|
Post by andrew on Oct 3, 2019 12:02:48 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2019 12:57:59 GMT -5
I’ll look into the starfish thing, but didn’t mean to imply anything from Mark or Annunaki stuff is channeled. The Sumerian texts are the first know human writings. Andrew mentioned palaedians and reptilians, and that stuff comes from channels, and a lot of it is distorted, which is what I was trying to draw attention to. The Palaedians and reptilians stuff has little to do with the Annunaki for the most part,and I’ve heard else where that the Palaedians are humans that lived on Earth. This, they far post date the Annunaki. Also, you go to Church sometimes, and I’m sure you’re familiar with Adam and Eve. ‘Adama’ is in the Sumerian texts. The whole Adamand Eve story is in there, except the creator isn’t God but highly intellectual but unempathetic madman, according to the interpretations I read. Regardless, I’m still unsure how starfish have anything to do with this, but I’ll reread your other post and see if you’re onto something. Anyway, gotta boogie. Hey reefs how ya been?! I’ll check the drawing thing I think I remember hearing that. ok, gotcha' on the distinction between the Ananuki and channeled material. I was aware from other sources that many of the parables in the bible were old stories taken from elsewhere - certainly in the new testament, say, for instance, the virgin birth, which I guess came from Persia. And, if I'm not mistaken, the Hebrew culture that wrote down the Adam and Eve story emerged several thousand years into the story of the region, so, it wouldn't surprise me if that was derivative as well. But what if the idea of the overlords as being non-human was the result of a game of historical telephone? What if, instead, they were colonists or refugees from a human civilization that was more technically advanced than the ancient Sumerians? Compare that notion, say, to the way the Aztec's reportedly related the arrival of the Spanish to their lore about the coming of one of their "Gods". Here's the significance of starfish. If you notice, your body has five branching points: two arms, two legs, and a head. Your face, which branches from your head, has: two eyes, two nostrils and a mouth. Each of your appendages has five branches into fingers/toes. The similarity with the starfish is no accident, it's genetic. So if an antelope is related to something as simple as a starfish this way, it seems to suggest to me that the evolution of H.S. from something chimp-like into us is even less of a change, most of it being in terms of mind. This isn't to preclude the possibility of alien interference, simply to point out that, in the grand sweep of all the planet flora, generally, evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity without any need for that interference. Adam and Eve story,the Genesis is taken from very old Elohist text , that's why God appears to be plural there(For an instance Let us create the world,Let us go down and collapse the language) but after the first two books, you can't find God in a plural sense because those are taken from Yahwist text where God is singular. Very very few people know this truth.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 3, 2019 13:11:14 GMT -5
Well, the thing is that there are at least two different methods of dating, that if you can get them to agree, they're pretty convincing. One is radioactive decay, and the other is sedimentary lines - look, for example, at the pictures from the Grand Canyon. Then there are additional methods that can pile on like ice cores and tree rings. So, for example, you can date a volcanic eruption by it's dust in an ice core, correlate that with the cooling it caused by tree-ring patterns, and, if that is recent enough, further correlate it with written sources. Obviously no written sources going that far back, but all the physical methods apply. There are a lot more methods of dating. And usually they are combined. The biggest problem here is confirmation bias. And the Grand Canyon is an interesting example on many counts. There was a recent case in Alaska I think where a volcanic eruption created a Grand-Canyon-like scenery within a couple of days instead of millions of years. So, imagine your wedding ring would have got lost there in the sediments that day and a hundred years later they dig it up, unaware of what happened a hundred years ago in this place, and started determining its age based on their current sedimentary lines theory... What would be the 'scientific' age of your wedding ring? Funny example. Here's a counterpoint. The "out-of-Africa theory" goes back decades, and when it was first proposed, it was based, essentially, entirely on fossil evidence. From the casual reading I did on the subject decades ago, it seems to me that the historical section