Was Technology in the Past Greater Today's?

[papageorge1]

11 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Channeling the existence and detailed life on an island/continent that has been geologically proven to have never existed isn’t a condemnation of the truthfulness of the psychic?

 

one of three claims Cayce made about the America’s can be proven. How many of them were known facts at the time? 

More information Atlantis and the Edgar Cayce Readings

And if it was just Cayce I'd be less impressed

 

[Tatetopa]

Advanced technology leaves a lot of traces, at least the human type we are familiar with does. Some are chemical and radioactive and very persistent.  Also, consider what we found when we started looking:  lots of surface minerals, and even surface deposits of petroleum.  As we used up the easily retrieved ones, we had to mine deeper and look harder.  If those surface deposits were absent, it would have been a lot harder to get started.  The implication I see is that there was not an earlier technology to use all of those deposits up.

We can kind of walk back through the last 20k years  and see the rise of human technology.  Before that there doesn't seem to be enough time for an epoch during human evolution for a rise and total fall.  We haven't been around long enough.  Then too, some traces would still show up here and there.  

Atlantis or Lemuria seem to get spoken of as if they were a single self-contained entity.  Even Greek city states had a trade network and  resource gathering over a large area.  How many Greek, Phoenician, and Egyptian shipwrecks have we found on the bottom of the Med?  A lot.  How many sophisticated older craft?  None that I have heard of so far.  Seafloor mapping is a big deal for natural resources now; its not just the Med but deeper oceans being surveyed.  No traces.

It is not likely that there was an advanced human technology before our time.  If you still want one, it would have to be alien or pre-human.  Sad as it may be, maybe we are it, the lead runners in the human race.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

More information Atlantis and the Edgar Cayce Readings

And if it was just Cayce I'd be less impressed

 

If they all agreed on what Atlantis was like I’d be more impressed.

[Piney]

6 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

 

He is also an expert on British accents too. I'd be curious to hear more about the interesting chap at this point.

No, my maternal grandfather's family lives there and I know how people from the North and South speak and Emily Bronte could not of had a Southern accent.

 

[Piney]

6 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Well, that makes sense. There is no way to verify some claims at least at this time which means they can not be shown to be right or wrong at this time. Doesn't sound damning as you seem to imply.

Quote

 

Quote

Portions of the Lost Tribes of Israel migrated North from Mexico merging with other groups to become the Mound Builders

A group of 2nd Generation Atlanteans  migrated North from the Yucatan about 10,000 BC to begin the Mound Builder Culture

The Iroquois especially those of noble blood were pure Atlantian

I can prove these 3 statements aren't true before my morning coffee....

[I'mConvinced]

Yes.  Once cavemen had launched the first satellite they began geo-tagging mammoths which, obviously, led to their eventual extinction.  Once the mammoths were gone the cavemen no longer had a ready source of animal blubber with which to power their computers.  The stock market crashed and the price of sabertooth tiger skins went through the roof.  Combined with a particularly harsh winter this let to a dramatic population decline in which the ancient knowledge also perished.  Fortunately for mankind a spaceship arrived and built some pyramids.  The cavemen sheltered from the incoming solar storm behind these massive alien structures and so some of their personal communicator devices survived:

The cavemen then fought the great battle against the Atlantean lizard men and in victory buried the remaining devices behind the ear of the sphinx whilst they waited for the return of the overlords.  Meanwhile in Baghdad the natives had created the worlds first battery which they used to power their smart cloths.  All the proof you need can be found in the alignment of the stars.

 

[Harte]

7 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

More information Atlantis and the Edgar Cayce Readings

And if it was just Cayce I'd be less impressed

Regarding Atlantis, all the charlatans (Cayce included) had read the same material - Donnelly's "Atlantis - The Antediluvian World."

There's why it's not "just Cayce."

Harte

[Aquila King]

3 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

Yes.  Once cavemen had launched the first satellite they began geo-tagging mammoths which, obviously, led to their eventual extinction.  Once the mammoths were gone the cavemen no longer had a ready source of animal blubber with which to power their computers.  The stock market crashed and the price of sabertooth tiger skins went through the roof.  Combined with a particularly harsh winter this let to a dramatic population decline in which the ancient knowledge also perished.  Fortunately for mankind a spaceship arrived and built some pyramids.  The cavemen sheltered from the incoming solar storm behind these massive alien structures and so some of their personal communicator devices survived:

The cavemen then fought the great battle against the Atlantean lizard men and in victory buried the remaining devices behind the ear of the sphinx whilst they waited for the return of the overlords.  Meanwhile in Baghdad the natives had created the worlds first battery which they used to power their smart cloths.  All the proof you need can be found in the alignment of the stars.

