It is really a lot of mumbo jumbo but they contend that the Sphinx is 800.000 years old. (not the rock the actual Sphinx). This would put a major civilization hundreds of thousands of years earlier than ever thought.

it is based on evidence of having been submerged in water... and the time that water would have been there is thought to have been at 800K years ago.

I find it more likely that they had it covered in water for some other reason much sooned that that.

http://www.ewao.com/a/1-s...years-old/

i've heard the sphinx seems to have sustained water erosion many thousands of years ago. imo mainstream history got it wrong. what we learned in school back when was incorrect. we've discovered a lot of stuff since then, and we're discovering more now archeologically with drones and submersibles.

.

for example, historians used to think the sumerian culture was the oldest known civilization on earth. now we know that isn't true, as shown by recently (1960 or so?) discovered gobekli tepe in turkey, which is said to be 6,000 years older than stonehenge.

.

in fact, there are many ruined cities around the world off the coasts and submerged in the ocean, thought to date back to the last ice age. point being, these ruins seem to date back thousands of years before when we have been taught civilization "began".

.

i personally think human history stretches back thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of years, but we keep being blasted back into the stone age by ice ages and meteorites and earthquakes or tsunami floods, eruptions and other disasters that destroy our historical records.

.

plus, look at what's happening with ISIL. those ignorant thugs are systematically destroying the remnants of a much older civilization and religion, burning ancient books and shattering the ancient monuments.

.

that region of the planet has seen such destruction of civilizations many times over as warlords have come and gone. who knows how many ruined cities are under those sands? how many cultures left no trace?

.

so probably the sphinx really is much older than previously acknowledged. the history books need to be edited. it seems at least 12,000 years old, dating back to when rain last fell there?

.

i love learning about ancient monoliths and monuments. some, like tiahuanaco (some say 17,000 years old?) and puma punku defy explanation.

.

even today, we cannot match the skilled masonry used at those sites nor explain how they moved those massive stones there and etched/carved/shaped them. 21st century technology has not yet been able to duplicate those results. laser is thought to come closest to the possible technology used at puma punku

.

most intriguingly - the fuente magna bowl was found there, in bolivia. the bowl is ceramic with sumerian cuneiform and proto-sumerian hieroglyphic impressed on it.

.

but sumerian is a language spoken thousand of years ago in ancient mesopotamia. how can the same weird ancient hieroglyphics be found in ruined cities in both bolivia and ancient mesopotamia??????? i really, really want to know. really.

.

monoliths at pumu punku:

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

the fuente magna bowl:

.

.

[Edited 11/9/15 7:59am]

i wonder if they've translated the cuneiform-style writing on that bowl

...there's a good chance human or humanoid civilizations have been here, then faded out or died out one way or another, many times over. Look at all the technology or creations that seem far more advanced then they should for the "past" that we still cannot replicate. Or weird findings that cannot be explained, such as a group of giant skeletons or oddly shaped skulls in just one region on the planet.

According to Hinduism, we live through 4 different ages on a repeated cycle. There is Satya Yuga, Treta Yuga, Dwapara Yuga, and Kali Yuga. We are considered currently to be in the Kali Yuga period. Each age is a different length: Kali Yuga is said to be 1200 years of Demigods, and one Demigod year is equal to 360 human years. But as we move into each age, we're said to lose some things from the previous age.

The Sphinx is not 800,000 years old. The best estimates are that it's about 4,500 years old. Those guys have taken the already discredited work of Robert Schoch, and gone crazy with it.

.

deepabove said:

i wonder if they've translated the cuneiform-style writing on that bowl

...there's a good chance human or humanoid civilizations have been here, then faded out or died out one way or another, many times over. Look at all the technology or creations that seem far more advanced then they should for the "past" that we still cannot replicate. Or weird findings that cannot be explained, such as a group of giant skeletons or oddly shaped skulls in just one region on the planet.

.

i think so too. it is challenging to get information on this topic, the scientific community does not embrace new findings which contradict long established beliefs.

.

i'm fascinated by gobekli tepe. it is 12,000 years old, mysterious, and is said to have been deliberately buried. i am sure it is just coincidence, however, the monoliths at gobekli tepe seem to complement monuments at pumu punka:

.

.

.

XxAxX said:

.

i think so too. it is challenging to get information on this topic, the scientific community does not embrace new findings which contradict long established beliefs.

.

That demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of how science works.

Lianachan said:

The Sphinx is not 800,000 years old. The best estimates are that it's about 4,500 years old. Those guys have taken the already discredited work of Robert Schoch, and gone crazy with it.

How has the work of Schoch been discredited?

