Yep. The voice of Art and his bumper music is nostalgic.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Yep. The voice of Art and his bumper music is nostalgic.

---

Haven't lived until you've driven through the Arizona desert in the middle of the night on a long road trip to Cali from College Station with your homie, possibly a little blazed, while listening to Coast to Coast. Core memory.

Was I-10 between Houston and NOLA for me. Caffeine jitters and scanning the side of the road ready for a moth-man or shadow people to lurch out of the ditch. Good times.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

I am fascinated and borderline disturbed by some of this stuff, but unless alien, it just doesn't seem possible that civilizations millennia ago had tech superior to ours.

---

If alien, there is no reason to think that they would look remotely like humans. They would have gone through an entire different evolutionary process.

Any time someone talks about aliens resembling humans in an way, you know that they don't know what they are talking about.

Think about it. There are so many life forms on Earth that are sufficiently genetically distant that those life form are very different from us and from other distant relations. For example, nobody would ever expect a molusc to resemble a human.

Yet, people think that aliens with whom we have no genetic relations at all somehow magically resemble us. It's crazy.

It might make for decent science fiction, but it is completely crazy to expect it in real life.

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Spotted Ag said:

---

The simple fact that a group of men, earthly men that thought very highly of themselves, decided what should and shouldn't be in the Bible is troublesome to say the least. Yet here we are, Christianity based on the the writings of what some guys decided were worthy of being in the Bible. I would bet my last dollar that writings were left out of the Bible because those making the decisions thought the people couldn't handle it or weren't ready for it even if it was truth.

We have no idea about whether Christianity today is anything close to what it was supposed to be. Far to many men have their fingerprints on Christianity. Far more human fingerprints than devine.

---

Valid points, but the prophecy of Jesus, and then the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, are very consistent in that it is ALL focused on God's heavenly kingdom and salvation. Zero concern for earthly fulfillment or gain...all about battling our flawed human instincts and desires to become more holy people suitable for the heavenly kingdom. "Blessed are those who persecute you because of me" and pretty much all of the beatitudes and every parable from Jesus set Christianity apart distinctly from every other religion.

At a minimum, there are flaws or shortcomings in translation here and there, but not enough to take away from the overall message imo.

If man was to completely fabricate a fake religion, I don't think they would have gone about it this way.

---

Good point. Besides, many are woefully misled by modern skepticism. Staying purely political and historical here, not religrious, what mean is they don' t understand what said earlier. At the time the NT scripture is canonized the `interconnected realms' of the Classical World had not yet fallen apart. `Da Vinci Code' type takes so popularized in this misunderstanding are operating from a presumed dark ages attitude where you could just cover up something like Name of the Rose. This is not the case in the last decades of the 4th Century.

At the time the Church fathers set the canon on the scripture, they had unbroken lines back to the handing down of those documents. They *knew* unlike us -- what had been around since the late 1st or 2nd Century. They were not having to guess. Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Carthage -- all of these sees are as they were with most of their records (depending on what you believe, Alexandria may have lost much in 272 but the others were still standing). It is true WE may be a bit fuzzy on early Christian practices and stances on some things, but they were not. Even where they disagreed, they knew what it was about. They knew which gospels or writings were probably dubious or had no pedigree in Tradition. Or were even likely forgeries.

So its important to not mistake our fuzziness on their details for them being unsure at the time. This was not yet Gaul of Clovis or Arthurian Britain times.* All that said, this refers as the poster did to early Christianity. Judaism did suffer a disruption between the Temple period and the Talmudic so much taking its place. But its unclear if they lost their collective memory for the period to the Council of Jamnia is not that long (year 70 to 82). But I digress.

* Alas, that falling apart was barely a century away, but the splendid civilization then had not yet reached it when the canon was set.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Was I-10 between Houston and NOLA for me. Caffeine jitters and scanning the side of the road ready for a moth-man or shadow people to lurch out of the ditch. Good times.

