It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Simple reason science and religion are incompatible...

page: 9
16
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2015 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

Keep in mind that we humans can only ever understand and learn about the physical.

This is how science says the universe was begun. Quantum fluctuation is something from nothing. This can only be done if you have quantum physics and the laws of relativity. None can argue against that. That means you can create something from nothing if you have the laws or forces of nature in existence which aren't physical but act on the physical.
So these 'forces'...
1. Are not physical, yet...
2. Act on the physical
3. Can make something from nothing
4. Predate the Universe (not bound by time)

God (according to the Bible).
1. Is not physical (beyond our understanding)
2. Can act on the physical
3. can make something from nothing
4. Predated the Universe

Science has finally discovered God. Sure there's more to explain but atheist would have to explain how forces of nature can create something without those forces of nature in existence. If they believe that they have far more faith than any believer in God has.




posted on May, 15 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: DazDaKing

Look, I'm aware that my style of posting is abrasive. You aren't telling me anything that I don't know, nor are you the first to tell me this. It comes from talking to people on these forums that demand evidence then ignore it whenever I give it to them. Then they continue to say the same inaccuracies over and over again. There are quite a few of them on these boards, and new ones appear all the time. It gets frustrating so I became abrasive. Though if you demonstrate respect to me, more than likely I'll do it back; unless I'm already hot for other reasons. I am always willing to admit when I'm wrong.

Besides, if you have a good point with compelling evidence backing it, there is no reason for me to disagree with your point. Believe it or not, I DO believe in certain conspiracy theories. I'm just overly critical against any that require you to abandon the scientific method like any pseudo-sciences (ghosts, ufos, bigfoot, electric universe, etc) or religions.

That being said, I know what the OP was about. You came in and started talking about standard AA theory stuff. You used ancient texts to support your evidence. I am telling you that science contradicts these accounts. Sciences like archeology aren't finding evidence that corroborates these claims. Sciences like physics demonstrate that some of these claims are impossible. Engineering shows that humans could easily design these ancient structures with enough manpower. Etc.

The point is that science and religion rarely ever align. If you want to make them work, most of the time, you have to discard claims from religion's texts and say that they are metaphors or something. It is HIGHLY likely that all ancient religions are just humans guessing as to the nature of the universe. Except they are guessing without any supporting evidence, that is why so many religious claims turn out to be wrong when checked by science.

This is why I demand evidence first. If you are going to tell me what you believe, awesome, but don't get mad if I demand evidence afterwards. That's the way things work. There is no point believing in something without objective and unbiased evidence supporting it.
edit on 15-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Science and religion are like oil and water . . . the mix nicely for about three seconds.

Science tells everyone we started as a small cosmic booger that exploded, and further explains unequivocally we're gonna die someday, following which we return to cosmic booger status. The end.

Religion tells you we were created on something's fancy and we're all gonna live forever, whether it be in the wonderfulness of the great beyond or the screamin' hot fires of hell. No end.

Religion, to me, is just the attempted rationalization of The End.

It's like a Republican and Democrat trying to agree on anything.

Ain't gonna happen.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: SanitySearcher
Keep in mind that we humans can only ever understand and learn about the physical.

Really? What do you call study of mind and behavior??


originally posted by: SanitySearcher
This is how science says the universe was begun. Quantum fluctuation is something from nothing. This can only be done if you have quantum physics and the laws of relativity. None can argue against that. That means you can create something from nothing if you have the laws or forces of nature in existence which aren't physical but act on the physical.
So these 'forces'...
1. Are not physical, yet...
2. Act on the physical
3. Can make something from nothing
4. Predate the Universe (not bound by time)


Please provide proof that this is how science says universe has begun.




originally posted by: SanitySearcher
God (according to the Bible).
1. Is not physical (beyond our understanding)
2. Can act on the physical
3. can make something from nothing
4. Predated the Universe

This is simple example why science and religion will never mix. It was beyond our understanding how world came to be, now we know. It was beyond our understanding how life evolved, now we know... It had nothing to do with bible, god and like Dr. Tyson once pointed, it's not intelligently design either...



originally posted by: SanitySearcher
Science has finally discovered God. Sure there's more to explain but atheist would have to explain how forces of nature can create something without those forces of nature in existence. If they believe that they have far more faith than any believer in God has.




Wait, just in previous paragraph you said that is beyond our understnanding, and now you tell we found it?! Please make up your mind...

As I said before, your view how science think everything started is far from reality, it is shrouded to fit your religious view, and its clean example 'why' this topic.

It's bit long video, but please watch this... it will help you understand why science and religion will never mix... listen 2 great minds talk about scientist that are religious... and how that just does not work anymore.




posted on May, 15 2015 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne Dont understand why these 3 scientists are be spoken of. Why does there beliefs which are an obvious product of their time matter. Science has changes alot since Einstein's passing. It doesn't matter what they thought about the subject. The thread is no less true after your statement.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog

originally posted by: TheCretinHop
You know what is interesting though? There are scientific facts recorded in the bible. Like when it came to health, long before regulations existed and people even knew what germs were it was written in the scriptures inspired by the creator how to handle dead bodies and feces because of disease, which there were no secular text books on such enlightened info like this in that time.


