reply to post by believer74
i learned about the sumerians in both high school and college
also learned about ancient mesopotamia
and im pretty sure darwins theory of evolution is pretty correct
also the bible yea real credible source of information...
Latest 2010 information regarding Nibiru/2012 here, page 31
privacy
reply posted on 17-4-2011 @ 08:46 AM by believer74
reply to post by caf1550
Darwins' theory is one mans idea of how we came to be.. now widely accepted as the truth but the clue is in the title 'Theory' as in 'hmm.. maybe?' if we evolved from monkeys as darwin states then how come in the millions of years that we as humans have been here the monkeys haven't carried on evolving producing more humans as the years have passed? as for the bible? well admittedly it was once considered by me as the worlds biggest work of fiction but now? not so sure.. and if you learnt about the Summerians then you know of their opinions on how the human race was created ( or maybe it shows mummification?.. even that beating the egyptians by a few years.. lol )
Darwins' theory is one mans idea of how we came to be.. now widely accepted as the truth but the clue is in the title 'Theory' as in 'hmm.. maybe?' if we evolved from monkeys as darwin states then how come in the millions of years that we as humans have been here the monkeys haven't carried on evolving producing more humans as the years have passed? as for the bible? well admittedly it was once considered by me as the worlds biggest work of fiction but now? not so sure.. and if you learnt about the Summerians then you know of their opinions on how the human race was created ( or maybe it shows mummification?.. even that beating the egyptians by a few years.. lol )
reply posted on 17-4-2011 @ 10:28 AM by DJW001
reply to post by believer74
Your understanding of evolutionary biology is at the same level as your understanding of astronomy and archaeology. There is universal consensus among scientists that Darwin's concept of natural selection is correct; modern biology and medicine count on it. Darwin never stated that humans were descended from monkeys, rather that both humans and monkeys descended from a common ancestor; both evolved from a common ancestor. Monkeys, too, are the product of natural selection and have developed adaptations and refinements differing from both humans and our common shrew-like ancestor. If you know about the Sumerians, then you know that their beliefs on how the human race was created involved mud, beer and fear. Sitchin did not understand Sumerian, he twisted the work of others to suit his agenda. As for the "theory" that comet C2010 X-1 is the planet "Nibiru," or a brown dwarf or whatever... well, that will be pretty definitively proven wrong in just a few months.
Darwins' theory is one mans idea of how we came to be.. now widely accepted as the truth but the clue is in the title 'Theory' as in 'hmm.. maybe?' if we evolved from monkeys as darwin states then how come in the millions of years that we as humans have been here the monkeys haven't carried on evolving producing more humans as the years have passed? as for the bible? well admittedly it was once considered by me as the worlds biggest work of fiction but now? not so sure.. and if you learnt about the Summerians then you know of their opinions on how the human race was created ( or maybe it shows mummification?.. even that beating the egyptians by a few years.. lol )
Your understanding of evolutionary biology is at the same level as your understanding of astronomy and archaeology. There is universal consensus among scientists that Darwin's concept of natural selection is correct; modern biology and medicine count on it. Darwin never stated that humans were descended from monkeys, rather that both humans and monkeys descended from a common ancestor; both evolved from a common ancestor. Monkeys, too, are the product of natural selection and have developed adaptations and refinements differing from both humans and our common shrew-like ancestor. If you know about the Sumerians, then you know that their beliefs on how the human race was created involved mud, beer and fear. Sitchin did not understand Sumerian, he twisted the work of others to suit his agenda. As for the "theory" that comet C2010 X-1 is the planet "Nibiru," or a brown dwarf or whatever... well, that will be pretty definitively proven wrong in just a few months.
reply posted on 25-4-2011 @ 02:10 PM by believer74
reply to post by DJW001
From the Hynek UFO Report.
p24.. "A scientist will confess (in private) to interest in a subject which is controversial or not scientifically acceptable but, generally, will not stand up and be counted in committee. Scientists are deathly afraid of voicing support for anything that might make them look foolish in the eyes of their peers." One might infer this as 'we know but we won't say anything in case we get laughed at'
maybe Darwins theory was accepted because no-one else could be bothered looking for an answer (?).. don't forget.. at the time of Darwin the people were looking for answers and along comes one to prove the origin of the species.. so that must be the truth.. and over time it got accepted as the truth.. and when another theory comes along ( the summerian one) it gets shot down as it questions
( or even dis-proves.. (depending if you believe/accept) the accepted one ( Darwins). and we can't be having that now can we.. after all Darwins theory IS the truth..right (?)
