Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Why most fringe theories exist.


  • Please log in to reply
148 replies to this topic

#16    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 03 April 2013 - 01:04 PM

View PostAbramelin, on 03 April 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

Let's make that 189,000 years. See other thread where you quoted from one of your posts to start this new thread.
Like i said i would go further. But am trying to restrict myself to mainstream suggestions to strengthen my argument.


#17    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 03 April 2013 - 01:06 PM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 03 April 2013 - 01:04 PM, said:

Please do your own homework. Willful ignorance is no excuse. These sites have been discussed many, MANY times here at UM.

cormac
These sites being discussed is not the solution. I have done my homework....actual detailed physical verification is required,there is enough prima facie evidence as in a court case to take the suite further.


#18    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,884 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 April 2013 - 01:06 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 03 April 2013 - 12:40 PM, said:

And if we continue to discard all objects that do give such dates as contaminated then we can continue to suppress this theory.

What theory?

In all cases, you are looking at things from the wrong end.  Objects are not discarded because they give anomalous dates;  Objects are rarely discarded at all until they have been classified.  Usually, the dating system is found to be contaminated, which is not at all unexpected, considering the complexity of dating.  There is, after all, a reason why dating is an entire career in and of itself.

So, why are these anomalies generally discarded (or rather, ignored)?  Because of what is known as the "Preponderance of Evidence".  In other words, there is no "one" item that will ever dictate an entire theory or explanation; even a handful is unlikely to do so.  In order to support a theory, what you need is the vast majority of the data supporting you.  Mistakes happen, coincidences happen, humans happen, and because of all three, you will never be in a situation where the answers are always 100% consistant (indeed, seeing such a level of support is a sign that something may not be on the level).

So let's say that, for whatever reason, be it ancient aliens, time travel, trickery, unbelievable coindidences, whatever, you get a box of pottery that is dated to 10,000 years prior to a civilization having pottery.  All the dating systems agree, the proper chain of custody has been followed, everyone involved is credible, etc, etc.  What does that mean?

Not a whole lot.  Thing of it is that for every one of these boxes of anomalous artifacts, you have dozens and dozens of other artifacts all of which are dated at another period, one which is consistent with all the rest of the data, including the data from the biologists, the geologists, the anthropologists, and everyone else has.  For every bit of data that says "not X", you have a hundred that say "Damn right, X."  If you have a hundred samples that say one thing, and one sample that doesn't agree, chances are pretty good that there was something wrong with the one sample.

Quote

We have to acknowledge the possibility and then reinterpret all the evidence we have and also look for new evidence in this new light,then you will be able to see a lot of proof emerging.

Well, in your re-interpretation, don't forget that if you are going to start adding up all the anomalies that say one thing...you will have to compare them to all the other artifacts which are consistent with current theories.  Maybe you are correct; probably, you are not, but that's where great discoveries are made.  Just don't make the mistake of looking at the sample size, and not comparing it to anything.  Any sample size must be compared to the whole, otherwise there is no meaning to it.  One of my socks has a hole, but that doesn't mean all my socks, most of my socks, or even any other of my socks, have holes.


#19    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 03 April 2013 - 01:12 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 03 April 2013 - 01:06 PM, said:

What theory?

In all cases, you are looking at things from the wrong end.  Objects are not discarded because they give anomalous dates;  Objects are rarely discarded at all until they have been classified.  Usually, the dating system is found to be contaminated, which is not at all unexpected, considering the complexity of dating.  There is, after all, a reason why dating is an entire career in and of itself.

So, why are these anomalies generally discarded (or rather, ignored)?  Because of what is known as the "Preponderance of Evidence".  In other words, there is no "one" item that will ever dictate an entire theory or explanation; even a handful is unlikely to do so.  In order to support a theory, what you need is the vast majority of the data supporting you.  Mistakes happen, coincidences happen, humans happen, and because of all three, you will never be in a situation where the answers are always 100% consistant (indeed, seeing such a level of support is a sign that something may not be on the level).

