It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The 2012 Intellectual Debate

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by karen61057
 


Don't forget that there were 3 issues with 2000:
1. Y2K
2. the Millenium group predicting the second coming
3. The awesome planetary alignment that tore apart the Earth that was for 5/5/2000 I believe.



I dont remember the second and third thing on your list. Must not have been a widely circulated story or I just wasnt paying attention.




posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
The only thing I gained from your post is your ability to criticize others posts. You are adding nothing to the conversation, you bring up nothing to debate, you are simply spewing hatred for others.

Perhaps you should reconsider coming back from hiatus until you have something productive to contribute.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by karen61057
 


There were a number of books written about the planetary alignment. Here is a link to discussion of the claims and so many of them sound like the sort of baloney being pushed for 2012.
Planetary Alignments: Fact or Fiction?

Here is a site claiming that the destruction coming from this alignment is the signal that Putin is the AntiChrist.
revelation13.net...

There were books as well. Anyone recall any of the titles?



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by kro32
 


Are you talking to yourself or to someone here?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Why do people attempt to use Y2K
to disprove 2012.

Isn't it OBVIOUS that these two are
unrelated?

Isn't it obvious that y2k was a produced
scare to scare the current populous?

Why would a civlization want to scare
the current society, when hey foresaw
their on downfall years ago.

They knew their society would not be
around during 2012, so what is their motivation?

-------------------------------

Again, another disappointing 2012 thread on ATS.

There has not been a single counter-argument
on any part of specific 2012 theory, only opinions,
and generalizations.

-----------------------------------------

What part do you disagree with?
Or, are you scared to state specifics?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ThreeDeuce
 


You want a counter-argument? Explain why the calendars that end after 13 baktun are more legitimate than any of the other Long Count calendars that have been found. The calendars that ended after 13 baktun are only a small portion of the calendars we have found, with some extending up to 20 baktun. In fact, there is not a single calendar that ends after 13 baktun in the entire Classic period. The only examples we have of them are from after the arrival of the Europeans. So, please explain to all of us why the calendars that end after 13 baktun are more accurate than any of the others?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ariel bender

Why is everyone "researching" the mayan calendar seem to forget there is a 14th Baktun..?, or dates in Mayan records that extend to several thousands years in our future, and tens of thousands beyond that..?

It is the greed factor, fame factor, whatever we wish to call it. But there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence on any Mayan calendar that the earth comes to a mysterious end or new beginning. There are many thousands of years that follow 2012 in the Mayan calendar, if any of the researchers were actually engaged enough to do their own proofing and legwork they would have found these facts. There is no mention of a new beginning, it is the end of the 13th, and begining of the 14th baktun, nothing more nothing less. Just another page in the great cycle.



Thank you for attempting to provide one counterargument
to 2012 theory.

This 13th and 14th Baktun argument, I haven't heard before.


Naturally, I was able to research it myself.

-------------------------------------------

I did find out that your understanding of 13th and 14th terminology
might be flawed.

We are only in the 13th baktun the same as we are in the
21st century.

------------------------------------

The current Mayan date is:
12.19.18.8.12

Notice the 12 in front, that is baktuns.

So, on Dec 21, 2012; the date goes to 13.0.0.0.1

-----------------------------------

Researchers disagree whether the date goes to
14.0.0.0.1 after that or 0.0.0.0.1.


But, you can discredit the entire theory because
Of this discrepency.

It is similar to arguing gestation of a human from
260 or 280. They both are different ways of calculating
the same things.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


This calendar has existed since before the
Mayan civilization.

To many, its still a mystery how old this calendar is.

Yes, the calendar continues past the 2012 date.

I have never heard of one calendar being more
accurate than another.

----------------------------------------

If you can point me twoards this info, it can be looked at.

I struggle to see how one can be more accurate than another,
when the same basic structure is still the same.

X kins make up X uinals, which are X tuns, etc etc.

Just because one extends further, they are all base 20.

---------------------------

Can you provide links of differences between various
calendars, and accuracy differences?

How would you determine accuracy?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ThreeDeuce
 



I did find out that your understanding of 13th and 14th terminology
might be flawed.

That's a doubtful claim. It is more likely that
your understanding is flawed\.


Researchers disagree whether the date goes to
14.0.0.0.1 after that or 0.0.0.0.1.

Can you provide a reference to that?

The Mayan long count calendar continues to
increase. They use this offset system to
indicate dates in the future well beyond the end
of the 13th baktun.


It is similar to arguing gestation of a human from
260 or 280. They both are different ways of calculating
the same things.

Not true at all. Some people are just adamant liars.

Another failure is the claim that humans have exactly
260 cell types. That is absolutely ludicrous. This
is simply another asinine claim by the painter Lungold
in a feeble attempt to support his bogus claims.

No one knows how many cell types there are in humans.
The human brain has hundreds of types of neurons. That
number is not known.

The claims of 260 by Lungold are just numerological
claims that are used to draw in those that are unable
to understand even basic scientific facts.

How long is gestation in humans? 281 days
Patient Education

A normal pregnancy lasts about 280 days (about 40 weeks), counting from the first day of your last menstrual period. A normal range, however, is from as few as 259 days to as many as 294 days (37–42 weeks).


And the connection between gestation and pregnancy.

en.wikipedia.org...-ACOG_BabyGrowth-0

The extra two weeks is added because gestational age is counted starting from the last menstrual period (LMP), rather than from actual conception.


