Hi all
An interesting and revealing view to approaching our ancestorial history for me, is to look at the findings of Zacharia Sitchin's research over a long period. I have only started to research his material in correlation with material from other researchers and have come to the conclusion that in order to see the picture, findings from all research fields must be brought together to complete the puzzle. Researchers focus on their own disciplines and make their own claims - I try to put facts together in my own little way to gain some understanding and to make sense of it all.
Interestingly, when I look at the emerging picture, all facts complement each other instead of conflict. (especially in terms of events described in the Old Testament of the Holy Bible). Search for the missing books of Jasher and Enoch, download them and read and discover why these highly important books frightened the compilers of the Old Testament and why they were excised from the Bible. What you will read here finds an echo in the "Lost book of Enki".
Got to go, be back again!

Originally posted by Aelita
I keep wondering why the creationist folks are so hung up on the evolution aspect (or lack of such). The Universe is so incredibly rich in all kinds of phenomena, which really beg a question about how they ever came to be. Even the structures of the matter disctribution detected in large scale sky surveys.

My theory is that most of these people don't know much about science in general... While the evolution is on the surface because well, animals are easy to observe.

i can answer that for you most people dont believe in the big bbang or not because from birth they ere told to sdo so but i can gladly say that i dont believe in evolution b/c lack of evidence it is a nonsensical idea and there is even less evidence now i dont think that they should teach evolution in schools as welll b/c

1 they are willing to take the ten commandments out of a public place to not offend other religions but cant remove evolution for christians

2 evolution has lost much of its credibility to science

3 the theory contradicts much of what theyve been taught where did the beginning of evolution began sir spontaneos generation i thaught pastuer already disproved that how can these things be "progressing in complexity" if the laws of thermodynamics clearly contradict that statement


there are more reasons but im too lazy to put all of them a good reading would be by Scott M. Huse in "The Collapse of Evolution"

Originally posted by hedragon
Hi all
An interesting and revealing view to approaching our ancestorial history for me, is to look at the findings of Zacharia Sitchin's research over a long period. I have only started to research his material in correlation with material from other researchers and have come to the conclusion that in order to see the picture, findings from all research fields must be brought together to complete the puzzle. Researchers focus on their own disciplines and make their own claims - I try to put facts together in my own little way to gain some understanding and to make sense of it all.
Interestingly, when I look at the emerging picture, all facts complement each other instead of conflict. (especially in terms of events described in the Old Testament of the Holy Bible). Search for the missing books of Jasher and Enoch, download them and read and discover why these highly important books frightened the compilers of the Old Testament and why they were excised from the Bible. What you will read here finds an echo in the "Lost book of Enki".
Got to go, be back again!

a lot of them dont conflict htat supposedly conflicted before but no offense you arent really SUDYING the bible you are looking at small portions of it and if you looked at the whole pic then you will realize that they still do contradict

jasher and enoch are onn of the many forgotten books that i include to be inspired and i believe in a little bit ore to say most of sitchens theorie im reading him now nd hes on what ive believed nd told my family about for quit a while

Originally posted by skep
Couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I have tried to explain to some in here that the use of theory to describe some idea they have or mantra they've been fed is invalid. I suggested they attempt to understand what a theory is and the requirements a theory must meet without giving them the correct definition. I feel they should have to spend 10 minutes to find out on their own.
Crristians and other fundies (and this is not say that most christians are fundies because the majority are not. Fundies make up about 17 to 19 % of professing chriatians most of whom are patently insincere in their claimed belief).
I think the main reason christians hate evolution is that for those of them who read and comprehend above the 6th grade level (and this is not the majority) know that evolution killed religion as it is practiced in this country and most middle eastern countries. The irony here is that evolution has not the least bit of interest in religion, even the fundie kind. The reccognition of evolution is not open to debate. It is not a matter of opinion, as you well know, it is sound theory and therefore not relatefd to religion or other metaphysics in any way.
skep

then give me the proof you have on evolution

let me give you a secret i have a rule in my researching i always investigate both arguments thoroughly as possible until i reach a conclusion and even if the side that contradicts what i believe in most to keep a clear conscience i have to believe in it

i did that with ID and TOE and found out evolution doesnt have any solid proof of itself other thant the geologic timetable and that can be disproved if you believe in the Gap Theory in craetionism

Originally posted by skep
My guess is that fundamentalists make up less than 20% of our population
skep

the world population or the United states?

