Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Not just along the same lines of meditation, it is the same thing experiencing NOW. You realize this is very difficult if you do NOT live in a monastic society because half of your waking life is spent in meditation doing nothing but either time traveling or in deep introspection/communing with God. There is a thought exists; primitive man never needed language because IT was telepathic and something changed in its DNA that required speech (in order for the human to begin to lie to each other). This was not necessarily a good thing.

mOjOm: For sure. In fact I'd say it's almost impossible. You would basically have to be either away from other people or only with others who are also silent. Because having to listen to words your mind would have no choice but to interpret the meaning of those words and would never be able to stop thinking in words either. Your internal dialog would persist.

So, was this a random mutation (there is a gene recently discovered for language/capacity of) or a planned event 'on purpose' to boomerang the human into a higher experimental form (and lets give cats the ability to vocalize; which they do, just not anything other than within another cats understanding).

originally posted by: TheLord
Well, based on the Lost Book of Enki, humans were created from genetic experimentation by Lord Enki.

Sitchin was a hack...

See www.sitchiniswrong.com...

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: TheLord
Well, based on the Lost Book of Enki, humans were created from genetic experimentation by Lord Enki.

Sitchin was a hack...

See www.sitchiniswrong.com...

Have you read "The Twelfth Planet"; are you a Sumerian cuneiform language scholar? You should be able to give the bullet points of this website instead of having others do the gumshoeing.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I listened to an interview with the sites creator. Sitchin was not properly trained in Akkadian and made up whole sentences about things which the Sumerians didn't even have words for.

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I listened to an interview with the sites creator. Sitchin was not properly trained in Akkadian and made up whole sentences about things which the Sumerians didn't even have words for.

Have you read "The Twelfth Planet"? How would you know anything (as balanced and fair) without reading his works and having a proper perspective? What credentials does the site creator have? Properly trained in Akkadian WHAT? Sumerians created the first interpretive language (not representing vocalizations/phonetic).

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Have you read "The Twelfth Planet"? How would you know anything (as balanced and fair) without reading his works and having a proper perspective? What credentials does the site creator have? Properly trained in Akkadian WHAT? Sumerians created the first interpretive language (not representing vocalizations/phonetic).

Nobody except the Ancient Aliens true-believers and those otherwise influenced by their cognitive bias respect the work of Sitchin. He has been shown far and wide to have been pulling his translations out of his arse. See en.wikipedia.org... for details.


Here are Dr. Heiser's credentials -

Mike Heiser earned an M.A. (1998) and Ph.D. (2004) in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His dissertation was entitled, "The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature" (English translation: the dissertation dealt with the presence of a pantheon in the Hebrew Bible and the binitarian nature of ancient Israelite religion and Judaism, a backdrop for the the belief in the deity of Christ in the New Testament). Before going to the UW-Madison, Mike also earned an M.A. in Ancient History from the University of Pennsylvania (1992; major fields, Ancient Syria-Palestine and Egyptology). Mike can do translation work in roughly a dozen ancient languages, among them Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, Egyptian hieroglyphs, Phoenician, Moabite, and Ugaritic cuneiform. He has also studied Akkadian and Sumerian independently.

Mike has taught over two dozen courses over the span of 15 years of undergraduate teaching. He is currently the Academic Editor at Logos Bible Software in Bellingham, WA. In 2007 the Pacific Northwest region of the Society of Biblical Literature awarded Mike its Regional Scholar award. You can learn more about Dr. Heiser by visiting his homepage or viewing his resume/CV.

Mike is probably best known to those interested in the ancient astronaut subject through his many appearances on Coast to Coast AM. He has also spoken a several conferences. Some of his presentations are available on DVD here.

You can contact Mike here. Dr. Heiser is certainly willing to debate Zecharia Sitchin or anyone else who promotes his ideas.

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
Have you read "The Twelfth Planet"? How would you know anything (as balanced and fair) without reading his works and having a proper perspective? What credentials does the site creator have? Properly trained in Akkadian WHAT? Sumerians created the first interpretive language (not representing vocalizations/phonetic).

