New Evidence Suggests Tower of Babel May Have Been Real

I always thought it was based on a real place. Thanks for sharing

a reply to: VegHead

Most myths are based on exaggerations and elaborations on something that happened or existed. Lots of towers existed. The bible spoke of the myth of one. Cities mentioned in the bible existed as well. Doesn't make it historic, though.

The Tower of Babel was not a literal tower to the Heavens. Why would God fear this and scatter the people? No, the Tower was something else entirely. Probably built with fallen angel secrets. Lots of theories such as portal to heaven (aka stargate), time manipulation, universal secrets, etc. Could be the great Pyramid for all we know.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Some seem to forget that evolution implies some upsetting ideas like; that we are all extremely inbred and that survival of the fittest only works if the unfit die (do not survive)

That's not how evolution works. Everyone dies, even the fittest of us.

Same goes for your "# slinging ape" line.

originally posted by: VelvetSplash

originally posted by: chr0naut
Some seem to forget that evolution implies some upsetting ideas like; that we are all extremely inbred and that survival of the fittest only works if the unfit die (do not survive)

That's not how evolution works. Everyone dies, even the fittest of us.

Same goes for your "# slinging ape" line.

True, we all die, but the issue is that the unfit genes are not passed on. This is the very definition of genocide. The 'survival' of the fittest implies the inverse in the unfit. If the unfit survive and breed then there is no advantage for the 'fit'. Denial of this truth is unreasonable.

My 'ape' comment was to point out to the staunchly anti-religious TzarChasm's comment that the "13 generations of incest to build the worlds first skyscraper" becomes thousands of generations of incest under evolutionary theory and therefore his sarcasm was misapplied in the situation.

originally posted by: VelvetSplash

originally posted by: chr0naut
Some seem to forget that evolution implies some upsetting ideas like; that we are all extremely inbred and that survival of the fittest only works if the unfit die (do not survive)

That's not how evolution works. Everyone dies, even the fittest of us.

Same goes for your "# slinging ape" line.

True, we all die, but the issue is that the unfit genes are not passed on. This is the very definition of genocide. The 'survival' of the fittest implies the inverse in the unfit. If the unfit survive and breed then there is no advantage for the 'fit'. Denial of this truth is unreasonable.

My 'ape' comment was to point out to the staunchly anti-religious TzarChasm's comment that the "13 generations of incest to build the worlds first skyscraper" becomes thousands of generations of incest under evolutionary theory and therefore his sarcasm was misapplied in the situation.

I still think it was a launch pad. That would explain why the "gods" were so angry.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: VelvetSplash

originally posted by: chr0naut
Some seem to forget that evolution implies some upsetting ideas like; that we are all extremely inbred and that survival of the fittest only works if the unfit die (do not survive)

That's not how evolution works. Everyone dies, even the fittest of us.

Same goes for your "# slinging ape" line.

True, we all die, but the issue is that the unfit genes are not passed on.

Except that this isn't true. In addition to the statement being false, how "fit" a gene is depends on the ecological niche a particular organism thrives in. An arctic fox wouldn't survive in a desert and likewise, a kit fox would not survive in Northern Canada. Regardless, "unfit" genes do in fact get passed on as do inane SNP duplications.

This is the very definition of genocide. The 'survival' of the fittest implies the inverse in the unfit. If the unfit survive and breed then there is no advantage for the 'fit'. Denial of this truth is unreasonable.

I guess it's a good thing then that "survival of the fittest isn't actually a mechanism of MES then.

My 'ape' comment was to point out to the staunchly anti-religious TzarChasm's comment that the "13 generations of incest to build the worlds first skyscraper" becomes thousands of generations of incest under evolutionary theory and therefore his sarcasm was misapplied in the situation.

The analogy is in no way shape or form equitable. Whether it's Adam and Eve starting out as the only 2 humans (which means Eve had to proceeate with her own sons and we know that genetically they would be entirely unviable by the 6th generation or so) or Noah and his children along with their respective spouses, again, necessitating extraordinarily close incestuous relationships to propagate their lineage that again would lead to genetic degradation in only a few more generations... neither examples is remotely similar to how MES operates and to insist otherwise is extremely disingenuous.