So let's say that, for whatever reason, be it ancient aliens, time travel, trickery, unbelievable coindidences, whatever, you get a box of pottery that is dated to 10,000 years prior to a civilization having pottery.  All the dating systems agree, the proper chain of custody has been followed, everyone involved is credible, etc, etc.  What does that mean?

Not a whole lot.  Thing of it is that for every one of these boxes of anomalous artifacts, you have dozens and dozens of other artifacts all of which are dated at another period, one which is consistent with all the rest of the data, including the data from the biologists, the geologists, the anthropologists, and everyone else has.  For every bit of data that says "not X", you have a hundred that say "Damn right, X."  If you have a hundred samples that say one thing, and one sample that doesn't agree, chances are pretty good that there was something wrong with the one sample.



Well, in your re-interpretation, don't forget that if you are going to start adding up all the anomalies that say one thing...you will have to compare them to all the other artifacts which are consistent with current theories.  Maybe you are correct; probably, you are not, but that's where great discoveries are made.  Just don't make the mistake of looking at the sample size, and not comparing it to anything.  Any sample size must be compared to the whole, otherwise there is no meaning to it.  One of my socks has a hole, but that doesn't mean all my socks, most of my socks, or even any other of my socks, have holes.
Yes so lets calibarate our dating curves so they give us the dates we want.Discard or don't look for samples that may be out of place in the context of expected dates.

Also it is not necessary that all the objects related to civilization in the last 5000 year will have to deemed wrong if we acknowledge that civilization may have existed in antiquity.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 03 April 2013 - 01:14 PM.


#20    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,884 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 April 2013 - 01:24 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 03 April 2013 - 12:56 PM, said:

1.I am surprised that you can't make the correlation that the more time we i.e modern homo sapiens have been around the sooner we would have advanced in the context of civilization and technology.You can site examples of what we know of our history in the last 5000 years to show how quickly we advanced.

Then you should ask yourself if you consider civilization and technology to be an uninterrupted progression, or if there have been times when any advancement made has been reduced to ignorance through whatever means.

After all, isn't that precisely what would have occurred had ancient aliens given us knowledge?  The knowledge would have been lost for whatever reason?

Quote

2.Long lulls and leaps? There was only one long lull of 1,95,000 years and then a leap in 5,000 years. This suggestion does not establish a pattern but goes against rational thought.

Not at all.  It is such a common pattern it even has a name:  Exponential Growth, or Exponential Progression.

Quote

3.Your notions of Human behaviour are very strange, a man could be habituated to dig his nose even 200,000 years back but he probably wouldn't be washing his hands afterwards with a sanitizer. Using the same logic as you have suggested that the way Humans have been innovating in the last 5,000 years,you can claim that we are habituated to innovate and improve wouldn't our ancestors 200,000 years back also have such habits?? what took them so long?

Yes, they would have.  And they did.  But they only had so much to work with, and their innovations were subsequently less impressive to our jaded eyes (to the medieval peasant, however, staring at a water wheel that instead of running a millstone, turned the rotational force into the linear force of automated pounding hammers, it must have been an astonishingly futuristic concept back in the day).

Quote

4.All technology and knowledge arise with passage of time,everything cannot be done in no time,so the important factor is time, if you suggest that Humans 200,000 years back were no different then what we are as far as the psyche is concerned then what took them so long to reach civilization?

Need.

Quote

5.Critical knowledge my foot,an apple fell on newton's head and he thought of Gravity. What was the previous critical knowledge required for this discovery?

I am going to go ahead and point out that you probably stated this out of a behavioral habit to answer quickly, instead of stopping briefly to think a statement out prior to posting it for the world to see.

Now, take a moment and ask yourself:  What did Newton know that allowed him to imagine Gravity when the apple fell on his head, and why wouldn't Thog, reknown genius inventor of the flint knife, have figured out the same thing upon being struck on the noggin by a similar fruit?