If you studied previous civilizations you would learn that they actually know much more, not just about germs, but even what everything is made of - atoms, long before first microscope. No one denied that some wisdom did not end up in bible, but we know for earlier examples for even more complex wisdom... and had nothing to do with religion.... actually knowledge got lost DUE TO religion, but that is whole other topic...


Greek philosophers Leucippus and Democritus first developed the concept of the atom in the 5th century B.C.E. However, since Aristotle and other prominent thinkers of the time strongly opposed their idea of the atom, their theory was overlooked and essentially buried until the 16th and 17th centuries. In time, Lavoisier’s groundbreaking 18th-century experiments accurately measured all substances involved in the burning process, proving that “when substances burn, there is no net gain or loss of weight.” Lavoisier established the science of modern chemistry, which gained greater acceptance because of the efforts of John Dalton, who modernized the ancient Greek ideas of element, atom, compound, and molecule; and provided a means of explaining chemical reactions in quantitative
Source: sciencenetlinks.com...


You see that gap in knowledge, there is very simple explanation for it...



Do we have to go through all of those??



originally posted by: TheCretinHopI mean cleopatra used to put poop in her vagina as a contraceptive for goodness sakes! (Isaiah 11:19-22;Deuteronomy 23:12-14)These are all scientifically correct practices, down to the microbiology.

Isaiah 11:19-22 tells about revengeful god who striking people who don't acknowledge them... not sure what that has to do with topic or even what you posted before, unless you think that was good enough reason for God to go into revenge mode and also kill all firstborn. Do you ever think how wrong this is??
Deuteronomy 23:12-14 - this was actually common knowledge among ancient civilizations... What do you think how did humans survive before religion??


originally posted by: TheCretinHop
Natural water cycle was acknowledged without a college teaching anyone. (Ecclesiastes 1:7).


Really? But its not even correct as its missing one major thing - how?!



originally posted by: TheCretinHop
The earth's shape(before humans even knew it's actual shape cough* Columbus cough*) [Isaiah 40:22], how the earth is suspended on it's own in space (Job 26:7). Kind of interesting coming from people who couldn't fly in space and look down on the earth. Kind of epic knowledge unless they were inspired by someone knowledgable of these things...

Actually, just for your info, earth is not shaped in circle, and also for you knowledge Isaiah is not talking about earth shape, but about where in sky god's throne is. Today we know there is no throne in the sky, don't we? This also shows that you are not aware that old Greeks end Egyptian not only KNEW that earth is sphere, but Eratosthenes even measured radius and circumference of Earth and he lived 300BC?! I wrote about him in different topic, if you interested, please read here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please note, discussion here is different approach between religion and science. Please use appropriate topics if you like to talk about knowledge lost due to religion or perhaps you like to point what you call microbiology... yet that really was not that...


Excellent post

What Eratosthenes did, using only a stick was truly amazing, I dig the ''Lost Knowledge'' thread when I find some time, (thnx for the link).

I can't help but wonder, what the world would be today like if christianity never existed, and ancient scientists (they had already invented the scientific method!) and philosophers shared and evolved their views to generations to come.
How much progress would we have made after 2000 years of trying to understand nature, how it begun and how it works...
edit on FriFri, 15 May 2015 09:47:53 -05001AMk000000Fridayam by Dr1Akula because: grammar



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
religion is not "god". it is dogma. i wish people would stop acting like they are the same thing. i believe in god to a certain extent(gotta leave room for alternatives) and i absolutely think there is a scientific explanation.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

Hmm you're quite adamant. Although yes in Isaiah it was referring to a circle. And if you did your own research and looked up the original Hebrew words you would see that the truest definition points to "sphere." But you probably didn't know that so its ok. And you said ancient civilizations had knowledge? Like who Greece? You need references of these ancient civilizations. Not just your own words. Unless it's just your opinion than state it as that. Not as fact. That's not as ancient as what i was referring to. Don't be completely unreasonable. I think I made valid points.


Sorry for the Isaiah misquote!! I meant these verses...Written about 1500 B.C.E., the Mosaic Law (found in the first five books of the Bible) contained sound laws regarding quarantining of the sick, treatment of dead bodies, and disposal of waste.—Leviticus 13:1-5; Numbers 19:1-13; Deuteronomy 23:13, 14.

You can't disregard my references. All I was saying too, is whether you are religious or not, the bible states facts that correlate with modern science well before others "documented" any of their conclusions. Again you lacked



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Do people think that if you are 'religious' or what I think they mean,'believe in a creator rather than evolution and spontaneous life forming from non-living matter' that it automatically means you can't believe in science. Like one person brought out...look at Einstein. Pretty sure he's not an idiot or Newton.

