Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Harsh86_Patel

Why most fringe theories exist.

149 posts in this topic

Also if you agree with the evolutionists that modern homo sapiens evolved 200,000 years back then when would suggest that civilization started?? only 5000-6000 years ago? Basically homo sapiens chilled around the globe for more then 195,000 years and all of a sudden decided to get civilised ....lol. This argument is the origin of all theories suggesting that there were many glorious ancient civilizations of which we do not have a memory and also the ancient astronaut/alien theories who flew down to Earth and gifted our primitive ancestors civilization and in some theories also genetically modified or artificially evolved our primitive ancestor into Us. These are the only two alternatives that make sense in the absence of any other mainstream suggestions..either we acknowledge that civilizations existed way before we today concede or that we were gifted civilization over very short periods of time by Gods/Aliens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also if you agree with the evolutionists that modern homo sapiens evolved 200,000 years back then when would suggest that civilization started?? only 5000-6000 years ago?

The biological evolution of Homo sapiens has no connection to the development of civilization of humans. Complex non-instinctual behaviours are not genetically sourced.

Basically homo sapiens chilled around the globe for more then 195,000 years and all of a sudden decided to get civilised ....lol.

As per the evidence, yep. Not that surprising, actually; much of human social and intellectual advancement works like that. Long lulls followed by sudden surges.

This argument is the origin of all theories suggesting that there were many glorious ancient civilizations of which we do not have a memory and also the ancient astronaut/alien theories who flew down to Earth and gifted our primitive ancestors civilization and in some theories also genetically modified or artificially evolved our primitive ancestor into Us.

Agreed. It is easy to see how flimsy the ancient astronaut theories are, when you realize what a shaky grasp these theorists have on human behaviour to begin with.

These are the only two alternatives that make sense in the absence of any other mainstream suggestions..either we acknowledge that civilizations existed way before we today concede or that we were gifted civilization over very short periods of time by Gods/Aliens.

Or we recognize that humans back then were doing pretty much what humans today are doing.

For around 5000-6000 years, humans just chilled around the world. Then, all of a sudden, they not only started flying, they took off into space.

lol.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe when homo sapians started growing food is when civilizations began ,banded together in groups and appointed a leader or king to give protection.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

The biological evolution of Homo sapiens has no connection to the development of civilization of humans. Complex non-instinctual behaviours are not genetically sourced.

As per the evidence, yep. Not that surprising, actually; much of human social and intellectual advancement works like that. Long lulls followed by sudden surges.

Agreed. It is easy to see how flimsy the ancient astronaut theories are, when you realize what a shaky grasp these theorists have on human behaviour to begin with.

Or we recognize that humans back then were doing pretty much what humans today are doing.

For around 5000-6000 years, humans just chilled around the world. Then, all of a sudden, they not only started flying, they took off into space.

lol.

Biological existence of Homo Sapiens for such a long time period will impact civilizations of Homo Sapiens.

Long lulls followed by sudden changes,can explain everything in the world but what about the small things.

If Humans back then have been doing what we have doesn't it make sense to assume that they were also as advanced as we are??

Humans do go to space in todays time so may be they were going to space even in those times right??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe when homo sapians started growing food is when civilizations began ,banded together in groups and appointed a leader or king to give protection.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add to what aquatus1 was saying, it would require both a sizeable human (HSS) population as well as evidence of domesticated agricultural produce as well, to support such a proposition. Neither of which is in evidence before the start of the Holocene.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Let's make that 189,000 years. See other thread where you quoted from one of your posts to start this new thread.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Biological existence of Homo Sapiens for such a long time period will impact civilizations of Homo Sapiens.

In what way? Any predictable way?

Long lulls followed by sudden changes,can explain everything in the world but what about the small things.

Explain everything? Why would it explain anything? Long lulls aren't an explanation. They are a behaviour.

If Humans back then have been doing what we have doesn't it make sense to assume that they were also as advanced as we are??

Not in the slightest. Behaviour is behaviour. The man with the habit of picking his teeth will do so regardless of whether he is sitting at his mammoth skin hut or his 2LDK.

Humans do go to space in todays time so may be they were going to space even in those times right??

That's not even logical, let alone reasoned. Knowledge, technology, data, all these things are powerful due to the amassed quantity of them. Only when you reach a certain critical level of knowledge can certain innovations be created. Generally, once that level is reached and an innovation is produced, it inspires even more people to create new technologies as well. Technology, however, does not arise out of thin air. You can only work with what you actually have. Humans, as a species, tend to be curious and aggressive, with a bit of a reckless streak thrown in there as well. Whatever data we have, whatever knowledge we possess, we try to push it to its limits, but it does all have limits.

The Inca had the wheel, but it was of little use to them in the rocky mountains, and because it was relegated to a child's toy, it never filled its potential as it did in the Greek and Roman world. This doesn't mean the Inca would have been incapable of creating gears or pulleys, however, it does explain why they didn't. There simply wasn't enough of a need that could be solved through the use of wheel-based technology, even though to us modern humans, wheels are such an intrinsic part of our lives that we would see uses that the Inca never even bothered to consider.