---

Yeah, that's what I meant by "blazed". Monster Energy

titan said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Spotted Ag said:

---

The simple fact that a group of men, earthly men that thought very highly of themselves, decided what should and shouldn't be in the Bible is troublesome to say the least. Yet here we are, Christianity based on the the writings of what some guys decided were worthy of being in the Bible. I would bet my last dollar that writings were left out of the Bible because those making the decisions thought the people couldn't handle it or weren't ready for it even if it was truth.

We have no idea about whether Christianity today is anything close to what it was supposed to be. Far to many men have their fingerprints on Christianity. Far more human fingerprints than devine.

---

Valid points, but the prophecy of Jesus, and then the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, are very consistent in that it is ALL focused on God's heavenly kingdom and salvation. Zero concern for earthly fulfillment or gain...all about battling our flawed human instincts and desires to become more holy people suitable for the heavenly kingdom. "Blessed are those who persecute you because of me" and pretty much all of the beatitudes and every parable from Jesus set Christianity apart distinctly from every other religion.

At a minimum, there are flaws or shortcomings in translation here and there, but not enough to take away from the overall message imo.

If man was to completely fabricate a fake religion, I don't think they would have gone about it this way.

---

Good point. Besides, many are woefully misled by modern skepticism. Staying purely political and historical here, not religrious, what mean is they don' t understand what said earlier. At the time the NT scripture is canonized the `interconnected realms' of the Classical World had not yet fallen apart. `Da Vinci Code' type takes so popularized in this misunderstanding are operating from a presumed dark ages attitude where you could just cover up something like Name of the Rose. This is not the case in the last decades of the 4th Century.

At the time the Church fathers set the canon on the scripture, they had unbroken lines back to the handing down of those documents. They *knew* unlike us -- what had been around since the late 1st or 2nd Century. They were not having to guess. Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Carthage -- all of these sees are as they were. It is true WE may be a bit fuzzy on early Christian practices and stances on some things, but they were not. Even where they disagreed, they knew what it was about. They knew which gospels or writings were probably dubious or had no pedigree in Tradition. Or were even likely forgeries.

So its important to not mistake our fuzziness on their details for them being unsure at the time. This was not yet Gaul of Clovis or Arthurian Britain times. All that said, this refers as the poster did to early Christianity. Judaism did suffer a disruption between the Temple period and the Talmudic so much taking its place. But its unclear if they lost their collective memory for the period to the Council of Jamnia is not that long (year 70 to 82). But I digress.

---

Yep...and on a slightly unrelated note...there is a reason most despotic regimes throughout history have tried to ban or eradicate Christian faith.

Only reason I bring that up, is that I have heard atheist or agnostic skeptics posit that the religion was possibly created as a means of controlling man or softening him to make him easier to rule. That makes no sense at all if you are a tyrannical dictator or The State and trying to condition people to see you as "the almighty". Their obligation is to Christ and their faith over anything and everything else. And they are more likely to disobey immoral orders. And it certainly makes no sense at all within the scope of New Testament times or shortly after...when Jews and Romans ruled. It's an instructional manual on how to get yourself killed or thrown in prison under those conditions if you are not careful.

Agreed. Octopus is the classic example of this with a percentage of DNA unrelated to any other species.

Quote:

---

religion was possibly created as a means of controlling man or softening him to make him easier to rule.

---

Goes back to the story of what Jimmy Carter was told. Created to keep humans from destroying each other.

titan said:

---

Spotted Ag said:

---

The simple fact that a group of men, earthly men that thought very highly of themselves, decided what should and shouldn't be in the Bible is troublesome to say the least. Yet here we are, Christianity based on the the writings of what some guys decided were worthy of being in the Bible. I would bet my last dollar that writings were left out of the Bible because those making the decisions thought the people couldn't handle it or weren't ready for it even if it was truth.

We have no idea about whether Christianity today is anything close to what it was supposed to be. Far to many men have their fingerprints on Christianity. Far more human fingerprints than devine.

