I'm not really certain why, but it seems to me that the Archaeologists specifically, and the scientific community in general, have always assumed and implied that the "Standard Model" for the timeline of human technology (I am speaking about human creation and usage of tools) is the same for all humans on the planet of any given era or epoch. For instance, the Stone Age - It is labeled the "Stone Age" because (it is assumed and implied) that humans were not able to create anything more advanced (technologically speaking) than stone tools and implements. I believe this to be an incorrect assumption, a logical fallacy.
There are several reasons I believe this to be true, and it is because, firstly, the archaeologists are attempting to have it both ways, meaning that they are assuming, and do espouse, that there is no proof of higher technology in the fossil record associated with the "Stone Age", therefore there can be no higher technology ever discovered in the record associated with the "Stone Age", but on the other hand they assume, and do espouse, that they will eventually uncover the "missing link" and that it is just a matter of time.
Sorry, you don't get to have it both ways.
Sorry, you don't get to have it both ways.
Next is that there is an enormous amount of data that proves the contrary in the form of the "Out-Of-Place-Artifacts" (OOPARTs). Those items that have been, and still are, being discovered that do not fit the "Standard Model" timeline for technology. (examples of some of these OOPARTs are Antikythera Mechanism, The London Hammer, ect.) And these are only two examples of many, many more. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands.
 |
| Antikythera Mechanism |
Above: The Antkythera Mechanism
The artifact was retrieved from the sea in 1901, and identified on 17 May 1902 as containing a gear wheel by archaeologist Valerios Stais, among wreckage retrieved from a wreck off the coast of the Greek island Antikythera. The instrument is believed to have been designed and constructed by Greek scientists and has been variously dated to about 87 BC, or between 150 and 100 BC, or to 205 BC, or to within a generation before the shipwreck, which has been dated to approximately 70–60 BC.
Related Wiki Article
 |
| London Hammer |
Above: The London Hammer
The London Hammer (also known as the "London Artifact") is a name given to a hammer made of iron and wood that was found in London, Texas in 1936. Part of the hammer is embedded in a limy rock concretion, leading to it being regarded by some as an anomalous artifact, asking how an obviously man-made tool could come to be encased in a 400 million year old rock. It has been stated that carbon dating "showed inconclusive dates ranging from the present to 700 years ago."
Next is that there is ample evidence we can see today among all the humans on planet earth. For instance, consider the leading countries that are exploring space. Then consider the tribes of the Amazon rain forests. There is an enormous gap in technology from space exploration to hunting with spears and living in thatch huts.
I'm just saying, there is more than enough evidence to prove the assumption false. So, my question is, why haven't those in the scientific community recognized this? I believe that it is because they are too invested in the "Standard Model" now. Too many things in science depend upon that model (e.g. - Darwin's Theory, for one). They have a vested interest in maintaining the current paradigm because changing the timeline for human technology would most likely cause many changes to the evolution timeline and so on. There are many other reasons as well. Consider also, the human ego. Many scientists simply refuse to allow anyone to tell them they are wrong (and by the way, that arrogance is unscientific in the extreme). And there is always, the very human trait that people (in general) react poorly to the truth.
If it is true that we, as humans, had an earlier epoch wherein our ancient ancestors (the ancient builders) were far more advanced than archaeology wants to admit and that epoch was destroyed by a cataclysm (the flood mythos for example), then that would definitely be a threat to the current paradigm and "Standard Model". It would mean that the timeline for human evolution is too condensed and incomplete. It could mean that, just as the Hindu's believe, we live through grand cycles of time, and we may have possibly achieved this technological level many times before. This hypothesis seems to fit more accurately the human timeline, based on where the evidence is leading us. For archaeology to be called science, as opposed to being called a religion, it needs to incorporate all evidence, and stop "cherry picking" only the parts that support the current paradigm and "Standard Model". If all available evidence is not used to formulate the hypothesis, It is actually called pseudo-science, and it would be more akin to a religion, rather than actual science.
If it is true that we, as humans, had an earlier epoch wherein our ancient ancestors (the ancient builders) were far more advanced than archaeology wants to admit and that epoch was destroyed by a cataclysm (the flood mythos for example), then that would definitely be a threat to the current paradigm and "Standard Model". It would mean that the timeline for human evolution is too condensed and incomplete. It could mean that, just as the Hindu's believe, we live through grand cycles of time, and we may have possibly achieved this technological level many times before. This hypothesis seems to fit more accurately the human timeline, based on where the evidence is leading us. For archaeology to be called science, as opposed to being called a religion, it needs to incorporate all evidence, and stop "cherry picking" only the parts that support the current paradigm and "Standard Model". If all available evidence is not used to formulate the hypothesis, It is actually called pseudo-science, and it would be more akin to a religion, rather than actual science.
Hopefully, this article has stimulated your thinking processes and has entertained you in some small way as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment