How come a hindu city with hindu gods idols and temple which is around 7500-9500 BC is unwarranted?
There is no connection between the ruins of an underwater city found at a place known as Bet Dwarka, and the city of Dwarka mentioned in the Mahabharata. As has been pointed out often enough by Hindutvavadi revisionists of history, archaeology and linguistics, or philology need to be matched for these identities to be valid.
So you are assuming that temples found/idols found in the such an old city when no other human race proof existed is not Hindu great age?
There are literally hundreds of sites showing human habitation dating back to 10,000 years before today and even older after the path-breaking work of Marija Gimbutas. It is not clear what you mean by no other human race proof, since almost all human cultural traces earlier than the Copper Age, the age of the Mohenjodaro-Harappa ruins, are between 5,000 to 10,000 years old. Please look up Stone Age civilisations.
Wow ...... you are saying that around 9000 BC hindu's only exited is not great age? then what is Great age as per your assumption ? Muslims age?
There are no records, written or otherwise about the Hindu religion older than the Vedas. The commonly accepted date of the Vedas earlier was 1200 BC, but that is a highly suspect date now, because of the arbitrary way in which it was computed. Linguistic analysis shows that the Rg Veda was probably written after 2000 BC. However, Subhash Kak, through astrological/ astronomical analysis of the Rg Veda has postulated an older date than that. NOBODY has suggested, based on any evidence, any date earlier than 5000 BC, about 7,000 years ago.
Thats itself proves hinduism existed around from 9500 BC. Which is hard to digest for you that hindu was existed that much earlier.
The oldest proof of Hinduism existing is the records of the Hittites and the Mitanni inscriptions; these go back to the second millennium BC, not greater/older than 2000 BC.
Based on the city structure from its finding , an uneducated person can also know that superior or technical civilisation made it.
An amazing statement, since the ruins consist largely of walls. Walls are a defensive characteristic of settlements in the open from neolithic times.
You can safely assume that uneducated person cannot make a city with sea port and anchors, a non sophisticated civilisation can which can made boats also. Using of bronze proves the advance civilization. It shows that those people knows about metal and use moulds.
The anchors found are large stones with gaps in them, which in ancient days were tied with rope and dropped off a boat to anchor it. Unfortunately, the anchors found at the Dwarka site have been found to have been of much later origin than the surrounding walls. Apparently these are anchors lost by boats of the mediaeval period.
There is no evidence of boat-building other than the anchors, which are much younger in age than the structures. It is a horrible mistake to connect anchors and structures in view of their varying date.
As per your assumption civilisation which can build city and make ports and boats is not sophisticated ? please tell us which one is then?
A civilisation which can build a city and make ports and boats is sophisticated. Unfortunately the ruins at Bet Dwarka is not such a city.
When the city found , why not writing existed ? in olden days text were written on leaves and tea barks, their wss tradition to burn the manuscripts also. Moreover , you think a civilisation which can make boats , anchors , don't know writing?
There may have been writing but there is no evidence. Nothing remains.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of existence.
Their is no writing or Pictorial lunguate found on stones , which proves that writing is done on leave and tea barks which is degradable with time.
No cities of that time the world over have been found to have had writing other than on stone or on clay.
If you are assuming writing is not existed then how come prayers were held and rules and regulation were held? why not any pictorial drawings on stone?
There is proof that there was religion and religious practice before writing down of those practices. For instance, the Vedas were passed down from scholar to scholar by memorising them, and they were finally committed to writing only at a very, very late date.
Your assumption is wrong , If no writing is existed then their would be drawings in stones, which is not present.
The absence of evidence.....
Well when there hindu idol was present in 9500 BC, then their will be prayers also, their will be rules and regulations etc also? the proof is existence of God idols which proves prayers and rule and regulations.
Hindus started making idols only very late in history. The earliest samples and specimens that we have are about 2,000 years old, whereas Hinduism is at least a 1,000 years older, possibly more.
When no proof of drawing found on stones or carving on stones, all this shows for writing something else would be use instead of stones i.e leaves and tree barks.
False argument. You repeat the same thing over and over again. "If there were no horses, there must have been cows." No, that does not follow. If there is no stone carving, it proves that there are no stone carvings.
Wooden object found along with them are done C-14 testing, Bell are made of Bronze.
Evidence such as a stone block with Gujarati script, the way the stones were dressed showing that dowels had been used, and an examination of anchors found on the site suggest that the harbour site dates only to historical times, with some of the underwater structure being late Medieval. Coastal erosion was probably the cause of the destruction of what was an ancient port.
Is that city made by people under water or it is submerged under water?
As scientist said , when Ice melt after Ice Age between (10,000 - 8,500 BC) sea level rises by 100mts and the city is submerged under water. So scientist calculated the land and sea rise to drive that year i.e. city should be present @9500 BC to be submerged under water. But city was made much easier which is hard to find right now.
if u assuming that city is build under water and people stay underwater then it cannot be 9500yrs old
It take little bit understanding Sci to know all this complicated things.
When you get that understanding, please let us know.
what credible evidence you want , let me know ? if you want to take you 9500 BC and show you things then i cannot. If you have hard to understand if A=B=C then A=C also , then Sorry.