If this has to do with that on the back burner, remember living matter can not had has never formed from non living matter...The IS science. No matter how much you don't want to believe in a superior intelligence.
edit on 15-5-2015 by TheCretinHop because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: TheCretinHop

I guess you have not read very far into the thread because if you had you would know Einstein wasn't religious.



“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me.”

1954 Albert Einstein wrote to the philosopher Erik Gutkind after having just read Gutkind’s book Choose Life


I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.
-- Albert Einstein, following his wife's advice in responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the International Synagogue in New York, who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding "Do you believe in God?" Quoted from and citation notes derived from Victor J Stenger, Has Science Found God? (draft: 2001), chapter 3.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
-- Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheCretinHop
Hmm you're quite adamant.

We are having discussion, no need to be persuasive. I hope we are all grown ups and are able to use critical thinking to make up our own mind.


originally posted by: TheCretinHop
Although yes in Isaiah it was referring to a circle. And if you did your own research and looked up the original Hebrew words you would see that the truest definition points to "sphere." But you probably didn't know that so its ok.

No, I don't know Hebrew and have not read Torah, but I did read both Bible and Qur'an partly because of interest but also as part of class in college. You did not specify which bible you follow, but from what I know, all of them use circle as translation. Here is Hebrew translation in english, and circle is still circle.


Isaiah 40-22 It is He that sitteth above the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in;


Source: www.mechon-mamre.org...



originally posted by: TheCretinHop
And you said ancient civilizations had knowledge? Like who Greece? You need references of these ancient civilizations. Not just your own words.

My apologies, I was under impression that link to topic that covers what knowledge was lost due to religion was enough . We are anyway bit off topic, but sure, check here some of ancient work: www.regentsprep.org...



originally posted by: TheCretinHop
Unless it's just your opinion than state it as that. Not as fact. That's not as ancient as what i was referring to. Don't be completely unreasonable. I think I made valid points.

What do you consider ancient? If ancient Greek is not ancient enough for you, what is?


originally posted by: TheCretinHop
Sorry for the Isaiah misquote!! I meant these verses...Written about 1500 B.C.E., the Mosaic Law (found in the first five books of the Bible) contained sound laws regarding quarantining of the sick, treatment of dead bodies, and disposal of waste.—Leviticus 13:1-5; Numbers 19:1-13; Deuteronomy 23:13, 14.

When you have time, please watch this, it has loose connection to biblical accounts, but here we talk about civilization that had laws, one that made first known written peace treaty we have records for from actually both sides... they have built great cities and exited about that time...



Here is bit about their laws and from video, consider what they did with religions, and what influence they had in what you today take as religion.

www.usc.edu...


Here is another video about civilization that predates given period, civilization that did some great inventions of the time, from architecture to equality between man and women...



But now, question, can you prove Mose ever lived outside of Bible?!



originally posted by: TheCretinHop
You can't disregard my references. All I was saying too, is whether you are religious or not, the bible states facts that correlate with modern science well before others "documented" any of their conclusions. Again you lacked


Seriously you think that? Do you even understand that bible is in large part copy/paste from different religions and myths*, and probably thanks to handy work of Hittite Empire? I just gave you example about size of earth, that was known, but if you really like to go into details, check who established medicine, astronomy, mathematics...

* Interesting read: phoenicia.org...

What you think might be reason we never found any evidence in Exodus?? Can you prove it, if there is no evidence?

Your finding science in bible, which even most of bible scholars would agree its not scientific book, is equal to some folks finding faces, birds, snakes and what not on mars from pictures... Even Muslims are doing the same, and for example they use fraction between water and earth (7:3) to be information given by God that explains how earth is divided in 7/10of water and 3/10 land. Problem occurs when the same search is used on fictional books such as Moby Dick it produces the same results?!

Question that you should ask your self, why God, if all powerful did not say its sphere, mostly water, moon is not source of light but reflection from sun, and that sun is center of our solar system... Why not make it simple?? Why speak in codes? (this brings all other questions about intolerance, unethical and inhuman treatment of slaves in books influenced by God's wast knowledge... )
edit on 15-5-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

I think we are way off topic. Lol. I think my original intentions was to say that there is scientific accuracies within the bible. Like the scriptures I quoted. I'm not persuading anyone, just was interesting. I guess I'm not focusing on the main thread topic. Yes religion has destroyed a lot of history and contorted science or disregarded it.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Can you PLEASE stop talking about what I 'believe'. You really didn't read my posts properly, did you?

I've continously said to you that this is NOT MY BELIEF. Why must you keep offending me by referring to what I 'believe'.


That being said, I know what the OP was about. You came in and started talking about standard AA theory stuff. You used ancient texts to support your evidence. I am telling you that science contradicts these accounts.


