Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 406 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#29636 - 03/04/09 12:30 AM Oldest Megalithic Site
Mike Kremer Offline

Megastar

Registered: 10/16/04
Posts: 1696
Loc: London UK

For the old Kurdish shepherd, it was just another burning hot day in the rolling plains of eastern Turkey. Following his flock over the arid hillsides, he passed the single mulberry tree, which the locals regarded as 'sacred'Then he spotted something. Crouching down, he brushed away the dust, and exposed a strange, large, oblong stone.
Every Archaeologist that has come to this site agree that it is
the most important Archealogical site in the world.

To date 45 huge carved stones have been excavated....still in their standing circular arrangement.
But the most incredible thing is their age !

The Stone Complex Carbon Dates to at least 12,000 years old.
Maybe even 13,000 yrs old.
Meaning it was built and carved in 10,000 BC

Stonehenge was built in 3000 BC. The Pyramids Giza in 2,500 BC. Making this huge complex, the oldest site in the world by a mind-numbing margin.

Now have a look at these amazing pictures.
Especially note the 6th picture. The Megalithic stones
BEFORE they were UNEARTHED.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...arden-Eden.html
_________________________
.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.



Top
.
#29639 - 03/04/09 02:03 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: Mike Kremer]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Great Post Mike !

seems that this site kind of confirms by thoughts about
the age of modern humans and the fact that the earth was in an ice age around 13,000 years ago tilts it even further.

according to the archeologist these people were hunters and if my thoughts are correct there should be a large cave or tunnel somewhere in the region that has been covered up by the seas.

or there will be found evidence of large cities close to the ancient sea shores.

the way I see it , the hunters left the caves or cities and traveled to this hunt club to hunt durring the slightly warmer periods , and as the colder temperatures approached they then left and returned to there caves or cities.

anyway now (since 1994)there is evidence of a hunt club located on the outskirts of populated areas that is the oldest ever found
the problem is that there is no city located near the club
of equal age or older , not one that has yet been found.

the story gets deeper but no where near as deep as it will be when the complete story is revealed.

as I have said before evolution is based on what has been found
and they picked through what evidence they wanted to use as evidence , and they havent even explored all there is , science is data gathering and a theory is a theory.

evolution is a theory.
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29641 - 03/04/09 02:53 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: paul]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
Good article, Mike. Does seem like a lot of speculation, but that's not a bad thing. Either way this is an amazing find.

It's not directly related to biological evolution (although the change of the environment probably altered the course of evolution for many species). "A Law" is a model (description) of what happens. "A Theory" is a model or family of models that explains how something happens. Neither word has anything to do with the certainty ascribed to the model.

A few things we can check on later:
Whether there was any indication of a full-fledged written language.
Where the placement, articulation, or orientation of the megaliths reflects a knowledge of mathematics, astronomy, etc.
The origin of the stone, tools used, method of transport, if not carved in situ.






Top
#29642 - 03/04/09 03:32 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Yes, very good article. Some additional info here:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html

This site was (almost) discovered in the 1960s, but was taken to be a medieval cemetary, and disregarded

And, at a prehistoric village just 20 miles away, geneticists found evidence of the world's oldest domesticated strains of wheat; radiocarbon dating indicates agriculture developed there around 10,500 years ago, or just five centuries after Gobekli Tepe's construction.

- Five centuries after. Interesting.

There are no sources to explain what the symbols might mean. Schmidt agrees. "We're 6,000 years before the invention of writing here," he says.

From a quick read, it appears that the stone is thought to have been quarried nearby, and it's estimated that at least 500 workers would have been required to move it to the site - a surprisingly large and organised labour force for a hunter gatherer community. It's said that flint tools would have sufficed to carve the limestone.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#29646 - 03/04/09 09:02 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: redewenur]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
My understanding is there were experts who believed that written Mayan script would never be deciphered and even some who said it wasn't a language at all - and yet now most of it has been figured out. (This is not to suggest that the symbols at gobekli may constitute a language after all, but that future finds may yield even more startling results.)

This situation is much more complicated for several reasons, but I wouldn't be surprised if Schmidt, et. al. generated a number of testable hypotheses in the exploration of this site.


