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.

 

Humans came long after aliens, scientist suggests.

page: 10
31
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   

DarksideOz
reply to post by dragonridr
 


So now you know what research I have done and who I have listened to ?

I have based my own theory on the thoughts and findings of MANY people, so please do not think you have me all worked out based on an online conversation. You will dismiss any thought or possibility I put forward, which only suggests that you have already made up you mind on a subject and refuse to accept any notion of your personal decision being wrong.

I am happy to discuss the topic with you, but not if you want to go down that road.









Then your interpretations are wrong on sumerian and need to do further research. Please show us all these miracles in sumerian which text? There is no mention of any of this in Sumerian other than stichens wrong interpretation. So if you didnt get it from him were you just making stuff up then?




posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


It is very open to interpretation, but I have seen quiet a few pieces of information that suggest that "made out of clay" also has a deeper meaning. The "clay" is made from the minerals of the Earth. Man was made from clay, or, man was made from the minerals of Earth. When we take minerals from the Earth for mining to form other materials, then is it really much different in principal ?

I have also seen how the Biblical reference of the rib of Adam was actually a possible reference to genetic engineering. The story of Adam was very similar to the story of Adamu. Yet the story of Adamu was around long before the story of Adam. Even some of the greatest OPEN minds that have studied the bible have agreed that their is a lot of double speak in the bible, which then leaves it very open to interpretation and the only one[s] that know the true meaning are the one[s] that put it there. Yet look how many people quote a line from the bible and use it as absolute definite proof when the line they quote has a double, or even hidden meaning.

But that's IF you believe the biblical version to begin with. Try telling someone about the Adam and Eve story if that person believes in the ape story, or vice-versa. Whether its religion or science, humans have always been divided by personal opinion and beliefs. No one can say with 100% proof that the bible is right or wrong, just as no one can say that the evolution or big bang theory are 100% true or false. Yet look at how many people close their mind to any other possibility other than the one that they personally chose. And look at how many people I have debated with here that will completely dismiss what I am saying, but then have the hide to say what an ancient alien would prefer. Let me get this right, they can say that it cannot not happen, but if it did happen then this is how it would of happened and all other suggestions are wrong. This is some of the mentalities I'm dealing with here !



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Sorry about the underlining, not sure what happened there ?



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   

dragonridr

DarksideOz
reply to post by dragonridr
 


So now you know what research I have done and who I have listened to ?

I have based my own theory on the thoughts and findings of MANY people, so please do not think you have me all worked out based on an online conversation. You will dismiss any thought or possibility I put forward, which only suggests that you have already made up you mind on a subject and refuse to accept any notion of your personal decision being wrong.

I am happy to discuss the topic with you, but not if you want to go down that road.









Then your interpretations are wrong on sumerian and need to do further research. Please show us all these miracles in sumerian which text? There is no mention of any of this in Sumerian other than stichens wrong interpretation. So if you didnt get it from him were you just making stuff up then?


Please tell me HOW my interpretations are wrong instead of just saying they are. Are they wrong because they don't agree with YOUR interpretations. That seems to be a common flaw with you !

If you haven't seen these things while researching the Sumerians, then please don't make a fool of yourself by telling others to do more research. If you do not believe in what I am suggesting as a possibility, then fine, move on and find someone else to play this game with. I am happy to discuss the topic, but I refuse to play the ATS game of tit-for-tat when an open minded discussion would be better for all. You have closed your mind to this topic, so please tell me how we are supposed to have an intelligent discussion ?

Sit 2 people down with one being a devout religious follower, and the other being a devout believer in the evolution theory. If both of those people refuse to and entertain the possibility that the other person may have a credible point, then both will walk away frustrated. But if both people enter the discussion with an open mind, then both will probably walk away feeling better, and more enlightened from the experience. See how a completely different outcome can come from the same event. Now apply that to other theories outside of what YOU choose to believe in !

If you are not going to open your mind to this subject, then please discuss it with someone else who will accept that behaviour !



posted on Feb, 7 2014 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DarksideOz
 


Yet the story of Adamu was around long before the story of Adam.
Yes. So what? Myths get handed down. That's the way it works.


This is some of the mentalities I'm dealing with here !
Nice rant but you said this earlier:

You will also see many references to genetic engineering and references to DNA.

