I heard about last monday they found liquid water on mars
But a given when they found ice on mars anyways liquid water
Means source of life high chance of dicovering fossils and microbes
In mars.
If life microbes or fossils are there on Mars, the life came from earth. The Bible talks about how everything in space was sent there from earth, including the material the stars are made from. It's in the creation story, right in the beginning of the Bible. But you will need to think about what you read to see it.
In addition, look at the pictures inside the Temple of Hathor in Egypt. The pillars are imperfect replications of the exterior of rockets from an ancient civilization on earth, one that far predates ancient Egypt. This civilization placed their rocket engines at the top of their rockets, probably for rocket stability, so that the center of gravity would be below the propelling force.
The Egyptians revered the people from this civilization as gods. And Hathor was the goddess of the sky. That's why you don't see this kind of pillar much of anywhere else in Egypt. The sky goddess was the keeper of the knowledge of the sky. See the video at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8-WWVlk_3E, and start watching about 5 or 6 minutes in, for Hathor.
The prehistoric ancients probably had a space program that was greater than ours, even though their science was probably different... focused in other areas of science than ours is. They probably went all over the solar system. However, they were probably plagued by funding problems just as we are. Not everyone wants to travel all over the universe.
If you are incredulous regarding the fact of an advanced civilization in the far distant past, watch these videos -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CwwrwFyTFs -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuwQi91KQgk.
Do you really believe in shit you just said?
I was looking for shit in what I said, and I couldn't find it. Please elaborate, if you wish.
Science doesn't have many answers to the past beyond about 4,500 years. Even the answers they have regarding the age of things older than, say, 2,000 years, is often hypothetical. They don't know, and they say that they don't really know. At the same time, they firmly hang onto their
beliefs regarding the age of things in the distant past.
Probably the firmest direct knowledge of things in the distant past comes down to in the writings of the Bible. These are things of witness.
Other ancient writings, be they in books, or on scrolls, or on the walls of ancient temples like in Egypt, give us many good points. But even the Sumerian writings are NOT written in a direct, straight-forward manner as the Bible is, NOR are they backed up by the historical traditions of a stubborn nation like Israel, which traditionally has backed up the things of the Old Testament as being eye witness truth. Bible is witness.
Most of science hypothesizing about the ancient past is guesses, or guestimations.
Bible is still the best history book we have regarding ancient, prehistoric history.
Regarding an ancient, worldwide civilization that existed long before ancient Egypt, THAT is fact, which is found in archaeology. Regarding their science being in advance of ours, some of it definitely was.
One simple fact regarding this is, while our science could figure out ways to move some of the 300 to 1000 ton blocks of stone over distances of hundreds of miles (as did the ancients), we don't know for sure how we would do it, because we haven't done it. And while technically it might be viable, economically it isn't, so it might be impossible for us.
Regarding the things about Hathor and the Temple of Hathor, much of what I wrote is speculation. But there is as much logic to it as there is to much of the standard garbage teachings of modern science and archaeology.
Now don't get me wrong about science. Science at its core is extremely accurate. At its core, archaeological writings state that the archaeologists don't really know the facts about a lot of what they have found, or what they think about it. It's the political twisting of what the archaeologists say, that has turned much of modern archaeological writing into science fiction, and has us believing that we know more than a smattering about the distant past.
Regarding the things that Graham Hancock says, note that he makes a distinction between the evidence, and his theories about the evidence. Again, the political element often dismisses his evidence right along with his theories, rather than expressing the evidence and alternate theories.
You certainly are welcome to keep on believing the science fiction of standard archaeological teaching. I understand how hard it would be to throw away as much as 99% of the things that you have been taught and believe in about your ancient past, simply to look at the truth.
Poll
