Summoning of Enoch | Recorded Evidence | Ancient Astronomy
All-seeing-I
Study of the Stars, Sun and Moon
SE XIX: 1-5 PP] After this, the men brought me to the sixth haven, and
there I saw seven groups of Angels, very bright and wonderful, with
their faces shining brighter than the Sun. They were brilliant, and
all dressed alike.
Some of these Angels study the movements of the Stars, the Sun and
Moon, and record the peaceful order of World. Other Angels, there,
undertake teaching and give instruction in clear and melodious voices.
These are the Archangels who are promoted over the ordinary Angels.
They are responsible for recording (and studying) the fauna and flora
in both the Highlands and the Lowlands.
There are Angels who record the seasons and the years; others who
study the rivers and the seas; others who study the fruits of the
earth, and the plants and herbs that give nourishment to men and
beasts.
And there Angels study Mankind and record the behaviour of men and how
they live.
This record of the sixth place to which Enoch was taken within Eden is
the fullest statement that we have, anywhere, of the actual daily
activities of the Angels/Anannage in the Settlement of Eden/Kharsag.
And the extraordinary conclusion, which we find that we cannot avoid,
is that these recorded activities appear to be compatible with the
scientific interests of an exploration expedition into unknown country
– or, perhaps, onto an unknown planet. Its members appear to have been
studying every facet of science which such an expedition would require
– from geology to botany, and from astronomy to anthropology.
bpuharic
looks more like a delusional experience due to drugs or illness...both
of which were common at this time due to poor sanitation. more proof
that creationism is worthless
there's not a single observation recorded here. there's not a single
scientific conclusion or even a reference to any event in nature.
instead we see more proof that creationism is based on magical
thinking...demons...ghosts...goblins running around the world using
magic.
and that's what creationism calls 'science'
and it's why they hate science
Reddfrogg
> Study of the Stars, Sun and Moon
>
> SE XIX: 1-5 PP] After this, the men brought me to the sixth haven, and
> there I saw seven groups of Angels, very bright and wonderful, with
> their faces shining brighter than the Sun. They were brilliant, and
> all dressed alike.
Once upon a time, there were three bears. A daddy bear, a mommy bear,
and a baby bear....
>
> Some of these Angels study the movements of the Stars, the Sun and
> Moon, and record the peaceful order of World. Other Angels, there,
> undertake teaching and give instruction in clear and melodious voices.
> These are the Archangels who are promoted over the ordinary Angels.
> They are responsible for recording (and studying) the fauna and flora
> in both the Highlands and the Lowlands.
One day, mommy bear made porridge, and when they tasted it, daddy bear
said it was too hot. So they went for a walk while the porridge
cooled....
>
> There are Angels who record the seasons and the years; others who
> study the rivers and the seas; others who study the fruits of the
> earth, and the plants and herbs that give nourishment to men and
> beasts.
While they were out, a little girl named Goldylocks came to their
house. She found the table where there were three bowls of
porridge. She tasted the daddy bear's bowl, and it was too hot. The
mommy bear's porridge was too cold, but the baby bear's porridge was
just right.
>
> And there Angels study Mankind and record the behaviour of men and how
> they live.
So then she tried the chairs. The daddy bear's chair was too hard.
The mommy bear's chair was too soft. The baby bear's chair was just
right, so she sat on it, and it broke!
>
> This record of the sixth place to which Enoch was taken within Eden is
> the fullest statement that we have, anywhere, of the actual daily
> activities of the Angels/Anannage in the Settlement of Eden/Kharsag.
Goldylocks was tired, so she went upstairs, and found three beds. The
daddy bear's bed was too hard. The mommy bear's bed was too soft, but
the baby bear's bed was just right, and soon she fell asleep.
The three bears came home, and saw the bowls. Daddy bear said
'Someone's been eating my porridge" Mommy bear said "someone's been
eating my porridge". Baby bear said 'someone's been eating my
porridge, and ate it all up".
Then they saw the three chairs. Daddy bear said "Someone's been
sitting in my chair". Mommy bear said "someone's been sitting in my
chair". Baby bear said "someone's been sitting in my chair, and broke
it".
They hear a noise from upstairs, and went up to see. Daddy bear said
"Someone's been sleeping in my bed". Mommy bear said "Someone's been
sleeping in my bed". Baby bear said 'Someone's been sleeping in my
bed, and she's still here!"
Then Goldylocks woke up, and saw the three bears. She got scared
and ran away, and never went back there again....
>
> And the extraordinary conclusion, which we find that we cannot avoid,
> is that these recorded activities appear to be compatible with the
> scientific interests of an exploration expedition into unknown country
> – or, perhaps, onto an unknown planet. Its members appear to have been
> studying every facet of science which such an expedition would require
> – from geology to botany, and from astronomy to anthropology.
>
> http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/878.html
The extraordinary conclusion, which we can't avoid, is that bears not
only can talk, they live in houses in the woods, make porridge, and
sleep in beds! It appears that bears investigated every bowl, chair
and bed. The implicationsa for animal behavior, ecology, and
biodiversity are staggering.
DJT
Sox
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:85e7c68d-83d4-432e...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/878.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wonderful -- you've stumbled across a group of loonies in England studying
coptic texts not accepted as legitimate by anyone but themselves. And the
point of your latest quote-mining project would be what, exactly?
Boikat
Or a fantasy by a bunch of goat herders, dreamed up to entertain the
kiddies at the camp fire.
>
> http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/878.html
You'll fall for any crap if you think it supports your fantasies.
Grow up.
Boikat
Eric Root
Fascinating, but more appropriate on a folklore forum.
Eric Root
R Brown
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:85e7c68d-83d4-432e...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Study of the Stars, Sun and Moon
http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/878.html
---------------------------
You're saying that stuff like this gets in your way of accepting the Theory
of Evolution?
Boikat
Stuff like this gets in his way of accepting *REALITY*.
Boikat
Mike Lyle
> http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/878.html
>
> Wonderful -- you've stumbled across a group of loonies in England
> studying
> coptic texts not accepted as legitimate by anyone but themselves. And
> the
> point of your latest quote-mining project would be what, exactly?
For sanity's sake, don't tell him about Alice Bailey.
--
Mike.
All-Seeing-I
Why do you think books such as Enoch is a lie?
Boikat
What makes you think it's a factual account? Where's it's *supporting
evidence*?
Boikat
Augray
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in
<fc698603-cdc7-439d...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> :
Let's see. From earlier in the same text, we find this passage, in
Chapter 11, verse 6:
And six-winged ones issue with the angels before the sun's wheel
into the fiery flames, and a hundred angels kindle the sun and
set it alight.
So, do angels light the sun on fire every morning, or is that a lie?
VoiceOfReason
Reddfrogg
> On Nov 21, 12:19 pm, "R Brown" <bro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > ---------------------------
> > You're saying that stuff like this gets in your way of accepting the Theory
> > of Evolution?
>
> Why do you think books such as Enoch is a lie?
Why would you imagine that books such as Enoch are anything but myth?
DJT
richardal...@googlemail.com
Which of the two biblical accounts of creation do you think is a lie?
RF
bpuharic
>
we can only say it's a lie if its author meant it to be an accurate
portrrayal of events.
no OT author wrote history. they wrote theological treatises...a fact
that escapes our creationist friend, who thinks jellyfish are sharks
because both are fish
Ye Old One
You get more nuts with every passing day. Seek treatment, please.
--
Bob.
People may not always remember exactly what you said, but they will
always remember just how bright you made them feel.
All-Seeing-I
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:00:22 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> <fc698603-cdc7-439d-bdad-1c2c13b39...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> :
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, if you understood the ancient texts you would understand their
use of metaphor.
bpuharic
>Well, if you understood the ancient texts you would understand their
>use of metaphor.
i agree. after all, according to 'all seing', the ancient texts are
literally, historically true except when they're not
and science tells us which is true, except that science is always
wrong.
clear?
Kalkidas
bca13b...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
This is quite reminiscent of the Vedic accounts, substituting
"devas"(demigods) for "angels".
The Vedic cosmos is laid out as 7 planetary systems, of which the earth
is the first or lowest, followed by increasingly subtle systems of which
the sixth would be "tapoloka", the place where great penences or
austerities are performed for self-realization and the welfare of the
universe.
This citation from Enoch contributes to the case for an ancient worldwide
culture.
Too bad the fanatical materialists haven't any taste for this. For them,
the universe is dead and empty except for the human beings on this
planet, who make up a tiny minority of living beings.
Ye Old One
They are fiction. Why do people write fiction? Because some people
like to read it.
Simple when you think about it. You should try thinking some times.
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.
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>This is quite reminiscent of the Vedic accounts, substituting
>"devas"(demigods) for "angels".
oh. well, then. perfectly normal. i mean, who but god could have
observed the changing of the seasons, right? no mere mortal could have
seen leaves changing, the weather getting colder, etc....it MUST have
been god.
which means we got ALOT of gods here in PA 'cuz the leaves are
changing, etc. golly. someday some moron like 'kalkidas' is gonna read
my post and think i'm god!
>
>The Vedic cosmos is laid out as 7 planetary systems, of which the earth
>is the first or lowest, followed by increasingly subtle systems of which
>the sixth would be "tapoloka", the place where great penences or
>austerities are performed for self-realization and the welfare of the
>universe.
i think it's more like tapioca where all the puddings come together to
decide which is the best.
>
>This citation from Enoch contributes to the case for an ancient worldwide
>culture.
actually it doesn't. because we know some stories are just
stories....the exodus, for example...unless, of course, your vedic
scriptures have hindus enslaving the jews...
>
>Too bad the fanatical materialists haven't any taste for this. For them,
>the universe is dead and empty except for the human beings on this
>planet, who make up a tiny minority of living beings.
in your opinon. we scientists think of the universe as a pretty
fantastic place, full of discovery,
instead of the delusional, wizard of oz view you creationists have
Desertphile
> SE XIX: 1-5 PP] After this, the men brought me to the sixth haven, and
> there I saw seven groups of Angels, very bright and wonderful, with
Wrong newsgroup, shit-for-brains. Followup corrected.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Mark Evans
Do you read any of the languages of your ancient texts? What
languages were the original copies written in? What languages were
they passed down orally before they were written down? Unless you
are fluent in reading the original languages you are depending on
someone else's translation and their rendering of any metaphors,
subtext, allusions, puns, in-jokes and references to older, no longer
available texts and traditions. Speak not of metaphor or hidden
meanings in ancient texts unless and until you can at least read the
original languages.
BTW, there are a lot of old texts and, frankly, they tend to
contradict each other. And known history, and frankly, reality. How
many circles have you seen where the value of pi is exactly 3? Yet
one well known text claims that value.
Mark Evans
Mark Isaak
> On Nov 21, 12:19 pm, "R Brown" <bro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>> [Enoch snipped]
>>
>> ---------------------------
>> You're saying that stuff like this gets in your way of accepting the
>> Theory of Evolution?
>
> Why do you think books such as Enoch is a lie?
We don't; we think it is folklore. Until you interpreted it, it had some
value.
Why do you think the earth itself is a lie?
--
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
Boikat
Another meaningless bit of twaddle mixed with irony.
Boikat
All-seeing-I
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:85e7c68d-83d4-432e-9c73-
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is no doubt there were advanced ancient civilizations on earth.
The evidence for this is "in your face" type of evidence. The Indian
evidence alone is more then enough to show this. Plus we have Sumerian
and South American evidence.
They have to deny it. Otherwise they would all have to admit that
evolution is partially wrong and incomplete.
All-seeing-I
>
> in your opinon. we scientists think of the universe as a pretty
> fantastic place, full of discovery,
>
> instead of the delusional, wizard of oz view you creationists have
You are not a scientist. You are a freak with a keyboard
It was a sad day for the Internet when the price of a computer dropped
to a few hundred dollars.
Boikat
> > in your opinon. we scientists think of the universe as a pretty
> > fantastic place, full of discovery,
>
> > instead of the delusional, wizard of oz view you creationists have
>
> You are not a scientist. You are a freak with a keyboard
Major projection event! Hold on to your hats!
>
> It was a sad day for the Internet when the price of a computer dropped
> to a few hundred dollars.
Yes. That meant you could get one.
Boikat
Boikat
Where's the physical evidence?
> The evidence for this is "in your face" type of evidence.
Oh? Then where is it?
> The Indian
> evidence alone is more then enough to show this.
Asian or North American?
> Plus we have Sumerian
> and South American evidence.
Where? Your "ancient comic books" evidence? Sorry, tall tales are
not evidence, no matter how much you wish it is.
>
> They have to deny it. Otherwise they would all have to admit that
> evolution is partially wrong and incomplete.
Actually, no. It would indicate our understanding of human *history*
was wrong. But your forehead is too sloped (due to lack of a normal
frontal cortex) to understand why there's a difference.
Boikat
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> in your opinon. we scientists think of the universe as a pretty
>> fantastic place, full of discovery,
>>
>> instead of the delusional, wizard of oz view you creationists have
>
>You are not a scientist. You are a freak with a keyboard
says the taliban christian who thinks ghosts run the world
>
>It was a sad day for the Internet when the price of a computer dropped
>to a few hundred dollars.
gee...with 30 years in semiconductor process engineering, yes, i'm
familiar with it.
you? you think prayers get you on the net.
bpuharic
>
>There is no doubt there were advanced ancient civilizations on earth.\
advanced in what sense? meaningless statement
>The evidence for this is "in your face" type of evidence. The Indian
>evidence alone is more then enough to show this. Plus we have Sumerian
>and South American evidence
his view is as follows:
1. we have 100,000 ancient texts
2. they're all true, except when they're not
3 only science can tell us which of these is true
4. science is always wrong
that's all seeing's method of determining truth
Augray
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in
<f516d22e-4ee0-459b...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> :
>Well, if you understood the ancient texts you would understand their
>use of metaphor.
Then I'm sure you can explain the metaphor(s) in the text I quoted, as
well as those in your original post. But we both know that you can't.
heekster
Idiot, if you understood what you just wrote, you wouldn't take
Genesis literally.
Augray
<4b13e6d7-436d-4560...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com> :
>There is no doubt there were advanced ancient civilizations on earth.
>The evidence for this is "in your face" type of evidence. The Indian
>evidence alone is more then enough to show this. Plus we have Sumerian
>and South American evidence.
>
>
>They have to deny it. Otherwise they would all have to admit that
>evolution is partially wrong and incomplete.
Why? Why couldn't both be true?
chris thompson
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:85e7c68d-83d4-432e-9c73-
Actually, the people who accept evolution accept a vibrant, living
planet filled with myriad forms so wonderful, so amazing, so
beautiful, that they all deserve study. Do you think evolutionists,
back in the day, flipped through TV channels and came across Jacques
Cousteau and said, "What a boring pile of doodoo!" Or did
evolutionists find Mutual of Omaha's "Wild Kingdom" on tv and turn to
"Gunsmoke" because the were bored by nature?
You have everything backwards.
People who accept evolution love the planet. They love seeing things
that are weird and wonderful and bizarre. They- we- love figuring out
how these weird and bizarre plants and fungi and animals fit into the
overall scheme of life. Saying "God made them that way" is totally
unsatisfying. It doesn't answer "WHY were they made that way?" But
evolution DOES answer that question. Evolutionary theory tells us WHY
male anglerfish live as parasites on female anglerfish. Evolutionary
theory tells us WHY some male mite impregnate their sisters and die
before they even leave their mother's body. Evolutionary theory tells
us why female honeybees refrain from mating when all common sense
demands that they do so.
Granted, creationism can also answer these questions. But the answer
is always the same: "God wanted it that way" or some variation
thereof. Evolutionary theory tells us why, in each particular case,
the mechanism or the behavior came about.
And evolutionary theory tells us where we came from.
You have laughed at this before but I present it again. You will laugh
again but it is the laughter of the coward who fears the evidence.
I just started reading Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish". In this book
he shows, in exquisite detail, where human anatomy comes from.
It comes from fish.
All our bones, all our organs all our EVERYTHING has a root in a
primitive fish.
As Schubin puts it, our limbs are made of one bone, two bones, lotsa
blobs, then digits.
Meaning (for arms) the humerus, the ulna & radius, the wrist bones
(blobs) then the fingers.
The roots of those are all present in ancient fish.
And the development of our present-day structures are all present in
the fossil record.
Read the book- if you dare.
Chris
All-seeing-I
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:20:03 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
>
>
> >There is no doubt there were advanced ancient civilizations on earth.\
>
> advanced in what sense? meaningless statement
>
> >The evidence for this is "in your face" type of evidence. The Indian
> >evidence alone is more then enough to show this. Plus we have Sumerian
> >and South American evidence
>
> his view is as follows:
>
> 1. we have 100,000 ancient texts
evidence?
> 2. they're all true, except when they're not
evidence?
> 3 only science can tell us which of these is true
evidence?
> 4. science is always wrong
evidence?
> that's all seeing's method of determining truth
you just do not have any evidence
why is that?
All-seeing-I
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:20:05 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> <f516d22e-4ee0-459b-987e-786f1328e...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> :
>
> - Show quoted text -
School yard taunts? heh...
Your lack of edcuation is not my responsibility.
All-seeing-I
Because it is clear the book was written to preserve accumulated
knowledge.
Now, why would they lie?
All-seeing-I
If you would stop driving your computer while driving you would know
we are not discussing genesis
All-seeing-I
wrote:
First, Evolutionists may love the planet as you say, but they do so
for the wrong reasons. Your description of such beauty and diversity
is WHY there is a God. We see no evidence of this kind of life and
diversity anywhere but on earth. Granted, we have not explored the
entire universe, but we can see much of our solar system. There is
nothing to suggest that another earth with the same kind of life and
diversity is any further away. The observations suggests there is just
more of the same of what we can already see from here. Now, some say:
"The odds are favorable that there is life elsewhere", or they say "It
is arrogant to assume we are alone in the universe". Maybe they are
right. But there is not a direct observation for that yet.
Next. The fish story is just that. A fish story. It would take the
same kind of magic that a miracle takes, (and the same kind of faith
btw), to believe "God Created" as it does to believe man eventually
evolved from a fish. But the evolutionist does not see this even
though it is as plain as the nose on your face.
In my opinion it is actually easier to believe angels came down from
the heavens then it is to believe that fish eventually began to walk
and talk in time because of evolution. You just do not have the actual
observed evidence for such an occurrence taking place. But as I have
said before, there is actual observed evidence of variation within the
same 'kind' of life.
Third. Your description of the "arm" and fingers screams common
design. It is more logical to assume common design then it is to
assume a complete metamorphosis of the fish took place in order for
the fish to give rise to man; And that is exactly what would have to
happen. The fish would have to be completely re-written as a creature.
Generally speaking, it is easier to build something from scratch using
the same common materials rather then to rework the old into something
new.
