>. Imagine 10,000yrs of this:
> Rockwell painting
Why stop imagining at 10,000?
> We have a plethora of stuff from these types of
> people spanning the 30,000 thousand years or so
> prior to 10,000BC but nothing except for stone
> from the lost civilization who supposedly made these:
This is exactly dilemma. We have no evidence of the tools and methods used to create such massive constructions, regardless of when they were built. I don't see how moving the construction date to a more recent time resolves that dilemma. If anything, it only amplifies the contradiction. Trying to date their creation more recently to 6000k makes it even more problematic since we see a lot more evidence of civilizations that roamed the earth but still nothing at all that accounts for those structures. Nothing in the writings or artifacts remaining from those civilizations that even indicated their acknowledgement that those structures even existed, let alone that they knew who built them or how they were built.
> If 40,000yrs isn't enough just keep going. Whether
> bones and/or tools we find evidence of humans
> consistently in the fossil record dating back as
> much now as 3.3 million years yet nothing from the
> global ALC? It's one thing to say this is
> because we have not looked everywhere, but don't
> you think it means something that everywhere we
> have looked we have found nothing despite the fact
> we have found a whole lot of other stuff? This
> doesn't mean "everything" but it certainly means
I think it's too presumptuous and shortsighted to imply that humans are capable of finding such far more ancient evidence on the surface of the earth where we find all of the more recent artifacts. How can we believe we are capable of discovering relatively delicate remains from every civilization that ever existed on this planet simply by scratching the surface? How do we know what kind of evidence that would be? We don't even know what level of "conscisousness" existed back then, if at all, at least as we define it today.
> > The hard evidence doesn't begin circa 6,000
> > bc, it begins much later.
Such a recent provenance for all of that construction doesn't leave time for technological amnesia and completely disregards the harsh contradictions regarding other technological accomplishments, such as the potter's wheel and the use of the wheel in transportation, pulleys, etc. How can these contradictions be reconciled by a 6000 BC provenance for such massive construction technology?
> Nope. The evidence for c. 6,000BC and the chain of
> catastrophic events unleashed on the greater
> Mediterranean region were widespread and
> catastrophically substantial to all that lived
> there. No doubt it would have seemed like the gods
> had punished them. You said your self local events
> would not warrant remembering, well these (this)
> events no doubt would. This is not to discount
> previous catastrophes that led to end of the ice
> age, not what I am saying, but the question is
> which of these periods spawned the flood myths
> which I am putting my money on 6,000BC. In reality
> what we have are two periods of catastrophe one c.
> 10,000BC the other c. 6,000BC, both of which
> greatly affected the rise of civilization in their
> own way.
I don't believe there is any way we can know how many catastrophes hit the planet during the presence of intelligent life on Earth or the extent to which such catastrophes caused death and destruction. As just two examples, we're still debating the erosion marks in the Sphinx Enclosure and the nature of those blocks in the so-called Baalbek "quarry" and the invading landfill that's currently being excavated there.
Our dating system makes many presumptions, any errors in which are amplified when extrapolating that far back. Plates have risen, fallen, and overturned, while ocean levels have fluctuated in ways we still do not undestand (e.g., dating that India site based on artifact context even though sea level clearly was not that much lower during the attributed provenance).
Despite the lack of delicate evidence (bones, clothes, writings, tools), the durable evidence is there in the masonry and bedrock. Dating the construction of those ancient structures to no further back than 6000 BC only makes it more of a contradiction that we have no evidence of any artifacts of tools or understanding of the methods used to construct those structues, or even any acknowledgement of the existence of those structures. In my opinion, there are too many contradictions in assigning such a recent provenance to that construction.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 23-Apr-16 21:27 by Origyptian.