It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Which do you feel is most plausable?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:41 AM
reply to post by HomeBrew

and the answer is...

posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 11:56 AM
reply to post by HomeBrew

I've yet to read EVERY response/reply to this thread....I say NONE of and ALL of those theories are opinion? We just are and that's all there is to it.....

If we choose to believe a God made is so
If we choose to believe that we are genetically altered by they did
If we simply are a result of billions of years of evolution...that's cool too....

There IS something to "The world is what you make it......."

Man simply THINKS too much, (though with some people, that is debatable
We just ARE and does it really effect/affect, (I never could get that right) our lives that much , in the end, WHO or WHAT or HOW? We just ARE......

Peace, Ya'll d(-_-)b

posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 03:36 PM
reply to post by Lazarus Short

But then, you weren't there - God was

LOL Why are you so sure a god was there? I'll answer it: because it's in the bible that was written by man.

posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 11:59 AM

Text 1. Which of the 'big 4' modern-man creation theories do you feel has the best evidence for plausibility? - Reptilian - Anunnaki - Nephilim - Genesis
reply to post by HomeBrew

@ HomeBrew

If the Nephilim are the giant children of the Angels and mortal women then the women would have been from the Adamic race in Genesis. Wouldn't the categories of Genesis and Nephilim be somewhat related? Besides being in the book of Genesis are not the women that produced the Nephilim from Adam and Eve? My understanding would be that if I believe the Genesis account then I would have to believe that the Nephilim are a cross breed between Adam's seed and the celestial entities.

That also brings up another question. Some people understand that a celestial entity does not have the capabilities of procreation. If that is true then did these angels, which left the celestial realm and came down to the terrestrial realm, become possessed humans? In other words were they celestial entities or were they human men who were possessed with these spirits?

As far as the Anunnaki are concerned, I have a propensity to choose the Genesis account over the Gilgamesh account. There are as many unanswered questions to the Sumerian account as there are to the Genesis and until some of these are rectified I shall have to cast my lot with Moses. The Sumerian tablets are dated at about 669 to 633 BC even though the Gilgamesh story is dated well over 3,000 BC. That in itself brings up the question as to whether this story is simply just a story which was fabricated long after the flood of Noah.

The tablets were discovered in orderly manner on shelves of a library. Some were baked while others were not and some had returned to the earthly manner. Now if these tablets were written before the flood of Noah then I would have to say that there would be no library left and all would have returned to earth. So I do believe that they were written some time in the era of 633 to 669 BC just as they were dated. This would be well after the 1656 BC flood of Noah.

If the tablets were indeed not more than 669 BC then that would place the Sumerian tradition well over 2,000 to 2,500 years old without any sort of verification while Moses does at least have some sort of historical order in his tradition. In other words the Jewish time line has a orderly fashion with a set beginning while the Sumerian account shows very little or nothing more than a verified king and all sorts of gods in underworld fantasy in its history. A story without a time line shows me as nothing but fantastic imagination from the author. If the tablets were dated older than the Noah flood and had a time line of history then it could hold some verification. Of course we then would still have the problem of just how could the tablets have survived the Noah flood. This brings me to the conclusion that the tablets which are dated as being written in the 669 to 633 era were nothing more than a story of perhaps religious nature from ancient people.

posted on Apr, 16 2013 @ 03:29 AM
reply to post by HomeBrew

Are you serious? NONE of them obviously.

The fact alone that there are dozens of different creation myths from various beliefs should make it very clear that simply picking the one you like best is probably not the best choice.

We know pretty well how and when the world and indeed the universe formed. Granted, we do not know why, but that is a different question that nobody so far can answer.

new topics

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in