Fourth. Evolutionary theory is just another *possible* reason why we
are here. There are other reasons why and they are in the bible. If
the evolutionist understood the reason why we are here there would be
no need for them to look for alternate explanations.
Now, I wish that I could write and say that I hold the absolute truth
within the ancient texts. But I can't say that. Therefore I do not
know absolute truth. However. It is abundantly clear that neither do
you.
So why do I believe the texts over modern science? Motivation. That's
why. For the most part science is money driven which equals
corruption, especially in a capitalistic society. Specifically
regarding evolution, well, it seems to be driven by an agenda and
money. A dangerous combination indeed.
But OTOH many (not all) of the ancient texts were written with the
purpose of preserving accumulated knowledge. That was the sole,
unselfish, motivation.
Since the 'creation by gods' or the 'evolution by fish' theories both
appear to take some level of faith to believe, I chose the one that is
unselfishly motivated with no concern for profits or agendas.
Finally. None of this should impact the fact that evolution benefits
mankind. Much of the theory helps mankind in positive ways. But the
fish to man story only makes evolution look bad because it is a direct
challenge to long held religious beliefs. Beliefs that are supported
with ancients texts. There is nothing to suggest the texts are lying
but there is plenty to suggest that science is deiven by an agenda and
by money.
All-seeing-I
wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:47:06 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > SE XIX: 1-5 PP] After this, the men brought me to the sixth haven, and
> > there I saw seven groups of Angels, very bright and wonderful, with
>
> Wrong newsgroup, shit-for-brains. Followup corrected.
Excuse me. Who make you Talk Origins net-cop in charge of the
discussions?
I suggest you read the TO web site. You will find this subject matter
is directly related and/or allowed.
Maybe if you were not a burned out old hippi with brain fog you would
understand that... --->shit for brains.
Sox
On Nov 21, 6:00 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:85e7c68d-83d4-432e-9c73-
> bca13b9e1...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>There is no doubt there were advanced ancient civilizations on earth.
>The evidence for this is "in your face" type of evidence. The Indian
>evidence alone is more then enough to show this. Plus we have Sumerian
>and South American evidence.
Actually there is quite a bit of doubt, expecially when you leave so the key
term undefined. It is not at all clear what you mean by "advanced" ancient
civilations. Did you mean technologically advanced or something else? With
no hint what you are trying to say, there is no way to comment on the
assertion that Indian evidence is more than enough to show this, since you
haven't bothered to define what you think "this" -- an advanced anicent
civilization -- is supposed to mean. Perhaps if you were to present the
Indian evidence, which you apparently seem to think is widely available, one
could deduce what you think it shows. Of course, it would be much easier to
comment on if you just stated it clearly.
>They have to deny it. Otherwise they would all have to admit that
>evolution is partially wrong and incomplete.
"They" have to deny it? They who? No matter -- whoever "they" is, why on
earth would any evidence of ancient civilizations, no matter how advanced
(whatever you mean by advanced), demonstrate that evolution is partially
wrong or incomplete? You seem to be a little befuddled about timescales.
Civilization as it usually defined -- namely, a complex agricultural and
urban society -- did not happen much more than 15,000 years or so ago. So it
is not clear how any evidence from any ancient civilization relates to the
completeness or accuracy of evolution.
Please explain what, exactly, you think the evidence is, and why you think
it makes evolution partially wrong or incomplete.
Boikat
Ah, the sound of a point, cracking the sound barrier, as it soars over
your head....
Boikat
Boikat
No, a "school yard taunt" would be, "You lack perceptive abilities!"
or "Your mother wears army boots!" But lacking any actual
*experiance* with a real school, you wouldn't know that. But your
evasion is noted.
>
> Your lack of edcuation is not my responsibility.
Oh, the fucking irony!
Boikat
Why not simply to preserve their myths?
>
> Now, why would they lie?
You *really* need to look up the definition of "lie", you ignorant
schmuck.
Boikat
Boikat
More irony, and projetion.
Boikat
Boikat
> On Nov 21, 8:36 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:20:03 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
> > >There is no doubt there were advanced ancient civilizations on earth.\
>
> > advanced in what sense? meaningless statement
>
> > >The evidence for this is "in your face" type of evidence. The Indian
> > >evidence alone is more then enough to show this. Plus we have Sumerian
> > >and South American evidence
>
> > his view is as follows:
>
> > 1. we have 100,000 ancient texts
>
> evidence?
>
> > 2. they're all true, except when they're not
>
> evidence?
Your posts.
>
> > 3 only science can tell us which of these is true
>
> evidence?
Your warped version of "science", as you've posted several times.
>
> > 4. science is always wrong
>
> evidence?
Your claims about science, which you gleefully squeel every time
there's some article that deals with the revidion of some aspect of a
scientific theory.
>
> > that's all seeing's method of determining truth
>
> you just do not have any evidence
Irony, thy name is All Stinking I(diot), aka (M)adman
>
> why is that?
Since most of the evidence that supportes wf3h's characterization of
your "logic" is found in your posts, it's obvious there is ample
evidence to support his characterization of your "comic book" version
of science.
Boikat
Augray
<ap...@email.com> wrote in
<100e958f-a43e-4d59...@x31g2000yqx.googlegroups.com> :
>School yard taunts? heh...
No, a statement of fact.
>Your lack of edcuation is not my responsibility.
See? You're just making stuff up. This isn't the first time you've
used the "metaphor" explanation, and every time you do, you can't
explain the supposed metaphor. It's prime evidence that you got caught
in the web of your own claims *again*.
Augray
<ap...@email.com> wrote in
<ba76dc10-3bca-4d4c...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> :
"Your lack of edcuation is not my responsibility."
Augray
<ap...@email.com> wrote in
<577d6fec-2539-4d92...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> :
Apparently, the Sun *does* get set on fire every morning, just like
the book says.
RMcBane
Because it made a better story and did no worse job at explaining the
unknown than telling the story they knew to be true.
--
Richard McBane
Mark Evans
I notice that you still have not identified what ancient texts you
have read in the original languages. Until you do you have no license
to comment on other's education. But then, you can't spell education
correctly. "edcuation"?
Mark Evans
TomS
<pan.2009.11.22....@earthlink.net>, Mark Isaak stated..."
>
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:00:22 -0800, All-Seeing-I wrote:
>
>> On Nov 21, 12:19=A0pm, "R Brown" <bro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> ---------------------------
>>> You're saying that stuff like this gets in your way of accepting the
>>> Theory of Evolution?
>> Why do you think books such as Enoch is a lie?
>
>value.
>
>Why do you think the earth itself is a lie?
To think that is consistent with Gnosticism.
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
I did. It said "See Boikat"
Boikat
See? You lied again. You really have a problem with honesty, don't
you. But that's not surprising, since you lie to yourself all the
time, and get away with it, so you assume you can lie to everyone
else, too, and get away with it. Sorry, 'tard=-boy. It doesn't work
that way. Now wipe the snot from your nose, quit eating your boogers,
and grow the hell up.
Boikat
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 6:56 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:47:06 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
> >
> > <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > > SE XIX: 1-5 PP] After this, the men brought me to the sixth haven, and
> > > there I saw seven groups of Angels, very bright and wonderful, with
> > Wrong newsgroup, shit-for-brains. Followup corrected.
> Excuse me. Who make you Talk Origins net-cop in charge of the
> discussions?
Mythology goes to the mythology newsgroup, Cretard.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:00:22 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> Why do you think books such as Enoch is a lie?
ROTFL!
> They are fiction. Why do people write fiction? Because some people
> like to read it.
>
> Simple when you think about it. You should try thinking some times.
You're asking far too much: he's a Creationist.
kalkidas
> "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:4b13e6d7-436d-4560...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 21, 6:00 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:85e7c68d-83d4-432e-9c73-
>> bca13b9e1...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
> <snip prior text to focus on latest post>
>
>
> >There is no doubt there were advanced ancient civilizations on earth.
> >The evidence for this is "in your face" type of evidence. The Indian
> >evidence alone is more then enough to show this. Plus we have Sumerian
> >and South American evidence.
>
> Actually there is quite a bit of doubt, expecially when you leave so the key
> term undefined. It is not at all clear what you mean by "advanced" ancient
> civilations. Did you mean technologically advanced or something else? With
> no hint what you are trying to say, there is no way to comment on the
> assertion that Indian evidence is more than enough to show this, since you
> haven't bothered to define what you think "this" -- an advanced anicent
> civilization -- is supposed to mean. Perhaps if you were to present the
> Indian evidence, which you apparently seem to think is widely available, one
> could deduce what you think it shows. Of course, it would be much easier to
> comment on if you just stated it clearly.
The Vedic accounts are of a technologically and spiritually advanced civilization, so advanced, in fact, that to modern materialistic scholars and scientists -- absorbed as they are in the grossest, most superficial levels of the material world -- the technology seems like science fiction, and the spirituality seems like fantasy, which is why they uncritically reject its existence.
But these puffed-up scoffers have not really examined the literature. They simply assume that humanity is always "progressing" and therefore the knowledge of ancient civilizations must have been mere crude superstition compared to modern science.
That, however, is not a scientific assessment, but is itself a superstition.
> >They have to deny it. Otherwise they would all have to admit that
> >evolution is partially wrong and incomplete.
>
> "They" have to deny it? They who? No matter -- whoever "they" is, why on
> earth would any evidence of ancient civilizations, no matter how advanced
> (whatever you mean by advanced), demonstrate that evolution is partially
> wrong or incomplete? You seem to be a little befuddled about timescales.
