Home
Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Other Topics
Off topic discussion
Is Civilization much Older than we're led to Beleive?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="weambulance" data-source="post: 959378" data-attributes="member: 7174"><p>Land masses disappear for three reasons: submergence with rising sea level, erosion, and explosive eruption (which I suppose you could consider a specialized form of erosion). Or a combination of the three. The last two items only really apply to small islands in a reasonable time frame (<1 million years). There is plenty of land that was habitable (and was frankly likely to have been inhabited, being on the coast) during the span of human existence that is now submerged by rising sea level. Seems quite likely to me that there were civilizations living on what are now continental shelves that we have no idea existed. Hell, I'm sure there were civilizations living well inland that simply disappeared to time because they didn't leave persistent remnants, or they lived in places with extreme natural action (weathering, jungles, etc) that wiped their remains clean in a few centuries.</p><p></p><p>However, it's impossible for an actual continent to have existed in the Pacific that just isn't there anymore. Continental crust <em>can't</em> go away, other than in minuscule amounts. It can erode, it can move around, it can crash into other continents and crumple up or get wedged together like in India, but it can't just disappear. Easter Island is a volcanic island, not a remnant of a continent.</p><p></p><p>I'm sure there's plenty about history we don't know, or that we're wrong about. But the reason scientists quite often dismiss theories like this out of hand is not because they're afraid to look into them, but because the theories are obviously wildly inconsistent with the enormous body of research that has already been done. That's usually because the people supporting the theories don't understand the basic scientific principles they're claiming are wrong.</p><p></p><p>When someone tells me they think there used to be a continent in the Pacific that just disappeared (for example), they're not just saying they think I'm wrong in my understanding of history. They're saying they think I'm wrong about <em>all the physical science I've ever learned and successfully applied, <strong>that the rest of the world is observably consistent with.</strong></em></p><p></p><p>That's the common problem I see, anyway. Could we be wrong about history? Absolutely. Have we been going down the wrong track in the physical sciences for centuries, and it's just a total coincidence that things like computers and airplanes and space missions worked out? Pretty hard to swallow that one, and that's what it often boils down to.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="weambulance, post: 959378, member: 7174"] Land masses disappear for three reasons: submergence with rising sea level, erosion, and explosive eruption (which I suppose you could consider a specialized form of erosion). Or a combination of the three. The last two items only really apply to small islands in a reasonable time frame (<1 million years). There is plenty of land that was habitable (and was frankly likely to have been inhabited, being on the coast) during the span of human existence that is now submerged by rising sea level. Seems quite likely to me that there were civilizations living on what are now continental shelves that we have no idea existed. Hell, I'm sure there were civilizations living well inland that simply disappeared to time because they didn't leave persistent remnants, or they lived in places with extreme natural action (weathering, jungles, etc) that wiped their remains clean in a few centuries. However, it's impossible for an actual continent to have existed in the Pacific that just isn't there anymore. Continental crust [i]can't[/i] go away, other than in minuscule amounts. It can erode, it can move around, it can crash into other continents and crumple up or get wedged together like in India, but it can't just disappear. Easter Island is a volcanic island, not a remnant of a continent. I'm sure there's plenty about history we don't know, or that we're wrong about. But the reason scientists quite often dismiss theories like this out of hand is not because they're afraid to look into them, but because the theories are obviously wildly inconsistent with the enormous body of research that has already been done. That's usually because the people supporting the theories don't understand the basic scientific principles they're claiming are wrong. When someone tells me they think there used to be a continent in the Pacific that just disappeared (for example), they're not just saying they think I'm wrong in my understanding of history. They're saying they think I'm wrong about [i]all the physical science I've ever learned and successfully applied, [b]that the rest of the world is observably consistent with.[/b][/i] That's the common problem I see, anyway. Could we be wrong about history? Absolutely. Have we been going down the wrong track in the physical sciences for centuries, and it's just a total coincidence that things like computers and airplanes and space missions worked out? Pretty hard to swallow that one, and that's what it often boils down to. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Other Topics
Off topic discussion
Is Civilization much Older than we're led to Beleive?
Top
