Hasn't it been proven that there were loads of people down that part of the world that spent most of their time building boats/rafts/canoes and sailing in search of new islands?
I haven't seen it but early crafts were not designed to travel such distances (as far as we know). Even if they blew off course and landed in Australia by accident you would still have needed sufficient numbers to establish a colony.
it's been proven that the craft they had back then could carry people across the Pacific. Some dude crossed the Pacific (Thor Hereidarson or soemthing) in a traditional boat about 50 years ago. Recent theories are that South America was populated from people crossing the Pacific and landing on the curent Chilean coast and not purely migration from the North.
Oceania is mostly a series of small but geographically close islands anyway, from Australia to Asia. please log in to view this image
Thor Heyerdahl. He wrote a book called the Kon Tiki Expedition, great read if you can get your hands on it. But I think modern genetic evidence suggests that the South American people aren't closely related to the Polynesian Islanders. However, the Aborigines are fairly closely related to the people of Indonesia and South-East Asia, suggesting they came from there. It's not a huge distance if you island hop.
Excellent Coral Castle is another Still no explanation for tolerances or 1/10 of a millimetre in the stone machining processes though.
Still no evidence of tolerances of 1/10th of a millimetre in the stone machining processes. And coral castle? Here it is being built, using less than magical means. please log in to view this image Also, for your reading pleasure: http://www.cracked.com/article_18718_6-famous-unsolved-mysteries-that-have-totally-been-solved.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wally_Wallington
Why's there a football just above that guy's head? Have they finally found Chris Waddle's Italia 90 penalty?
I agree. It is evidence that does not fit with the prescribed version of record human history. My overall point is, why did ancient civilizations have technologies that we can't account for? (Aliens don't even enter into it )
We can account for it. The Greeks were clever people. Their society placed great value on science and knowledge, and it's amazing, but perfectly believable, that they had a knowledge of clockwork.
Evolution occurs in fits and starts, as has civilised mans own evolution, imagine how the average Brit viewed some of the Roman relics just 1,200 years ago, they'd have no knowledge of who built the roads, forts etc. but they'd be able to see that they were far more 'advanced' than they were, heck Brits weren't as 'civilised' again as Romans were until at least 1,200 years after they left our shores and in many ways we didn't reach that level again until just a few hundred years ago. Knowledge is lost just as often than it is found, wars, disease and natural disasters see to this on a regular basis, 4,000 years ago most Therans lived a 'sophisticated' life in multi-story homes with windows and often running water too, a volcanic erution later and the knowledge of how to contruct these things disappeared for well over 1,000 years, until some other man 'invented' them. Has this sort of progress been halted in similar ways in other places at other times? Of course it has, does this mean that other burgeoning civilisations have got as advanced as other following ones reached only hundreds, even thousands of years later? Almost certainly, but the sort of advancements we've seen in the last couple of hundred years take many civilisations combined progress for hundreds of years, before we can get there and mankind has NEVER been at that level before. The history of man we're taught in school is sketchy at best and completely wrong in places, great civilisations have existed, man acheived many things at least twice as long ago as previosly thought, we're just pushing back the time we think we first became a 'cultured' animal, but we're still infinitely more advanced now than we have ever been in the past
