Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Dinosaurs are Awesome!

they might be buried, but any civilization that was built on sand would not be very advance to begin with. anything that was built on bedrock would leave evidence that would have been found using sonar and other detection devices. there is one, that im completely drawing a blank on. its used to map the various levels of ground formation. in the early days of it, they used dynomite to set off vibrations and then recorded the reflections of those vibrations in multiple locations. the speed and directions of the echo's were used to determine the different layers of the earth. it was used in geology. hopefully someone will come up with the name. anyway these days they dont use dynomite or anything else as destructive as that. the results is a much more accurate reading. these newer divices can also be used to determine what is below ground in the sea beds. that is how they find oil in offshore areas.

• Im sorry dehammer I was not aware that we were questioning if any of the civilizations built were advanced !!!
• civilizations that if found might reveal older fossils perhaps even fossils of humans that date back
  to when dinosaurs roamed the earth.
• like the bible says "GENESIS 6:4 there were giants in the earth in those days"

there were giants?
and how old is the very first scientific document that contains anything that references giants.

the word dinosaur was not used until someone first found a giants bones and documented the find calling it a dinosaur.

it had already been named by the story tellers it was named giant.

if you and several others found yourself suddenly on an island with nothing modern to use as tools
would you consider yourself advanced.

how would your children learn of everything you know?

would you invent paper and pencils and teach them to do the same.

when you told them of your computer what would you use to describe it?

suppose a mere thousand years go by.
do you think your seed would have accomplished much more that when you were there with them?

how would they describe what you told them about your computer?

"there were giants in the earth in those days"

thats right dehammer...

digging deeper might provide clues to evidence.
you being what is now a scientist "perhaps" , would not want that of course because it may be
evidence that your science religion prevents you from obtaining.

because you scientist have all the answers from what is above sea level.

go up into the mountains of the himalayas and find a civilization there amidst the ice and snow.
its above sea level.
show me the advanced culture they lived in.
because durring a full blown ice age such as the ones millions of years ago what is now above sea level would look much the same.

which ice age are you refering to. the one that was in the last few hundred million years did not reach sea levels in most places. Any civiliation that existed then would have gone towards the warmer climates. there would be evidence there.

if youre refering to the ones that froze the entire worlds sea shores, there would be nothing left of their civilization, as there was nothing bigger than a single cell sea plant that survived. your description of seashores looking like the himalayeas suggest this is what your talking about. Unless your talking about a totally different creature, there could be nothing like man. Anything that existed there has no evolutionary connection with us.

the point that would make the difference is about the northern state line of texas. If the ice gets much past that point, the entire world will freeze. If it does not, then there would be plentry of space near in the lands near Houston, Dallas, Mexico city, and others around the world at that altitude and latitude where the civilization would leave its mark. Very seldom has there been any race on earth that has been so specilized that it would have to remain next to the sea.

scientist dont want to disprove things that might be true, they want to disprove things that cant be true. The one time this is otherwise is that time when they want to prove something by proving that anything else cant exist. or if they are trying to prove their own theories by finding the evidence against it. If no evidence is against it, then it has a good chance of being true. The thing is scientist require evidence not conjectures. The possiblity that man lived in seas thousands of feet deep, is nothing more than a evidenceless conjectures. Even if he lived in the 10 percent or so of sea in the continental shelf, there would be evidence of it. so where is it.

heres more proof of it , if thats what you want than you have provided against it...

would you consider rome to be advanced. scientist do. would you consider many of the ancient civlizations, such as Babylonia? scientist do. what about the inca's, or the ancient chineese civiliations? what about the ancient native americans? what about bronze age civilizations? what do these have in common. they were advanced enough to leave evidence of their existance. Some of the evidence may be nothing more than building, or rock piles, or arrow heads. But they do leave evidence that can be found. They have found evidence of old civilizations from pottery found in the seas and ocean. if the older civilations existed, wouldnt they have left some sort of sign there were there. if man was here 1000000 years ago, he would have left evidence of his existance in more than one spot. he would not have existed only in one sea shore area.

so where are they. if they existed, they would not be bound to the sea. It took man a long time to learn to fish. long before he found that he could eat from the sea, he was eating things off plants near the ground and in trees above the ground. so where did he eat, why would he only be near the sea. after the sea went out, it would take a long time before the land was usable, with all the salt deposits. sand is not the greatest soil for growing things. so it would have taken man a long time to go down to that area because of the plants. he would have been eating and killing land animals long before he went after the sea animals. why did he not leave his imprint elsewhere.

first off, you would have to have the bible proven as reliable to science before you can use it as proof that something exists.

another point is that at that time man was little more than 3 feet tall, a 4 footer would have been big. something bigger than that would seem giant. At that time there were horses that are as big as the ones today. there were elephant. there were giraffes. these all would seem like giants to men.

to my knowledge, there is none that you are refereing too. there has been evidence in science of people that grew to extreamly large size for centuries. I personally am not aware of any race that has been found to be that much larger than the then current humans. Giants are suppose to be human.

that assumes that they were the same thing. most stories of giants refer to them as human shape.

yes i would. i would have some of the knowledge of an advance civilization.

that would not be that difficult to do. paper is dried wood pulp. depending on how the island was made up, there might be things to use to make carbon. there is a way of using charcoal into a paste that can be used for writing. not very good, but easily made.

why would i describe a computer to a child that had little hope of every seeing one.

that depends on what kind of situation it was. i imagine that it would not be inpossible to reconnect with civilation long before i left this world. If it were, then there would have to have been something wrong with civilations, such as a major plague, limited nuclear war that included em pulse bombs, ect. If the island had the resourses, then they would improve, if it did not, then no, they would remain a sea based society. that is because I would have given them the start in that directions. they would not have had to start from eating plants first.

they would never know about it.

why would they think this. the odds are they would end up being bigger than me. I would tell them that what i had learned had been taught me by my forefathers, just as i was teaching them. I would not need to teach them anything they did not need. Anything i did teach them that they did not need would be lost after a few generations.

you provide a picture from a science fiction story as evidence??????????????????? what is there to provide against?

