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: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

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



Because its around about number some women have their babies before or after that number.

The point is that Lungold misrepresents the facts to support his fairy tales.

The number is based on a population mean. People are not all the same height, or weight, or live to be the same age. But there are mean heights, mean weights, mean lifetimes that can be used to describe humans and other organisms.

The issue here is not range. That is a misrepresentation of the single number that is the mean. That is the value Lungold attempted to use to connect a Mayan calendar with humans. That connection is based on fake numbers.




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Doublemint
 



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

It certainly is not represented by any of the claims by Lungold. He claims that the calendar is tightly connected to humans. He faked his numbers to make the connection.

The question is not my opinion as to what 260 represents. The question deals with the claims made by Lungold.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Doublemint
 



Because its around about number some women have their babies before or after that number.

The point is that Lungold misrepresents the facts to support his fairy tales.

The number is based on a population mean. People are not all the same height, or weight, or live to be the same age. But there are mean heights, mean weights, mean lifetimes that can be used to describe humans and other organisms.

The issue here is not range. That is a misrepresentation of the single number that is the mean. That is the value Lungold attempted to use to connect a Mayan calendar with humans. That connection is based on fake numbers.


But how do you know the mean of a Maya women is not 260? and 280 is the mean of earths entire population in the present time?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Doublemint
 



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

It certainly is not represented by any of the claims by Lungold. He claims that the calendar is tightly connected to humans. He faked his numbers to make the connection.

The question is not my opinion as to what 260 represents. The question deals with the claims made by Lungold.


Well your either a believer or your not so whats the point?

Or better yet find Lungold and debate with him
edit on 23-6-2011 by Doublemint because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Doublemint
 



But how do you know the mean of a Maya women is not 260? and 280 is the mean of earths entire population in the present time?

An excellent question and often an important question regarding biological populations.

Here is a study that examines women in Central America and the formula used is the standard formula used worldwide.
Last menstrual period provides the best estimate of gestation length for women in rural Guatemala



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Doublemint
 



But how do you know the mean of a Maya women is not 260? and 280 is the mean of earths entire population in the present time?

An excellent question and often an important question regarding biological populations.

Here is a study that examines women in Central America and the formula used is the standard formula used worldwide.
Last menstrual period provides the best estimate of gestation length for women in rural Guatemala


seemed like a preety interesting article from the summary I'm going to to have to find it some where else to read it.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Doublemint, it is pointless to argue with him about
260 vs 280. He has his mind made up.

I showed him the first 4 links to google search
about human gestation, and yet he ignores those.

My previous posts, and definition of preterm show
that both numbers are used.

And plus, 280 is 9.5 months.....
Everyone knows pregnancy is 9 months.

So, why does he constantly argue?

This is the only foothold that they have to argue
this point.

The skeptics won't even accept that both numbers
are widely used.

Even birth dates and ages are calculated differently
throughout different cultures.

And they can't fathom there being multiple
calculations for the same thing.

I even quoted my previous links....
It has since been removed...
But, it was there before all of stereo's replies.....

Which makes me wonder what motive do you
have for ignoring logical refutations?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce

Which makes me wonder what motive do you
have for ignoring logical refutations?


Basicly because I see both of your opions, which I see as options, I can choose either of them but I would rather have the most information from both of you can present before I choose. Me honestly I think its odd they have a calander that has 260 days on it, I have never seen it and even if I did I am not sure how I would come to the conclusion that it is a calander of gestation, but I assume someone has and I am sure other people have come to differnt conclusions about the calander.

It would be interesting to hear what the Mayan decents have to say about, or even if there are still any people believing/using this stuff.

So me ignoring logical refutations is just my ignorance.
edit on 23-6-2011 by Doublemint because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ThreeDeuce
 



I showed him the first 4 links to google search
about human gestation, and yet he ignores those.