> Civilization as it usually defined -- namely, a complex agricultural and
> urban society -- did not happen much more than 15,000 years or so ago. So it
> is not clear how any evidence from any ancient civilization relates to the
> completeness or accuracy of evolution.
>
> Please explain what, exactly, you think the evidence is, and why you think
> it makes evolution partially wrong or incomplete.
Darwinism's claim is that the variety of life forms is solely the result of impersonal, mechanistic processes. The Vedic accounts, and indeed all ancient accounts of the structure and operation of the world, directly contradict this. The Vedic account is that there are personalities controlling everything in the universe. Everything is the product of intelligent design, and there is no such thing as a "random" event.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>
>> in your opinon. we scientists think of the universe as a pretty
>> fantastic place, full of discovery,
>>
>> instead of the delusional, wizard of oz view you creationists have
>
>You are not a scientist. You are a freak with a keyboard
>
>It was a sad day for the Internet when the price of a computer dropped
>to a few hundred dollars.
It was a very sad day for everyone when they allowed mental defectives
like you to wonder the streets.
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 21, 6:00 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:85e7c68d-83d4-432e-9c73-
>> bca13b9e1...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Study of the Stars, Sun and Moon
>>
>> > SE XIX: 1-5 PP] After this, the men brought me to the sixth haven, and
>> > there I saw seven groups of Angels, very bright and wonderful, with
>> > their faces shining brighter than the Sun. They were brilliant, and
>> > all dressed alike.
>>
>> > Some of these Angels study the movements of the Stars, the Sun and
>> > Moon, and record the peaceful order of World. Other Angels, there,
>> > undertake teaching and give instruction in clear and melodious voices.
>> > These are the Archangels who are promoted over the ordinary Angels.
>> > They are responsible for recording (and studying) the fauna and flora
>> > in both the Highlands and the Lowlands.
>>
>> > There are Angels who record the seasons and the years; others who
>> > study the rivers and the seas; others who study the fruits of the
>> > earth, and the plants and herbs that give nourishment to men and
>> > beasts.
>>
>> > And there Angels study Mankind and record the behaviour of men and how
>> > they live.
>>
>> > This record of the sixth place to which Enoch was taken within Eden is
>> > the fullest statement that we have, anywhere, of the actual daily
>> > activities of the Angels/Anannage in the Settlement of Eden/Kharsag.
>>
>> > And the extraordinary conclusion, which we find that we cannot avoid,
>> > is that these recorded activities appear to be compatible with the
>> > scientific interests of an exploration expedition into unknown country
>> > – or, perhaps, onto an unknown planet. Its members appear to have been
>> > studying every facet of science which such an expedition would require
>> > – from geology to botany, and from astronomy to anthropology.
>>
>> >http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/878.html
>>
>> This is quite reminiscent of the Vedic accounts, substituting
>> "devas"(demigods) for "angels".
>>
>> The Vedic cosmos is laid out as 7 planetary systems, of which the earth
>> is the first or lowest, followed by increasingly subtle systems of which
>> the sixth would be "tapoloka", the place where great penences or
>> austerities are performed for self-realization and the welfare of the
>> universe.
>>
>> This citation from Enoch contributes to the case for an ancient worldwide
>> culture.
>>
>> Too bad the fanatical materialists haven't any taste for this. For them,
>> the universe is dead and empty except for the human beings on this
>> planet, who make up a tiny minority of living beings.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>There is no doubt there were advanced ancient civilizations on earth.
There is no doubt you are a fool.
>The evidence for this is "in your face" type of evidence. The Indian
>evidence alone is more then enough to show this. Plus we have Sumerian
>and South American evidence.
Nuts.
>
>
>They have to deny it. Otherwise they would all have to admit that
>evolution is partially wrong and incomplete.
Rubbish. What has it got to do with evolution?
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
And stupidity - LOTS more stupidity.
>
>Boikat
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
There is no evidence for a god, nor for the need for one to explain
things.
> We see no evidence of this kind of life and
>diversity anywhere but on earth.
Because, so far, we have not visited any other planets to check.
> Granted, we have not explored the
>entire universe, but we can see much of our solar system. There is
>nothing to suggest that another earth with the same kind of life and
>diversity is any further away. The observations suggests there is just
>more of the same of what we can already see from here.
Our observations show that other solar systems exist. Why should ours
be the only one with life?
> Now, some say:
>"The odds are favorable that there is life elsewhere", or they say "It
>is arrogant to assume we are alone in the universe". Maybe they are
>right. But there is not a direct observation for that yet.
So?
>
>Next. The fish story is just that. A fish story. It would take the
>same kind of magic that a miracle takes, (and the same kind of faith
>btw), to believe "God Created" as it does to believe man eventually
>evolved from a fish.
And yet we have evidence for evolution. You have no evidence for your
goddidit.
> But the evolutionist does not see this even
>though it is as plain as the nose on your face.
>
>In my opinion it is actually easier to believe angels came down from
>the heavens then it is to believe that fish eventually began to walk
>and talk in time because of evolution.
Again, we have the evidence - you have fairy tales.
>You just do not have the actual
>observed evidence for such an occurrence taking place.
Yes we do.
>But as I have
>said before, there is actual observed evidence of variation within the
>same 'kind' of life.
Evolution is evolution.
>
>Third. Your description of the "arm" and fingers screams common
>design. It is more logical to assume common design
But we don't see any design.
> then it is to
>assume a complete metamorphosis of the fish took place in order for
>the fish to give rise to man;
And yet we have the evidence.
> And that is exactly what would have to
>happen. The fish would have to be completely re-written as a creature.
Evolution.
>Generally speaking, it is easier to build something from scratch using
>the same common materials rather then to rework the old into something
>new.
Evolution.
>
>Fourth. Evolutionary theory is just another *possible* reason why we
>are here.
It is a scientific explanation of the processes of evolution.
> There are other reasons why and they are in the bible.
The bible is a collection of fairy stories.
> If
>the evolutionist understood the reason why we are here there would be
>no need for them to look for alternate explanations.
If you can find an alternative scientific explanation then please put
it forward. Goddidit was rejected long ago.
[snip more Mudbrain stupidity.]
--
Bob.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.
Eric Root
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:00:22 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> <fc698603-cdc7-439d-bdad-1c2c13b39...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> :
>
>
>
> >On Nov 21, 12:19 pm, "R Brown" <bro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:85e7c68d-83d4-432e...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> >> You're saying that stuff like this gets in your way of accepting the Theory
> >> of Evolution?
>
>
> Chapter 11, verse 6:
>
> And six-winged ones issue with the angels before the sun's wheel
> into the fiery flames, and a hundred angels kindle the sun and
> set it alight.
>
> So, do angels light the sun on fire every morning, or is that a lie?
Neither one, it is a myth or legend, a type of metaphor.
Eric Root
Eric Root
What a strange thing to say, when he didn't mention lying at all. Do
you think legends are lies? Do you think myths are lies? you
evidently don't know what the word "lie" means.
Eric Root
RAM
> On Nov 21, 8:36 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:20:03 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
>
> > advanced in what sense? meaningless statement
>
> > >evidence alone is more then enough to show this. Plus we have Sumerian
>
> > his view is as follows:
>
> > 1. we have 100,000 ancient texts
>
> evidence?
>
> > 2. they're all true, except when they're not
>
> evidence?
>
> > 3 only science can tell us which of these is true
>
> evidence?
>
> > 4. science is always wrong
>
> evidence?
>
> > that's all seeing's method of determining truth
>
> you just do not have any evidence
>
> why is that?
When you provide primary scientific evidence it does not come from a
book ancient or otherwise. Primary scientific evidence comes from the
use of scientific methods, and strategies tightly constrained by
collecting or assessing empirical data. All your ancient books books
without exception are made up secondary of evidences that allows kooks
like yourself to engage in blue sky generalizations or make up
interpretations that suit your preconceived desires.
You must be LLoyd Pye. You (and he even if you are not Lloyd Pye)
spout off comparable idiocies and have not obligation to employing
science since it will disabuse you of all your kooky ideas.
Your antiscience boneheadedess and lack of understanding the
scientific limitations as well as cannons of interpreting empirical
evidence reveeals you to be much more ignorant then you even begin to
think.
That is why TO people and TO scientists constantly bring up: Justin
Kruger; David Dunning (1999). "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How
Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated
Self-Assessments". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77
(6): 1121–34. PMID 10626367..
When it comes to science this is you in spades. I recognize that your
denial of the relevance of science is life long and useful for your
purposes but regardless of your reasons you are going to be viewed by
almost every one legitimately as kook. I also recognize that it is
probably to much of an emotional and intellectual challenge for you to
become scientifically literate this late in life.
HTH
RAM
> "Sox" <luke...@live.com> wrote in messagenews:Eq7Om.43137$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad...
That is just your Vedic "just so" interpretation of Vedic writings.
There are many Vedic fundamentalists that will attack science for
similar or same reasons as Creationists.
heekster
loudly over his head, the non-seeing-Ignoramus <ap...@email.com>
wrote:
>On Nov 21, 9:07�pm, heekster <heeks...@ifiwxtc.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:20:05 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>>
>> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 21, 3:39�pm, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:00:22 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>> >> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in
>> >> <fc698603-cdc7-439d-bdad-1c2c13b39...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> :
>>
>> >> Let's see. From earlier in the same text, we find this passage, in
>> >> Chapter 11, verse 6:
>>
>> >> � � �And six-winged ones issue with the angels before the sun's wheel
>> >> � � �into the fiery flames, and a hundred angels kindle the sun and
>> >> � � �set it alight.