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: VelvetSplash

originally posted by: chr0naut
Some seem to forget that evolution implies some upsetting ideas like; that we are all extremely inbred and that survival of the fittest only works if the unfit die (do not survive)

That's not how evolution works. Everyone dies, even the fittest of us.

Same goes for your "# slinging ape" line.

True, we all die, but the issue is that the unfit genes are not passed on.

Except that this isn't true. In addition to the statement being false, how "fit" a gene is depends on the ecological niche a particular organism thrives in. An arctic fox wouldn't survive in a desert and likewise, a kit fox would not survive in Northern Canada. Regardless, "unfit" genes do in fact get passed on as do inane SNP duplications.

Firstly, no one is suggesting any sudden removal from the normal environment of the organism so the mention of it, and the suggestion that it is somehow pertinent, is irrelevant.

So all the genes get passed on. What then is the mechanism of natural selection?

This is the very definition of genocide. The 'survival' of the fittest implies the inverse in the unfit. If the unfit survive and breed then there is no advantage for the 'fit'. Denial of this truth is unreasonable.

I guess it's a good thing then that "survival of the fittest isn't actually a mechanism of MES then.

My 'ape' comment was to point out to the staunchly anti-religious TzarChasm's comment that the "13 generations of incest to build the worlds first skyscraper" becomes thousands of generations of incest under evolutionary theory and therefore his sarcasm was misapplied in the situation.

The analogy is in no way shape or form equitable. Whether it's Adam and Eve starting out as the only 2 humans (which means Eve had to proceeate with her own sons and we know that genetically they would be entirely unviable by the 6th generation or so) or Noah and his children along with their respective spouses, again, necessitating extraordinarily close incestuous relationships to propagate their lineage that again would lead to genetic degradation in only a few more generations... neither examples is remotely similar to how MES operates and to insist otherwise is extremely disingenuous.

The mutation which initiates the process of evolution begins in a single cell within a single organism. You can't apply population related explanations until the change has affected a portion of the population. You cannot speak of a genetic mutation as affecting a population without going through 'the individual' and explaining how that mutation in the individual spreads.

If we define species by the inability to breed with other species, then the individual that has the speciating change cannot breed with its progenitors. The genetic change dies without finding a breeding partner.

If you suggest that speciating changes are an accumulation of minute incremental changes, that is not how bio-incompatibility works at a genetic level. Also, it brings up the issue of the missing links which have the new genetic attributes that natural selection favours AND can breed with both progenitor and anticedent populations (which are incompatible with each other) and therefore has a natural selection advantage over BOTH populations.

This disjoint in how we get from individual to population is a significant hole in evolutionary theory, especially around the speciation issue.

We see sudden changes (both in the fossil record and in the lab) without the missing links or gradualism required for evolutionary theories. We do see change. It appears that evolution IS occurring. We have evidence! However, the accepted theories only go part way to explaining it.

(apologies to all as this thread has gone off topic).

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: VelvetSplash

originally posted by: chr0naut
Some seem to forget that evolution implies some upsetting ideas like; that we are all extremely inbred and that survival of the fittest only works if the unfit die (do not survive)

That's not how evolution works. Everyone dies, even the fittest of us.

Same goes for your "# slinging ape" line.

True, we all die, but the issue is that the unfit genes are not passed on.

This is the very definition of genocide. The 'survival' of the fittest implies the inverse in the unfit. If the unfit survive and breed then there is no advantage for the 'fit'. Denial of this truth is unreasonable.

... [snip]...

My 'ape' comment was to point out to the staunchly anti-religious TzarChasm's comment that the "13 generations of incest to build the worlds first skyscraper" becomes thousands of generations of incest under evolutionary theory and therefore his sarcasm was misapplied in the situation.