You lied about the contents of the 4 links. I pointed
this out. On one link you claimed that it stated 260 days yet
the page stated "259–294". That same page stated

"In humans, birth normally occurs at a gestational age of about
40 weeks (nine months and one week)"

Yet you claimed 260.

On another link you chose to quote the sentences above where
it clearly marked correction. The correction stated:

"40 weeks is still considered the standard length of a pregnancy
and "due dates" are based on that number."

You ignored the corrected number and that is a clear and wanton
effort to misrepresent that page.



And plus, 280 is 9.5 months.....
Everyone knows pregnancy is 9 months.

Another deceptive effort on your part. The number
of days is the number of days. Pregnancy is often
done in weeks, i.e. 40 weeks.


This is the only foothold that they have to argue
this point.

Another lie. You can't help yourself
can you. The point is that none of the
260 claims by Lungold is valid. I already
refuted his claims of exactly 260 cell
types in humans.


The skeptics won't even accept that both numbers
are widely used.

Not for gestation. No matter how much you
tell falsehoods the number is still 280.


Even birth dates and ages are calculated differently
throughout different cultures.

Has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Another pointless red herring.


And they can't fathom there being multiple
calculations for the same thing.

Another misrepresentation. The number is
a number and it is 280.


Which makes me wonder what motive do you
have for ignoring logical refutations?

The original post is still there as is my post
showing how you misrepresented the issue.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ThreeDeuce
 


In an early post you listed some of your claims from other threads:


The Mayan Calendar, especially the Long Count, is cyclical.


They believed that our World was destroyed four times in the past.


You use these claims to make a list of statements. Unfortunately your
initial claims are false making any conclusions you draw from these
suspect.

The LC is not a cyclical calendar. It is linear.
The destruction of the world did not happen.

The answers come from archaeologists that study the Mayans. Here is where you
can learn that you have made mistakes on these issues:
2012: The Long Count is not cyclical

Some 2012ers suggests there were four earlier creations by mixing Aztec or Postclassic Maya beliefs with the Late Formative origin of the calendar. Known dates preceding the creation date only indicates one continuous era before this one.



In short, there is no end of the LC calendar in 2012 and there were no multiple creations preceding this one, as I have argued before. People claiming that the “Maya calendar” was cyclical miss the whole point that the LC was just what the name implies, it was an endless non-repeating long count.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
More information on astronomical mistakes being made about the Mayans is also found at the following link:
2012: The Long Count does not end on December 21, 2012

This is a discussion not only of astronomy, but also about calendars and their use in different places.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Well I actually agree with all your points, even though I also believe that the date of the winter solstice of 2012 is an important date. I do not believe it is the "end of the world" but rather the start of a new beginning.
There are so many errors and deliberate manipulations of the "mayan calander theory"
The 2 first calenders 365 and 260 (btw isnt it 13*28=364 and not 365?) are not directly tied to humans, but to seasons and "astronomy" that is atleast my theory.
The OP does nothing but discredit legitimate 2012 theorist, and defiles the scientific method and academia, with his misrepresentation and misuse of technical terms!



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorthStargal52
2012 is not going to happen !!!!


right... it should have been changed to say IT starts in 2011.


Originally posted by NorthStargal52
It is so sad to see people who are not even Native who probably never even have known a Native or even been to a ceremony or a sweat or spoke to a Elder on the false claims of 2012 using Native Mayan calendar and the Hopi and who ever else you can find to support and conjure up false words ..
We red people sit back an actually have a good laugh at all the white mans predictions taken as they claim from the Mayans ect ect. and other tribes ect ect.
This I am afraid to say is not so .. the Mayans never meant that the world would come to a end in 2012.


right. there's a difference between the "world ending" as in total planetary destruction, and the destruction of the world on the planet.


