Were humans much more advanced centuries ago...

1. 78

   arksysposted 12 years ago

   I recently watched a documentary on nat-geo about the pyramids and machu picchu and other archaeological sites ... it talked about the way the stone is cut to such precision, which cannot even be matched by stone sculptors with all the advanced equipment we have today... the huge rocks used in construction which our current equipment cannot handle ... it also discussed the carved images in egypt, america, peru and other sites which all had something like a birds or a spaceship type image referring to something that came out of the heavens or the sky whom they worshipped.
   
   If man did make these well known sites, do you think it's possible that humans were actually far ahead in technology than we are right now but got wiped out somehow?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      kessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Tell this to puffed up science who believes himself to be knowledge in it's own ignorance...
      
      Science is merely just another ignorant tool used by Life to achieve its own end.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         That's definitely spoken like someone who likes to pretend to be enlightened.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            kirstenblogposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Tell me about it!
            I tend to find that those who speak with the most certainty are the ones least able to speak with any authority at all.

            replyreport
            1. 62

               couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               She said with authority.  (couldn't resist that one) 

               replyreport
         2. 60

            kessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Glad you are able to stand as a judge over these matters...
            
            And your judgement can only true unto you.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Not a judgment. Simply an observation. Those who are wise have no need to hurl insults or label the search for knowledge ignorance.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  kessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Through your observations. you cast judgement as that's the way you must live...whether you understand it or not...
                  
                  So you seek to judge right and you would be fine.
                  
                  I have stated things exactly as it is...
                  Now its better for you to break yourself by it or...it will break you...

                  replyreport
                  1. 71

                     Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Says Mr. Wordplay.

                     replyreport
                  2. 0

                     Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     By that token; did you not cast judgment by using the word idiotic when refering to a search for knowledge? You have stated things exactly as you perceive them. Not necessarily as it is. Those who close their minds to knowledge are in jeopardy of an atrophy of the spirit. I don't think it will break you, but it will certainly hinder your journey.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        kessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Point is... cast True Judgment and you are fine...
                        
                        The term "idiotic" was created by the world for themselves..so if I describe any of the world as idiotic then it is because it is indded so, and this is according to their own understanding.
                        
                        If any of the world see themselves as "idiotic" as it is indeed, then they are able to move beyond this world...
                        
                        ...so which is better this world or beyond it?
                        
                        Those of the world will never agree with me and if they do, it would only be to promote themselves and the world... 
                        
                        So even when I speak for the world still they cannot understand.
                        
                        
                        
                        Now I would ask you?
                        What is the point of seeking if there is nothing to find?
                        What the point of journeying if there is no destination to be reached?
                        
                        I have sought and did find...
                        I  have journeyed and did arrive...
                        
                        From such I speak...
                        
                        So you now Judge this...
                        Have I spoken for you or against you?
                        
                        Those of the world keep themselves blinded because they speak against the world whilst still in the world and even more so when the speak against the thing that is beyond the world.
                        
                        Judge righteously and you would be fine.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Well, one thing's for certain. You've apparently got better drugs than some I've run across.

                           replyreport
                           1. 60

                              kessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Thanks for a while I was expecting better...
                              ..it still a worthwhile response anyways

                              replyreport
   2. 59

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Funny you should say that, Southpark's latest show is all about the History Channel and the fact that they do not represent history, but are only after ratings as they appeal to the gullible and irrational.
      
      Funny how I've been saying that all along.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         You criticize something seen on National Geographic by referencing information you got from South Park?  Cute.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Sure, why not, I only said it was funny and that it's what I've observed myself.
            
            Southpark may just be an animated show, but Parker and Stone are dead on with their social and political commentaries.

            replyreport
            1. 62

               couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               True, that.

               replyreport
            2. 0

               Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Point to ponder. The OP references National Geographic, not the History channel. There isn't a lot of gullibility in wondering how much knowledge has been lost over the years, and where it came from. The engineering of the pyramids, the Antikythera device, maps of  the land mass beneath the ice of Antarctica to name a few. Archaeologists attempt to unravel the mysteries of the ancients every day. I wouldn't call them gullible.
               
               Now, if they claimed to find an ancient  document that revealed who killed Kenny, I would definitely raise an eyebrow.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  

                  replyreport
                  1. 62

                     couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     

                     replyreport
      2. 62

         couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         A tv show after ratings?  Why, whatever do you mean?

         replyreport
   3. 61

      mom101posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yes. I feel they were more advanced than we are today.

      replyreport
   4. 51

      paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It is possible in some areas of knowledge; like mummifying.

      replyreport
2. 0

   Emile Rposted 12 years ago

   I guess we've all wondered that. A documentary I watched on the Sphinx  once pushed the possibility. And we find oddities here and there that imply they came from advanced technology.
   
   I think, if we found that was true and could understand how it happened; it might unify humanity. Make us see what is possible if we don't work together to keep it from happening again.

   replyreport
   1. 51

      paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I agree; it is a good point.

      replyreport
3. 75

   Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years ago

   I'll take it a step further.
   
   Have you ever wondered why humans are the only animal on earth that requires something from other creatures in order to survive? I'm not talking about food, I'm talking about clothing. Every other animal has a natural protection from the elements. Why do humans need pelts from other animals?
   
   Maybe WE are all aliens that were stranded here eons ago. Perhaps the technologies were ours but over time the machinery we brought with us failed?
   
   Maybe we are the result of an interstellar ship-wreck?
   
     You never know....

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      So, maybe SETI is simply ET attempting to phone home. I like it.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         

         replyreport
   2. 72

      Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "Why do humans need pelts from other animals?"
      
      The short answer is, we don't. Not if we stick around the equator. We only need those pelts (or other clothing) if we want to go somewhere where it's cold, or there's no shade.
      
