Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 endlesslift
Joined: 12/31/2009
Msg: 1
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanismPage 1 of 2    (1, 2)
This device was found in a shipwreck and is estimated to be from the time before Christ. But it's way more advanced than we thought a device could be from that time period.

http://io9.com/5441889/advanced-imaging-reveals-a-computer-1500-years-ahead-of-its-time

I think this shows that the fossil record and also our own history books and historical artifacts is such a sparse record that it would be difficult to really have the real picture.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 2
view profile
History
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism
Posted: 1/14/2010 4:02:31 PM
there is only one reason that I can think of as to why we know what we know today, and that is we just continue on the backs of the knowledge of the ages that have gone by.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 3
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism
Posted: 1/14/2010 4:45:39 PM
There is a television show on History Channel called Ancient Discoveries that details some of the archaeological findings of ancient machines like cranes, clocks and all kinds of ingenious automata by cultures including the Greeks, Chinese, Persians, Minoans, etc.

It's only chauvinism that makes us think the people of today could be the only ones who have a grasp of engineering and fabrication.
 AppleGeek
Joined: 9/26/2006
Msg: 4
view profile
History
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism
Posted: 1/14/2010 4:47:34 PM
Metallurgy and material sciences are a prime driver in technology. Most of Leonardos ideas couldn't be make with the materials of the day but are trivial with modern materials.
 monalee1
Joined: 10/22/2007
Msg: 5
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism
Posted: 1/14/2010 7:39:24 PM
"We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism"

hi.. I feel that we have a wealth of data on human history through scrolls, books, drawings, artifacts and ancient cities... since I believe that we were created in the Image of God I completely reject the notion that man was ever primative in his thinking... imo knowledge has increased because our time here has increased, not because our brains have increased or evolved... blessings
 AppleGeek
Joined: 9/26/2006
Msg: 6
view profile
History
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism
Posted: 1/14/2010 7:48:13 PM
There's something that Creationism and Evolution agree on. Humans as a species are essentially unchanged physically in the last 6000 years.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 7
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism
Posted: 1/14/2010 10:41:25 PM

I feel that we have a wealth of data on human history through scrolls, books, drawings, artifacts and ancient cities

Many of which were destroyed in the fire of the Great Library of Alexandria and then of course we have the dark ages, where learning to read anything was practically a crime (The Catholic church held most of the knowledge and they weren't talking, except in Latin, from the Vulgate...What more did anyone need to know but how to serve God and the Church?)
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 8
view profile
History
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism
Posted: 1/15/2010 12:54:52 PM
RE Msg: 9 by JustDukky:

I feel that we have a wealth of data on human history through scrolls, books, drawings, artifacts and ancient cities
Many of which were destroyed in the fire of the Great Library of Alexandria
That's true. The Romans didn't see any point in academies of learning. They closed down the academy at Rhodes, and looted it. Brought Greek learning to a standstill.

and then of course we have the dark ages, where learning to read anything was practically a crime
Well, you're probably right that in your neck of the woods, reading and writing were banned. But here in England, we're a bit more tolerant. The English version of the Church liked to teach people to read and write. But most people didn't see the point. After all, why do you need your kid to read and write, when all your sons need to learn is how to work in the blacksmith, or how to thatch a roof, and all your daughters need to know is how to cook, how to clean, and how to bear children?

FYI, historians no longer call it the Dark Ages, because they've realised it was anything but dark.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 9
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism
Posted: 1/15/2010 1:35:50 PM

here in England, we're a bit more tolerant.

Especially of things like dates & time frames...Do you know when the dark ages were?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 10
view profile
History
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism
Posted: 1/15/2010 4:57:32 PM
RE Msg: 12 by JustDukky:

here in England, we're a bit more tolerant.
Especially of things like dates & time frames...Do you know when the dark ages were?
Duh. It was part of learning history in the UK when I was in school.

