Is An Ancient City Hidden Under Antarctica?

SensitiveAbility said:
It has always baffled me how some individuals, can say or say that. My question is this.

1. Why is it so hard not to believe that it is possible that there is something there?
Click to expand...
Who has stated it's "impossible"
I believe the assertion is that there is nothing there, not that there is no possibility of something there.
SensitiveAbility said:
2. We as humans now had to learn how to do things by people from ancient times to fathom that it is not possible is always amazing to me.
Click to expand...
You seem not to fathom it yourself.
Amazing!!!

SensitiveAbility said:
History will always change because man scientists ect... will always find new thing's like animals with the Lazareth affect, or ancient humans that date back 50,000 yrs ago, or ancient villages/towns.
Click to expand...
Homo Sapiens dates back to at least 200,000 years before present. The word "humans" actually refers to ANY species of the genus Homo. That genus goes back almost 3 million years (at least.)

So, where did you get 50,000 years?

SensitiveAbility said:
Most of the time man/scientists do not like to be proved wrong because it will change history ect.....
Click to expand...
You're parroting garbage you've been fed (and, apparently, chose to believe.)
Proving a theory wrong is what EVERY scientist is trying to do - ALL the time.

SensitiveAbility said:
So no I don't discount that there could be and was, to be blocked off at the thought is mind boggling because they always finding stuff that was discounted.
Click to expand...
As opposed to actually thinking about what you're saying before posting it?

Harte
 
If somebody shows me strict proof that there existed a civilization in Antarctica before the rise of homo sapiens civilizations roughly in the early bronze age of Eurasia, and the 200s BC in Andes and Mesoamerica, then I will believe there is something to it.

The main reason I discount pre-human civilizations on the Earth is that the civilizations would have to predate most of the current surface geography. Otherwise, you'd see evidence that a technological civilization existed here since they already would have gone after the easily accessible strategic resources.

Internet woo woo fans often think of this question in terms of what we would see if such a civilization were here (alien or domestic) but, really, you ought to think in terms of what you should not see; i.e. no gold sitting on the surface of the American west, all the major aluminum and iron deposits that were easily gotten still untouched around the world not having been there and holes existing where they used to be, and so on.
 
Kairos said:
If somebody shows me strict proof that there existed a civilization in Antarctica before the rise of homo sapiens civilizations roughly in the early bronze age of Eurasia, and the 200s BC in Andes and Mesoamerica, then I will believe there is something to it.
Click to expand...
"Proof?" Hell, there's not even any evidence to suggest anything like that.
Con men pick "Under the ice in Antarctica" because nobody can look there, thus you get more mileage out of the claim (i.e., sell a book for a longer period.)

Exactly the same reason we always hear about ancient civilizations now covered by the ocean (or even worse, now underground due to tectonic subduction.)

Find any place that nobody can go look, and I'll guarantee you that the fringe shysters have been on it.

Harte
 
Harte said:
"Proof?" Hell, there's not even any evidence to suggest anything like that.
Con men pick "Under the ice in Antarctica" because nobody can look there, thus you get more mileage out of the claim (i.e., sell a book for a longer period.)

Exactly the same reason we always hear about ancient civilizations now covered by the ocean (or even worse, now underground due to tectonic subduction.)

Find any place that nobody can go look, and I'll guarantee you that the fringe shysters have been on it.

Harte
Click to expand...


Personally, I think technological civilization is a highly unlikely evolutionary development. It implies a lot of different things evolved simultaneously that are not very likely to evolve in the first place. Some means to manipulate objects (opposable thumbs) are about the only obvious evolutionary adaptation, since at every stage of evolution this path confers advantages. Complex (context-free grammar) languages, however, don't seem to fit that paradigm. There exists no intermediate complexity. It's just one big jump, and there is no obvious intermediate advantages to language. Furthermore, it may be that the kind of language humans evolved (dividing the world into nouns, verbs, adjectives, and so on) has far more to do with our drive towards technology than many may assume.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if sperm whales, for example, were pretty intelligent and that they use some kind of language. But no opposable thumbs to manipulate objects. Trapped in the ocean. Language evolved to deal with a completely different environment that may not be conducive to thinking in terms of civilization in the first place.



If the discussion were limited to human civilizations that predate the rise of civilizations we know about shortly after the end of the ice age.. it may be worth speculating. Like I said, there probably was not anything very technological here because we'd see the remains of the iron mines, and there would be obvious missing resources.

Pre-industrial civilizations before we came along.. that's a possibility, but again I think we don't really understand the probabilities of evolving the prerequisites, and I suspect those probabilities are quite low.
 
@Kairos - I think we need not attribute all amazing developments to evolution. And I'll leave it at that, saying it because though you may be set in your beliefs, it seems, to me at least, like you're repeating yourself like a broken record.

Edit: Also, I suggest we just move on and focus more on the topic at hand without being too controversial, if I'm using the right term.
 

Top