RTSON:Nobody except the Ancient Aliens true-believers and those otherwise influenced by their cognitive bias respect the work of Sitchin. He has been shown far and wide to have been pulling his translations out of his arse. See en.wikipedia.org... for details.

Not Wikipedia?!. Dr. Heiser needs to write/publish his theories in book form in such a public format can be critically reviewed by his peers and an audience of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of lay people. Have you read "The Twelfth Planet" by Zecharia Sitchin?

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Please. Heiser is way more respected in his field than Sitchin will ever be. No I don't believe I have read Sitchin's book, but I am well aware of his claims.

Just because some nut manages to get published does not make him a respected scholar..

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Please. Heiser is way more respected in his field than Sitchin will ever be. No I don't believe I have read Sitchin's book, but I am well aware of his claims.
Just because some nut manages to get published does not make him a respected scholar..

Not just one book defines a true nut ball scholar (many books perhaps) or an entire series of many books. What is Heiser's "field" exactly, who is his publisher and what are the Titles/subjects he's published under. It could be important. I look at many reference points to tell a truth that reveals the reason: What am I, what is my purpose and why am I in existence NOW. Those that resonate are parts of the puzzle that answer these questions. I have many sources that make sense (connecting of the dots). It is different for everyone as each one of us are on separate paths to the same whole (or understanding of our creator). Does it matter the informational path; for some its the Bible, others Whitely Strieber; or Isaac Asimov. Who cares as long as an awakening of some kind occurs. You would truly dislike Terrence McKenna.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I just gave you his field above - he's a scholar in ancient semitic languages. His works are varied and would take a lot of space here to showcase, however they are listed in his CV here www.michaelsheiser.com... (warning PDF link). Here are the 25 peer reviewed titles he has put out since 2001 -

2015
 “Giants—Greco-Roman Antiquity,” in the Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception, vol. 10
(Berlin: Verlag Walter de Gruyter, 2015)
 Review of Yahweh’s Council: Its Structure and Membership (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2
Reihe 65; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 2014), by Ellen White, in Journal for the Evangelical Study of
the Old Testament 4.1 (2015)
 Review of Divine Presence and Absence in Exilic and Post-Exilic Judaism; edited by Nathan
MacDonald and Izaak J. De Hulster (Studies of the Sofja Kovalevskaja Research Group on Early
Jewish Monotheism, vol. II; Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2, Reihe 61; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2013), in Themelios 40:3 (Nov 2015)
2014
 “Monotheism and the Language of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea
Scrolls,” Tyndale Bulletin 65:1 (2014): 85-100
 Review of An Introduction to Ugaritic by John Huehnergard; Journal for the Evangelical Study of
the Old Testament 3.1 (2014)
2012
 “Divine Council,” in the Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets (Intervarsity Press, 2012)
 “Chaos and Death,” in the Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets (Intervarsity Press, 2012)
 “Destruction,” in the Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets (Intervarsity Press, 2012)
 “Does Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible Demonstrate an Evolution from Polytheism to
Monotheism in Israelite Religion?” Journal for the Evangelical Study of the Old Testament 1:1
(2012): 1-24
2010
 “Should אלהים (ʾelōhîm) with Plural Predication be Translated “Gods”? Bible Translator 61:3 (July
2010): 123-136
 “Did Jesus Allow for Reincarnation? Assessing the Syntax of John 9:3-4,” Scandinavian
Evangelical E-Journal for New Testament Studies 1 (2010): 1-14 (accessible at www.seej.net...)