From the Hynek UFO Report.
p24.. "A scientist will confess (in private) to interest in a subject which is controversial or not scientifically acceptable but, generally, will not stand up and be counted in committee. Scientists are deathly afraid of voicing support for anything that might make them look foolish in the eyes of their peers." One might infer this as 'we know but we won't say anything in case we get laughed at'
maybe Darwins theory was accepted because no-one else could be bothered looking for an answer (?).. don't forget.. at the time of Darwin the people were looking for answers and along comes one to prove the origin of the species.. so that must be the truth.. and over time it got accepted as the truth.. and when another theory comes along ( the summerian one) it gets shot down as it questions
( or even dis-proves.. (depending if you believe/accept) the accepted one ( Darwins). and we can't be having that now can we.. after all Darwins theory IS the truth..right (?)
reply posted on 25-4-2011 @ 05:36 PM by DJW001
reply to post by believer74
Darwin's theory was immediately attacked and criticized; even now there are some who do not want it taught in schools. Darwin's theory of natural selection has become an important principle in modern biology because it works. What does any of this have to do with comets?
maybe Darwins theory was accepted because no-one else could be bothered looking for an answer (?).. don't forget.. at the time of Darwin the people were looking for answers and along comes one to prove the origin of the species.. so that must be the truth.. and over time it got accepted as the truth.. and when another theory comes along ( the summerian one) it gets shot down as it questions
( or even dis-proves.. (depending if you believe/accept) the accepted one ( Darwins). and we can't be having that now can we.. after all Darwins theory IS the truth..right (?)
Darwin's theory was immediately attacked and criticized; even now there are some who do not want it taught in schools. Darwin's theory of natural selection has become an important principle in modern biology because it works. What does any of this have to do with comets?
reply posted on 25-4-2011 @ 08:47 PM by Xcalibur254
reply to post by believer74
If that were the case we would be supporting Lamarck's theory of evolution right now. It came before Darwin's theory and it was more intuitive for the common man than Darwin's. Yet here we sit today with few people even knowing who Lamarck was. Why? Because his theory was proven wrong by hard science. On the other hand we teach Darwin's theory because 150 years of science have found no flaws with it.
If that were the case we would be supporting Lamarck's theory of evolution right now. It came before Darwin's theory and it was more intuitive for the common man than Darwin's. Yet here we sit today with few people even knowing who Lamarck was. Why? Because his theory was proven wrong by hard science. On the other hand we teach Darwin's theory because 150 years of science have found no flaws with it.
reply posted on 27-7-2011 @ 07:26 AM by WhoKnows100
This article was just posted on scribe - hopefully this link to a PDF will work
s206.filesonic.com...
Scroll through, several blank pages
FASCINTING, must read
s206.filesonic.com...
Scroll through, several blank pages
FASCINTING, must read
reply posted on 27-7-2011 @ 07:50 AM by DJW001
reply to post by WhoKnows100
Please describe the content of this file in some way before asking total strangers to download it. Thanks.
This article was just posted on scribe - hopefully this link to a PDF will work
Please describe the content of this file in some way before asking total strangers to download it. Thanks.
reply posted on 27-7-2011 @ 08:21 AM by stereologist
reply to post by believer74
That's really not true. Scientists all of the time speak out about controversial issues in the sciences. Was there a TPW 84 million years ago? Do human get new neurons once the brain is formed? Is radioactive decay rate constant? There are all sorts of questions being posed and many of them are controversial. The issues are discussed in a variety of settings and over time a consensus is developed. The ideas are tested and tested against what is known and adjustments are made if these new proposals turn out to be correct.
