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.

 

Can you prove evolution wrong?*

page: 47
31
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Your "non linear problem solving" is another word for "pseudo-science". You should really stop getting your "information" from nonsense sites like livingmoon


that was the first link to part of what I was referring to. I originally got the bulk from Sitchin's Earth Chronicles (and I'm sure you'll bash that too so whatever). Point is if Iteration hasn't heard about this by now he's way out of the loop. I don't expect a conversion from anybody but to ignore the gist of what was written on clay tablets seven thousand years ago is ignorant. Especially where they talk about ancient cities that were in bloom thousands of years BEFORE the Sumerians. Their base 60 math, medicine, criminal justice codes, schools, construction abilties etc. It's things you can't just brush aside like so many main stream science adherents are quick to do.

As far as the non-linear part I meant that in the sense of a comprehensive look at evidence from around the globe. You didn't get the part where I wrote about noticing the forest AND the trees did you?


Like I said, Sitchin's a crook too. He's using pseudo-science and demonstrably mistranslates a ton of stuff. He's an AUTHOR and NOT a scientist




posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Well ok then so let's follow your argument of the four pointed symbol not representing our Sun.

It's hardly my argument. It's the argument of people who have actually taken the time to learn and research ancient semitic languages. But that's probably nitpicking...


I've heard that before and it's a pretty good argument

Glad you think so as well.


(although the way the clay tablet is made and the detail it took to create it goes unnoticed),

How is that relevant to the inaccuracy of Sitchin's claims regarding the symbol being our Sun?


so let's say you're right- it's not our Sun it is a star with a solar system

It's not representative of a solar system either. Based on its similarity to the symbols used on other seals for the Pleiades, it's most likely a constellation.


(just like ours right down to the scale of the planets) somewhere else.

If you think that the relative sizes of the dots surrounding that star corresponds to either the size of our Sun relative to the planets or the size of the planets relative to each other, you need to check your math. The largest dot, which would presumably represent Jupiter, is about one sixth the diameter of the central star symbol. The mean diameter of Jupiter is about 140k km. The mean diameter of the Sun is 1.4M km. Jupiter is one one thousandth the diameter of the sun. Not even remotely close to scale.


you don't find anything peculiar about that?

Given that it's a constellation and not a solar system? No, not really.


They tell us exactly where they got these ideas, they come straight out and say people from another planet did it. That's where they got all their building plans (you do realize they weren't living in caves right?) and actual blueprints for society, culture, art, courts, textiles, etc. These were sophisticated people saying literally what was going on. Doesn't that warrant further discussion and investigation?

So you're saying that they weren't bright enough to look up in the sky and recreate a constellation they saw with their own two eyes?



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


He's got a bibliography a mile long that supports 99% of what he says. Again here's another one missing the forest for the nitpicking. What's your point? There were no Sumerians? They didn't have a sophisticated culture three thousand years after we supposedly walked out of caves? Do you have an alternative explanation for what the Astra Hasis and Enuma Elish are talking about? How many years have you devoted to studying this? How many languages do you know?



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
How is that relevant to the inaccuracy of Sitchin's claims regarding the symbol being our Sun?
It's not representative of a solar system either. Based on its similarity to the symbols used on other seals for the Pleiades, it's most likely a constellation.



you're off by a few stars and if it is a representation of seven stars then why aren't they all four-pointed? see this is what I mean by nitpicking... and you also seem willing to blatantly cherry pick too. Stick to your hypothesis about it representing a star different than our Sun. Why aren't they all four pointed? and how many stars are in the Pleiades anyway eleven? twelve? what the hell are you getting at?

Originally posted by iterationzero
If you think that the relative sizes of the dots surrounding that star corresponds to either the size of our Sun relative to the planets or the size of the planets relative to each other, you need to check your math. The largest dot, which would presumably represent Jupiter, is about one sixth the diameter of the central star symbol. The mean diameter of Jupiter is about 140k km. The mean diameter of the Sun is 1.4M km. Jupiter is one one thousandth the diameter of the sun. Not even remotely close to scale.



this is totally nitpicking just to muddy the waters. nice try. stick to the big picture. can you explain how the Sumerians came up with a base 60 number system?


Originally posted by iterationzeroGiven that it's a constellation and not a solar system? No, not really.



again where are the four points? be consistent



Originally posted by iterationzeroSo you're saying that they weren't bright enough to look up in the sky and recreate a constellation they saw with their own two eyes?


