Physical Manifestations: The Evidence says "God"
All-seeing-I
But, Let's see what the 'book leraned' people have to say.
"Hawking's first major work was published with Roger Penrose, a
physicist very famous in his own right, and George Ellis, during the
period 1968-1970. They demonstrated that every solution to the
equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular
boundary for space and time in the past. This is now known as the
"singularity theorem," and is a tremendously important finding."
This of course means a begining.
Next.
Leon Lederman, a Nobel Prize winner. "The God Particle"
"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a
nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no
sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum
held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this
story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for
the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the
universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth
of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big
bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe,
someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God
knows what happened at the very beginning."
Man has a problem explaining exaaxtly what Life is, and, it seems man
cannot tell us what existed in the moment before the big bang.
Next.
Ross says that, by definition,
"Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take
place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of
the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the
universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely
independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos.
This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who
God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is
transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe.
It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained
within the universe.
These are two very popular views, which brings us to something very
significant metaphysically or philosophically. If the big bang theory
is true, then we can conclude God is not the same as the universe (a
popular view) and God is not con-tained within the universe"
My favorite:
"Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of
creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics,"
and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor
Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains
unexplained."
---------------------------------------
So.
It seems the true origins of the universe is unexplainable by science
and therefore can only be explained by a creator or an intelligence
that we commonly refer to as "God".
"In the Beginning God Created the Heavens and the Universe"
The universe itself is a physical manifestation of the supernatural
event which made the universe and therefore proves the existence of
God.
Logic follows that life as we know it on Earth is also created.
--
Seeing it all with...
The All Seeing I
spintronic
What religion are you?
Boikat
> Physical Manifestations of The Supernatural is evidence of God.
>
> But, Let's see what the 'book leraned' people have to say.
>
> "Hawking's first major work was published with Roger Penrose, a
> physicist very famous in his own right, and George Ellis, during the
> period 1968-1970. They demonstrated that every solution to the
> equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular
> boundary for space and time in the past. This is now known as the
> "singularity theorem," and is a tremendously important finding."
>
> This of course means a begining.
Bod does not equal a physical manifestation of evidence supporting the
existence of any god.
> Next.
>
> Leon Lederman, a Nobel Prize winner. "The God Particle"
>
> "In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a
> nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no
> sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum
> held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this
> story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for
> the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the
> universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth
> of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big
> bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe,
> someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God
> knows what happened at the very beginning."
A statement full of metaphore, not an actual scientific assesment, and
therefore, not evidence for any "god" thingy.
>
> Man has a problem explaining exaaxtly what Life is, and, it seems man
> cannot tell us what existed in the moment before the big bang.
Still nothing that is evidence of any "god" thingy.
>
> Next.
>
> Ross says that, by definition,
>
> "Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take
> place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of
> the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the
> universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely
> independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos.
> This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who
> God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is
> transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe.
> It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained
> within the universe.
> These are two very popular views, which brings us to something very
> significant metaphysically or philosophically. If the big bang theory
> is true, then we can conclude God is not the same as the universe (a
> popular view) and God is not con-tained within the universe"
Sounds like a personal opinion to me. One with a central a-priori
assumption that the "god" thingy exists. No evidence here.
>
> My favorite:
>
> "Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of
> creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics,"
He was not using the term "creation" in the biblical sense.
> and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor
> Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains
> unexplained."
Again, Guth was not using "creation" in teh Biblical sense.
No evidence there.
> ---------------------------------------
>
> So.
> It seems the true origins of the universe is unexplainable by science
> and therefore can only be explained by a creator or an intelligence
> that we commonly refer to as "God".
Unesplained does not = Goddidit. It use to be thought that all manner
of phenomenon was cause by god, or the gods. That's why humans made
up so many different gods. The God of Thunder, the God of This, The
God of That. Godds by te score, gods by the bushel. Gods by the
tons. None of them real.
>
> "In the Beginning God Created the Heavens and the Universe"
Whoopty frackin' doooooo!
>
> The universe itself is a physical manifestation of the supernatural
> event which made the universe and therefore proves the existence of
> God.
That's your opinion, not a scientific fact.
>
> Logic follows that life as we know it on Earth is also created.
Sorry, your logic is based upon the fallacy of an a-priori conclusion,
not evidence.
>
> --
> Seeing another failed attempt at thinking by...
>
> The All Seeing I
Boikat
Boikat
He denies being a member of any given religion, and specifically
denies ever claiming on being a Christian. Can't you tell?
Boikat
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
No, but it's nice for the Christians that they don't have to acknowledge
all of the nuts as their own.
Andre Lieven
> On Nov 15, 1:17 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> moronised:
>
> > Physical Manifestations of The Supernatural is evidence of God.
>
>
> What religion are you?
The same as yours, the church of the fuckwit moron liars.
HTH.
Andre
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"spintronic" <spint...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:75408742-8914-4461...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
What religion are you?
He doesn't know - he makes it up (or changes it) as he goes along, bellowing
stupidity.
John Harshman
> Physical Manifestations of The Supernatural is evidence of God.
[snip pointless quotes]
>
> So.
> It seems the true origins of the universe is unexplainable by science
> and therefore can only be explained by a creator or an intelligence
> that we commonly refer to as "God".
There is a gap in your logic here. Even if the origins of the universe
are unexplainable by science (read: "current science", at most), how do
you go from there to saying it can be explained by something else? How
is "Goddidit" an explanation at all?
> "In the Beginning God Created the Heavens and the Universe"
>
> The universe itself is a physical manifestation of the supernatural
> event which made the universe and therefore proves the existence of
> God.
>
> Logic follows that life as we know it on Earth is also created.
Again, gaps in the logic. How would creation of the universe have any
necessary connection to creation of life?
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>Physical Manifestations of The Supernatural is evidence of God.
what is 'supernatural?'
what is a 'manifestation?'
what is "god"?
no wonder creationism is dead. in one sentence of 9 words they haven't
defined a single thing
>
>But, Let's see what the 'book leraned' people have to say.
>
>"Hawking's first major work was published with Roger Penrose, a
>physicist very famous in his own right, and George Ellis, during the
>period 1968-1970. They demonstrated that every solution to the
>equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular
>boundary for space and time in the past. This is now known as the
>"singularity theorem," and is a tremendously important finding."
>
>This of course means a begining.
nothing to do with evolution; evolution can happen in an infinite
universe
>
>Man has a problem explaining exaaxtly what Life is, and, it seems man
>cannot tell us what existed in the moment before the big bang.
so what? creationism can't even tell us there WAS a big bang. it can't
tell us what life is, or how it works. in fact creationism is a
monumental failure
>
>So.
>It seems the true origins of the universe is unexplainable by science
>and therefore can only be explained by a creator or an intelligence
>that we commonly refer to as "God".
gee. a classic god of the gaps argument. 100 years ago we couldnt
explain disease either. so should we have gone on for ANOTHER 2000
years sacrificing goats to mythical gods or should we have looked for
bacteria?
how'd the goat sacrifice route work for you creationists?>
>
>"In the Beginning God Created the Heavens and the Universe"
>
>The universe itself is a physical manifestation of the supernatural
>event which made the universe and therefore proves the existence of
>God.
IOW everything that's unexplained is due to god.
that's why creationism for 2000 years explained nothing.
Ye Old One
>Logic follows
Except when you are talking.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
David Hare-Scott
>> --
>> Seeing it all with...
>>
>> The All Seeing I
>
> What religion are you?
He is a Shit-Stirrer of the ancient sept. Very devout too.
David
Devils Advocaat
> Physical Manifestations of The Supernatural is evidence of God.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=supernatural
"not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural
laws; not physical or material"
So perhaps you can explain how something that doesn't exist in nature,
and having no physical attributes can produce physical manifestations.
Dakota
It is possible that we will never know what happened before the "mature
age" was reached at what is often called Planck time. Some people
maintain without evidence that this fundamental gap in our knowledge is
filled by an entity they have named god. While this concept is not
helpful to our understanding, it cannot be disproved as we have no
knowledge of anything that occurred before Planck time. The concept of
god is no longer needed once Planck time has been reached and our
understanding of the universe begins.
All-seeing-I
> All-seeing-I wrote:
> > Physical Manifestations of The Supernatural is evidence of God.
>
> [snip pointless quotes]
ppintless id one is dodging truth.
>
> > So.
> > It seems the true origins of the universe is unexplainable by science
> > and therefore can only be explained by a creator or an intelligence
> > that we commonly refer to as "God".
>
> There is a gap in your logic here. Even if the origins of the universe
> are unexplainable by science (read: "current science", at most), how do
> you go from there to saying it can be explained by something else? How
> is "Goddidit" an explanation at all?
correlation
> > "In the Beginning God Created the Heavens and the Universe"
>
> > The universe itself is a physical manifestation of the supernatural
> > event which made the universe and therefore proves the existence of
> > God.
>
> > Logic follows that life as we know it on Earth is also created.
>
> Again, gaps in the logic. How would creation of the universe have any
> necessary connection to creation of life?
yes. Your gaps are evident. Or maybe you are a bit rusty in the logic
department.
The answer was in the quotes you removed.
1) Hawking's and Penrose established there was a beginning to the
universe. This is something even Einstein begrudgingly admitted due to
it's implications. One implication would suggest a creator.
2) In the next quote we find there was a void, a vacuum, a nothingness
containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, and no sound. But
the natural laws of nature were still existing in this vacuum of
nothingness.This screams 'supernatural'
3) Then in the following quote we discover time's beginning is
concurrent with the beginning of the universe, just as the space-time
theorem says.The cause of the
universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely
independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos.
We now have 1) a beginning and 2) something that can only be described
as above what we consider to be natural ( which is the supernatural)
because natural laws are existing inside a void and a vacuum.
4)The laws existing inside this vacuum are confined as supernatural
when men such as Hawking's claim: "the actual point of creation lies
outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," Which is not
natural, but supernatural.
So in summary:
1) We have established there was a beginning of time and the universe
2) That the natural laws and matter were preexisting even though they
are existing in an unexplainable void and vacuum. Which is of course
is supernatural when compared to what man understands about the
physical laws of the universe.
3)Number 2 is confirmed by one of the 'book learned' people,
Hawking's.
4)The cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time
dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time
dimension of the cosmos.
When you add up 1-4, one can only come to a logical conclusion that,
at the VERY least, their could be creator that exists outside our
known understanding on this universe. (This would be an unity or force
that we could not perceive from our current perspective in the
universe. (The theory of motion and rest covers this nicely))
Now, couple this scientific possibility of a creator with other
information that has been handed down to us by ancient man explaining
their encounters with gods and a creator God; we can now make the next
logical assumption, which is, there is in fact a Creator.
By correlating the scientific ideas in the quotes with the
explanations in ancient texts for 'gods' and we can now draw a
hypothesis that establishes an entity, or God, as the Creator of the
universe; which in turn would establish a creator for all of the
species on earth. Thereby effectively making speciation divergence as
the least likely theory for the variety of species we see on earth.
raven1
>Physical Manifestations of The Supernatural is evidence of God.
Train wreck in the first sentence. Where does the supernatural come
into play anywhere below?
>But, Let's see what the 'book leraned' people have to say.
>
>"Hawking's first major work was published with Roger Penrose, a
>physicist very famous in his own right, and George Ellis, during the
>period 1968-1970. They demonstrated that every solution to the
>equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular
>boundary for space and time in the past. This is now known as the
>"singularity theorem," and is a tremendously important finding."
>
>This of course means a begining.
So what?
>Next.
>
> Leon Lederman, a Nobel Prize winner. "The God Particle"
>
>"In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a
>nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no
>sound. Yet the laws of nature were in place and this curious vacuum
>held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this
>story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for
>the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the
>universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth
>of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big
>bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe,
>someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy. Only God
>knows what happened at the very beginning."
Lederman, an atheist, is using the expression in the colloquial sense,
not advocating the existence of a deity. Einstein, who repeatedly
denied belief in a personal God, used the term in the same way.
>Man has a problem explaining exaaxtly what Life is, and, it seems man
>cannot tell us what existed in the moment before the big bang.
"We don't know, therefore, Goddidit" has never been a valid
explanation for anything. It's the logical fallacy of Argument from
Ignorance.
