Satellite Images Aided the Discovery of an Ancient Civilization Buried in the Amazon

[ChrisL]

Why would that irritate you?

Because, as I said, I hold scientists in high regard.

Okay, whatever. IMO, I don't care if someone doesn't believe scientists or if they do believe them. Just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean they are infallible either though.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

They use very little.

Nah, that's a stupid lie as well, despite your attempt to walk back your earlier comment.

Still haven't read that Forbidden Archeology book and done some research have you?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Okay, whatever. IMO, I don't care if someone doesn't believe scientists or if they do believe them.

Well, then we are different.

Just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean they are infallible either though.

Bait and switch fallacy. Obviously, talking about nearly all the scientists across several fields of science is different than talking about the opinion of one scientist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Still haven't read that Forbidden Archeology book and done some research have you?

And neither have you. See, scientists do research for us. So, if there is any actual, compelling evidence presented in that book, scientists would be accounting for it

Your response to this? The scientist are all lying. Well, except for the goober that wrote the book, with zero published research to back it up.

And you think that sounds smart. Good for you.

 

[james bond]

I don't understand what all of this anger is about. Some ancient no longer existent settlements have been found. So the fuck what?

I had to do some digging on Graham Hancock and what the OP presents.

Angelo please answer my question. What buried the entire civilization? You provided evidence that they died out.

Not only that, we find the other civilizations in the Sahara being buried. The same with those in the video. This has happened around the world. Entire civilizations are buried.

Sand, water, volcanic ash ?
All of the above maybe.

The point is our history book writers have been lying to us.
Why ?

That is a pretty harsh accusation, since these books were probably written BEFORE some of these discoveries.

Well, the OP doesn't mention what history books have been lying to us, but I suspect one of them is the Bible. He's not very scientific and now he's presenting pseudoscience archaeology as science. I think the idea is to start re-thinking about the Amazon's rain forests' history in lieu of the new findings which is worthwhile if the discovery was based on science. I mean there is something there.

I did some digging on Graham Hancock and he seems to be a prolific writer, but not really a scientist. His books have been considered pseudoscience and pseudoscience archaeology. The Tedx channel has removed him as a science presentation about using hallucinogenics and put it on their debate list -- The debate about Graham Hancock’s talk.

I don't mind having an entire civilization being found to rewrite the history books, but one would like to have it based on historical facts and evidence instead of popular conjecture.

Pre-Review of 'America Before'-Graham Hancock's New Pseudoscience - Archaeology Review

Graham Hancock’s ‘Lost Civilisation’ - Bad Archaeology

These articles may be more authentic about what they are finding with new technology. We are finding that these rain forests weren't just pristine, undisturbed greenery and natural Earth, but prior civilizations lived there and used it.

Myth of pristine Amazon rainforest busted as old cities reappear

Soil and Satellites Are Telling a New Story About Ancient Civilizations in the Amazon

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I did some digging on Graham Hancock and he seems to be a prolific writer, but not really a scientist.

YA DON'T SAY

 

[ChrisL]

I just don't see how any of this really matters besides being a little interesting. I'm not a religious person myself, but I don't see how anyone gains anything by ruining a person's personal belief system. Religion can be a good thing too.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Still haven't read that Forbidden Archeology book and done some research have you?

And neither have you. See, scientists do research for us. So, if there is any actual, compelling evidence presented in that book, scientists would be accounting for it

Your response to this? The scientist are all lying. Well, except for the goober that wrote the book, with zero published research to back it up.

And you think that sounds smart. Good for you.

As a matter of fact I just read that 800 page book a couple of months ago.

I didn't say that the scientists are lying...

...However I might suggest that they intentionally ignore confirmation of a find that doesn't fit their criteria.

*****SMILE*****

 

[james bond]

I just don't see how any of this really matters besides being a little interesting. I'm not a religious person myself, but I don't see how anyone gains anything by ruining a person's personal belief system. Religion can be a good thing too.

It's not so much to do with religion as that was in reply to Angelo who presents these kinds of false things and then disappear. What we should get from this in my opinion is the beliefs we have today are wrong.

First, we thought these areas were pristine due to non-habitation by humans and that the rain forests were the natural state of things. Instead, we find that humans were the cause for the it being pristine. It goes against the liberal thinking of people causing damage to the Earth. It also shows that these ancient peoples were not backward at all like the evolutionists think. These people were sophisticated, had knowledge of science, and made advanced tools. They knew how to plant terra preta in order to produce the oxisol or mineral rich soil. The OP doesn't even mention this at all. I knew once he posted the Sahara desert lie and that it was caused by global warming. We are finding there that the climate change is producing greenery in the desert and this is happening all over the world. We just don't hear about it in the news because the liberal MSM is ignoring it hoping it will go away. AGW is just a bunch of BS and this is more evidence for it. This natural science didn't just start with modern humans today and contradicts evolution.

As for the some of the ancient science, it is shown here:

 

[the other mike]

I don't understand what all of this anger is about.

Some people just live to be confrontational I suppose.

 

[james bond]

I don't understand what all of this anger is about.

Some people just live to be confrontational I suppose.