I'm going to take back my compliment on your level of intelligence and group you with the special ed kids. what about the totality of their culture and achievements? If you downplay the magnitude of their culture and discount the cultures THEY considered ancient then you really are unwilling and/or unable to go any further off the linear path. I feel sorry for you and it's sad to see how such smart people can be so friggin dumb.
edit on 31-10-2011 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


you're off by a few stars and if it is a representation of seven stars then why aren't they all four-pointed?

Your reading comprehension needs work. I didn't say the depiction on seal VA 243 was the Pleiades. I said it resembled the Pleiades and, therefore, could be a constellation.


see this is what I mean by nitpicking…

So when you're demonstrably wrong, it's nitpicking? Interesting set of rules.


and you also seem willing to blatantly cherry pick too.

Please show where I'm cherry picking?


Stick to your hypothesis about it representing a star different than our Sun.

Again, not my hypothesis. Have you actually read any work by anyone who actually has an academic career in ancient semitic languages or just Sitchin's?


Why aren't they all four pointed?

The Sumerians had multiple representations for stars. The central star stands for a deity that the constellation is associated with. Did you even bother searching out their representation of the Pleiades for an example, as I suggested?


and how many stars are in the Pleiades anyway eleven? twelve? what the hell are you getting at?

Again, I didn't say the representation on seal VA 243 was the Pleiades. I was pointing to the Sumerian representation of the Pleiades as a similar example.


this is totally nitpicking just to muddy the waters.

Nitpicking? You said:


it's not our Sun it is a star with a solar system (just like ours right down to the scale of the planets) somewhere else.
(Emphasis mine.)

Only it's nothing like ours, especially not in terms of the scale of the planets.


nice try. stick to the big picture.

So when the facts don't support your "big picture" in the slightest, you just go with the truthiness of your unsubstantiated gut feelings?


can you explain how the Sumerians came up with a base 60 number system?

I'm not sure what this has to do with Sitchin's demonstrably wrong interpretation of VA 243, but sure... I'll play along.

Base 12 and 60 number systems aren't exactly unheard of outside ancient Sumeria. There's a systems used in many regions of Asia where, using your thumb as a pointer, you count the finger bones on the right hand (three each for each finger from pointer to pinky, for a total of 12) and the number of iterations on the left hand, for a grand total of 60.

It seems like someone who is such a proponent of "non-linear problem solving" and "thinking outside the box" would have come up with that as a possible answer instead of retreating to the lazy proposition of "I don't know, so aliens did it."


again where are the four points? be consistent

I explained above how the Sumerians depicted constellations. Just because their representations don't fit your concept of internal consistency doesn't mean it didn't fit theirs.


I'm going to take back my compliment on your level of intelligence and group you with the special ed kids.

In other words, you can't actually discuss my counterpoints to your arguments, so you're going to resort to personal attacks.


what about the totality of their culture and achievements? If you downplay the magnitude of their culture and discount the cultures THEY considered ancient then you really are unwilling and/or unable to go any further off the linear path.

I'm not the one downplaying or discounting their culture, you are. You're unable to believe that they could have come up with these achievements on their own. In your mind, they were so backwards, unintelligent, and uncreative that they required intervention from another planet to achieve anything notable during their time on this planet.


I feel sorry for you and it's sad to see how such smart people can be so friggin dumb.

I feel sorry for you and it's sad to see how easily people can be duped by authors who are only out to make money off of their gullibility.
edit on 31/10/2011 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero

I'm not the one downplaying or discounting their culture, you are. You're unable to believe that they could have come up with these achievements on their own. In your mind, they were so backwards, unintelligent, and uncreative that they required intervention from another planet to achieve anything notable during their time on this planet.



Oh right, that seal where the god dude is giving the guy a new type of plow- or did that represent they were teaching them agriculture? Did you miss the part where they say space people did it? that they were GIVEN these things and ideas by others and they could've like totally lied about it? Does that have any bearing on anything?