>
>Next.
>
>Ross says that, by definition,
Hugh Ross is speaking here as a Creationist trying to shoe-horn his
religious opinions to fit the findings of science, as we will shortly
see...
>"Time is that dimension in which cause and effect phenomena take
>place. . . . If time's beginning is concurrent with the beginning of
>the universe, as the space-time theorem says, then the cause of the
>universe must be some entity
Whoa there, Hugh! Why must the cause be an entity? That's a religious
or philosophical conclusion, not a scientific one.
>operating in a time dimension completely
>independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos.
Which he just ruled out in the first part of the sentence...
>This conclusion is powerfully important to our understanding of who
>God is and who or what God isn't. It tells us that the creator is
>transcendent, operating beyond the dimensional limits of the universe.
>It tells us that God is not the universe itself, nor is God contained
>within the universe. These are two very popular views, which brings us to something very
>significant metaphysically or philosophically. If the big bang theory
>is true, then we can conclude God is not the same as the universe (a
>popular view) and God is not con-tained within the universe"
Then God, by definition, cannot interact with the universe.
>My favorite:
>
>"Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of
>creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics,"
>and a less well-known but very distinguished cosmologist, Professor
>Alan Guth from MIT, says the "instant of creation remains
>unexplained."
Hawking has also stated that he does not believe in a personal God,
and you're arguing from ignorance again.
>---------------------------------------
>
>So.
>It seems the true origins of the universe is unexplainable by science
>and therefore can only be explained by a creator or an intelligence
>that we commonly refer to as "God".
Again, the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance. "We don't know,
therefore, Goddidit".
>
>"In the Beginning God Created the Heavens and the Universe"
>
>The universe itself is a physical manifestation of the supernatural
>event
Nowhere have you demonstrated a "supernatural" event. "Unexplained"
and "supernatural" are not synonymous.
> which made the universe and therefore proves the existence of
>God.
GIGO.
>Logic follows that life as we know it on Earth is also created.
Non Sequitur fallacy. A supernatural cause to the universe would not
imply a supernatural cause for any other phenomenon.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
You assume your understanding of the universe is accurate The matter
and natural laws had to exist in the vaccum just before the big bang.
That clearly establishes a supernatural occurance not explainable from
out current perspective of the universe.
We may not know what happened just before Planck but, we have
established a supernatural occurance just before the big bang AND we
do have ancient records mentioning a creator God and other lesser
gods. So it is not at all out of line to assume there was a creator
behind the big bang.
If we did not have refernces to a God, a Creator and other gods, then
perhaps you would have a point. But couple scientific findings of the
big bang with what ancient man has passed down to us in the form of
knowledge and that raises the probablity of their being a creator
involved in big bang.
If big bang even happened.
All-Seeing-I
Sure. Goddidit. God IS supernatural
What is your hypothesis?
All-Seeing-I
ATTENTION LURKERS:
Behold the modern day face and poster child for the arrogant atheist
of today.
raven1
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 14, 10:25 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>> > Physical Manifestations of The Supernatural is evidence of God.
>>
>> [snip pointless quotes]
>
>ppintless id one is dodging truth.
>
>>
>> > So.
>> > It seems the true origins of the universe is unexplainable by science
>> > and therefore can only be explained by a creator or an intelligence
>> > that we commonly refer to as "God".
>>
>> There is a gap in your logic here. Even if the origins of the universe
>> are unexplainable by science (read: "current science", at most), how do
>> you go from there to saying it can be explained by something else? How
>> is "Goddidit" an explanation at all?
>
>correlation
WTF are you trying to say? Your reply makes no sense at all.
>
>> > "In the Beginning God Created the Heavens and the Universe"
>>
>> > The universe itself is a physical manifestation of the supernatural
>> > event which made the universe and therefore proves the existence of
>> > God.
>>
>> > Logic follows that life as we know it on Earth is also created.
>>
>> Again, gaps in the logic. How would creation of the universe have any
>> necessary connection to creation of life?
>
>yes. Your gaps are evident. Or maybe you are a bit rusty in the logic
>department.
You seem to lack even a rudimentary grasp of logic. A supernatural
cause for the origin of the universe does not imply a supernatural
cause for the origin of life. (Classic "Non Sequitur" fallacy on your
part.)
>
>The answer was in the quotes you removed.
>
>1) Hawking's and Penrose established there was a beginning to the
>universe. This is something even Einstein begrudgingly admitted due to
>it's implications. One implication would suggest a creator.
Why?
>2) In the next quote we find there was a void, a vacuum, a nothingness
>containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, and no sound. But
>the natural laws of nature were still existing in this vacuum of
>nothingness.This screams 'supernatural'
This screams "you don't know what you're talking about". No one claims
such a thing, or even anything remotely close to it.
>3) Then in the following quote we discover time's beginning is
>concurrent with the beginning of the universe, just as the space-time
>theorem says.The cause of the
>universe must be some entity
That's Hugh Ross's religious opinion. There's no scientific reason
that an entity needs to be postulated.
>operating in a time dimension completely
>independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos.
>
>We now have 1) a beginning and 2) something that can only be described
>as above what we consider to be natural ( which is the supernatural)
>because natural laws are existing inside a void and a vacuum.
No one claims such a thing. You're badly confused.
>4)The laws existing inside this vacuum are confined as supernatural
>when men such as Hawking's claim: "the actual point of creation lies
>outside the scope of presently known laws of physics,"
"We don't know" does not imply "supernatural". Again, you're arguing
from ignorance.
> Which is not
>natural, but supernatural.
Non Sequitur.
>
>So in summary:
>1) We have established there was a beginning of time and the universe
And that water is wet. No one disputes this point.
>
>2) That the natural laws and matter were preexisting even though they
>are existing in an unexplainable void and vacuum.
Dead wrong. No one claims this.
>Which is of course
>is supernatural when compared to what man understands about the
>physical laws of the universe.
"Not currently understood" does not imply "supernatural".
>3)Number 2 is confirmed by one of the 'book learned' people,
>Hawking's.
Hawking would find the first sentence of number 2 to be a complete
misunderstanding on your part, and would be the first to deny the
second.
>
>4)The cause of the universe must be some entity
This, again, is Ross's religious opinion. It isn't science.
> operating in a time
>dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time
>dimension of the cosmos.
>
>When you add up 1-4, one can only come to a logical conclusion that,
>at the VERY least, their could be creator that exists outside our
>known understanding on this universe.
Even without 1-4 there *could* be a creator, but what you've given
above doesn't suggest that there *is*, just that you're badly confused
about cosmology and logic.
>(This would be an unity or force
>that we could not perceive from our current perspective in the
>universe. (The theory of motion and rest covers this nicely))
The last part of the sentence above is such a bizarre Non Sequitur,
that I have no idea what you're trying to say. Nor, I suspect, do you.
>Now, couple this scientific possibility of a creator with other
>information that has been handed down to us by ancient man explaining
>their encounters with gods and a creator God; we can now make the next
>logical assumption, which is, there is in fact a Creator.
Non Sequitur. This "information that has been handed down to us" is
often wildly contradictory; it can't all be right, but it can all be
wrong. Without any method to evaluate one claim over another, none of
it is valid as evidence for anything.
>By correlating the scientific ideas in the quotes with the
>explanations in ancient texts for 'gods' and we can now draw a
>hypothesis that establishes an entity, or God, as the Creator of the
>universe;
Non Sequitur. See directly above.
>which in turn would establish a creator for all of the
>species on earth.
Non Sequitur. The existence of a creator of the universe is irrelevant
to the existence of a creator of species on Earth.
>Thereby effectively making speciation divergence as
>the least likely theory for the variety of species we see on earth.
Why couldn't your proposed creator have used evolution as his method?
Reddfrogg
Science assumes that the understanding of the universe is provisional,
until some evidence suggests otherwise.
>The matter
> and natural laws had to exist in the vaccum just before the big bang.
Actually, no. There was no "vacuum", because there was no space, and
no universe. Matter didn't exist.
> That clearly establishes a supernatural occurance not explainable from
> out current perspective of the universe.
>
What, if anything that existed "before" the Big Bang is not currently
understandable. that does not mean it had to be supernatural.
> We may not know what happened just before Planck but, we have
> established a supernatural occurance just before the big bang AND we
> do have ancient records mentioning a creator God and other lesser
> gods. So it is not at all out of line to assume there was a creator
> behind the big bang.
Who is the "we" and how did you establish it was supernatural? The
"ancient records" are folk tales, legends, and oral tradition.
There's nothing to indicate that they were reports of actual meeting
with supernatural beings. It's not 'out of line" to assume a
creator, it's just not scientific.
>
> If we did not have refernces to a God, a Creator and other gods, then
> perhaps you would have a point.
Those "references" were folk tales, which gave explanations to
inexplicable questions, not actual events.
>But couple scientific findings of the
> big bang with what ancient man has passed down to us in the form of
> knowledge and that raises the probablity of their being a creator
> involved in big bang.
>
Again, you can't expect that ancient legends, folk tales, and campfire
stories to be accurate accounts of past events. If there was a
creator involved in the Big Bang, there's no evidence, for or against
it. One must either believe, or not.
> If big bang even happened.
That the Big Bang happened is certain.
DJT
Boikat
Where is the evidence to propose a "god" to begin with? Arguments
from incredulity do not count.
>
> 2) In the next quote we find there was a void, a vacuum, a nothingness
> containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, and no sound. But
> the natural laws of nature were still existing in this vacuum of
> nothingness.This screams 'supernatural'
>
Only to someone that presupposes a "supernatural" realm. Again, based
upon what?
> 3) Then in the following quote we discover time's beginning is
> concurrent with the beginning of the universe, just as the space-time
> theorem says.The cause of the
> universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely
> independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos.
Why? Because you can't think of any other possibility? That's the
argument from incredulity, again.
>
> We now have 1) a beginning and 2) something that can only be described
> as above what we consider to be natural ( which is the supernatural)
> because natural laws are existing inside a void and a vacuum.
No. You have nothing but arguments of incredulity and a-priori
conclusions. In other words, you have no evidence to support a diety
was involved.
>
> 4)The laws existing inside this vacuum are confined as supernatural
> when men such as Hawking's claim: "the actual point of creation lies
> outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," Which is not
> natural, but supernatural.
In a non-spiritual context.
>
> So in summary:
> 1) We have established there was a beginning of time and the universe
But no supporting evidence for a diety or dieties involed.
>
> 2) That the natural laws and matter were preexisting even though they
> are existing in an unexplainable void and vacuum. Which is of course
> is supernatural when compared to what man understands about the
> physical laws of the universe.
Which does not require a *spiritual* context of the word
"supernatural", just "unknown physical conditions".
>
> 3)Number 2 is confirmed by one of the 'book learned' people,
> Hawking's.
But he was not speaking of "supernatural" or "creeation" in the
spiritual, or religious, context.
>
> 4)The cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time
> dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time
> dimension of the cosmos.
Again with the argument from an a-priori, and argument from
incredulity, claim, with no supporting evidence.
>
> When you add up 1-4, one can only come to a logical conclusion that,
> at the VERY least, their could be creator that exists outside our
> known understanding on this universe. (This would be an unity or force
> that we could not perceive from our current perspective in the
> universe. (The theory of motion and rest covers this nicely))
When you add up the reality of your assertions, you come up with "0",
"goose egg", "nadda", "zip", "nothing".
>
> Now, couple this scientific possibility of a creator with other
> information that has been handed down to us by ancient man explaining
> their encounters with gods and a creator God; we can now make the next
> logical assumption, which is, there is in fact a Creator.
Fairy tales are not evidence. Again, nothing.
>
> By correlating the scientific ideas in the quotes with the
> explanations in ancient texts for 'gods' and we can now draw a
> hypothesis that establishes an entity, or God, as the Creator of the
> universe; which in turn would establish a creator for all of the
> species on earth.
No, you still have nothing but an unsupported belief, naked faith, and
that is all you have.
> Thereby effectively making speciation divergence as
> the least likely theory for the variety of species we see on earth.
Wow! Another logical fallacy: Non sequitur. Your post was yappage
about the origin of the univers, How the universe began has *nothing*
to do with the ToE, other than the Universe began about 13.8 or so
billion years ago, which allowed plenty of time for stars to form,
create the heavy elements, go nova, or supernova, and distribute those
heavier elements, which eventually collapse into clouds of elements,
dusts and gasses, and collapse into stellar nursieries, and form stars
and planets.