This shows to me, once again, that you have entirely misinterpreted everything I've said and you've also made huge assumptions on your own part so you can attack a point that wasn't even made in the first place.

It also shows to me that you seem to be disillusioned to the ancient texts, by referring to what I said as 'standad AA theory stuff'. I told you the story as I have read it overlapping in multiple officially accepted translations of stories and myths from the Sumerian period all the way to the Judaism/Christianity age.

Have YOU sat and read all the mainstream translations (not Sitchen)? If you had, you would understand that the story as I gave you wasn't 'standard AA theory stuff' but actually events/scenarios/characters as they are given in those texts.

The AA theory was proposed by the addition of Nibiru and it's surrounding lore, and a goal for these 'Gods' (gold-mining). This is derived from Sitchen's personal translation of the tablets. The concept of a created or worker race and so forth is clearly prevalant in the mainstream translations. Likewise, the humanoid aspect of these 'Gods' is prevalent in the accepted translations as well.

Arguably, Nibiru is not an entirely new addition to the story but rather an intepratation of what the Tiamat event was, as mentioned in the Enuma Elish. Likewise, the gold-mining aspect is an intepration of the ancient attachment of gold to the divine and the royal.

Funnily enough, recent archaelogical evidence has shown that there seemed to have been active gold-mines as early as 30,000 BC, and in some cases potentially 80,000 BC. Why the HELL would humans be mining gold before they could farm? Anyway, this is not the point - just an interesting side fact for you.

Also - I am not using ancient texts to 'support my theory' (which is what I assume you meant) - I am stating the story that is told throughout the ancient texts. This is where your ideological flaw entering this argument comes to it's core root:

I am NOT PROPOSING A THEORY. You are tackling this ENTIRE discussion with me as if I am proposing a theory. What I DID propose however, is that the overlapping story as I see it (whichI deem to be the core of all the fundamental religions today, and hence the true nature of what religion is) is NOT contradicted by science.


Sciences like archeology aren't finding evidence that corroborates these claims.


Once again, I am NOT PROPOSING A THEORY, and therefore this has NOTHING to do with the burden of science providing evidence for these claims. The topic is science contradicting it - science not providing evidence is not the same as science contradicting it.


Sciences like physics demonstrate that some of these claims are impossible.


FINALLY - this is more like it. This is what you had to say all along. Now we are on the same wavelength. THIS is what we mean by contradiction - or at least as I understand it. We can actually create a productive discussion from this point.

What part of science makes what claims impossible? Please let me know. Remember, I AM TALKING ABOUT THE OVERLAPPING STORY - if you think that's BS and we should focus specifically on the Bible alone, or the Qu'ran, or so forth, then this discussion is absolutely pointless since we are not on the same topic any longer.

So, please, go and read the story in my first post and tell me what science has proved to be IMPOSSIBLE (an extremely bold claim). I have a very strong feeling that you will begin to start talking about text-specific stories like Moses' splitting the Red Sea - but even that is not IMPOSSIBLE.

Remember; we are talking the POSSIBILITY of something - NOT the PROBABILITY. This is the key that makes the point I originally made a different flavour as to what people are used to on here.

Now, if it said Moses' had torn the Earth into separate pieces, made them twirl out into space in fancy patterns, and then re-combine - I would deem that absolutely impossible by our current understanding of physics. Don't confuse this point I just made to me inviting you to begin talking about specific Biblical acts - read the overlapping story - that's what needs to be attacked.


Engineering shows that humans could easily design these ancient structures with enough manpower. Etc.


You shouldn't be so confident talking about engineering to an ENGINEER.

There is a MAJOR FLAW with the point you are making here, and that is the assumption that AA theory exists solely to explain megalithic structures. Drop that assumption - it's flawed. Likewise, the assumption that AA theory exists to explain humans to those who can't compregend evolution is flawed.

Essentially, you've just made a completely moot point in regards to our discussion, but allowed yourself to sneak in another additional dig at AA theory - dude, you have a subconscious agenda.

Also, although this is off the point, engineering does NOT show that humans can easily design these structures with enough manpower. I've sat and done my own personal, in-depth calcs regarding the Great Pyramid, and let me tell you that is NOT easy, although humanly possible.

Quick example - the heaviest block in the GP is 70tonnes or 70,000 kg. Let's assume you want to get a crapload of men (your so called manpower) to DRAG this thing (as a starting point) - how many men would we need?

Well, to move the block, you need to overcome it's static friction with the Earth due to gravity. The formula for this is:

F= Fn * u (where F = force required, Fn = the downward force due to the object's weight/gravity and u = the static coefficient of friction between the object and the surface that it rests on).

If we use the experimentally verified coefficient of friction for Granite-on-Granite, we get a 'u' value of 0.6. Limestone-on-Limestone gives us a coefficient value of 0.7. I'm going to be nice here and assume the Egyptians were hauling the block on a well-polished limestone pavement, and drop this value to '0.5'.

