Ukraine Scientists Suggest Sphynx May Be 800,000 Years Old?

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by NorseMythology, Dec 22, 2015.

  1. Hancock is high fiving himself.
     
  2. I find it hard to believe that its that old but they do back it up. Humans were not around back then...who or what made it then?
     
  3. [​IMG]
    AND FRENCH DID RUIN THE NOSE

     
  4. homo sapien sapien were not around, but perhaps similar Homo sapiens were?
     
  5. homo erectus built that shit.
     
  6. I always had this idea that we don't know what we're talking about.


    Humans are probably older than we think.
     
  7. TBH, I highly doubt that the sphinx, which is a sandstone structure, survived 800,000 years of desert sandstorms.


    We can see the extent of the erosion after only a few thousand years, in 800,000 years I doubt it will be anything resembling the original statue.




     
  8. From the article -



    "What we have here is evidence which contradicts the conventional theory
    of deterioration caused by Sand and Water, a theory already criticized
    by West and Schoch, who recalled that during many centuries, the body of
    the Sphinx was buried by the sands of the desert, so Wind and Sand
    erosion would not have done any damage to the enigmatic Sphinx."
     
  9. It's always better to comment before you read, that way you don't have to read.
     
  10. agreed.

    That being said. If you ever get a strange finding that seems to throw everything into question, its always a good idea to consider another reason for the finding.

    They say its 800000 years old based on their calculations, but as we know humans weren't here that long ago.

    So we start with the wild speculation, like aliens or other intelligent humans. When in reality its probly not actually that old. Its more likely an anomalous reading of some sort.

    -Yuri
     
  11. #12 Delphinidins, Jan 6, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 6, 2016


    How do you know humans were not around back then? You simply cannot know this unless you go back in-time yourself. We could have lived over and over and been far more advanced then we are today and we would never know this with the current technology and information currently available to the public today.


    History is known to repeat itself. We could be going in circles and we'd never know. Keep an open mind [​IMG]

     


  12. Fair point, I just base my opinion off of the information that is available. I would say since there are not artifacts or anything human related dating back anywhere near that time period that humans were not there. I mean bones from dinosaurs have not decomposed so I assume human remains would be similar. Not arguing, just saying. Its always good to keep an open mind and take in other peoples perspectives. :)
     
  13. I'm so sick of this fake, enlightened attitude on here. I know we're a bunch of stoners on a stoner forum, but god damn. Almost every poster I see who says to keep an open mind, acting like they do, typically keep their minds closed off to the evidence of reality. No difference here.

    Anything is a possibility. Hell.. I can make up the possibility that before mankind had language, dogs had language and taught our very first ancestors language. Then they saw mankind become disconnected nature and stopped talking in general out of fear that man would fear them and kill them. So now they gave it up and were no longer reproducing with vocal cords as a positive trait and reverted back to barks. They also taught our first human ancestors about basic math and geometry, but gave that up too. There was even a war between man and dog at one point, but cats stepped in and joined man and that's why they modeled the Sphynx after a cat. There is no proof against my possibility.. so keep an open mind to it ;)
     
  14. If only you knew!
     
  15. Lets assume for a minute this interpretation of an 800,000 year old Sphynx, wouldn't that be evidence enough we were around back then?

    Unless we were open to the notion of extraterrestrials, but humans being around back then is a simpler explanation since we know we exist in the present.

    So basically, it would come down to the falsification of this hypothesis. If supported/validated, we were around, if falsified, we may not have been around.
     
  16. I do know, that's why I said it. There are numerous posters on here who just do some drugs and think they truly opened their mind.. when all it is is a fake feeling of enlightenment. I see it in person too.. over Christmas, my girlfriend's brother decided to come out and say that he wants to become a woman. I could care less either way.. so I accept it. So did all his family.. except for my girl's sister's boyfriend who is a douche that goes around talking about opening your mind. It's like a go to line of his.. but if he were truly open minded, he would of accepted his/her decision one way or another. Plus, he is one of those people who is hardcore anti-vaccine/GMO/fluoride and still acts like they are open minded, when in reality they've closed their mind to reality. Much like the poster I quoted.. and much like a large number of other posters. Long story short, there is a pattern.. if someone says "open your mind" more than a couple of times, they're more than likely closed minded fools.
     
  17. I just meant, if you were enlightened you would know why they feel the way they do (ironic joke).
    Btw it's a stretch to claim an actual experience is a fake feeling of enlightenment.
     
  18. A fake sense of enlightenment based off of actual experiences that were not truly enlightening would of been a better way to say it.. typically drug induced. I won't say that all epiphanies while on drugs are false.. but you can tell who the posers are, and again, the ones who repeat "open your mind" or "keep an open mind" are more likely posers whose narcissistic subconscious mind makes them place their faults (like actually being closed minded) on other people rather than acknowledge their own.
     
  19. I haven't yet consumed such drugs, but perhaps the reality shattering effect just causes them to withhold drawing specific conclusions, or rather, they hold truths more tentatively.

    They may be haughty or genuine, I can't say until I have experienced what they have.
     

Share This Page