How real are the Gods?

After 10 hours at work I really do not have time to dissect every quote and counter quote of the previous posts. I will try to address them as best as I can remember.

About the Hindu story. India is full of stories about the gods and since most of them are oral I do not know if this story was created in 2008 A.D. or B.C. and it doesn't really matter. The point was that they thought that their gods were real at some point in time. To this day when they make offerings to their deities they ritually wash the gods hands, feet, offer drinking water and so on because this is how was done long ago when the gods walked the earth.

When I use words "sudden" and "right out of the blue" I don't mean literally in a snap of a finger. Geeez! 3000 years may seem like a long time but considering that it took about 1.2 million years of the humanoid wild creatures to figure out that chipping the stone on both sides makes it sharper, 3000 years does look like a snap. Especially when it comes to pharmacy and the 38 other "inventions". It is against this backdrop that I propose that the Sumerian civilization was sudden and out of the blue.

About the pyramids... have you or anyone else tried to cut granite with copper tools lately? Get back to me on that when you do.

About the gods not existing, again, tell that to the ancients-- I didn't built the huge temples for the non-existing gods.

Can someone explain the mechanics of evolution tripling and in some cases quadrupling the chromosomes of plants that doesn't involve genetic manipulation? And yes, it is all connected with the gods, or the cavemen were quite the botanical miracle workers. In fact this will be my signature "Genetic engineering- so easy even a caveman can do it!"

About the wolf-like aliens. It seems like my little metaphor escaped the attention of some people. For that I fully apologize.

Despite all the clever comments, how come no one has addressed the platypus dilemma?

Here is another one: The cheetahs have the characteristics of both cats and dogs. And they are 98% genetically identical. Miracle or Evolution? Or cavemen playing around the biology lab on a Sunday afternoon?


[edit on 10-1-2009 by tungus]

Originally posted by undo
kramer agrees with me? no, i agree with kramer.
difference.

Switching the order of the words changes nothing. You are trying to make it appear you are just following Kramer's lead and that it was Kramer who believed these stories to be more than myth. Kramer made no such claim. You are again attempting to deceive us to make your point.

Originally posted by tungus
About the gods not existing, again, tell that to the ancients-- I didn't built the huge temples for the non-existing gods.

To the ancients, the gods were very real. That doesn't mean that the gods actually existed, just that the ancients thought they did. They found evidence for the work of the gods every where.

We are doing the same thing even today. How many churches, synagogues and temples are in your town?

Originally posted by tungus
Can someone explain the mechanics of evolution tripling and in some cases quadrupling the chromosomes of plants that doesn't involve genetic manipulation?

Of course there was genetic manipulation. Though not in the manner that you are thinking of. Cross pollinating plants and cross-breeding animals is a form of genetic manipulation.

Originally posted by tungus
Despite all the clever comments, how come no one has addressed the platypus dilemma?

To be frank, I ignored it because it was stupid.

Yes, their DNA has mammalian, bird, and reptile traits; however, that does not mean they are part bird, mammal and reptile. It means that as they evolved, they retained certain DNA traits that are found in reptiles and birds. That's it. It does not mean some aliens came down and for whatever reason decided to combine the three species.

Again, you are doing the exact same thing the ancients did. You are at a loss to explain something, so you use the supernatural to fill in your gaps of ignorant. You are just replacing gods with aliens. You have no direct evidence of these aliens, but you apparently see their handiwork everywhere. Can you see now how the ancients could have believed in non-existent gods, when you yourself believe in aliens you have never seen?

reply to post by SaviorComplex


you're misunderstanding me again. i never said that kramer does or doesn't believe it was real. what i do agree with is how he INTERPRETS it. there's a difference.

please read what i'm saying not what you think i'm saying



[edit on 10-1-2009 by undo]

Oh boy, this is hard. It's like chiseling granite blocks with copper tools. There isn't even a scratch on the hard surface... But hey, they built a pyramid that way in what was it, 17 years?
(Sigh) Let me try this again.

