Alien Genetic Manipulation of Man
All-seeing-I
Yet another interpretation of the evidence.
Caranx latus
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYI9qC56mGs
>
> Yet another interpretation of the evidence.
Wow.
Wow.
You're k00kier than I thought.
Ye Old One
Impossible.
--
Bob.
Did you know that 1 in 4 people make up a quarter of the world's
population?
Caranx latus
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:10:50 -0800 (PST), Caranx latus
> <kar...@sympatico.ca> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
> >On Nov 17, 12:56 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYI9qC56mGs
>
> >> Yet another interpretation of the evidence.
>
> >Wow.
>
> >Wow.
>
> >You're k00kier than I thought.
>
> Impossible.
That's what I thought...
Bruce Stephens
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYI9qC56mGs
>
> Yet another interpretation of the evidence.
All-seeing-I
are you so closed minded that you will not consider all possibilities?
Devils Advocaat
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYI9qC56mGs
>
> Yet another interpretation of the evidence.
Inez
If you consider all possibilities, you have to include the possibility
that Barbie created life in her Pepto-Bismol pink science lab. Have
you put a lot of thought into that or are you close minded?
VoiceOfReason
I'm amused that there are people stupid enough to give these folks
money. :-D
HighQ
> On Nov 17, 11:41 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
.
> If you consider all possibilities, you have to include the possibility
> that Barbie created life in her Pepto-Bismol pink science lab. Have
> you put a lot of thought into that or are you close minded?
And the possibility that you're a loon ball, who fantasizes about a
certain T.O poster.
Don't look at me, you repulse me & I am taken.
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> Yet another interpretation of the evidence.
Appears Mental.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
> On Nov 17, 12:56 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYI9q
> >
> > Yet another interpretation of the evidence.
> Wow.
> Wow.
> You're k00kier than I thought.
I knew he was that nuts.
Desertphile
Idiot.
David Hare-Scott
He's not even slightly crazy. It's all a big joke. Every time the usual
gaggle of respondents (including me occasionally) bites on one of his
absurdities he hugs himself with glee. This proves daily (to him) that he
is smarter than all these well educated people.
David
All-seeing-I
That is not an apple to apple comparison, freak.
We can established Barbie is not real.
The Sumarian stories have a probability of being true and we know they
were real
Kermit
There are more possibilities than you and all the fantasy writers in
existence could come up with. Are there any reasons to give any of
them credence?
Consider this possibility: that you not only are you fallible, you
haven't a clue how science works.
Kermit
Kermit
I saw a statue of Jesus once. That proves he's not real, right?
Kermit
All-seeing-I
wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:10:50 -0800 (PST), Caranx latus
>
> <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 12:56 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYI9q
>
> > > Yet another interpretation of the evidence.
> > Wow.
> > Wow.
> > You're k00kier than I thought.
>
> I knew he was that nuts.
You are too stupid to attempt an understanding of anything via full
discolsure of all information, therefore, you, and your opinion, are
irrelevant
It would be irrelevant even if you tried.
Kermit
You are claiming that he is a loki-troll hybrid. One who has posted
multiple thousands of time in the space of a month. You are proposing
that he is less healthy than what he pretends to be.
I don't deny the possibility, but I prefer the simpler solution - that
he is exactly what he seems to be.
Religious fanaticism is a *very successful meme.
Kermit
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 17, 1:56 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 11:41 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 17, 12:10 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Nov 17, 12:56 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYI9qC56mGs
>>
>>>>> Yet another interpretation of the evidence.
>>
>>>> Wow.
>>
>>>> Wow.
>>
>>>> You're k00kier than I thought.
>>
>>> are you so closed minded that you will not consider all
>>> possibilities?
>>
>> If you consider all possibilities, you have to include the
>> possibility that Barbie created life in her Pepto-Bismol pink
>> science lab. Have you put a lot of thought into that or are you
>> close minded?
>
> That is not an apple to apple comparison, freak.
Why not? It's a possibility, so you have to include it.
>
> We can established Barbie is not real.
You can? I can go down to any store and find a Barbie doll. Where can
one find an alien that could have manipulated DNA??
>
> The Sumarian stories have a probability of being true and we know they
> were real
How do you know they were real? Again, anyone can buy a Barbie Doll.
No one has ever seen a Sumerian alien.
DJT
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> We can established Barbie is not real.
But people have made millions of models of her. Are those people liars?
Ye Old One
She isn't?
Wow! But I saw he in a shop just this weekend.
>
>The Sumarian stories have a probability of being true and we know they
>were real
Rubbish.
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.
Hatunen
The Sumerian stories are real enough. It's the events described
in the stories that seem a bit dodgy. Obviously, any story about
a flood coming from the land between the Tigris and Euphrates
rivers would have some historical basis. I'm sure they have had
some simply awful floods in the past.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
bpuharic
>
>The Sumarian stories have a probability of being true and we know they
>were real
they can be 'true' only if they can be tested.
and you creationists ban testing of theories
bpuharic
there's a difference between being open minded and gullible
creationists haven't learned the difference
Sapient Fridge
<701a4e03-d9cf-45ec...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
So what do you think his most convincing piece of evidence is?
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Burkhard
Barbie always had close contact to the supernatural:
http://www.jaegers.net/Barbie-and-Ken-s-Letter-t.barbiekenlettersanta+M52087573ab0.0.html
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are regressing emotionally K
The evidence for a Sumarian civilization existing in the past and
doing some real scientific discoveries is overwealming.
The evidence for Barbie doing science is... the fantasy of a child.