The first time a theory fails at any of these it is thrown out the closest window.

that's the way science use to operate, but no longer. Now when contradictory evidence arises, it is skewed, swept under the rug, thrown out the proverbial window; or simply tossed into the crowded skeleton closet. Scientists today do not like being wrong. Things are not carried out the way they always were, and haven't been ever since Darwin and Einstein. Everyone is too busy sitting on either, or both of their laps to realize that there are many blaring fallacies in their theories. Science, an inherently subjective art, has been tainted further by personal, commercial and political agenda.

Evolutionists and anthropologists claim that the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between one and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artifacts. By this scenario, they would have buried at least four billion bodies. If the evolutionary time-scale is correct, buried human bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years. Like the dinosaurs presumably have, there should have been uncountable fossils.

By their time-scale, it is supposed that there should have been four billion Stone Age skeletons, and certainly countless buried artifacts. There should be multiple millions of them in fact, given the enormous time-frame they claim, yet only a few thousand bones and fragments have ever been found and these are far too few to fit the Stone Age theory and the thousands of years it was supposed to have taken place. Why worry about a “missing link” when the entire chain is missing!? In fact, not even one single set of transitional fossils (like reptiles becoming birds) has ever been found in all of human history. They can not find what has never existed.

An accidental world, with chance as a mechanism for life forms, must fall upward against science’s axiom that out of nothing comes nothing. Cause and effect demands some Causer prior to nothingness. Chance, to Emanuel Kant, is an excuse for ignorance. Chance is not even a noun, it can do nothing of itself, it has no power to effect, it is not an x-factor, as many are convinced. And chance is not composed of physical matter. Regardless of those facts, to those who believe in evolution or carry a disbelief in Creationism or Intelligent Design, chance was the x-factor in everything coming into existence. Otherwise, they must admit that they don’t know how matter, and thus life, came into existence. They simply don’t know and can only placate theories (subjective). We should expect science to deal only with facts (objective), approaching things rationally and logically. They have not. Evolution remains in the textbooks. Believing in something does not make it true. Humanity once believed the earth was flat, however their belief in that did nothing to change the fact that it was spherical.

Another consideration is that it is impossible for matter to create itself, spontaneously, out of nothing. Evolutional theory is of no help: it doesn’t explain how matter was formed and thus by extension, it can not explain the origin of life. In fact over time, cells do not gain additional DNA
(which, in evolution, must be present for transitional stages), they lose DNA integrity. Each cell is like a carbon copy of the original. With each passing day, the cells are making copies of each other
and becoming a little less like the original. The cells are not evolving, they are aging. I’ve got more wrinkles today than ten years ago. Natural Selection produces extinction of the species, not a proliferation of it. Cells do not improve or become superior over time, but in fact do just the opposite. The Law of Entropy says that cells break down or smooth out over time and lose their cellular integrity. It is the polar opposite of a theoretical, evolutional process.

The general approach for those who don’t believe in a Creator, the argument or theory is an equation: Space + Time + Chance = Everything. How can, in what in reality is, 0 + 0 + 0 = everything!? The space did not cause matter to come into existence, nor did time. Neither can chance influence or create events. Can being come from non-being… spontaneous generation of matter from nothing? Can chance actually do anything or cause something to happen? No. Chance is only the likelihood of something occurring. There must first come “cause” before an effect can occur. An a cause logically demand a Causer…and a Creator. Chance is powerless. It can not make something happen or create something from nothing. It is a non-being.

In Darwin’s Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection believed that fossil evidence to prove his theory of gradual progression from one species into another, would eventually be found. It has been 150 years and no such evidence exists. Where is the fossil evidence of lizards transitioning into birds? This I would like to see, since their lung functions are so radically different, it could not have happened gradually nor rapidly. No fossil transitions equal no proof. There is not even one single example of this anywhere on earth.

Darwin and most scientists at the time, believed that cells were simple, living organisms, with only a few parts. This was thought to enable easy mutation or change into different kinds of cells. Cells are extremely complex, with over one trillion different functions and processes. More complex than the New York City Metro Transit’s transportation system (including the computers that help run it). Scientists claim they know all of the key elements that were present when life began on earth, but the fact is that when they bring these elements and conditions under a similar environment, (even voltage equal to lightning, so often claimed as the catalyst), they have not once created life or a life form.

100 hundred million fossils have been examined and not so much as one record of a progression into a different species are to be found. Instead, what has been found and widely known as the Cambrian Explosion (of nearly every species) shows life forms showing up, all at once!. It isn’t called an explosion because it happened slowly. It is astonishingly instantaneous; almost like a rapid creation event.