The Hynek claim is completely false. Seriously. Think about it. Can you name a single scientist that was not controversial? All of the famous scientists had controversial ideas didn't they. We celebrate those people that have come up with the better ideas.
Another hint on science. The word theory as used in science does not mean a guess.
A scientist will confess (in private) to interest in a subject which is controversial or not scientifically acceptable but, generally, will not stand up and be counted in committee. Scientists are deathly afraid of voicing support for anything that might make them look foolish in the eyes of their peers.
That's really not true. Scientists all of the time speak out about controversial issues in the sciences. Was there a TPW 84 million years ago? Do human get new neurons once the brain is formed? Is radioactive decay rate constant? There are all sorts of questions being posed and many of them are controversial. The issues are discussed in a variety of settings and over time a consensus is developed. The ideas are tested and tested against what is known and adjustments are made if these new proposals turn out to be correct.
The Hynek claim is completely false. Seriously. Think about it. Can you name a single scientist that was not controversial? All of the famous scientists had controversial ideas didn't they. We celebrate those people that have come up with the better ideas.
Another hint on science. The word theory as used in science does not mean a guess.
reply posted on 27-7-2011 @ 08:48 AM by WhoKnows100
reply to post by DJW001
Cheers for the reminder
A PDF document discussing Elenin, it's orbit, and that it is followed by a planetary body. The author calls this "Nibiru" for lack of a formal name. The author includes many things such as timings, nature of body, and orbits. It's long, and you'll have to scroll through some blank pages.
However, I found it interesting and I know that people who are interested in both Elenin and "Nibiru" might find the scenario interesting.
Cheers for the reminder
A PDF document discussing Elenin, it's orbit, and that it is followed by a planetary body. The author calls this "Nibiru" for lack of a formal name. The author includes many things such as timings, nature of body, and orbits. It's long, and you'll have to scroll through some blank pages.
However, I found it interesting and I know that people who are interested in both Elenin and "Nibiru" might find the scenario interesting.
reply posted on 27-7-2011 @ 08:53 AM by stereologist
reply to post by WhoKnows100
I took a look at the article. There are some huge problems here.
1. The solar system and universe are shaped by gravity. The claim that it is magnetism are demonstrably wrong.
2. Atmospheric pressure does not add weight to objects. Actually, the air makes objects slightly lighter due to buoyancy.
3. Magnetism is not a substance. It is a force.
4. Space is not a substance either
Basically, the pdf deteriorates immediately into the sort of rubbish that makes it worthless to comment on. The basic claim is that the universe is magnetic in nature. There are no instances of objects in the solar system or the universe pushing each other apart. Everything is a force towards each other.
None of that erroneous introduction was necessary to get to the Nibiru fact sheet.
1. The author assigns 6 digits of precision to this fictional planet. Guess significant digits was not taught in that school. That's a sure sign of someone not knowing how to make up numbers.
2. Notice how the equatorial diameter is misrepresented as a range. Apparently whomever faked this sheet did not know what was meant by diameter of a prolate sphere.
3. Funnier yet us the mass which they give as 3.34 and then give you a hint that this is a number between 3 and 4!
4. The author assigns a mass and a diameter to the planet yet is unable to compute a density.
5. The next laugh is that the object can be measured down to the nearest kilometer for diameter yet they are not sure of the type of object.
6. Then it claims that this object has comets around it and asteroids. Apparently, the author does not know the meanings of these words. They should look them up before fixing all of these hideous mistakes.
7. The person who wrote this does not know the difference between speed and velocity. No surprise there.
8. There they go again with a magnetic field diameter to 10 digits of precision yet it claims that the object type is not known. It's back to the third grade for this guy. Seriously, 3rd graders learn a little about significant digits in my school system.
9. Then the object is given a very small field strength. Guess the person does not know that the only way to determine the field strength is to send a probe there.
10. Here is the best part. The wacko assigns this object to be orbiting INSIDE of the orbit of the Earth and then calls it a long period orbit.
I didn't bother with any more of this really, really stupid PDF file. The author better work harder at his 7th grade science and math classes or flunk out of school.
I took a look at the article. There are some huge problems here.
1. The solar system and universe are shaped by gravity. The claim that it is magnetism are demonstrably wrong.
2. Atmospheric pressure does not add weight to objects. Actually, the air makes objects slightly lighter due to buoyancy.
3. Magnetism is not a substance. It is a force.
4. Space is not a substance either
Basically, the pdf deteriorates immediately into the sort of rubbish that makes it worthless to comment on. The basic claim is that the universe is magnetic in nature. There are no instances of objects in the solar system or the universe pushing each other apart. Everything is a force towards each other.
None of that erroneous introduction was necessary to get to the Nibiru fact sheet.
1. The author assigns 6 digits of precision to this fictional planet. Guess significant digits was not taught in that school. That's a sure sign of someone not knowing how to make up numbers.
2. Notice how the equatorial diameter is misrepresented as a range. Apparently whomever faked this sheet did not know what was meant by diameter of a prolate sphere.
3. Funnier yet us the mass which they give as 3.34 and then give you a hint that this is a number between 3 and 4!
4. The author assigns a mass and a diameter to the planet yet is unable to compute a density.
5. The next laugh is that the object can be measured down to the nearest kilometer for diameter yet they are not sure of the type of object.
6. Then it claims that this object has comets around it and asteroids. Apparently, the author does not know the meanings of these words. They should look them up before fixing all of these hideous mistakes.
7. The person who wrote this does not know the difference between speed and velocity. No surprise there.
8. There they go again with a magnetic field diameter to 10 digits of precision yet it claims that the object type is not known. It's back to the third grade for this guy. Seriously, 3rd graders learn a little about significant digits in my school system.
9. Then the object is given a very small field strength. Guess the person does not know that the only way to determine the field strength is to send a probe there.
10. Here is the best part. The wacko assigns this object to be orbiting INSIDE of the orbit of the Earth and then calls it a long period orbit.
I didn't bother with any more of this really, really stupid PDF file. The author better work harder at his 7th grade science and math classes or flunk out of school.
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Code Name** Stellar Wind. Objective** Infiltrate All. Chances For Sucess** High.
General Conspiracies: 16 hours ago, 23 flags
General Conspiracies: 16 hours ago, 23 flags
"CIA are drug smugglers." - Federal Judge Bonner, head of DEA- You don't get better proof than th
General Conspiracies: 10 hours ago, 21 flags
General Conspiracies: 10 hours ago, 21 flags
Quantum Gravity Model "Loads" "Programs" from NON-PHYSICAL DIMENSION with INVERTED PENTAGRAMS!
Science & Technology: 8 hours ago, 15 flags
Science & Technology: 8 hours ago, 15 flags
Defense Department Seeks Legal Authority to Deploy Reservists onto American Streets
Breaking Alternative News: 12 hours ago, 12 flags
Breaking Alternative News: 12 hours ago, 12 flags
Synchonicity of generations, had my mind blown away tonight by grandson.
The Gray Area: 10 hours ago, 10 flags
The Gray Area: 10 hours ago, 10 flags
Can anybody analyze this video - UFO hovering over houses 26-5-12?
Aliens and UFOs: 8 hours ago, 9 flags
Aliens and UFOs: 8 hours ago, 9 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Porn stars explain how they ended up with Bill Clinton in pictures Hillary eat your hear out!! W/pic
Politicians & People: 16 hours ago, 47 replies
Politicians & People: 16 hours ago, 47 replies
Defense Department Seeks Legal Authority to Deploy Reservists onto American Streets
Breaking Alternative News: 12 hours ago, 39 replies
Breaking Alternative News: 12 hours ago, 39 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.178 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www3.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.178 seconds