of this wiki isn't complete or accurate, as two of the most famous proponents were Louis Leaky and his wife Mary Leaky, and I think they had children who carried on their work. The narrative I remember reading was that this theory emerged in the 1960's/1970's, and at the time, the science of genetics was in it's infancy. In fact, when I read about Lucy and the like back in the early 90's, noone had popularized the idea of applying genetics to the issue of human origins. So, lo and behold, once the technology got good enough, the sequences of people in Africa compared to people outside indicated that there was something to the theory. But this isn't a confirmation bias, it's the opposite, because the DNA techniques applied weren't invented for this purpose, it's just that the results that emerged naturally from the data were what they were. In fact, in science, if you can prove that a consensus is wrong by the numbers, you make a name for yourself. Also, I wonder about that volcano/sedimentary layering example, as to whether or not it's just a superficial resemblance that the rock hounds would be able to distinguish from a slow carve some way.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 3, 2019 13:16:12 GMT -5
So, Atlantis = Hawaii? Compare that to Seth's take on the Atlantis story here. Commonsense would say that Atlantis was everywhere around the globe, whereever there were people, along every coast line. Scientists didn't discover the ice ages until the late 19th century. For centuries people scoffed at the Atlantis story because they just assumed the coastlines had always been were they are now. To this day, there seems to be a mainstream bias against underwater archeology, but as technology advances that will matter less and less.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 4, 2019 11:00:41 GMT -5
Adam and Eve story,the Genesis is taken from very old Elohist text , that's why God appears to be plural there(For an instance Let us create the world,Let us go down and collapse the language) but after the first two books, you can't find God in a plural sense because those are taken from Yahwist text where God is singular. Very very few people know this truth. I was wondering, isn't Darwin's theory sort of the ultimate insult to Christians?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 4, 2019 11:21:32 GMT -5
So, Atlantis = Hawaii? Compare that to Seth's take on the Atlantis story here. Commonsense would say that Atlantis was everywhere around the globe, whereever there were people, along every coast line. Scientists didn't discover the ice ages until the late 19th century. For centuries people scoffed at the Atlantis story because they just assumed the coastlines had always been were they are now. To this day, there seems to be a mainstream bias against underwater archeology, but as technology advances that will matter less and less. Well, to all those who want to take what Plato wrote literally, I'd say check out Hawaii and see if you get lucky. But if we take Plato metaphorically, and move Atlantis into the idea realm, then what Seth says makes a lot of sense. Also notice how Seth is deliberately messing with our default model of linear time and linear history again. Said that, I think it's difficult to get away from Darwinism as long as some philosophical basics like linear time remain unquestioned. In that sense, religions myths are far more advanced.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 4, 2019 11:49:31 GMT -5
There are a lot more methods of dating. And usually they are combined. The biggest problem here is confirmation bias. And the Grand Canyon is an interesting example on many counts. There was a recent case in Alaska I think where a volcanic eruption created a Grand-Canyon-like scenery within a couple of days instead of millions of years. So, imagine your wedding ring would have got lost there in the sediments that day and a hundred years later they dig it up, unaware of what happened a hundred years ago in this place, and started determining its age based on their current sedimentary lines theory... What would be the 'scientific' age of your wedding ring? Funny example. Here's a counterpoint. The "out-of-Africa theory" goes back decades, and when it was first proposed, it was based, essentially, entirely on fossil evidence. From the casual reading I did on the subject decades ago, it seems to me that the historical section of this wiki isn't complete or accurate, as two of the most famous proponents were Louis Leaky and his wife Mary Leaky, and I think they had children who carried on their work. The narrative I remember reading was that this theory emerged in the 1960's/1970's, and at the time, the science of genetics was in it's infancy. In fact, when I read about Lucy and the like back in the early 90's, noone had popularized