, so human development increases exponentially. This explains why the progress gets faster and faster, to the point where most of the biggest human developments were created in the past few hundred years. If humanity develops faster and faster as time goes forward, the reverse must also be true, that developments took longer and longer the further back you go. Therefore, in ancient times, any development at all would have taken very long indeed, which is why ancient people probably didn't develop civilizations at a modern level; they simply didn't have enough time.

I see you are also a fan of singularity. IT'S UPON US!! lol

One thing I find interesting in this subject is the structures found underwater near Yonaguni: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yonaguni#Seabed_structures


By the way, did I read Kent Hovind? lolylops lolzords wtf

He's synonym of ignorance, fallacy and stupidity. Simply put, taking him seriously is an insult to human intelligence.

Originally Posted by Serith

I don't think an advanced civilization could develop that quickly, because a lot of modern mental charactersitics aren't genetic, but learned. Civilization, tools, language; we may have genes that encourage the development of these things, but we don't have any which teach us how to do them well. Furthermore, other innovations necessary for civilization to continue to grow, like agriculture, ships, clothing, fire, engineering, government, the scientific method, and many more, didn't have any direct genetic basis at all.

While using these things seems easy now for humanity, developing these things must have been much more difficult, often requiring precise circumstances and a lot of luck, as you can see by examining the ones recent enough to be well-recorded history.

For example, widespread use of logic and evidence to explain things (instead of just blaming it on the gnomes or something)took thousands of years to finally come into being, only appearing a few hundred years ago, at the scientific revolution. To develop, that needed the help of other ideas, like astronomy, and developments like the printing press and the telescope.

Since new developments are aided or based on older ones, the more ideas and developments you have, the more ideas and developments they can help generate, so human development increases exponentially. This explains why the progress gets faster and faster, to the point where most of the biggest human developments were created in the past few hundred years. If humanity develops faster and faster as time goes forward, the reverse must also be true, that developments took longer and longer the further back you go. Therefore, in ancient times, any development at all would have taken very long indeed, which is why ancient people probably didn't develop civilizations at a modern level; they simply didn't have enough time.

I think you're oversimplifying things a bit too much. You're sort of assuming that there has been a continuous and unbroken chain of development. There definitely has not.

I guess you can look at it this way. We know for a fact that there have been advanced civilizations that were thriving for hundreds, even thousands, of years that crumbled to dust leaving little behind. What they did leave behind has only been uncovered because we have entire organizations of specially trained and educated people dedicating their lives to the study. It is very difficult to uncover the past. The knowledge from Sumeria, Egypt, Greece, Rome, has only been uncovered through intense study. Even today, there are many questions unanswered.

Put that in perspective with the fact that even the most ancient civilizations we study today are averaging 2000 to 8000 years old, compared to the 200,000 year time window Ruhe1986 is talking about. I doubt we have any knowledge that came from a 200,000 year old unbroken chain of discoveries.

The farthest we can trace our history back a couple thousand years, and even that's a stretch. Can you really say we have language because Ancient Egypt had language? Theirs was so different from ours, that they are not even the same class. Any way you look at it, our civilization is blink compared to the age of humanity, and even less compared to the age of the earth.

Originally Posted by Ruhe1986

Isn't it amazing what the human imagination can come up with? lol

Anyway, to change my statement a bit, I understand this now.

Every sedimentary layer on the planet laid down for the last few hundred years, especially since 1944, contains UNMISTAKABLE chemical evidence that a global industrial civilization flourished here. This evidence will persist until the earth is destroyed. Yes, our structures and monuments and all visible evidence of our presence will be gone in a hundred thousand years...but the evidence of our presence will be there if anyone looks for it.

By the same token, a case that any sort of advanced global industrial civilization existed before our own is very hard to support. Layers of pollution in ice cores and sediments would have been noticed. And the existence of man made radioactive isotopes again would have been noticed.

However, I would say that there is at least a possibility that in the past few hundred thousand years maybe there was a lost civilization that consisted of a few city states somewhere that never achieved industrialization and its attendant pollution. It's a weak theory, there is no evidence supporting it, and good arguments can be made against it. Still...remotely possible that we haven't come across those trace chemicals yet.

On the earth being 6000 years old, I have never believed that. (and being a Christian myself) believe that is radical Evanjelical thinking. There is no supporting evidence for it. I believe God created things, and believe Jesus is my savior and we have a soul, but I think alot of things in the bible are symbolic to other things. Symbolic to what? Who knows. Not enough evidence.

You're right. We do know for sure that no civilization before us had the level of technology that we have today. However, we can only know this based on the assumption that an older civilization would have had technology similar to ours. We know what to look for in the geological strata only based on review of our own history. If we are looking for remnants of a past civilization, we may not even know what to look for. Those lime deposits may have abnormal levels of silica or something that we don't even know are abnormal because we have nothing to compare it to.

There is no real 'normal' in the geological column. The very reason we can distinguish different levels is because the earth changes so much. We will attribute one layer as deposits from volcanic activity. We will attribute another weird layer to a meteor strike, or a flood, ect. When it comes down to it, the natural processes of the earth are ever changing. The strata does not show a regular pattern. It shows a pattern broken by a series of catastrophic events. (These irregularities are often what New Earth Proponents cash in on as evidence of biblical catastrophe).

I don't think there were ever coal burning power plants, or rock quarries mining lime to make concrete, or steel foundries, or overnight Fedex packages between North America and Japan. But I do know that someone in 80 BCE made a complex clockwork machine that should not have existed until the 1600s. And I do know that in 200 BCE, the Nazca Indians in Peru were were building structures that ONLY make sense when viewed from the air.