'Lost Civilisations'

I haven't read the thread, but isn't the idea of "Lost Civilizations" by definition a sort of pseudoscience? That is, if they're "lost" then we have no evidence of their existence, so any claim about their existence is unsubstantiated.

If there is real evidence for their existence, then they're not "lost", right?

And again, a link to a very good website (see "forgotten civilizations"--and the blog is also very good):

http://www.badarchaeology.net/index.php
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
PP is the evidence that some form of advanced technology existed in our ancient past.
Click to expand...

No it is not. At best it is the evidence that some skill were lost, it does not say whether the skills were high tech or low tech. But even that is wrong as there are indication that low tech skills were used, and that was provided to you more than once in this thread.

*YOU* have presented *NO* evidence of high tech. All you have presented is that you disbelieve the accepted hypotheses.

You are the same as a creationist saying that there is a problem with evolution, and then concluding "therefore creation". NO ! Even if evolution was falsified, this is no evidence of creation ! One would have to provide independent evidence of creationism !


Your are doing exactly the same error : AGAIN you have provided NO EVIDENCE of high tech. All you have provided is that you disbelieve the low tech hypotheses. Even if the low evidence were shown to be poor, it does not prove the high tech hypotheses ! For that you would need MORE : you would need EVIDENCE OF HIGH TECH (independently of the poorness of the low tech evidence in your eye) !

ETA: If i showed you diamond, and I said you I fabricated those diamond in my life (*), and you disbelieved it, because of the weak evidence, and YOU said me I "bought" the diamond, you would have to provide evidence I bought the diamond, because that is YOUR hypotheses, and tehre are many other explanation I could have found them, I could have stolen them, I could have gotten them as gift from my grandma. This is the problem here, it is not that you refuse the low tech explanation it is that you provide an alternative explanation (high tech) and REFUSE to provide evidence.

(*) I did in a lab back in the 90's
 
Last edited:
King of the Americas said:
PP is the evidence that some form of advanced technology existed in our ancient past.
Click to expand...

Except that you are missing the "how".

What you're arguing could be summed up as possible:

Claim: There was some form of advanced technology in the past
Evidence: Stones at PP

But you don't have anything that explains how the evidence supports your claim. What you have in it's place is just incredulity, which isn't an explanation.

I could say that faeries built all mud brick towers over 4 storeys tall because mud bricks cannot be strong enough to support anything higher and use the city of Shibam as my evidence. My incredulity when it comes to explaining the evidence does not mean that my claim is valid.
 
Stones are stones. We can carve stones now, we know stones were carved by mundane methods thousands of years into the past.

How can stones be evidence of Hi tech?

Even Concrete is over 2000 years old.
 
KotA said:
PP is the evidence that some form of advanced technology existed in our ancient past.
Click to expand...
It's also evidence that they used each and every method that has been mentioned here. I won't deny that it's evidence--in that it can be used to support your assertion (badly, but it can be)--but it can be used to support so many assertions that its value as evidence is deminished to nearly nothing.

When combined with all of the other evidence--a complete lack of any infrastructure, the fact that stonework is found all over the world, the fact that Americans had stone tools (you keep forgetting that part), etc. ad nauseum, the theory that best explains ALL of the evidence is that the ancient Americans were simply really good with the tools they used every day.
 
Irrelevant. We're not talking about cutting and polishing the hardest mineral on the planet (which, by the way, they could do as well--diamond dust is a wonderful abrasive), but rather cutting and polishing feldspar. Big difference there.

Also, at this point you're reduced to "If you found a watch on the beach..." When your argument parallels that of Creationists/ID advocates, it's time to reconsider your argument. ;)
 
Wildy said:
At its simplest it's the ability to cut and polish diamonds.
Click to expand...

But what does that mean...?

If you found a cut and polished diamond, what would that say about the technological capability of the society/civilization that it was found in?

Would it be 'safe' to assume tis culture had knowledge not only of the wheel, but of the axil as well?

Could we further assume that they possessed hardened tools, of which to cut these stones?

OR...is it wrong to assume anything, just because they had diamonds that were shaped and polished?

I mean maybe the culture in question 'found' the diamonds, as a relic from another peoples. If the culture in question was utterly gone, and no tools from them found, what, if any conclusion can we draw about a people who possessed cut and polished diamonds?
 
King of the Americas said:
The "how" IS missing, hence my use of the term "lost technology".

'I' am not missing anything.
Click to expand...
apart from
1. evidence
2. critical thinking
3. people in agreement
4. knowledge of the actual facts
5. any expertise or experience in historical research
this is not an exhaustive list
:p
 
KotA said:
But what does that mean...?
Click to expand...
Only that they'd cut and polished a diamond.

If you found a cut and polished diamond, what would that say about the technological capability of the society/civilization that it was found in?
Click to expand...
Only that they'd cut and polished a diamond.

Would it be 'safe' to assume tis culture had knowledge not only of the wheel, but of the axil as well?
Click to expand...
Nope. When I was making thin sections one of the best methods I had, in terms of control and quality of the final product, was to spread fine grit (I forget how fine, but suffice to say you can't get sandpaper this fine) on a flat piece of glass and use that to polish the slide. You had to be careful to rub the slide against the entire piece of glass evenly, as you polished both the glass and the slide, but it works wonderfully. This requires neither the wheel nor the axil--just a flat stone and grit.

Could we further assume that they possessed hardened tools, of which to cut these stones?
Click to expand...
Nope. It takes longer, but you can polish the stone down to whatever size/shape you want it. Using the method described above.

OR...is it wrong to assume anything, just because they had diamonds that were shaped and polished?
Click to expand...
This.

I mean maybe the culture in question 'found' the diamonds, as a relic from another peoples. If the culture in question was utterly gone, and no tools from them found, what, if any conclusion can we draw about a people who possessed cut and polished diamonds?
Click to expand...
That they polished diamonds (you don't have evidence that they cut them). Anything else is adding your own preconceptions to the data--and in your case, this is particularly true, as you refuse to take thirty seconds (the maximum length of time I've taken to come up with a way to do something you deem impossible) to figure out how something is done.
 
Don't anybody tell him about the Mitchell Hedges skull or theres gonna be trouble
:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom