Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
you want to lose another debate skyfloating or you got some excuse why you can't face it ?

Now thats at last an interesting proposal. Since we do nothing but fight here anyway, might as well make it official. One thing is for sure...that your insults would not be enough to win a debate. Since I already completed an ancient-astronaut debate though, it would have to be another topic. Atlantis perhaps.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
you want to lose another debate skyfloating or you got some excuse why you can't face it ?

Now thats at last an interesting proposal. Since we do nothing but fight here anyway, might as well make it official. One thing is for sure...that your insults would not be enough to win a debate. Since I already completed an ancient-astronaut debate though, it would have to be another topic. Atlantis perhaps.

there is nothing in the rules that says you can't debate the same thing with someone else
when did you hear me say anything about Atlantis
obviously you don't have the balls to face me on another ancient astronauts debate so don't bother trying to move the goalposts again
everyone just saw you decline

so you already lost didn't you


btw

In the early 1970s, Crick and Orgel further speculated about the possibility that the production of living systems from molecules may have been a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed it could be spread by intelligent life forms using space travel technology, a process they called “Directed Panspermia”.[49] In a retrospective article,[50] Crick and Orgel noted that they had been overly pessimistic about the chances of abiogenesis on Earth when they had assumed that some kind of self-replicating protein system was the molecular origin of life. Now it is easier to imagine an RNA world and the origin of life in the form of some self-replicating polymer besides protein..

in other words he thought about it and then later decided against it because of new evidence. you could learn from that. And he never said anything about ancient astronauts visiting humanity at all so were you deliberately misunderstanding that one as well like you are with abydos ?

so yes
you're still wrong

Originally posted by kerkinana walsky

obviously you don't have the balls to face me

uh....what?

everyone just saw you decline

the AAT I have debated often and will debate often in the future. no problem with that. I was only suggesting a slight variation on it as it might be odd to debate the exactly same thing again.

so you already lost didn't you

if you say so (yawns).

Originally posted by kerkinana walsky

in other words he thought about it and then later decided against it because of new evidence.

Thats your interpretation of that piece of text? Weird.

you could learn from that. And he never said anything about ancient astronauts visiting humanity at all

He, like many other scientists and researchers have speculated on the possibility and will continue to do so. Whats the big deal? Are we allowed to speculate?

so were you deliberately misunderstanding that one

"deliberately misunderstanding?"

please post any link to any site where Francis Crick discusses his belief in ancient astronauts interacting with mankind

I think you'll find as has been already pointed out that its pseudo historians who don't change their facts when new evidence is presented
you are a perfect example of that

Originally posted by kerkinana walsky
please post any link to any site where Francis Crick discusses his belief in ancient astronauts interacting with mankind

So first you claim that Crick changed his mind about his starseed idea and then you request a link to show he ever had that idea?

NOW SERIOUSLY: How can he have changed his mind about something he never said? Make up your mind.

I think you'll find as has been already pointed out that its pseudo historians who don't change their facts when new evidence is presented
you are a perfect example of that

And followed by yet another insult. This is getting lame.

Originally posted by rapturas

wow.

My degree is master mason, but here`s a Disclaimer: None of the opinions I express here, reflect the opinions of freemasonry, alright? They are all only my private views. The interest of freemasons in ancient egypt is due to some of us believing that our teachings and rituals dont only go back to the 17th Century or to the Templars but to ancient egypt. You might want to open a thread asking about the connection. You will find some responders who say there is none and that they dont believe it, and you will find other masons who say there is and who believe it. Should make for an interesting thread.

I wanted to chime in here about the discussion that used to be happening concerning language.

It's pretty obvious that you guys haven't thought very much about this and are throwing stuff at the wall hoping something sticks.

The arguement of heaven = sky is sound. If you go back to something like the bible and it's revisions, you will see that many things are almost unrecognizable by our standards of english. Making the bible a very dense read. Same with Shakespeare.

The thinking that it could be the translation of sky to heaven may be on the shoulders of the people translating the heiroglyphs, and their shortcomings or limitations.

If you found an ancient tablet that described (in ancient terms) something along the lines of:

"Great smoke and fires in the heavens. Everyone got the plague, earth rumbled and shook, darkness for days"

It wouldn't be hard to attribute those things to something like an ancient witnessing or retelling a nuclear bomb, but give that to someone from the 16th century and you'd have a very different translation.

There is no way someone from the 16th century would have any idea of what that was describing. It's the same with flight. If a 16th century archeologist (I'm just throwing 16th century out there as a number) found something describing space travel or flight, he wouldn't be able to translate it because he wouldn't have the requisite knowledge to relate it to.

What the TS is saying is that maybe it's time to look at these things again, with our new understanding of what's possible in physics and see if there is any evidence that would cause a revision to the thinking of ancient peoples and their relationship with their gods.

Howdy Undo

You appear to have gone off the handle due to your misreading the question

The following text is what I was asking for a link to, my apologies for not making it clear that I was referring to your previous message not one several pages back:

the next problem is, there were some big changes in world history prior to the time. for example, the library at alexandria was burned down countless times. each time taking most of the accumulated knowledge of cultures other than the Grecian, Holy Roman and Pagan Roman empires. also, prior to that, the Sumerian flood, not only eradicated Sumer, it wiped out much of their history. to this day, we still believe they built only mudbrick ziggurats with simple interiors, during sumer, when it was obvious from their own texts (found some 4700 years later), that at least Enki and Enlil had temples composed entirely of metal, and in the case of Enki's temple, it could float on the water, hover, give advice, had a door that could snatch a man, roared, shone so brightly it lit up the area, had an interior that was a tangled thread beyond understanding, and so forth)

To THIS comment you added no link to an earlier post some pages back you did link to Tinyurl.

The lord of the abyss, the king Enki,
Enki the Lord who decrees the fates,
Built his house of silver and lapis lazuli;
Its silver and lapis lazuli, like sparkling light,
The father fashioned fittingly in the abyss.
The creatures of bright countenances and wise, coming forth from the abyss,
Stood all about the lord Nudimmud;
The pure house he built
He ornamented it greatly with gold,
[...]
Then Enki raises the city of Eridu from the abyss and makes it float over the water like a lofty mountain.

You are rather creative in your interpretation wouldn't you say? This is mythical statement...so how does a lofty mountain float on water?

Your above English translation which you didn't link to shows you made a number of creative "interpretations" which was my point.

The controversy is that Kramer (whose book I have on my shelf) didn't believe - nor did the University, or the translators - beleive these are real - you imply that they are. That is the question or controversy. There are lofty mountains of imagination when men talk of gods - it is later modern men who seem to think these things were not myths but "real".





[edit on 28/11/07 by Hanslune]