Originally posted by NorthStargal52
We have oral stories and many come from our ancestors who indeed were on this land way before the white folks and Spaniards in the Mayan area ..
I will only say this its not true .. We have said that one day man will ruin the earth by disregard for Mother Earth
that days ahead the earth will be to sick and the animals will start to .disappear .. and the fish will dye in the streams and birds will fall from the air and the waters would be blackened .. The trees and plants would slowly disappear
and the ancient being the great spirit would tell the people of how the world today has turned away from the Great Spirit and that is why our Earth is "Sick".


...due to the cancer of humanity in its current state, yes. So how do you treat cancer? you remove it.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SamTGonzalez
I honestly believe that our governments are trying to prepare us for something big, using the Mayan's prediction as a crutch to create controversy about the subject. What are they preparing us for? We can only speculate. At the end of the day, we will never know until it actually happens, but what we do know is that the hype has definitely been building up over the last several years. There's two possible outcomes:

1. Something BIG happens
2. Nothing happens and we all look like idiots

I have come to my own personal conclusion that I'm not going to worry about it anymore.


which is a primary reason and mentality they say only about 10% survive.


Originally posted by SamTGonzalez
Why worry about something that is inevitable or unpreventable? None of us make it out of this life alive anyways... lol. We all need to start living in the moment and taking advantage of life and all it's beauty instead of living in fear of the unknown and allowing that fear to monopolize our day-to-day lives... especially if the world really IS going to end next year.


another aspect of the "mentality" thats been responsible for why this planet is such a mess.

no one thinks about the future.
no one wants to take responsibility for their actions
and in general, mankind has NO fear of the consequences.

Why do children OBEY their parents?

FEAR

Why do you children kill other children in this generation now?
Why do governments commit such evil against its people?
Why do corporations pollute this little blue planet?

NO FEAR

Fear is the beginning of Wisdom.

Perhaps its time some FEAR is put back into the children.

Humanity has failed to be good stewards of this beautiful sphere they've squandered, so Its about to be severely punished and taught a great lesson.

You're right about one thing,, its now too late too late to prevent whats about to occur. A necessary cleansing of billions of this generation to save billions of future generations.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseekr1111
 



right. there's a difference between the "world ending" as in total planetary destruction, and the destruction of the world on the planet.

And neither is going to happen.


which is a primary reason and mentality they say only about 10% survive.

Who says 10% are going to survive what? What needs to be survived?


no one thinks about the future.
no one wants to take responsibility for their actions
and in general, mankind has NO fear of the consequences.

Not true. Not even close.
Many people think about the future. There are many government and non-government groups that look to the future. Setting aside land for future uses such as wilderness or agriculture is looking to the future.
Lots of people take responsibility for their actions. Just because some do not does not mean no one.
Mankind has no fear of the consequences of its actions. This is another joke, right? I guess that is why there have been no meetings for over a decade on carbon emissions.



Why do you children kill other children in this generation now?
Why do governments commit such evil against its people?
Why do corporations pollute this little blue planet?

NO FEAR

Again, I have to disagree. The issue is not fear. Infanticide by infants is not new. Governments, or more generally those wielding power have done so because they thought they could get away with it. Corporations and individuals pollute due to the cost of doing otherwise. It's not a matter of no fear. The idea that pollution is dangerous is a new concept. Historically pollution has been a nuisance, not a danger.


Fear is the beginning of Wisdom.

Maybe you should watch Star Wars again and listen to Yoda for some wisdom.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce
Is it possible that Y2K was developed to discredit 2012?


Is it possible that 2012 was developed to discredit the next big fear mongering scam?
Rinse & repeat.

Is it possible that New Coke was developed as a distraction so that Pepsi could introduce Clear Pepsi?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ThreeDeuce
 



I would welcome any refutation to my posts.
Just prove it to me, and I will OPENLY admit
MY errors.


Okay, here you go:


Why weren't you attempting to disprove 2012 BEFORE the Y2K scare?


Because the meme hadn't caught on yet. We skeptics aren't psychic, you know.


Sumerian Texts also talk about about 2012 as "Changing of the World, as we know it".