---

Problem is that like saying many now decided what to be left out. (You can see that happening yes, but then there is all those around like now talking about *that* action itself and it is equally a story. You don't have much of that till a bit later)

The decisions about the Biblical content were not made *post* collapse of Roman civilization. Its all still standing then. There was no bunch of `dark age people who couldn't handle the truth' --- anything being written about was long known. It is US that have lost stuff from the past, not the people in period of the canonization of the Bible. That lay in their future.

---

The Council of Nicaea was in 325 A.D. We debate today what happened 300 years ago and history has shown that what we know of history is largely influenced by those that won wars and got to write the history in the way they wanted history to be known. To think that 1800 years ago they were somehow better at knowing what happened 300 years prior to that is unrealistic at best.

Nicaea was a collection of compromises and agreements. When Easter was held was decided, basic canon was decided. What books would be included in the Bible and what books would be excluded were decided. Uniformity between the various sects of the Christian religion were decided.

eric76 said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

I am fascinated and borderline disturbed by some of this stuff, but unless alien, it just doesn't seem possible that civilizations millennia ago had tech superior to ours.

---

If alien, there is no reason to think that they would look remotely like humans. They would have gone through an entire different evolutionary process.

Any time someone talks about aliens resembling humans in an way, you know that they don't know what they are talking about.

Think about it. There are so many life forms on Earth that are sufficiently genetically distant that those life form are very different from us and from other distant relations. For example, nobody would ever expect a molusc to resemble a human.

Yet, people think that aliens with whom we have no genetic relations at all somehow magically resemble us. It's crazy.

It might make for decent science fiction, but it is completely crazy to expect it in real life.

---

There is absolutely no way to say something like this with any degree of accuracy, going under the assumption that aliens do exist.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Agreed. Octopus is the classic example of this with a percentage of DNA unrelated to any other species.

---

This thread produces! We've gone from underground pyramid basements, to octopuses & aliens.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Quote:

---

religion was possibly created as a means of controlling man or softening him to make him easier to rule.

---

Goes back to the story of what Jimmy Carter was told. Created to keep humans from destroying each other.

---

Only blasphemous theory I can think of that would make sense, personally. Would love to hear the theory on Islam...the founder and his teachings were pretty much polar opposite.

The following was even prophesized in Genesis about Ishmael (father of the Arabs):

Quote:

---

12 This son of yours will be a wild man, as untamed as a wild donkey! He will raise his fist against everyone, and everyone will be against him. Yes, he will live in open hostility against all his relatives."

---

Could be purely coincidental, but how accurate.

schmellba99 said:

---

titan said:

---

Spotted Ag said:

---

The simple fact that a group of men, earthly men that thought very highly of themselves, decided what should and shouldn't be in the Bible is troublesome to say the least. Yet here we are, Christianity based on the the writings of what some guys decided were worthy of being in the Bible. I would bet my last dollar that writings were left out of the Bible because those making the decisions thought the people couldn't handle it or weren't ready for it even if it was truth.

We have no idea about whether Christianity today is anything close to what it was supposed to be. Far to many men have their fingerprints on Christianity. Far more human fingerprints than devine.

---

Problem is that like saying many now decided what to be left out. (You can see that happening yes, but then there is all those around like now talking about *that* action itself and it is equally a story. You don't have much of that till a bit later)

The decisions about the Biblical content were not made *post* collapse of Roman civilization. Its all still standing then. There was no bunch of `dark age people who couldn't handle the truth' --- anything being written about was long known. It is US that have lost stuff from the past, not the people in period of the canonization of the Bible. That lay in their future.

---

The Council of Nicaea was in 325 A.D. We debate today what happened 300 years ago and history has shown that what we know of history is largely influenced by those that won wars and got to write the history in the way they wanted history to be known. To think that 1800 years ago they were somehow better at knowing what happened 300 years prior to that is unrealistic at best.

Nicaea was a collection of compromises and agreements. When Easter was held was decided, basic canon was decided. What books would be included in the Bible and what books would be excluded were decided. Uniformity between the various sects of the Christian religion were decided.