So no trying to subtract 14 days in an effort to fake your claims!



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ThreeDeuce
 




I have never heard of one calendar being more
accurate than another.

Have you considered ever doing any research?

Different calendars are more accurate at tracking
different issues.

--------------------------------------------------------


I struggle to see how one can be more accurate than another,
when the same basic structure is still the same.


How odd since that is not true. Calendars are really different.
They have different basic approaches from watching
the Moon or the Sun or Venus.

-------------------------------------------------------


How would you determine accuracy?

Do they match predictions as in:
1. Do they predict the next full moon?
2. Do they predict the next equinox?

Rather basic isn't it?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce

What part do you disagree with?
Or, are you scared to state specifics?



What specifics do you want to talk about? Just throw one out there and I'll talk about it for you.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Ok stereo, to deter your false claims any longer...


Here is direct quote from another one my threads:
(This is the thread where he calls me a hoaxer and liar)
(Funny thing,is I just copied the top 3 or 4 google answers for gestation)





---------------------------
Let me also add, that in a later reply, I brought up
the definition of a prreterm baby.

Preterm was defined as a birth at 259 days or sooner.

This definition proves gestation (full term) is 260.

Yet, stereo would rather spew falsities and lies.

Premature infant - A premature infant is a baby born before 37 weeks gestation.

------------------------------

I admit the numbers are 280 and 260.

He says 280, and calls all others liars.

You decide who is on the side of truth, and who is hate.

edit on 22-6-2011 by ThreeDeuce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doublemint

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce

What part do you disagree with?
Or, are you scared to state specifics?



What specifics do you want to talk about? Just throw one out there and I'll talk about it for you.


Okay, let me walk you through this.......

You want me to decide the specific parts of
2012 theory that YOU don't agree with, or view
as false or misguided?

It will take me a few weeks to make up your mind
for you, but I will indeed get bac with you with an
answer.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
Stereo, you're just digging yourself a hole, you're not arguing anything he's saying, you're just giving your opinion on every sentence he writes. Do you not realize that you are one of the ones that contributes to part of this whole 2012 mis/disinfo problem? If you think that 2012 is complete garbage, than ignore teh forum and don't enter 2012 threads, problem solved, you can sit in your room and wait till the day if really care.

Hopefully this thread can be brought back on course. I find it amazing that people really care about why other people could believe in "some outrageously impossible" idea. The fact that I exist, and am able to contemplate existence, is enough for me to accept that anything is possible.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
The 260 vs 280 debate is a non-debate in my opion. Because its around about number some women have their babies before or after that number. Another little tidbit at 260 days 20 days is 7.692% and at 280 days 20 day is only 7.143% so 20 days is fairly Insignificant.

What happend when a Maya women didn't have her baby on 260th day?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Doublemint
 


A non-issue? Lungold makes a number of false claims attempting to connect Mayan calendars to humans. His claim on gestation is wrong. His claim on the exact number of cell types in humans in wrong.

Lungold was wrong. That's an issue.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Doublemint
 


A non-issue? Lungold makes a number of false claims attempting to connect Mayan calendars to humans. His claim on gestation is wrong. His claim on the exact number of cell types in humans in wrong.

Lungold was wrong. That's an issue.


right whether Lungold is wrong or not is an issue but whether its 260 or 280 days for gestation is not an issue. as I said before giving birth does not take place on an exact day so 260 could very well be the average day the Maya women gave birth I bet your 280 number does not take into account differnt locations and habbits.

but anyways if the 260 calander is not for gestation then what do you think it is for?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ThreeDeuce
 


Actually what I said was that you posted links and then misrepresented or misreported all of the links.
You persisted in misrepresenting the links so I said you told a lie.

If you do that, then why would you have a problem with your actions being revealed?


This definition proves gestation (full term) is 260.

Again you following the same misrepresentations.

Let's start at the beginning. It seems to be necessary. The claim
by Lungold is that human gestation is 260 days. It is not. This
means that the mean of the gestations is a certain number of
days, not that any particular gestation is a particular number of
days.

---------------------------------------------------------

As with all biological measurements a population value has a
wide possible range of values. Gestation is no different. That is
why a mean value is used.

---------------------------------------------------------

In human gestation that mean is close to 280 days. It is not
260 days.


Premature infant - A premature infant is a baby born before 37 weeks gestation.


The existence of premature infants is only important to this
value in that it is included in the value. Every biological range
has what can be considered to be normal and abnormal
values. That is not the issue here. What is the issue is the
mean. That mean is 280 days, not 260 days.

--------------------------------------------------------


You decide who is on the side of truth, and who is hate.


The fact of the matter is that no matter how you try to misrepresent
the facts, the facts are as I pointed out many times that the mean
is 280, not 260.

This is not a matter of hate. This is a matter of simply telling the
truth. This is a simple decidable issue.

The fact is that the number is 280. That shows that the claims made
by Lungold of the connection between a Mayan calendar and humans
is not true.
edit on 23-6-2011 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SpreadLoveNotHate
 


Why not take the time to examine the claims of 2012?

Take a look at the claims of Lungold and see if the claims he uses are true.

He claims that the calendar length 260 was used because it is closely tied to humans. That is a false claim. To show that human gestation is not 260, but rather 280 and to show that the number of cell types in humans is not exactly 260 as claimed by Lungold begins to show how Lungold's claims are false.

He was a fake that made up tall tales to support his fairy tales.




top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join