Top
#29649 - 03/04/09 11:58 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: Mike Kremer]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
here are a few google videos on the find although most are german , probably because they were more interested in such a find , you should still be able to get a better picture of the layout of the rings in some of the videos.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Gobekli+Tepe+&hl=en&emb=0&aq=-1&oq=#
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29651 - 03/05/09 02:37 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: paul]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
The site is amazing, the artifacts are brilliant and the whole "Garden of Eden" supposition is rubbish. The suggestion that the growth of religion may have lead to human sacrifices, whilst possibly correct, does weaken the ridiculous argument that this is the Garden of Eden- and it certainly would not have looked anything like the pictorial representation! It however, being situated where it is, could justifiably claim to be one of the earliest sites of human farming and settlements.

The dating of the settlement to 10,000-12,000 years ago certainly falls right into the timeline for the development of the human species into modern humans. Would the Black Sea have been landlocked at this time?


Top
#29652 - 03/05/09 02:45 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: Ellis]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
I don't understand why you think the "whole garden of eden thing" is rubbish. I guess I would say it's just speculation at this point - and probably a big stretch. They've drawn a few loose connections. But it's not a completely impossible idea - at least I don't think so.


Top
#29656 - 03/05/09 03:48 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Garden of Eden? Maybe.

While the material evidence for a Garden of Eden hypothesis is scarce, there does seem to be good reason to suppose that there may have been very ancient legends, with a factual basis, portraying this region as a cornucopia, perhaps with concurrent tales of its venerable status. Given that animal husbandry, agriculture and local population expansion of non-nomadic, settled communities could have rapidly taken their ecological toll, it would be no surprise to learn that later generations came to romanticise and spiritualise that earlier era.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#29671 - 03/06/09 12:23 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: Ellis]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Ellis

Quote:
Would the Black Sea have been landlocked at this time?


the straights of gibraltar have either closed or the earth rose there or the sea levels have lowered enought for the feedwaters from the atlantic to have stopped , this has caused the entire mediteranian to basically dry up three times in the past the last time 5 million years ago , I would think that the black sea along with the sea of azov would have also dried up durring these periods , unless they were fed by glacial melting from the north.


Quote:
"Garden of Eden" supposition is rubbish.


I have been trying to find some way to place the river pison
which is the first (named) river mentioned in Genesis , which would need to have the highest elevation of the 4 rivers mentioned , the main river (not named )having the higest elevation of the five rivers mentioned , as the main (not named) river flows from Eden into and through the Garden of Eden to water the plants and somewhere beyond the Garden of Eden the river divides into 4 heads.



Quote:
And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
(Genesis 2:10-14 KJV)


so this point would put the Garden of Eden between the source of the main (not named) river and the point where the river divides
into 4 heads (or rivers).

here is something interesting I thought of today.

the euphrates begins just above the persian gulf !

pison , persian !

and I found this site that thinks along the same lines.
http://www.kjvbible.org/rivers_of_the_garden_of_eden.html



hopefully you have read the web page already.

this would put the age of Eden and the Garden of Eden way beyond what many think it to be because if the source of the main (not named)river is high in the zagros mountains then this would mean that the persian gulf would have been much narrower at the time possibly sized more like a river , and would sudgest a timeline in millions of years as I have been thinking.

I do not agree that the river pison is where the web site places it , because I think the river pison is actually the persian gulf itself.

anyway this would put Eden and the Garden of Eden somewhere above the point where the main (not named) river branches off and forms the pison ( persian gulf / river if correct) river , and the source would have to be rainfall or ice melt from the mountains.

but it hadnt rained yet !


and of course there is still the river gihon to find , unless it is the river pison described on the web site.

but its time consumming and gives me something to do , so why not.

why were you asking about the black sea?



_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29675 - 03/06/09 04:47 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: paul]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
The Black Sea? I asked because there was some evidence that suggested that the Bosphorus was breached by volcanic activity causing water to pour into the Mediterranian in historical Times, leading to the legend of the flood. Unlike the Garden of Eden the flood is mentioned in many ancient historical texts and there has been constant continuing volcanic activity in this area. I felt at the time I heard this that it was a reasonable idea, and one which seemed to fit the geological findings. (I have no sites to back this up! just memory).

The theory of Ur and Euphrates region being the start of modern civilisation is, I thought, well established. I just question that there was 'a garden of eden' in which god prowled around prior to making Adam before finally producing the summit of his creation, the intellectually curious Eve. It seemed strange to me to read a scientific discussion which was trying to prove a Creation Myth of one particular tribe to be true. What's next? Proof that the sun, which is flat, really does go round the Earth?