>>
>> >> So, do angels light the sun on fire every morning, or is that a lie?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >Well, if you understood the ancient texts you would understand their
>> >use of metaphor.
>>
>> Idiot, if you understood what you just wrote, you wouldn't take
>> Genesis literally
>
>If you would stop driving your computer while driving you would know
>we are not discussing genesis
That doesn't even make sense.
And what I said applies to the pseudoepigraphic Enoch, as well.
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
So, tell us, PeeWee, what gives you dispensation from the prohibition
against bearing false witness?
Or do you just pick and choose from the various mythologies to create
your own private little phylactery of psychoses?
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 21, 3:51 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 21, 2:00 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 21, 12:19 pm, "R Brown" <bro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> snip
>>
>>>> ---------------------------
>>>> You're saying that stuff like this gets in your way of accepting
>>>> the Theory of Evolution?
>>
>>> Why do you think books such as Enoch is a lie?
>>
>> Why would you imagine that books such as Enoch are anything but myth?
>>
>> DJT
>
> Because it is clear the book was written to preserve accumulated
> knowledge.
How is it "clear"? The book was written in a time where ancient myths were
being recorded. For them there wasn't a real distinction between myth and
"accumlated knowledge".
>
> Now, why would they lie?
Why assume that they lied? Myths are not lies, but they aren't science
either.
DJT
Ye Old One
<deser...@invalid-address.net> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:17:11 GMT, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:00:22 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
>>> Why do you think books such as Enoch is a lie?
>
>ROTFL!
>
>> They are fiction. Why do people write fiction? Because some people
>> like to read it.
>>
>> Simple when you think about it. You should try thinking some times.
>
>You're asking far too much: he's a Creationist.
I know, but I have to have these little moments of light relief :)
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Your poor reading ability is showing again. We all know you are the
liar, just look at the list below.
Mark Isaak
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:85e7c68d-83d4-432e-9c73-
> bca13b...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Study of the Stars, Sun and Moon
>>
>> SE XIX: 1-5 PP] After this, the men brought me to the sixth haven, and
>> there I saw seven groups of Angels, very bright and wonderful, with
>> their faces shining brighter than the Sun. They were brilliant, and all
>> dressed alike.
>> [...]
>
> This is quite reminiscent of the Vedic accounts, substituting
> "devas"(demigods) for "angels".
>
> The Vedic cosmos is laid out as 7 planetary systems, of which the earth
> is the first or lowest, followed by increasingly subtle systems of which
> the sixth would be "tapoloka", the place where great penences or
> austerities are performed for self-realization and the welfare of the
> universe.
>
> This citation from Enoch contributes to the case for an ancient
> worldwide culture.
A cosmos in layers is common worldwide, but cultures disagree about how
many layers. Three is probably the most common, consisting of this world,
an underworld, and a sky world. But the count starts at one and gets up
to fifteen at least, probably higher.
--
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
> On Nov 21, 8:20 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> There is no doubt there were advanced ancient civilizations on earth.
>
> Where's the physical evidence?
You have to understand-- An "advanced" civilization, to All-See-I, is
any civilization which does things or produces things he does not
understand. Any ant colony would qualify. Heck, a patch of bread mold
would qualify.
Kalkidas
news:3d5d7740-ee35-47e3-9fbd-
cbd15e...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 22, 9:23 am, "kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> "Sox" <luke...@live.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:Eq7Om.43137$Zu5.27431@newsf
> e24.iad...
[snip]
>> Darwinism's claim is that the variety of life forms is
solely the
>> result
> of impersonal, mechanistic processes. The Vedic accounts,
and indeed
> all ancient accounts of the structure and operation of the
world,
> directly contradict this. The Vedic account is that there
are
> personalities controlling everything in the universe.
Everything is
> the product of intelligent design, and there is no such
thing as a
> "random" event.
>
> That is just your Vedic "just so" interpretation of Vedic
writings.
> There are many Vedic fundamentalists that will attack
science for
> similar or same reasons as Creationists.
To call Darwinism "science" is just your Darwinistic "just
so" interpretation of Darwinism.
RAM
> RAM <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:3d5d7740-ee35-47e3-9fbd-
> cbd15e938...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
I don't use the term Darwinism. That is used by boneheaded religious
ideologists like yourself.
I use contemporary biology and its numerous empirical studies to
understand evolution. You use idiotic religious claptrap to justify
not looking at the power of science to explain may phenomena that used
to be though were created by gods. Your stupidity about science is
clearly religiously based. That is fine as log as you keep it in your
religious community
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 21, 3:51 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 21, 2:00 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 21, 12:19 pm, "R Brown" <bro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > snip
>>
>> > > ---------------------------
>> > > You're saying that stuff like this gets in your way of accepting the Theory
>> > > of Evolution?
>>
>> > Why do you think books such as Enoch is a lie?
>>
>> Why would you imagine that books such as Enoch are anything but myth?
>>
>> DJT
>
>Because it is clear the book was written to preserve accumulated
>knowledge.
>
>Now, why would they lie?
because they weren't writing history. they were writing theology.
you're too stupid to know the difference
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 21, 8:36 pm, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:20:03 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>>
>>
>>
>> >There is no doubt there were advanced ancient civilizations on earth.\
>>
>> advanced in what sense? meaningless statement
>>
>> >The evidence for this is "in your face" type of evidence. The Indian
>> >evidence alone is more then enough to show this. Plus we have Sumerian
>> >and South American evidence
>>
>> his view is as follows:
>>
>> 1. we have 100,000 ancient texts
>
>evidence?
evidence against? we have hundreds of gospels alone. the 66 books of
the bible, the vedas...etc etc etc
>
>> 2. they're all true, except when they're not
>
>evidence?
you yourself say they're all true. except you concede books like
exodus are not historical. you you say these books are right except
when they're wrong
>
>> 3 only science can tell us which of these is true
>
>evidence?
you yourself say this when you say that modern science is proving the
sumerians were right
are you backpedaling about your own arguments?
>
>> 4. science is always wrong
>
>evidence?
you have a hatred of science and accuse it of trying to destroy
religion
>
>> that's all seeing's method of determining truth
>
>you just do not have any evidence
>
>why is that?
so tell me, creationist, are you now denying your own arguments?
i can understand that. they're embarrassing and idiotic
bpuharic
>
>
>The Vedic accounts are of a technologically and spiritually advanced civilization, so advanced, in fact, that to modern materialistic scholars and scientists
then why are the world's leading indian scientists
educated in western universities?
>- absorbed as they are in the grossest, most superficial levels of the material world
yeah like physics, chemistry, medicine...nothing like the sewage
saturated science of the vedas...
>- the technology seems like science fiction, and the spirituality seems like fantasy, which is why they uncritically reject its existence.
hmmm...how many men did vedic scientists put on the moon?
hmmmmm...uh NONE...
>
>But these puffed-up scoffers have not really examined the literature. They simply assume that humanity is always "progressing" and therefore the knowledge of ancient civilizations must have been mere crude superstition compared to modern science.
>
>That, however, is not a scientific assessment, but is itself a superstition.
fine. you go find us the footprint of one of your vedic scientists on
the moon and i'll admit you're right,
m'kay?
>
>Darwinism's claim is that the variety of life forms is solely the result of impersonal, mechanistic processes. The Vedic accounts, and indeed all ancient accounts of the structure and operation of the world, directly contradict this.
so here's ANOTHER religion that's wrong...
>he Vedic account is that there are personalities controlling everything in the universe. Everything is the product of intelligent design, and there is no such thing as a "random" event.
you go abuse an untouchable and c'mon back to tell us about how
superior your religion is, OK?
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>First, Evolutionists may love the planet as you say, but they do so
>for the wrong reasons. Your description of such beauty and diversity
>is WHY there is a God
in your opinion. which is meaningless
>
>Next. The fish story is just that. A fish story. It would take the
>same kind of magic that a miracle takes, (and the same kind of faith
>btw), to believe "God Created" as it does to believe man eventually
>evolved from a fish. But the evolutionist does not see this even
>though it is as plain as the nose on your face.
of course, this creationist admits speciation is caused by evolution.
but then he tells us that a jellyfish is a shark because 'both are
fish'.
>
>In my opinion it is actually easier to believe angels came down from
>the heavens then it is to believe that fish eventually began to walk
>and talk in time because of evolution
how many fossilized angels are there?
how many fossilized fish?
.. You just do not have the actual
>observed evidence for such an occurrence taking place. But as I have
>said before, there is actual observed evidence of variation within the
>same 'kind' of life.
you find me a fossilized angel and i'll believe you
>
>Third. Your description of the "arm" and fingers screams common
>design. It is more logical to assume common design
i'm an engineer. 'common design' means nothing. unless you have a
PROCESS like EVOLUTION design goes nowhere
then it is to
>assume a complete metamorphosis of the fish took place in order for
>the fish to give rise to man; And that is exactly what would have to
>happen. The fish would have to be completely re-written as a creature.
>Generally speaking, it is easier to build something from scratch using
>the same common materials rather then to rework the old into something
>new.
really? it's easier to build a brand new house than to put on an
addition?
guess he lives in a cave
>
>Fourth. Evolutionary theory is just another *possible* reason why we
>are here. There are other reasons why and they are in the bible.
and a 5 year old can make up a story too. is that equally valid?
you're very gullible
If
>the evolutionist understood the reason why we are here there would be
>no need for them to look for alternate explanations.
for 2000 years you guys were the only game in town. you wound up
sacrificing goats to appease gods, and used ghosts to explain features
of nature
you find me a fossilized angel or ghost and i'll become a creationist,
OK?