People have habits, bodies have habits, and brains have habits. People accustomed to thinking in one way simply don't tend to think in other ways. It has nothing to do with lazyness, close-mindedness, or intelligence; it is just behaviour. My brother-in-law in Kazakstan was telling me about how they used a sled at the worksite to move materials around. He banged together a wheelbarrow out of an oildrum to make their workload a bit easier and handed it over to them. When he came back from lunch, a small group of workers were huddled around the wheelbarrow with the welder guy, trying to figure out where to weld a flat piece of metal in place of the wheel, so they could use it as a sled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things in our history appear to be the result of thresholds being crossed -- thresholds that in some cases took a long time.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add to what aquatus1 was saying, it would require both a sizeable human (HSS) population as well as evidence of domesticated agricultural produce as well, to support such a proposition. Neither of which is in evidence before the start of the Holocene.

cormac

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

Why not have proper under water archaeological studies in Dwarka,Cuba,Mahabalipuram,Yonaguni and put so many of these daunting questions to rest.If we dismiss all possible evidence or sources of evidence and never explore it citing our current beliefs then how will the proof emerge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think agriculture allowed the time to make advances. If you spent all your time hunting and gathering it left little time for coming up with any new development.

Of course the aliens might of had something to do with it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Why not have proper under water archaeological studies in Dwarka,Cuba,Mahabalipuram,Yonaguni and put so many of these daunting questions to rest.If we dismiss all possible evidence or sources of evidence and never explore it citing our current beliefs then how will the proof emerge?

'Acknowledging the possibility' does not make something a fact. Actual evidence is what is needed for such a conclusion.

Enough is known about the Dwarka, Cuba and Yonaguni claims versus the actual evidence to effectively dismiss them as misinformation if not outright lies. This is not the basis on which something should be investigated. Actual, verifiable evidence should be what further investigation should be based on, NOT SENSATIONALISM.

In short, "Let's pretend" is not a valid argument.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what way? Any predictable way?

Explain everything? Why would it explain anything? Long lulls aren't an explanation. They are a behaviour.

Not in the slightest. Behaviour is behaviour. The man with the habit of picking his teeth will do so regardless of whether he is sitting at his mammoth skin hut or his 2LDK.

That's not even logical, let alone reasoned. Knowledge, technology, data, all these things are powerful due to the amassed quantity of them. Only when you reach a certain critical level of knowledge can certain innovations be created. Generally, once that level is reached and an innovation is produced, it inspires even more people to create new technologies as well. Technology, however, does not arise out of thin air. You can only work with what you actually have. Humans, as a species, tend to be curious and aggressive, with a bit of a reckless streak thrown in there as well. Whatever data we have, whatever knowledge we possess, we try to push it to its limits, but it does all have limits.

The Inca had the wheel, but it was of little use to them in the rocky mountains, and because it was relegated to a child's toy, it never filled its potential as it did in the Greek and Roman world. This doesn't mean the Inca would have been incapable of creating gears or pulleys, however, it does explain why they didn't. There simply wasn't enough of a need that could be solved through the use of wheel-based technology, even though to us modern humans, wheels are such an intrinsic part of our lives that we would see uses that the Inca never even bothered to consider.

People have habits, bodies have habits, and brains have habits. People accustomed to thinking in one way simply don't tend to think in other ways. It has nothing to do with lazyness, close-mindedness, or intelligence; it is just behaviour. My brother-in-law in Kazakstan was telling me about how they used a sled at the worksite to move materials around. He banged together a wheelbarrow out of an oildrum to make their workload a bit easier and handed it over to them. When he came back from lunch, a small group of workers were huddled around the wheelbarrow with the welder guy, trying to figure out where to weld a flat piece of metal in place of the wheel, so they could use it as a sled.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Acknowledging the possibility' does not make something a fact. Actual evidence is what is needed for such a conclusion.

Enough is known about the Dwarka, Cuba and Yonaguni claims versus the actual evidence to effectively dismiss them as misinformation if not outright lies. This is not the basis on which something should be investigated. Actual, verifiable evidence should be what further investigation should be based on, NOT SENSATIONALISM.

In short, "Let's pretend" is not a valid argument.

cormac

There has been no serious underwater archaeological studies in these areas,how can you dismiss them without even looking.

What is actually verifiable evidence according to you? I hope you know that most of our history is based on 2nd and 3rd hand sources or simple put just on what people said....not actually verifiable evidence.

Please put down what is known of these sites that i suggested...other then malicious dismissal without honest inquiry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been no serious underwater archaeological studies in these areas,how can you dismiss them without even looking.

What is actually verifiable evidence according to you? I hope you know that most of our history is based on 2nd and 3rd hand sources or simple put just on what people said....not actually verifiable evidence.

Please put down what is known of these sites that i suggested...other then malicious dismissal without honest inquiry.

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

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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.

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).

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.

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?

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.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.