Cellular mutation is not an improvement of the organism. As cells age, it is like the original copy of the cell has a copy made of itself. Then, this copy is copied. That copy is likewise copied, until it becomes much less like the original and has lost much of it’s original cellular integrity. It is not mutating, it is decaying. Entropic change moves into a more disorderly, chaotic state, not an
improved one. Simply put, it is a dispersal of it’s mechanical energy, not a reorganizing or improving of the specie’s cellular integrity from one type into another, superior specie. It is a smoothing out process, not a building up process. Darwin realized there was not sufficient fossil evidence in his day to prove his theory of gradual progression, that is from one species into another. And even his own colleagues noted flaws in his naturalistic speculation. He predicted they would eventually be found. They have not.

Sir Arthur Keith, a noted anthropologist and devout evolutionist, admits that ”Evolution is unproved and un-provable. We [evolutionists] believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable?“. Hundreds of millions of fossils have been studied, categorized and yet not one transitional set of fossils, of even one species has ever been found.

Can intellectuals believe in God? Absolutely! Many intellectuals believe in God. As a matter of fact, your intellect has very little to do with your belief in God. Out of all of the secular professional groups, do you know what professional group has the highest number of believers in God? The astronomers do. Over 90% of the world's great astronomers believe in God. Why? Because they have studied the heavens. It's not a sign of intelligence not to believe in God. If you're intelligent, you have to say, "This must have all been created and organized."

Scientists may see this as an embarrassment some day, like their predecessors who were once convinced that the earth was flat. Frankly, fossil records simply do not support any credible evidence for evolution. Why continue looking for what obviously does not exist?

Maybe I am totally alone on this thought, but I see things in this way.

Yes I may be completely wrong or I might even be correct.

I think you will find, that it is the other end of the real self, “collective” of all of us, that has in fact created our so called Universe.

I stress that I am Not religious, but am probably the worlds greatest sceptic in fact.

But for anything to exist and to change at all, requires certain components.

First being “awareness”.

Second “the ability to organise”.

Thirdly “the ability to process in some way” (Not necessarily in Binary)

And Fourthly “the ability to present something that can be detected and experienced”.

Surely this requires some degree of Intelligence, of some sort!

Even in Darwin’s Theories (Note I wrote “Theories”) for this to naturally occur, requires the above components.

And what produces the organisation of a so called "Natural" happening.

Why do Primates or humankind, have such a huge problem, in solving such a simple challenge.

And why are so many people, unable to accept that a human being is nothing more, than a “Primate” and is nothing more special, than anything else, but is only as special, as the rest of his universe.

When Humankind throws all the "B.S.", from science and religion out and looks at his world again, with his eyes open, Humankind might just be able to see things, as they are and not as they want them to be.

Science its self is only another religion!

It is full of theories and No facts, so Science is really only white collar Religion or Philosophy.

Hell, if you look at the Demonstration that "Lord Rutherford", from little old New Zealand, used in Verifying "the splitting of the atom", you soon come to realise, that all he created, was a Hydrogen Light, one end glowed red and the other Blue.

Man this is State of The Art Technology or what, or is it?

But he got a "Nobel prise" for doing this, from other "Primates"!

Great Monkey?

Sounds like the Nobel Prise winning, is More Important than The Truth.

Lighten up earth and lets have a laugh at ourselves, then re-look at everything again, we might just learn something!

One thing for sure, is our "concept" of everything will keep changing from generation to generation, until we find The Truth and Then it will no longer change, from Theory to Theory, but Knowledge will increase year by year without changing!

But hey Guys, I am only an old fool, about to pass away, in a few years.

But I can guarantee this, I shall leave a Technology behind me, in Little old New Zealand, that will change the understanding of this world, or maybe, humankind is Not ready for a change yet, until a few more generations shall pass by.

Friendly Regards,

The Matrix Traveller...

I think we should be skeptical of both creationism and evolutionism. Both are establishment explainations of how we went from ape to man and both don't give us the full picture. Now I don't agree with Zecariah Sitchins explaination that aliens created us, but I do agree with him on that the Bible(Old Testement)was heavily edited from the Sumerian source myths such as the Enuma Elish(Creation Tablets) Ask any bible thumper Preacher such questions as what does the passage mean when it says"Now man has became as one of us knowing good and evil" You can really pick that one apart in the original Hebrew(I don't know Hebrew and am not an expert just going by what a lot of scholars have said) Also does that mean that God or Gods(Elohim) knows both good and evil with this question now you can get into a big time argument with this. God hates evil blah. blah. blah. blah.Ask them about the gap theory ask them,ask them.etc. I've done my own studying and all these contridictions are so obvious its not funny. Except most conservative scholars get around this issue by saying that one of the rules of interpretation is that the Bible doesn't contridict itself. Also the Bible and christian doctrine has been having to react and adapt to science ever since the Renaissance.