FYI, here's the bit about why the Dark Ages is not discussed anymore:
The term "Dark Ages" was originally intended to denote the entire period between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance; the term "Middle Ages" has a similar motivation, implying an "intermediate" period between Classical Antiquity and the Modern era. In the 19th century scholars began to recognize the accomplishments made during the period, thereby challenging the image of the Middle Ages as a time of darkness and decay.[3] The term is now never used by scholars to refer to the entire medieval period;[5] when used, it generally restricted to the Early Middle Ages.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages#Dark_Ages_of_Latin_Europe
 endlesslift
Joined: 12/31/2009
Msg: 11
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism
Posted: 1/16/2010 11:33:16 AM
aremeself,

Agreed, but my point is that much is lost.
 endlesslift
Joined: 12/31/2009
Msg: 12
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism
Posted: 1/16/2010 11:35:17 AM
And further, if we loose so much of our information, what about information in the fossil record? How complete would the fossil record be and how complete would our own collections be in terms of understanding?
 ~DREAMS~
Joined: 1/8/2007
Msg: 13
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism
Posted: 1/16/2010 12:30:03 PM

Many of which were destroyed in the fire of the Great Library of Alexandria


alleged to have been destroyed...There is NO proof any of the contents was burned at all.....

so if you had a one day pass to the contents .... what would you want to look at?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 14
view profile
History
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism
Posted: 1/16/2010 12:53:45 PM
RE Msg: 15 by Funcuz:
And Scorp , England wasn't more tolerant than the USA or Canada for the simple reason that the latter countries didn't exist nor would they for between 1000 and a 500 years or so from any point during the Dark Ages to the foundation of those nations.
I agree that the USA and Canada didn't exist back then. My point was that England was more tolerant than JustDukky was claiming.

That's what Dukky was pointing out to you. He's absolutely right....literacy was not something promoted among anybody other than the clergy.
I wasn't raised in the US or Canada. I wasn't told that the church were either trying to help the people to gain more literacy, or trying to suppress it. I wasn't indoctrinated.

It was as an adult, that I found out that the church were teaching the poor to read and write, not in Latin, because average people didn't read or write in Latin, and it wouldn't help them at all. But they DID teach Latin to the sons of rich nobles, as it did help them in reading and writing the documents of the court, and the documents of scientists, who often wrote in Latin, like Newton did.

If someone wants to post something accurate about the church, fair enough. But if we just start posting all sorts of unfounded claims about the church, then we are encouraging people to accept whatever they are told, and if they think that's OK, then they will think that it's OK to accept whatever a minister says, be it that we should commit genocide, oppress others, or suck on his d*ck.
 JMars
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 15
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism
Posted: 1/16/2010 3:42:39 PM
It is a common misconception that the early Germanic peoples of Europe were illiterate. Runic script had been was established by as early as the 1st century CE, with Tacitus noting that the head of a family was as capable of reading them as a priest-king. As the Negua Helm reveals, Germanic experimentation with written script began as early as 200 BCE .

They never developed a literary tradition for the same reasons others don't; oral tradition serves quite well on the onehand, and affluence on the other. The simple plot of land one's culture was dealt meant ALL of the difference between making great strides in technology or little to none at all. Egypt could never have been Egypt without the Nile, Greece or Rome without the Mediterranean, or Mesopotamia without the Euphrates.

And the Roman Empire didn't crack under pressure from an outside force; namely the usual suspects of Germanic barbarians. Despite the the seeming unity of the grandiose Empire, it was a sociological mess that before long started spawning all of "urban salvation cults" a la Christianity in order to adderss it's absolutely massive problems with poverty, alienation and generally lack of socio-cultural cohesion. In the 3rd or 4th century some 17 emperors suffered assassination, and citizens were so umoved by any sort of patriotism that the Empire became increasingly reliant of foreign mercs for it's defense.

The Goths, Franks, and Anglo-Saxon did far more to stablize the region and see to the survival of the Western Empire than they did to destroy it. And those barbarians, who were just settling after a massive folk migration out of southern Scnadinavia, and who were barely into the iron age, weren't putting all that much pressure on the Empire; whch, even after Arminius legendary victory, continued to make (less of) a spectacle of it's power beyond the Rhine. Then the Huns came in from the east, pushing the Goths out of Eastern Europe.

"Dark Ages" isn't the most appropriate term for the time period, and is only truly relevent from the strictly Hellenistic stand point of southern Europe.
 JMars
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 16
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism
Posted: 1/17/2010 9:08:18 PM

Not exactly.
It's not that people think or don't think the early Germanics were literate. What was clear was that overall the Romans were miles ahead of them technologically. Skill in the arts notwithstanding , the Germanic peoples of c. 0 BCE had no coliseums , no aqueducts , paved roads , or much else beyond metallurgical expertise. Literacy in Runic script was anything but widespread during the era in question.