To the ancients, the gods were very real. That doesn't mean that the gods actually existed, just that the ancients thought they did. They found evidence for the work of the gods every where.

We are doing the same thing even today. How many churches, synagogues and temples are in your town?

We build churches and such because there is a precedent. The fact that there is no one (and I don't mean ordinary people) occupying the house of the god(s) now is not a concern to this folk is because they hope that their gods will one day return in some manner or another, so they keep building new temples. The precedent the ancients had was that some one needed the first "House of God". Their writings say so. This is the short answer to the question "why".

We run into problem with the question "how". The problem is this. If I believed that the gods existed, really, really believed it, because I didn't understand thunder and lightning and thought that there was a god in the clouds hurling that stuff at me, naturally I would offer animals or whatever to him to appease him/her. The proverbial cavemen did that. House cats sometimes drag their hunt into the house to the horror of the nice family, which hardly understands this behavior. My belief however, does not and cannot raise my intelligence (btw, I possess no intelligence whatsoever) to new level where I would be able to construct temples, understand astronomy, or have the foresight to cultivate seeds. I don't understand farming now, when the know how is all around me, let alone come up with agriculture, social structure other inventions by believing in non existing entities.

About the platypus. This is what we are talking about:

It means that as they evolved, they retained certain DNA traits that are found in reptiles and birds.

As they evolved? Evolved how? You might as well have said: "as they magically turned into this new species with no precursor whatsoever they retained", blah, blah blah.

This is what the wright up says:

Although categorized as a mammal, the platypus doesn't fit neatly into any of the usual zoological classes.

source
Fit neatly? It doesn't fit at all!

New genome research proves platypus DNA is an equally cobbled-together array of avian, reptilian and mammalian lineages that may hold clues about how species evolved.

So as they magically..., um, evolved they equally cobbled together DNA from three distinct species? Equally? Really? Not a little bit of one and not so much of the other? OK, you are the scientist.?

And you ignored my platypus reference because it was stupid? If only these stupid platypuses, cheetahs, giraffes etc. didn't run around maybe then your world view would fit neatly into a pigeonhole.
Or you can just ignore them. It didn't bother you before, why should it start now, right?

[edit on 10-1-2009 by tungus]

Originally posted by tungus
(btw, I possess no intelligence whatsoever)

The first step is acknowledging the problem...

Originally posted by tungus
As they evolved? Evolved how? You might as well have said: "as they magically turned into this new species with no precursor whatsoever they retained", blah, blah blah.

No, not magically. Again, you do not understand something, so in your ignorance and obtuseness, you assume there was some supernatural agent involved.

It was not magic. It was a gradual process; through time, trial and error, the ancestors of the platypus retained traits they found made them successful in their environment. It did not magically happen over night.

And yes, we know exactly where the platypus fits in.

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Monotremata
Family: Ornithorhynchidae
Genus: Ornithorhynchus

Further, the platypus is not equal parts bird, mammal and reptile. 80% of platypus genes are shared by all mammals. I know reading the article may be hard, but try not to assume just because you cannot explain it that no one else can, or that aliens were somehow involved.

Also, the platypus did not magically appear on the scene. We know of ancient relatives, such as the teinolophos, steropodon, and obdurodon.

Originally posted by tungus
And you ignored my platypus reference because it was stupid? If only these stupid platypuses, cheetahs, giraffes etc. didn't run around maybe then your world view would fit neatly into a pigeonhole.

No, your assertion is stupid. You do not understand how something works, so you jump to the conclusion of "aliens!" You don't understand how the platypus acquired certain traits, so it had to be alien.

Total, unadulterated stupidity.

[edit on 10-1-2009 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by tungus
(btw, I possess no intelligence whatsoever)

The first step is acknowledging the problem...