This gives us a required pulling force of:

F = (70,000 * 9,81) * 0.5 = 340,000 N approximately - a HUGE amount of force indeed.

I've work in projects regarding ergonomics/human factors and manual operations and I can tell you that the maximum effective pushing or pulling force a human can achieve for a decent period of time is around 200 N for a healthy and strong male.

I'm going to be nice and assume the Egyptians were using 95th percentile males and up that value to 300 N. This means that the required amount of men to haul the 70tonne block would be:

340,000 / 300 = 1100 Men approximately.

This is where the layman crumbles, since the difference of 100 men or a 1000 men is insignificant to him - he has his proof that enough men can pull the rock and he is happy with that. For an engineer, it's much different.

How do you get 1100 men to pull a rock in co-ordination? That's A LOT of rope. The rope would fail continously and the process of creating roping for the task is more difficult than the actual hauling itself (much like making a ramp around the GP is). Furthermore, the key joint in pulling the rock would be at the connection between the rope and the block.

The ancient Egyptians used date palm ropes, and these have an experimentally verified tensile strength of about 50,000 N. Beyond that, they fail. As you can see, it is theoretically impossible to have used date palm rope to move such a block, although we could easily do so today with our advanced metalic wire ropes.

Effectively, a way to do it could have been to knot the rope in extremely sophisticated ways in regular 1m intervals. Bare in mind that considering the dimensions of the largest block, we could only have 3 separate rows of approx. 300 men pulling on 3 separate rows of rope.

Assuming that 1 man needs approx. 2m of rope stroke for comfortable movement, we have 600m of rope in any single 'lane'. This explanation becomes harder and harder to justify from this point.

These same issues when paying attention to detail (and the mathematics) crop up in all subsequent explanations, such as using wooden logs (the diameter of the logs would be too great to support the block based on it's dimension and you still have the issue of actually lifting the rock onto the logs) or the use of a fulcrum/levers/pulleys (since they would also fail if wooden under such loads and the use of a fulcrum also involves firstly lifting the block off the ground, which requires a rope lift which takes us back to our date palm problem).

The ONLY way I've actually managed to make the maths work on any of this is assuming an EXTREMELY POLISHED road all the way from the quarry to the construction site that can provide an incredibly low coefficient of friction - this is also a recent explaination offered by many leading engineers. Once again, this involves more work than the Pyramid itself and therefore is not a 'nice solution'.

Anyway - I seriously diverged off-topic again but I feel it's my duty as an engineer to explain to people that this is NOT EASY or even completely figured out by us.


The point is that science and religion rarely ever align.


Core story leading to modern religion:
-150,000 to 250,000 years ago (from correlating the SKL to the Eridu Genesis) 'Gods descend from Heaven' and a new humanoid is created from the Earth - of which all others follow.
-This race co-exists with another larger, and apparently more advanced (at the time) race, and they potentially interbred.
-A huge catastrophe hits the Earth around 6,000 to 15,000 BC (SKL) and eliminated significant parts of human civilisation as well as completely destroying the other humanoid races.
-Humans are handed the knowledge of agriculture/farming after the flood (hence 6,000 to 15,000 BC) and around 3,000 to 5,000 BC they are granted the right to establish their own 'kingship'.

Yes - this story can be found as I've just mentioned it in official translations of tablets, texts and stories from the 3,000 BC to 0 BC period.

Modern scientific knowledge:
-200,000 years ago, modern humans popped up in Africa - and we are all derived from just one of these ancestors.
-We co-existed with other humanoid races, physically larger and potentially more advanced/intelligent at the time, and we potentially interbred.
-An abrupt ice age end causes a long period of instability and dramatic rise in global sea levels (Young Dryas Period - 8,000 to 14,000 BC). Significantly parts of human civilization are lost and the other humanoid races disappear in this period.
-Humans adopt agriculture and the domenstication of animals around 6,000 to 10,000 BC and Pharoahes pop up around 3,000 BC - the first example of divinely appointed human rulers on Earth.

Yeah... they rarely align. But of course, if you want to assume religion is simply the tunnel visioned perspective of attacking a specific paragraph from a specific book - then you can ignore all of that and continue as you were.


This is why I demand evidence first. If you are going to tell me what you believe, awesome, but don't get mad if I demand evidence afterwards.


For the final time - I did not tell you what I believe and I was not proposing a theory. I was replying to the OP's point and therefore is on a COMPLETELY different tanget to the point that you are trying to make. If I was sat here saying to you - IT WAS ALIENS - then what you are saying would be rational.

Right now, you are doing what you always do and basically having a debate about the authenticity of AA theory in any way possible while completing negating any other context.

Read all your replies to me thus far in this thread, and then read mine to yours. You will clearly see that I have attempted to answer all your questions and counter all your points - where as you have either assumed a point I never made or completely ignored entire chunks of reasoning and questioning I had presented to you.

