The Disasters Darwinism brought to Humanity

reply to post by melatonin


it should be. these were the notes, journals and yes, scientific calculations of your ancestors. you should not only be interested, you should be devouring it with a scholar's appetite for understanding. it won't bite you, in fact, if you give it a complete and honest study, you'll learn a whole lot more than you imagined possible. there's 6000 years of human civilization out there. ignoring it, will not make it go away and it certainly can't help answer the questions scientists have today as regards the past if you don't read it.

i mean, here we have literally hundreds of thousands of ancient texts describing all manner of important details about the past, and we ignore them because we're afraid they might mention a supernatural being or mythological figure. it's like throwing the baby out with the bath water. massive over-reaction.



[edit on 19-6-2008 by undo]

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]

reply to post by Conspiriology

"Rest assured that uppity attitude you sense from mel, many others do too. I used to call it "Intellectual snobbery" that writers like him and astyanax would display. One I think is just trying to overcompensate for his low self esteem seeing himself as "not the sharpest knife in the drawer" so he developed a fetish using thesaurus and the other is just plane stuck up cheaply enhancing his ego by belittling others."

Excellent response. I would perhaps add however that all such proponents of evolution, material naturalist and atheist exhibit a much more reactionary and deep seated problem then one centered around their ego; a defensive mechanism that cloaks their 'id' from an unbiased reflection on the consequences of their Godless lives should the God of the Bible in fact be God.

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]

reply to post by melatonin


Because they didn't just meddle with it, they threw it out. All of it. The only thing they retained were the lists they compiled of dynastic egypt, which were themselves a bit shaky because they assumed that only 1 pharaoh served at a time, throughout the history. there's some indication 2 served at the same time, in some cases (upper and lower), which changes the timeline. and if you change the timeline, the other ancient texts start being supported again by the data. see that's one of the ways they claimed the old texts were inaccurate, because end to end solitary pharaohs throws off the entire ancient world. i'm telling you the truth.



[edit on 19-6-2008 by undo]

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!

here you go:


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

Samuel Noah Kramer, Myths of Enki, the Crafty God
www.amazon.com...


The lord established a shrine, a holy shrine, whose interior is elaborately constructed. He established a shrine in the sea, a holy shrine, whose interior is elaborately constructed. The shrine, whose interior is a tangled thread, is beyond understanding. The shrine's emplacement is situated by the constellation the Field, the holy upper shrine's emplacement faces towards the Chariot constellation.

Enki and the World Order
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...


Enki, the lord who determines the fates, built up his temple entirely from silver and lapis lazuli. Its silver and lapis lazuli were the shining daylight. Into the shrine of the abzu he brought joy.

An artfully made bright crenellation rising out from the abzu was erected for lord Nudimmud. He built the temple from precious metal, decorated it with lapis lazuli, and covered it abundantly with gold.

[...]

As it has been built, as it has been built; as Enki has raised Eridug up, it is an artfully built mountain which floats on the water.


Enki's Journey to Nibru
www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk...




[edit on 19-6-2008 by undo]

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]

reply to post by melatonin


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

one reason i believe it to be true is both cities have been found, albeit in the post flood mudbrick construction phases. also, other sites have been found that were once called mythological, like troy and uruk (there's a bunch more but i don't have the list handy).

This vase is also pretty interesting. it's from Abydos, and pre-dates dynastic egypt ever so slightly.
isn't it interesting? a ufologist's dream come true, buried right in abydos

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]

reply to post by melatonin


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...

abzu is the sumerian word for abyss. it was supposedly under enki's eridu and apparently, in the ocean as well.

abdyos (egypt) is a greek word. the egyptian spelling is abdju, which is pronounced abzu. isn't that interesting? we are taught alot of egyptian words in the greek spelling. i think the whole thing needs to be rewritten in every scholarly egyptian work available, with the egyptian words instead. might clear up alot of problems with the timeline.