Top
#29678 - 03/06/09 06:31 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: Ellis]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
Originally Posted By: Ellis
I just question that there was 'a garden of eden' in which god prowled around prior to making Adam before finally producing the summit of his creation, the intellectually curious Eve. It seemed strange to me to read a scientific discussion which was trying to prove a Creation Myth of one particular tribe to be true. What's next? Proof that the sun, which is flat, really does go round the Earth?

Is not the scientific enquiry focused on obtaining data concerning the origins of the myth, rather than an attempt to substantiate the claims of those who believe the myth to be true?
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#29680 - 03/06/09 01:14 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: redewenur]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Ahhhh... Science !

Quote:
Is not the scientific enquiry focused on obtaining data concerning the origins of the myth, rather than an attempt to substantiate the claims of those who believe the myth to be true?
_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29681 - 03/06/09 01:54 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: Ellis]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Ellis

since you brought up the flood , heres something else to think about concerning the megaliths.

what if these stones are anchors?

wouldnt a ship that houses so many animals need anchors?

and what if that ship were Noah's ark?

its resting place on mt ararat might be located 337 miles
to the north east of the site.

here

lat 39.675117
lon 44.322920

use google earth and view this point up close in the 3D view
the dimentions of this oblong bowl shaped area fits the dimentions of the ark described in genesis , there is also what
appears as a well trodden pathway that leads out of the area
about the center of the area.

a very suspicious looking resting place for the ark.

I would imagine that the animals and Noah's people would have hung around for quite some time and used the ark as shelter
before moveing to a now dryer place.

would noah's people want to keep these anchor stones perhaps
as memorabilia or sacred stones?

would they move them to a lower place perhaps where all the animals first went?

most likely the mountain top would have slowly been covered in ice and they might have moved the stones to prevent them from getting lost in the ice.

the shape of these stones would easily adapt to anchors that
you would slip two loops over vs tying and untying ropes to them.

because of the T shape of the stones.

I would suspect that these stones could have been stored along the keel of the ship to steady the ship durring rough seas.

it makes sence to me at least , and might be the reason that animals are depicted on the stones.

note:

if you want a easy way to find the lat and lon position in google earth , just make a placemarker anywhere in google earth ,
then plug in the above lat and lon using the placemarkers properties box , by right clicking on the placemarker.






_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29682 - 03/06/09 02:32 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: paul]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"I just question that there was 'a garden of eden' in which god prowled around ..."
I agree. That's just silly. However, it's possible that there could be that there was some actual inspiration for the Eden myth. Achilles may not had the qualities ascribed to him - he may not even have existed. And yet there is a city of Troy. Merlin may not have been magical - and he might not even have existed. And yet there may have been real place and events that inspired the story of Camelot.

I agree that every wild speculation does not represent a bona fide scientific theory. And we don't need Nostradamus to predict that there are going to be a lot of true believers eager to teach us how this find fits into their kooky world views. But we ought not completely dismiss a mild connection just because there are buffoons who are trying to force the puzzle pieces together.

Of course, I'm saying this in with gross general ignorance. Maybe there are very good reasons for rejecting these connections - I just haven't seen them articulated in the two articles or they're just not obvious to me. Or maybe there are other facts that argue against the point. I just don't know enough.



Top
#29688 - 03/06/09 06:31 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
tff

Quote:
buffoons who are trying to force the puzzle pieces together.



are you reffering to the evoloutionist who build an entire human skeleton fron a single tooth?

or that there is really no solid evidence to back up evolution?

talking about forcing the puzzle together !

how many forced puzzles are there when speaking about the evidence that was gathered to support the claims of evoloution?

and how much evidence was ignored that would not support evolution?

these stones are not imagined complete skeletons they are
actual stones that were carved out of solid rock , not pieced together , and they were carved before the time that evolution
seems to put the necessary tools in the hands of modern humans , and durring a full ice age.

if someone has a theory about the stones and there is nothing that would oppose that theory , then the theory would remain intact would it not?

so I guess that what you refer to as buffoons are on both sides of the fence , just that the ones on your side dont seem to be buffoons to you because that would make you one !

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29689 - 03/06/09 06:40 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: paul]
TheFallibleFiend Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/08/05
Posts: 1940
Loc: http://thefalliblefiend.blogsp...
"are you reffering to the evoloutionist who build an entire human skeleton fron a single tooth?"

