I found this article today explaining a theory that there was a nuclear war about prior to 2000BC. I thought with the discussion regarding religion on these forums recently some of you might find it interesting.
You can find it at http://ancientnuclearwar.com/ (http://ancientnuclearwar.com/).
It's an interesting theory with some good evidence to back it up. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I do think it makes some very interesting points.
You know he used sources from wikipedia, right...? Also the tone of the essay was sooo hoacky and childish. Its just one of those conspiracy theory.
And I'm sure we would have found some sort of advanced technology from the 2000BC mark, other than stone tools.
And the first "sea of glass" was in the Trinity Site in New Mexico, not Nevada.
And using myths to back up a theory is idiotic, like, using Atlantis as a reason why there was nuclear warfare is simply foolish.
Quote from: crozier on February 05, 2013, 06:22:45 PM
You know he used sources from wikipedia, right...? Also the tone of the essay was sooo hoacky and childish. Its just one of those conspiracy theory.
And I'm sure we would have found some sort of advanced technology from the 2000BC mark, other than stone tools.
And the first "sea of glass" was in the Trinity Site in New Mexico, not Nevada.
And using myths to back up a theory is idiotic, like, using Atlantis as a reason why there was nuclear warfare is simply foolish.
I think you are quite right, and I know that most of his Biblical evidence is bogus. But I do think there is a possibility that ancient civilizations were more technologically advanced than we give them credit for.
They lost me at the Moon part, although I'd wager that's farther than most people get. Ideas like this are always interesting, but this one doesn't seem to hold much water.
Quote from: crozier on February 05, 2013, 06:22:45 PM
You know he used sources from wikipedia
Kind of irrelevant, seeing as Wikipedia is quite a reliable source nowadays thanks to the Wikipedia fact fanatics out there.
Quote from: crozier on February 05, 2013, 06:22:45 PM
And I'm sure we would have found some sort of advanced technology from the 2000BC mark, other than stone tools.
Well that would kind of ruin it, being a "theory" and all.
Quote from: crozier on February 05, 2013, 06:22:45 PM
And using myths to back up a theory is idiotic, like, using Atlantis as a reason why there was nuclear warfare is simply foolish.
A bit harsh, but I found it to be quite a good read, was pretty funny. :)
I wouldn't say it ever really convinced me of anything, but I thought it was a decent read for a insane conspiracy theory.
Quote from: Matty_Richo on February 05, 2013, 09:56:37 PM
Quote from: crozier on February 05, 2013, 06:22:45 PM
You know he used sources from wikipedia, right...? Also the tone of the essay was sooo hoacky and childish. Its just one of those conspiracy theory.
And I'm sure we would have found some sort of advanced technology from the 2000BC mark, other than stone tools.
And the first "sea of glass" was in the Trinity Site in New Mexico, not Nevada.
And using myths to back up a theory is idiotic, like, using Atlantis as a reason why there was nuclear warfare is simply foolish.
I think you are quite right, and I know that most of his Biblical evidence is bogus. But I do think there is a possibility that ancient civilizations were more technologically advanced than we give them credit for.
i actually don't think there is a possibility. like, at all. not nearly on the level he is talking about either.
A good laugh. Nothing more.
Agreed that Biblical citations are bogus. One might be able to logically draw those conclusions if you're running with a confirmation bias the size of Manhattan (pun intended) and discard essentially every insight ever on scriptural interpretation.
Agreed that claims to scientific methodology is bogus. Scientific understandings are arrived at by repeating experiments in a controlled environment. This is impossible to do with a historical event.
Agreed that evidential proof is bogus. Go into any court of law and try using material of that quality to prove your case. You'll be lucky if they let you walk back out instead of sending you to an institution.
Agreed that, nevertheless, it's funny and amusing to think about.
Verdict: Hoax. Probably not unlike the Dihydrogen Monoxide problem. Which was, I'll point out, a much better hoax that got me to second-guess my knowledge of chemical nomenclature.