This ^ was thoroughly entertaining. Well done.

[Aquila King]

10 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Atlantis has never been proven to never have existed without someone making a bunch of assumptions about how/what/where it was. 

It's impossible to prove the lack of existence of something papa. However that doesn't mean that it does exist.

[jmccr8]

22 hours ago, Piney said:

Which input? 

Imaginary forces 

jmccr8 

[papageorge1]

9 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

If they all agreed on what Atlantis was like I’d be more impressed.

I'm seeing way too much similarity myself with these better psychic sources to dismiss. Really only Cayce gets reasonable attention by the general public. What do you know about, let us say Lee Carrol (Kryon) and etc.? It seems there may have been a series of past cataclysms that buried land masses in the sea with the one 12,000 years ago forming our modern world with a loss of the most advanced civilizations.

[jmccr8]

21 hours ago, Essan said:

Obviously they were so advanced they managed to hide their mines and eradicate all their pollution so we would never know they existed  

(We can prove the Romans existed from evidence in the ice cores, but they were vastly inferior to our imaginary advanced more ancient ancestors)

Ahh Yes, they didn't have to hide the mines the ore was extracted by psychic powers. 

jmccr8 

[papageorge1]

5 hours ago, Piney said:

No, my maternal grandfather's family lives there and I know how people from the North and South speak and Emily Bronte could not of had a Southern accent.

 

Just curious then, what is you ethnic background? 75% Native American, 25% English?

[papageorge1]

4 hours ago, Piney said:

 

I can prove these 3 statements aren't true before my morning coffee....

Well, have at it, but I don't see how such distant events can be proved wrong.

And on side musing, how/why do you think Cayce would come up with those seemingly strange ideas? His conscious mind was clearly not studied in these subjects.

[papageorge1]

3 hours ago, Harte said:

Regarding Atlantis, all the charlatans (Cayce included) had read the same material - Donnelly's "Atlantis - The Antediluvian World."

There's why it's not "just Cayce."

Harte

Cayce was not a well read man by all accounts. Do you have any evidence that he read Donnelly's "Atlantis - The Antediluvian World."?

I suspect that may be just a convenient made-up claim by attackers without evidence.

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

It's impossible to prove the lack of existence of something papa. However that doesn't mean that it does exist.

We agree on your logic there.

But the next step for the interested is let us look at all the evidence and argumentation and employ our best objective reasoning skills. This doesn't produce scientific proof, but I am not a follower of scientism which is where your arguments have been heading. Scientism would say if you can't prove it with tests, you shouldn't believe it. 

Remember, old papa is not claiming proof but just what his best reasoning leads him to think is most likely/unlikely in all of this.

[cormac mac airt]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I'm seeing way too much similarity myself with these better psychic sources to dismiss. Really only Cayce gets reasonable attention by the general public. What do you know about, let us say Lee Carrol (Kryon) and etc.? It seems there may have been a series of past cataclysms that buried land masses in the sea with the one 12,000 years ago forming our modern world with a loss of the most advanced civilizations.

The ONLY reason you have to drone on about Atlantis is because Herodotus mentions them as a peoples living near a mountain in Northwest Africa. Plato removes these people onto a non-existant island close enough to the Straits of Gibraltar to block it upon Atlantis' alleged destruction. In effect modifying an earlier piece of fiction with one of his own. Archaeological/geological/chronological/bathymetric evidence has shown that such a place known as Atlantis HAS NEVER EXISTED where it was alleged to by the original writers. 

cormac

[Aquila King]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

We agree on your logic there.

But the next step for the interested is let us look at all the evidence and argumentation and employ our best objective reasoning skills. This doesn't produce scientific proof, but I am not a follower of scientism which is where your arguments have been heading. Scientism would say if you can't prove it with tests, you shouldn't believe it. 

Remember, old papa is not claiming proof but just what his best reasoning leads him to think is most likely/unlikely in all of this.