---

But if you read the actual scripture and letters in the New Testament, particularly accounts of Jesus (Beatitudes, parables etc.) and from Apostle Paul...it's so hard to fathom that this was all just fabricated. It's so specific and counter to what drives or rewards humans. It tells us to deny our fleshly instincts and desires. It is literally ONLY about joining God's kingdom...nothing to do with earthly matters whatsoever. Point being, that even if you believe the bible is imperfect (which I do, due to man's fallible translations and meddling), or that a lot was left out, the essence of what Christians need is in there. I can't think of anything that could be added to enhance it honestly...it's pretty cut and dry.

And if one believes that it was just completely fabricated in the decades after Christ's death, what was the point or motive? Seems like a very risky game to play back then too, considering Christians were being persecuted into the 4th century.

schmellba99 said:

---

titan said:

---

Spotted Ag said:

---

The simple fact that a group of men, earthly men that thought very highly of themselves, decided what should and shouldn't be in the Bible is troublesome to say the least. Yet here we are, Christianity based on the the writings of what some guys decided were worthy of being in the Bible. I would bet my last dollar that writings were left out of the Bible because those making the decisions thought the people couldn't handle it or weren't ready for it even if it was truth.

We have no idea about whether Christianity today is anything close to what it was supposed to be. Far to many men have their fingerprints on Christianity. Far more human fingerprints than devine.

---

Problem is that like saying many now decided what to be left out. (You can see that happening yes, but then there is all those around like now talking about *that* action itself and it is equally a story. You don't have much of that till a bit later)

The decisions about the Biblical content were not made *post* collapse of Roman civilization. Its all still standing then. There was no bunch of `dark age people who couldn't handle the truth' --- anything being written about was long known. It is US that have lost stuff from the past, not the people in period of the canonization of the Bible. That lay in their future.

---

The Council of Nicaea was in 325 A.D. We debate today what happened 300 years ago and history has shown that what we know of history is largely influenced by those that won wars and got to write the history in the way they wanted history to be known. To think that 1800 years ago they were somehow better at knowing what happened 300 years prior to that is unrealistic at best.

Nicaea was a collection of compromises and agreements. When Easter was held was decided, basic canon was decided. What books would be included in the Bible and what books would be excluded were decided. Uniformity between the various sects of the Christian religion were decided.

---

I think you are misunderstanding what saying. You are talking about what they chose to include. (That's a whole other ball of wax) What I am saying is that process wasn't guided by their not knowing or not having. It wasn't like the knowledge about the very same events would be by Charlemagne's time. The Tradition was stable. This held until they got to the canonization of the scripture - Nicea didn't set the canon it set the creed -- was complete by the next to last decade of the 300's. You are also overlooking that back then, just as with the Jews and others, far greater accent was placed on passing down a tradition accurately as vs relying on written proclamations. So the lack of serious wide scale disruptions until then is significant. The canon would be far more dubious if set in Gaul in 750 for example.

schmellba99 said:

---

eric76 said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

I am fascinated and borderline disturbed by some of this stuff, but unless alien, it just doesn't seem possible that civilizations millennia ago had tech superior to ours.

---

If alien, there is no reason to think that they would look remotely like humans. They would have gone through an entire different evolutionary process.

Any time someone talks about aliens resembling humans in an way, you know that they don't know what they are talking about.

Think about it. There are so many life forms on Earth that are sufficiently genetically distant that those life form are very different from us and from other distant relations. For example, nobody would ever expect a molusc to resemble a human.

Yet, people think that aliens with whom we have no genetic relations at all somehow magically resemble us. It's crazy.

It might make for decent science fiction, but it is completely crazy to expect it in real life.

---

There is absolutely no way to say something like this with any degree of accuracy, going under the assumption that aliens do exist.

---

There is absolutely no legitimate way to argue that aliens would resemble humans in one or more ways. If you saw any real alien, if they exist, you would not be able to confuse them with humans or anything similar.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Agreed. Octopus is the classic example of this with a percentage of DNA unrelated to any other species.