No "dieties" needed or warranted.
Boikat
Boikat
Where's your evidence?
>
> What is your hypothesis?
It's well supported, so it's more like a theory, but my theory is that
you are a troll, since nobody can really be as stupid and arrogant as
you come across. But I could be worn. You could actually be as
stupid and arrogant as you appear.
Boikat
Boikat
alextangent
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:17:56 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >So.
> >It seems the true origins of the universe is unexplainable by science
> >and therefore can only be explained by a creator or an intelligence
> >that we commonly refer to as "God".
>
> gee. a classic god of the gaps argument. 100 years ago we couldnt
> explain disease either.
Which is down to "one billionth of a trillionth of a second". That gap
just keeps on getting smaller and smaller; in fact, grand unification
is postulated at 10^-43 seconds onwards. That's a very small gap for
gods indeed.
bpuharic
says the creationist who has advocated the killing of homosexuals in
the name of god and traditional values
lurkers indeed!
Andre Lieven
futilely:
<Laughs> Indeed, I am fine with my words, and the REASONS for them,
being open to public view. That could be why I post on a PUBLIC
newsgroup, moron.
And, your record of idiocy shows that you ARE an idiot. QED.
Andre
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 14, 10:25 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>> > Physical Manifestations of The Supernatural is evidence of God.
>>
>> [snip pointless quotes]
>
>ppintless id one is dodging truth.
>
>>
>> > So.
>> > It seems the true origins of the universe is unexplainable by science
>> > and therefore can only be explained by a creator or an intelligence
>> > that we commonly refer to as "God".
>>
>> There is a gap in your logic here. Even if the origins of the universe
>> are unexplainable by science (read: "current science", at most), how do
>> you go from there to saying it can be explained by something else? How
>> is "Goddidit" an explanation at all?
>
>correlation
With what/who?
>
>> > "In the Beginning God Created the Heavens and the Universe"
>>
>> > The universe itself is a physical manifestation of the supernatural
>> > event which made the universe and therefore proves the existence of
>> > God.
>>
>> > Logic follows that life as we know it on Earth is also created.
>>
>> Again, gaps in the logic. How would creation of the universe have any
>> necessary connection to creation of life?
>
>yes. Your gaps are evident. Or maybe you are a bit rusty in the logic
>department.
Your logic has been warped by long association with religion.
>
>The answer was in the quotes you removed.
>
>1) Hawking's and Penrose established there was a beginning to the
>universe.
Which had long been thought.
> This is something even Einstein begrudgingly admitted due to
>it's implications. One implication would suggest a creator.
And yet no creator is necessary.
>
>2) In the next quote we find there was a void, a vacuum, a nothingness
>containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, and no sound. But
>the natural laws of nature were still existing in this vacuum of
>nothingness.
Not quite sure where that claim comes from.
>This screams 'supernatural'
Nope.
>
>3) Then in the following quote we discover time's beginning is
>concurrent with the beginning of the universe, just as the space-time
>theorem says.The cause of the
>universe
The universe does not need a cause.
>must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely
>independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos.
Please provide evidence such a place exists.
>
>We now have 1) a beginning
Which was always the most logical idea.
>and 2) something that can only be described
>as above what we consider to be natural ( which is the supernatural)
No evidence for that, nor for the need for it.
>because natural laws are existing inside a void and a vacuum.
Not quite sure where you got that from.
For a void there must be space. There was no space, not time, nothing.
>
>4)The laws existing inside this vacuum are confined as supernatural
>when men such as Hawking's claim: "the actual point of creation lies
>outside the scope of presently known laws of physics,"
Do not confuse his use of the word "creation" with biblical creation.
> Which is not
>natural, but supernatural.
Nope.
>
>So in summary:
>1) We have established there was a beginning of time and the universe
You keep repeating the obvious.
>
>2) That the natural laws and matter were preexisting
Explain where you get that idea.
> even though they
>are existing in an unexplainable void and vacuum. Which is of course
>is supernatural when compared to what man understands about the
>physical laws of the universe.
You are, as usual, nuts.
>
>3)Number 2 is confirmed by one of the 'book learned' people,
>Hawking's.
Who?
>
>4)The cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time
>dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time
>dimension of the cosmos.
Rubbish!
>
>When you add up 1-4, one can only come to a logical conclusion that,
>at the VERY least, their could be creator that exists outside our
>known understanding on this universe.
Please provide evidence for that.
> (This would be an unity or force
>that we could not perceive from our current perspective in the
>universe. (The theory of motion and rest covers this nicely))
What does?
>
>Now, couple this scientific possibility of a creator with other
>information that has been handed down to us by ancient man explaining
>their encounters with gods and a creator God; we can now make the next
>logical assumption, which is, there is in fact a Creator.
Harpic!
>
>By correlating the scientific ideas in the quotes with the
>explanations in ancient texts for 'gods' and we can now draw a
>hypothesis that establishes an entity, or God, as the Creator of the
>universe; which in turn would establish a creator for all of the
>species on earth. Thereby effectively making speciation divergence as
>the least likely theory for the variety of species we see on earth.
Totally nuts.
--
Bob.
Blessed are the Fundamentalists, for they shall inhibit the earth.
Boikat
As opposed to "arrogant, ignorant, and proud of it, religious nut-job
troll"?
Boikat
bpuharic
>On Nov 14, 10:25 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>>
>> > Logic follows that life as we know it on Earth is also created.
>>
>> Again, gaps in the logic. How would creation of the universe have any
>> necessary connection to creation of life?
>
>yes. Your gaps are evident. Or maybe you are a bit rusty in the logic
>department.
>
>The answer was in the quotes you removed.
>
>1) Hawking's and Penrose established there was a beginning to the
>universe. This is something even Einstein begrudgingly admitted due to
>it's implications. One implication would suggest a creator.
which doesn't address the question.
>
>2) In the next quote we find there was a void, a vacuum, a nothingness
>containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, and no sound. But
>the natural laws of nature were still existing in this vacuum of
>nothingness.This screams 'supernatural
yes...to creationists, every unknown event in nature screams
'supernatural'.
you guys used that idea to explain
-earthquakes
-starlight
-motion of planets
-disease
-insanity
-weather
funny thing....you were wrong in every single case....
you guys just are unable to learn.....hell, even my standard poodles
can be trained.
you guys can't learn from your failure
>
>4)The laws existing inside this vacuum are confined as supernatural
>when men such as Hawking's claim: "the actual point of creation lies
>outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," Which is not
>natural, but supernatural.
why? what part of 'current' don't you understand? tomorrow we will
understand more of the laws of physics than we do today
creationists, again, cant learn, so to running to their 'wizard of oz'
view of nature because it gives them an explanation.
it's always WRONG...but it's an explanation for events in nature
>
>So in summary:
>1) We have established there was a beginning of time and the universe
>
>2) That the natural laws and matter were preexisting even though they
>are existing in an unexplainable void and vacuum. Which is of course
>is supernatural when compared to what man understands about the
>physical laws of the universe.
so when hubble discovered the existence of other galaxies, all of a
suddent the expanion of the universe went from being supernatural to
natural?
seems there's no distinction between natural and supernatural in your
view at all....
and, since in your view, the supernatural collapses when a cause for
an event is found....
you just admitted the supernatural doesn't exist.
thanks, creationist. good job!!
>
>3)Number 2 is confirmed by one of the 'book learned' people,
>Hawking's.
>
>4)The cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time
>dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time
>dimension of the cosmos.
why? how do you know there's not another law of physics out there?
we HAVE discovered laws of physics. we have NEVER...even
once...discovered a supernatural cause
>
>When you add up 1-4, one can only come to a logical conclusion that,
>at the VERY least, their could be creator that exists outside our
>known understanding on this universe. (This would be an unity or force
>that we could not perceive from our current perspective in the
>universe. (The theory of motion and rest covers this nicely))
>
>Now, couple this scientific possibility of a creator with other
>information that has been handed down to us by ancient man explaining
>their encounters with gods and a creator God; we can now make the next
>logical assumption, which is, there is in fact a Creator
only if god is gravity. i don't think you'll find many christians or
muslims who think god is a force of nature.
creationism is a form of pantheism, it seems
>
>By correlating the scientific ideas in the quotes with the
>explanations in ancient texts for 'gods' and we can now draw a
>hypothesis that establishes an entity, or God, as the Creator of the
>universe; which in turn would establish a creator for all of the
>species on earth. Thereby effectively making speciation divergence as
>the least likely theory for the variety of species we see on earth.
uh...no.
a hypothesis needs a defined, and measureable quantity to test the
parameters of the hypothesis
and god is undefined
sorry, creationist. another failure
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>You assume your understanding of the universe is accurate
it's far better than yours. creationsits didn't even know atoms
existed, let alone how to build atomic clocks, for example
so, yes, our view is better than yours
The matter
>and natural laws had to exist in the vaccum just before the big bang.
well...no. the vacuum didn't exist before the big bang
>That clearly establishes a supernatural occurance not explainable from
>out current perspective of the universe.
gee....we can't explain cancer yet. guess that means it's the fault of
demons and ghosts, eh?
>
>We may not know what happened just before Planck but, we have
>established a supernatural occurance just before the big bang AND we
>do have ancient records mentioning a creator God and other lesser
>gods. So it is not at all out of line to assume there was a creator
>behind the big bang.
?? the ancient records weren't present at the big bang. their
perceptions were limited to their senses.
ours are not.
>
>If we did not have refernces to a God, a Creator and other gods, then
>perhaps you would have a point. But couple scientific findings of the
>big bang with what ancient man has passed down to us in the form of
>knowledge and that raises the probablity of their being a creator
>involved in big bang.
>
only if your view of god....that he is a force of nature and came into
being with the universe....is true
bpuharic
creationists tried to use this explanation for
-earthquakes
-disease
-starlight
-planetary motion
-weather
-volcanoes
and were wrong...WRONG...in every case.
any reason you're right now?
All-Seeing-I
I hardly call the infanity before a big bang "a gap"..
heh... you evolution freaks crack
me
up
Mark Isaak
> [snip Hawking on the origin of the universe]
> It seems the true origins of the universe is unexplainable by science
> and therefore can only be explained by a creator or an intelligence
> that we commonly refer to as "God".
So. "God" is nothing more than a label for something which we know
absolutely nothing about, not even whether it exists, except that it has
nothing to do with life today. Thank you for clearing that up.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
All-Seeing-I
ATT: MENTAL HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS
This is the classic example of arrested development coupled with
suspension of disbelief disorder.
bpuharic
and creationists?
didn't even know what stars were let alone there was a universe out
there.
creationism is SUCH a failure
Caranx latus
<snip>
> ATT: MENTAL HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS
>
> This is the classic example of arrested development coupled with
> suspension of disbelief disorder.
You are allowed to keep excerpts from your chart confidential, [M]adape.
Caranx latus
So you believe that time existed before the big bang? On what do you
base that belief?
John Harshman
> On Nov 14, 10:25 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>>> Physical Manifestations of The Supernatural is evidence of God.
>> [snip pointless quotes]
>
> ppintless id one is dodging truth.
>
>>> So.
>>> It seems the true origins of the universe is unexplainable by science
>>> and therefore can only be explained by a creator or an intelligence
>>> that we commonly refer to as "God".
>> There is a gap in your logic here. Even if the origins of the universe
>> are unexplainable by science (read: "current science", at most), how do
>> you go from there to saying it can be explained by something else? How
>> is "Goddidit" an explanation at all?
>
> correlation
Go on. Correlation of what with what?
>>> "In the Beginning God Created the Heavens and the Universe"
>>> The universe itself is a physical manifestation of the supernatural
>>> event which made the universe and therefore proves the existence of
>>> God.
>>> Logic follows that life as we know it on Earth is also created.
>> Again, gaps in the logic. How would creation of the universe have any
>> necessary connection to creation of life?
>
> yes. Your gaps are evident. Or maybe you are a bit rusty in the logic
> department.
>
> The answer was in the quotes you removed.
No it wasn't.