>
>So why do I believe the texts over modern science? Motivation
wonder if he prays to get his message onto this group. if he thinks
ghosts are superior to science, then prayer should be better than
science based computers to access the net.
.. That's
>why. For the most part science is money driven
oh, yes...religion has NOTHING to do with money....
>
>But OTOH many (not all) of the ancient texts were written with the
>purpose of preserving accumulated knowledge. That was the sole,
>unselfish, motivation.
einstein wasn't a millionaire. nor was darwin.
most religious leaders today are quite wealthy and powerful. the guy
who funds the creationist 'discovery institute' is a
multimilliionaire.
you were saying?
>
>Since the 'creation by gods' or the 'evolution by fish' theories both
>appear to take some level of faith to believe, I chose the one that is
>unselfishly motivated with no concern for profits or agendas.
or you just choose to ignore the greed of religoius leaders.
>
>Finally. None of this should impact the fact that evolution benefits
>mankind. Much of the theory helps mankind in positive ways. But the
>fish to man story only makes evolution look bad because it is a direct
>challenge to long held religious beliefs.
so was galileo
how'd that work out for you guys?
Beliefs that are supported
>with ancients texts. There is nothing to suggest the texts are lying
>but there is plenty to suggest that science is deiven by an agenda and
>by money.
tell it to galileo
RAM
> Study of the Stars, Sun and Moon
>
> SE XIX: 1-5 PP] After this, the men brought me to the sixth haven, and
> there I saw seven groups of Angels, very bright and wonderful, with
> their faces shining brighter than the Sun. They were brilliant, and
> all dressed alike.
>
> Moon, and record the peaceful order of World. Other Angels, there,
> undertake teaching and give instruction in clear and melodious voices.
> These are the Archangels who are promoted over the ordinary Angels.
> They are responsible for recording (and studying) the fauna and flora
> in both the Highlands and the Lowlands.
>
> There are Angels who record the seasons and the years; others who
> study the rivers and the seas; others who study the fruits of the
> earth, and the plants and herbs that give nourishment to men and
> beasts.
>
> And there Angels study Mankind and record the behaviour of men and how
> they live.
>
> This record of the sixth place to which Enoch was taken within Eden is
> the fullest statement that we have, anywhere, of the actual daily
> activities of the Angels/Anannage in the Settlement of Eden/Kharsag.
>
> And the extraordinary conclusion, which we find that we cannot avoid,
> is that these recorded activities appear to be compatible with the
> scientific interests of an exploration expedition into unknown country
> – or, perhaps, onto an unknown planet. Its members appear to have been
> studying every facet of science which such an expedition would require
> – from geology to botany, and from astronomy to anthropology.
>
> http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/878.html
Somebody needs to tell you Lloyd that you are batshit crazy. This has
about as much to do with human life as a moon made of cheese.
Kookiness is not an enlightening process. It leads to a wasted life.
This post is useless except for its derisive attributes.
Kermit
> On Nov 21, 12:19 pm, "R Brown" <bro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >news:85e7c68d-83d4-432e...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > You're saying that stuff like this gets in your way of accepting the Theory
> > of Evolution?
>
> Why do you think books such as Enoch is a lie?
Why do you think people in the past never lied?
Why do you think "literal truth" or "lie" are the only alternatives?
Why do you think you are infallible?
Kermit
Kermit
> On Nov 21, 3:51 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > On Nov 21, 12:19 pm, "R Brown" <bro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > ---------------------------
> > > > You're saying that stuff like this gets in your way of accepting the Theory
> > > > of Evolution?
>
> > > Why do you think books such as Enoch is a lie?
>
>
> > DJT
>
> Because it is clear the book was written to preserve accumulated
> knowledge.
>
> Now, why would they lie?
"These are the olden days, son, so remember to never lie ...and all
truth is literal."
"What? That's crazy talk, Pop."
"Someday, son, there will be a great prophet, and we must tell him
about how the angels light the sun. That's important information,
after all."
"OK, Pop, but let's throw in lots of nonsense just to fuck with his
head, OK?"
"Hee. Alright."
Ever figure out how you tell the difference between special
perceptions and psychotic delusions?
Kermit
Kermit
> "Sox" <luke...@live.com> wrote in messagenews:Eq7Om.43137$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad...
> > "All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
> >news:4b13e6d7-436d-4560...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> > On Nov 21, 6:00 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:85e7c68d-83d4-432e-9c73-
> >> bca13b9e1...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> > <snip prior text to focus on latest post>
>
> > >There is no doubt there were advanced ancient civilizations on earth.
> > >The evidence for this is "in your face" type of evidence. The Indian
> > >evidence alone is more then enough to show this. Plus we have Sumerian
> > >and South American evidence.
>
> > Actually there is quite a bit of doubt, expecially when you leave so the key
> > term undefined. It is not at all clear what you mean by "advanced" ancient
> > civilations. Did you mean technologically advanced or something else? With
> > no hint what you are trying to say, there is no way to comment on the
> > assertion that Indian evidence is more than enough to show this, since you
> > haven't bothered to define what you think "this" -- an advanced anicent
> > civilization -- is supposed to mean. Perhaps if you were to present the
> > Indian evidence, which you apparently seem to think is widely available, one
> > could deduce what you think it shows. Of course, it would be much easier to
> > comment on if you just stated it clearly.
>
> The Vedic accounts are of a technologically and spiritually advanced civilization, so advanced, in fact, that to modern materialistic scholars and scientists -- absorbed as they are in the grossest, most superficial levels of the material world -- the technology seems like science fiction, and the spirituality seems like fantasy, which is why they uncritically reject its existence.
The Indians had, and still have, a high civilization. But they did not
higher technology than we have now. We know this, because there are no
signs of it. Can't you be content with those folks inventing the zero,
and possibly Damascus steel, and potted plants, and many other cool
things? Stop pretending they made rocket ships also, or mind reading
machines, or whatever you think they did.
>
> But these puffed-up scoffers have not really examined the literature. They simply assume that humanity is always "progressing" and therefore the knowledge of ancient civilizations must have been mere crude superstition compared to modern science.
Actually, we assume that the world is not a lie, that humans are
fallible, but if we get together and study the world around us we can
figure at least some of it out. Note that "figure out" involves rather
more than just making stuff up. Note also that science works.
>
> That, however, is not a scientific assessment, but is itself a superstition.
Well, no, it's what the world around us says. I trust the world more
than my own wishful thinking or unfettered imagination.
>
> > >They have to deny it. Otherwise they would all have to admit that
> > >evolution is partially wrong and incomplete.
>
> > "They" have to deny it? They who? No matter -- whoever "they" is, why on
> > earth would any evidence of ancient civilizations, no matter how advanced
> > (whatever you mean by advanced), demonstrate that evolution is partially
> > wrong or incomplete? You seem to be a little befuddled about timescales.
> > Civilization as it usually defined -- namely, a complex agricultural and
> > urban society -- did not happen much more than 15,000 years or so ago. So it
> > is not clear how any evidence from any ancient civilization relates to the
> > completeness or accuracy of evolution.
>
> > Please explain what, exactly, you think the evidence is, and why you think
> > it makes evolution partially wrong or incomplete.
>
> Darwinism's claim is that the variety of life forms is solely the result of
> impersonal, mechanistic processes.
That's what the evidence indicates. What evidence do you have of
anything else?
> The Vedic accounts, and indeed all ancient accounts of the structure and
> operation of the world, directly contradict this.
Ah. Old myths. Yes, well, get back to us when you have evidence, OK?
> The Vedic account is that there
> are personalities controlling everything in the universe. Everything is the product
> of intelligent design, and there is no such thing as a "random" event.
The story of Goldilocks agrees with you, at least as far as bears go.
Kermit
kalkidas
"RAM" <ramat...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5570dc49-daa7-4c1c...@m13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
You're still a Darwinist.
> I use contemporary biology and its numerous empirical studies to
> understand evolution. You use idiotic religious claptrap to justify
> not looking at the power of science to explain may phenomena that used
> to be though were created by gods. Your stupidity about science is
> clearly religiously based. That is fine as log as you keep it in your
> religious community
To call Darwinism "contemporary biology" is just your Darwinistic "just so" interpretation of Darwinism.
Boikat
you are!"
<snip>
>
> > I don't use the term Darwinism. That is used by boneheaded religious
> > ideologists like yourself.
>
> You're still a Darwinist.
>
Boikat
Kalkidas
news:a85659c9-a867-4e4c...@u8g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 22, 7:23�am, "kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>> "Sox" <luke...@live.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:Eq7Om.43137$Zu5.27431@newsf
> e24.iad...
[snip]
>> The Vedic accounts are of a technologically and spiritually advanced
>> civi
> lization, so advanced, in fact, that to modern materialistic scholars
> and scientists -- absorbed as they are in the grossest, most
> superficial levels of the material world -- the technology seems like
> science fiction, and the spirituality seems like fantasy, which is why
> they uncritically reject its existence.
>
> The Indians had, and still have, a high civilization. But they did not
> higher technology than we have now. We know this, because there are no
> signs of it. Can't you be content with those folks inventing the zero,
> and possibly Damascus steel, and potted plants, and many other cool
> things? Stop pretending they made rocket ships also, or mind reading
> machines, or whatever you think they did.