Actually, people DO think that the Germanic peoples were illiterate. You hear it all of the time, as one of the many slurs against the preChristian Germanic folk.

And I see no evidence to support the notion that runic literacy was NOT widespread by the time of Tacitus' writings; which tells us that the head of a household was the interpreter of runic divinations where his household was concerned.


That's like calling an arsonist a hero for also putting out the fire he started. The whole reason the Western Roman empire was so destabilized was because those same Germanics who "stabilized" it were running amok within it. They came under pressure from the East and the Romans were less than honest in their dealings with the new arrivals but the whole reason Rome couldn't secure it's frontiers was because those same Germanic peoples were pushing up against its borders and demanding to be let in. Rome eventually lost the ability to hold them off (the reasons for which are what you referred to previously. In other words , you've got your timeline mixed up)


My timelines are fine. The encroachment of the Huns from the east sparked the Migration Age. Was this the first time Roman and German met in conflict? No. But it's difficult in saying that the German's were pushing up agianst Rome's boarders when in fact Rome's boarders were pushing into Gaul, Britain and over the Rhine. And when, despite the odd boarder skirmish, launced from both sides, the Rhine stood as the boudary between Germany and Rome from the time of Arminius until the migration Age.

Rome also pulled out of Gaul and Britain abandoning them. The Gauls and the Brits invited various Germanic tribes into their lands to defend them. Yes, admittedly, agaisnt other Germanic tribes; though in the case of the Brits they needed help against the Picts.

That's hardly calling the arsonist the hero.

I believe they say the truth generally leads somewhere in between two extremes. Unfortunately, when it comes to our Germanic past, we generally only get only one unchallenged extreme.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 17
view profile
History
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism
Posted: 1/18/2010 12:58:51 PM
RE Msg: 22 by Funcuz:
It's not that people think or don't think the early Germanics were literate. What was clear was that overall the Romans were miles ahead of them technologically. Skill in the arts notwithstanding , the Germanic peoples of c. 0 BCE had no coliseums , no aqueducts , paved roads , or much else beyond metallurgical expertise. Literacy in Runic script was anything but widespread during the era in question.
Nah. That's what we were told. But the reality turned out to be incredibly different. The Romans were experts at certain things. They were fantastic at building the straightest of roads. We don't even manage as straight roads today. Western medicine's skill in fixing bones is almost totally from the Roman work, and many of our surgical tools date from them.

But when we look at Ireland, we've found bridges that were much longer and more stable than anything we've seen in Roman times or even after. We've found huge amounts of artwork and metalwork that came from non-Roman societies in Europe, that were way ahead of anything the Romans had.

The Roman Empire never "cracked" exactly , that much is true. It was indeed a sociological mess but it was definitely the Germanic barbarians that dealt the death-blow over a period of centuries. Once the empire was split in two , the Western half was left more or less under-defended due to its drain on resources. Those same mercenaries the Romans hired were as apt to invade Rome as they were to defend their share of it. When one considers that it was a barbarian king named Odoacer who put the final nail in the coffin of the Western Roman empire's nominal existence , it becomes pretty clear who was in charge by that time. The Roman empire was Germanic by that time for the simple reason that Romans had been left with no choice but to let them in. They eventually over-ran the place and squabbled amongst themselves for about 1500 years.
That was what we were taught when you and I were in school. However, archeologists and historians have shown that time after time, the Germanic tribes had the option to sack Rome, but didn't. In the end, it's been made clear that the Roman society devolved over time. It did reach points at which it could have been taken over. But that never happened. That's why we had a Dark Ages. In other civilisations, other tribes would rise up, take over falling empires, and then they would continue as the new regime. That never happened with the Romans. They just stopped functioning more and more, but no-one took over. So eventually, there was just no Roman empire, and still no-one took it over. Total disarray.