Barbie would only be used as an example by a child or by a child like
mind.
You have arrived.
All-Seeing-I
Modern science confirms many of the Sumerian discoveries which can be
read in their texts.
Now what
All-Seeing-I
Have you considered science may be wrong?
It has been wrong in the past. It will be wrong today and in the
future.
All-Seeing-I
wrote:
> In message
> <701a4e03-d9cf-45ec-94ee-094e46fad...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYI9qC56mGs
>
> >Yet another interpretation of the evidence.
>
> So what do you think his most convincing piece of evidence is?
Care to show me where i said it was "convincing"?
What I said, which is only a few lines up......
"Yet another interpretation of the evidence"
Immediately the information and myself were attacked.
Is it SO hard for the evo-freaks to even CONSIDER other
interpretations of the data?
bpuharic
>Have you considered science may be wrong?
>
>It has been wrong in the past. It will be wrong today and in the
>future.
science has been wrong
creationism has never been right
Inez
Fantasies are free of charge, so knock yourself out.
> Don't look at me, you repulse me & I am taken.
For a value of "taken" that means caught by the men with white coats
and a humorously large butterfly net.
Christopher Denney
No, some scientific theories have proven to be incomplete, or
incorrect, but science has never been show to be wrong. Quite the
opposite, in fact.
Christopher Denney
> On Nov 17, 12:10 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 17, 12:56 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYI9qC56mGs
>
> > > Yet another interpretation of the evidence.
>
> > Wow.
>
> > Wow.
>
> > You're k00kier than I thought.
>
> are you so closed minded that you will not consider all possibilities?
There is a distinct line dividing open minded and gullible. Look over
you shoulder, I think you passed it.
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Nov 17, 12:10�pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 12:56�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYI9qC56mGs
>>
>> > Yet another interpretation of the evidence.
>>
>> Wow.
>>
>> Wow.
>>
>> You're k00kier than I thought.
>
>are you so closed minded that you will not consider all possibilities?
Get an education, and learn the difference between a possibility and
an imbecility.
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
None of it confirms religious doctrines. Now you lose.
heekster
<massive loon projection>
>It would be irrelevant even if you tried.
>
How would you know that, fool? You never have.
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Nov 17, 3:17�pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It may end up with an improved explanation, but your explanation has
already been proven to be wrong. Why do you keep mooning about it like a
pathetic ninth grader who got dumped by your first girlfriend?
>It has been wrong in the past. It will be wrong today and in the
>future.
But it will never be as wrong as the claims you make. It will be wrong,
for example, in the way Newton was wrong.
Newton's mechanics were wrong (in a particularly technical sense) yet
engineers routinely use his mechanics in their work and can rely on it.
No one can rely on the claims you make. No one. When you stop
worshipping ignorance and start to learn, then you will have something
worth saying.
Free Lunch
<christoph...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
No, he has never been near open-minded. That's just another bogus
argument that religious zealots make when their lies don't work any
more. He wandered over to gullible from the region of the unthinking who
do what they are told because they are too lazy to think for themselves
or learn anything.
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
>On Nov 17, 5:15�pm, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
>wrote:
>> In message
>> <701a4e03-d9cf-45ec-94ee-094e46fad...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>>
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYI9qC56mGs
>>
>> >Yet another interpretation of the evidence.
>>
>> So what do you think his most convincing piece of evidence is?
>
>Care to show me where i said it was "convincing"?
Care to show us where you ever used evidence? You cannot even tell us
what the evidence is, you proudly ignorant lazy bum.
>What I said, which is only a few lines up......
>
>"Yet another interpretation of the evidence"
How can you interpret evidence when you refuse to learn what the
evidence is?
>Immediately the information and myself were attacked.
>
>Is it SO hard for the evo-freaks to even CONSIDER other
>interpretations of the data?
Not when the people offering "other interpretations" have made it clear
that they don't even know what the data is.
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
Produce evidence that can be submitted for "understanding," nut.
It is not the job of sane people to "understand" crazy people's
beliefs.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
bpuharic
guess the creationist kinda forgot....
his side was the only game in town for 2000 years
and for 2000 years they got it wrong.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>The evidence for a Sumarian civilization existing in the past and
>doing some real scientific discoveries is overwealming.
except you hate science. so you hate what the sumerians did
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>Modern science confirms many of the Sumerian discoveries which can be
>read in their texts.
>
>Now what
modern science confirms democritus of 2500 years ago
OMFG!!! THE ANCIENT GREEKS HAD ATOM SMASHERS!!!
VoiceOfReason
So in other words you were just trolling. Why am I not surprised?
All-Seeing-I
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:09:40 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
Now that you are done vomiting your lies.....
Would you care to address the fact that this is another interpretation
of the evidence?
All-Seeing-I
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:05:52 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
I guess that is why bridges and buildings never fall down.
> No one can rely on the claims you make. No one. When you stop
> worshipping ignorance and start to learn, then you will have something
> worth saying
uh huh...
Have you ever seen a pyramid fall down? Hint: The same kind of people
that wrote the ancient texts built the pyramids.
I would assert my information stands the test of time.
Why do you lie for your science daily?
Dana Tweedy
>> The Sumerian stories are real enough. It's the events described
>> in the stories that seem a bit dodgy. Obviously, any story about
>> a flood coming from the land between the Tigris and Euphrates
>> rivers would have some historical basis. I'm sure they have had
>> some simply awful floods in the past.
>
> Modern science confirms many of the Sumerian discoveries which can be
> read in their texts.
Citation from the primary scientific literature, please.