Ah, couldn't resist... Predictably, as someone who likes the word "stupid" a lot you couldn't ignore my "admission" of stupidity. OK, what i meant was that i have no intelligence compared to the gods. Compared to you...well, I'll leave it at that.


[edit on 11-1-2009 by tungus]

The people of Greece thought that there Gods were real. In fact, the were probably the most humanized of all, i.e. making human mistakes, cheating, fighting along side humans in battle, having affairs. The only Gods that aren't seen as having human characteristics is the monotheistic religions today.

Well, I'm pretty real, last time I checked, lol.

Really.

If gods exist, they are us. It's just that some of us are older and like to spoof the kids.

What about the Norse gods such as Odin, Thor, Freyr etc. They were always depicted as humanoids. According to wikipedia Norse mythology comes from earlier German paganism which developed from an even older Indo-European mythology.

Originally posted by tungus
what i meant was that i have no intelligence compared to the gods. Compared to you...well, I'll leave it at that.

Say what you will. But I am not the one who ascribes the supernatural to things he cannot explain.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by tungus
what i meant was that i have no intelligence compared to the gods. Compared to you...well, I'll leave it at that.

Say what you will. But I am not the one who ascribes the supernatural to things he cannot explain.

Good. I'm glad we are not calling each other stupid anymore. Otherwise, despite our use of computers, we are no different than primates fighting over whatever it is primates fight over. I am not being sarcastic.
This topic is in the "Aliens and UFO" forum where people have crazy ideas about humanity's origins. Aliens genetically manipulating primates to create humans, crazy stuff. No different than Darwin's ideas if you think about it.
I am not saying that Darwinian evolution does not work for the finches Darwin wrote about; it's just when it comes to blending of species it's got a little trouble, that's all. I'm not talking about hybrids like the liger (a cross between a lion and a tiger). They may seem different but they are of the same cat family and although rare, interbreeding does happen in nature. However, the hybrids don't last long and are beset with genetic disorders, which is why we do not see ligers from hundreds of millions years ago. The platypus on the other hand is a blend of three distinctly different species! Scientists are scratching their heads trying to fit them between this animal and that animal.
The theory of evolution has that much trouble explaining the blending of existing species on the planet but has no problem explaining humans.
Although we have 97% match of the chimpanzee and 95% match of the gorilla DNA, there is nothing to compare the other 3 and 5% to. Nothing. In the whole diversity of animal DNA, our 3 to 5% are unique. Not like the platypus, where although in weird a combination, there is a comparison to other existing species. Not so with us. We can't compare our 3 to 5% to any species, existing or extinct. We can't say that we are 95% gorilla and 5%, oh I don't know, a wolf for example. (to use the wolf-like aliens that were mentioned before). Or any other animal on the planet.
And before someone says that this does not mean that aliens created us, just for fun, can you imagine, if we were 95% different form the primates? A 100%? What would we then be? This is inconceivable, at least to me it is.
OK, maybe this alone does not mean that aliens or gods created us but when combined with the oral and recorded history of the early humans from all over the planet referring to gods, it does seem to point in that direction. I do not know this for sure, it's a theory.


[edit on 11-1-2009 by tungus]

Below is a link to a video about the Maya calendar and 2012 from the History channel. I doubt that people have not seen at least one of those on TV but I wanted to emphasize the point that imaginary friends cannot bestow knowledge beyond one's level.
If you want to skip the doom and gloom, fast forward to 5:10 where they talk about the Mayan god Kukulcan. Two quotes from the video that stand out:

"Though the Maya barely grasped the significance of the wheel, they somehow acquired advanced knowledge of astronomy, architecture, and mathematics..."

Quite the Farmers Almanac, eh? (to put on my Canadian hat)

"...The ancient Mayas credited Kukulcan, an all-knowing godlike figure who strangely bore no resemblance to his own dark-skinned people. The Maya described Kukulcan as a tall Caucasian man with long flowing silky white hair and beard and blazing deep blue eyes. He was said to have had an elongated skull..."