No, they don't. If you can find a copy of a clay tablet that makes this claim, please link to it. Sitchin's "translations" do not count.


So, along with the Mayan Calendar, that makes THREE prolifent societies that warn us about this day upcoming.


If by "prolifent" you mean societies that lacked the wheel and practiced human sacrifice, I should think the reason is self-evident. In any event, as I pointed out, they don't all agree and the Sumerians did have the wheel.


Fist is the Tzolkin, which is 260 days. So, does this calendar mean anything?
Mayan Shamans say that this 260 days is the gestation period of a Human.

This means the Tzolkin calendar counts the time from fertilization to birth, roughly.
So, the first calendar counts something distinct and important.


Incorrect. The Tzolkin calendar is a ritual calendar based on nine lunar synodic months of 29 days each. It should be 261 days long, but the priests could intercalate a day when it became necessary to correct its drift relative to the Venus cycle of 584 days. Furthermore, since Venus' syndodic period is fractional as well, they would need to intercalate a day every twenty years. The two needed to be harmonized so that eclipses would fall on the correct ritual day.


Second is the Haab, which is 365 days. We all can see this means something.
The Haab tracks a full solar year, which is a full cycle of Solar Birth.


Correct, which means that the Haab be off by one additional day every four years. Is this taken into account by the 2012 prophets?


Third is the Long Count, which ends December 21, 2012 (by some people's calculations).
I contend that the Mayans thought this was a very important calendar.
Why would they have a third calendar that counted nothing?


Because they had developed a system of numeric notation that allowed them to express very large numbers. We do not know why they chose the particular number they did. Adding to the confusion, the value of the different positions in this system varied between the civil and the astronomical notation. Do the 2012 prophets take that into account as well?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057

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.


You may have missed it. I'm sort of "into" eschatology (I'm fascinated that people WANT it to be the end of the world for many reasons) but yes, there were a number of preachers predicting the Second Coming then as well as groups that follow Nostradamus. The ONLY date he put in his prophecies was for 1999, when he said a great king would arise and bring war to the world. And if you missed THAT -- why, yes, that never happened.

And astronomers everywhere were trying to deal with the alignment hysteria:
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by cluckerspud

Originally posted by ThreeDeuce
Is it possible that Y2K was developed to discredit 2012?


Is it possible that 2012 was developed to discredit the next big fear mongering scam?
Rinse & repeat.

Is it possible that New Coke was developed as a distraction so that Pepsi could introduce Clear Pepsi?


Nope, but it's possible that it was developed to sell books. The first "OMG! 2012 DOOOOOOM!" book sold thousands and thousands of copies. The ones to follow up with "and THIS ancient civilization also was into 2012 and Mayans (even though they actually lived thousands of years before the Mayans) made more money. The ones who then started doing "consciousness raising and 2012" books made even more money.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 




Eschatology is a fascinating subject. I was in the Yucatan down to Guatemala and Belize from the early 80's -late 90's exploring sites and working on digs, etc. Nobody ever brought up or discussed 2012, as in the end of the world or the end of Mayan calenders. It was relatively tedious work punctuated by sporadic periods of fascinating discoveries and seeing Ground penetrating radar come into use, low yield seismic charges, etc to aid research. Not until after 2001-2002 was mainstream and widely publicized end of the world themes in books and movies and lectures, really make an entrance.

There is almost a need to have the world end to validate a particular belief system. This seems to overlap with Mayan / Hopi / Navajo / Nostradamus / insert / hysteria, and it all feeds on itself. Some of the fundamental beliefs have a vested investment in the end of the world, almost as an epilogue to their particular religion.
it would not bother me so much but every few years we see another individual place a date on the end of the world, hundreds to thousands follow this individual, sell their belongings and assets and prepare for the end. When it does not arrive, we read about several taking their own lives in unfortunate shame or regret and the rest try to rebuild their families.

Hopefully we do not see the same on a mass scale as we come closer to 2012.




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join