>
> Now what
Anyone can say that "science confirms" but unless you can show some actual
scientific papers that support your claim, no one is going to believe you.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> I saw a statue of Jesus once. That proves he's not real, right?
>>
>> Kermit- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You are regressing emotionally K
>
> The evidence for a Sumarian civilization existing in the past and
> doing some real scientific discoveries is overwealming.
Then provide some citations from scientific journals supporting your claim.
"Ancient Astronaut" claims don't cut it.
>
> The evidence for Barbie doing science is... the fantasy of a child.
So is your claim about Sumerians and aliens.
>
> Barbie would only be used as an example by a child or by a child like
> mind.
As would aliens, and Sumerians.....
>
>
> You have arrived.
....at the conclusion that you are wrong.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
>> Consider this possibility: that you not only are you fallible, you
>> haven't a clue how science works.
>>
>> Kermit
>
> Have you considered science may be wrong?
Do you have any evidence that it is?
>
> It has been wrong in the past. It will be wrong today and in the
> future.
However fantasy stories about aliens and ancient texts are wrong much more
often.
DJT
Steven L.
We did, at one time.
In the 20th century, respected scientists like Arrhenius and Hoyle
proposed the panspermia theory.
There's more science behind panspermia than behind any creation myths.
But it too has fallen out of disfavor.
At least Arrhenius did his homework.
But if you've seen one creation myth, you've seen them all.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>Have you ever seen a pyramid fall down? Hint: The same kind of people
>that wrote the ancient texts built the pyramids.
really? the innuit built the pyramids?
do tell!
>
>I would assert my information stands the test of time.
>
>Why do you lie for your science daily?
you lie for creationism by the millenia
>
Dana Tweedy
>> Newton's mechanics were wrong (in a particularly technical sense) yet
>> engineers routinely use his mechanics in their work and can rely on
>> it.
>
> I guess that is why bridges and buildings never fall down.
The fall down a lot less often than bridges and buildings put up by
supernatural means.....
>
>> No one can rely on the claims you make. No one. When you stop
>> worshipping ignorance and start to learn, then you will have
>> something worth saying
>
> uh huh...
Hint, that wasn't something worth saying....
>
> Have you ever seen a pyramid fall down? Hint: The same kind of people
> that wrote the ancient texts built the pyramids.
Using basic and primitive engineering techniques. A pyramid is basically a
heap of stones, which is very difficult to fall over. They were the same
ones who built the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, the Collossus of Rhodes, the
Lighthouse at Alexandra, The tomb of Maussollos, the statue of Zeus, and the
temple of Artemis. All but the pyramids have fallen over.
>
> I would assert my information stands the test of time.
And you'd be wrong, yet again.
>
> Why do you lie for your science daily?
Where has he lied for science at all?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
What lies? Please be specific.
>
> Would you care to address the fact that this is another interpretation
> of the evidence?
There are thousands of other interpretations of the data. None of them are
scientific.
DJT
Caranx latus
> On Nov 17, 12:10 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 12:56 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Wow.
>>
>> You're k00kier than I thought.
>
> are you so closed minded that you will not consider all possibilities?
I am quite happy to consider all possibilities. What I will *not*
consider are the impossibilities.
John McKendry
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/pyramid_gallery_04.shtml
"Meidum Pyramid
At Meidum, 30 miles south of Memphis, King Snefru (the first king
of the 4th Dynasty, who came to the throne around 2613 BC) built
Egypt's first true, or straight-sided, pyramid. This started as
a stepped pyramid, but as it neared completion the steps were
packed with stone and the whole structure was cased in finest
limestone. In its final form the pyramid stood approximately
311ft (95m) high.
Unfortunately the pyramid was unsound. Its heavy outer layers
eventually slid downwards, leaving a square, three-stepped core
standing in a mountain of sand and rubble and the ruins of the
pyramid complex. We do not know when this disaster occurred,
although as there are New Kingdom tombs incorporated in the
rubble we know that the pyramid had at least partially collapsed
by the time of the New Kingdom (which started around 1550 BC)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bent_Pyramid
"The Bent Pyramid, located at the royal necropolis of Dahshur,
approximately 40 kilometres south of Cairo, of Old Kingdom
Pharaoh Sneferu, is a unique example of early pyramid development
in Egypt, about 2596 BCE. This was the second pyramid built by
Sneferu.
The lower part of the pyramid rises from the desert at a 55-degree
inclination, but the top section is built at the shallower angle of
43 degrees, lending the pyramid its very obvious "bent" appearance.
Archaeologists now believe that the Bent Pyramid represents a
transitional form between step-sided and smooth-sided pyramids
(see Step pyramid). It has been suggested that due to the steepness
of the original angle of inclination the structure may have begun
to show signs of instability during construction, forcing the
builders to adopt a shallower angle to avert the structure's collapse."
> I would assert my information stands the test of time.
>
> Why do you lie for your science daily?
The design of the pyramids at Giza is the result of a long process
of trial and error. The evidence is there to see, four millennia
later. And the same kind of people who made those four-thousand-year
mistakes wrote the ancient texts.
John
Free Lunch
You really never took any physics or engineering classes, did you.
>> No one can rely on the claims you make. No one. When you stop
>> worshipping ignorance and start to learn, then you will have something
>> worth saying
>
>uh huh...
>
>Have you ever seen a pyramid fall down? Hint: The same kind of people
>that wrote the ancient texts built the pyramids.
>
>I would assert my information stands the test of time.
Yes, your brains are a monument to a dead pharaoh.
>Why do you lie for your science daily?