> 1) Hawking's and Penrose established there was a beginning to the
> universe. This is something even Einstein begrudgingly admitted due to
> it's implications. One implication would suggest a creator.
That was the Big Bang theory, which did not in fact originate with
Hawking and Penrose. Nor does it suggest a creator. That should be
obvious, since neither Hawking nor Penrose believes in such a being.
> 2) In the next quote we find there was a void, a vacuum, a nothingness
> containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, and no sound. But
> the natural laws of nature were still existing in this vacuum of
> nothingness.This screams 'supernatural'
Only to you, I'm afraid.
> 3) Then in the following quote we discover time's beginning is
> concurrent with the beginning of the universe, just as the space-time
> theorem says.The cause of the
> universe must be some entity operating in a time dimension completely
> independent of and pre-existent to the time dimension of the cosmos.
Again, the second sentence doesn't follow from the first.
> We now have 1) a beginning and 2) something that can only be described
> as above what we consider to be natural ( which is the supernatural)
> because natural laws are existing inside a void and a vacuum.
There is no such implication.
> 4)The laws existing inside this vacuum are confined as supernatural
> when men such as Hawking's claim: "the actual point of creation lies
> outside the scope of presently known laws of physics," Which is not
> natural, but supernatural.
No it isn't. Hawking merely means he can't think of any way to
investigate this actual point. That doesn't say anything about any
"supernatural", much less any god. Stripped to its essentials, you are
making the God-of-the-gaps argument, "we don't know how it works,
therefore goddidit". That just isn't valid.
> So in summary:
> 1) We have established there was a beginning of time and the universe
>
> 2) That the natural laws and matter were preexisting even though they
> are existing in an unexplainable void and vacuum. Which is of course
> is supernatural when compared to what man understands about the
> physical laws of the universe.
>
> 3)Number 2 is confirmed by one of the 'book learned' people,
> Hawking's.
>
> 4)The cause of the universe must be some entity operating in a time
> dimension completely independent of and pre-existent to the time
> dimension of the cosmos.
We have established #1; #2 is your garbling of Hawking. #4 is your
unsupported and unreferenced assertion.
> When you add up 1-4, one can only come to a logical conclusion that,
> at the VERY least, their could be creator that exists outside our
> known understanding on this universe. (This would be an unity or force
> that we could not perceive from our current perspective in the
> universe. (The theory of motion and rest covers this nicely))
The theory of word salad covers that paragraph even more nicely.
> Now, couple this scientific possibility of a creator with other
> information that has been handed down to us by ancient man explaining
> their encounters with gods and a creator God; we can now make the next
> logical assumption, which is, there is in fact a Creator.
Would you agree that the Book of Mormon is true in every particular?
> By correlating the scientific ideas in the quotes with the
> explanations in ancient texts for 'gods' and we can now draw a
> hypothesis that establishes an entity, or God, as the Creator of the
> universe; which in turn would establish a creator for all of the
> species on earth. Thereby effectively making speciation divergence as
> the least likely theory for the variety of species we see on earth.
There are too many holes in that argument to count. You have
misunderstood the quotes. The ancient texts can be turned into any
coherent account only by ignoring most of what they say. There is no
correlation between these texts and science. A creator of the universe
does not imply a creator of life, much less separate creation of
"kinds". That's enough holes for now, so I'll stop there.
Ye Old One
ATTENTION LURKERS!
Behold the out of date face and poster child for the arrogant
religious nutter of today.
Here are just come of his past claims.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you folks, is this the sort of guy you would give an
credence to? Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
But you can never find evidence to prove either claim. Rather telling
that.
>
>What is your hypothesis?
That you are a scientifically illiterate moron!
And guess what? You prove it with every post you make.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
There was nothing before the big bang.
>That clearly establishes a supernatural occurance not explainable from
>out current perspective of the universe.
No it does not.
>
>We may not know what happened just before Planck but,
Before what?
> we have
>established a supernatural occurance just before the big bang
No you have not.
>AND we
>do have ancient records mentioning a creator God and other lesser
>gods.
Fairy stories, however old, are still just fairy stories.
> So it is not at all out of line to assume there was a creator
>behind the big bang.
There is no evidence for one, not evidence for the need for one.
>
>If we did not have refernces to a God, a Creator and other gods, then
>perhaps you would have a point. But couple scientific findings of the
>big bang with what ancient man has passed down to us in the form of
>knowledge and that raises the probablity of their being a creator
>involved in big bang.
You will first need to find evidence for one.
>
>If big bang even happened.
We know it did.
--
Bob.
Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told. Religion
is doing what you are told no matter what is right.
Ye Old One
Yes, I agree, you are a classic example of just such a nutcase.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
There wasn't anything before the BB. No space, no time, nothing.
>
>heh... you evolution freaks crack
>
>
>me
>
>up
No, we laugh at YOU Mudbrain.
--
Bob.
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product
of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still
primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No
interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
- letter from Albert Einstein to Eric Gutkind, Jan. 3, 1954.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion
Andre Lieven
foolishly:> > On Nov 15, 10:49 am, All-Seeing-Idiot <allseei...@usa.com> flailed
> > futilely:
>
> > > On Nov 14, 9:16 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 14, 8:24 pm, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> slurped:
>
>
> > > > > > Physical Manifestations of The Supernatural is evidence of God.
>
> > > > > [snipparoo]
>
> > > > > What religion are you?
>
> > > > The same as yours, the church of the fuckwit moron liars.
>
> > > > HTH.
>
> > > > Andre
>
> > > ATTENTION LURKERS:
>
> > > Behold the modern day face and poster child for the arrogant atheist
> > > of today.
>
> > <Laughs> Indeed, I am fine with my words, and the REASONS for them,
> > being open to public view. That could be why I post on a PUBLIC
> > newsgroup, moron.
>
> > And, your record of idiocy shows that you ARE an idiot. QED.
>
> ATT: MENTAL HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS
>
> This is the classic example of arrested development coupled with
> suspension of disbelief disorder.
Yes, you are. HTH.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> >> "We don't know anything about the
> >> universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth
> >> of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big
> >> bang."
>
> >> It is possible that we will never know what happened before the "mature
> >> age" was reached at what is often called Planck time. Some people
> >> maintain without evidence that this fundamental gap in our knowledge is
> >> filled by an entity they have named god. While this concept is not
> >> helpful to our understanding, it cannot be disproved as we have no
> >> knowledge of anything that occurred before Planck time. The concept of
> >> god is no longer needed once Planck time has been reached and our
> >> understanding of the universe begins.
>
> >You assume your understanding of the universe is accurate The matter
> >and natural laws had to exist in the vaccum just before the big bang.
>
> There was nothing before the big bang.
That we know of. There *might* have been a prior iteration of a
universe,
but because the events of TBB were so, well, major, there remains zero
evidence of anything prior to TBB.
> >That clearly establishes a supernatural occurance not explainable from
> >out current perspective of the universe.
>
> No it does not.
>
> >We may not know what happened just before Planck but,
>
> Before what?
>
> > we have
> >established a supernatural occurance just before the big bang
>
> No you have not.
>
> >AND we
> >do have ancient records mentioning a creator God and other lesser
> >gods.
>
> Fairy stories, however old, are still just fairy stories.
>
> > So it is not at all out of line to assume there was a creator
> >behind the big bang.
>
> There is no evidence for one, not evidence for the need for one.
>
> >If we did not have refernces to a God, a Creator and other gods, then
> >perhaps you would have a point. But couple scientific findings of the
> >big bang with what ancient man has passed down to us in the form of
> >knowledge and that raises the probablity of their being a creator
> >involved in big bang.
>
> You will first need to find evidence for one.
>
> >If big bang even happened.
>
> We know it did.
Indeed, due to the evidence that we have found and examined.
Andre
Boikat
Projection.
Boikat
Ye Old One
Ok, the modern view can, I believe, be summed up as "The universe is a
closed system with a start, at the BB, and with an unknown end. It
cannot know of anything before, after, or outside of itself."
True, not everyone agrees, but that I think is the general consensus.
>
>> >That clearly establishes a supernatural occurance not explainable from
>> >out current perspective of the universe.
>>
>> No it does not.
>>
>> >We may not know what happened just before Planck but,
>>
>> Before what?
>>
>> > we have
>> >established a supernatural occurance just before the big bang
>>
>> No you have not.
>>
>> >AND we
>> >do have ancient records mentioning a creator God and other lesser
>> >gods.
>>
>> Fairy stories, however old, are still just fairy stories.
>>
>> > So it is not at all out of line to assume there was a creator
>> >behind the big bang.
>>
>> There is no evidence for one, not evidence for the need for one.
>>
>> >If we did not have refernces to a God, a Creator and other gods, then
>> >perhaps you would have a point. But couple scientific findings of the
>> >big bang with what ancient man has passed down to us in the form of
>> >knowledge and that raises the probablity of their being a creator
>> >involved in big bang.
>>
>> You will first need to find evidence for one.
>>
>> >If big bang even happened.
>>
>> We know it did.
>
>Indeed, due to the evidence that we have found and examined.
Exactly.
>
>Andre
--
Bob.
A diagnostic is someone who doesn't know whether there are two gods.
Boikat
Since there was no "time" as we understand it, there was no infinity,
or infanity, for that matter, prior to the Big Bang.
.
>
> heh... you evolution freaks crack
>
> me
>
> up-
Most of those who reply to your nonsense already know you're cracked..
Boikat
Boikat
His limited perception ability..
Boikat
Boikat
> > > It seems the true origins of the universe is unexplainable by science
> > > and therefore can only be explained by a creator or an intelligence
> > > that we commonly refer to as "God".
>
>
> > > The universe itself is a physical manifestation of the supernatural
> > > event which made the universe and therefore proves the existence of
> > > God.
>
> > > Logic follows that life as we know it on Earth is also created.
>
> > > Seeing it all with...
>
> > > The All Seeing I
>
> > of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big
> > bang."
>
> > It is possible that we will never know what happened before the "mature
> > age" was reached at what is often called Planck time. Some people
> > maintain without evidence that this fundamental gap in our knowledge is
> > filled by an entity they have named god. While this concept is not
> > helpful to our understanding, it cannot be disproved as we have no
> > knowledge of anything that occurred before Planck time. The concept of
> > god is no longer needed once Planck time has been reached and our
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> and natural laws had to exist in the vaccum just before the big bang.
> out current perspective of the universe.
It seems you are the one assuming *your* understanding of the Universe
is accurate. You claim, as fact, that the physical laws existed in
the "vaccum" prior to the Big Bang. What "vaccum?
>
> We may not know what happened just before Planck but, we have
> established a supernatural occurance just before the big bang
What's this "We" shit, and where have you established any
"supernatural" occurance? Please keep in mind, "beyond our current
understanding of physics" does not mean "supernatiral" in the
spiritual or religious context.
> AND we
> do have ancient records mentioning a creator God and other lesser
> gods.
So what? There is no evidence to support their existence.
> So it is not at all out of line to assume there was a creator
> behind the big bang.
If that makes you feel happy, go for it, but do not use your personal
beliefs as an argument against scientific realities or theories.
>
> If we did not have refernces to a God, a Creator and other gods, then
> perhaps you would have a point. But couple scientific findings of the
> big bang with what ancient man has passed down to us in the form of
> knowledge and that raises the probablity of their being a creator
> involved in big bang.
Let everyone know whrn you find some actual supporting evidence.
> If big bang even happened.-
What's really stupid about that remark is that you spend all that
time, in your post, claiming "Something supernatural, therefore
"Gododit", so there!", and then say, "Or not".
Damn, logic and your brain go together like marbles and cabbage.
Boikat
heekster
wrote:
Mind numbing fanatical ignorance.
Devils Advocaat
> On Nov 15, 8:22 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > > Physical Manifestations of The Supernatural is evidence of God.
>
>
> > "not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural
> > laws; not physical or material"
>
> > So perhaps you can explain how something that doesn't exist in nature,
> > and having no physical attributes can produce physical manifestations.
>
> Sure. Goddidit. God IS supernatural
In other words you have no explanation of how something that doesn't
exist in nature, and having no physical attributes can produce
physical manifestations.
>
> What is your hypothesis?
I am not the one making the claims here.
So the onus is on you to provide reasoned arguments and objective
evidence.