Lianachan said:

XxAxX said:

.

i think so too. it is challenging to get information on this topic, the scientific community does not embrace new findings which contradict long established beliefs.

.

That demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of how science works.

.

as always, you participate on threads like this without really adding to the topic, but merely attacking those who do. your attacks usually take the form above. a single, challenging statement with no supporting data, that is wrong.

.

because of your behavior, i believe you are a troll alter ego. you waste time.

.

i will rebut you as always with fact in order to show that your 'arguments' are neither well researched nor reasoned.

.

how many times do we have to do this? will there ever be a time when you actually learn about the topic before you start making erroneous statements?

.

here is one example of what i spoke about above, the scientific community rejecting a new idea in favor of defending an old idea: continental drift theory.

.

alfred wegener, the proponent of continental drift theory was laughed out of town by his colleagues, who refused to accept that it was fact until after his death.

.

history is filled with science dragging its heels before embracing a new idea or concept.

.

please do research before posting. thank you.

[Edited 11/10/15 4:43am]

XxAxX said:

Lianachan said:

That demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of how science works.

.

as always, you participate on threads like this without really adding to the topic, but merely attacking those who do. your attacks usually take the form above. a single, challenging statement with no supporting data, that is wrong.

.

because of your behavior, i believe you are a troll alter ego. you waste time.

.

i will rebut you as always with fact in order to show that your 'arguments' are neither well researched nor reasoned.

.

how many times do we have to do this? will there ever be a time when you actually learn about the topic before you start making erroneous statements?

.

here is one example of what i spoke about above, the scientific community rejecting a new idea in favor of defending an old idea: continental drift theory.

.

alfred wegener, the proponent of continental drift theory was laughed out of town by his colleagues, who refused to accept that it was fact until after his death.

.

history is filled with science dragging its heels before embracing a new idea or concept.

.

please do research before posting. thank you.

[Edited 11/10/15 4:43am]

1) My responses tend to be brief because I'm tired of seeing the same old bullshit being reguritated. I just can't be arsed wasting time pulling it all to bits again. I don't, though, attack people, unlike your post which is basically just an attack on me.

2) What the hell is a "troll alter ego"?

3) "Learn about the topic" - that's hilarious. It's precisely because I know about the topics that I chip in. I have a very low woo/bullshit tolerance. I'm an archaeologist, and I follow the evidence and the scientific method.

4) The anti-science brigate quite often bring up continental drift theory. When first proposed, there were a number of problems with it and there was a lack of evidence for some aspects of it, so it did not enjoy much support. The evidence was found, though, and the theory is now practically universally accepted. That's how science works. This doesn't prove your point - if anything, it argues against it.

just.... enough. blech. enough and more than enough. you are not here to discuss the topic, you are here to stir shit up. i've got better things to do than waste energy on you. have a nice day

ZahndiFadzhina said:

Lianachan said:

The Sphinx is not 800,000 years old. The best estimates are that it's about 4,500 years old. Those guys have taken the already discredited work of Robert Schoch, and gone crazy with it.

How has the work of Schoch been discredited?

In a few ways. There are numerous other mechanisms which can explain the erosion, plus there's the problem of isolation. How could the Sphinx be as old as he claims when there is absolutely no evidence of any artefacts or inscriptions anywhere in Egypt before about 7,000 years ago? How could people have made the Sphinx without leaving any other evidence whatsoever of their existence? Where are their settlements, where are their tools, etc.. ?

XxAxX said:

just.... enough. blech. enough and more than enough. you are not here to discuss the topic, you are here to stir shit up. i've got better things to do than waste energy on you. have a nice day

I am discussing the topic, whereas you were discussing me. Feel free to respond to any of the points I made, or if you can't, then cheerio.

[Edited 11/10/15 5:33am]

back to the topic:

.

here is an interesting clip about the sphinx and gobekli tepe.

.

continuing with the idea that there are ancient monuments on earth, the origins of which are unknown and which are very hotly debated, there is the case of the (carbon dated) 9,500 year old sunken city off the coast of india. note: other articles claim a different date analysis of 5-7,000 years old:

.

9,500-Year-Old City Found Underwater Off India

article excerpted from: http://www.sullivan-count...0_city.htm

.

According to marine scientists in India, archaeological remains of this lost city have been discovered 36 meters (120 feet) underwater in the Gulf of Cambay off the western coast of India. And carbon dating says that they are 9,500 years old.
.
This news completely contradicts the position of most Western historians and archaeologists, who (because it did not fit their theories) have always rejected, ignored, or suppressed evidence of an older view of mankind's existence on planet Earth. Human civilization is now provably much more ancient than many have believed.