[edit on 6-11-2008 by theEXxman]

Originally posted by theEXxman
I think we should be skeptical of both creationism and evolutionism. Both are establishment explainations of how we went from ape to man and both don't give us the full picture.

At least Evolutionary Theory gets updated as new information is known - that is science. Creationism is something else entirely, it's dogmatic and will not change as more facts are known, and so disregards reality.

Being open mindd is about considering other peoples beliefs and discussing the merits of them in the search of truth. it is NOT claiming thats there is no truth. so we should treat all beliefs as equally valid. This about it; if there is no truth, and my opinion is equally valid to yours, then why SHOULD i be open minded? I don't need to consider your beliefs as i already have my own, and i cant improve on what i already have as there is no objective truth to be open minded for. Someone once said "Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out!"

Sparks

Originally posted by Good Wolf

Originally posted by theEXxman
I think we should be skeptical of both creationism and evolutionism. Both are establishment explainations of how we went from ape to man and both don't give us the full picture.

At least Evolutionary Theory gets updated as new information is known - that is science. Creationism is something else entirely, it's dogmatic and will not change as more facts are known, and so disregards reality.

This depends on your definition of "creationism". In fact, creationism could very easily include evolution.

LOL I find this subject interesting as I seem to be the only one thinking the way I do.Why do we have to have been created by a god?If you could create an omeba,which by the way you can't,Would you want it to worship you?Or would you just wander off and see what else you could create?It seems to me that if there is a being that created what I see then my intelligence is almost nonexhistant in comparison.Why would this creature if it exhists be so vain as to want my worship?Does a creator even exhist?I have no idea and neither does anyone else,no more than I know what happens when I die.A lot of people have faith in god.
To them I say more power to you.A lot of people do not believe and again I say more power to you.As for me I don't worry about it as my belief is that if I continue after death maybe I'll find out.

If we are honest with ourselves, Creation is the motive under laying our existence.

Creationism and Evolutionism are two completely different subjects, and are Not strictly opposite.

It can't be denied, that we Create all the time.

We "Create" a need for a debate,.

We "Create" a need to go to work.

We "Create" the need to get out of bed in the morning.

We "Create" the need to own a business.

We "Create" a need to provide a means of transport.

In fact we Create All the time.

So the "Common Theme" here, is "Creation" whether we like it or not.

But this is no justification for religion.

We learn how to Create.....

We Create Ideas...

And we Create Answers, whether right or wrong, but at the same time we still get involved, in the Art of Creation...

Evolution; if it truly exists, has Also been created by perhaps the need to survive in this environment, or perhaps adapt in order to survive.

We Create the need for Politics, and we Create the need for religion and the need for philosophy and theology but this does Not affect the existing truth in any way.

Evolution, Philosophy, theology and all our basic expressions are in response to the need we have Created.

I do Not Follow after any religious order, nor do I follow after the theories of Evolution but rather I search for Truth, knowledge, understanding and hopefully wisdom.

But these qualities, can Not be found in Religion, Theology or Evolutionary theory, nether does Science, provide All the answers.

However I do often refer to the ancient writings, as they are an expression of a section of humankind, perhaps mumbo jumbo or perhaps cloaked information, about something Not understood at all by humankind and has become polluted by the misinterpretation of both religious and non religious peoples.

Science is a tricky one, as it can lead us in either direction.

It can deceive us and it can give us some True knowledge, but can never be complete, instead it is a never ending progress in either direction.

You only need to see the Technical disasters, introduced by humankind, and in other cases the technological achievements, fitting for this stage of development, or perhaps Awakening.

But Science is one of the few professions, that is based on reason, but in saying this, it is based on Human Reason and Philosophy regarding what we want our environment to be and Not what it truly may or may Not be.

My thoughts are; it is time for an Information and Technical Revolution...
But to do this we need to "clean the slate" and start a square one, again.

In order to advance, we need to re-examine ourselves.

The knowledge of our biological make up, may be correct but often it is Not understood in its true context.

As for the origin and make up of our Conscious Identity, we are completely Ignorant.

We perhaps know a little of psychology (sometimes we get it right, while on other occasions we get it wrong) but this is only the behaviour of ourselves and provides nothing at all, about what our Conscious Identity truly is, or where it is from.

Again the Truth can Not be found in Religion, theology, or the study of evolution, as evolution is based on the understanding of humankind only or the interpretation of what we think we have discovered.

We desire to make the pieces fit, from both a religious point of view and a Scientific point of view, to allow ourselves to feel psychologically comfortable.

Are we really this insecure???

But what about the Truth???

And I don't mean from, or according to a humankind point of view but rather what actually is.......

[edit on 15-6-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]