The analogy is in no way shape or form equitable. Whether it's Adam and Eve starting out as the only 2 humans (which means Eve had to proceeate with her own sons and we know that genetically they would be entirely unviable by the 6th generation or so) or Noah and his children along with their respective spouses, again, necessitating extraordinarily close incestuous relationships to propagate their lineage that again would lead to genetic degradation in only a few more generations... neither examples is remotely similar to how MES operates and to insist otherwise is extremely disingenuous.

So, MES describes mutational changes that MUST occur in less than 7 generations or those mutated inbred organisms become unviable?

originally posted by: jjkenobi
The Tower of Babel was not a literal tower to the Heavens. Why would God fear this and scatter the people? No, the Tower was something else entirely. Probably built with fallen angel secrets. Lots of theories such as portal to heaven (aka stargate), time manipulation, universal secrets, etc. Could be the great Pyramid for all we know.

Word is that the Tower was a global machine grid. And that it was capable of changing earths orbit. But it malfunctioned because of bad math, and split the continent into 7

Setting Neb's grand building propensity aside a hair, I see only two reasons to have such a large structure with that kind of dedication to the build --a purely devotional temple (Entemenaki) or possibly something like a forgotten version of a Library of Alexandria or a college with some kind of association with/assumed blessings of one the gods-- i.e a construct for learning & knowledge. Either way, if I remember correctly, a temple to Marduk was more or less right next door, so if anything, maybe it really was akin to something like a college/library/religious schooling complex connected to Marduk. Since Babylon already was Marduk's patron city, it makes sense that something as grand as this would be associated with him. Maybe a complex relating to judicial studies?

Either way, just because the bible said it existed doesn't mean it existed for the reason they claimed. I'm more apt to junk the "scattering the languages" theory as desert bumpkin folks not knowing WTF they were oo'ing & ahh'ing over back then, just that it was big & therefore GOD.

a reply to: chr0naut

You know that wasn't what I meant, let alone said. But then again, I gave up long ago in people actually addressing the actual science and instead resort to hyperbole. Please feel free to cite any work in genetics that supports the Genetic diversity in H. Sapiens and how it could arise from a singular genetic code. Because is Eve is made from Adams Rib, she is Adams clone. But for the sake of argument, I can pretend that was t the case and there were 2 distinct genomes somehow. So feel free to show a citation that leads you to believe that this is a biologically possible scenario.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: chr0naut

You know that wasn't what I meant, let alone said. But then again, I gave up long ago in people actually addressing the actual science and instead resort to hyperbole. Please feel free to cite any work in genetics that supports the Genetic diversity in H. Sapiens and how it could arise from a singular genetic code. Because is Eve is made from Adams Rib, she is Adams clone. But for the sake of argument, I can pretend that was t the case and there were 2 distinct genomes somehow. So feel free to show a citation that leads you to believe that this is a biologically possible scenario.

But surely the genetic rules of inbreeding, which we know and of which there is ample scientific evidence, should also equally affect EVERY branch of the phylogenetic tree.

If you cannot countenance even a single generation of similarity (a cloned breeding pair), how could you accept the instances of uniquely different genetic ancestors, passing their same genes on to millions of subsequent genetically similar generations?

It would appear that, in regard to inbreeding related issues, the evolutionary case is the more ridiculous.

There is a possibility that there was far less damage to the the genomes closer to the origins of life, and that there was far more genetic possibility than currently exists in the shortened and damaged genes we now carry.

Although there were no scientists around at the time performing DNA assays, it is a reasonable assumption required by both the evolutionary and creationist explanations. Definitely, there is ample scientific evidence of reduction in size of useful genomes due to degradation.

A simple comparison between larger X and smaller Y chromosomes is indicative of the cumulative damage which accrues faster on the Y chromosome.

This demonstrable and evidenced reduction in chromosome size is an indication that the original genes MUST have previously been larger and therefore contained greater potential for genetic expression than is current.

So it is most likely that the 6 or 7 generation limit on the viability of inbred genes does not apply to un-degraded genes.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

13 generations of incest built the first skyscraper? gross.