Quote

6.The Inca example gives me a stomach ache.....what is the correlation with humans existing in 1,50,000 BC. Maybe they knew how to use the wheel in more ways then we do,and the Incas didn't.

The Inca example is an example of how technology does not advance without either a need or a critical core of knowledge to draw on.  I haven't once made reference to humans existing that long ago.

Quote

7.People are also innovative and creative and like to explore and have curiosity,depends on nature. You can't be suggesting seriously that our ancestors were so stubborn and used to their way of life that they resisted innovation.....lol

No, in fact I stated pretty much the opposite, even making sure to clearly state that it wasn't a matter of lazyness or close-mindedness.  However, that is on a societal level.  On an individual level, yes, the majority of people, particularly in agrarian societies, have tended to be stubborn and resistant to changes.  Heck, we still have societies within first-world countries who refuse to accept modern innovations.


#21    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,740 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 03 April 2013 - 01:24 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 03 April 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

Yes so lets calibarate our dating curves so they give us the dates we want.Discard or don't look for samples that may be out of place in the context of expected dates.

Also it is not necessary that all the objects related to civilization in the last 5000 year will have to deemed wrong if we acknowledge that civilization may have existed in antiquity.

What you still refuse to get is that one anomolous date out of, say 100, does NOT invalidate the other 99. No matter how much you'd like that to be true.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#22    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,884 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 April 2013 - 01:31 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 03 April 2013 - 01:12 PM, said:

Yes so lets calibarate our dating curves so they give us the dates we want.

Wouldn't work.  Calibration is done with known quantities.  You can't change the calibration and still expect to be taken seriously.

Quote

Discard or don't look for samples that may be out of place in the context of expected dates.

Not really worthwhile.  Particularly if you are fighting for grant money.  The more you discover, the better.  All artifacts get written up and sent in to show how productive you've been.  Similarly, they get carefully catalogued, place, location, and date, on the site map.

I know you are eager to believe that these things are being hidden.  They aren't.  They are just being ignored, simply because the odds are disproportionately huge on the side that they have been dated incorrectly.

Quote

Also it is not necessary that all the objects related to civilization in the last 5000 year will have to deemed wrong if we acknowledge that civilization may have existed in antiquity.

Why would that happen?  Why would a modern-style advanced ancient civilization invalidate the many other era-consistent ancient civilizations that have come and gone throughout history?


#23    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,740 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 03 April 2013 - 01:39 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 03 April 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

Wouldn't work.  Calibration is done with known quantities.  You can't change the calibration and still expect to be taken seriously.



Not really worthwhile.  Particularly if you are fighting for grant money.  The more you discover, the better.  All artifacts get written up and sent in to show how productive you've been.  Similarly, they get carefully catalogued, place, location, and date, on the site map.

I know you are eager to believe that these things are being hidden.  They aren't.  They are just being ignored, simply because the odds are disproportionately huge on the side that they have been dated incorrectly.



Why would that happen?  Why would a modern-style advanced ancient civilization invalidate the many other era-consistent ancient civilizations that have come and gone throughout history?

I'd just like to mention that where fringe proponents are involved it's just as likely that said objects have been assessed incorrectly as well. Meaning that they aren't what they were claimed to have been to begin with. Which pretty much invalidates their conclusion in any case.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#24    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,884 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 April 2013 - 01:43 PM

The vast majority of OOPARTS falls into that category, I tend to find.


#25    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • 8,011 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 04 April 2013 - 02:40 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 03 April 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

But what were they doing for so long?? 1,95,000 years?? then all of a sudden we got civilization?? Look at the leaps we have made in the last 5000 years,so can you digest that we did hardly anything in 1,95,000 years?