Again, if I were to create my god, why would I imagine him to look nothing like me?

link


[edit on 12-1-2009 by tungus]

Originally posted by tungus
"Though the Maya barely grasped the significance of the wheel, they somehow acquired advanced knowledge of astronomy, architecture, and mathematics..."

History is replete with examples of these little contradictions. For example, Hero of Alexandria created a steam-engine in the first century AD but never utilized it.

Originally posted by tungus
"...The ancient Mayas credited Kukulcan, an all-knowing godlike figure who strangely bore no resemblance to his own dark-skinned people. The Maya described Kukulcan as a tall Caucasian man with long flowing silky white hair and beard and blazing deep blue eyes. He was said to have had an elongated skull...'

Kukulcan as a "caucasian" may be something that was invented after the conquest of the Aztecs, to provide justification for the conquest and explain the supposed ease with which the Aztecs were defeated. He was, at times described "white" by the MesoAmericans; but there is a difference between "white" and "Caucasian." He was described as "white" because he was associated with the planet Venus, which appears white in the sky. And there are plenty of depictions of Kukulcan as dark-skinned. And surprisingly, light or dark-skinned, none of them have beards.

They also describe Kukulcan as a feathered-serpent. Is that literal or just allegory? Are we to assume because they associated him with Venus that he was from a planet we know cannot support life?

Originally posted by tungus
Again, if I were to create my god, why would I imagine him to look nothing like me?

It is quite common for cultures to create gods that look nothing like them. Within MesoAmerican mythology, Tezcatlipoca had one leg that was either a mirror or a snake. Or look at various deities of Hindu mythology, multiple-armed entities. Look at Christian myth, while not gods, angels are terrifying beings. The point is, humans are very imaginative creatures. I suppose, under your simplistic thinking, that all of the aliens in Star Wars are based on real creatures, Cloverfield is a real monster, and Will Smith really is an MIB.

Once again, you are engaging in the stupid, simple minded mentality of "I can't explain it, so there must be a supernatural explanation!" I can't take this obtuse stupidity anymore. Someone get me some duck-tape cause my head is about to explode.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
It is quite common for cultures to create gods that look nothing like them. Within MesoAmerican mythology, Tezcatlipoca had one leg that was either a mirror or a snake.

The Mayans didn't cut the leg of their babies and replace it with a mirror or a snake to make them look like these gods, and not because they weren't savage. And yet, they elongated the sculls of their babies to make them in honor of Kukulcan...

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Look at Christian myth, while not gods, angels are terrifying beings. The point is, humans are very imaginative creatures. I suppose, under your simplistic thinking, that all of the aliens in Star Wars are based on real creatures, Cloverfield is a real monster, and Will Smith really is an MIB.

I agree that humans are imaginative creatures. Their imaginations however are not out of place, the medieval Cristian angels are not flying in spaceships shooting each other with laser beams, there are no light sabers and the bad guys do not breathe like Darth Vader!
That's because they couldn't imagine this yet! And what angel taught the medievals anything? The imaginings of these people are never out of place and although they thought they had a two-way conversations, these creatures never taught them anything they didn't already know. Ever! Unlike the Mayas, who by the way, never thought Kukulcan was imaginary.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Once again, you are engaging in the stupid, simple minded mentality of "I can't explain it, so there must be a supernatural explanation!" I can't take this obtuse stupidity anymore. Someone get me some duck-tape cause my head is about to explode.

O-u-t o-f p-l-a-c-e. I wish you could duck-tape that onto your head, maybe it will magically make you think before you post.
Relax, your head was never in any danger of exploding, or will it ever be, no matter what you read.


[edit on 12-1-2009 by tungus]

Originally posted by tungus
The theory of evolution has that much trouble explaining the blending of existing species on the planet but has no problem explaining humans.
Although we have 97% match of the chimpanzee and 95% match of the gorilla DNA, there is nothing to compare the other 3 and 5% to. Nothing.