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 

"Please show where I'm cherry picking? "

that's nitpicking



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 

So the literal interpretation of what you're seeing is the only correct one? Again, for someone who claims to be a "non-linear problem solver", you seem to have chosen the laziest, more narrow-minded, linear answer possible -- that the literal interpretation is the only possible explanation of what's depicted on VA 243.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 

And that's a deflection because you can't actually respond to any of my counterpoints.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I believe the evidence is clearly in favor of Intelligent Design Theory. How do I know and why do I say this? Simple. Humans are intelligent and we are already designing life, hence the IDT is readily demonstrated. It is demonstrated everyday and there is no debating it, unlike unmitigated natural selection on a macroscopic evolutionary cross-species scale which is still greatly debated and which is not something being demonstrated in laboratories all over the world on almost a daily basis now, like Intelligent Design Theory is.

And again, take a look at crops and domestic animals. There were entire breeds created by intelligent humans who wanted a breed designed for a specific purpose, and they survived because we intelligently guided their survival. IDT has been demonstrated throughout history and we just keep getting better at it.

Anyone who doubts the validity of IDT simply needs to use a little common sense, on the other hand many people find unmitigated natural selection on a macroscopic evolutionary cross-species scale to defy common sense.

Just because we don't know who designed life does not mean no one designed it, in fact, I would say the evidence is clearly in favor of design.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 

And that's a deflection because you can't actually respond to any of my counterpoints.

Your counterpoints are distractions to muddy the big picture. You might think science thrives by people like you who think the way you do but it actually stagnates and festers. You have to be able to jump off the page to figure this stuff out and since you are obviously unwilling or unable to do that it is left up to people like me to inform laypersons of where our thoughts need to go next. The forest of this issue does not depend on my ability to defend it nor does your nit/cherry picking minutiae as if the truth rises and falls over the interpretation of a symbol or two. You're wasting your gift.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


He's got a bibliography a mile long that supports 99% of what he says. Again here's another one missing the forest for the nitpicking. What's your point? There were no Sumerians? They didn't have a sophisticated culture three thousand years after we supposedly walked out of caves? Do you have an alternative explanation for what the Astra Hasis and Enuma Elish are talking about? How many years have you devoted to studying this? How many languages do you know?


He is SPECULATING and most of his "sources" are just as much pseudo-science as what he writes. And of course that culture existed, and for their time they were advanced, but that doesn't mean you can just make stuff up to explain it...not unless you present hard evidence, and he hasn't done so. He's a bit like the guys in that laughable "Ancient Aliens" show


As for languages, I speak 7 languages (8 if you count Creole), 5 of them fluently, in 2 of them I can ask for the toilet and order food

edit on 1-11-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by HillbillyHippie1
 





in favor of Intelligent Design Theory.


Intelligent design is no more a theory then the bible is. You can not test it; therefore, it is not a theory. It's disgusting how that word (theory) gets thrown around.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 

And that's a deflection because you can't actually respond to any of my counterpoints.


Well it's not so much of a deflection as it is a not such a big deal.

I brought up the fact that the rest of the planetary bodies were not four pointed and you avoided that and other things, so I would say you have no advantage here. You are also ignoring the fact that the comprehensive body of evidence that, whether or not we were created by space people, has a probability factor of 1 and cultural evidence from all around the world agrees with that. The entirety of this issue does not rest on whether or not the symbol is our solar system or a constellation. We can nitpick all day but the big picture points to a literal interpretation that our species has been dealing with space people all along.

And I want to apologize if I sounded as though I was personally attacking you for thinking the way you do. I was responding to you but meaning in general all people who think that way who are unwilling or unable to go where they need to go in order to wrap their heads around this issue. I think this is more of a psychological conundrum than anything, an existentialist paradox. I mean even Tyson has to admit,the percentage (so far) of habitable planets detected correlates to a higher probability of our creation being artificial rather than forming in a soupy mud puddle. I mean heck we can do this genetic stuff now, imagine what a race that's a million or two years ahead of us in an evolutionary sense could do with their science and technology!?

It's a very slippery slope most people won't even entertain because once you finally admit there most likely exist other sentient beings throughout the universe all bets are off. I think the worst part about it is that there are technologies we could use to sustain our existence even IF we aren't as superior as we once thought.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by bottleslingguy
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


He's got a bibliography a mile long that supports 99% of what he says. Again here's another one missing the forest for the nitpicking. What's your point? There were no Sumerians? They didn't have a sophisticated culture three thousand years after we supposedly walked out of caves? Do you have an alternative explanation for what the Astra Hasis and Enuma Elish are talking about? How many years have you devoted to studying this? How many languages do you know?