To be frank this is a gross oversimplification and the sort of thing espoused by misinformed creationists. I'm still trying to pin you down, Harsh, and am not getting far—but the clear fact remains that from your first day here you've been parroting the tedium of misinformed creationists. What exactly is your motivation, if not creationism or young-earth "hypotheses" or other non-scientific approaches?

But back to your post. No, civilization didn't just appear like—poof!—fireworks. It's a hell of a lot more complicated than that. Archaeological sites like Göbekli Tepe and Catalhöyük, not to mention prehistoric cultures like the Natufians, clearly show what one might call the genesis of civilization. Such sites and cultures do not represent civilization, per se, but demonstrate its earliest origins—and this is upwards of 13,000 years ago.

Agriculture is not necessarily the origin of prehistoric settlements; neither the people who erected Göbekli Tepe nor those who belonged to the cultural technocomplex we call Natufian, were farmers or herdsmen. All evidence points to their hunter-gatherer existence. The people who resided in Catalhöyük were, on the other hand, early agriculturalists.

But it is correct to say agriculture was the primary genesis for civilization. By this I refer to the strict archaeological or anthropological meaning of civilization. It's often misapplied in discussions at UM. Agriculture almost certainly began in the Levant, although there's competing evidence to suggest Anatolia, but even so, civilization didn't just pop up over night when the first crops were being planted. The first true civilization we can recognize—Sumer—was itself the end product of a long and gradual socio-political evolution.

As others have correctly pointed out, for the vast majority of the existence of Homo sapiens, there simply weren't that many humans on the planet. While we can never know with certainty what the exact population figures were through the Paleolithic and Neolithic, it's abundantly clear that rapid population growth for humans did not occur around the world until agriculture was established. But for most of the history of  Homo sapiens, there frankly was no need for agriculture: population levels would've been low enough for biomasses around the world to sustain a hunter-gatherer existence. In point of fact an agricultural practice was an iffy and risky proposition at best, and to this day there is no universal agreement on precisely why the first farmers did what they did, but it's clear that the end result of what they did permanently altered and benefited the future of human kind.

Civilization was the primary driving force behind technological advancements in ancient history. Had it not been for the development of agriculture, there would never have been anything like the idea of civilization we understand today, countless technological advancements (ancient and modern) would never have happened, and the worldwide population of human kind would invariably be a scant percentage of what it is today.

We can all comfortably dismiss notions of uber-ancient lost civilizations and certainly the idea that aliens influenced or affected ancient man for the very simple reason that absolutely no evidence for such things exist. In the light of day, most if not all fringe theories exist because the people who create, espouse, or support them are not well informed on the basics of science and history and, for whatever reason, prefer not to educate themselves. Of course, much worse are the fringe proponents who do dig deeper but still actually prefer fringe explanations: this demonstrates a stunning lack of critical thinking.

I must be in a mood this evening. :lol:

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#26    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,994 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 04 April 2013 - 07:17 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 03 April 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

But what were they doing for so long?? 1,95,000 years?? then all of a sudden we got civilization?? Look at the leaps we have made in the last 5000 years,so can you digest that we did hardly anything in 1,95,000 years?

Maybe there was `nt enough homo sapians left to get to that advancement.

The Toba catastrophe theory suggests that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to perhaps 10,000 individuals.

http://en.wikipedia....tion_bottleneck


#27    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,121 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 04 April 2013 - 08:54 AM

I think the sudden rise of civilization after hundreds of thousands of years of "doing nothing special" is based on critical mass: humans had been low in numbers and spread out over many continents. At some point numbers grew, people with different but primitive technologies began to meet eachother and from that things started evolving rapidly.

No aliens needed.


#28    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 04 April 2013 - 09:21 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 03 April 2013 - 01:24 PM, said:

Then you should ask yourself if you consider civilization and technology to be an uninterrupted progression, or if there have been times when any advancement made has been reduced to ignorance through whatever means.

After all, isn't that precisely what would have occurred had ancient aliens given us knowledge?  The knowledge would have been lost for whatever reason?