What does my "contentment" have to do with science? I already gave you an
experimental procedure by which you can detect signs of higher technology
and the beings who utilize it. Sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice.
>> But these puffed-up scoffers have not really examined the literature.
>> The
> y simply assume that humanity is always "progressing" and therefore
> the knowledge of ancient civilizations must have been mere crude
> superstition compared to modern science.
>
> Actually, we assume that the world is not a lie, that humans are
> fallible, but if we get together and study the world around us we can
> figure at least some of it out. Note that "figure out" involves rather
> more than just making stuff up. Note also that science works.
The question of whether or not material science "works" depends on what
kind of "work" you expect it to do. If you expect it to reveal more than
a subset of a subset of reality, then you will be disappointed. If you
just want some mechanical toys to waste your time with while waiting for
unconquerable death to show up, then I suppose material science "works"
in that regard.
Why not take up the science that reveals the whole shebang, including how
to become immune to unconquerable death? That's what the Vedic
civilization did, and they left abundant instructions on how to do it.
Boikat
<snip>
>
> Why not take up the science that reveals the whole shebang, including how
> to become immune to unconquerable death? That's what the Vedic
> civilization did, and they left abundant instructions on how to do it.
It must not work too well.
Boikat
kalkidas
news:pan.2009.11.22....@earthlink.net:
>
>> bca13b...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>
>>> and al
> l
>>> dressed alike.
>>> [...]
>>
>>
>> of whic
> h
>> universe.
>>
>> worldwide culture.
>
The Vedic account sometimes describes three, sometimes seven, and sometimes fourteen, depending on the context.
Other, more recent cultures, may have more or less garbled accounts descending from the original Veda by random variation filtered through natural selection, or by not-so-intelligent design.
Kermit
> Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote innews:a85659c9-a867-4e4c...@u8g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Nov 22, 7:23 am, "kalkidas" <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
> >> "Sox" <luke...@live.com> wrote in
> >> messagenews:Eq7Om.43137$Zu5.27431@newsf
> > e24.iad...
>
> [snip]
>
> >> The Vedic accounts are of a technologically and spiritually advanced
> >> civi
> > lization, so advanced, in fact, that to modern materialistic scholars
> > and scientists -- absorbed as they are in the grossest, most
> > superficial levels of the material world -- the technology seems like
> > science fiction, and the spirituality seems like fantasy, which is why
> > they uncritically reject its existence.
>
> > The Indians had, and still have, a high civilization. But they did not
> > higher technology than we have now. We know this, because there are no
> > signs of it. Can't you be content with those folks inventing the zero,
> > and possibly Damascus steel, and potted plants, and many other cool
> > things? Stop pretending they made rocket ships also, or mind reading
> > machines, or whatever you think they did.
>
> What does my "contentment" have to do with science? I already gave you an
> experimental procedure by which you can detect signs of higher technology
> and the beings who utilize it. Sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice.
Ah. If you want to understand science, all you have to do is go to
school for ten years and work very hard while you do so. Don't forget
to pretty much put any other interests or responsibilities on hold in
the meanwhile.
If you could demonstrate that you actually *knew something. But as far
as I can tell, it is indistinguishable from folks who see garden
fairies, Baptists who hear God's voice telling them to kill Heathens
(that would be you, for instance), and friends of aliens who have been
given rides on flying saucers.
The substance of your claims are all different, but you all have the
same supporting evidence - none.
Why would I want to waste any more time than I spend posting this to
give your claims credence?
>
> >> But these puffed-up scoffers have not really examined the literature.
> >> The
> > y simply assume that humanity is always "progressing" and therefore
> > the knowledge of ancient civilizations must have been mere crude
> > superstition compared to modern science.
>
> > Actually, we assume that the world is not a lie, that humans are
> > fallible, but if we get together and study the world around us we can
> > figure at least some of it out. Note that "figure out" involves rather
> > more than just making stuff up. Note also that science works.
>
> The question of whether or not material science "works" depends on what
> kind of "work" you expect it to do.
We expect it to work in the only reality we can see.
> If you expect it to reveal more than
> a subset of a subset of reality, then you will be disappointed.
I know how else to be disappointed: ask you for evidence that there is
anything else.
> If you
> just want some mechanical toys to waste your time with while waiting for
> unconquerable death to show up, then I suppose material science "works"
> in that regard.
So, how's that unconquerable death thing working out for you? Does
your body show no sign of aging, do you heal completely from *all
injuries?
>
> Why not take up the science that reveals the whole shebang
See, you want to use the word science because it's respectable. you
want the cachet of science, but you aren't willing to do the work to
earn it.
>, including how
> to become immune to unconquerable death? That's what the Vedic
> civilization did, and they left abundant instructions on how to do it.
And yet they didn't leave any evidence that they achieved it. My late
grandfather, a Fundamentalist Christian preacher, would have said you
would spend eternity in Hell (no getting off the Wheel of Rebirth!)
for worshipping demons instead of his god. I wouldn't worry though -
he didn't have any more evidence than you do.
Kermit
Tom McDonald
And you're still a Hindu. Right?
Right?
<snip>
--
Tom
When Tyrants tremble, sick with fear,
And hear their death-knell ringing;
When friends rejoice, both far and near,
How can I keep from singing.
RAM
> "RAM" <ramather...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:5570dc49-daa7-4c1c...@m13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
And you are still a boneheaded religious ideolog.
> > ideologists
>
> > I use contemporary biology and its numerous empirical studies to
> > understand evolution. You use idiotic religious claptrap to justify
> > not looking at the power of science to explain may phenomena that used
> > to be though were created by gods. Your stupidity about science is
> > clearly religiously based. That is fine as log as you keep it in your
> > religious community
>
> To call Darwinism "contemporary biology" is just your Darwinistic "just so" interpretation of Darwinism.
Your lack of understanding of biology is a continuing problem for
you. Ignorance can be overcome but only if you are intellectually
honest. So far you fail.
No one is forcing you to say stupid things. You should consider
learning instead of shooting yourself in the foot. You are boring.
bpuharic
>
>Why do you think books such as Enoch is a lie?
why do you think they're history when they're not.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>There is no doubt there were advanced ancient civilizations on earth.
>The evidence for this is "in your face" type of evidence. The Indian
>evidence alone is more then enough to show this. Plus we have Sumerian
>and South American evidence.
>
>
>They have to deny it. Otherwise they would all have to admit that
>evolution is partially wrong and incomplete.
his rule of evidence:
1. ancient texts are always right except when they're not
2. take 100,000 ancient texts and ignore their contradictions
3. science will tell us which of these is right
4 science is always wrong
got it? 'cuz that's how he thinks
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 21, 3:51 pm, Reddfrogg <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 21, 2:00 pm, All-Seeing-I <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 21, 12:19 pm, "R Brown" <bro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > snip
>>
>> > > ---------------------------
>> > > You're saying that stuff like this gets in your way of accepting the Theory
>> > > of Evolution?
>>
>> > Why do you think books such as Enoch is a lie?
>>
>> Why would you imagine that books such as Enoch are anything but myth?
>>
>> DJT
>
>Because it is clear the book was written to preserve accumulated
>knowledge.
>
>Now, why would they lie?
then why did they get everything wrong?
why, for example, in the ancient book of exodus, is exodus entirely
wrong? there was no moses. no exodus. no hebrew slavery. no escape. no
wandering in the desert
if ancient texts are always right, then why are they wrong?
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>The question of whether or not material science "works" depends on what
>kind of "work" you expect it to do. If you expect it to reveal more than
>a subset of a subset of reality, then you will be disappointed. If you
>just want some mechanical toys to waste your time with while waiting for
>unconquerable death to show up, then I suppose material science "works"
>in that regard.
fine. i'll accept that. in the meantime you guys had your vedic myths
and, in 3000 years, the life expectancy went from 40 years to...40
years.
science doubled life expectancy. creationists? made up myths about
demons to explain disease.
how'd that work out for you?
>
>Why not take up the science that reveals the whole shebang, including how
>to become immune to unconquerable death? That's what the Vedic
>civilization did, and they left abundant instructions on how to do it.
really? then why aren't there any immortal human beings? you yourself
are an example of the failure of your beliefs
bpuharic
wrote:
>
>To call Darwinism "science" is just your Darwinistic "just
>so" interpretation of Darwinism.
and to call it religion is to abuse the concept of religion...
chris thompson
> On Nov 21, 9:23 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 7:00 pm, Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
> > > All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote in news:85e7c68d-83d4-432e-9c73-
>
> > > > Study of the Stars, Sun and Moon
>
> > > > SE XIX: 1-5 PP] After this, the men brought me to the sixth haven, and
> > > > there I saw seven groups of Angels, very bright and wonderful, with
> > > > their faces shining brighter than the Sun. They were brilliant, and
>
> > > > Some of these Angels study the movements of the Stars, the Sun and
> > > > Moon, and record the peaceful order of World. Other Angels, there,
> > > > undertake teaching and give instruction in clear and melodious voices.
> > > > These are the Archangels who are promoted over the ordinary Angels.
> > > > They are responsible for recording (and studying) the fauna and flora
> > > > in both the Highlands and the Lowlands.
>
> > > > There are Angels who record the seasons and the years; others who
> > > > study the rivers and the seas; others who study the fruits of the
> > > > earth, and the plants and herbs that give nourishment to men and
> > > > beasts.
>
> > > > And there Angels study Mankind and record the behaviour of men and how
> > > > they live.