Proven , has science proven that man has never lived below sea level , has he dredged the ocean floor for evidence , the silt that would cover such evidence might be as thick as 10 - 20 meters.

or do scientist just say we have examined what we have to examine and by this we find ourselves correct.

then tell me what a computer is..

remember I have no knowledge of one , and you have nothing you can show me.

and will I remember it so that I can pass it on to the generations to follow?

and will the comming generations name things the same?

now theres a mouthfull..
I wonder just how much information has been lost by people who thought like you do.

so now if people who think as you do , thought that way then , why dont we have that information now.

what if those people who lived along the continental shelf had to suddenly move up hill to avoid being washed into the oceans.

would they take with them anything except their lives , knowing they would be battling rivers of water as it flowed downhill.

and when they got to stable land it was probably ice cold not hardly any food and no shelter.

what would they teach their children , would they even go as far as to burry their dead in the oceans where their relatives are burried?

--------------------
the more I learn, the more I know.

by who, to whom? show me the proof that has been given to science to prove that the bible is infact completely correct. Show me where the evidence is that proves there were giants in the time of eve.

here is the two ways how science works

1) someone finds something that has never been seen before, and a scientist will look at it and begin to ask, where, when, how, what and who. when they have all the answers they can find, they begin to forumlate a hypothesis. when they have this, they go to the second one.

2) either after 1) or sometimes when some thing happens to make the scientist think about something, they make a hypothesis. when they have it, they start testing that hypothesis. "If this is true, then x must be true. so they test x." if this is true, y must be false." so they test y.

if x is true and y is false then they have a theory. they they tell others, who also test it. If they can disprove it, then either the theory is abandoned as disproved or it is taken back to prehyposthesis level and reworked with the new evidence added.

you have a idea, that is man lived near the sea 1 million years ago or longer. so what is your evidence? what is the evidence against it?

the evidence against it is that there is no evidence of anything like modern man that far back anywhere in the world. the evidence is that the sea levels did not stay that low for long (geologically speaking) so man would have had to adapt to the lower levels or moved to higher ground. If he moved to higher ground, then where is the evidence that he existed then.

I know all i need to know about a computer. if our society was to be destroy, a computer would hardly help survival.

why would you. you would never need to see one, you would never need to use one. it would not help in your day to day survival. it would be useless information.

If i were going to teach the next generation about something, and they had no way of ever having known what a computer was, or even anything of our society, what i would teach is what they would need to survive. I would teach about fishing. i would teach about how to use the sun and stars to know what time of day it was, and to know what time of year it was, and to know how to find your way in a trackless ocean.


what information could have been lost. let me tell you, the greeks had something simular to napam called greek fire. no one knows to this day what it was exactly, but it is very possible that it was napam. the greek libray was destroyed with a lot of information that was had there. why do you think this information was lost. because it was not needed. you dont need greek fire to farm. you dont need it to build cities. you dont need it for a lot of things. much of what was lost has been refound.

and yes there have been a lot of civilizations that were destroyed and much of their knowledge was lost. How many of those do you think had computers. how many of them had planes. how many of them had cars that ran on gasoline rather than pulled by ox. So far the only one that possibly could have was atlantis, except they have found it, and it did not have car, computer, planes, ships like ours, or anything else. You see the think is, science can figure out what other civilizations had. if ours is destroyed, many generations from now, another civilization will have the power to discover the remains of our civilization and will be able to peice together many of the things we know. how? because they will have the same sciences that we have.

If there was another civilization that existed since the last snowball earth, then we would know about them. we might not know everything about them, but we would know about them.

first off there has never been evidence that the oceans rose that fast. If they had, there would have still have been lots of room between them and the ice. like hundreds of miles if they were around Houston, or if they were near new york, they would have had dozens of miles to go before then. the land between would not have been much colder than it was near the sea. there would have been a lot of area farther inland that would have had places to grow crops or places to raise cows, or places to pick fruit off trees and vegis off plants.

If the sea had risen that fast, then they would not have the capicity to bury their dead in the same places. they would have had to find new places to bury them. they would in reality have had centuries to move their stuff. the only way they would not is if they had tried to build dikes to keep out the sea and they busted and flooded very quickly. If they had, there would have been evidence of the systems of dikes. any civilization that has the capacity to build dykes is going to spread very far away from the ocean.

so you have a theory that man lived below sea level. there are two ways you can go. prove it, or ask people to disprove it. the people you ask will ask you how did they live, so that they can disprove that the people live like that. then they will ask you where did these people come from, so that they can disprove that. then they will really get into finding questions for you to answer for them to disprove.

unless you can come up with some answers no one is going to bother with disproving it because it is self disproving. you will have to prove it yourself. otherwise its only a hypothesis, and only one that you believe.

There are plenty of dino digs. No one has ever found a single human fossil or artifact in those strata. Not only that, there aren't even any homonid fossils in those strata. There aren't even any pre-pre-cursor fossils in those strata.

The closest thing to a human in those strata are very small mammals. If you go back further, there are the dino-mammal links.