I don't see any references to genetic engineering or references to DNA in the Sumerian creation myth (the "original"). I see mud. You said there are many references. Since this is pretty much the earliest version it would make sense that others have built on it not having experienced it first hand, after all. "Chinese whispers" stretched over millenia.

Sounds like a perfectly good myth to me. After all, our sustenance comes from mud, seems reasonable that we did too. Where does food come from? Mud! Where did man come from? Mud! Makes sense, right?

I see references to mud. Not genetic engineering. Not DNA. I see the myth as saying that Man is of the Earth. You know what earth is right? Dirt.



edit on 2/7/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 12:01 AM
link   

DarksideOz

dragonridr

DarksideOz
reply to post by dragonridr
 


So now you know what research I have done and who I have listened to ?

I have based my own theory on the thoughts and findings of MANY people, so please do not think you have me all worked out based on an online conversation. You will dismiss any thought or possibility I put forward, which only suggests that you have already made up you mind on a subject and refuse to accept any notion of your personal decision being wrong.

I am happy to discuss the topic with you, but not if you want to go down that road.









Then your interpretations are wrong on sumerian and need to do further research. Please show us all these miracles in sumerian which text? There is no mention of any of this in Sumerian other than stichens wrong interpretation. So if you didnt get it from him were you just making stuff up then?


Please tell me HOW my interpretations are wrong instead of just saying they are. Are they wrong because they don't agree with YOUR interpretations. That seems to be a common flaw with you !

If you haven't seen these things while researching the Sumerians, then please don't make a fool of yourself by telling others to do more research. If you do not believe in what I am suggesting as a possibility, then fine, move on and find someone else to play this game with. I am happy to discuss the topic, but I refuse to play the ATS game of tit-for-tat when an open minded discussion would be better for all. You have closed your mind to this topic, so please tell me how we are supposed to have an intelligent discussion ?

Sit 2 people down with one being a devout religious follower, and the other being a devout believer in the evolution theory. If both of those people refuse to and entertain the possibility that the other person may have a credible point, then both will walk away frustrated. But if both people enter the discussion with an open mind, then both will probably walk away feeling better, and more enlightened from the experience. See how a completely different outcome can come from the same event. Now apply that to other theories outside of what YOU choose to believe in !

If you are not going to open your mind to this subject, then please discuss it with someone else who will accept that behaviour !



Simple there is no sumerian text mentions anything about DNA like you claimed, This is your interpretation not reality. If we want to discuss make believe than we have a creative writing area here on ATS.It seems to me whaen i said lets see what you Summarian text you were refering to and we could discuss it shows you really dont want an open discussion do you? Now as how to have an intelligent discussion its simple you post evidence to back up suppositions you might make and avoid misleading people. So again where in Sumerian text did they talk about aliens or DNA manipulation by them?



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



And there is that type of response again of,I don't see it therefore it must not be.
I did point out that a lot of it can come down to interpretation as well. Does it mean that all of my research that I have done is wrong because you can't see it, or possibly interpret it in another way ? What or who is to say your opinion is any more logical, or right ?
Have I even once during this conversation said that the theory I suggest I is 100% fact or DID happen ? Yet I have several people telling me, based only on their personal opinion, that it did NOT and CANNOT happen. I would of thought considering a possibility would be better than dismissing it as never a possibility despite nothing physical stopping it from happening.

Tell me how what I am suggesting is any less believable than the religious and scientific versions of human origin ? [Putting any bias towards religion or science aside preferably when answering.]



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


If you have to ask where the examples are, then I can only assume that your research is very limited. If you have seen the main Sumerian writings, drawings, tablets etc, then you would of seen them several times. But even if you did see these things, would you change you stance at all considering the stance you already have ?

If what I am suggesting is so implausible, and no chance at all of being true, then can you present 100% facts or evidence that prove it wrong considering who implausible it apparently is ? You all demand facts from me, yet I never said I fully believe it to be 100% true. You, and others are completely dismissing it, so lets see your facts to prove it wrong if its so easily dismissed, and please remember that a personal opinion is not a fact...................................



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by DarksideOz
 


Does it mean that all of my research that I have done is wrong because you can't see it, or possibly interpret it in another way ?
Perhaps you can share your research. On which 6,000 year old tablet do you see references to genetic engineering and references to DNA?