You know that I have never lied in any discussions with you.
Free Lunch
<allse...@usa.com> wrote in talk.origins:
I'll take that as unconditional surrender on your part.
>Would you care to address the fact that this is another interpretation
>of the evidence?
You still haven't backed up your claim.
Show me how your 'interpretation' is valid. Show me what future
observations should be discovered.
Inez
> On Nov 17, 1:56 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 17, 11:41 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 17, 12:10 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 17, 12:56 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > Yet another interpretation of the evidence.
>
>
> > > > Wow.
>
> > > > You're k00kier than I thought.
>
> > > are you so closed minded that you will not consider all possibilities?
>
> > that Barbie created life in her Pepto-Bismol pink science lab. Have
> > you put a lot of thought into that or are you close minded?
>
> That is not an apple to apple comparison, freak.
>
> We can established Barbie is not real.
But Barbie is real. look!
What we haven't established is that she moves around at night creating
life. However, since we have evidence of her existence and we don't
have evidence of the existence of aliens, we're a lot closer to my
theory than yours.
> The Sumarian stories have a probability of being true and we know they
> were real-
We know they are real stories, and 0% is a probability. If you had a
higher probability in mind, please show your math.
David Hare-Scott
> On Nov 17, 1:03 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Caranx latus wrote:
>>> On Nov 17, 12:56 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYI9qC56mGs
>>
>>>> Yet another interpretation of the evidence.
>>
>>> Wow.
>>
>>> Wow.
>>
>>> You're k00kier than I thought.
>>
>> usual gaggle of respondents (including me occasionally) bites on one
>> of his absurdities he hugs himself with glee. This proves daily (to
>> him) that he is smarter than all these well educated people.
>>
>> David
>
> You are claiming that he is a loki-troll hybrid. One who has posted
> multiple thousands of time in the space of a month. You are proposing
> that he is less healthy than what he pretends to be.
Not crazy - warped. I would say he has the time because he is retired.
Probably from a profession where formal education is not required but a fine
line in bull is an asset, such as advertising. "Adman" is not nominative
determinism but a self label.
>
> I don't deny the possibility, but I prefer the simpler solution - that
> he is exactly what he seems to be.
>
> Religious fanaticism is a *very successful meme.
>
No doubt about it but he doesn't fit the pattern in my view.
> Kermit
Compared to the religious fanatics we have here he lacks the emotional
commitment to his material. He uses all the tricks in the book to avoid
engagement where, due to his spotty understanding of the subject matter, he
would get obviously trounced. He will respond to accusations that he is
ignorant. However when his commitment is questioned he never responds. Also
when one of his more silly "Christian" gambits is ridiculed he never shows
any sign of affront, annoyance or even pity on the heathen that the true
fanatic will exhibit. He doesn't take his own stuff seriously. He is
playing a role not living it.
David
Devils Advocaat
http://www.egyptreservation.com/Pyramids.htm
“There are about 108 pyramids currently known in Egypt, many in a
state of great disrepair and almost unrecognisable.”
“At least 80 royal pyramids have been found in Egypt, but none rival
the three at Giza. Many of the lesser pyramids have been reduced to
rubble. The great pyramids of Egypt still stand.”
So of the 108 known pyramids, only 80 were royal pyramids, and many of
these pyramids are piles of rubble almost unrecognisable as pyramids.
Guess that crushes your claim somewhat.
RAM
I would address it by contending that only an uneducated, dogmatically
ignorant religious nut case - you - would assert that he is offering
another interpretation. It is so transparently easy to see that not
only is he wrong but that he is not in touch with reality. In short
a nut case (you) arguing for equal time for another nut case.
As an aside is perchance you giving this incredible pulled from the
nether regions hoax/story? It is my image of you. Be honest is it
you. Oops you are a creationist.
Damaeus
All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> posted:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYI9qC56mGs
>
> Yet another interpretation of the evidence.
It doesn't take aliens to believe in genetic manipulation. All it takes
is belief in them. Beliefs affect perception, and perception affects how
protein synthesis proceeds. If we had no way to perceive our
environments, our genetics would never change, and we would never have
evolved.
Damaeus
richardal...@googlemail.com
Yes. One of the Egyptian pyramids, the pyramids of Snefru was built
with the sides sloping at too high an angle, and it has partially
collapsed.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Pyramid_of_sneferu_Meidum_01.jpg
Oh, and yes. I've saw it when I visited Egypt.
>Hint: The same kind of people
> that wrote the ancient texts built the pyramids.
...which shows that they got it wrong. Another pyramid, the Bent
pyramid, changes the angle of slope part of the way up which shows
that they realised that they got it wrong an changed the design
accordingly.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/12/Snofru's_Bent_Pyramid_in_Dahshur.JPG
The oldest pyramid, the Pyramid of Djoser, is built as a series of
burial platforms, called mastabahs, piled on top of each other:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Saqqara_Pyramid_Djoser.jpg
Why not educate yourself in the history of ancient Egypt?
>
> I would assert my information stands the test of time.
You can assert anything you like, but as you have no credibility
whatsoever nobody will take your assertions seriously.
>
> Why do you lie for your science daily?
I suggest that it is not the scientists who are lying. The only
question is if you are lying or just delusional.
RF
Ye Old One
>Modern science confirms many of the Sumerian discoveries which can be
>read in their texts.
Wrong again Mudbrain.
>
>Now what
You carry on making a fool of yourself.
--
Bob.
Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 17, 3:17 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 1:10 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 17, 1:56 pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Nov 17, 11:41 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Nov 17, 12:10 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Nov 17, 12:56 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYI9qC56mGs
>>
>> > > > > > Yet another interpretation of the evidence.
>>
>> > > > > Wow.
>>
>> > > > > Wow.
>>
>> > > > > You're k00kier than I thought.
>>
>> > > > are you so closed minded that you will not consider all possibilities?
>>
>> > > If you consider all possibilities, you have to include the possibility
>> > > that Barbie created life in her Pepto-Bismol pink science lab. Have
>> > > you put a lot of thought into that or are you close minded?
>>
>> > That is not an apple to apple comparison, freak.
>>
>> > We can established Barbie is not real.
>>
>> > The Sumarian stories have a probability of being true and we know they
>> > were real
>>
>> I saw a statue of Jesus once. That proves he's not real, right?
>>
>> Kermit- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>You are regressing emotionally K
>
>The evidence for a Sumarian civilization existing in the past and
>doing some real scientific discoveries is overwealming.
No it is not.
>
>The evidence for Barbie doing science is... the fantasy of a child.
Someone you can look up to.
>
>Barbie would only be used as an example by a child or by a child like
>mind.
So, more advanced than you then.
>
>
>You have arrived.
Pity you did.
--
Bob.
If brains were taxed, you would get a rebate.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 17, 3:17 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 11:41 am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 17, 12:10 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Nov 17, 12:56 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYI9qC56mGs
>>
>> > > > Yet another interpretation of the evidence.
>>
>> > > Wow.
>>
>> > > Wow.
>>
>> > > You're k00kier than I thought.
>>
>> > are you so closed minded that you will not consider all possibilities?
>>
>> There are more possibilities than you and all the fantasy writers in
>> existence could come up with. Are there any reasons to give any of
>> them credence?
>>
>> Consider this possibility: that you not only are you fallible, you
>> haven't a clue how science works.
>>
>> Kermit
>
>Have you considered science may be wrong?
On minor things, yes, but not in the way you would claim. Science
gradually refines, gravity was explained by Newton, his definition is
still used for sending probes to the planets so it can't be that bad.
Einstein refined it and took it to places Newton's theory could not
reach. We know there is still one step to take, to include quantum
gravity. That is a step we will take one day, but it will not change
Newton or Einstein.
In much the same way the ToE has taken on many things, like genetics,
that Darwin didn't even know existed 150 years ago - but his original
theory still holds.
>
>It has been wrong in the past. It will be wrong today and in the
>future.
Like life, science evolves.
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
Why do you lie for your religion MANY times a day?
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
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 17, 5:15 pm, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
>wrote:
>> In message
>> <701a4e03-d9cf-45ec-94ee-094e46fad...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> writes
>>
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYI9qC56mGs
>>
>> >Yet another interpretation of the evidence.
>>
>> So what do you think his most convincing piece of evidence is?
>
>Care to show me where i said it was "convincing"?
>
>What I said, which is only a few lines up......
>
>"Yet another interpretation of the evidence"
>
>Immediately the information and myself were attacked.
>
>Is it SO hard for the evo-freaks to even CONSIDER other
>interpretations of the data?
When they are sensible.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
It isn't.
--
Bob.
If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.
Burkhard
evidence. However, it is also always possible to say which of two
competing interpretations is better, that is, explains more of the
evidence, has less contradictions, relies on fewer unprovable and
implausible assumptions etc.
A murder trial, X is accused to have killed his wife Y. 5 eyewitnesses
confirm that they saw X killing his wife. X 's fingerprint is on the
murder weapon, his DNA on the victim, including under her fingernails. X
has matching defensive scratch wounds on his face, which have traces of
Y's rare fingernail polish. The victim's blood is on X clothing,the
splatter pattern consistent with stabbing someone standing in front of
you. Another witness confirms that X bought the knife (confirmed by the
shop's CCTV, and the credit card receipt), X' telephone call to a friend
where he threatens to kill Y, Y's life insurance is to the benefit of X
to an extravagant amount of money and only set up 6 month and a day
before the deed, just in time to qualify. On interrogation, X confesses.
This makes the theory that he killed his wife extremely strong, and
every jury would convict. However, alternative explanations are easy to
come by. The defence could argue: Y was killed by the US president,
whose secret service leaned on the witnesses. The forensic scientists
were forced to forge their results. X bought the knife, but it was
stolen from him. The insurance was set up by a look alike with faked
credentials, working for the CIA. X was tortured to confess. However,
the defence does not give a single piece of evidence that supports any
of these additional assumptions.
Under these conditions, it is irrational to belief the defence. It is,
as a matter of principle, always possible to find alternative
explanation for everything, which is precisely why science has developed
methods to rationally decide between any two competing theories. Thta in
my view is the biggest difference to religion: there are no rational
grounds to decide between Zeus, Odin and Yahweh.
All-Seeing-I
Damn Dana. It is common knowledge that astronomers have confirmed the
Sumerian astrology that is described in their tablets that
archeologists have discovered. In vitro fertilization is confined as
well; And in vitro fertilization is described in the Sumerian texts
too. It is not like this information is not common knowledge or not
readily available. Besides, what possible reason whould I have to make
something like that up?
The fact of the matter is the Sumerians recorded much that science can
or has confirmed.Why do you want to deny all of this information in
such a stubborn fashion?
Besides. All of this distracts from the point of the OP anyway. The
claim is there is another interpretation for man's origins. Did you
care to address that point or would you just like me to get the links
so you can continue denying the information anyway?
