Posted: Jul 24, 2011 11:07 am
harleyborgais wrote:This sits says teeth from a city 120ft deep were dated 9,500 years old:
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8965/
As an example here Harley - can you find the source for these claims in that article?
Look:
Consider one anthropological hypothesis....
Weasel words - which 'anthropological hypothesis'?
harleyborgais wrote:that concedes the possibility of a prehistoric humanity enjoying a high degree of technological development.
So ambiguous as to not even allow an open-minded researcher to go and look up what hypothesis this might be.
harleyborgais wrote:Some evidence suggests that ancient people appear to have crafted a technology significantly more advanced than what we might imagine.
Weasel words: what evidence? What does 'significantly more advanced than we might imagine' actually mean?
harleyborgais wrote:Much of the support for this idea comes from the discovery of dozens of ancient cities submerged beneath the oceans across the entire planet.
Nonsense, no submerged settlements required high technology; they are entirely consistent with the archaeological sites found on dry land.
harleyborgais wrote:
I know what you mean about digging through, that is the internet though.
------------------------
The 30,000 was from a Documentary on a prime channel, maybe discovery or history or something like that.
I do not use TV, only internet, and mostly only for information, so I was lucky to catch part of it.
So far, like I said, I cannot find the source, but I did see them.
If you read what I said, I do not remotely accuse you of misrepresenting them - I am not remotely skeptical of you having seen them; I know I've seen utter pap presented as almost fact in modern 'documentaries', where there's precisely zero sourcing or professional corroboration of evidence. Nearly all these 'documentaries' also set up the 'establishment' as being opposed to these claims... well, there's a bloody good reason for that!
harleyborgais wrote:
It seems something happened and the link disappeared, must have pressed something like ctrl Z, like I just did thinking about it. These things happen because my computer cannot keep up with me much of the time. Sorry.
21,000 years old...
http://www.funwadi.com/forum/21000yrs-o ... 75362.html
23,000...
http://satyabhashnam.blogspot.com/2009/ ... vedic.html
Harley; I do not dispute that some crackpot on the internet said '21,000' years old, but I am talking about the credibility of such sites. Do you believe it just because it's written on the internet?
Go and look at those 2 sites again.
Can you point out where the source of their claims are? No, because they don't provide sources, they just make assertions. They could just as easily say that these cities are 14 billion years old and are the homes of the angels... would you then believe that?
It's one thing to keep an open-mind, and another to permit yourself to uncritically accept any old claim just because someone said it.
harleyborgais wrote:
I guess you have to watch the videos, maybe they are bad references, but I posted them because I am going through dozens of sites, trying to find the source of that 30,000 year old one from the documentary, and have to keep track of things as I go.
I did watch the videos... well, I watched the reasonable one. Do you think I just looked at your citation and ignored it? No, of course I watched it. The giants one was such vapid pap that I turned it off within 20 seconds or so - it has zero credibility as you'd be aware if you could develop your critical thinking skills. It's not necessary to have a university education to learn about the world, but higher and further education give you the tool sets to detect bias and to question bald assertions.
harleyborgais wrote:There are already bookmarks off the screen the desktop is filling, the latest folder has hundreds of references in it.....
Quality is far more important than quantity.
harleyborgais wrote:No need to be offensive when some turn out to be poor sources. A human just cannot read every word of every source they check, especially with a goal this expansive. Limits must be chosen carefully. And no one is perfect.
Where was I offensive to you? I was offensive to these shitty sites spewing naive vacuous bollocks as if it was fact. Actually, if you read again you can see I am trying to cajole you into some critical consideration of the absurd biases at play. The reason I get annoyed with sites like that is that if scams people like you, who are genuinely trying to find out about the world they live in but don't necessarily have the knowledge or tools to discern fact from guff.