"Godidit" is neither reasoned argument or objective evidence.
heekster
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
The ancient Sumarians have artifacts showing all of the planets in
orbit around the sun including Pluto. Yet your silly baby step science
did not discover Pluto until the early 1900's.
Why is THAT fish?
Here is a photo of the artifact:
http://www.sitchin.com/images/akkad3.jpg
Also.
The recovered Enuma Elish document, a history of the formation of our
solar system and more, says that, at the time when Mercury, Venus,
Mars, Jupiter, Uranus and Saturn were in place, there was a Uranus
sized planet, called Tiamat, in orbit between Mars and Jupiter. Earth
was not in place yet. A large wandering planet, called Nibiru, was
captured into the system gravitationally. As it passed by the outer
planets it caused the anomalies of their moons, the tilting of Uranus
on its side, the dislodging of Pluto from its being a moon of Saturn
to its own planetary orbit. Its path bent by the gravitational pull of
the large planets, first its satellites collided with the large planet
Tiamat and, on a second orbit through, Nibiru collided with Tiamat,
driving the larger part of it into what is now Earth’s orbit to
recongeal as Earth, dragging its moon with it to become our Moon with
all its anomalies.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/anunnaki/anu_1c.htm
You guys can run from this information.
But you can't hide.
Evolution is the failure. And it continues to mislead mankind even
today.
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> The ancient Sumarians have artifacts showing all of the planets in
> orbit around the sun including Pluto. Yet your silly baby step science
> did not discover Pluto until the early 1900's.
>
> Why is THAT fish?
>
> Here is a photo of the artifact:
> http://www.sitchin.com/images/akkad3.jpg
That appears to show 11 objects (and the sun). Isn't that too many?
[...]
> http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/anunnaki/anu_1c.htm
Ah, I see. So there were 10 planets (and the moon?), and aliens from
the tenth planet came to earch 432K years ago and created us (by
blending their genetic code with that of Homo erectus) as slaves. Makes
perfect sense; it's clear you're not going to be taken in by fairy
tales.
[...]
Ye Old One
How the hell do you work that out you moron?
>
>
>Also.
>
>The recovered Enuma Elish document, a history of the formation of our
>solar system and more, says that, at the time when Mercury, Venus,
>Mars, Jupiter, Uranus and Saturn were in place, there was a Uranus
>sized planet, called Tiamat, in orbit between Mars and Jupiter. Earth
>was not in place yet. A large wandering planet, called Nibiru, was
>captured into the system gravitationally. As it passed by the outer
>planets it caused the anomalies of their moons, the tilting of Uranus
>on its side, the dislodging of Pluto from its being a moon of Saturn
>to its own planetary orbit. Its path bent by the gravitational pull of
>the large planets, first its satellites collided with the large planet
>Tiamat and, on a second orbit through, Nibiru collided with Tiamat,
>driving the larger part of it into what is now Earth’s orbit to
>recongeal as Earth, dragging its moon with it to become our Moon with
>all its anomalies.
>
>http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/anunnaki/anu_1c.htm
You really are a total nutcase if you believe any of that rubbish.
>
>You guys can run from this information.
Nah! But we can certainly laugh at it.
>
>But you can't hide.
>
>Evolution is the failure. And it continues to mislead mankind even
>today.
Liar!
bpuharic
>On Nov 15, 10:48 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:42:07 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>>
>>
>>
>> >I hardly call the infanity before a big bang "a gap"..
>>
>> >heh... you evolution freaks crack
>>
>> and creationists?
>>
>> didn't even know what stars were let alone there was a universe out
>> there.
>>
>> creationism is SUCH a failure- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>The ancient Sumarians have artifacts showing all of the planets in
>orbit around the sun including Pluto. Yet your silly baby step science
>did not discover Pluto until the early 1900's.
funny that creationists thought the earth was the center of the
universe. it took 'our' science to discover creationism was wrong
again.
and pluto's not even a planet.
and creationists didn't even know pluto existed....ANOTHER failure of
creationism
no wonder you have to pull in thousands of stories about origins. just
on the law of probability, SOMEONE will write some guess that rings
true today.
only the gullible...ie creationists...would think these ancient
stories actualy mean something
so how you you explain the FAILURE of YOUR creationism to describe
what the ancient sumerians supposedly knew?
i'd call that a glaring failure of creationism
>
>Why is THAT fish?
>
>Here is a photo of the artifact:
>http://www.sitchin.com/images/akkad3.jpg
>
>
>Also.
>
>The recovered Enuma Elish document, a history of the formation of our
>solar system and more, says that, at the time when Mercury, Venus,
>Mars, Jupiter, Uranus and Saturn were in place, there was a Uranus
>sized planet, called Tiamat, in orbit between Mars and Jupiter. Earth
>was not in place yet. A large wandering planet, called Nibiru, was
>captured into the system gravitationally. As it passed by the outer
>planets it caused the anomalies of their moons, the tilting of Uranus
>on its side, the dislodging of Pluto from its being a moon of Saturn
>to its own planetary orbit. Its path bent by the gravitational pull of
>the large planets, first its satellites collided with the large planet
>Tiamat and, on a second orbit through, Nibiru collided with Tiamat,
>driving the larger part of it into what is now Earth’s orbit to
>recongeal as Earth, dragging its moon with it to become our Moon with
>all its anomalies.
funny...gravity wasn't discovered by creationism at all...scientists
discovered and described it
so YOUR CREATIONISM is....WRONG AGAIN!!
embarrassing, huh?
John McKendry
Yup, it's a cylinder seal, VA 243 from the Vorderasiatische Museum
in Berlin, and the "www.sitchin.com" URL confirms that you have
swallowed Zecharia Sitchin's profoundly flawed misconstruction of
its iconography hook, line, and sinker. You will not do it, but any
reader who wants to know what is really depicted here should download
the pdf at http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/VA243seal.pdf , where Sitchin's
mistakes are laid out in detail. To quote from the author's abstract at
http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/sitchinerrors.htm ,
"This analysis focuses on the demonstrable fact that the "sun" symbol
on this seal (which is essential to allegedly depicting the solar
system) is not the sun. The actual sun symbol used on literally
hundreds of seals, monuments, and other artwork from Sumer and
Mesopotamia is shown to the reader via photos and compared to the
symbol on this seal. It's not even close. I include examples
where Sitchin's symbol occurs side-by-side with the real sun symbol
so there can be no mistaking the fact that the Sumerians and
Mesopotamians did in fact distinguish these symbols. This
analysis erodes the entire foundation of Sitchin's 12 planet
hypothesis."
The author, Michael S. Heiser, has a 2004 Ph.D. from the Department
of Hebrew and Semitic Studies at Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, and
unlike Sitchin, has some actual familiarity with Ancient Near Eastern
languages. (His website is one of those misbegotten white-text-on-black
horrors that should have gone away when Geocities shut down; nobody's
perfect.)
>
> Also.
>
> The recovered Enuma Elish document, a history of the formation of our
> solar system and more, says that, at the time when Mercury, Venus, Mars,
> Jupiter, Uranus and Saturn were in place, there was a Uranus sized
> planet, called Tiamat, in orbit between Mars and Jupiter. Earth was not
> in place yet. A large wandering planet, called Nibiru, was captured into
> the system gravitationally. As it passed by the outer planets it caused
> the anomalies of their moons, the tilting of Uranus on its side, the
> dislodging of Pluto from its being a moon of Saturn to its own planetary
> orbit. Its path bent by the gravitational pull of the large planets,
> first its satellites collided with the large planet Tiamat and, on a
> second orbit through, Nibiru collided with Tiamat, driving the larger
> part of it into what is now Earth’s orbit to recongeal as Earth,
> dragging its moon with it to become our Moon with all its anomalies.
>
> http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/anunnaki/anu_1c.htm
>
> You guys can run from this information.
>
> But you can't hide.
>
This, too, is according to Zecharia Sitchin. Enuma Elish says nothing
of the sort. Sitchin makes stuff up out of his Velikovsky-fueled
imagination, aided by his abysmal ignorance of the Sumerian and
Akkadian languages.
> Evolution is the failure. And it continues to mislead mankind even
> today.
Yet Sitchin gets featured on Art Bell and you're stuck here on
usenet. Maybe you should give up on anti-evolutionism and switch
to ancient astronauts.
John
Mike Dworetsky
Whatever this shows, it isn't the Sun and 11 planets. See other replies for
details.
So how come creationists never even discovered Uranus and Nepture, never
mind Pluto?
>
> Also.
>
> The recovered Enuma Elish document, a history of the formation of our
> solar system and more, says that, at the time when Mercury, Venus,
> Mars, Jupiter, Uranus and Saturn were in place, there was a Uranus
> sized planet, called Tiamat, in orbit between Mars and Jupiter. Earth
> was not in place yet. A large wandering planet, called Nibiru, was
> captured into the system gravitationally. As it passed by the outer
> planets it caused the anomalies of their moons, the tilting of Uranus
> on its side, the dislodging of Pluto from its being a moon of Saturn
> to its own planetary orbit. Its path bent by the gravitational pull of
> the large planets, first its satellites collided with the large planet
> Tiamat and, on a second orbit through, Nibiru collided with Tiamat,
> driving the larger part of it into what is now Earth’s orbit to
> recongeal as Earth, dragging its moon with it to become our Moon with
> all its anomalies.
>
> http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/anunnaki/anu_1c.htm
>
> You guys can run from this information.
Information? Nah. Senile Velikovskian maunderings of Sitchin's deluded
mind. That you credit this puts you in the same mental illness camp as the
Madame Weird of Usenet, Nancy Lieder, who gets her information from Sitchin
plus channeling of mysterious aliens (who "talk" a lot like you) called
Zetas, from Zeta Reticuli.
http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/ZetaTalk
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/tchester/iras/no_tenth_planet_yet.html
>
> But you can't hide.
>
> Evolution is the failure. And it continues to mislead mankind even
> today.
I suspected it for a long time, but now that it is coming out in the open,
let me ask:
Are you channeling Zetas also? It would explain much.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
rmacfarl
"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in
message news:Mf2dncdUYIgiZZ3W...@bt.com......
>
> The ancient Sumarians have artifacts showing all of the planets
> in
> orbit around the sun including Pluto. Yet your silly baby step
> science
> did not discover Pluto until the early 1900's.
>
> Why is THAT fish?
>
> Here is a photo of the artifact:
> http://www.sitchin.com/images/akkad3.jpg
>
Did you have a look at the website where he cites that photo
from?
"
... The audacious idea of protecting a planet thermally by
creating a shield of particles in its upper atmosphere is not as
revolutionary as it seems. It was, I wrote in my 1976 book The
Twelfth Planet, exactly the reason why the Anunnaki - "Those who
from Heaven to Earth came" - had come here some 450,000 year ago
from their planet Nibiru.
On Nibiru -- 'Planet X' of our Solar System - the problem was
the opposite one: Loss of internally generatedheat due to a
dwindling atmosphere, brought about by natural causes and nuclear
wars. Nibiru's scientists, I wrote, concluded that the only way
to save life on their planet was to create a shield of gold
particles in their upper atmosphere. It was in search of the
needed gold that the "gods" of the ancient peoples had come to
Earth. Basing my conclusions on Sumerian and other texts from the
ancient Near East, I wrote that the Anunnaki began to arrive on
Earth some 445,000 years ago, establishing settlements in the
E.Din (later Mesopotamia) and mining gold in southeast Africa.
As I have written in subsequent books, "modern science is only
catching up with ancient knowledge." The idea of
'geo-engineering' is borrowed from technologies of the Anunnaki.
"
!!
Loo-oo-py...
All-seeing-I
wrote:
You can live in denial if you wish. In the mean time, evolutionary
science has not produced man's missing link.
Mike Dworetsky
And Adman/ASI **believes** it.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This by far is the biggest bunch of garbage I have read. Pure
rationalization.
The entire argument hinges on the shape of the star.
unless one believes that writing and drawing stayed consistent for
thousands of years. Which it did not, the shape of the star is moot.
Also, the dates of the artifacts are not taken into consideration.
Their original houses were made of reeds. Many many years latter the
newer houses were made out of mud brick. By your logic the houses of
reeds were not accurate sumarian houses.
In this sumarian picture (about half way down) the sun is depicted as
a cross, the last planet as a diamond.