He is SPECULATING and most of his "sources" are just as much pseudo-science as what he writes. And of course that culture existed, and for their time they were advanced, but that doesn't mean you can just make stuff up to explain it...not unless you present hard evidence, and he hasn't done so. He's a bit like the guys in that laughable "Ancient Aliens" show


As for languages, I speak 7 languages (8 if you count Creole), 5 of them fluently, in 2 of them I can ask for the toilet and order food

edit on 1-11-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


He is translating and cross translating. Anyone can read the translations and then they can speculate the meanings of the words it's not psuedo-science. The Biblical story of Genesis is a complete plagerization of writings from thousands of years earlier. It's interesting the way details were changed such as Noah bringing two of each kind of animal on the ark is pretty unbelievable. But when you read how the Sumerians say it was done you find out he stored their "essence" in clay jars- what could they mean? it could mean (and probably does mean) dna in clay jars. Sounds much more believable and literal don't you think?

can you read Sumerian?



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 





Anyone can read the translations and then they can speculate the meanings of the words it's not psuedo-science.


To quote your own words: He's SPECULATING and not backing his claims up with objective evidence.

And there's zero proof "essence in clay jars" is DNA! It could just as well be that they simply believed that some sort of life force can be stored in jars...doesn't mean that's really the case. All those remains simply tell us what people back then BELIEVED, and not necessarily how reality was back then. Drawing wild conclusions that aren't backed up by objective evidence (and your DNA clay jar example isn't) is simply nonsense.

Sitchin as well as that ridiculous Ancient Alien show draw the wildest conclusions without ever backing up anything wird hard facts. Some random stories that a culture believed some sort of "essence" can be stored in clay jars is most definitely NOT proof that they stored DNA in clay jars and then recreated the animals (something we can only do with a few animals ourselves).



And no, can't read Sumerian

edit on 1-11-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by bottleslingguy
 


Your counterpoints are distractions to muddy the big picture.

You only consider them distractions because you have no answer for them.


You might think science thrives by people like you who think the way you do but it actually stagnates and festers.

If you're going to be intellectually honest about saying this, you better go through your life and remove anything developed by scientists who "think like me". You can start with your computer and anything else that relies on circuit theory.


You have to be able to jump off the page to figure this stuff out and since you are obviously unwilling or unable to do that it is left up to people like me to inform laypersons of where our thoughts need to go next.

So now you're some kind of trailblazer because you're following the path that Sitchin already laid out for you?


The forest of this issue does not depend on my ability to defend it nor does your nit/cherry picking minutiae as if the truth rises and falls over the interpretation of a symbol or two.

The forest of this issue depends on what evidence you can provide to support your case. The evidence you've provided so far consists wholly of a demonstrably wrong interpretation of a single Sumerian seal. Without that evidence, you have nothing but a warm fuzzy feeling that you're right. Everyone else who has a baseless warm fuzzy feeling can lay just as valid a claim as you, so feel free to hash it out with them and let me know who wins.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Well if I cant the. That would make me a monkeys uncle.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero

The forest of this issue depends on what evidence you can provide to support your case. The evidence you've provided so far consists wholly of a demonstrably wrong interpretation of a single Sumerian seal. Without that evidence, you have nothing but a warm fuzzy feeling that you're right. Everyone else who has a baseless warm fuzzy feeling can lay just as valid a claim as you, so feel free to hash it out with them and let me know who wins.


see that's what I mean when I say you are nitpicking. Tell me what that seal represents then. I said ok then let's say it represents a constellation. Are the Sumerians saying the seal commemorates the time when people from the Pleaides came to Earth and taught man agriculture? Isn't that the basic interpretation behind the seal? that the tall figure sitting on his levitated throne is giving some dumbass farmer a new and improved plow? You seem to know a lot about it, can you interpret it for me, please?

I see a similarity between the people on the tablet's profiles and the Moai of Easter Island don't you? Amazing how many cultural coincidences you find when you look.

(next you'll say: "but you have no evidence")

you've got to be able to jump off the paper






edit on 1-11-2011 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-11-2011 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

And no, can't read Sumerian

edit on 1-11-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)


so then how could you have a valid opinion of whether or not he's wrong? Your opinion has no credibility in this discussion.




top topics



 
31
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join