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Nov 17, 7:37 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > > On Nov 17, 4:00 pm, Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > >> The Sumerian stories are real enough. It's the events described
> > >> in the stories that seem a bit dodgy. Obviously, any story about
> > >> a flood coming from the land between the Tigris and Euphrates
> > >> rivers would have some historical basis. I'm sure they have had
> > >> some simply awful floods in the past.
>
> > > Modern science confirms many of the Sumerian discoveries which can be
> > > read in their texts.
>
> > Citation from the primary scientific literature, please.
>
> > > Now what
>
> > Anyone can say that "science confirms" but unless you can show some actual
> > scientific papers that support your claim, no one is going to believe you.
>
> > DJT
>
> Damn Dana. It is common knowledge that astronomers have confirmed the
> Sumerian astrology that is described in their tablets that
> archeologists have discovered.
Even if it were "common knowledge", it would still be wrong. The
people who have actually *studied* Sumerian texts tell us very clearly
that they do no such thing, and the only people who *do* make such a
claim are the ones peddling junk science to the ignorant.
> In vitro fertilization is confined as
> well;
The first baby born by in-vitro fertilisation was Louise Brown, on
July 25, 1978.
> And in vitro fertilization is described in the Sumerian texts
> too.
Not according to the people who have actually *studied* Sumerian
texts. The only people who *do* make such a claim are the ones
peddling junk science to the ignorant.
> It is not like this information is not common knowledge or not
> readily available. Besides, what possible reason whould I have to make
> something like that up?
Because you are typical of the sort of ill-informed and willfully
ignorant sucker pseudo-science books are aimed at. How many of
Stichin's books have you bought?
>
> The fact of the matter is the Sumerians recorded much that science can
> or has confirmed.
Not according to the people who have actually *studied* Sumerian
texts. The only people who *do* make such a claim are the ones
peddling junk science to the ignorant.
> Why do you want to deny all of this information in
> such a stubborn fashion?
>
> Besides. All of this distracts from the point of the OP anyway. The
> claim is there is another interpretation for man's origins. Did you
> care to address that point or would you just like me to get the links
> so you can continue denying the information anyway?
As the only evidence you have to support your intepretation is
unfounded assertions and reference to sources which have been exposed
as utterly unreliable, your "interpretation" can be dismissed as
unfounded nonsense.
RF
Inez
Why don't you link us up with this information rather than just
claiming it exists? I mean, some actual translations of the text from
a reputable site and not a youtube video.
> Besides. All of this distracts from the point of the OP anyway. The
> claim is there is another interpretation for man's origins. Did you
> care to address that point or would you just like me to get the links
> so you can continue denying the information anyway?
If you have convincing links then why be so coy with them? Just
provide them and we'll see.
All-Seeing-I
> >> I saw a statue of Jesus once. That proves he's not real, right?
> >> Kermit
> > The evidence for a Sumarian civilization existing in the past and
> > doing some real scientific discoveries is overwealming.
> "Ancient Astronaut" claims don't cut it.
Common knowledge.
> > The evidence for Barbie doing science is... the fantasy of a child.
> So is your claim about Sumerians and aliens.
The evidence is there.
> > Barbie would only be used as an example by a child or by a child like
> > mind.
> As would aliens, and Sumerians.....
Denial is not just a river in egypt.
> > You have arrived.
> ....at the conclusion that you are wrong.
Look. You can deny this information exists all you want. And guess
what? It will still be there. The Sumerians were first on record to
use a place value numeral system and a type of slide rule in
astronomical calculations. They were the first to find the area of a
triangle AND the volume of a cube. That is quite a task for "goat
herders" eh? These types of maths were being used during the Uruk
period which was 9,000 to 5,000 years ago.
This kind of information is so common that it can even be found in
wikipedia. So stop shaking your fist for "evidence". What does that
tell you? It should tell you there is even more information if you go
look for it.
How could nomadic goat herders that just flew in from the jungle where
they hunted and gathered food for their livelihood go from such a
primitive existence to using a slide rule and calculating the area of
a cube WITHOUT SOME KIND OF ASSISTANCE?
Now. What does the bible and other ancient tradition say? It says
Angels left their proper places, came to earth, gave man knowledge and
slept with their women.
So. The possibility that man is the result of ET genetic manipulation
is there, and it becomes another explanation for the origins of man.
(do not confuse Hollywood's version of ET for my use of ET above)
None of us have to subscribe to this. However. The possibility is
there nonetheless because there is not the SLIGHTEST hint that the
Sumerians recorded all of this information just to be a tale and to
lie to you all these years latter. They stored this information in a
fashion to preserve their discoveries and to extend their capabilities
through accumulated knowledge. The smallest of minds can see and
understand this.
Now before the flood Seth is described as wanting to build two towers,
one of stone and one of metal to preserve man's knowledge. This would
mean that the people of the day knew the disaster was coming way ahead
of time. Time enough to build such towers. What does the bible say? It
says Noah warned the people hundreds of years before the impending
disaster. The Sumerian version says there was a warning as well.
Some of this is circumstantial evidence, Some more has correlations to
other items around the world. They are mounting up.
And since Dawkins says circumstantial evidence is more then enough to
believe evolution takes place you should therefore have no problem
considering this information as another interpretation for man's
origins as well. Right?
--
all seeing I
All-Seeing-I
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:25:53 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Do you deny that the Sumerians wrote information down and that science
confirms it's existence and validity. Even wikipedia knows THAT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer
"gods" on earth as described by the Sumerians is corroborated by every
race on the planet.
