Occasionally, genuinely honest mistakes are made when scientifically dating things. Perhaps this link neglects to mention more up-to-date attempts to date these some items that gives a much earlier and credible date to them.
There is also the possibility that some people, desperate for publicity and/or funding, may deliberately give false information about the evidence or even physically interfere with the evidence in some way to make it look mysterious and therefore far more interesting than what it actually is.
Both these above explanations are by far more credible than the total absurdities (such as humans being around at the time of the dinosaurs ) one would conclude if one were to assume the dates to be valid thus the default assumption should be that the dates suggested in this link are invalid and there is a far more mundane explanation in the form of why the given dates being simply wrong until if or when the evidence that the dates are right is so incredible that, despite the absurd implications of the dates being right, it would actually be more credible that the dates are right than wrong!
Truly absurd claims demand truly incredible overwhelming evidence, which I don't see here because this link doesn't rule out the two above vastly more credible possibilities I mentioned here.
31 Aug 15
Originally posted by whodeyFrom an archaeological point of view, the Antikythera Mechanism and the Baghdad Battery are both extraordinary finds which genuinely challenge widely accepted beliefs. The Costa Rica stone balls are interesting. Most of the rest of the list has been pretty comprehensively debunked.
http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/top-10-unexplained-ancient-artifacts-fact-or-fiction/
Which ones of these are interesting to those here?
31 Aug 15
Originally posted by humyYou sound more like a right winged Young Creationist than a science lover.
Occasionally, genuinely honest mistakes are made when scientifically dating things. Perhaps this link neglects to mention more up-to-date attempts to date these some items that gives a much earlier and credible date to them.
There is also the possibility that some people, desperate for publicity and/or funding, may deliberately give false information about t ...[text shortened]... se this link doesn't rule out the two above vastly more credible possibilities I mentioned here.
Interesting.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI think we can agree that the vast amount of human history is left unrecorded. Ancient people were highly intelligent, and I dare say on par with those today. Ancient man was not just trying to survive, he was flourishing. I wonder just how modern ancient civilizations like Sumer actually were in comparison to previous ancient civilizations, like Atlantis, that we know nothing about.
From an archaeological point of view, the Antikythera Mechanism and the Baghdad Battery are both extraordinary finds which genuinely challenge widely accepted beliefs. The Costa Rica stone balls are interesting. Most of the rest of the list has been pretty comprehensively debunked.
31 Aug 15
Originally posted by avalanchethecatModern people immersed in technology tend to underestimate the capabilities of ancient cultures. It is well to remind ourselves that ancient peoples were no less intelligent than we are. They had the same brains we have and were just as curious about nature. They sailed open seas and populated the islands of the Pacific and Indian oceans long before Europeans re-invented navigation with sextants. The Chinese had printing presses and gunpowder well before the Europeans. A great deal of knowledge about the natural world, mathematics, astronomy, and medicine, got 'lost' (suppressed) during the Dark Ages in Europe; some of it was preserved by the Moors and re-discovered / re-invented in Europe later on. We should not be so surprised to re-discover how clever people were before the curtain of blind faith descended upon us.
From an archaeological point of view, the Antikythera Mechanism and the Baghdad Battery are both extraordinary finds which genuinely challenge widely accepted beliefs. The Costa Rica stone balls are interesting. Most of the rest of the list has been pretty comprehensively debunked.
31 Aug 15
Originally posted by whodeyActually the vast majority of ancient people were not as intelligent as the average person today. Intelligence is determined by both nutrition and education, neither of which were as good in the past. If you go to Zambia today and find some people living on subsistence farming who have not been to school, I can guarantee that you can do any type of intelligence test you like, and you will find them on average to be less intelligence than richer people who have had good quality food growing up and a good education.
I think we can agree that the vast amount of human history is left unrecorded. Ancient people were highly intelligent, and I dare say on par with those today. Ancient man was not just trying to survive, he was flourishing. I wonder just how modern ancient civilizations like Sumer actually were in comparison to previous ancient civilizations, like Atlantis, that we know nothing about.
31 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadi think we can also add to that by saying that poor people that live in an economically and socially and sensory poor environment, such as a slum, generally are not in an environment that gives the kind of mental stimulation that encouraging learning and curiosity and this is bound to limit mental development. It is hard to imagine how someone, even if his genes are all favorable for giving him greater intelligence in the right environment, in a dirty crime-ridden slum were he would be constantly mentally distracted by concerning himself with the mundane need for everyday survival, would be mentally simulated to go on to do something to get a Nobel prize in science.
Actually the vast majority of ancient people were not as intelligent as the average person today. Intelligence is determined by both nutrition and education, neither of which were as good in the past. If you go to Zambia today and find some people living on subsistence farming who have not been to school, I can guarantee that you can do any type of intell ...[text shortened]... intelligence than richer people who have had good quality food growing up and a good education.
31 Aug 15
Originally posted by moonbusI think people just look at ancient civilizations as primitive cause they did not have a cell phone.
Modern people immersed in technology tend to underestimate the capabilities of ancient cultures. It is well to remind ourselves that ancient peoples were no less intelligent than we are. They had the same brains we have and were just as curious about nature. They sailed open seas and populated the islands of the Pacific and Indian oceans long before European ...[text shortened]... rised to re-discover how clever people were before the curtain of blind faith descended upon us.