To what do you compare the other leftover percentages between say, a Chimp and a Gorilla?

A monkey and an Orangutan?

These species are also closely related, yet do not match 100 percent.

There is a small percentage leftover, to what should we compare it in these cases?

There is nothing.

Nothing.

In the whole diversity of animal DNA, their leftover percentage is unique.

Originally posted by tungusAnd before someone says that this does not mean that aliens created us, just for fun, can you imagine, if we were 95% different form the primates? A 100%? What would we then be? This is inconceivable, at least to me it is.

We would be alien then. Why is that inconcievable yet when the difference is merely 3 to 5 % then your answer is an automatic "must be alien"?

Originally posted by tungusOK, maybe this alone does not mean that aliens or gods created us but when combined with the oral and recorded history of the early humans from all over the planet referring to gods, it does seem to point in that direction. I do not know this for sure, it's a theory.

What it actually is is speculation. Possibly opinion. If this is your opinion, then you are, of course, welcome to hold it.

Originally posted by tungus
Below is a link to a video about the Maya calendar and 2012 from the History channel. I doubt that people have not seen at least one of those on TV but I wanted to emphasize the point that imaginary friends cannot bestow knowledge beyond one's level.
If you want to skip the doom and gloom, fast forward to 5:10 where they talk about the Mayan god Kukulcan. Two quotes from the video that stand out:

"Though the Maya barely grasped the significance of the wheel, they somehow acquired advanced knowledge of astronomy, architecture, and mathematics..."

Quite the Farmers Almanac, eh? (to put on my Canadian hat

)

"...The ancient Mayas credited Kukulcan, an all-knowing godlike figure who strangely bore no resemblance to his own dark-skinned people. The Maya described Kukulcan as a tall Caucasian man with long flowing silky white hair and beard and blazing deep blue eyes. He was said to have had an elongated skull..."

Again, if I were to create my god, why would I imagine him to look nothing like me?

The History Channel is a vetry poor source. Might as well cite Indiana Jones movies.
Kukulcan is a Feathered Serpent God. He is one of the Quetzcoatl prototypes.

There's really no ancient gods in Mesoamerica that were bearded white men. Just like there's no indigenous mythos surrounding any crystal skulls in Mesoamerica.

Yet, you can find info about both literally all over the internet.

Harte

[

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by tungusOK, maybe this alone does not mean that aliens or gods created us but when combined with the oral and recorded history of the early humans from all over the planet referring to gods, it does seem to point in that direction. I do not know this for sure, it's a theory.

What it actually is is speculation. Possibly opinion. If this is your opinion, then you are, of course, welcome to hold it.

Thank you. Thank you, indeed. But don't tell that to the guy whose head is wrapped in a duct tape, it might explode upon contact with such novel idea.

Originally posted by Harte

A monkey and an Orangutan?

These species are also closely related, yet do not match 100 percent.

There is a small percentage leftover, to what should we compare it in these cases?

There is nothing.

Nothing.

In the whole diversity of animal DNA, their leftover percentage is unique.

True. Small percentages in variations in DNA does not automatically lead to new species. Nor does it make them smarter. It did with us, and in this respect, there is no precedent on this planet for that.

Originally posted by Harte
Why is that inconcievable yet when the difference is merely 3 to 5 % then your answer is an automatic "must be alien"?

I make the assertion of alien intervention when I couple the ancients records about gods with our small but unique DNA difference. Not automatically.

Originally posted by Harte
The History Channel is a vetry poor source. Might as well cite Indiana Jones movies.

Not quite Indiana Jones, but I agree that it could be trashy TV sometimes. The Popol Vuh (The Mayan equivalent of the bible) to which they refer to in this clip is not a poor source. I just needed something that everyone has seen, that's why I chose the History channel. I lived in Guatemala for a bit, the Maya there did speak of white gods. That was before Al Gore invented the internet.