Apologies for the length.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Let me say something else, since I feel we'll forever go in circles if I don't clear this up.

In the modern West, we tend to associate the word 'religion' primarily with the Abrahamic ones, i.e Judaism/Christianity/Islam. This is what I assumed the OP meant as it would make the most sense.

These three books share an OVERLAPPING STORY (independent of their own individual cultural additions) of God/Gods, sons of Gods/creation of Man/fall of Man - the flood/and the post-flood age. Surely, this IS the core story they are getting at and route we should be considering when looking for an actual historical and physical source for it.

But, there's a key point here...these stories have a chronological order. In that sense, Judaism would be the book truest to this CORE STORY (Jesus is not part of the core story for example).

However, we know that the roots of the story told in Judaism go back 1000's of years prior to it. If we assume there's actually a physical source to these stories (sometimes you HAVE to make assumptions you don't like to logically progress through a thought-train), it becomes logical to pursue the older ones in favour of the newer ones - at least for the ones that share OVERLAPPING details.

It's like chinese whispers - the closer you are to the source, the more accurate it was. In this sense, our 'master document' is the Eridu Genesis since it is the OLDEST surviving version of THIS CORE STORY.

It is NOT AA Thoery - that is an offence to the story being told right under your nose in these texts.

The MAIN change from the Sumerian version to the one in later Judaism is that the 'GODS' became the 'GOD' - however even this is not explicitly affirmed in the Torah - where JHWH is referred to as being from a COUNCIL OF GODS - with Earth being assigned as his rule. This is a rare fragment of the original Sumerian belief.

The original Sumerian story, which we can easily construct from the Eridu Genesis, the SKL, surrounding tablet myths and depictions and subsequent Babylonian myths, contains the same CORE STORY in the Abrahamic religions, and is therefore CLEARLY the source or TRUE FORM of these stories, as it is the OLDEST. Simple.

Therefore, talking about the Sumerian story is NOT talking 'AA theory', but LITERALLY talking about RELIGION.

Which brilliantly enough, takes me back to the ACTUAL POINT I tried to originally make, which is that if you DO ACTUALLY PROPOSE THE AA EXPLANATION, or a HUMANOID one (which the Eridu Genesis suggests inherently by itself lol) of these texts (which I wasn't objectively doing) you can create a scenario where it is NOT contradicted by science.

Ironically, science allows us to rationalise this core story in a way that wasn't possible before without assuming what we know as the 'supernatural'. Furthermore, science seems to show us that this core story was in part TRUE (see my last reply).

You CANNOT take that point as I have made it and then start talking about the authenticity of AA theory or where the scientific evidence for AA exists - because it makes NO SENSE to do so.

You are completely taking that point out of context and turning it into a debate that it NEVER WAS or MEANT TO BE.



edit on 15-5-2015 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: DazDaKing
I am NOT PROPOSING A THEORY. You are tackling this ENTIRE discussion with me as if I am proposing a theory. What I DID propose however, is that the overlapping story as I see it (whichI deem to be the core of all the fundamental religions today, and hence the true nature of what religion is) is NOT contradicted by science.


Damn your posts are long... BUT since you keep demanding it, I'm going to do a point by point breakdown of your points, just excuse me for snipping parts of it.

Anyways, the reason I brought up the ancient aliens theory is because you said this:

150,000 to 200,000 years ago (derived from SKL reigns) the 'Gods' descend from Heaven onto Earth.

The 'sons of Gods', the Iggigi (or later called the Anunnaki/Nephilm) toiled the Earth for many generations for the 'Greater Gods'.

After 'many generations', the Iggigi complained about their position to the 'Greater Gods', and the the God Enki proposed the solution of a worker race.


The only way for that to gel with science is for those "Gods" to be aliens. You even partially admit that they aren't gods by putting the word gods in quotations. Therefore it reasons that this is just another version of the AA theory. It may not be the pop AA theory that we see on the History channel, but it is one nonetheless.


What part of science makes what claims impossible? Please let me know. Remember, I AM TALKING ABOUT THE OVERLAPPING STORY - if you think that's BS and we should focus specifically on the Bible alone, or the Qu'ran, or so forth, then this discussion is absolutely pointless since we are not on the same topic any longer.


You seem to be referring to overlapping stories all originating from the Middle East. What about China? What about India? What about the Americas? How do THEIR stories mesh with these stories? But an example of something that should be impossible is this:


The Iggigi also began having sexual relations with the workers, resulting in the countless references to 'Demi-Gods', 'sons of Gods' and so forth.

This is actually one of the most interesting parts of any of the religious texts or stories as it actually DIRECTLY refers to these 'Gods' as posessing HUMANOID qualities rather than that of a spiritual, astronomical or symbolical nature.