The point is, art is an individual expression. To suggest that the
star should be consistant over many generations and by different
artists is just plain stupid.
.
http://www.timstouse.com/EarthHistory/planetx.htm
It never amazes me the amount of disinformation on the internet.
But none of this is germain to the original comment. That comment was
the sumarians knew about the solar system long before modern science.
And they did. Anyone that has casually read their tablets knows this.
The Sumerians knew the size, position, trajectory, and color of every
planet in our solar system (6000+ years BC). Modern science caught up
with this knowledge a mere seventy years ago.
A second example: The Sumerians had, not one but, three extremely
accurate ways of measuring distances between stars, two of which we
were only able to confirm within the last one hundred years, when our
technology/science caught up to theirs.
Sumerian and Akkadian texts music and musical instruments are well
attested to. But if this information was readily accepted then much of
science and religion of today would have to be rewritten
Science is re-discovering the old and religion only had part of the
story. There is the truth.
All-seeing-I
>
>
>
> > But you can't hide.
>
> > Evolution is the failure. And it continues to mislead mankind even
> > today.
>
> I suspected it for a long time, but now that it is coming out in the open,
> let me ask:
>
> Are you channeling Zetas also? It would explain much.
>
> --
> Mike Dworetsky
You guys are in extreme denial.
The people of ancient Sumar understood the size, the position, the
trajectory, and even the color of every planet in our solar system 6
thousand years ago. Go read the tablets for yourself. They were highly
accurate. The Sumerians also had three very accurate ways of measuring
distances between stars.
Two of them science was only able to confirm within the last one
hundred years,
Denial. It is not just a river in egypt... Mike
richardal...@googlemail.com
<snipped>
>
> This by far is the biggest bunch of garbage I have read.
Presumably you don't bother to read your own posts in that case.
To quote from that excellent gralloching of Stichin's nonsense:
"The reader must realize that the substance of my disagreement is not
due to "translation philosophy," as though Mr. Sitchin and I merely
disagree over possible translations of certain words. What is at
stake is the integrity of the cuneiform tablets themselves, along with
the legacy of Sumer and Mesopotamian scribes. Very simply, the
ancient Mesopotamians compiled their own dictionaries - we have them
and they have been published since mid-century. The words Mr. Sitchin
tells us refer to rocket ships have no such meanings according to the
ancient Mesopotamians themselves. Likewise when Mr. Sitchin draws
connections between Sumero-Mesopotamian gods and stories that simply
do not exist in the literature (like insisting the Sumerians believed
there were twelve planets and having the Anunnaki living on Nibiru,
the supposed 12th planet), my argument with him is one that opposes
such fabrications, not just one how words are translated. To persist
in embracing Mr. Sitchin's views on this matter (and a host of others)
amounts to rejecting the legacy of the ancient Sumerian and Akkadian
scribes whose labors have come down to us from the ages. Put bluntly,
is it more coherent to believe a Mesopotamian scribe's definition of a
word, or Mr. Sitchin's?"
<snipped>
RF
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>But none of this is germain to the original comment. That comment was
>the sumarians knew about the solar system long before modern science.
>And they did. Anyone that has casually read their tablets knows this.
>
>The Sumerians knew the size, position, trajectory, and color of every
>planet in our solar system (6000+ years BC). Modern science caught up
>with this knowledge a mere seventy years ago.
actually the sumerians no more 'knew' this than any other ancient
story tellers 'knew' their stories were true...
it's a measure of the failure of this creationist's view that he has
to search around in his chamber pot of 10,000 ancient stories to find
one he can interpret as being 'true'...and then only with science...
you'd think if it WAS true, his kind of folks would have been
screaming this 400 years ago...but they didn't. they were, instead,
giving serious thought to burning galileo at the stake...
so, according to creationism, all you have to do is write down 100,000
stories about anything, then wait 3000 years for science to tell you
which of these is right
no wonder creationism didn't make any progress....it's ghost based
reality
>
>Sumerian and Akkadian texts music and musical instruments are well
>attested to. But if this information was readily accepted then much of
>science and religion of today would have to be rewritten
>
>Science is re-discovering the old and religion only had part of the
>story. There is the truth.
>
gee...so out of 39,000 religions in existence....all we have to do is
find the right one.
well, why didnt you TELL us??
oh...which one is right, by the by?
Mike Dworetsky
Noting that *you* are engaging a well known fruit-loop theory is hardly
denial.
You're the one channeling the Zeta Reticulans with Nancy, not me. Let's see
you explain in more detail how the Sumerians were able to measure the
distances between stars. I'm assuming you refer to physical distances,
e.g., parsecs, and not to angular distances on the sky (which they could
do).
As far as any of the reputable literature is concerned, no ancient peoples
could measure stellar parallax.
Davej
>
> Physical Manifestations of The Supernatural is evidence of God.
Bullshit. Here, learn something...
http://www.youtube.com/user/richarddawkinsdotnet#p/u/7/7ImvlS8PLIo
Desertphile
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
> The ancient Sumarians have artifacts showing all of the planets in
> orbit around the sun including Pluto.
No.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
All-seeing-I
<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
[]
>
> As far as any of the reputable literature is concerned, no ancient peoples
> could measure stellar parallax.
oh really.
The Sumerians were also able to measure the distance between stars
very precisely. But how is it possible that earthbound, primitive,
pretechnological people were able to do this? And even more
mysteriously, why? Such star maps would be neccessary for space
travellers, but not for the ancient primitive Sumerians. Given the
extraordinary accuracy of Sumerian astronomical calculations, perhaps
it is prudent to have another look at those areas where their
information differs from ours. The Sumerians assign 12 "celestial
bodies" to the solar system, the sun, the moon and 10 planets. Today
we recognize 11 of these, but it was not always the case. Until the
late 18th century Western astronomers only knew of the existence of 6
planets - Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Uranus was
discovered in 1781, Neptune in 1846, and Pluto in 1930. In this light,
is it possible that the Sumerians 12th celestial body is yet to be
discovered, a planet that the Sumerins called Nibiru? Interestingly,
in 1972 Joseph L. Brady, an astronomer at the Lawrence Livermore
Laboratory discovered a pertubation in Halleys comets orbit that could
be explained by the presence of a Jupiter sized planet that orbits
ever several thousand years. More recently, it has been found that the
trajectories of space craft like the Voyagers are being disturbed by
an unknown gravitational force.
http://www.subversiveelement.com/Sumerians.html
The ancient tale of Nibiru's Celestial Battle is actually
scientifically sophisticated, and current advances in astronomy have
recently corroborated certain aspects of the Sumerian cosmogony, among
them the following:
http://www.subversiveelement.com/Planet_X.html
The Sumerians were also able to measure the distance between stars
very precisely. But how is it possible that earthbound, primitive,
pretechnological people were able to do this? And even more
mysteriously, why? Such star maps would be neccessary for space
travellers, but not for the ancient primitive Sumerians. Given the
extraordinary accuracy of Sumerian astronomical calculations, perhaps
it is prudent to have another look at those areas where their
information differs from ours. The Sumerians assign 12 "celestial
bodies" to the solar system, the sun, the moon and 10 planets. Today
we recognize 11 of these, but it was not always the case. Until the
late 18th century Western astronomers only knew of the existence of 6
planets - Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Uranus was
discovered in 1781, Neptune in 1846, and Pluto in 1930. In this light,
is it possible that the Sumerians 12th celestial body is yet to be
discovered, a planet that the Sumerins called Nibiru? Interestingly,
in 1972 Joseph L. Brady, an astronomer at the Lawrence Livermore
Laboratory discovered a pertubation in Halleys comets orbit that could
be explained by the presence of a Jupiter sized planet that orbits
ever several thousand years. More recently, it has been found that the
trajectories of space craft like the Voyagers are being disturbed by
an unknown gravitational force.
http://astronomer.proboards.com/index.cgiboard=Ancient&action=display&thread=1850
Pliny also takes a circuitous route to the equatorial radius,
suggesting 3963.5 miles, a figure just a quarter of a mile more than
the modern figure. How did Pliny get his hands on such an accurate
figure? Who did the original measurement and how? At this point, we
might usefully point out that Clarke’s survey was undertaken before
satellites and GPS navigation, and basically relied on the accurate
measurement of angles between an accurate base length, together with
the sine rule of basic trigonometry, a rule inscribed on Sumerian clay
tablets by a culture noted for its accurate measurement of angles.
Weights and measures--that is, metrology--relate to the work of the
smith in the developing ages of metal, but why, around 3000 B.C. did
it become so imperative to measure Heaven and Earth so precisely?
Mike Dworetsky
This is a passage from a writer of undeterminate qualifications (probably
none) named Richard Heath, who describes Pliny as a first century Greek
writer. (Heath's book is published by a new age company who also have
sections on tarot, freemansonry, etc.) First of all, Pliny was a Roman, not
a Greek. So much for his scholarly credibility. Second, if the figure
Pliny gave was 42,000 stades as the polar radius of Earth, this is based on
or quoted from observations such as those of the Greek philosopher
Eratosthenes in Egypt. Roman land surveying was pretty good, but no one
could give six figure accuracy in Roman Empire times.
More likely, the author came across someone who was trying to work out the
exact length of the ancient stade and used Pliny's (or Eratosthenes') figure
along with modern values. It's all a misunderstanding by an uncritical
author. So all the astonishment you have generated is nothing more than a
modern conversion factor.
I never said that ancient astronomers did not know basic trigonometry. I'm
sure they did. I said they could not measure stellar parallaxes. They were
probably able to measure apparent angular distances between stars, or stars
and planets, to about the same precision as later Classical Greek
astronomers (say to 1/4 degree at best).
The Brady theory assumed that Halley's comet was not perturbed by emissions
of jets of gas when the comet was heated during perihelion passage (can be
likened to attaching a rocket to the comet and lighting the fuse, when it
passed near the Sun). It has since become apparent through detailed studies
of the 1986 perihelion that this is exactly what P/Halley does. He also
ignored periodic disturbances due to Jupiter perturbations (T. Kiang,
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 162, 271, 1973).
Yeomans (an expert on cometary orbits) also demonstrated that Brady's
conclusions were erroneous (Yeomans, MNRAS 197, 633, 1981). So the claim of
a massive unknown perturber beyond Pluto was shown to be incorrect. Oh,
hey--that means Nibiru does not exist! Heh.
As usual, you have either misinterpreted some basic statements in a book, or
you don't understand astronomy. Could easily be both. You are far too
accepting of flaky sources. This, of course, we already knew, but it's
always nice to have documented proof.
raven1
Wow, that's pretty kooky. What's next, 9/11 Conspiracy Theories?
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Nov 16, 5:56 am, "Mike Dworetsky"<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> []
>
>
>
> > As far as any of the reputable literature is concerned, no ancient peoples
> > could measure stellar parallax.
>
> oh really.
>
> The Sumerians were also able to measure the distance between stars
> very precisely. But how is it possible that earthbound, primitive,
> pretechnological people were able to do this? And even more
> mysteriously, why? Such star maps would be neccessary for space
> travellers, but not for the ancient primitive Sumerians. Given the
> extraordinary accuracy of Sumerian astronomical calculations, perhaps
> it is prudent to have another look at those areas where their
> information differs from ours. The Sumerians assign 12 "celestial
> bodies" to the solar system, the sun, the moon and 10 planets. Today
> we recognize 11 of these, but it was not always the case.
Actually, we now recognise 8 planets. Pluto is one (and not the
biggest) of a class of Keuper Belt objects in eccentric orbits, most
of which lie outside the orbit of Neptune, and more of which are being
discovered every year.
Why do you suppose that the Sumerians didn't know this?
RF
> http://astronomer.proboards.com/index.cgiboard=Ancient&action=display...
>
> Pliny also takes a circuitous route to the equatorial radius,
> suggesting 3963.5 miles, a figure just a quarter of a mile more than
> the modern figure. How did Pliny get his hands on such an accurate
> figure? Who did the original measurement and how? At this point, we
> might usefully point out that Clarke’s survey was undertaken before
> satellites and GPS navigation, and basically relied on the accurate
> measurement of angles between an accurate base length, together with
> the sine rule of basic trigonometry, a rule inscribed on Sumerian clay
> tablets by a culture noted for its accurate measurement of angles.