 Review of The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (Downers
Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press Academic, 2009), by John Walton, Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 53:1 (March 2010): 160-161
2008
 “Divine Council,” in the Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, and Writings
(Intervarsity Press, 2008)
 “Angels and Angel-Like Beings: Greco-Roman Literature,” in the Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its
Reception, vol. 1 (Berlin: Verlag Walter de Gruyter, 2009)
 “Does Deuteronomy 32:17 Assume or Deny the Reality of Other Gods?” Bible Translator 59:3
(July 2008): 137-145
 “Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism? Toward an Assessment of Divine
Plurality in the Hebrew Bible” Bulletin of Biblical Research 18:1 (2008): 1-30.
 Review of Judges (Old Testament Library; Westminster/John Knox, 2008), by Susan Niditch,
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51:3 (2008): 628-629
 Review of The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic
Texts (Oxford, 2003), by Mark S. Smith, Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin (2008)
2007
 “You’ve Seen One Elohim, You’ve Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism’s Use of Psalm 82”
Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies Review 19:1 (2007): 221-266
 “Israel’s Divine Council, Mormonism, and Evangelicalism: Clarifying the Issues and Directions for
Future Study (Response to David Bokovy’s ‘Ye Really ARE Gods: A Response To Michael Heiser
Concerning the LDS Use of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John’),” Foundation for Ancient Research
and Mormon Studies Review 19:1 (2007): 315-323
2006
 Review of Text and History: Old Testament Texts as a Source of Israel’s History, by Jens Bruun
Kofoed (Eisenbrauns, 2004), Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49:1 (March 2006):
137-138
 Review of Twilight of the Gods: Polytheism in the Hebrew Bible, by David Penchansky (Louisville:
Westminster John Knox, 2005), Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 6 (2006-2007); online journal,
www.arts.ualberta.ca...
 “Are Yahweh and El Distinct Deities in Deut. 32:8-9 and Psalm 82?” HIPHIL 3 (2006); online
journal, see-j.net...; posted October 3, 2006.
2001
 “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629 (January-March 2001):
52-74
 "The Mythological Provenance of Isaiah 14:12-15: A Reconsideration of the Ugaritic Material,"
Vetus Testamentum LI:3 (Fall 2001)

a reply to: cooperton

A few people have said this also... This is not a mutation that occurred to benefit the human.

If not for human benefit, then whose (or what?)

ALL BABIES express the lactase gene to digest the mother's milk. Once we go beyond infancy, this gene would commonly be turned off, but we continue to consume lactose into our later years (cow's milk, goat's milk, etc) so in many people the gene remains activated.

This is an epigenetic mechanism.

No, it is not. It is absolutely genetic.

The gene that codes for lactase is called LCT and is 'normally' turned off after infancy. However, the gene MCM6 controls the effectiveness of the LCT gene, and that is where the tolerance mutations occur. There are at least four different known genetic mutations that occurred in different parts of the world that prevent the 'lactose tolerant' switch from being turned off - this is an example of 'convergent evolution' - different mutations that accomplish the same general thing - to keep the lactose tolerant gene turned on.

Mutation T-13910 is most common in Europeans and in North Africans; G-13915 is common in the Arabian Peninsula and also occurs in northern Kenya and Sudan; G-13907 was identified in Ethiopia and northern Sudan and Kenya; C-14010 is found in Tanzania, Kenya, and southern Africa. These are all GENETIC MUTATIONS - absolutely NOT epigentic.

Milk genes: Why only some of us can drink milk

MCM6 contains regions that can enhance the activity of lactase genes. This makes sense. Lactose intolerance occurs because lactase gene production is slowed and stopped naturally in the Class Mammalia. To keep the lactase gene producing, it is not necessary to change the gene itself. What matters is controlling the switch(es) that slow it down and turn it off. And that’s what the lactase-related MCM6 mutations do: govern how the lactase gene behaves. They keep the switch set at ON.

I see so many people confusing "evolution" with epigenetics...

And you are, apparently, one of the biggest offenders in this regard. Epigenetics is an exciting 'new' area for research but it is really ignorant to think that it turns genetics on its head. There is no magic in epigenetics, it may provide some wonderful insights into phenomenon that were previously poorly understood, but it does not disprove genetics or provide a basis for you to wave your fingers over the keyboard and declare everything you think is wrong about evolution is accounted for by some magical triumph of "Lamarkianism" over "Darwinism". It just ain't gonna happen.

Once more, 'evolution' means 'change over time'. Nothing more, nothing less.

If an epigenetic process results in a 'permanent' change (that is, generational, passed on from parent to offspring) in the expression of particular genes or the proteins or whatever, then that is an evolutionary process. Evolution was noticed and studied before genetics was known to have anything to do with it, and both were noticed and studied before DNA was known to have anything to do with it. Just because we know a lot, doesn't mean that we know everything. The concept that 'we know all we need to know, we don't need to know any more' is not one that is familiar to scientific mind - I'll leave it to you to guess which minds possess that concept and hold it dear.