>
> > > > This record of the sixth place to which Enoch was taken within Eden is
> > > > the fullest statement that we have, anywhere, of the actual daily
> > > > activities of the Angels/Anannage in the Settlement of Eden/Kharsag.
>
> > > > And the extraordinary conclusion, which we find that we cannot avoid,
> > > > is that these recorded activities appear to be compatible with the
> > > > scientific interests of an exploration expedition into unknown country
> > > > – or, perhaps, onto an unknown planet. Its members appear to have been
> > > > studying every facet of science which such an expedition would require
> > > > – from geology to botany, and from astronomy to anthropology.
>
> > > >http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/878.html
>
> > > "devas"(demigods) for "angels".
>
> > > The Vedic cosmos is laid out as 7 planetary systems, of which the earth
> > > is the first or lowest, followed by increasingly subtle systems of which
> > > the sixth would be "tapoloka", the place where great penences or
> > > austerities are performed for self-realization and the welfare of the
> > > universe.
>
> > > This citation from Enoch contributes to the case for an ancient worldwide
> > > culture.
>
> > > the universe is dead and empty except for the human beings on this
> > > planet, who make up a tiny minority of living beings.
>
> > Actually, the people who accept evolution accept a vibrant, living
> > planet filled with myriad forms so wonderful, so amazing, so
> > beautiful, that they all deserve study. Do you think evolutionists,
> > back in the day, flipped through TV channels and came across Jacques
> > Cousteau and said, "What a boring pile of doodoo!" Or did
> > evolutionists find Mutual of Omaha's "Wild Kingdom" on tv and turn to
> > "Gunsmoke" because the were bored by nature?
>
> > You have everything backwards.
>
> > People who accept evolution love the planet. They love seeing things
> > that are weird and wonderful and bizarre. They- we- love figuring out
> > how these weird and bizarre plants and fungi and animals fit into the
> > overall scheme of life. Saying "God made them that way" is totally
> > unsatisfying. It doesn't answer "WHY were they made that way?" But
> > evolution DOES answer that question. Evolutionary theory tells us WHY
> > male anglerfish live as parasites on female anglerfish. Evolutionary
> > theory tells us WHY some male mite impregnate their sisters and die
> > before they even leave their mother's body. Evolutionary theory tells
> > us why female honeybees refrain from mating when all common sense
> > demands that they do so.
>
> > Granted, creationism can also answer these questions. But the answer
> > is always the same: "God wanted it that way" or some variation
> > thereof. Evolutionary theory tells us why, in each particular case,
> > the mechanism or the behavior came about.
>
> > And evolutionary theory tells us where we came from.
>
> > You have laughed at this before but I present it again. You will laugh
> > again but it is the laughter of the coward who fears the evidence.
>
> > I just started reading Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish". In this book
> > he shows, in exquisite detail, where human anatomy comes from.
>
> > It comes from fish.
>
> > All our bones, all our organs all our EVERYTHING has a root in a
> > primitive fish.
>
> > As Schubin puts it, our limbs are made of one bone, two bones, lotsa
> > blobs, then digits.
>
> > Meaning (for arms) the humerus, the ulna & radius, the wrist bones
> > (blobs) then the fingers.
>
> > The roots of those are all present in ancient fish.
>
> > And the development of our present-day structures are all present in
> > the fossil record.
>
> > Read the book- if you dare.
>
> > Chris
>
> First, Evolutionists may love the planet as you say, but they do so
> for the wrong reasons. Your description of such beauty and diversity
> diversity anywhere but on earth. Granted, we have not explored the
So what? More importantly, we see no evidence of any God or gods.
> entire universe, but we can see much of our solar system. There is
> nothing to suggest that another earth with the same kind of life and
> diversity is any further away. The observations suggests there is just
> more of the same of what we can already see from here. Now, some say:
> "The odds are favorable that there is life elsewhere", or they say "It
> is arrogant to assume we are alone in the universe". Maybe they are
> right. But there is not a direct observation for that yet.
So what? As you're so fond of pointing out, we are limited in our
perceptions. Just because we have not found life anywhere else, does
not mean we won't in the future- even in the near future.
You might also consider that of the planets in our solar system,
there's- count them- ONE planet in the habitable zone. It would be
extraordinary if we found life on Mars or Venus. Conditions are not
appropriate for life (as we know it).
> Next. The fish story is just that. A fish story. It would take the
> same kind of magic that a miracle takes, (and the same kind of faith
> btw), to believe "God Created" as it does to believe man eventually
> evolved from a fish. But the evolutionist does not see this even
> though it is as plain as the nose on your face.
Actually, it takes no faith whatsoever. It only takes a willingness to
look at the evidence. No miracles here, I am happy to say. Miracles
suck. If you can work miracles, everything becomes too easy. It's when
you have to work at something that it becomes worthwhile.
> In my opinion it is actually easier to believe angels came down from
> the heavens then it is to believe that fish eventually began to walk
> and talk in time because of evolution. You just do not have the actual
> observed evidence for such an occurrence taking place. But as I have
> said before, there is actual observed evidence of variation within the
> same 'kind' of life.
You are of course welcome to your opinion. You opinion is totally
uninformed though, and since you don't know, won't look at, and refuse
to accept evidence even when it's thrust at you, your opinion will
remain totally uninformed.
> Third. Your description of the "arm" and fingers screams common
> design. It is more logical to assume common design then it is to
> assume a complete metamorphosis of the fish took place in order for
> the fish to give rise to man; And that is exactly what would have to
> happen. The fish would have to be completely re-written as a creature.
> Generally speaking, it is easier to build something from scratch using
> the same common materials rather then to rework the old into something
> new.
No, there's no design there at all. As usual, you have everything
completely backwards. And you have never, ever answered this simple
question: how would you disprove the presence of design? What evidence
would make you think that something was not designed? Until you can
come up with that answer, your assertions are baseless and without
merit.
>
> Fourth. Evolutionary theory is just another *possible* reason why we
> are here. There are other reasons why and they are in the bible. If
> the evolutionist understood the reason why we are here there would be
> no need for them to look for alternate explanations.
Yes, there are other explanations. They include the Pak settling the
planet but not being able to grow tree-of-life, they include carbon-
farts from mutant space aardvarks hitting the primordial earth and
creating life, and they include the story of Genesis. All three of
those have exactly the same amount of evidence backing them up.
Not all hypotheses are equal. There is exactly zero physical evidence
for the story of creation in the bible. Call back when you get some,
OK?
>
> Now, I wish that I could write and say that I hold the absolute truth
> within the ancient texts. But I can't say that. Therefore I do not
> know absolute truth. However. It is abundantly clear that neither do
> you.
You keep coming back to that. In fact you are the one that claims the
mantle of ultimate truth, despite your words. If you did not, you
would not claim to be correct even in the utter absence of any kind of
evidence- indeed, even in the presence of mountains of evidence that
disprove your claims.
>
> So why do I believe the texts over modern science? Motivation. That's
> why. For the most part science is money driven which equals
Oh yeah. There's all those evolutionary biologists raking it in.
Don't I wish.
> corruption, especially in a capitalistic society. Specifically
> regarding evolution, well, it seems to be driven by an agenda and
> money. A dangerous combination indeed.
Oh this is beautiful. A paranoid fantasy! Tell me, where do the
Templars and the Illuminati fit in to this scheme? Are evolutionists
running the International Money Fund and the World Bank? Let me guess,
John Harshman is now running the Trilateral Commission, Howard Hershey
has the Warren Commission and the Grassy Knoll, and John Wilkins is of
course designing the New World Order!
Hilarious. You cannot make this stuff up. Tell me, exactly what
evidence do you have of this agenda? What evidence is there of all the
money being funneled to evolutionary biologists? Are we supposed to be
some kind of world shadow government? Or are we just biding our time
until we can take over the whole planet and eat your babies with
impunity?
>
> But OTOH many (not all) of the ancient texts were written with the
> purpose of preserving accumulated knowledge. That was the sole,
> unselfish, motivation.
And maybe they were limited by the knowledge they had. Being limited,
they got lots of stuff wrong.
>
> Since the 'creation by gods' or the 'evolution by fish' theories both
> appear to take some level of faith to believe, I chose the one that is
Wrong! Bzzzt. No faith needed for evolution! Just data.
> unselfishly motivated with no concern for profits or agendas.
Repeating the words does not make them true, unless you believe in a
particularly odd form of sympathetic magic.
Do you?
>
> Finally. None of this should impact the fact that evolution benefits
> mankind. Much of the theory helps mankind in positive ways. But the
> fish to man story only makes evolution look bad because it is a direct
> challenge to long held religious beliefs. Beliefs that are supported
> with ancients texts. There is nothing to suggest the texts are lying
> but there is plenty to suggest that science is deiven by an agenda and
> by money.
Repeating it again. HITLER USED THAT TECHNIQUE! NAZI! NAZI!!!
GODWIN!!!
Challenging long-held religious beliefs is at all times desirable,
just as challenging scientific belief, and any authority. It should be
done regularly and with energy and enthusiasm. If the religion or
science or authority can answer the challenge it becomes stronger,
because it is based on the truth. If it cannot answer the challenge it
needs to discard the dogma and set itself straight. And it will become
longer.
Here's some of your "long-held religious beliefs" that have been or
should be challenged:
Female circumcision.
Bathing is dangerous.
Witches should be burned.
Birth control is a sin.
Exorcism
Men should not shave, women's faces must be covered at all times
Medical assistance to children should be withheld if the parents
religion forbids it, even in life-threatening cases
The Hindu caste system
Chris