> Weights and measures--that is, metrology--relate to the work of the
> smith in the developing ages of metal, but why, around 3000 B.C. did
> it become so imperative to measure Heaven and Earth so precisely?
>
> http://store.innertraditions.com/Product.jmdx;jsessionid=696EC475AA7B...
Burkhard
Well, to be fair, "being a planet" is at least to a certain extend an
artificial category, and the IAU definition is to a certain extend
arbitrary (I think they just did not want to include lots of new
planets.) and remains contested. The main difference between a dwarf
planet like Pluto and a proper planet is if they cleared the
neighbourhood around their orbit - a relational definition that also
requires a much better knowledge of the space around a planet, and,
according to some, means that Neptune may be in danger as well.
All in all, one could not assume the Sumerians to anticipate the IAU
definition.
Doesn't mean of course that the story is pants.
carlip...@physics.ucdavis.edu
> Physical Manifestations of The Supernatural is evidence of God.
> But, Let's see what the 'book leraned' people have to say.
> "Hawking's first major work was published with Roger Penrose, a
> physicist very famous in his own right, and George Ellis, during the
> period 1968-1970.
This is confused. I'm looking at Hawking's publication list right
now. He never published anything with both Penrose and Ellis.
This is apparently jumbling together a paper with Penrose and
two papers and a book with Ellis. Not a good start...
> They demonstrated that every solution to the
> equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular
> boundary for space and time in the past. This is now known as the
> "singularity theorem," and is a tremendously important finding."
> This of course means a begining.
I have both Hawking's paper with Penrose and his book with Ellis
in front of me. They both say, quite clearly, that their singularity
theorems imply that "the theory has broken down" and both clearly
state that one should expect this because of quantum gravitational
effects, which are known to be important at very high curvatures
but which are not included in their calculations.
If you read any of Hawking's subsequent work on quantum gravity,
you will see that he very clearly argues *against* any initial
singularity. Start with Hartle and Hawking, Phys. Rev. D28 (1983)
2960.
[...]
> "Stephen Hawking has said, in his writings, "the actual point of
> creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics,"
OK. Now look up the meaning of the words "presently known."
You want to count "our present knowledge of physics can't explain X"
as evidence for God. Fine, but then you should then count "our *past*
knowledge of physics couldn't explain X, but now we can" as evidence
against God. That's only fair, isn't it? If something counts as evidence
for your hypothesis but turns out to be wrong, that ought to count as
evidence against your hypothesis, shouldn't it?
(Or is this one of these games where anything in your favor counts,
but as soon as it stops being in your favor it's out of the game? My
kids used to play like that, but they mostly outgrew it by the time
they were six.)
Steve Carlip
Dana Tweedy
>> Ah, I see. So there were 10 planets (and the moon?), and aliens from
>> the tenth planet came to earch 432K years ago and created us (by
>> blending their genetic code with that of Homo erectus) as slaves.
>> Makes perfect sense; it's clear you're not going to be taken in by
>> fairy tales.
>>
>> [...]
>
> You can live in denial if you wish. In the mean time, evolutionary
> science has not produced man's missing link.
You seem to be unaware that science is not looking for any "missing link".
There are many transitional hominid fossils but the old idea of the "chain
of being" was abandoned long ago.
DJT
Mark Isaak
> On Nov 15, 10:48 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:42:07 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>>
>> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 15, 10:07 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 15, 4:36 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:17:56 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>>
>> >> > <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > >So.
>> >> > >It seems the true origins of the universe is unexplainable by
>> >> > >science and therefore can only be explained by a creator or an
>> >> > >intelligence that we commonly refer to as "God".
>>
>> >> > gee. a classic god of the gaps argument. 100 years ago we couldnt
>> >> > explain disease either.
>>
>> >> Which is down to "one billionth of a trillionth of a second". That
>> >> gap just keeps on getting smaller and smaller; in fact, grand
>> >> unification is postulated at 10^-43 seconds onwards. That's a very
>> >> small gap for gods indeed.
>>
>> >I hardly call the infanity before a big bang "a gap"..
>>
>> >heh... you evolution freaks crack
>>
>> and creationists?
>>
>> didn't even know what stars were let alone there was a universe out
>> there.
>>
>> creationism is SUCH a failure
>
> The ancient Sumarians have artifacts showing all of the planets in
> orbit around the sun including Pluto. Yet your silly baby step science
> did not discover Pluto until the early 1900's.
>
> Why is THAT fish?
>
> Here is a photo of the artifact:
> http://www.sitchin.com/images/akkad3.jpg
>
>
> Also.
>
> The recovered Enuma Elish document, a history of the formation of our
> solar system and more, says that, at the time when Mercury, Venus, Mars,
> Jupiter, Uranus and Saturn were in place, there was a Uranus sized
> planet, called Tiamat, in orbit between Mars and Jupiter. Earth was not
> in place yet. A large wandering planet, called Nibiru, was captured into
> the system gravitationally. As it passed by the outer planets it caused
> the anomalies of their moons, the tilting of Uranus on its side, the
> dislodging of Pluto from its being a moon of Saturn to its own planetary
> orbit. Its path bent by the gravitational pull of the large planets,
> first its satellites collided with the large planet Tiamat and, on a
> second orbit through, Nibiru collided with Tiamat, driving the larger
> part of it into what is now Earth's orbit to recongeal as Earth,
> dragging its moon with it to become our Moon with all its anomalies.
>
> http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/anunnaki/anu_1c.htm
>
> You guys can run from this information.
>
> But you can't hide.
What information? What you posted is pure fiction. Anyone can read the
Enuma Elish and see for themself.
> Evolution is the failure. And it continues to mislead mankind even
> today.
Suit yourself. Meanwhile, successful researchers will keep using it.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Mark Isaak
> [snip Stichin looniness]
> You guys are in extreme denial.
>
> The people of ancient Sumar understood the size, the position, the
> trajectory, and even the color of every planet in our solar system 6
> thousand years ago. Go read the tablets for yourself. They were highly
> accurate. The Sumerians also had three very accurate ways of measuring
> distances between stars.
Do those tablets also give the height of the solid dome-sky which they
said (and you say) covers the earth?
heekster
You live in abject ignorance. It is most gracious of you to allow him
to disabuse you of your imbecilities, even though you just don't get
it.
>In the mean time, evolutionary
>science has not produced man's missing link.
Was there a link missing? No one seems to have been bothered by it,
except for you and a few other mouth breathers.
Get an education, and stop being such a gullible idiot.
Earle Jones
Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:25:32 -0800, All-Seeing-I wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 10:48�am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:42:07 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> >>
> >> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
> >> >On Nov 15, 10:07�am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Nov 15, 4:36�am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:17:56 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> >>
> >> >> > <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > >So.
> >> >> > >It seems the true origins of the universe is unexplainable by
> >> >> > >science and therefore can only be explained by a creator or an
> >> >> > >intelligence that we commonly refer to as "God".
*
Nothing wrong with naming whatever caused the universe to exist "God".
But what is this crap about he's going to burn your worthless ass in
hell if you don't worship him?
earle
*
All-seeing-I
Until you can show a clear "chain" from one species to the next you
got nothing.
And most of you know that.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
I hope you do not make a living at astronomy.
All-seeing-I
IT DOES NOT SAY BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.
1)Hawking's first major work was published with Roger Penrose
then,
2) George Ellis, during the period 1968-1970.
>
> [...]
[..]
>
> (Or is this one of these games where anything in your favor counts,
> but as soon as it stops being in your favor it's out of the game? My
> kids used to play like that, but they mostly outgrew it by the time
> they were six.)
>
You just described the evolutionists and their double standard.
> Steve Carlip
Caranx latus
Do you find yourself unable to watch movies?
Dana Tweedy
>> You seem to be unaware that science is not looking for any "missing
>> link". There are many transitional hominid fossils but the old idea
>> of the "chain of being" was abandoned long ago.
>>
>> DJT
>
> Until you can show a clear "chain" from one species to the next you
> got nothing.
Why? Species branch off from populations, there isn't a "chain of being"
connecting "lower" forms to "higher" ones.
There's a very clear genetic relationship between humans and other apes.
Why do you think there should be a "chain"? There's also a clear sequence
of homind fossils from very near the common ancestor of humans and other
apes. Again, why should there be a chain, when the pattern of descent is
a tree?
>
> And most of you know that.
Actually, most of those who read and post here know that the 'chain of
being' is the wrong way of looking at evolution. You've shown yourself
ignorant of science, and evolution. That's why these arguments keep blowing
up in your face.
DJT
Burkhard
That part of the sentence then seems to lack a verb
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:80ffe008-a459-48e9...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 16, 4:29 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> All-seeing-I wrote:
> > On Nov 15, 4:43 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
Until you can show a clear "chain" from one species to the next you
got nothing.
Until you can recognizes the fossil record, you get nothing.
.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 16, 5:56 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
><platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
>[]
>>
>> As far as any of the reputable literature is concerned, no ancient peoples
>> could measure stellar parallax.
>
>oh really.
>
>
> The Sumerians were also able to measure the distance between stars
>very precisely.
well, no they weren't. in fact they had nothing but guesswork on
'stars' because they didn't know what they were. it took science to
discover this
and why didn't CREATIONISTS tell us what these were? it seems that,
when creationists fail, they just invent another story. eventually,
SOMETHING will be right...
But how is it possible that earthbound, primitive,
>pretechnological people were able to do this? And even more
>mysteriously, why? Such star maps would be neccessary for space
>travellers, but not for the ancient primitive Sumerians. Given the
>extraordinary accuracy of Sumerian astronomical calculations, perhaps
>it is prudent to have another look at those areas where their
accuracy? none. measurements? None. maps? none.
funny how the creationist keeps telling us he knows the sumerians are
right because christian creationists were wrong
IOW if you have 10,000 different stories, ONE of them is bound to have
SOMETHING you can use.
>
>
>The ancient tale of Nibiru's Celestial Battle is actually
>scientifically sophisticated, and current advances in astronomy have
>recently corroborated certain aspects of the Sumerian cosmogony, among
>them the following:
there are lots of 'scientifically' sophisticate guesses in ancient
times. democritus guessed about atoms 2500 years ago. but he didn't
use gods to describe them, so the creationist just ignores him
>
>http://www.subversiveelement.com/Planet_X.html
>
>
>The Sumerians were also able to measure the distance between stars
>very precisely.
actually they weren't...because they didn 't know what stars are
>
>Pliny also takes a circuitous route to the equatorial radius,
>suggesting 3963.5 miles
guess the creationist doesn't know the math behind this.
so the creationist says:
1 we have 10,000 old stories about the universe
2 ONE of them is BOUND to be right
3 only SCIENCE can tell us which
therefore science is wrong because all these 10,000 contradictory
stories are right
no wonder creationists hate science
bpuharic
the evolution of diatoms in the carribbean is an unbroken chain of
speciation over hundreds of millions of years
and creationism is useless
Mike Dworetsky
So no rebuttal, eh? How about explaining your comment?
Ye Old One
>On Nov 15, 4:43 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > The ancient Sumarians have artifacts showing all of the planets in
>> > orbit around the sun including Pluto. Yet your silly baby step science
>> > did not discover Pluto until the early 1900's.
>>
>> > Why is THAT fish?
>>
>> > Here is a photo of the artifact:
>> >http://www.sitchin.com/images/akkad3.jpg
>>
>> That appears to show 11 objects (and the sun). Isn't that too many?
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/anunnaki/anu_1c.htm
>>
>> Ah, I see. So there were 10 planets (and the moon?), and aliens from
>> the tenth planet came to earch 432K years ago and created us (by
>> blending their genetic code with that of Homo erectus) as slaves. Makes
>> perfect sense; it's clear you're not going to be taken in by fairy
>> tales.
>>
>> [...]
>
>You can live in denial if you wish. In the mean time, evolutionary
>science has not produced man's missing link.
Because there isn't one.
--
Bob.
Here we see the creationist in its natural environment, between a rock
and a hard place. We can tell it is of the young earth breed due to
the way it reaches, grasping for straws but only clasps thin air.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 15, 7:38 pm, John McKendry <jlastn...@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:25:32 -0800, All-Seeing-I wrote:
>> > On Nov 15, 10:48 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:42:07 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>>
>> >> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Nov 15, 10:07 am, alextangent <b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Nov 15, 4:36 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:17:56 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>>
>> >> >> > <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > >So.
