Christians are becoming social pariahs in Britain, claims BBC presenter Jeremy Vine

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by undo

 

But we have no OBJECTIVE evidence that would lead us to that conclusion. Not one scientific finding would support the claim you're making. In science, witness testimony is the LOWEST FORM of evidence. Just look at how much hogwash you can find in ancient texts, stuff that's been debunked by science decades ago...like the Genesis account.

the genesis account is being debunked based on how the papacy and others influenced by the papacy, translated it hundreds of years ago. in fact, this seems to be the case for most of the ancient world. everything is debunked based on how our science viewed it 300 or more years ago, and that has barely changed, except for expanding on any theory they developed that would believably keep the previous 5500 years of history and all the associated artifacts in the category of mythology.

do you want to see the evidence i have or are you satisfied with what you are told by the experts?

reply to post by undo


By all means, provide your evidence that any of the homo sapiens ancestors had amphibian/reptilian traits

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by undo

 

By all means, provide your evidence that any of the homo sapiens ancestors had amphibian/reptilian traits

okay, let's start with this mother goddess statue.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/df6b5965f0cc54d5.jpg[/atsimg]
notice that her head has been added recently. when she was found, she had no head, so they assumed she was human and made her a human head. but that's not all, they made her a human foot, with a dainty pointed toe, to cover up her real foot, which was a big reptilian foot, with what appears to be the vestiges of claws that have since snapped off
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/62e2cca8dfa3fc6a.jpg[/atsimg]
most pics of her are heavily doctored to detract from the fact, she was a scaley woman with thick muscles, with clawed wide feet, and various other reptilian features. but she's not alone. here's one another mother goddess statue (lady of willendorf)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/dc6fbe2ff7f4164e.jpg[/atsimg]
those bumpy things are not hair or an unknown pattern. the artist is atttempting to depict scales.
and they aren't alone either, as is depicted on this vase from pre dynastic egypt, showing several tall reptilians, their associated family trees, some which have feet and some of which appear to be amphibian.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/6e77301ac273a7c4.jpg[/atsimg]
and to be sure i'm not just pulling amphibian out of a hat, here's another piece, also from abydos, depicting a pair of amphibians (mind you, this stuff all predates any references to mermaid or dagon references (and is egyptian, anyway, pre-pharaonic)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/aee027514bb01531.jpg[/atsimg]
just so you don't think it's merely an egyptian thing, here's the only surviving statue from ENKI's sumerian city of eridu, that is being shown to the public. it is described by the iraq museum of lost treasures as "lizard shaped head"
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/03988f46ed432cca.jpg[/atsimg]
just so you know i'm not lying, here he is at their official website
oi.uchicago.edu...
during and prior to this time (the statue is dated 4000 BC) , all statues be they male or female, are all sporting serpentine heads with various types of scale depictions. such as
oi.uchicago.edu...
oi.uchicago.edu...

also, the sumerian text, ENKI AND THE WORLD ORDER, refers to him as the "great dragon"
that's a pretty dang old text to be referring to a european mythology beast, don't you think?

here it is

Grandiloquent lord of heaven and earth, self-reliant, father Enki, engendered by a bull, begotten by a wild bull, cherished by Enlil the Great Mountain, beloved by holy An, king, mes tree planted in the Abzu, rising over all lands; great dragon who stands in Eridug

(eridug was enki's city in sumer, otherwise known as eridu
here's the text reference

ENKI AND THE WORLD ORDER
www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk...

and i haven't even gotten to hindu and chinese stuff yet. what's that all mean ? we're talking thousands of year of references by the time its over with, cross cultural too. i know the temptation is to just sweep it all under the rug and refer to fossils, which are themselves less supported than real ancient history. (don't you find it odd, that they decided to bury our ancient past and replace it with a past that can only be substantiated by guessing most of the time from bone fragments?

reply to post by undo


1) Mother goddess: You do realize the entire body looks like a fat woman, right? Google "fat woman" and laugh at the resemblance. Nothing in that statue looks remotely amphibian/reptilian

Also, in no way does her foot look amphibian, lol.

