Originally posted by undo
it should be. these were the notes, journals and yes, scientific calculatios of your ancestors. you should not only be interested, you should be devouring it with a scholar's appetite for understanding.

I have the scholar's appetite, trust me. But there are only so many hours in the day, so many days in the weeks, so many weeks etc etc

I am generally quite busy. So much like my responses on here, I use a utilitarian approach. I can't study and know everything. I have other things I must do to maintain my own aims in life. My time here is playtime, I consume books and articles by the bucket load.

But I barely get time to a read a book that is not relevant to my own 'game'. I'm meant to be having a break now, but I have plates spinning like crazy.

And that's fair enough, eh?

[edit on 19-6-2008 by melatonin]

well let me give you a taste then.

according to ancient sumerian-akkadian texts, there were two important figures in ancient Sumer known as Enki and Enlil. (there's some argument as to whether they were brothers or father and son). They had 2 cities along the Euphrates: Eridu and Nibru (Nippur). Both of their "temples" were completely constructed from metal (this is not Sitchin translations, btw. I'm getting this from Pennsylvannia State translations of the texts from that time frame). One of the temples mentioned not only was constructed of metals, it could float on the water, rise up from the water and float above it and fly through the air. It glowed. Made roaring sounds. And had an interior that was "a tangled thread beyond understanding. "

To put that in perspective, consider that following the Black Sea Flood, subsequent replicas were made of mud bricks and the originals were simply gone. Mud brick replicas did not float, fly, roar, or have complicated interiors. The tendency is to assume the originals never existed. But that's a mistake, in my estimation, primarily because they also thought Gilgamesh never existed and just recently found his city of Uruk. It's getting mighty scary for the folks who say our ancient past was just a series of myths about mythological characters. And they didn't just find his city, but his tomb as well, and a monument that describes him just like the texts do.

This is important data in determining the ancient past, no matter what other considerations may be currently under way. We need all the information to be equally evaluated, not just the ideas of guys who lived 300 years ago.



[edit on 19-6-2008 by undo]

Originally posted by undo
This is important data in determining the ancient past, no matter what other considerations may be currently under way. We need all the information to be equally evaluated, not just the ideas of guys who lived 300 years ago.

I don't see why you have such a bug-bear for enlightenment thinkers, not as if the people who came before that didn't have a tendency for meddling with cultural and historical knowledge.


[edit on 19-6-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by undo
i'm telling you the truth.

I'm quite sure you feel you are.

I'll be truthful as well. You might have lost me at floating and flying metal temples.

What makes you think that is real?

A few documents?

Try to be brief, I'm making tea, heh.

another example,

the osirieon is an underground structure in Abydos, Egypt.
it looks nothing like Seti I's temple, but mainstream egyptologists claim it was built by Seti I. now check this out -- margaret murray and sir flinders petrie dug it up in the early 1900s (british archaeologists/egyptologists i think). margaret wrote in her notes that these old egyptian structures are never dated by the name of a pharaoh (because they tended to erase each other's names and write their own in, for example), but rather they were dated by the type of stone, the style and the tooling of the stone. in all ways, the osirieon was totally unlike any structure in Seti I's timeframe. they ignore that today, completely. in fact, they ignore alot of what abydos tells them about the past. they have to or they would have to admit the prior findings are wrong. this has been going on since the enlightenment. to them the idea that God or these mythological beings might exist is simply not acceptable and anything that mentions them should be shunned. baby, bathwater, out the window!

Originally posted by undo
Then Enki raises the city of Eridu from the abyss and makes it float over the water like a lofty mountain.

Almost as terrible a story as the Silmarillion, the pain was a bit shorter though.

Anyway, again, what makes you think it is actually true?

Do you also accept that Gwydion was turned into various animals (pig and some others) as stated in some pagan-sourced Welsh mythology? Do you accept that people have a tendency to embellish events and create stories?

[edit on 19-6-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by undo
depends. these texts sound to be poetic renditions of real events, people, places and things.

So do the welsh myths. Of course, the man to pig thing sort of clinches it for me (and all the other unlikely events).

I'm just wondering why you think they are true. Many myths contain elements of real-world events and locations, makes for more compelling stories, no?

For example, the urban myth about the big snake lying in bed next to the women to measure her up, has vets, snakes and almost all real-world things. But it's very very very unlikely to be true. People like to tell, create, and hear stories. Indeed, we have an appetite for more 'other-worldly' or 'fantastic' stories.

So why would it be anything different in ancient times?

Originally posted by melatonin


Thing is, con, I either am a scientist or I play one on the internet. Amazingly, it doesn't matter

Oh you got one right this time!

my area of expertise, either in reality or during my internet role, isn't even biology.

Ya don't say?? Gee Mel, I'd never guessed.

Thus, I don't present myself as an expert, and therefore it means nada - and I have stated this many times.

Ahh but you DO whether you have said it or not you mention it in the context of many biology arguments the same as you did here saying "We in Science" leaving out the fact the Science you have expertise in and the one centered around the topic of discussion (Biology), which is the point I was making about Atheists in general moreover is what leads to my skepticism

Secondly, even if I was an expert in biology to me it means nothing

Then don't bring it up

. I mix with similar people either everyday in reality or in my internet play and we don't play 'argument from authority'.

Why would you Mel when you obviously think arguing AS the authority works as well, it's just something I think is a load of crap whenever I see you do it.

Thus, I will just as likely feel able to pull apart an apparent expert like Behe or anyone else, if the evidence works (like the fantastic Abbie did with Behe).

Or like Lennox did to Dawkins

However, what I do know is that you certainly couldn't even play one on the internet, as you strikingly show that you surf and post whatever you think contradicts the scientific position without really understanding it and how it relates to data and findings.

No Mel I post what contradicts the pseudo Science of your Darwhining Atheist agenda which doesn't take a helluva lot of Science to do since it too is BUNK

In the field in which I play a scientist on teh intertubz,

Like you play a Scientist on TV?

Whether you or others think I play one or am one. I don't care. It is essentially meaningless here.

Well I can only speak for me Mel and NO I don't think you are a Scientist

Nor do I think you are good at

"Playing" one either

- Con



[edit on 19-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by undo
well it may be, occassionally, but so far, it looks like they are just telling their history the way you might sing the news in the town square. the embellishments appear to be in tone rather than content. here's an interesting piece of data...

Ok, great. So the main point I would make is that it's pretty hard to tell what is embellishment and storytelling from the actual inspiring event(s), if they did exist. To do this, we really need to look to real-world evidence. So if you find the floating flying metal temple, I'll buy it. It's probably more likely than the welsh mythical 'man to pig' event.

I think myths are a great way to get into people's minds (i.e. the perspective of ancient cultures), and it's likely many do contain various degrees of truth. For example, the notion that the biblical flood (and its precursor source) are inspired by local events appears fairly likely. Maybe it was end of last ice-age stuff, maybe more localised.

But I think we do need to question their validity rather than take them purely at face value. Ask the questions, see if we can go beyond the 'scripts'.

The language stuff is interesting. Indeed, much of this sort of analysis appears to give indications of a form of linguistic 'evolution' with the many similarities across europe, india, and elsewhere.

Anyway, glad I was able to have a reasonable discussion with you. I've moved you into my mental 'worth the time' box now.

Take care.


[edit on 19-6-2008 by melatonin]