>> >> >> > >It seems the true origins of the universe is unexplainable by
>> >> >> > >science and therefore can only be explained by a creator or an
>> >> >> > >intelligence that we commonly refer to as "God".
>>
>> >> >> > gee. a classic god of the gaps argument. 100 years ago we couldnt
>> >> >> > explain disease either.
>>
>> >> >> Which is down to "one billionth of a trillionth of a second". That
>> >> >> gap just keeps on getting smaller and smaller; in fact, grand
>> >> >> unification is postulated at 10^-43 seconds onwards. That's a very
>> >> >> small gap for gods indeed.
>>
>> >> >I hardly call the infanity before a big bang "a gap"..
>>
>> >> >heh... you evolution freaks crack
>>
>> >> and creationists?
>>
>> >> didn't even know what stars were let alone there was a universe out
>> >> there.
>>
>> >> creationism is SUCH a failure- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > The ancient Sumarians have artifacts showing all of the planets in orbit
>> > around the sun including Pluto. Yet your silly baby step science did not
>> > discover Pluto until the early 1900's.
>>
>> > Why is THAT fish?
>>
>> > Here is a photo of the artifact:
>> >http://www.sitchin.com/images/akkad3.jpg
>>
>> Yup, it's a cylinder seal, VA 243 from the Vorderasiatische Museum
>> in Berlin, and the "www.sitchin.com" URL confirms that you have
>> swallowed Zecharia Sitchin's profoundly flawed misconstruction of
>> its iconography hook, line, and sinker. You will not do it, but any
>> reader who wants to know what is really depicted here should download
>> the pdf athttp://www.sitchiniswrong.com/VA243seal.pdf, where Sitchin's
>> mistakes are laid out in detail. To quote from the author's abstract athttp://www.sitchiniswrong.com/sitchinerrors.htm,
>>
>> "This analysis focuses on the demonstrable fact that the "sun" symbol
>> on this seal (which is essential to allegedly depicting the solar
>> system) is not the sun. The actual sun symbol used on literally
>> hundreds of seals, monuments, and other artwork from Sumer and
>> Mesopotamia is shown to the reader via photos and compared to the
>> symbol on this seal. It's not even close. I include examples
>> where Sitchin's symbol occurs side-by-side with the real sun symbol
>> so there can be no mistaking the fact that the Sumerians and
>> Mesopotamians did in fact distinguish these symbols. This
>> analysis erodes the entire foundation of Sitchin's 12 planet
>> hypothesis."
>>
>> The author, Michael S. Heiser, has a 2004 Ph.D. from the Department
>> of Hebrew and Semitic Studies at Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, and
>> unlike Sitchin, has some actual familiarity with Ancient Near Eastern
>> languages. (His website is one of those misbegotten white-text-on-black
>> horrors that should have gone away when Geocities shut down; nobody's
>> perfect.)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Also.
>>
>> > The recovered Enuma Elish document, a history of the formation of our
>> > solar system and more, says that, at the time when Mercury, Venus, Mars,
>> > Jupiter, Uranus and Saturn were in place, there was a Uranus sized
>> > planet, called Tiamat, in orbit between Mars and Jupiter. Earth was not
>> > in place yet. A large wandering planet, called Nibiru, was captured into
>> > the system gravitationally. As it passed by the outer planets it caused
>> > the anomalies of their moons, the tilting of Uranus on its side, the
>> > dislodging of Pluto from its being a moon of Saturn to its own planetary
>> > orbit. Its path bent by the gravitational pull of the large planets,
>> > first its satellites collided with the large planet Tiamat and, on a
>> > second orbit through, Nibiru collided with Tiamat, driving the larger
>> > part of it into what is now Earth’s orbit to recongeal as Earth,
>> > dragging its moon with it to become our Moon with all its anomalies.
>>
>> >http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/anunnaki/anu_1c.htm
>>
>> > You guys can run from this information.
>>
>> > But you can't hide.
>>
>> This, too, is according to Zecharia Sitchin. Enuma Elish says nothing
>> of the sort. Sitchin makes stuff up out of his Velikovsky-fueled
>> imagination, aided by his abysmal ignorance of the Sumerian and
>> Akkadian languages.
>>
>> > Evolution is the failure. And it continues to mislead mankind even
>> > today.
>>
>> Yet Sitchin gets featured on Art Bell and you're stuck here on
>> usenet. Maybe you should give up on anti-evolutionism and switch
>> to ancient astronauts.
>>
>> John- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>This by far is the biggest bunch of garbage I have read. Pure
>rationalization.
Since it wasn't written by you we know that you lie.
>
>The entire argument hinges on the shape of the star.
>
>unless one believes that writing and drawing stayed consistent for
>thousands of years. Which it did not, the shape of the star is moot.
>Also, the dates of the artifacts are not taken into consideration.
>
>Their original houses were made of reeds. Many many years latter the
>newer houses were made out of mud brick. By your logic the houses of
>reeds were not accurate sumarian houses.
>
>In this sumarian picture (about half way down) the sun is depicted as
>a cross, the last planet as a diamond.
>
>The point is, art is an individual expression. To suggest that the
>star should be consistant over many generations and by different
>artists is just plain stupid.
>.
>http://www.timstouse.com/EarthHistory/planetx.htm
>
>It never amazes me the amount of disinformation on the internet.
>
>But none of this is germain to the original comment. That comment was
>the sumarians knew about the solar system long before modern science.
>And they did. Anyone that has casually read their tablets knows this.
>
>The Sumerians knew the size, position, trajectory, and color of every
>planet in our solar system (6000+ years BC). Modern science caught up
>with this knowledge a mere seventy years ago.
>
>A second example: The Sumerians had, not one but, three extremely
>accurate ways of measuring distances between stars, two of which we
>were only able to confirm within the last one hundred years, when our
>technology/science caught up to theirs.
>
>Sumerian and Akkadian texts music and musical instruments are well
>attested to. But if this information was readily accepted then much of
>science and religion of today would have to be rewritten
>
>Science is re-discovering the old and religion only had part of the
>story. There is the truth.
You really are completely nuts.
>
>
>
>
>
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 16, 1:01 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
>> Whatever this shows, it isn't the Sun and 11 planets. See other replies for
>> details.
>>
>> So how come creationists never even discovered Uranus and Nepture, never
>> mind Pluto?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Also.
>>
>> > The recovered Enuma Elish document, a history of the formation of our
>> > solar system and more, says that, at the time when Mercury, Venus,
>> > Mars, Jupiter, Uranus and Saturn were in place, there was a Uranus
>> > sized planet, called Tiamat, in orbit between Mars and Jupiter. Earth
>> > was not in place yet. A large wandering planet, called Nibiru, was
>> > captured into the system gravitationally. As it passed by the outer
>> > planets it caused the anomalies of their moons, the tilting of Uranus
>> > on its side, the dislodging of Pluto from its being a moon of Saturn
>> > to its own planetary orbit. Its path bent by the gravitational pull of
>> > the large planets, first its satellites collided with the large planet
>> > Tiamat and, on a second orbit through, Nibiru collided with Tiamat,
>> > driving the larger part of it into what is now Earth’s orbit to
>> > recongeal as Earth, dragging its moon with it to become our Moon with
>> > all its anomalies.
>>
>> >http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sumer_anunnaki/anunnaki/anu_1c.htm
>>
>> > You guys can run from this information.
>>
>> Information? Nah. Senile Velikovskian maunderings of Sitchin's deluded
>> mind. That you credit this puts you in the same mental illness camp as the
>> Madame Weird of Usenet, Nancy Lieder, who gets her information from Sitchin
>> plus channeling of mysterious aliens (who "talk" a lot like you) called
>> Zetas, from Zeta Reticuli.
>>
>> http://www.planet-x.150m.com/
>>
>> http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/ZetaTalk
>>
>> http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/tchester/iras/no_tenth_planet_ye...
>>
>>
>>
>> > But you can't hide.
>>
>> > Evolution is the failure. And it continues to mislead mankind even
>> > today.
>>
>> I suspected it for a long time, but now that it is coming out in the open,
>> let me ask:
>>
>> Are you channeling Zetas also? It would explain much.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Dworetsky
>
>You guys are in extreme denial.
>
>The people of ancient Sumar understood the size, the position, the
>trajectory, and even the color of every planet in our solar system 6
>thousand years ago.
Liar!
> Go read the tablets for yourself. They were highly
>accurate. The Sumerians also had three very accurate ways of measuring
>distances between stars.
>
>Two of them science was only able to confirm within the last one
>hundred years,
Oh go on the, demonstrate your stupidity by trying to prove that.
>
>Denial. It is not just a river in egypt... Mike
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> Until you can show a clear "chain" from one species to the next you
> got nothing.
Will you be taking the same approach to the allegedly ancient texts,
now?
Devils Advocaat
Says the poster who believes trilobites were Cambrian mammals.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
> The Sumerians were also able to measure the distance between stars
>very precisely.
And yet you offer no supporting evidence.
Mike Dworetsky
> On Nov 16, 5:56 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
> <platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> []
>>
>> As far as any of the reputable literature is concerned, no ancient
>> peoples could measure stellar parallax.
>
> oh really.
>
>
> pretechnological people were able to do this? And even more
> mysteriously, why? Such star maps would be neccessary for space
> travellers, but not for the ancient primitive Sumerians. Given the
> extraordinary accuracy of Sumerian astronomical calculations, perhaps
> it is prudent to have another look at those areas where their
> information differs from ours. The Sumerians assign 12 "celestial
> bodies" to the solar system, the sun, the moon and 10 planets. Today
> we recognize 11 of these, but it was not always the case. Until the
> late 18th century Western astronomers only knew of the existence of 6
> planets - Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Uranus was
> discovered in 1781, Neptune in 1846, and Pluto in 1930. In this light,
> is it possible that the Sumerians 12th celestial body is yet to be
> discovered, a planet that the Sumerins called Nibiru? Interestingly,
> in 1972 Joseph L. Brady, an astronomer at the Lawrence Livermore
> Laboratory discovered a pertubation in Halleys comets orbit that could
> be explained by the presence of a Jupiter sized planet that orbits
> ever several thousand years. More recently, it has been found that the
> trajectories of space craft like the Voyagers are being disturbed by
> an unknown gravitational force.
>
>
> Pliny also takes a circuitous route to the equatorial radius,
> suggesting 3963.5 miles, a figure just a quarter of a mile more than
> the modern figure. How did Pliny get his hands on such an accurate
> figure? Who did the original measurement and how? At this point, we
> might usefully point out that Clarke’s survey was undertaken before
> satellites and GPS navigation, and basically relied on the accurate
> measurement of angles between an accurate base length, together with
> the sine rule of basic trigonometry, a rule inscribed on Sumerian clay
> tablets by a culture noted for its accurate measurement of angles.
> Weights and measures--that is, metrology--relate to the work of the
> smith in the developing ages of metal, but why, around 3000 B.C. did
> it become so imperative to measure Heaven and Earth so precisely?
>
I sincerely hope you do not make a living from ancient history.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>You can live in denial if you wish. In the mean time, evolutionary
>science has not produced man's missing link.
sure it has. ramapithecus, ardipithecus, etc. there are numerous
missing links
and creationism? still thinking ghosts have a role in making
earthquakes.
Mike Dworetsky
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:40:50 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> You can live in denial if you wish. In the mean time, evolutionary
>> science has not produced man's missing link.
>
> sure it has. ramapithecus, ardipithecus, etc. there are numerous
> missing links
Yeah, except that they aren't missing.
>
> and creationism? still thinking ghosts have a role in making
> earthquakes.
--
bpuharic
>
>The ancient Sumarians have artifacts showing all of the planets in
>orbit around the sun including Pluto. Yet your silly baby step science
>did not discover Pluto until the early 1900's.
>
>Why is THAT fish?
because, out of 100,000 ancient texts, someone will eventually write
something that looks right
and the other 99,999 texts are wrong. but you think they're all right
that's why creationism is useless
even you need science to tell you which of 100,000 ancient texts has a
snippet of something you think is right
you then ignore the other 99,999 texts which are wrong
>
>Evolution is the failure. And it continues to mislead mankind even
>today.
except it explains nature. creationism does not