According to the BBC's Tom Housden, reporting on the Cambay find:

.

The vast city, which is five miles long and two miles wide, is believed to predate the oldest known remains in the subcontinent by more than 5,000 years. The site was discovered by chance last year by oceanographers from India's National Institute of Ocean Technology, who were conducting a survey of pollution. Using side scan sonar, which sends a beam of sound waves down to the bottom of the ocean, they identified huge geometrical structures at a depth of 120 feet. Debris recovered from the site, including construction material, pottery, sections of walls, beads, sculpture, and human bones and teeth has been carbon dated and found to be nearly 9,500 years old (BBC article).

.

Several reports confirm this estimate. Housden added, "The whole model of the origins of civilisation will have to be remade from scratch."

[Edited 11/10/15 6:14am]

I'm not saying anything until Dr. Ben Carson weighs in.

RodeoSchro said:

I'm not saying anything until Dr. Ben Carson weighs in.

Perhaps the Sphinx was built to keep mice away from all of the grain?

Göbekli Tepe is a fine site, and the dating evidence is pretty secure. Although the sequence of it isn't too well understood, and hardly any of it has been excavated, it seems to date from an important period of history and it could be hugely significant.

The maritime stuff in the Gulf of Cambay? Not so much. There are numerous problems with that.

here is an interesting artricle about a syrian stonehenge believed to date back about 10-12,000 years.

.

although this site was only discovered recently and remain mostly unearthed, these ruins are much older than the pyramids are thought to be:

.

from: http://www.foxnews.com/te...esert.html

.

why would posting a slew of links to articles concerning the discovery of ancient settlements be germaine to this discussion?

.

because, with each new discovery of ancient civilization science must re-write history at least a little bit, to include the new data from the newly discovered ruin site.

.

for example, 30 years ago some historians taught that the sumerian cuneiform writing found in the mesopotamian valley was the 'oldest writing on earth' and now we know better.

.

i am one of those who believe that the sphinx is much older than the scientific community currently believes. i think human history stretches back much farther than we are currently aware.

.

as to the age of the sphinx and possibility that it could be much older than 5,000 years? i have not yet seen a 'debunking' of this theory which was meaningful enough, nor addressed all the relevant issues, to change my mind.

.

some say "well, sure it looks like the sphinx has sustained water erosion, but it could have been wind erosion." this is not a debunk. this is merely an alternate opinion. moreover, rain did fall on that part of the world thousands of years or so ago.

.

or, "we've found no evidence to support your theory because there are no corresponding monuments of that era" this is also not a debunk. huge tracts, miles of land, remain unexplored. not even the entire valley of kings has been excavated. there are hundreds of ancient cities hiding under those sands.

.

or, "we can't find the tools we thought they would use at the site to create the pyramids." not a debunk. not even close. no one knows how they even built the pyramids, let alone with what tools. absence of hypothetical evidence does not a debunk make.

.

as we use technology to further explore the planet and discover new evidence of ancient civilizations, i am thinking we will have to change even more of the history books. i do not know if the sphinx is 800,000 years old but i do know that some the oldest writing (sumerian cuneiform) found to date in the middle east speak of human civilization dating back thousands of years.

.

no one knows. that's the fun of it.

.

more recent discoveries of ancient cultures:

.

http://www.thehoopsnews.com/2014/10/25/1645/12000-years-old-human-settlement-discovered-peruvian-andes/

.

http://www.sci-news.com/archaeology/science-settlements-bolivia-01343.html

[Edited 11/10/15 7:25am]

It seems that every few years the arguments are re-written and it is so convoluted that I don't know what 2 believe or even bother 2 look into for myself.

XxAxX said:

as to the age of the sphinx and possibility that it could be much older than 5,000 years? i have not yet seen a 'debunking' of this theory which was meaningful enough, nor addressed all the relevant issues, to change my mind.

The balance of proof lies with those making a claim. People who assert that the Sphinx is far older need to prove that. It's not up to the rest of us to disprove it. Again, that's how science works.

Graycap23 said:

It seems that every few years the arguments are re-written and it is so convoluted that I don't know what 2 believe or even bother 2 look into for myself.

.

it's hard to keep track of the latest theories when the supporting data keeps changing. add to that mix the fact that there are so many competing viewpoints over what constitutes 'historical fact' and it's challenging to know what's fantasy and what's fiction

this is a teensy bit off-topic and risks sending this thread to the sinkhole that is P&R:

at least parts of the bible are very, very obviously derived from the epic of gilgamesh, which predates the bible by a few thousand years at least.

.

the similarities are far too many and far too remarkable to be coincidence.