---

Exactly. I read that the diversity of sea life is so much larger than with land mammals is because during the Snowball Earth periods, the sea life would be far less impacted.

What always amazes me is how much of our DNA came from viruses.

Also the theory that spores can survive space. They've come out with evidence of a diatom fossil found in a meteorite.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Agreed. Octopus is the classic example of this with a percentage of DNA unrelated to any other species.

---

Really? That's in line with something else have wondered about given reported sightings. I wouldn't be the least bit surprise if the Megaladon shark had survived since prehistoric times. Perhaps at very deep levels of the ocean.

This thread is as F16 as F16 gets.

vmiaptetr said:

---

This thread is as F16 as F16 gets.

---

We try harder.

eric76 said:

---

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

I am fascinated and borderline disturbed by some of this stuff, but unless alien, it just doesn't seem possible that civilizations millennia ago had tech superior to ours.

---

If alien, there is no reason to think that they would look remotely like humans. They would have gone through an entire different evolutionary process.

Any time someone talks about aliens resembling humans in an way, you know that they don't know what they are talking about.

Think about it. There are so many life forms on Earth that are sufficiently genetically distant that those life form are very different from us and from other distant relations. For example, nobody would ever expect a molusc to resemble a human.

Yet, people think that aliens with whom we have no genetic relations at all somehow magically resemble us. It's crazy.

It might make for decent science fiction, but it is completely crazy to expect it in real life.

---

There are species on Earth that have lived millions of years apart that have similar biological similarities even when they don't share the same taxonomy class (mammals vs fish).

schmellba99 said:

---

titan said:

---

Spotted Ag said:

---

The simple fact that a group of men, earthly men that thought very highly of themselves, decided what should and shouldn't be in the Bible is troublesome to say the least. Yet here we are, Christianity based on the the writings of what some guys decided were worthy of being in the Bible. I would bet my last dollar that writings were left out of the Bible because those making the decisions thought the people couldn't handle it or weren't ready for it even if it was truth.

We have no idea about whether Christianity today is anything close to what it was supposed to be. Far to many men have their fingerprints on Christianity. Far more human fingerprints than devine.

---

Problem is that like saying many now decided what to be left out. (You can see that happening yes, but then there is all those around like now talking about *that* action itself and it is equally a story. You don't have much of that till a bit later)

The decisions about the Biblical content were not made *post* collapse of Roman civilization. Its all still standing then. There was no bunch of `dark age people who couldn't handle the truth' --- anything being written about was long known. It is US that have lost stuff from the past, not the people in period of the canonization of the Bible. That lay in their future.

---

The Council of Nicaea was in 325 A.D. We debate today what happened 300 years ago and history has shown that what we know of history is largely influenced by those that won wars and got to write the history in the way they wanted history to be known. To think that 1800 years ago they were somehow better at knowing what happened 300 years prior to that is unrealistic at best.

Nicaea was a collection of compromises and agreements. When Easter was held was decided, basic canon was decided. What books would be included in the Bible and what books would be excluded were decided. Uniformity between the various sects of the Christian religion were decided.

---

I do not think you have the right idea about the Council of Nicaea, exactly.

schmellba99 said:

---

titan said:

---

Spotted Ag said:

---

The simple fact that a group of men, earthly men that thought very highly of themselves, decided what should and shouldn't be in the Bible is troublesome to say the least. Yet here we are, Christianity based on the the writings of what some guys decided were worthy of being in the Bible. I would bet my last dollar that writings were left out of the Bible because those making the decisions thought the people couldn't handle it or weren't ready for it even if it was truth.

We have no idea about whether Christianity today is anything close to what it was supposed to be. Far to many men have their fingerprints on Christianity. Far more human fingerprints than devine.

