You're viewing part of a thread.
We have zero evidence of domesticated plants or animals before 10-12 thousand yeas BP. If there were great civilizations before that, there would be evidence in the DNA of plants and animals. There is not. The idea of a great civilization without any domestic agriculture or livestock is nonsense.
There is no room for aliens either. Not one shred of evidence.
I know people like Erich von Daniken and Graham Hancock sound appealing, but they aren't. They're also racists. Von Daniken and Hancock believe in a master white race that created everything.
Hancock:
Professor Patrick Nunn, who specializes in researching Pacific geography and archaeology at the University of the Sunshine Coast in Australia, told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that Hancock’s theories about who built Nan Madol strip Indigenous peoples of their rich histories and can be traced to “racist philosophies” and “white supremacist” ideologies of the 19th century.
In a May 2000 essay published on his website, Hancock writes: “I have consistently argued that the Americas were inhabited in prehistoric times by a variety of ethnic groups – Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid … Such ideas have caused deep offense to some American Indians, who have long claimed to be the only ‘native’ Americans.”
He goes on to describe various prehistoric artifacts that he says prove the presence of Caucasians and Africans before Columbus landed on the continent in 1492. This includes his research into the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl, who he says was described by the Aztecs as “tall, white-skinned and red bearded – sometimes blue eyed as well”.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/01/netflix-ancient-apocalypse-canceled
If we look to von Däniken’s work, there can be little doubt that his racial beliefs influenced his extraterrestrial theories. After a short stint in jail for fraud and either writing or appropriating the material for a number of other books that developed his ancient astronauts theory, von Däniken published Signs of the Gods? in 1979. It is here that many of his racial views are most boldly stated. British archaeology officer Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews points out on his Bad Archaeology blog just a few of the many racist questions and statements posed by the author: “Was the black race a failure and did the extraterrestrials change the genetic code by gene surgery and then programme a white or a yellow race?” He also printed beliefs about the innate talents of certain races: “Nearly all negroes are musical; they have rhythm in their blood.” Von Däniken also consistently uses the term “negroid race” in comparison with “Caucasians.”
This all comes from 19th century racist ideas, especially those of Madame Blavatsky:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_Blavatsky
You are falling for racist propaganda. Please don't.
I am falling for propaganda?
That’s cute, i literally don't know who these people are and i have yet to express support for any potential narrative.
You’re falling for too much social media, at least the godwin spin in your argument alludes as such.
As a general rule one shouldn’t believe in stuff that cant be proven. And if it can be proven only a fool would choose not to agree. Can we agree on this as a baseline?
Other than that, we have to consider that we cant know what we don't know, science is the measurement of reality but can we really understand reality?
Can any argument you make continue to stand against my brain in a jar style existentialism and optimistic nihilism? Surrender to the fact that the belief in facts does not make them true and that the true goal of science isn't to answer any questions, (animals live a full life without) but to see how far we can take the art of questioning itself, exploring ourselves within the universe.
There are many angles i can weasel out on why there may be.. and why no evidence of argiculture… but that wouldn’t be the point. The point is to make you stop thinking in terms of what can’t and start thinking in terms of what can. Because honestly i feel the world needs more of that right now.
As a general rule one shouldn’t believe in stuff that cant be proven.
Then why should I believe your suggestion that there were cultures that existed before the Younger Dryas with zero genetic evidence of domestication of plants or animals?
The point is to make you stop thinking in terms of what can’t and start thinking in terms of what can
There was someone who recently told me that one shouldn't believe in stuff that can't be proven.
#1 You use “previously assumed not possible” as an excuse to stop exploring the idea. Come to conclusions based on your own critical mind, not because i said you should and neither because dead archeologists #3 says you shouldn’t.
#2 You don't need to know nor believe anything in order to explore and derive knowledge from an idea or theory.
Exploring how aliens might have visited in the past : legaly distinct from : believing aliens exist ever
Re #1-
As a general rule one shouldn’t believe in stuff that cant be proven.
Re #2-
If there's no evidence, there's no knowledge to be derived. Also, theories have evidence and are testable. What you are talking about is a thought experiment. They're not especially useful in archaeology.
Also-
you should and neither because dead archeologists #3 says you shouldn’t.
We're talking about living genetic scientists, not dead archeologists. I realize that you're part of the whole "you can't trust scientists" crowd, but that doesn't give you the right to pretend genetics doesn't exist or is some outdated idea.
I swear i am not part of any ideologists group, least of all a science denying group. I am an OG lover of science and especially have a boner for archeology.
I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am not nor ever will tell people to think a certain way, just warn for limiting what can be conceive by blindly trusting dull old teachings.
The fact that the nature of my message is still not obvious is proof that the problem i am seeing is a very real one. People trow science around but they don’t actually commit to scientific thought of themselves. In the age of misinformation to lager is more and more essential.
People trow science around but they don’t actually commit to scientific thought of themselves.
Scientific thought as absolutely no genetic evidence of domesticated animals or plants before what we believe to be the advent of agriculture? For some reason you don't think genetics tell us anything about the past.
I am not sure how many times i need to repeat i am not taking any stance or saying anyone should believe anything at all. Its getting frustrating why you want to make this into an argument.
Scientific thought as having the intention to understand , using the 5+ senses to observe the beautiful cosmos around you without judgement or bias. Then coming up with your own intelligent conclusions. You are free to use your senses to observe the conclusions of another intelligent lifeform (a scientist) but to simply copy a conclusion isn't science.
The number of things we know is much smaller then the number of things we don't know. Be open minded for the potential of the universe to amaze, thats all really. Goodbye
Scientific thought as having the intention to understand , using the 5+ senses to observe the beautiful cosmos around you without judgement or bias. Then coming up with your own intelligent conclusions.
That is not science.
Science uses the scientific method.
Sentence number two: "The scientific method involves careful observation coupled with rigorous scepticism, because cognitive assumptions can distort the interpretation of the observation"
What are you trying to proof? What argument are you trying to win?
As a general rule one shouldn’t believe in stuff that cant be proven.
what do you mean "believe in"? lots of people believe in economic theories that can't tbe proven. some people believe in the goodness of mankind. everyone has some sort of myth (or likely many) that help them understand the world, regardless of how true or provable they are.
The way i use “believing” would be they regard it as truth.
There is some wiggle room there with agnostic believing making it distinct from “knowing” where you don’t acknowledge room for any self error.
I believe in science and i will use scientific statements as proof of truth but i cant say that i know science is truth because i know science has historically been wrong many times.