Not at all.  It is such a common pattern it even has a name:  Exponential Growth, or Exponential Progression.



Yes, they would have.  And they did.  But they only had so much to work with, and their innovations were subsequently less impressive to our jaded eyes (to the medieval peasant, however, staring at a water wheel that instead of running a millstone, turned the rotational force into the linear force of automated pounding hammers, it must have been an astonishingly futuristic concept back in the day).



Need.



I am going to go ahead and point out that you probably stated this out of a behavioral habit to answer quickly, instead of stopping briefly to think a statement out prior to posting it for the world to see.

Now, take a moment and ask yourself:  What did Newton know that allowed him to imagine Gravity when the apple fell on his head, and why wouldn't Thog, reknown genius inventor of the flint knife, have figured out the same thing upon being struck on the noggin by a similar fruit?



The Inca example is an example of how technology does not advance without either a need or a critical core of knowledge to draw on.  I haven't once made reference to humans existing that long ago.



No, in fact I stated pretty much the opposite, even making sure to clearly state that it wasn't a matter of lazyness or close-mindedness.  However, that is on a societal level.  On an individual level, yes, the majority of people, particularly in agrarian societies, have tended to be stubborn and resistant to changes.  Heck, we still have societies within first-world countries who refuse to accept modern innovations.
Again i am stating the same thing that :
'Need' and 'Time' can be existed back then also and right now also. You are restricting yourself to only the last 5000 years when you comment that there has been periods when knowledge has been lost and then rediscovered....this actually strengthens the argument that maybe our ancestors did achieve high technology way before 5000 B.C. and then it was lost. Maybe the story of civilization is not linear but cyclical.
Accepting or rejecting innovations is subject to innovations existing,not all people living at any point of time are going to intelligent and creative inventors etc.
You cannot state that modern humans resisted changes and innovations for a period of 1,95,000 years and then started advancing rapidly in a matter of 5000 years.
And your attempt to refute the Newton example doesn't hold water as people before Newton would have definitely noticed Gravity as it is essential for survival to Know that if you jump of a high cliff you are going to fall and die.
Your Inca example is again within the bounds of the last 5000 years, we have developed considerably from the Incans within a span of less then 5000 years....this is what compounds the issue that what were the Homo Sapiens upto for 1,95,000 years....in my opinion it would be unreasonable to assume that they were any less capable to advance and progress then the primitive Incans or the so called primitive hunter gatherers preceding the Incans.


#29    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 04 April 2013 - 09:24 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 03 April 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

Wouldn't work.  Calibration is done with known quantities.  You can't change the calibration and still expect to be taken seriously.



Not really worthwhile.  Particularly if you are fighting for grant money.  The more you discover, the better.  All artifacts get written up and sent in to show how productive you've been.  Similarly, they get carefully catalogued, place, location, and date, on the site map.

I know you are eager to believe that these things are being hidden.  They aren't.  They are just being ignored, simply because the odds are disproportionately huge on the side that they have been dated incorrectly.



Why would that happen?  Why would a modern-style advanced ancient civilization invalidate the many other era-consistent ancient civilizations that have come and gone throughout history?
More discoveries does are only tolerated in a pre decided bounds.....if you come up with something that goes against the establishment,your entire career and credibility are at a risk.
For eg- the lady who found soft tissue intact in a partially fossilised dinosaur bone, was under serious threat of losing all her academic credibility just for reporting the find.


#30    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 04 April 2013 - 09:44 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 04 April 2013 - 02:40 AM, said:

To be frank this is a gross oversimplification and the sort of thing espoused by misinformed creationists. I'm still trying to pin you down, Harsh, and am not getting far—but the clear fact remains that from your first day here you've been parroting the tedium of misinformed creationists. What exactly is your motivation, if not creationism or young-earth "hypotheses" or other non-scientific approaches?