2) Vase: As you state correctly, ARTISTS painted those...and we all know how accurate those guys are. May I introduce you to a giant 10m high spider that clearly exists because an artist sculpted it?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/75f6a10beb25.jpg[/atsimg]

We have no fossil evidence or any other evidence that would even hint at their existence...apart from artist renditions. That's not evidence!!

I'm also not sure what makes you say they look amphibian...which part is amphibian??

As for their headgear...people are still wearing stuff like that today, and a relief painting would show them as "horns" too



3) Animal statues/paintings: You do realize many cultures worshiped animals, right? So it's only rational that some artists crated human analogies. Today we have movies showing superheros shooting lazers from their eyes, or turning into huge green monsters...doesn't mean they exist

And lastly, scientists don't just use fossils...we have DNA evidence, and migratory evidence that paint a very clear picture. They're not guessing, certainly not when it comes to evolution. It's called a scientific theory because the entire thing follows scientific method...which makes guessing impossible.

reply to post by MrXYZ


i said reptilian-mammalian. it's the mammal part of her that connects her to homo sapians. you did ask for evidence of reptilian - mammalian forerunners, did you not? then poo pooed the fact there is evidence of just that by pointing out that fat ladies look like the fat reptilian-mammalian.

the statue from eridu has more than 6 fingers on the visible hand. the baby has webbed fingers and a pointed skull. these are not the only evidence, as the texts themselves support this data, such as the "serpent" in the garden of eden, which lost its legs (meaning it had legs before it lost them...not saying it's a directly literal translation but sometimes, the devil is literally, in the details)

p.s. how do we know the tribal customs didn't develop from imitation? like head binding in south american tribes, where'd that come from? Who they trying to mimic? by the way, the second abydos vase is depicting an underwater scene with a pyramid UNDER the water. wonder where that was/is..........

reply to post by undo


I never said she looks like a fat reptilian mammal...mostly because that would be an oxymoron. It's either a reptile, or a mammal

And like I said, she looks like a fat woman, not reptilian at all...

those pellets on his chest/shoulders are an attempt to depict scales. here's a side view.
oi.uchicago.edu...

here's a real doozy
en.wikipedia.org...:FemaleStatuetteSamarra6000BCE.jpg
even has the stripes painted on to represent rows of scales

things that make you go hmm.
en.wikipedia.org...:Scultura_nuragica.jpg

don't these ladies have faces?
en.wikipedia.org...:Tripolye_statue.jpg

well crud, links won't print out. here, just look at this page
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by undo


But those are all done by ARTISTS!!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d3d98038cefe.jpg[/atsimg]

Here you see another god, riding on a giant sofa that's being pulled through the air by horses...and the sun is HUGE behind his head.

Doesn't mean a giant sofa-sun god really existed. Remains of stuff artists have done aren't evidence that those creatures really existed, especially in the absence of any objective proof like fossils or other DNA remains. You'd think if those creatures lived there for thousands (tens of thousands?) of years, there would be some remains. But all we have are sculptures/paintings by artists. Go to the local museum and look at art, and then tell me how accurate those things are in showing reality...

reply to post by MrXYZ


you ASKED me to show you a forerunner, and i did. then you pointed out her mammalian features as evidence she was human, without taking anything else into account.

the planet was over run with amphibians and reptilians way before there were mammals, and for much longer than mammals.

reply to post by MrXYZ


what i'm showing you are very ancient statues that work in tandem with very ancient texts. not saying hindu statues and art are not legitimate. if you read their material, the description of some of the entities they encounter, don't sound human either.

reply to post by undo


Which isn't surprising given sailors long believed in mermaids and painted countless pictures...of course we know that was hogwash too

What you're doing is the same as if people in 4000 years looked at a picture of a mermaid, and then claimed those beings really existed. That's NOT evidence...

if you go to a dig site, and find mammalian, bipedal bones, mixed with a reptilian head, you're going to assume the reptile was eaten by the owner of the mammalian bones and the mammal head was just lost. that's how they do science these days. they aren't going to think, not even for 10 seconds, that the reptile might be a reptile-mammal hybrid. if they did, and brought it to the attention of the general public, ancient texts would be revisited with a new appreciation and that can't be a good thing for science, if'n ya know what i mean.