Scientism is when someone thinks that the scientific process is the only process by which one could arrive at the truth. I'm not arguing in favor of that. There are other methods like philosophy, the laws of logic, critical thinking skills, etc. There's also a clear distinction between experimental science and forensic science. And as I've said, I don't completely dismiss anecdotal evidence, I simply examine all the info I can about an eyewitness so as to check for reliability. Never once have I ever argued in favor of scientism on here. Not even close.

What I'm arguing against is this notion that you can just take all of these 'teachers' and 'masters' and 'psychics' word for it ad hoc, without examining the evidence itself and checking the reliability of these sources.

Claiming scientism is not an excuse for lack luster investigation skills.

[papageorge1]

4 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

The ONLY reason you have to drone on about Atlantis is because Herodotus mentions them as a peoples living near a mountain in Northwest Africa. Plato removes these people onto a non-existant island close enough to the Straits of Gibraltar to block it upon Atlantis' alleged destruction. In effect modifying an earlier piece of fiction with one of his own. Archaeological/geological/chronological/bathymetric evidence has shown that such a place known as Atlantis HAS NEVER EXISTED where it was alleged to by the original writers. 

cormac

Well, I hardly think that reasoning explains the readings of psychics like Cayce and other channeled sources. To me it seems these psychics are independent of the writings of Herodotus and Plato (and perhaps more accurate).

[XenoFish]

15 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Dammit man, you're hurting my cause.

No he is showing you the side we skeptic see too much of. I think most of us would be down we a reasonable debate concerning many things. But, once you've crossed the event horizon there is no coming back.

[Doc Socks Junior]

https://www.agilelibre.com/content/dont-quote-me-on-this

Quote

By now, it may have dawned on you what I’m getting at (of course, just for the record, being a serious man and fond of my job, I don’t really mean it). I’m saying that it would not be surprising if civilizations in the geological past would have been hitherto unnoticed by geologists and palaeontologists. Instead of searching for alien civilizations in outer space, we might have better chances searching for them on Earth back in time, where we demonstrably had ecosystems to support them. Where should we look? In marine sediments perhaps, where remains of their magnificent sunken ships might have been preserved. In ancient hydrocarbon reservoirs perhaps, where their mighty drilling equipment could have fossilized. Or even better perhaps (as suggested to me by physicist Galen Gisler), on the moon and Mars, where their scientific landers might have remained unscathed through millions of years.

A fun little thought from one of the best little geoscience publishing companies out there.

[papageorge1]

3 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

What I'm arguing against is this notion that you can just take all of these 'teachers' and 'masters' and 'psychics' word for it ad hoc, without examining the evidence itself and checking the reliability of these sources.

Claiming scientism is not an excuse for lack luster investigation skills.

Well, we agree then. You have to do some homework time. The more you study and learn the higher quality is your opinions. Do not blindly accept nor blindly dismiss these sources.

So how do we disagree?

[Aquila King]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

No he is showing you the side we skeptic see too much of. I think most of us would be down we a reasonable debate concerning many things. But, once you've crossed the event horizon there is no coming back.

I came back so to speak. I'm just not at that point where I can say that absolutely ALL paranormal events/ESP/NDE/etc. are caused by purely materialistic means. That are a number of holes I see in that line of thinking, and a number of things that I don't think materialism adequately explains. If someone could explain to me how these things could occur by purely physical processes, then I'd be happy to listen. Otherwise, I'd say the farthest I could probably go in your direction is just simply agnostic.

[Aquila King]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

So how do we disagree?

I'd say in short that we disagree on exactly what qualifies as reliable evidence and sources.

[XenoFish]

1 minute ago, Aquila King said:

I came back so to speak. I'm just not at that point where I can say that absolutely ALL paranormal events/ESP/NDE/etc. are caused by purely materialistic means. That are a number of holes I see in that line of thinking, and a number of things that I don't think materialism adequately explains. If someone could explain to me how these things could occur by purely physical processes, then I'd be happy to listen. Otherwise, I'd say the farthest I could probably go in your direction is just simply agnostic.

Here's a question. How many actually paranormal events have happened to anyone of us? I could claim to have had several dozens, but I won't say there were paranormal. I could claim a lot of things, but I will not do such a thing, because I have nothing to back up any of those claims. It would be as bad as papa george.