But back to your post. No, civilization didn't just appear like—poof!—fireworks. It's a hell of a lot more complicated than that. Archaeological sites like Göbekli Tepe and Catalhöyük, not to mention prehistoric cultures like the Natufians, clearly show what one might call the genesis of civilization. Such sites and cultures do not represent civilization, per se, but demonstrate its earliest origins—and this is upwards of 13,000 years ago.

Agriculture is not necessarily the origin of prehistoric settlements; neither the people who erected Göbekli Tepe nor those who belonged to the cultural technocomplex we call Natufian, were farmers or herdsmen. All evidence points to their hunter-gatherer existence. The people who resided in Catalhöyük were, on the other hand, early agriculturalists.

But it is correct to say agriculture was the primary genesis for civilization. By this I refer to the strict archaeological or anthropological meaning of civilization. It's often misapplied in discussions at UM. Agriculture almost certainly began in the Levant, although there's competing evidence to suggest Anatolia, but even so, civilization didn't just pop up over night when the first crops were being planted. The first true civilization we can recognize—Sumer—was itself the end product of a long and gradual socio-political evolution.

As others have correctly pointed out, for the vast majority of the existence of Homo sapiens, there simply weren't that many humans on the planet. While we can never know with certainty what the exact population figures were through the Paleolithic and Neolithic, it's abundantly clear that rapid population growth for humans did not occur around the world until agriculture was established. But for most of the history of  Homo sapiens, there frankly was no need for agriculture: population levels would've been low enough for biomasses around the world to sustain a hunter-gatherer existence. In point of fact an agricultural practice was an iffy and risky proposition at best, and to this day there is no universal agreement on precisely why the first farmers did what they did, but it's clear that the end result of what they did permanently altered and benefited the future of human kind.

Civilization was the primary driving force behind technological advancements in ancient history. Had it not been for the development of agriculture, there would never have been anything like the idea of civilization we understand today, countless technological advancements (ancient and modern) would never have happened, and the worldwide population of human kind would invariably be a scant percentage of what it is today.

We can all comfortably dismiss notions of uber-ancient lost civilizations and certainly the idea that aliens influenced or affected ancient man for the very simple reason that absolutely no evidence for such things exist. In the light of day, most if not all fringe theories exist because the people who create, espouse, or support them are not well informed on the basics of science and history and, for whatever reason, prefer not to educate themselves. Of course, much worse are the fringe proponents who do dig deeper but still actually prefer fringe explanations: this demonstrates a stunning lack of critical thinking.

I must be in a mood this evening. :lol:
You are still trying to connect me to Creationism because you feel i am trying to justify that the world is only 6000 years old,but sorry to disappoint you but what i am trying to state is that there were ancient advanced civilization even before last 13000 years. As modern humans with similar brain capacity and potential have been residing on the Earth since atleast 200,000 years according to mainstream evolutionist. I would say that Modern Homo Sapiens have been on this globe way before 200,000 years.........so if we progressed from primitive hunter gatherer to our current stage in a matter of just 13,000 years then what were our ancestors doing for 1,87,000 years before that.
This reasoning reinforces the theories of ancient lost civilizations...and the mainstream insisting that civilization is not more then 5000,6000 years old fuels the thought process that we have received civilization in a comparatively short period of time(compared to the total time Homo Sapiens have been present on the Earth) so aliens/God must be involved.
Hence the topic "Why most fringe theories exist" .
In short: "How does the mainstream account for the 1,95,000 years of idle time for Homo Sapiens".
When you state there is absolutely no evidence for these ancient lost civilization,i would contest the statement as there is enough prima facie evidence and further study is required,which is not happening as the moment a investigator tries to suggest something outside the pre decided mainstream bounds,the person is attacked and ridiculed viciously and loses all his/her credibility.
You know most of our history is based on second and third hand sources, which plainly put is in the category of "because they said so" as evidence.

"People paying to visit the moon in flying shuttles from Earth" must have seemed like a comic book concept or a joke 300 years back. :yes:





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users