Tell me how what I am suggesting is any less believable than the religious and scientific versions of human origin ?
No less believable than God making everything. There is quite a bit of evidence for the scientific version. Not so much for Sitchin's version.


Have I even once during this conversation said that the theory I suggest I is 100% fact or DID happen ? Yet I have several people telling me, based only on their personal opinion, that it did NOT and CANNOT happen.
Actually, I haven't said that it did not and cannot happen. I just asked you for those "many examples" you talk about. Which 6,000 year old texts contain those references?
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...
edit on 2/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Related: Several references in the Bible refer to "the sins of the fathers being visited on the children for 3-5 generations." This process rather accurately describes epigenetic inheritance resulting from (personally chosen) harmful environmental exposures, the fact that non-beneficial epigenetic changes disappear in a few generations - and suggests ancient knowledge of the difference between genetic and epigenetic inheritance.









edit on 8/2/14 by soficrow because: attempt remove underline



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 

It doesn't take a knowledge of epigenetics or genetics to observe the phenomenon of inherited traits.

Of course, it could also just be religious fear mongering. Be good or God will get you, and your kids, and your kids' kids.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


...it could also just be religious fear mongering. Be good or God will get you, and your kids, and your kids' kids.


I agree and that's how I always interpreted it. BUT - what was observed was not just the appearance of inherited traits but also, the disappearance of non-beneficial inherited traits. That's epigenetics. Moreover, reliable records over at least a century would be needed to substantiate such observations.





edit on 8/2/14 by soficrow because: format



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 




BUT - what was observed was not just the appearance of inherited traits but also, the disappearance of non-beneficial inherited traits. That's epigenetics.

Yes. Possibly an observation of the inheritance of epigentic traits.
That is not the same thing as a knowledge of epigenetics any more that an observation of the inheritance of genetic traits is the same thing as a knowledge of genetics.

But this has gone way, way off topic.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


sounds like 2001 a space oddysey! time keeps on slippin, slippin...into the future.



posted on Feb, 8 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


...this has gone way, way off topic.


Okay, sorry. But sneaky way to get the last word.





posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by DarksideOz
 


Does it mean that all of my research that I have done is wrong because you can't see it, or possibly interpret it in another way ?
Perhaps you can share your research. On which 6,000 year old tablet do you see references to genetic engineering and references to DNA?


Tell me how what I am suggesting is any less believable than the religious and scientific versions of human origin ?
No less believable than God making everything. There is quite a bit of evidence for the scientific version. Not so much for Sitchin's version.


Have I even once during this conversation said that the theory I suggest I is 100% fact or DID happen ? Yet I have several people telling me, based only on their personal opinion, that it did NOT and CANNOT happen.
Actually, I haven't said that it did not and cannot happen. I just asked you for those "many examples" you talk about. Which 6,000 year old texts contain those references?
etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk...
edit on 2/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


The research that I have done is my own research, and I would expect anyone that denies any possibility of what I am suggesting would go and do their own research so that they can form their own opinion. I have said many times that what can be seen or read from Sumerian texts, drawings, tablets etc, can be open to interpretation. You ask me to produce where it is said on the tablets, but I have been trying to tell you that that it isn't spelt out in bold direct fashion where one can see or read it as definite proof. It is no different to how the worlds "best" religious scholars still argue amongst themselves about what certain things may interpret. And no different to how some of the "best" minds in science constantly seem at logger heads due to how each may interpret a certain theory. If you are going to ask me of proof or evidence, then can you produce absolute proof that ancient aliens did not, and can not of existed here on earth and that it is physically impossible to genetic engineer a slave species, considering you seem to also seem to be dismissing any possibility of it being true. To completely dismiss something as being impossible or implausible wouldn't make sense unless you had absolute proof to justify this stance.
I would be interested in your response to the question of 'where did the Sumerian's come from to become the first "known" civilisation' ? I am aware that people have attempted to answer this question, but it's your response I'm interested in.