[edit on 19-6-2008 by undo]

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]

random thoughts:

in the book of the dead (i forget which one but can find it if you need it), it says "Save us from the sons of Osiris." I beileve there's evidence that Osiris was Narmer, and Narmer was Nimrod, Enmerkar and Gilgamesh. It's been puzzling me for awhile now. Why would an egyptian want to be saved FROM (not by) the sons of Osiris? Osiris is a greek word too. The egyptian word(s) for Osiris is Asar, Ausar or Wesir. (Asar was also the name of some bigwig horse god or something, in Palmyra in that timeframe)

If Osiris only had 1 son (Horus), why is the reference plural?
Problems like this, leave huge unfilled gaps that aren't taken seriously so the data is not recovered.

Other unsolved riddles are: if Ra's "Eye" is the sun, why does his "eye" go after and kill almost everybody on the planet, resulting in what sounds like a flood story in the LEGEND OF THE DESTRUCTION OF MANKIND? and more specifically, why does his "Eye" become "Hathor' and why is it called the "most powerful eye on the planet"? There's more to these old stories than story telling. Check out Ra's description: skin like gold, bones like silver, hair like lapis lazuli....now where have we read that before?
www.touregypt.net...

Ever heard of the Etemenanki? It's the Tower of Babel
www.livius.org...

Ever wonder why the ancient history of the chinese is rarely heard of?

Ever wonder why there's not a single human statue before 3900 BC? They are all reptilian, scaly-skinned. The only one that appears to have a human head is from 20000 BC and her head was missing. so they made her a fake one which was not her own head. in fact, you can tell by examining the rest of the statue that it was yet another reptilian statue. it had huge clawed feet, mottled green scaly skin, and a throne surmounted by lizard heads. that's almost 6000 years before Sumer. What are the odds that all statues would be made to look like reptilian humanoids for that long a period of time, if it was just an artistic expression?

Something's just not right about the flippant way our ancient history is handled.



[edit on 19-6-2008 by undo]

reply to post by undo


May I suggest you write the British Museum an email? They can answer every single question you just asked.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by undo

 

May I suggest you write the British Museum an email? They can answer every single question you just asked.

I don't think she is asking questions Dave, she is suggesting some of the most thought provacative questions WE should ALL be asking.


- Con

reply to post by Hollywood11


What most people don't realize is that Darwin was a very religious man, his wife even more so.

When Darwin made his discoveries, he actually waited 20 years to have them revealed, the whole time pondering whether he should reveal them or not, just because he know the church and others would not be happy about it. It would be on the level of committing murder.

I often wonder how different things would of been if he hadn't revealed his findings.
Must of been very difficult for him....

Originally posted by Hollywood11
The Disasters Darwinism brought to Humanity

So there has been some confusion as to what darwinism is. Is it a belief? A philosophy? a science? a worldview?

It is a worldview from the 1800s. In it's principles and ideaology, it reflects the opinions of Darwin himself, and even the societal views of the people of the time!

Evolution is a concept from a time and place where people would be out and out racists . Many people today reject evolution on moral grounds. If evolution is true, clearly some races have evolved better than others, see?

Video-
www.youtube.com...

Yes and the bible was concocted thousand and thousands of years ago!!!
By people who thought the world was flat??? In fact it was the church that
charged the round world theory as heretical and punishable by death. People like you guy's, faithful, well intention are the same people, with views that are 50 to 100+ generations old!!! Leeches cure hemorrhoids is on par with the mindset you guys are promoting ... ( 100 BC practice in the middle east)

Implying that some races are better then others is applying human conjecture to the argument. The "theory" of evolution is a science based upon hundreds on thousands of hours of research by countless men and women. But let me back up - I am of Nordic background - I have extra fatty tissue around my eyes called a nordic fold - Africans do not have this feature... You know why??? because the Nordic fold is a genetic adaptation to the frigid cold of the northern regions of the earth. Also known as evolution...the African lives in a very hot climate hence not fat around the eyes which protect tissues from sub freezing temperatures!

You see, believe in god all you want but please don't expect the rest of the world to pick and choose science based on an ancient book!!! Scientific views do not hinder your relationship with god do they??? God gave you a brain and the power of observation use it!!!