The Creationist Myth - 500,000-Year-Old Stone Tools, Butchered Elephant Bones Found in Israel

a reply to: Develo

Yes you're absolutely right. Same methodology, just a different mind bender.

a reply to: Develo

it's the mechanism by which galaxies are created. i think god(s), as a creative force, became synonymous with the mechanism of creation (black holes).

originally posted by: undo
i think god(s), as a creative force, became synonymous with the mechanism of creation (black holes).

Your first idea is correct, but applying it to black holes only is a mistake.

Gods are seen as creative/destructive forces (mainly bringers of change), and thus can become synonyms with the mechanism of creation.

Not just galaxies, everything. Some gods created the sky, some the earth, some bring fertility, some bring tools, some bring language, and some are the uniting concept behind them all.


Trying to equate gods with black holes just because it fits your theory that Enoch described a black hole is not a correct way to use logic. Your conclusion came before your arguments.

You are selecting arguments to go in the direction you selected. You will never convince anyone but yourself.

originally posted by: eisegesis
You know what I just noticed, not one person on this entire thread wanted to talk about the archeological find.

That made me chuckle.

I would have loved to jump into a discussion about the actual find. However, when your OP begins with an anti-creationist meme before you discuss anything related to science, there's only one direction the thread is going to move. What did you honestly expect when the very first thing anyone opening this thread sees is-

The thread comes off as a call to arms against the creationist camp by all purveyors of the evolutionary sciences, which is too bad because if you had focused on the science and skipped the creationist slant it could have been an interesting discussion.

a reply to: Develo

you're misunderstanding. it's like a famous painter becoming synonymous with his artwork. instead of calling the artwork "sun on a lake", they call it by the artist's name. it's a rothko, it's a rembrandt, etc. it's really not rembrandt, it's a painting by rembrandt, but the artwork has become synonmous with the artist.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Develo

you're misunderstanding. it's like a famous painter becoming synonymous with his artwork. instead of calling the artwork "sun on a lake", they call it by the artist's name. it's a rothko, it's a rembrandt, etc. it's really not rembrandt, it's a painting by rembrandt, but the artwork has become synonmous with the artist.

By that logic, everything, being a divine creation, is also synonymous with the divine.

Which conveniently is the pantheist stance, and mine too.





I just don't get your obsession with black holes.

Oooh, put like that I wonder if there isn't something freudian going on with you

a reply to: Xtrozero

the significance wasn't so much the lithic work itself. The more important aspect of the find was the occurrence of fatty residue on the biface and the scraper along with the sheer number of megafaunal remains in one site. It gives a very clear indication that this was a butchering site and the oldest known and proven butchering site at that. the wear of the lithic tools as well as the fatty residue from the elephants sealed the deal.

a reply to: Develo

well it all started when i realized the abyss/bottomless pit of revelation 9 was the same thing as the abzu of enki, and the nun of the egyptians. the abyss had a gate that had to be unlocked. esoterica assumes the gate /lock mechanism is about sex magick, but i don't.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Develo

well it all started when i realized the abyss/bottomless pit of revelation 9 was the same thing as the abzu of enki, and the nun of the egyptians. the abyss had a gate that had to be unlocked. esoterica assumes the gate /lock mechanism is about sex magick, but i don't.

Mixing revelations, Sumerian myths and occultism and trying to make them fit together is a sure way to become crazy or at least deluded.

a reply to: Develo

i'm not mixing occultism, i'm removing it from the equation. my theory is they assumed the abyss was the womb but it's not. have you ever read revelation 9?

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Develo

i'm not mixing occultism, i'm removing it from the equation. my theory is they assumed the abyss was the womb but it's not. have you ever read revelation 9?

Why are you so obsessed with revelation and creation myths and aliens? Usually the people I met who had a similar fascination trying to lump them together weren't very stable...

Just saying.

a reply to: Develo

it's comparative study.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Develo

it's comparative study.

No it's not.

comparative study is comparing similar things.

Creation myths are creation myths.

The story of Enoch is another.

Revelation is a vision. It could be prophetic and it could also be a fever-induced hallucination.

Aliens and cloning... well let's not even start about aliens.




I read plenty of books on comparative study, you are not doing the same. You try to put all your beloved beliefs on the table and searches in ancient texts excerpt that could relate to them. Your search is directed and biased.


You can do what you want with your life, all I'm saying is I've been into the "fringe topics" for 15 years and each time I met people with similar interests as you they prove to be mentally unstable.

Even in this thread some of your posts show signs of disjoint reasoning and it's not a good sign.


I'm not trying to convince you (it won't work). I shared my opinion and issued a warning to you. What you do next is your problem.

a reply to: Develo

that's my area of study. been studying this topic, for years now.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Develo

that's my area of study. been studying this topic, for years now.

It shows unfortunately.

a reply to: Develo

thanks.

a reply to: Develo

aww man, you snuck the "unfortunately" in there. and here i thought you were actually going to compliment me on my years of research, but i guess not.

have you ever done etymological studies?

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Develo

aww man, you snuck the "unfortunately" in there. and here i thought you were actually going to compliment me on my years of research, but i guess not.

have you ever done etymological studies?

Yes and I will not continue this discussion with you even if I don't doubt you find this topic fascinating.

I've seen where it leads to try to bend the meaning of texts to fit your beliefs (see the very example of creationism in the thread, twisting science to comply with a 6000 years old earth). I don't want to go there. Insanity lurks there and insanity is a slow and sneaky disease.

a reply to: Develo

well then fine, i'll just sit here while you dictate to me what is and isn't worth while to study.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Develo

well then fine, i'll just sit here while you dictate to me what is and isn't worth while to study.

You can study it all you want. But I will not discuss it with you because your thinking becomes disjointed when you discuss this topic.

So obviously you make sense to you and not to me so we cannot communicate.


And I don't want to start deluding myself just so I can understand the correlations you make between these unrelated texts. I did it in the past and it wasn't healthy. I don't have to to it again just to discuss with you.

Let's just agree we disagree.

I can discuss using logical arguments. I cannot discuss with someone who finds it normal to consider creation myths, enoch story and revelation talk about the same thing just because he gets the feeling it's describing exogenesis and black holes.


You go as far as saying Enoch makes a good description of a black hole, while no one on earth can even observe one in the first place. We have no idea what a black hole "looks" like and yet you claim there is a good description of one in a text.

You see the kind of huge logical mistake you make? And you don't even realize it.