You are in denial and arrested development
Boikat
> On Nov 17, 7:37 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > > On Nov 17, 4:00 pm, Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > >> The Sumerian stories are real enough. It's the events described
> > >> in the stories that seem a bit dodgy. Obviously, any story about
> > >> a flood coming from the land between the Tigris and Euphrates
> > >> rivers would have some historical basis. I'm sure they have had
> > >> some simply awful floods in the past.
>
> > > Modern science confirms many of the Sumerian discoveries which can be
> > > read in their texts.
>
> > Citation from the primary scientific literature, please.
>
> > > Now what
>
> > Anyone can say that "science confirms" but unless you can show some actual
> > scientific papers that support your claim, no one is going to believe you.
>
> > DJT
>
> Damn Dana. It is common knowledge that astronomers have confirmed the
> Sumerian astrology that is described in their tablets that
> archeologists have discovered. In vitro fertilization is confined as
> well; And in vitro fertilization is described in the Sumerian texts
> too.
Bullshit.
> It is not like this information is not common knowledge or not
> readily available. Besides, what possible reason whould I have to make
> something like that up?
"Lord of the Rings" is commonly availible too.
>
> The fact of the matter is the Sumerians recorded much that science can
> or has confirmed.Why do you want to deny all of this information in
> such a stubborn fashion?
"Confirmed" by who? Something along the lines of Zacharia Stichen
"confirming" the findings of Eric Von Daniken? Sorry, something like
that carries about as much weight as you confirming a claim made by ed
conrad.
>
> Besides. All of this distracts from the point of the OP anyway. The
> claim is there is another interpretation for man's origins.
"Interpretations" are opinions wthout any evidence, in this case.
Biological evolution has an overwealming amont of supporting evidence,
even though you cannot perceive it.
> Did you
> care to address that point or would you just like me to get the links
> so you can continue denying the information anyway?-
The way you deny evidence contained in linked sites that present the
evidence for evolution?
Noce bit of irony, there.
Boikat
All-Seeing-I
This is a bold faced lie.
> > It is not like this information is not common knowledge or not
> > readily available. Besides, what possible reason whould I have to make
> > something like that up?
>
> Because you are typical of the sort of ill-informed and willfully
> ignorant sucker pseudo-science books are aimed at. How many of
> Stichin's books have you bought?
None. I draw my conclusions from the texts.
> > The fact of the matter is the Sumerians recorded much that science can
> > or has confirmed.
>
> Not according to the people who have actually *studied* Sumerian
> texts. The only people who *do* make such a claim are the ones
> peddling junk science to the ignorant.
Bold faced lie
> > Why do you want to deny all of this information in
> > such a stubborn fashion?
>
> > Besides. All of this distracts from the point of the OP anyway. The
> > claim is there is another interpretation for man's origins. Did you
> > care to address that point or would you just like me to get the links
> > so you can continue denying the information anyway?
>
> As the only evidence you have to support your intepretation is
> unfounded assertions and reference to sources which have been exposed
> as utterly unreliable, your "interpretation" can be dismissed as
> unfounded nonsense.
>
> RF- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Only an idiot would actually believe that your science is the only
accurate way to assertain valid information.
Which makes most of you here idiots
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Much of this is common and established knowledge.
Why play so dumb?
Dan Listermann
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:60f42ecb-cf76-4040...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 18, 7:31 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
Hey don't poo poo the Sumerians. They worshiped Ninkasi, the goddess of
beer. They had to know something.
.
All-Seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sure. That is how we all learn.
But his claim was even though modern designers know Newton's mechanics
are wrong, they build bridges with it anyway.
Therefore the bridges will continue to fall, but as you have pointed
out, the builders of the pyramids kept at it until they got it right.
All-Seeing-I
> All-seeing-I wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 12:10 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> On Nov 17, 12:56 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYI9qC56mGs
> >>> Yet another interpretation of the evidence.
> >> Wow.
>
> >> Wow.
>
> >> You're k00kier than I thought.
>
> > are you so closed minded that you will not consider all possibilities?
>
> consider are the impossibilities.
Well. You are not doing that
This information is well documented and some of it verified by the
science you think is infallible.
All-Seeing-I
> This proves daily (to him) that he
> is smarter than all these well educated people.
While not for the reasons you believe, this statement is somewhat
accurate.
Boikat
Only in the Land of Woo-Woo.
>
> Why play so dumb?
Too much Coast to Coast AM with George Noory will rot your brain
unless you wear you foil hat shiny side out. Though, in your case,
it's too late, and apparently you used ignorantium foil, shiny side
in, by mistake.
Boikat
Kermit
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:03:34 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
>
> <allseei...@usa.com> wrote:
>
> >Modern science confirms many of the Sumerian discoveries which can be
> >read in their texts.
>
>
> modern science confirms democritus of 2500 years ago
>
> OMFG!!! THE ANCIENT GREEKS HAD ATOM SMASHERS!!!
As you would know if you read their stories correctly. You liberal
atheists always have trouble with metaphors...
Kermit
All-Seeing-I
> Kermit wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 1:03 pm, "David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> Caranx latus wrote:
> >>> On Nov 17, 12:56 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYI9qC56mGs
>
> >>>> Yet another interpretation of the evidence.
>
> >>> Wow.
>
> >>> Wow.
>
> >>> You're k00kier than I thought.
>
> >> usual gaggle of respondents (including me occasionally) bites on one
> >> of his absurdities he hugs himself with glee. This proves daily (to
> >> him) that he is smarter than all these well educated people.