You refer to the infamous Nebraska Man? Urban legend and exaggeration. Many times creationists repeat this story based on false knowledge of the "incident" - exaggeration, leaving out important details, and outright misrepresentation or lying in some cases. The creationist proclivity for not actually studying a subject manifests itself clearly in their spreading of the Nebraska Man urban legend.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC002.html

"if someone has a theory about the stones and there is nothing that would oppose that theory "
Not all speculations constitute "theory."

"so I guess that what you refer to as buffoons are on both sides of the fence "
I'm not sure which fence you refer to, but in general, this is something I can agree with. I'm sure there are scientists who are buffoons.

"just that the ones on your side dont seem to be buffoons to you because that would make you one ! "
Being wrong does not make one a buffoon. Nor does "false" equate to "bad."





Edited by TheFallibleFiend (03/06/09 06:44 PM)

Top
#29691 - 03/06/09 07:14 PM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
redewenur Offline
Megastar

Registered: 02/14/07
Posts: 1840
I really don't know why I bother to type this. It's been said a million times, and it's not really helpful.

Paul.

You can come up with an idea and call it a hypothesis, even without evidence - that doesn't constitute a theory; but you can then set about accumulating evidence to support the hypothesis. If you have a measure of success, then you can call it a theory. It may turn out to be a strong theory or a weak theory depending upon how substantial the evidence. Then again, if you find no evidence at all, then it remains a baseless hypothesis, and does not constitute a theory in the scientific sense.

Then again, if you take the texts of the Bible as evidence because you believe them to have been provided by the Almighty, then why bother discussing science? You can fill the knowledge gap instantly, without recourse to rationality and logic. It has been done for millennia, after all. The only reason that springs to mind for opposing science is that it threatens a precarious and untenable theology.

I apologise if that sounds offensive. It's not intended to be.
_________________________
"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler

Top
#29704 - 03/07/09 12:02 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: TheFallibleFiend]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
tff

Quote:
You refer to the infamous Nebraska Man? Urban legend and exaggeration.


yea right , it was just dismissed as a urban ledgend.

and a exaggeration at that , fact is it was not imagined by creationist as you seem to think.

it was a pigs tooth and that is all that was used to build the following humanoids.



http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_16.html

Quote:
All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles placed such faith in this "ghost man" that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased conclusions relying on a single tooth, he was harshly criticized.



Quote:
In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was realized that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American pig called Prosthennops.


so its a good thing that they found the other pig bones , and its a very good thing that someone who was a true scientist found
the other bones , otherwise we would still have a pig ancestor that we wernt aware of !!

1922 - 1927 .... 5 years of urban legend and exaggeration.

Quote:
Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and his "family" were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature.


how many times has a bone or two been used to construct entire animals and hominids?

honestly if a skull was found that was shown to be the absolute oldest ever found , that could prove evolution , and the discoverers were evolutionist , I myself would have a very hard time not believing that they probably found ape foot bones close by but just couldnt resist the oppurtunity to have such a great piece of evidence that would support evolution , so they just picked up the other bones of the ape and lost them somewhere along the way to the newspapers.





_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
#29705 - 03/07/09 12:43 AM Re: Oldest Megalithic Site [Re: redewenur]
paul Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/21/06
Posts: 4136
Redewenur

Im not sure why you wrote all you did either , all I said was...

Quote:
if someone has a theory about the stones and there is nothing that would oppose that theory , then the theory would remain intact would it not?


is there something wrong with the wording that I cannot find?

and speaking of something that would not support the theory of evolution how about the cambrian explosion...

Quote:
The picture presented by the Cambrian fossils clearly refutes the assumptions of the theory of evolution, and provides strong evidence for the involvement of a "supernatural" being in their creation. Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionary biologist, admits this fact:

Quote:
Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.





Quote:
The fossil record clearly indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden in a fully formed state. This provides evidence for saying that life did not come into existence through random natural processes, but through an act of intelligent creation.



http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_1_03.html

that is amazing how these animals just appeared fully formed ,
you would think that there would be a few fossils that were found that were in some type of transition as evolution calls it.

but thats not the case.

how do evolutionist exaggerate, leaving out important details, and outright misrepresentation or lying in their attemp to explain the cambrian explosion?

_________________________
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.

Top
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.