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
Specifically; scholarship regarding the deciphering of Sumerian Cuneiform clay tablet impressions.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

I gave you that above - the guy can sight-read Akkadian cuneiform - something Sitchin could never do.

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I gave you that above - the guy can sight-read Akkadian cuneiform - something Sitchin could never do.

So what is the entire Sumerian creation belief as he sight reads interprets it?

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I gave you that above - the guy can sight-read Akkadian cuneiform - something Sitchin could never do.

So what is the Sumerian creation belief as he sight reads it?

Why don't you go find out for yourself?

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: vethumanbeing

I gave you that above - the guy can sight-read Akkadian cuneiform - something Sitchin could never do.

So what is the Sumerian creation belief as he sight reads it?

Why don't you go find out for yourself?

I know what it is and don't have to retrace past steps.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Well I'm not your damned secretary.

You know, I'd hope you'd extend this level of dogged critical cross-examination to the religious fairy stories presented by the creationists... I would hope that, but I seriously doubt you do that hey..

originally posted by: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Well I'm not your damned secretary.

You know, I'd hope you'd extend this level of dogged critical cross-examination to the religious fairy stories presented by the creationists... I would hope that, but I seriously doubt you do that hey..

I am not of the 'dogmatic' sort so there is no point in pursuing that line of questioning; as one will fail against a hardily well held 'belief system' (especially if thought suspiciously to be insane thinking); perpetrated on the masses by others; who's to say exactly the import or export of these false or true ideas are for the good or an evil intent. What does your moral meter tell you? You identify Creationists with Religious Dogma Sorts?

a reply to: vethumanbeing

ReturnofTheSonOfNothing gave you some extremely good advice.

I spent MANY hours researching this topic last year and my results mirror his.

Sitchin and Heiser are on completely opposite spectrum's.

Sitchin's work is fraudulent and a complete fabrication.

The evidence for this is extensive and undeniable.

Several others have confirmed it as well.

Below is a link to a post that contains a huge amount of info on this...

Independent researchers Michael Heiser, PhD and Jonathan Grey also found Mr. Sitchin's translations and story of the planet Nibiru to be fraudulent and a fabrication. Even more damning is that the "Ancient Sumerian Texts" that Zecharia says support all of his claims DON'T EVEN EXIST!!!"

Sitchin was an intelligence operative for the Global Elite

The "Ancient Aliens Debunked" documentary exposes all of the lies behind this fraud:

"...everything Ancient Aliens says about the Annunaki comes from a man named Zecharia Sitchin. To sum up, almost everything that Ancient Aliens says about the Annunaki is untrue, which is not surprising considering they copy and pasted almost everything in this section from the books of Zecharia Sitchin."

“Frankly, the Sumerian text about the Anunnaki was a work of fiction. And due to its clever mixing of some truth with the error, it has been mistaken as fact by some modern writers.

Aliens The Deadly Secret

I have long regarded the fact that the late Mr. Sitchen maintained offices in Rockefeller Center with a great deal of suspicion, and have, I must be frank, also entertained his sudden popularity and publications has perhaps being deliberately promoted by a financial elite, a kind of disinformation operation, and as any disinformation specialist will acknowledge, to be effective, the operation must contain elements of truth. Link

Sumerian text! HERE IT COMES… There are NO SUCH texts. Not anywhere! Did you get that? In the entire cuneiform record there is not one single text that says any of these things. These texts do not exist. They are all made up! None of these things existed except in Mr Sitchin’s head..." Sitchin fiction

Ancient Aliens Debunked is a 3 hour refutation of the theories proposed on the History Channel series Ancient Aliens. It is essentially a point by point critique of the "ancient astronaut theory" which has been proposed by people like Erich von Däniken and Zecharia Sitchin as well as many others.

:head-desk

This is like literally the one thing Murgatroid is right about (and for often the wrong reason, but you can't have everything can you?)