If we are to assume that these "Gods" are aliens with physical attributes then that means they evolved on an outside planet along 100% different evolutionary tract. They should have NO DNA similarity to us at all. Even banana trees have 50% dna similarity to us, but we can't breed with them. There should be no scientific possibility that we'd EVER be able to breed with any alien lifeform unless that lifeform somehow followed the EXACT same evolutionary path as us and even then they'd have to be exactly as evolved as we are, which probability-wise is VERY low, especially within our galactic neighborhood.


Remember; we are talking the POSSIBILITY of something - NOT the PROBABILITY. This is the key that makes the point I originally made a different flavour as to what people are used to on here.


You don't prove a negative, so all I deal in is probability. If I find something with a very low probability then I disregard it as unlikely. If you ever catch me saying that something is impossible though its because I'm being slightly hyperbolic. As an agnostic I don't think anything is impossible. I just think that certain things are exceedingly unlikely because they go against known science. Sometimes that unlikeliness results in it basically becoming impossible, so I just use that word instead. Many times I will still put the word "likely" or "probably" in front of it though.


Quick example - the heaviest block in the GP is 70tonnes or 70,000 kg. Let's assume you want to get a crapload of men (your so called manpower) to DRAG this thing (as a starting point) - how many men would we need?


Solved! How Ancient Egyptians Moved Massive Pyramid Stones


The ancient Egyptians who built the pyramids may have been able to move massive stone blocks across the desert by wetting the sand in front of a contraption built to pull the heavy objects, according to a new study.

Physicists at the University of Amsterdam investigated the forces needed to pull weighty objects on a giant sled over desert sand, and discovered that dampening the sand in front of the primitive device reduces friction on the sled, making it easier to operate. The findings help answer one of the most enduring historical mysteries: how the Egyptians were able to accomplish the seemingly impossible task of constructing the famous pyramids.



The amount of water necessary depends on the type of sand, he added, but typically the optimal amount falls between 2 percent and 5 percent of the volume of sand.

"It turns out that wetting Egyptian desert sand can reduce the friction by quite a bit, which implies you need only half of the people to pull a sledge on wet sand, compared to dry sand," Bonn said.


Have you worked that into your calculations?


Core story leading to modern religion:
-150,000 to 250,000 years ago (from correlating the SKL to the Eridu Genesis) 'Gods descend from Heaven' and a new humanoid is created from the Earth - of which all others follow.
-This race co-exists with another larger, and apparently more advanced (at the time) race, and they potentially interbred.
-A huge catastrophe hits the Earth around 6,000 to 15,000 BC (SKL) and eliminated significant parts of human civilisation as well as completely destroying the other humanoid races.
-Humans are handed the knowledge of agriculture/farming after the flood (hence 6,000 to 15,000 BC) and around 3,000 to 5,000 BC they are granted the right to establish their own 'kingship'.

Yes - this story can be found as I've just mentioned it in official translations of tablets, texts and stories from the 3,000 BC to 0 BC period.


Again, why are you only focusing on the ancient Middle East? If you are trying to paint a narrative of all these connecting religions, why not include ones from other areas as well? But I'm going to address the similarities that you are trying to point out:


Modern scientific knowledge:
-200,000 years ago, modern humans popped up in Africa - and we are all derived from just one of these ancestors.
-We co-existed with other humanoid races, physically larger and potentially more advanced/intelligent at the time, and we potentially interbred.
-An abrupt ice age end causes a long period of instability and dramatic rise in global sea levels (Young Dryas Period - 8,000 to 14,000 BC). Significantly parts of human civilization are lost and the other humanoid races disappear in this period.
-Humans adopt agriculture and the domenstication of animals around 6,000 to 10,000 BC and Pharoahes pop up around 3,000 BC - the first example of divinely appointed human rulers on Earth.


[cont]



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   
[cont]

We may have co-existed with other humanoid races, but they ALL came from and evolved on this planet. There is no record of any of those humanoid races having built any civilizations either, let alone ones WAY more advanced than we've ever built. The other humanoid races didn't die out 16,000 years ago either. The Neanderthal, the race you are describing that may have bred with humans died out 39,000 years ago.

So basically, while the ancient texts may paint a narrative that SOUNDS likely, it doesn't really hold up to what science has shown us is really the case. And that's all IF we are assuming these "gods" are aliens. If you are trying to suggest that they really WERE divine beings then there really is no way we can have a discussion. I cannot disprove or argue against the divine except their mere existence and subsequent descriptions from ancient texts defies reality.


For the final time - I did not tell you what I believe and I was not proposing a theory. I was replying to the OP's point and therefore is on a COMPLETELY different tanget to the point that you are trying to make. If I was sat here saying to you - IT WAS ALIENS - then what you are saying would be rational.


Usually people craft an argument around their beliefs you know? In any case, was this a more reasonable response to you?



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Read the second reply I made to your previous point, JUST before you created this reply.