Meanwhile, the average cell phone owner now has no idea what their own telephone number actually is now.
If you ask me, the human race is devolving, not evolving.
31 Aug 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd you derive this belief from what exactly?
Actually the vast majority of ancient people were not as intelligent as the average person today. Intelligence is determined by both nutrition and education, neither of which were as good in the past. If you go to Zambia today and find some people living on subsistence farming who have not been to school, I can guarantee that you can do any type of intell ...[text shortened]... intelligence than richer people who have had good quality food growing up and a good education.
I am discussing unrecorded human history as I look at unexplained artifacts that prove that ancient intelligence has been underrated.
31 Aug 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadI suspect however that if you were to examine hunter-gatherer societies rather than subsistence agriculturalists the comparison would be rather more interesting and might well end up favouring the ancients.
Actually the vast majority of ancient people were not as intelligent as the average person today. Intelligence is determined by both nutrition and education, neither of which were as good in the past. If you go to Zambia today and find some people living on subsistence farming who have not been to school, I can guarantee that you can do any type of intell ...[text shortened]... intelligence than richer people who have had good quality food growing up and a good education.
31 Aug 15
Originally posted by whodeyAtlantis?
I think we can agree that the vast amount of human history is left unrecorded. Ancient people were highly intelligent, and I dare say on par with those today. Ancient man was not just trying to survive, he was flourishing. I wonder just how modern ancient civilizations like Sumer actually were in comparison to previous ancient civilizations, like Atlantis, that we know nothing about.
31 Aug 15
4 edits
Originally posted by whodeyIn ancient days, for the most part, poor nutrition would mean lower intelligence. That does not mean there will never be the occasional Archimedes (thought to have invented the Antikethera mechanism) but they would have been statistically fewer per thousand population.
And you derive this belief from what exactly?
I am discussing unrecorded human history as I look at unexplained artifacts that prove that ancient intelligence has been underrated.
What I see today are these asssholes who believe in ancient aliens coming to Earth saying things like, humans from 5000 years ago were way too stupid to have built the pyramids THEREFORE ALIENS EXIST AND CAME TO EARTH TO HELP THEM DESIGN AND BUILD THEM. That is total poppycock.
The best of the intelligentsia back then were just as smart as the best of us now. The general population probably wasn't.
People like Immutep, reported to be the original designer of the pyramids and who also was the first to study medicine in a systematic way, seeing what works and what doesn't for diseases and so forth and keeping a journal about it.
He was well placed in the hierarchy and would have had better food than the general population so there were people like him throughout history.
There probably is a bias about ancient human intelligence by modern man and in fact one aspect of ancient intellectuals was probably superior to modern man, that of story tellers, scribes and so forth, having prodigious memories, able to commit say Homer's Odyssey to memory, not many people today could do that.
Of course there are people who can do that but it was probably more common back then since they didn't have much more that papyrus to write on and so were forced to remember by rote.
Before written language, they had nothing But their memory for such things as what food is poison, what is good to eat, what animals are bad to eat, where are the best hunting grounds and so forth, all that had to be committed to memory since that was all they had, writing not having been invented yet.
01 Sep 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadCare to give some evidence for that? In pre-industrial societies they didn't necessarily have poor nutrition most of the time, what they did have was poor food security and were vulnerable to famines. I'd want some data from bone analyses of ancient skeletons before accepting that claim.
Actually the vast majority of ancient people were not as intelligent as the average person today. Intelligence is determined by both nutrition and education, neither of which were as good in the past. If you go to Zambia today and find some people living on subsistence farming who have not been to school, I can guarantee that you can do any type of intell ...[text shortened]... intelligence than richer people who have had good quality food growing up and a good education.
I'm also skeptical about your statements about education in the ancient world. I don't agree that it was non-existent in most cases (people need to be functional) and I don't agree that intelligence is a simple function of education (at least in a formal sense), what tends to matter is stimulation (toys are enough). So I don't think I agree with your claim that contemporary humans are more intelligent than our recent ancestors were for the past 70,000 or so years.
01 Sep 15
Originally posted by whodeyWe remember what is important to remember. Only conservatives like you hold on to things because it is traditional to do so without knowing why.
Meanwhile, the average cell phone owner now has no idea what their own telephone number actually is now.
If you ask me, the human race is devolving, not evolving.
If there were more people like you, I might agree. Luckily you are in the minority.
I think people just look at ancient civilizations as primitive cause they did not have a cell phone.
As usual, you think wrong. In fact, my recommendation to you is whenever you are thinking something, immediately realize that it must be wrong and think something else.
I think ancient civilizations were primitive because that is what the evidence shows. Some were more primitive than others. As I have mentioned above, there are parts of the world were there still exist groups of people who have practically no education and live in a primitive manner. This was far more common in the past. Yes there were educated people going back thousands of years but they were a tiny minority - and in many cases education started much later in life and was far less comprehensive.
Most notable for this thread is that the majority of the 'puzzling artifacts' have nothing whatsoever to do with ancient civilizations.