also, not every fossil is dated or tested because there's not enough money for it. if a site has been dated, or the geological layers are identified as being from a particular span of time, they often don't date or test anything found there, as it's assumed from the outset that the fossils are from the pre-dated time frame of the geological layer, and the items found within it, are visually identified.

reply to post by undo


You do realize that scientists aren't fitting those "reptilian heads" on mammal bodies because THEY DON'T FIT...and not because they don't want to. Look, scientific method allows for peer review...anyone can come up with a hypothesis (like you) if they can provide credible evidence. So far, we have no credible evidence that would suggest such beings existed. Like I said, scriptures and artist paintings/sculptures certainly aren't objective evidence, and I hope you see why

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by undo

 

You do realize that scientists aren't fitting those "reptilian heads" on mammal bodies because THEY DON'T FIT...and not because they don't want to. Look, scientific method allows for peer review...anyone can come up with a hypothesis (like you) if they can provide credible evidence. So far, we have no credible evidence that would suggest such beings existed. Like I said, scriptures and artist paintings/sculptures certainly aren't objective evidence, and I hope you see why

i would believe you are correct about that if i haven't seen evidence to the contrary. like the man who named many dinosaur species, came up with a thought experiment involving a dinosauroid species and had models created to show what they might look like, how they would've lived, when their culture would've been most likely on the planet, and guess what happened to his thought experiement? and this was a A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, by a famous scientist, who specialized in dinosaurs.

i think what you mean to say is, generally speaking, there's just not enough evidence for it. not hard to believe, as there wasn't much evidence for cultures buried under 5000 year old dirt, for a very long time. and when it finally came out, and the tablets where their histories were written came out of the ground, they were ruled "myth" and the larger than life figures mentioned in them, ruled myth. fortunately, it's not as volatile to identify larger than life homo sapians. but larger than life hybrids that aren't exclusively cavemen? not gonna happen unless there's a huge shift in how they view the past.

here's an example:

GILGAMESH TOMB BELIEVED FOUND
news.bbc.co.uk...

gilgamesh was thought to be a mythological king. apparently not.

reply to post by undo


But like you say, it was a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, not based on real evidence...

And what does finding Gigamesh's grave prove? Of course old scriptures include some truth, but that doesn't mean it's all true

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by undo

 

But like you say, it was a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, not based on real evidence...

And what does finding Gigamesh's grave prove? Of course old scriptures include some truth, but that doesn't mean it's all true

scripture? you think the epic of gilgamesh is a scripture?
how interesting. notice how the bar keeps moving? i don't blame you. i would move it to if i didn't agree with the position it was in. not sure how far i would move it, or in what direction, but being a person of free will, i like to research everything. i refuse to assume the ancient texts were lies and that they weren't telling us anything but myths and fairy tales. i think that particular way of viewing them was the result of higher criticism,which was itself an attempt to prove the popes interpretation of the bible was the only viable history.

shame, really. so much history lost forever to stubborn refusal to even acknowledge the texts are at the very least historically useful. but that's where craaaazy people like me and galileo and other wackos, come in and start pushing the boundaries around to see what's under them.

reply to post by undo


How do you know that these were not visions as opposed to actual living organisms. Surely you cannot believe that abstract expressionism is a recent phenomenon?

reply to post by undo


There's a difference between history and myths

Of course differentiating between them isn't always easy...but taking texts literally and blindly accepting everything in them without having the slightest bit of objective evidence isn't the way to go...

Originally posted by tiger5
reply to post by undo

 

How do you know that these were not visions as opposed to actual living organisms. Surely you cannot believe that abstract expressionism is a recent phenomenon?

at this point, it's a matter of checking probablities off a list.
such as (example):

1) are they mentioned in any historical texts.
check
2) are there any bipedal dinosaurs?
check
3) are there any amphibian characteristics in humans?
check.
4) is there evidence of hybridization of other species with humans in ancient texts?
check.
5) are there any explanations for where they may have went, in ancient texts?
check
6) is there any evidence besides written?
check.
7) are people currently encountering them?
check
8) are there enough people encountering them to suggest they aren't hallucinating, lying, dreaming, crazy, etc?
check.
9) are the odds in favor of them actually existing on other planets?
check
10) are the odds in favor of them existing on this planet at any point in time?
check.

it could be alot longer but you get the idea.