---

Problem is that like saying many now decided what to be left out. (You can see that happening yes, but then there is all those around like now talking about *that* action itself and it is equally a story. You don't have much of that till a bit later)

The decisions about the Biblical content were not made *post* collapse of Roman civilization. Its all still standing then. There was no bunch of `dark age people who couldn't handle the truth' --- anything being written about was long known. It is US that have lost stuff from the past, not the people in period of the canonization of the Bible. That lay in their future.

---

The Council of Nicaea was in 325 A.D. We debate today what happened 300 years ago and history has shown that what we know of history is largely influenced by those that won wars and got to write the history in the way they wanted history to be known. To think that 1800 years ago they were somehow better at knowing what happened 300 years prior to that is unrealistic at best.

Nicaea was a collection of compromises and agreements. When Easter was held was decided, basic canon was decided. What books would be included in the Bible and what books would be excluded were decided. Uniformity between the various sects of the Christian religion were decided.

---

What do you think about the info by Wes Huff and what he had to say about it?

Interested in your thoughts.

Quote:

---

What always amazes me is how much of our DNA came from viruses.

---

As do many cancer oncogenes.

Change Detection said:

---

Adam was created perfect and until sin there was no degradation. Death and desease have degraded physical bodies since then including the brain. Pre flood early man had more intellect than we all realize. Our brains are 6000 years degraded from Adam and look what we are capable of....well some people.

---

6000 years since Adam?

[url=https://imgbb.com/][/url]

SidetrackAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

DEFINITELY don't think about it. pic.twitter.com/ozEC7lq2IK

— River Breeze🪶 🇺🇸 (@MrSandate) March 21, 2025

I have always thought something was weird about things like this. Pre-Flood civilization and tech were much higher than we think.

---

How did they all draw the same thing?

---

They aren't the same thing, none of the three are the same other than having 7 things jutting from their heads. Not really surprising considering the number 7 is considered a divine number across many cultures

bonfarr said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Who is the guy that posits the theory that the Sphinx is actually around 15,000 years old based on erosion lines? Maybe he is onto something.

---

Graham Hancock

He also believes a 20,000 year old advanced civilization built Goblekli Tepe because the people living there when it was thought to have been built by archaeologists 6-8 k years ago weren't advanced enough to build it but he doesn't state how this super advanced society from 20,000 years ago left absolutely zero evidence behind that they ever existed like tools, homes, skeletons, literature etc.

He basically states in all of his theories that either a comet or a flood wiped out all evidence other than the monoliths left today that we attribute to much later periods.

---

Yeah, Gobekli Tepe was originally thought to be 6-8k BC...not just years ago...making it 8-10k years ago. But last I heard, newer dating studies have pushed it back to 10,000 BC...or 12,000 years ago.

Most archeologists don't like to tamper with existing date timelines because everyone wants it to fit in nice neat little story boxes...even though archeologists can't dispute the carbon dating, they screech like liberals getting USAID $$ pulled from their slush funds...G-T craps all over their nice to eat, compartmentalized stories...because, ng well, you know, they didn't have advanced degrees, or knew calculus...besides the Hebrew calendar started 5,800 years ago, so there...

There was a guy on Rogan or Shawn Ryan, I can't remember which, who basically said that there are some very unlikely commonalities associated with the exact height of the pyramids in Egypt, Mexico, and some other objects on earth, and his theory was that they were signaling centers to outer space.

It was all very interesting conversation, but time has erased the specific details from my memory. I just remember enough to share this.

Graham Hancock I think.

Why is this on the politics board?

abram97 said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

titan said:

---

Spotted Ag said:

---

The simple fact that a group of men, earthly men that thought very highly of themselves, decided what should and shouldn't be in the Bible is troublesome to say the least. Yet here we are, Christianity based on the the writings of what some guys decided were worthy of being in the Bible. I would bet my last dollar that writings were left out of the Bible because those making the decisions thought the people couldn't handle it or weren't ready for it even if it was truth.

We have no idea about whether Christianity today is anything close to what it was supposed to be. Far to many men have their fingerprints on Christianity. Far more human fingerprints than devine.

