Survey Results: Origins and Evolution

oh oh oh, and since i'm on a roll, their fairy tale sky flying vehicles were pulled by eagles and falcons! that's right man, they know cuz they haz crystal ball.

reply to post by undo


Just because there's a painting doesn't mean it automatically existed

According to you, if I painted a picture of a unicorn, put it into a time capsule, and in 2000 years someone digs it out, he/she should totally believe unicorns existed

Again, witness testimony is the WEAKEST form of evidence and pretty much useless if it isn't backed up by objective evidence. In the case of those radioactive skeletons, there's no objective evidence proving a nuclear weapon went off

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by undo

 

Just because there's a painting doesn't mean it automatically existed

According to you, if I painted a picture of a unicorn, put it into a time capsule, and in 2000 years someone digs it out, he/she should totally believe unicorns existed

Again, witness testimony is the WEAKEST form of evidence and pretty much useless if it isn't backed up by objective evidence. In the case of those radioactive skeletons, there's no objective evidence proving a nuclear weapon went off

already proved to you that objective evidence means exactly squat to certain types of skeptics (which you appear to be) when it comes to this subject. the fall back position is, doesn't matter because __________ insert strawman or irrelevant or unrelated detail

reply to post by undo


Actually, all I care about is objective evidence. You haven't provided any of that. All you did was provide a lot of information about what people BELIEVED back then. You only proved what they believed, and claiming their belief is reality is laughable in the absence of objective evidence

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by undo

 

Actually, all I care about is objective evidence. You haven't provided any of that. All you did was provide a lot of information about what people BELIEVED back then. You only proved what they believed, and claiming their belief is reality is laughable in the absence of objective evidence

so let me assume then that your position is the same as your predecessors, that the land of Shinar, as mentioned in the bible doesn't exist? (shinar=sumer)
and that there was no flood (black sea flood)
and that the kings mentioned in the old testament of the bible never existed?
that the tower of babel wasn't a real place (etemenanki, also called KA.DINGIR.RA, and babilu (please look this stuff up, stop pretending you actually know, it's frustrating to have a conversation with a person with a blindfold on, saying "i don't see anything!" well yeah, that's cause you're not looking!)
and that the ancient greeks couldn't write?
and that nimrod didn't exist (read, ENMERKAR AND THE LORD OF ARRATA)

do something positive instead of sitting there saying "no proof!" unless you don't want to know, in which case, it doesn't matter.

reply to post by undo


Nope, just got mentally off tracked I suppose.

Of course, it all matters what you're willing to call a dragon, as a dragon was their local tradition applied to a global ongoing myth that is told over and over again.

Pharaohs thought themselves descendant from gods. Gods of the sky and the lot. And so did the Greeks. The totality of this existence was based off the Ouroboros. This in turn is from the Indian tradition I mentioned in my last
post. Gods and the lot came from the Ouroboros in Greek, Indian, and Egyptian tradition.

This myth somehow found its way into Quetzalcoatl, where the same depiction is seldom shown.

Of course there is the Biblical idea of the nephilim being descendant from such things.

I'm sure I could find some more with some more research.

reply to post by undo

so let me assume then that your position is the same as your predecessors, that the land of Shinar, as mentioned in the bible doesn't exist?

We can objectively test if a country existed in the past. If you dig up Roman remains, you come along the word Roman quite often for example, and not only at one spot, but all over the place as far as their empire reached. We KNOW that empire existed because we have remains of people who called it the Roman empire. Nothing mythical about that.

Just claiming a nuclear weapon (lol) went off because there's radioactivity in skeletons...or not, given that we only hear about those skeletons on blogs...is kinda silly and not comparable to establishing a country existed in the past. There's a TON of objective evidence for the existence of certain countries.

and that there was no flood (black sea flood)

First of all, the bible talks about a global flood because it specifically says "2 of each kind"...which means that arch was meant to save the entire world's species. Of course now people start arguing they were talking about a local flood (for which there's at least some evidence) because they see how absolutely silly the idea of a global flood is. We have objective sedimental evidence for floods, witness accounts claiming a global flood happened aren't objective and therefore pretty much worthless.

and that the kings mentioned in the old testament of the bible never existed?

Given that we really only know of them from the bible and other scripture...yeah, we don't know for sure whether they existed or not. We don't have any remains from them...contrary to remains of French kings for example.

Again, you don't seem to understand what objective evidence is.

that the tower of babel wasn't a real place

Given that we have no objective evidence that tower ever existed...yeah, we don't know if it existed. It's a MYTH, not a fact

We only have texts, no archeological remains whatsoever. That's SUBJECTIVE evidence again, and given that the chronological order in Genesis makes no sense whatsoever (and is even demonstrably wrong in many cases like the creation of earth), it would be silly to accept it as fact.

and that the ancient greeks couldn't write?

We know they could write because we have OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for it. There's ruins and writings like Iliad, so we know for a fact they could write

and that nimrod didn't exist

And you mention a MYTH instead of anything that's backed up by objective evidence.

do something positive instead of sitting there saying "no proof!" unless you don't want to know, in which case, it doesn't matter.

Well, some homework for you too: Look up the definition of objective and subjective because you don't seem to realize there's a difference between the two, or why that difference is important to understand reality.