As for there being "quite a bit of evidence for the scientific version", I do not deny this, but if I asked the same question to a deeply religious follower, the answer would be "there is quite a bit of evidence to the religious version". But as I said, it all comes own to interpretation. If absolute proof was to be revealed right now that the science version WAS 100% true, do you honestly think all those religious followers who have dedicated their lives to that religious belief are then going to say "oh, we were wrong, you were right. Let's all throw out our religious texts and accept the science version." ?
By the same token, do you honestly think if Jesus was to reveal himself beyond ALL DOUBT right now, do you think those in the science world that have dedicated their lives to science are then just going to say "oh well, we were wrong you were right. Lets all throw out our science theories about big bangs and accept the religious version" ?
It's almost as if we have been conditioned into thinking we have to believe one of the two versions [not facts, but versions].
But have you ever asked yourself "what if" both religion and science and their versions were wrong ? Does either version have absolute proof of being correct ? Yet many people have INTERPETED each version to the point that they have closed their minds to any other possibility, almost to the point where we have a two party system. If I say I don't believe in a religious version, I am condemned by those that do believe it. If I say there may be another version to a science version, I am condemned by those who don't believe in that version. And human's have long proven that they turn on those that don't see it THEIR way. Not THE way, but THEIR way. Yet us human's haven't been able to explain our own history with absolute proof for as long as we have existed. All we have ever had is theories, and the peoples interpretations of those theories. So with that in mind please tell me how what I am suggesting is so far fetched ?



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by DarksideOz
 




You ask me to produce where it is said on the tablets, but I have been trying to tell you that that it isn't spelt out in bold direct fashion where one can see or read it as definite proof.

No. I asked you which tablets.
If you told us which tablets we may be able to discuss interpretations.


edit on 2/13/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 02:05 AM
link   
If you would go and do your own research, as I did, you may see it or yourself ?
In this research, you may come across and explanation, or interpretation that will allow you to make up your own mind. I have no onus to produce anything, as I have made no clam of 100% fact. Why should I now have to go through years of research to find a nice little link for you ?

But as a suggestion, start looking into many of the recent discoveries that seem to re-write our previously "known" history. Where did they come from ? Who built the objects that pre-date "known" human history ?
This would suggest that either something or someone else was here long before humans, OR, humans have been here longer than history, science and religion suggest. Yet just look around at how many people swear blindly to at least one of those three things.

Can I prove we were genetically engineered by ancient aliens........No.
Has anyone that has taking issue with what I have said produced one bit of evidence other than their own opinion to try and prove he theory wrong, which is NOT evidence, while then saying it is "implausible"........No.
If it was so implausible, wouldn't the evidence against such a theory be damning ? Yet all I have received is sarcasm and personal opinion from other members !
Can anyone tell me with a straight face that the ancient aliens/human slaves theory is any less plausible than a religious or scientific theory we hear today. Yet look how many will dismiss it and even ridicule anyone that suggests an alternative theory.

Humans have been tying to work out the meaning of their existence for as long as they have existed. Don't you think after 1000 of years, which apparently included a process called evolution, we are still no closer to answering the age old question of what is our true purpose here. Yet thousands of years later, after all that evolution and natural selection and God's will, we still seem to, as a majority, dedicate our lives to working [paid slavery]. All those thousands of years later and the only difference seems to be now we get a wage to fund our own slavery. When you look at it from a much longer time frame, we are still doing the very thing that so many call "implausible", thousands of year later. But we have become so conditioned and so arrogant that we now choose the ignorance I bliss option as a majority.
Genetic engineering is possible, and has even been done by humans on other animals, and even humans on other humans.
We sill can't explain what DID build the pyramids around the world. All that evolution and progress in technology and we still can't duplicate it today ? Not to mention the age old question of how ancient civilisations came across the knowledge they had ? WHO gave it to them, where did THEY go, and WHERE were they from ? Or did these ancient civilisations came across this knowledge by chance, and then everything else gets explained as evolution and history, or, and act of God, thereafter ?

They might be called "Ancient" aliens, but I think there's a lot of people, especially on this thread, that need to show a bit more respect and realise that "ancient" doesn't always mean less advanced or less knowledgeable. It just mean's older. Older aliens, older civilisations ?



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Phage
reply to post by DarksideOz
 




You ask me to produce where it is said on the tablets, but I have been trying to tell you that that it isn't spelt out in bold direct fashion where one can see or read it as definite proof.

No. I asked you which tablets.
If you told us which tablets we may be able to discuss interpretations.


edit on 2/13/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Who is "us". I thought you were speaking for yourself ?
And you are the only one asking !



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by DarksideOz
 

Whoa.
You got me there. Yup. It was me.
So...which tablets?


edit on 2/13/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join