.

how is it possible that stories in the bible appear to directly plagiarize an older, written text? imo, this again speaks to older civilizations about which we know little.

.

here are some of the remarkable resemblances between just one such biblical story and the epic of gilgamesh:

.

from: http://www.newworldencycl..._the_Flood

Gilgamesh and the Flood

Noah and his dove. In the Epic of Gilgamesh it is Utnapishtim who survives the flood: "I opened a vent and sunlight fell on the side of my face…. I released a dove to go free, The dove went and returned. No landing place came to view, it turned back."

.

The marked similarity between the story of Noah's flood and the story told to Gilgamesh by Utnapishtim caused a major stir when the Epic of Gilgamesh was first rediscovered and publicized in the nineteenth century.

.

Utnapishtim's story simultaneously confirmed some aspects of the Biblical account of the flood and yet radically challenged Biblical authority, especially if scholars were correct in their assessment that Gilgamesh pre-dated Genesis.

.

Details of the two accounts are so nearly identical in some respects that it is virtually impossible to deny that one borrows from the other.

• Both involve a divine warning about the flood and an instruction to build a large, sealed boat for the survivor's family and animals.

• Both speak of the survivor releasing a dove and a raven after the rains stop.

• Both tell of the boat coming to rest on a mountain after all the rest of mankind has been drowned in the flood.

• Both describe the survivor offering a sacrifice to God or the gods after descending from the ark.

• Both tell of the primary deity blessing the survivors after the sacrifice is complete.

more at: http://www.britannica.com...Gilgamesh; http://www.britannica.com...tnapishtim

Lianachan said:

XxAxX said:

as to the age of the sphinx and possibility that it could be much older than 5,000 years? i have not yet seen a 'debunking' of this theory which was meaningful enough, nor addressed all the relevant issues, to change my mind.

The balance of proof lies with those making a claim. People who assert that the Sphinx is far older need to prove that. It's not up to the rest of us to disprove it. Again, that's how science works.

But where is the proof that the Sphinx was built +/- 5000 years ago?

Lianachan said:

RodeoSchro said:

I'm not saying anything until Dr. Ben Carson weighs in.

Perhaps the Sphinx was built to keep mice away from all of the grain?

Maybe! The color of the Sphinx appears to have been designed to keep the mice from attempting manuevers such as this:

Lianachan said:

ZahndiFadzhina said:

How has the work of Schoch been discredited?

In a few ways. There are numerous other mechanisms which can explain the erosion, plus there's the problem of isolation. How could the Sphinx be as old as he claims when there is absolutely no evidence of any artefacts or inscriptions anywhere in Egypt before about 7,000 years ago? How could people have made the Sphinx without leaving any other evidence whatsoever of their existence? Where are their settlements, where are their tools, etc.. ?

How would you explain the erosion? The erosional features on the side of the Sphinx and on the trench of bedrock from which it was cut have an undulating profile and vertical fissures which could not have been eroded by wind and sand.

ZahndiFadzhina said:

Lianachan said:

The balance of proof lies with those making a claim. People who assert that the Sphinx is far older need to prove that. It's not up to the rest of us to disprove it. Again, that's how science works.

But where is the proof that the Sphinx was built +/- 5000 years ago?

The archaeological evidence suggests it was built during the reign of Pharaoh Khafre, which was approximately between 2650 BCE and 2480 BCE. One strong strand of evidence is from sequencing, while more cirumstantially the face on the pyramid looks a lot like his face (or, at least, they way it was depicted in sculpture).

Lianachan said:

ZahndiFadzhina said:

But where is the proof that the Sphinx was built +/- 5000 years ago?

The archaeological evidence suggests it was built during the reign of Pharaoh Khafre, which was approximately between 2650 BCE and 2480 BCE. One strong strand of evidence is from sequencing, while more cirumstantially the face on the pyramid looks a lot like his face (or, at least, they way it was depicted in sculpture).

The issue isn't the face............as the current face isn't the original face on the Sphinx.

The issue is the dating the base.

Lianachan said:

ZahndiFadzhina said:

But where is the proof that the Sphinx was built +/- 5000 years ago?

The archaeological evidence suggests it was built during the reign of Pharaoh Khafre, which was approximately between 2650 BCE and 2480 BCE. One strong strand of evidence is from sequencing, while more cirumstantially the face on the pyramid looks a lot like his face (or, at least, they way it was depicted in sculpture).

Khafre might have been responsible for having the structure restored.
Since we now have Gobekli Tepe, which dates back to +/- 12.000 years ago, I do not think it is implausible that the Sphinx was constructed in an earlier epoch