[edit on 12-1-2009 by tungus]

Originally posted by tungus
Not quite Indiana Jones, but I agree that it could be trashy TV sometimes. The Popol Vuh (The Mayan equivalent of the bible) to which they refer to in this clip is not a poor source.

In fact, the Popul Vuh is a very poor source, written, as it was, by a Christian after[ the Spanish Conquest.

The book is full to the brim with Christian references.

Do you believe that the Spanish might have had a motive for making the claim that Kukulcan looked like Jebus?

Unfortunately for us, the Popul Vuh is what we have. No compendium of Mayan mythology exists anywhere else that we've found.

The Mayan codices we do have are far more reliable. But there are only four and they are not all concerned with the mythology.

Originally posted by tungusHarte I just needed something that everyone has seen, that's why I chose the History channel. I lived in Guatemala for a bit, the Maya there did speak of white gods. That was before Al Gore invented the internet.

LOL.

Gotta love Gore for that, right?

Anyway, I bet some of them also speak of 13 crystal skulls, nowadays. Especially if they saw the new Indiana Jones movie.

There is no such mythology regarding white bearded gods.

There is a tradition of "light skinned" gods. "Light skinned" might mean white, but what of it anyway?

After all, Krishna is blue!

Harte

reply to post by Harte


OK, so we agree to disagree on the Popol Vuh. I think it is just too elaborate for the conquistas to fake it all; although the Spaniards might have had a motive to insert a Jesus reference, why the long skull then? And how could they have resisted not putting a pair of horns on the bad guy? The priests could not have also faked the babies of the Mayas, right?

The Maya are not the only one to worship the elongated skulls. The Egyptians also did that.

Although I love Indiana Jones I thought the last movie was a dud. You have no argument with me there.

The Maya worshiped a god (light skinned long skulled god or one of different color, doesn't matter), who gave them knowledge which they were not capable of mustering on their own. Other civilizations before them weren't either and they too worshiped similar gods, long skulls etc.
Hindu deities take exception to that, they definitely look more human although they have many arms, symbolizing their omnipotence. I don't imagine they looked that way.

I don't know if these were aliens in the usual sense or advanced humans from previous time.

The point I am trying to make about level of knowledge not being equal to the level of the ancient societies is this: The ancient Egyptians built the Pyramids before the advent of air conditioning and refrigeration. You see what I mean? That is out of place. Our current civilization started from scratch, everything we invented is traceable through our history to this guy/gal or that guy/gal. The ancients speak of this god or that god- Ptah did this, Thoth did that. That's what they talk about in their literature. That's what's odd.

Krishna's blue color represents the sky, I am told. Could mean that he is everywhere like the sky or that he came from the sky.


[edit on 12-1-2009 by tungus]

Originally posted by tungus
Thank you. Thank you, indeed. But don't tell that to the guy whose head is wrapped in a duct tape, it might explode upon contact with such novel idea.

You never once, until now, said you were engaging in speculation or that this was your opinion. No, you were speaking of it as the gospel truth.

Originally posted by tungus
The Maya worshiped a god (light skinned long skulled god or one of different color, doesn't matter), who gave them knowledge which they were not capable of mustering on their own...

Because they are browned-skinned savages right? They are incapable of great feats or achievements. Only white Europeans could do those things. The browned-skinned savages needed outside influence to achieve anything above wallowing in the mud.

The reason the ancients attributed receiving knowledge from the gods is not because they were in contact with aliens, but because (ironically) they as a society did not remember how they came upon such things. Thus they invented etiological stories. Many of the hallmarks of these cultures were invented before they developed writing systems or mass literacy, or were just lost. It happens.

Originally posted by tungus
Our current civilization started from scratch, everything we invented is traceable through our history to this guy/gal or that guy/gal.

Really now? Everything?

Again, absolute unadulterated stupidity.



[edit on 13-1-2009 by SaviorComplex]