the idea of applying genetics to the issue of human origins. So, lo and behold, once the technology got good enough, the sequences of people in Africa compared to people outside indicated that there was something to the theory. But this isn't a confirmation bias, it's the opposite, because the DNA techniques applied weren't invented for this purpose, it's just that the results that emerged naturally from the data were what they were. In fact, in science, if you can prove that a consensus is wrong by the numbers, you make a name for yourself. Also, I wonder about that volcano/sedimentary layering example, as to whether or not it's just a superficial resemblance that the rock hounds would be able to distinguish from a slow carve some way. I'll have to check my notes on this. Just a few quick points: That humans are a tropical species actually does make sense. I just recently moved to the tropics and I have to say, the tropical environment feels a lot more natural in many ways. Even the idea that humans are frugivores (as Yukteswar suggested) makes a lot more sense, too. What I mean by confirmation bias is that geological dating and Darwinism are tied together. If you believe in Darwinism you'll naturally prefer dating models that span over millions of years instead of just several thousand years. I'll get back to this later.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 4, 2019 11:54:44 GMT -5
Yes, I remember that one.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 4, 2019 12:09:48 GMT -5
Adam and Eve story,the Genesis is taken from very old Elohist text , that's why God appears to be plural there(For an instance Let us create the world,Let us go down and collapse the language) but after the first two books, you can't find God in a plural sense because those are taken from Yahwist text where God is singular. Very very few people know this truth. I was wondering, isn't Darwin's theory sort of the ultimate insult to Christians? Well, it might get taken that way, but it's really just how the ball bounced. As I expressed here, science started out as a covert rebellion against the Vatican. It isn't just that political history that led to the "insult". Other contributing factors are Christianity's focus on the man/God relationship, and it's origins in the time of the agricultural revolution,
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 4, 2019 12:29:42 GMT -5
Commonsense would say that Atlantis was everywhere around the globe, whereever there were people, along every coast line. Scientists didn't discover the ice ages until the late 19th century. For centuries people scoffed at the Atlantis story because they just assumed the coastlines had always been were they are now. To this day, there seems to be a mainstream bias against underwater archeology, but as technology advances that will matter less and less. Well, to all those who want to take what Plato wrote literally, I'd say check out Hawaii and see if you get lucky. But if we take Plato metaphorically, and move Atlantis into the idea realm, then what Seth says makes a lot of sense. Also notice how Seth is deliberately messing with our default model of linear time and linear history again. Said that, I think it's difficult to get away from Darwinism as long as some philosophical basics like linear time remain unquestioned. In that sense, religions myths are far more advanced. Well, linear time is what it is: an appearance that manifests, and that most everyone mistakes for an objective reality. But that doesn't mean that "reality" is somehow subjective, either individually or collectively. As far as getting lucky is concerned .. well, use Plato's cave allegory: the appearances to our minds are the shadows. The outlines aren't complete fiction, it's just that our interpretations distort them. The evidence for the ice ages is on the time scale it seems to me that you're more interested in: the last one ended about 12,000 years ago. Before that, ocean levels would have been much lower because all of the fresh water locked-up in the ice. Are you familiar with the "Bimini Road" or some of the underwater finds off the coasts of India an Japan? Here's another one: an area of shallow sea in the North Atlantic that might have been above ground when the oceans were lower. The funny thing about this is that some early-medieval map makers apparently worked from sources that might have been very very old and for which there is no current record.
Once the technology gets cheap enough, answering the question of whether people ever made it there before the floods won't be a matter of luck. Until then, one of the reasons this speculation earns disrepute in scientific circles is because of how it's linked to all of the flood "myths" throughout multiple world cultures. It's that old war between the scientists and religion.