Ironically, I tackle a lot of your questions there pre-emptively since I predicted them. I'll get to your recent reply in a second.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't understand why (in your view) the mere existence of gods "defies reality."

I mean, if someone told George Washington about the Internet, he's say the same thing. And science doesn't say "there is nothing that can violate the laws of the universe" but rather "let's really hope there's nothing that can violate the laws of the universe out there, that'd be really annoying and mess up our calculations" and "we've never observed anything violating physical laws, so they probably don't exist." Which isn't unreasonable, but in the 1600s no one had observed television either.

Our view of reality is entirely dependent on observation. This is a really, really fragile thing. Shoot, we can completely ruin our observatory powers by inhaling chemicals or being subjected to radio waves. And even setting aside how fragile our capabilities are, they are also incredibly limited. (This is especially interesting from an evolutionary perspective, which would hold that our perceptions are designed to keep us alive, not necessarily to perceive the truth.) We've only glimpsed a tiny fraction of the universe for an infinitesimally small amount of time, and we think we have a good handle on it. Seems to me like we should be more reserved in our judgments.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: StalkerSolent

Did you miss this part of that post?


You don't prove a negative, so all I deal in is probability. If I find something with a very low probability then I disregard it as unlikely. If you ever catch me saying that something is impossible though its because I'm being slightly hyperbolic. As an agnostic I don't think anything is impossible. I just think that certain things are exceedingly unlikely because they go against known science. Sometimes that unlikeliness results in it basically becoming impossible, so I just use that word instead. Many times I will still put the word "likely" or "probably" in front of it though.



posted on May, 15 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


The only way for that to gel with science is for those "Gods" to be aliens. You even partially admit that they aren't gods by putting the word gods in quotations. Therefore it reasons that this is just another version of the AA theory. It may not be the pop AA theory that we see on the History channel, but it is one nonetheless.


No, not aliens specifically, just humanoids. I put the word 'God' in quotations often since it is subjective to everyone.

There is nothing wrong, in this particular case, for that being the only way for science to gel with the texts - because of the topic at hand.

In fact, you just absolutely PROVED my point by saying science CAN GEL with the texts - when a humanoid explanation is applied.

This was my point in regards to science not being able to contradict the core story, but it can hinder inteprations of the datings. I openly admitted this several replies ago because I do not have a personal agenda here.

The key point for me is that you can hinder the probability of one specific set of datings that can be derived from the text (although the disappearance of the other humanoids is NOT dated directly in the texts), but the possibility remains intact and can still work.

You cannot hence falsify it at this stage, but only damage the probability of certain dating interpretations. It doesn't contradict the core story. If that's enough for you, then let it be.

I'll get back to the dates in a sec. It is a poor example of incompatibility in this case.


Have you worked that into your calculations?


Erm...thanks for the disrespect once again by not reading my entire post yet jumping headfirst into a reply.

And yes, I did actually. My own words:


DazDaKing The ONLY way I've actually managed to make the maths work on any of this is assuming an EXTREMELY POLISHED road all the way from the quarry to the construction site that can provide an incredibly low coefficient of friction - this is also a recent explaination offered by many leading engineers. Once again, this involves more work than the Pyramid itself and therefore is not a 'nice solution'.


Using water/sand technique is achieving the same goal - an extremely low coefficient of friction.


Again, why are you only focusing on the ancient Middle East?


Answered in a previous reply - figured this was a obstacle for our discussion. I made an initial assumption of what the OP meant by religion. If we want to now question that assumption, the debate as it is becomes completely changed.


So basically, while the ancient texts may paint a narrative that SOUNDS likely, it doesn't really hold up to what science has shown us is really the case.


I like that you've basically admitted that the only way science comes close to contradicting (at least we're back on that) what I said is through dates, which is the weakest form of contradicting it since we are depending on the LATEST found skeletons and carbon dating to precisely match texts written with different methods of measuring time altogether.

I also like that you seem to accept that the date of the 'last' Neanderthal is the only conflicting evidence to the claims I made.

I repeat again, it is the date you are questioning that I provided regarding the exact disappearance of these humanoids but not the actual substance of the message.

It's important to say that the date I gave for the texts extinction of the other humanoids is NOT explicitly mentioned in the texts, but rather my derivation due to the date given to the extinction of the once proposed humanoid homo florensis - my mistake.

Regarding the 40,000 year date - you're missing the point though really.

I agree that it doesn't line up perfectly in the sense that one might expect remains closer to the flood, which would truly make the story perfectly align with archaelogical evidence, but the point is that the possibility isn't hurt, the substance hasn't changed and most importantly;

WE HAVE NOT DISCOVERED ALL ANCIENT HUMANOID SKELETONS YET!

Therefore nothing has been truly falsified. We are getting onto the loose theme of contradictions at least though - finally. However, I'd say you contradicted the incorrect date I gave rather than the core story.
edit on 15-5-2015 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join