That's like calling an arsonist a hero for also putting out the fire he started.
The whole reason the Western Roman empire was so destabilized was because those same Germanics who "stabilized" it were running amok within it.
That's also what we were taught when you and I were at school. But it's turned out that the Germans actually protected the Romans. They were chosen as the bodyguards for many Roman emperors, as they were excellent fighters, but when they took a job, they were fiercely loyal, and that's what you need in a bodyguard. The Germans often served as Roman soldiers in the Roman army. They weren't running amok in it either. They were actually some of the most loyal Roman citizens the Romans ever had.

As I said, what you are saying, is what you and I and JMars were taught in school. Archaeology has shown this was not the case.
 JMars
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 18
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism
Posted: 1/18/2010 2:41:06 PM

What you're asking is that I prove a negative.
Who wrote it down and tabulated any figure for literacy amongst the Germanic tribes ? Where are the ample examples providing evidence for widespread Runic literacy ?
Most importantly , a lack of evidence is actually evidence.
With that said , define widespread because two people (who one would expect to be literate as a matter of necessity) hardly serves as evidence that any sizable segment of the population could read anything at all.


I'm not asking you to prove anything, actually.

The proof is in the evidence. And what you're saying is that absence of evidence IS evidence of abscence; which it is not. And in fact, the only evidence that we DO have leans in the direction of runic literacy.

And we're hardly talking about two people, one of whom had to be literate as a matter of necessity. The Iron Age Germanic tribes were not made up of a single household. They number in the hundreds of thousands, and any youngling (not just the first born of the last head) had the potential to become head of the family in later years.

All things being equal ...


One of the reasons they were so keen to settle on the Roman side of the border was because it provided a ready-made order and infrastructure for which they could use to construct their own kingdoms. This precludes the possibility that they were in any way trying to establish stability on their own side of the frontier


They didn't have to establish stability on their own side of the border. The Huns pushed the Goths, and the Goths migrated straight through the long settled (and relatviely stable) area of modern Germany into Italty and beyond.

And Roman infrastructure had NOTHING to do with the migration, anymore than the stability of the Hallstat culture had anything to do with the early Germanic tribes taking over Central Europe in the opening centuries of the Iron Age.

What attract the Goths to Rome is that there was **nowhere else to go.** They couldn't stay in the Ukrain or move East. They couldn't return to Scandinavia. They'd left for a reason, ie. population/resoursces. And they couldn't settle in Germany for basically the same reasons that they couldn't return to the Scandinavian homeland.

And as is quite clear from th history, settling in Rome was NO way for a Germanic king to set up a Germanic kingdom. With the exception of the Anglo-Saxons, settlement in Roman territory invariably led to the adoption of the culture of the conquored and a necessary redefinition of rulership, away from the folk kingship that is implied in the both and the Germanic word *king* -- king = cyning/konung = offshoot of (-ing) the related people (cyn, kin) -- and the native folkish customs of rulership.
 GGarbo
Joined: 10/8/2007
Msg: 19
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism
Posted: 1/18/2010 3:39:47 PM
I LOVE human history but the simple fact is, we have VERY little to go on and much of what we know of as "history" is actually theory based on available evidence which can fit into the back of a pick-up truck.

The more you research into the actual evidence, the more you start to question what is in the history books because you realize that its based on "existing evidence", not evidence we have yet to discover.

Recent discoveries have made us re-evaluate what we think of our human evolution. I want to be clear here though...

WE KNOW EVOLUTION EXISTS...

We just don't know all the details of how it happened at certain points so whenever you read... "we evolved from Africa" ..you are getting a theory due to new evidence which contradicts the timeline of that evolution. It doesn't make evolution wrong, it just reveals to us that we don't know how our evolution happened so it's all theory.

I'm being careful here because bible bangers jump on this to undermine Darwin's theory of evolution. His evidence is sound, we just don't know all the puzzle pieces yet because of a skeleton that appeared that throws a chink into the chain of evolution as we thought...i.e. Lucy like creatures being discovered in areas which would not be possible if we follow the current timeline.

All this really does though is opens up new possibilities for evolution and a new story. Evolution still existed, just maybe not the way we have been surmising.

What we do know though, is that we haven't undergone a major evolution in modern times so we are the same people as those we consider "primitive" . Our mind is the same mind that underwent the artistic and cultural revolution which defines our species. Considering the date of the written word, it would be ignorant of us to dismiss ideas in pre-writing eras as so primitive we shouldn't pay attention to them. Many of these ideas are highly advanced with limited ecological impact.