The DNA was more pure back then. It had to be, in order to withstand all the generations of incest that got us to this lowly, pathetic point. We are living longer now, thanks to technology, and knowledge (much of which was gained through the use of technology, like the microscope for example, or printing press and cheap paper chemical processes for the dissemination of information for mass education) but our bodies are in pitiful condition so we rely on that tech and knowledge.

There has been a small revival in diversity due to human populations having seperated across the earth after the tower of babel event. We are now reconnecting and reaping the small rewards of that artificially created genetic diversity, but really it's just a temporary slow down of an already inevitable process, because there will be two groups A) those who continue to breed with their own ethnic "family", promoting more "inbreeding", and B) those who continue to mix, until they become one homogenous "ethnicity" with no genetic diversity left, totally tapped dry. Both groups will either become infertile or, action may be taken before the "infertility drop off point" to mix group A with B to suck the last bit of genetic diversty humanity has to offer, before the whole population becomes group B, a homogeneous brownish grey race of sterile people.


I think this is what the UFOs are doing. Collecting DNA throughout all our history. Replenishing our dna with fresher samples plucked from the past. Or they are just saving all of it to give to us at a later date when we can responsibly use it.

Im just babbling mindlessly and none of this is probably true. I just wonder why I don't feel like I belong anywhere. Being on a ship in deep space, or somewhere in the distant past seems more appropriate for me than this particular slice of spacetime I'm currently inhabiting. What was the purpose of me coming here to this place... or this Now?

I feel like my potential is well, potentially being, not Wasted, not entirely...but...not able to reach it's Full potential, here, in this environment.

I guess all losers probably feel this way...






And yes, I used this movie as an example because it's hilarious. I like to end my depressing existential monologues with something to lighten the mood.

The Babylonian King rebuilt the early tower that was destroyed in Babel. Therefore this tower if rebuilt by this King is most likely or more then likely the original position of the ancient tower but not the exact same building.

originally posted by: slipdigskywalker
The Babylonian King rebuilt the early tower that was destroyed in Babel. Therefore this tower if rebuilt by this King is most likely or more then likely the original position of the ancient tower but not the exact same building.

Fact is, Sadam Hussein was rebuilding a modern day Babylon with his face embossed on every brick, when Bush forces destroyed the country. The royal palace was ransacked and soldiers had their photographs taken along side artifacts and paintings. One of them was a Babylonian Sumerian Anunnaki god holding a flower out to Hussein.

I remember it because I was stunned when it happened, and some revelation of hidden ancient artifacts have come to light since then. What they were looking for who knows.

"Unfit" genes don't have to die out, they just have to be outbred by creatures with more "fit" genes.

In the population, that will result in the "fit" genes being dominant and eventually replacing all the "unfit" ones.

To put it simplistically.

Hare

originally posted by: chr0naut

If we define species by the inability to breed with other species, then the individual that has the speciating change cannot breed with its progenitors. The genetic change dies without finding a breeding partner.

Very well said. The theoretical first ape that had to make the extremely improbable leap from 48 to 46 chromosomes would have also had to have luckily found ANOTHER ape with the same extremely low probability 48 to 46 mutation to make a viable offspring. And then these two would be the parents of all humankind - those that made the chromosomal leap from 48 to 46. Therefore, The theoretical evolution from apes to the homo genus (humans) is essentially a deranged Adam and Eve story.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: chr0naut

If we define species by the inability to breed with other species, then the individual that has the speciating change cannot breed with its progenitors. The genetic change dies without finding a breeding partner.

Very well said. The theoretical first ape that had to make the extremely improbable leap from 48 to 46 chromosomes would have also had to have luckily found ANOTHER ape with the same extremely low probability 48 to 46 mutation to make a viable offspring. And then these two would be the parents of all humankind - those that made the chromosomal leap from 48 to 46. Therefore, The theoretical evolution from apes to the homo genus (humans) is essentially a deranged Adam and Eve story.

Species are not defined by their inability to breed with other species. In fact, when you consider more than two species, the "ability to create viable offspring" property doesn't even obey transitivity in some cases.

Harte