Heh. You're just backing down b/c your OP guy turned out to be a pseudoscientist.

What if science didn't back up the global flood in the Bible? Then you'd be all over it like a rash.

 

[the other mike]

Heh. You're just backing down b/c your OP guy turned out to be a pseudoscientist.

What if science didn't back up the global flood in the Bible? Then you'd be all over it like a rash.

You're a Creationist.

I've been spanking lunatics like you since 3rd grade, or about 50 years.

 

[the other mike]

I don't understand what all of this anger is about.

Some people just live to be confrontational I suppose.

Heh. You're just backing down b/c your OP guy turned out to be a pseudoscientist.

What if science didn't back up the global flood in the Bible? Then you'd be all over it like a rash.

How can anyone not comprehend that a discrepancy between 6000 years and 4.543 billion years
can't just be given some arbitrary explanation .

You probably assume I'm an atheist, which would also be incorrect.

 

[the other mike]

Hard to believe we know what's under Antarctica, but not the Amazon jungle..

 

[james bond]

Heh. You're just backing down b/c your OP guy turned out to be a pseudoscientist.

What if science didn't back up the global flood in the Bible? Then you'd be all over it like a rash.

You're a Creationist.

I've been spanking lunatics like you since 3rd grade, or about 50 years.

Okay, I'll look forward to discussing religion and science with you in the future.

Creationist just means we know the answers from the Bible and have the science to back it up. The ones who don't are usually wrong.

 

[the other mike]

Okay, I'll look forward to discussing religion and science with you in the future.

Creationist just means we know the answers from the Bible and have the science to back it up. The ones who don't are usually wrong.

My philosophy can be summarized by listening to the lyrics to Free Will and Natural Science
by Rush.

For me religion is spiritual and personal, and I consider myself to be a moderate Christian -left
who follows Jesus' teachings in my own interpretation and apply it in my life
every day, but having knowledge and understanding of science and evolution is
an entirely different subject, at least for me. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.":
That's the only thing in the Bible that really matters, isn't it, when you get down to it ?

This divisive language we always hear - "If you believe in evolution, you must be an atheist."-
doesn't hold water anymore. Even the last two popes have been acknowledging science separately from religion
for the most part.

As for the OP, it's abundantly clear there are still many undiscovered mysteries and secrets
on this strange and amazing planet......and I'm looking forward to reading some of Graham Hancock 'pseudoscience'
books.

8 Big Lies History Books Tell About Natives

10 Facts About the Olmec, Mesoamerica's First Great Civilization

 

[james bond]

Okay, I'll look forward to discussing religion and science with you in the future.

Creationist just means we know the answers from the Bible and have the science to back it up. The ones who don't are usually wrong.

My philosophy can be summarized by listening to the lyrics to Free Will and Natural Science
by Rush.

For me religion is spiritual and personal, and I consider myself to be a moderate Christian -left
who follows Jesus' teachings in my own interpretation and apply it in my life
every day, but having knowledge and understanding of science and evolution is
an entirely different subject, at least for me. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.":
That's the only thing in the Bible that really matters, isn't it, when you get down to it ?

This divisive language we always hear - "If you believe in evolution, you must be an atheist."-
doesn't hold water anymore. Even the last two popes have been acknowledging science separately from religion
for the most part.

As for the OP, it's abundantly clear there are still many undiscovered mysteries and secrets
on this strange and amazing planet......and I'm looking forward to reading some of Graham Hancock 'pseudoscience'
books.

8 Big Lies History Books Tell About Natives

10 Facts About the Olmec, Mesoamerica's First Great Civilization

Yeesh to much to reply to. You know I'm a fundie. All I can say is don't be misled by the false teachers and prophets. Look at how you were taken by the guy in your OP.

 

[the other mike]

Yeesh to much to reply to. You know I'm a fundie. All I can say is don't be misled by the false teachers and prophets. Look at how you were taken by the guy in your OP.

Good luck with that and thanks for the advice.
I'll be sure to have my wooden cross and silver bullet ready in case
the Scientologists or Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking.

 

[james bond]

Yeesh to much to reply to. You know I'm a fundie. All I can say is don't be misled by the false teachers and prophets. Look at how you were taken by the guy in your OP.

Good luck with that and thanks for the advice.
I'll be sure to have my wooden cross and silver bullet ready in case
the Scientologists or Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking.

The Scientologists and JW are false teachers, too. Scientologists do not address Jesus while JW think he's Michael the Archangel.

 

[idb]

So, discovery of a disappeared civilisation in the Amazon is evidence of Noah and the Ark.
Well...I'm convinced...I'm off to the nearest church to sign up.

It doesn't quite work like that . If you are an atheist, then you have to repent first, i.e. change your mind about atheism. Second, you have to have faith in God and then he'll come.

Anyway, I sense sarcasm, but the evidence isn't just the civilization under the green forests, but the deserts, under the seafloor and oceans, and all around the world. I do think there is some secular history written in regards to the global flood, but I got it from the Bible first. Moreover, the atheist scientists have no explanation for the large amount of surface water on this planet. I suppose this will just be filed under status quo until the end. It will just mean more space for the believers .

What is there to explain about the amount of surface water?