---

Problem is that like saying many now decided what to be left out. (You can see that happening yes, but then there is all those around like now talking about *that* action itself and it is equally a story. You don't have much of that till a bit later)

The decisions about the Biblical content were not made *post* collapse of Roman civilization. Its all still standing then. There was no bunch of `dark age people who couldn't handle the truth' --- anything being written about was long known. It is US that have lost stuff from the past, not the people in period of the canonization of the Bible. That lay in their future.

---

The Council of Nicaea was in 325 A.D. We debate today what happened 300 years ago and history has shown that what we know of history is largely influenced by those that won wars and got to write the history in the way they wanted history to be known. To think that 1800 years ago they were somehow better at knowing what happened 300 years prior to that is unrealistic at best.

Nicaea was a collection of compromises and agreements. When Easter was held was decided, basic canon was decided. What books would be included in the Bible and what books would be excluded were decided. Uniformity between the various sects of the Christian religion were decided.

---

What do you think about the info by Wes Huff and what he had to say about it?

Interested in your thoughts.

---

I will watch it and see what it has to say, because already know a good bit. I will say up front though it must be understood Nicea did not set the canon on the books of the Bible. That was committed to in the 390s. The councils in North Africa settled that and were confirmed by Rome and this version later also by the east. In corresponds closely with Augustine's lifetime.

SeMgCo87 said:

---

bonfarr said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

Who is the guy that posits the theory that the Sphinx is actually around 15,000 years old based on erosion lines? Maybe he is onto something.

---

Graham Hancock

He also believes a 20,000 year old advanced civilization built Goblekli Tepe because the people living there when it was thought to have been built by archaeologists 6-8 k years ago weren't advanced enough to build it but he doesn't state how this super advanced society from 20,000 years ago left absolutely zero evidence behind that they ever existed like tools, homes, skeletons, literature etc.

He basically states in all of his theories that either a comet or a flood wiped out all evidence other than the monoliths left today that we attribute to much later periods.

---

Yeah, Gobekli Tepe was originally thought to be 6-8k BC...not just years ago...making it 8-10k years ago. But last I heard, newer dating studies have pushed it back to 10,000 BC...or 12,000 years ago.

Most archeologists don't like to tamper with existing date timelines because everyone wants it to fit in nice neat little story boxes...even though archeologists can't dispute the carbon dating, they screech like liberals getting USAID $$ pulled from their slush funds...G-T craps all over their nice to eat, compartmentalized stories...because, ng well, you know, they didn't have advanced degrees, or knew calculus...besides the Hebrew calendar started 5,800 years ago, so there...

---

Well one should always be cautious before revising or upsetting an accepted timeline without extremely close attention paid to its original assumptions and founding arguments. (Often those have been forgotten over time, but are there to check if go back) A good example of what you are talking about is there is a new competing timeline for the history and dates of some of the dynasties of the Pharaohs. It pegs its timeline among other things upon a rather securely dated stellar event (a rare type of total eclipse at sunset I think would have to check) in a letting about the burning of a palace to Pharaoh Akhenaten. If its right, that reign doesn't fall in the time frame usually assumed. But -- this remains to be more thoroughly tested --- but it is interesting.

History and archeological history have internal debates like that. Another is the date of Herod the Great's death -- was it 4 B.C. or 1 B.C. (later case seems a bit stronger now) To set aside an accepted timeline takes some time and usually more than a few separate proofs showing it correct. Also, you need to disprove or show why flawed the original anchor points.

Buford T. Justice said:

---

There was a guy on Rogan or Shawn Ryan, I can't remember which, who basically said that there are some very unlikely commonalities associated with the exact height of the pyramids in Egypt, Mexico, and some other objects on earth, and his theory was that they were signaling centers to outer space.

It was all very interesting conversation, but time has erased the specific details from my memory. I just remember enough to share this.

---

Just how well do lumps of rock send signals into outer space?

I read this back in 1968. I was nine.