You seem completely lost somewhere between science and myth. You write a ton about myths, which are descriptions of what people BELIEVED back then, but totally forget about applying logic/rationality and actually looking for objective evidence that would back up those SUBJECTIVE accounts.

reply to post by MrXYZ


no it doesn't say 2 of every kind. the word "every" is not in the original text. further it says

Of every clean 2889 beast 929 thou shalt take 3947 to thee by sevens 7651 7651, the male 376 and his female 802: and of beasts 929 that [are] not clean 2889 1931 by two 8147, the male 376 and his female 802.

every word with a number after it, was in the original text. every word without a number was not in the original text so that verse reads

clean beast take sevens, male female. beasts unclean two male and female.

in the original language it said seven not sevens

so clean beast take seven male and female. beasts unclean two male and female

Of fowls 5775 also of the air 8064 by sevens 7651 7651, the male 2145 and the female 5347; to keep 2421 0 seed 2233 alive 2421 upon the face 6440 of all the earth 776.

fowls air sevens male female keep seed alive face earth.

fowls air seven male female keep seed alive face earth.

so 7 clean beasts in pairs = 14
unclean = 2
7 fowls in pairs = 14

for a grand total of 20

And you mention a MYTH instead of anything that's backed up by objective evidence.

enmerkar and the lord of arrata is not talking about mythical places, so why should the people be mythical? ya know history ? tells you that this guy named enmerkar rebuilt the temples that were destroyed in the flood, with the help of a large contingent of people who were coerced into his service for that purpose. what's mythical about that ? you think ziggurats built themselves?

etemenanki=tower of babel.
etemenanki map
www.livius.org...

Etemenanki (Sumerian É.TEMEN.AN.KI 𒂍𒋼𒀭𒆠 "temple of the foundation of heaven and earth") was the name of a ziggurat dedicated to Marduk in the city of Babylon of the 6th century BCE Neo-Babylonian dynasty. Originally seven stories in height, little remains of it now except ruins. According to modern scholars such as Stephen L. Harris, the biblical story of the Tower of Babel was likely influenced by Etemenanki during the Babylonian captivity of the Hebrews.
en.wikipedia.org...

seriously, i need to take my own advice. you don't want to know or you would've searched this stuff out yourself instead of making other people do it for you

ziggurats are real places


it's in UR, the place named in the bible as the birthplace of abraham

Gilgamesh Tomb Belileved Found
news.bbc.co.uk...

gilgamesh, as in the epic of gilgamesh


the city of eridu (enki's city from sumerian history)
babel.massart.edu...

reply to post by undo

enmerkar and the lord of arrata is not talking about mythical places, so why should the people be mythical?

Because whereas we can prove the places exit...at least by name...we have ZERO evidence that the story's true. Just because a place exists by name doesn't validate the entire story

Again, you're mixing myths with history without any regard to what's myth and what isn't...

And like I said, even if you found a grave of Gigamesh or Jesus, it STILL wouldn't be proof of the stories. It would only be proof that there was a guy called Jesus.

Start to be a sceptic and stop mixing up myths with real history

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by undo

 

enmerkar and the lord of arrata is not talking about mythical places, so why should the people be mythical?

Because whereas we can prove the places exit...at least by name...we have ZERO evidence that the story's true. Just because a place exists by name doesn't validate the entire story

Again, you're mixing myths with history without any regard to what's myth and what isn't...

And like I said, even if you found a grave of Gigamesh or Jesus, it STILL wouldn't be proof of the stories. It would only be proof that there was a guy called Jesus.

Start to be a sceptic and stop mixing up myths with real history

edit on 6-9-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

well that's the problem, you see, it's only a myth to some people. to the folks who actually specialize in archaeology and ancient history, there's as much evidence for many of the people mentioned in old texts as there is for napoleon or gengis khan.

menes was an egyptian dude from about 2800 BC.
did he exist?

reply to post by undo

there's as much evidence for many of the people mentioned in old texts

I can't believe I have to repeat this...but PLEASE, look up the difference between OBJECTIVE and SUBJECTIVE evidence. You're mixing them up at random. Ancient texts are SUBJECTIVE evidence...they only tell you what people believed back then. People love to exaggerate not only today, but also in the past. That's why ancient heros are often said to be ridiculously tall, or in possession of super powers, or other nonsense that has ZERO backup apart from witness testimony in the form of texts that have been edited, re-edited, translated, and changed over and over again.

reply to post by MrXYZ


waiting on your answer to my question above your post.
should be an interesting answer.

reply to post by undo


Regarding Menes, you know full well it's an ongoing debate and they aren't even completely sure which Pharao he was. It's a nebty-name, so the fact is, we just don't know for sure. Also, you're off by around 300-400 years, but who cares about details, right?

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by undo

 

Regarding Menes, you know full well it's an ongoing debate and they aren't even completely sure which Pharao he was. It's a nebty-name, so the fact is, we just don't know for sure. Also, you're off by around 300-400 years, but who cares about details, right?

oh that's my timeline.
so, i'll move the bar for you a bit so you can answer the question. did narmer exist? don't say i know full well there's debate if he's menes or not. fact is, somebody had to start the egyptian pharaonic line. so, hey, i'll make it even easier on ya, did djer exist?

reply to post by undo


We know he was a pharaoh, but scientists aren't clear about his identity. It's an ongoing debate, and if you read up on it, you should know that.

Now, the fact that a pharaoh with the name Narmer existed doesn't automatically mean every myth involving his name is true...saying otherwise would be another prime example of mixing up myths with real history.

Same thing for Djer...we only know he was a pharaoh, but not whether he was the 2nd or 3rd one.

Not sure what you try to accomplish with your question...