      We used to move to where it was warmer when it got cold. Eventually we figured out that since the animals can live in cold places, maybe if we wear their skins, we could stay here when it gets cold instead of moving back south until it gets warm again. And what the heck, it worked!
      
      A human in a tropical climate with enough fruit and veggies available doesn't need clothing (or even fire!) to survive. But clothing (with pockets) and fire sure do make life more convenient.
      
      "Maybe we are the result of an interstellar ship-wreck?"
      With no artifacts, not even broken ones, left from the crash. Any ship that could survive an inter-stellar journey probably wouldn't have disappeared entirely. Any crash that could have utterly destroyed such a ship would certainly have also destroyed its passengers and crew.
      
      The only way your theory works would be if the aliens intentionally marooned our ancestors here, without letting them keep any tech.
      
      Or, maybe we aren't the descendants of aliens, and we're just Earthlings after all.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         emrldphxposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Maybe they sent us here... earth was like Australia for convicts...

         replyreport
      2. 75

         Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         -Or- they had a beaming tech like 'Star Trek' and they beamed down seconds before the ship crashed and were only able to bring things they could carry in thier hands.
         -Or- The substance of the ship was an alloy that, once exposed to the atmosphere of Earth, reacted at a molecular level melting to a liquid state that was washed away with the rain and is now on the bottom of the ocean.
         -Or-

         replyreport
   3. 62

      couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      So we either got the reasoning mind and had to give up our protective coat, or we gave up the reasoning mind to get the coat.  Hmmm.

      replyreport
   4. 51

      paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The Creator God endowed humans intelligence; we can develop things; He endowed the animals means to survive in extreme conditions.
      
      Praise be to Him.

      replyreport
4. 64

   Greek Oneposted 12 years ago

   Ultimate signs of evolution and human development---->
   
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 62

      couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      So do you mean we evolved to the point where we need the above to clean our mess?  Or that we have become denagrated to the point where we have to use Cottonelle instead of Ultra Plush Triple Ply Quilted Charmin?  Or do you mean (and I know people who do this) we are now using toilet paper on our dogs?

      replyreport
      1. 64

         Greek Oneposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         "yes"

         replyreport
5. 60

   distance2010posted 12 years ago

   in some sense i think humans were smarter years ago... have you heard about a house that had one candle and it lit the whole house and kept it warm?  well it was pretty old and scientists took the whole house apart and put it back together and the trick didnt work anymore.. so it must have been a genius design just like we could not build the pyramids

   replyreport
   1. 62

      couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hmmm...I think 'smarter' is relative.  Being smart at using what is available to you, like technology, is one thing.  Being smart at using what is available to you, like a sundial, tracking footprints, following the stars, is another.  The old ones were far more in tune with their natural abilities, yes, but smarter?  Don't know.  As a population, I think they may have been because today we see the 'smart ones' who come up with and/or invent the ideas and everybody else who simply relies on technology to get them through the day.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         mom101posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         i think couturepopcafe you have it nailed.
         
         I do also think that nature is much more advanced than technology.

         replyreport
   2. 51

      paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "a house that had one candle and it lit the whole house and kept it warm?"
      
      Please provide the reference.

      replyreport
      1. 51

         paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         replyreport
6. 60

   Disappearingheadposted 12 years ago

   It depends on what you mean by advanced. If you mean technologically or artistically, of course not. When did anyone ever unearth an ancient Egyptian silicon chip; a Persian Mercedes; a native American television; or Australian aborigine fridge freezer? When did anyone prior to the 20th century understand DNA, the cosmos, quantum physics?
   
   When was any caveman art anything like the Mona Lisa?
   
   No man has never been more advanced than he is today; just look at the evidence. Possibly more intelligent in the past, but obviously did not have the same set of skills as we do now.
   
   Mind you, the world probably has far more stupid people today than ever before.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      arksysposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      lol .... i agree with your last comment.
      
      what if they used nature in a way we do not know to communicate instead of having a mercedes/television/fridge... maybe they understood the concepts far better than we currently do.
      
      the mona lisa part i agree, their art wasn't really impressive.
      
      so do you think they were helped by aliens with all the construction etc?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I once saw an episode of Ray Meers survival/living off the land programmes in which he travels the world looking for remote/isolated tribes and ethnic groups to see how they live. Ray Meers is an ex-SAS survival expert. He once met an African tribe that had lost the know how of how to make fire, so he 'reintroduced' to them the skills of fire making using local materials which he learnt from another tribe elsewhere in Africa.
         
         The point I'm making is that yes we have lost many skills and lost touch with the natural environment, and it is still happening today. So building pyramids in Egypt and South America would have required skills that we have also lost.
         
         No aliens required.

         replyreport
         1. 78

            arksysposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            makes sense...
            
            there is a tribe in africa at the moment who refer to a specific star all the time which is not visible to the eye, but they know of it exists and science proved it to be true ... they claim that someone visited them from that star and they celebrate the landing of the light every year from all those years ago. similar stories are found with american natives, and china ... where i remember them also mentioning the dragon breathing fire just like our space shuttles throwing out fire ... so could the chinese have seen shuttles and perceived them as dragons? possible i guess.

            replyreport
7. 60

   TLMinutposted 12 years ago

   Or perhaps they were so environmentally and ecologically friendly that they made sure none of their junk was left to clutter nature.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      arksysposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      exactly what i was trying to say...

      replyreport
8. 43

   Mikeydoesposted 12 years ago

   I'd say your first red flag would be the word "stone" when talking about technologically advanced.

   replyreport
9. 51

   paarsurreyposted 12 years ago

   Were humans much more advanced centuries ago...?
   
   -- is the topic of the thread.

   replyreport