I personally tend to think our "savage" ancestors might have been on the right track by placing their beliefs in the stars instead of a book.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 20
view profile
History
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism
Posted: 1/18/2010 3:51:07 PM
well, somebodies were pretty observant about the sky things.
I never thought people were ever all that dumb.

I don't know how small and precise the machining of the gears had to be, the hand machining is what amazes me the most, not the knowledge the they had about the planets.

Is there someone that thinks we are actually smarter today than then?
 JMars
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 21
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism
Posted: 1/18/2010 5:09:09 PM
Well then show it to me.


Our first evidence of a definitvely runic script, the Meldorf brooch was found on the west coast of Jutland and dates to around the middle of the 1st century CE. By the middle of the 3rd century CE inscriptions in the script found on the Meldorf booch -- ie. the Elder Futhark, the term futhark being taken from the first 6 runes, with th being a single character -- are found in all areas occuppied by the Germanic tribes.

We would have much greater evidence of runes, but for the fact that they tended to be carved and wood, and wood doesn't tend hold up over time. The Viking Age Scandinavians made the effort to carve runic memorials in stone however, while other evidence appears on jewelry, weapons, and other similar works of art.

All of the characters that made up the Elder Futhark are represented, in conventional order, in the Anglo-Saxon Rune Poem; composed sometime during the late 8th/early 9th century CE. The Anglo-Frisians added staves to accomodate for shifts in the language over time, but the first 24 runes runes remained the first 24. It would later be systemactically shrunk to 16 runes in the space of 200 years by the Viking Age Scandinavians from the time of the "Younger Futhark's" first appearance. This was done for much the same reason that the Anglo-Frisians expanded the futhark. And it should be noted that by far the majority of the change from elder to younger futhark occured in the space of the 8th century, ie. within the space of 100 years.

This is generally taken as evidence of the existence of runic guilds of an inter-tribal nature; which is almopst a no-brainer consdiering the degree to which these tribes interacted and kept up contact over time and space. It was for instnace a feeling of cultural kinship that inspired the first Anglo-Saxon missionaries to head over to Denmark and the the lands of the Continental Germanics (Frisians, Thuringians, Old Saxons).

Anyway, beyond the physical evidence itself, we have the testimony of a Roman historian of the 1st century CE, Cornelius Tacitus, that priests and heads of households, ie. thralls, freemen, etc. alike were literate in the prevailing script of the period. Our physical evidence matches up with the textual evidence.

So, there simply is more evidence than abscence.


Are they from the east or the north ?

Clearly you've got different history books than what is offered anywhere else so , since this is getting too far off topic , I won't continue it. We could argue this forever and I doubt we'd ever agree. Thanks for the debate (limited though it was)


lol

You know who the Goths were, right? And have at least a general awarenss of the Germanic people, their origins and the spread of their culture?

You see, Germanic culture eemerged within the area of southern Scandinavia over the course of the Bronze Age as thje product of the interplay between the indigenous cultures and that of the (now) dominant Indo-European culture; which began t oarrive in the late Stonew Age, c.2400 BCE. There are no signs of abrupt changes in cultural with the appearance of I-E culture. In fact the transition was so seemless, that some in the past assumed that Scandinavia was the I-E homeland; though this is no longer accepted.

Now, the Goths were made up of these Germanic peoples that lived in southern Scandinavia. More specifically, the Goths are beleived to hail from the area of modern day Sweden. However, as the Iron Age approached, a shift in the climate made exsiting tribal populations unsupportable within customary tribal boudaries. This sparked the first migration out of the Germanic homeland. It led to the Germanization of the area of modern Germany, and eventually led the Goths out of Sweden and into Eastern Europe.

So now, you tell me, are they from the north or are they from the east? lol
 JMars
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 22
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism
Posted: 1/18/2010 5:26:01 PM
Those those who wish to know more about the collapse of Rome, wikipedia provides a fairly good good overview Here is a link/address ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire
 GeneralizingNow
Joined: 10/10/2007
Msg: 23
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism
Posted: 1/18/2010 9:16:59 PM

It is a common misconception that the early Germanic peoples of Europe were illiterate. Runic script had been was established by as early as the 1st century CE, with Tacitus noting that the head of a family was as capable of reading them as a priest-king. As the Negua Helm reveals, Germanic experimentation with written script began as early as 200 BCE .