In interpreting the sciences, the results that are based on the study of natural, physical phenomena are the ones that are the least biased, and if you dig deep enough into the bases for the conclusions in the sciences that run afield from that, the exact points where ego and conditioned mind introduce their errors can become quite clear.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 4, 2019 12:31:49 GMT -5
Funny example. Here's a counterpoint. The "out-of-Africa theory" goes back decades, and when it was first proposed, it was based, essentially, entirely on fossil evidence. From the casual reading I did on the subject decades ago, it seems to me that the historical section of this wiki isn't complete or accurate, as two of the most famous proponents were Louis Leaky and his wife Mary Leaky, and I think they had children who carried on their work. The narrative I remember reading was that this theory emerged in the 1960's/1970's, and at the time, the science of genetics was in it's infancy. In fact, when I read about Lucy and the like back in the early 90's, noone had popularized the idea of applying genetics to the issue of human origins. So, lo and behold, once the technology got good enough, the sequences of people in Africa compared to people outside indicated that there was something to the theory. But this isn't a confirmation bias, it's the opposite, because the DNA techniques applied weren't invented for this purpose, it's just that the results that emerged naturally from the data were what they were. In fact, in science, if you can prove that a consensus is wrong by the numbers, you make a name for yourself. Also, I wonder about that volcano/sedimentary layering example, as to whether or not it's just a superficial resemblance that the rock hounds would be able to distinguish from a slow carve some way. I'll have to check my notes on this. Just a few quick points: That humans are a tropical species actually does make sense. I just recently moved to the tropics and I have to say, the tropical environment feels a lot more natural in many ways. Even the idea that humans are frugivores (as Yukteswar suggested) makes a lot more sense, too. What I mean by confirmation bias is that geological dating and Darwinism are tied together. If you believe in Darwinism you'll naturally prefer dating models that span over millions of years instead of just several thousand years. I'll get back to this later. heh heh I probly got a healthy dose of Neanderthal in me 'cause I hate hot weather. They say the average is between 1%-3%. As an aside, the time-frame for interaction between H.S. and Neanderthal is like 80,000 - 30,000 years ago with the last of the Neanderthal dying out about 25,000 years ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2019 0:55:20 GMT -5
Adam and Eve story,the Genesis is taken from very old Elohist text , that's why God appears to be plural there(For an instance Let us create the world,Let us go down and collapse the language) but after the first two books, you can't find God in a plural sense because those are taken from Yahwist text where God is singular. Very very few people know this truth. I was wondering, isn't Darwin's theory sort of the ultimate insult to Christians? I don't see that as an insult. I see he is trying to find a reason as to how human being came into existence.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 5, 2019 6:15:50 GMT -5
I was wondering, isn't Darwin's theory sort of the ultimate insult to Christians? I don't see that as an insult. I see he is trying to find a reason as to how human being came into existence. Correct. It's only an insult for people who interpret the Bible literally and in the most cartoonish way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2019 8:19:04 GMT -5
I don't see that as an insult. I see he is trying to find a reason as to how human being came into existence. Correct. It's only an insult for people who interpret the Bible literally and in the most cartoonish way. As for as I know, reading and understanding what author really means is a kind of skill. When reading Bible , people tries to find a perfect single meaning from all the books. But people did not realize that books were written at various times by various people. For an example Jesus is God or not is completely depends upon which book you read. If you read first century writting(Mark,Matthew,Luke), then Jesus is a mere a human directly created by God therefore he is a son of God and a ransom for human sin. But if you read Paul epistle(early first century writing) then he is the preexisting son of God but incarnated as a human and also a ransom. If you read second century book like John ,then he may be a God(we can't be sure) and incarnated as a human and also a ransom for human. BIBLE was written before 2000 years ago so it's not easy to read and understand in a single go.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2019 9:43:42 GMT -5
Correct. It's only an insult for people who interpret the Bible literally and in the most cartoonish way. As for as I know, reading and understanding what author really means is a kind of skill. When reading Bible , people tries to find a perfect single meaning from all the books. But people did not realize that books were written at various times by various people. For an example Jesus is God or not is completely depends upon which book you read. If you read first century writting(Mark,Matthew,Luke), then Jesus is a mere a human directly created by God therefore he is a son of God and a ransom for human sin. But if you read Paul epistle(early first century writing) then he is the preexisting son of God but incarnated as a human and also a ransom. If you read second century book like John ,then he may be a God(we can't be sure) and incarnated as a human and also a ransom for human. BIBLE was written before 2000 years ago so it's not easy to read and understand in a single go. Any non-zealot who has not smoked a pound of ganja will read an English translation of the Old or New Testament, especially the Old, and say WTF. People living inside whales. Talking snakes. Stoning kids to death. Boat with ALL species. Horns that knock down walls. Disney couldn't even come close to a fantasy ride that far out. See unless you get tired of this crazy world, like I do, it's important to keep those distinctions twixt the real and imaginary hard. Like some folks find solace in calling the real imaginary. Seems like pot would be better for that than crazy talk.
|
|