Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discoveries of underwater cities shows that civilization is much older...

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Awesome thread. I love reading about archeological discoveries that don't fit the accepted historical timeline. Most of them are simply not studied or investigated further. I would not be shocked if civilizations existed prior to the last ice age.

    Been a long time since i'v seen you post.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by Dick Gore View Post
      That science chart is ******ed.

      A theory isn't a fact.
      A theory is an explanatory collection of observations. In other words a fact is a fact but put ten of them together with an explanatory and predictive model and you get a theory. Theories > facts.

      By the way the scientific response to the claims made about the Gulf of Cambay is essentially that further study is required. The carbon dating was on pieces of wood - this dates the age of the wood, not the artifact. The pottery artifact collection is too small to draw any conclusions from and could be naturally occuring sedimentary articles. Further study is required.

      And by the way don't study further by doing more ocean floor dredging!

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by squealpiggy View Post
        A theory is an explanatory collection of observations. In other words a fact is a fact but put ten of them together with an explanatory and predictive model and you get a theory. Theories > facts.
        Nice, I agree.

        Originally posted by SQ
        By the way the scientific response to the claims made about the Gulf of Cambay is essentially that further study is required. The carbon dating was on pieces of wood - this dates the age of the wood, not the artifact. The pottery artifact collection is too small to draw any conclusions from and could be naturally occuring sedimentary articles. Further study is required.
        "Sandstone breaks on sharp planes" Your explanation to a city found underwater.

        Originally posted by SQ
        And by the way don't study further by doing more ocean floor dredging!
        Yes in their zeal to uncover the site they should not destroy any possible evidence. I'm sure they are remaining careful.

        natural formation eh? If they occur naturally why haven't all other sandstone deposits looked like that underwater? Sandstone deposits are more common than underwater city finds.

        Comment


        • #14
          Nice thread. Read everything, interesting stuff.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by Mikhnienko View Post
            Awesome thread. I love reading about archeological discoveries that don't fit the accepted historical timeline. Most of them are simply not studied or investigated further. I would not be shocked if civilizations existed prior to the last ice age.

            Been a long time since i'v seen you post.
            Intelligent civilization at that. More advanced than we thought they were. That would be cool to find out some day.

            Comment


            • #16
              Heres a neat fact to remember, THREE underwater cities have been found. THe one off the coast of Cuba is unfortunately to deep for our current technology to handle. However solar scans have shown pyramids, temples, and streets that were carefully designed. These cities are all over the ocean floor im sure, but unfortunately our technology is still to primitive to explore them.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by Enayze View Post
                Heres a neat fact to remember, THREE underwater cities have been found. THe one off the coast of Cuba is unfortunately to deep for our current technology to handle. However solar scans have shown pyramids, temples, and streets that were carefully designed. These cities are all over the ocean floor im sure, but unfortunately our technology is still to primitive to explore them.
                But you actually linked to TWO.

                And the older one is apparently older than the entire universe according to your view of the world.

                "Sandstone breaks on sharp planes" Your explanation to a city found underwater.
                You're quoting somebody but not me. Are you saying that further study is NOT required?

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by squealpiggy View Post
                  But you actually linked to TWO.

                  And the older one is apparently older than the entire universe according to your view of the world.



                  You're quoting somebody but not me. Are you saying that further study is NOT required?
                  I actually fixed the link, check it out. And sure im all for further study.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Enayze View Post
                    I actually fixed the link, check it out. And sure im all for further study.
                    Took a look. This one is actually the least compelling.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X
                    TOP