Ha. It's also odd for me that people are thinking BECAUSE a society has written words it's somehow "more advanced". It's actually LESS "intelligent"/efficient/less worthy, in certain circumstances, to write--for example, for nomadic peoples. Who wants to be the one to lug around the tomes? Instead, use your perfectly good memory and have oral history. It makes more sense.

As the second poster mentioned, humans have been "just as smart" as us since they became humans. Just different technology.

This compass/astro-whatever thingie seems to be an engineering marvel, but even back in THAT day was not valuable ENOUGH to mass-produce. It's like a jet-pack, they EXIST, but they're not worth the expense. So, while-- if they were all millionaires-- they'd have one, they were just everyday guys going about their business, and instead used their slightly less than perfect but still quite effective brains and "lesser" instruments to navigate.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 24
view profile
History
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism
Posted: 1/18/2010 11:09:22 PM
Why do you read this crap? This is not a source of knowledge, but of idiocy. Apparently Ellen White wasn't even capable of simple math:



The holy city shall they tread underfoot forty and two months. And I will give power unto My two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth

Yes, the numbers ARE the same, and they add up to three and one half YEARS. I can see the use of analogy of 1260 days to 1260 years, the the analogy fails quickly. First, there is absolutely NOTHINZG in the passage to indicate an analogy. Second, 42 months has NO analogue. Both figures are correct only if they refer to literal days.



The holy city shall they tread underfoot

That'd likely be Jerusalem, considered to be a holy city probably by pretty much all followers of the old testament, rather then just Catholic Christians.



And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified

Real places. Somehow the writer seems to be confusing the two. Regardless, Sodom was in fact destroyed, many centuries ago. This is HISTORY, not prophecy!

To top it off, in typical religious prophecy fashion, text which in no way resembles modern events, is twisted and shoehorned with claims that it means something completely different. Which is also why the exact same passages are used as a basis for completely different "prophecies" [see also "Dome of the Rock" in this regard].

'But, take heed of the false prophets, who come unto you in sheep's clothing, and inwardly are ravening wolves. Matthew 7:15 [Young's Literal Translation]

Beware of false prophets. The word prophet, as used in the Scriptures, means any one who teaches authoritatively the will of God. A false prophet is one who is a false teacher. Christ refers to the scribes and Pharisees [People's New Testament].

Certainly there is no insight here into the engineering skills of ancient civilizations. There isn't even any competent insight into what they actually wrote, much leass meant! I have to wonder Mona, if you have ever actually read the Bible. You seem only to quote second-hand from someone who wrote from her own biases and agenda some two centuries ago. The more dubious the sources, the more dubious the "learning".

Surprisingly, in terms of what the ancients actually did know and were capable of, there is a surprising amount of knowledge. Clearly, much has been lost or obscured by time. Even what is known however doesn't necessarily trickle down to the general public, at least not until it's featured in a popular TV series. Egyptians, Romans, and Greeks left pretty good records of their skills and achievements, in the form of written word and inscriptions and engravings in the structures themselves. It's remarkable what can be achieved simply by combining simple devices. With proper motivation, Mediterranean civilizations could have had wood and metal machines powered by internal combustion engines, thousands of years ago. They had bronze, tin, lead, copper, ceramics, gears, pulleys, levers, reciprocating mechanisms, steam "engines", possibly electroplating...China had iron and explosives. Coal and wood were available as fuel, though liquid sources were likely scarce. If someone had the will and funds to turn some of these things into sources of political or economic power, technology likely would have expanded rapidly - just using existing methods and materials!
 JMars
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 25
We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism
Posted: 1/19/2010 4:34:20 AM

Uh , did you even read what you yourself wrote ?


As a matter of fact, I did read what I myself wrote. I also read what you wrote in your previous post, about this "debate" having reached it's limit. and I have about as much patience left for you and your skewed view of things.

I've presented evidence regarding runic literacy. Your have produce opinion and conjecture.

As for the Roman Empire and it's decline; I've provided a link that well represents the complexity of the issue such that anyone reading this thread that is actually interested in that topic can look further into it for themselves.

So, thanks for the "debate", such as it was. lol
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > We have very little data about human past: Antikythera mechanism