>
>
> > You are claiming that he is a loki-troll hybrid. One who has posted
> > multiple thousands of time in the space of a month. You are proposing
> > that he is less healthy than what he pretends to be.
>
> Not crazy - warped. I would say he has the time because he is retired.
> Probably from a profession where formal education is not required but a fine
> line in bull is an asset, such as advertising. "Adman" is not nominative
> determinism but a self label.
>
>
>
> > I don't deny the possibility, but I prefer the simpler solution - that
> > he is exactly what he seems to be.
>
> > Religious fanaticism is a *very successful meme.
>
> No doubt about it but he doesn't fit the pattern in my view.
>
> > Kermit
>
> Compared to the religious fanatics we have here he lacks the emotional
> commitment to his material. He uses all the tricks in the book to avoid
> engagement where, due to his spotty understanding of the subject matter, he
> would get obviously trounced. He will respond to accusations that he is
> ignorant. However when his commitment is questioned he never responds. Also
> when one of his more silly "Christian" gambits is ridiculed he never shows
> any sign of affront, annoyance or even pity on the heathen that the true
> fanatic will exhibit. He doesn't take his own stuff seriously. He is
> playing a role not living it.
>
> David- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm going to make an unusual pity stop here. You truly are bloated
with self importance aren't you? heh.. you must be one of those 'book-
learned' people that think they are soooo smart about everything.
I am quite emotionally attached to these topics. But for reasons you
are just too smart to understand. I seldom reply to you because you
have an insanity that hides behind logic and book facts which makes it
impossible to engage you on an emotional level. So it is actually you
that has the least emotional commitment to the topics here, not me.
The others are equally passionate as I am about what they believe.
Which is why they respond and why I reply and post you fool.
If you had the same emotional attachment to these issues as those that
engage in the conversations do, you would respond in turn as well. But
you don't. Instead you choose to lie about me and then lie to
yourself.
The pity stop is over. I now return you to your pathetic existence.
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 17, 7:37 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>> On Nov 17, 4:00 pm, Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>> The Sumerian stories are real enough. It's the events described
>>>> in the stories that seem a bit dodgy. Obviously, any story about
>>>> a flood coming from the land between the Tigris and Euphrates
>>>> rivers would have some historical basis. I'm sure they have had
>>>> some simply awful floods in the past.
>>
>>> Modern science confirms many of the Sumerian discoveries which can
>>> be read in their texts.
>>
>> Citation from the primary scientific literature, please.
>>
>>> Now what
>>
>> Anyone can say that "science confirms" but unless you can show some
>> actual scientific papers that support your claim, no one is going to
>> believe you.
>>
>> DJT
>
> Damn Dana. It is common knowledge that astronomers have confirmed the
> Sumerian astrology that is described in their tablets that
> archeologists have discovered.
"common knowledge" is often wrong. That's why I'm asking for scientific
papers that support your claim.
> In vitro fertilization is confined as
> well; And in vitro fertilization is described in the Sumerian texts
> too.
Confined to what? Please provide some support for this claim as well.
> It is not like this information is not common knowledge or not
> readily available. Besides, what possible reason whould I have to make
> something like that up?
Again, common knowledge is often mistaken. What reason would you have to
make something up? Many reasons, including, (but not limited to) religious
bias, ignorance, compulsive lying, gullibility, and/or sheer cussedness.
>
> The fact of the matter is the Sumerians recorded much that science can
> or has confirmed.
Confirmed by whom? Again, anyone can make such a claim, but backing it up
with actual evidence is another matter. If science has confirmed any of
this, there should be scientific papers that you can refer to. If you
don't know where to look, try Google Scholar, or Pubmed.
> Why do you want to deny all of this information in
> such a stubborn fashion?
Because I don't believe that this "information" exists. I'd like to see
some confirmation of your claims, because I don't believe you.
>
> Besides. All of this distracts from the point of the OP anyway. The
> claim is there is another interpretation for man's origins.
There are thousands of other interpretations for man's origins. None of
them are scientific, and none can be tested. Why should anyone take those
other interpretations seriously?
> Did you
> care to address that point or would you just like me to get the links
> so you can continue denying the information anyway?
I'd like to do both. I just addressed the point above. Now, you can get
the links.
DJT
Kermit
If it is common knowledge, it wouldn't be hard to provide links. We
constantly provide links to you, yet you ignore them. We ask for some
from you, and you claim that Sumerian advanced science is "commonly
known".
Why don't you fans of "ancient science" ever give us scientific
insights *before modern science explains them? Give us a specific
prediction, like:
"When you get the LHC up and running you will find that the Higg's
boson... something".
Or, "actually, it turns out that the treatment for Alzheimer's will be
found in the bark of such-and-such tree."
Instead we get flying chariots, screwing gods, heros with great
strength.
*Never any evidence, never details on how to accomplish this...
Hey, here ya go - a *real ancient high technology (well,sort of). How
did they make Damascus steel? In Syria, starting about 1000 years ago,
a few sword makers started turning out steel blades in swords and
other weapons that were exceptionally sharp and durable. We have
recently discovered that they had fibers of carbon nanotubes running
through them. Become famous - provide a link or translation that
explains how they did this with the technology available to medieval
smiths.
Kermit
Dana Tweedy
>>> And in vitro fertilization is described in the Sumerian texts
>>> too.
>>
>> Not according to the people who have actually *studied* Sumerian
>> texts. The only people who *do* make such a claim are the ones
>> peddling junk science to the ignorant.
>>
>
> This is a bold faced lie.
Then where are the scientific papers confirming your claims?
>
>
>>> It is not like this information is not common knowledge or not
>>> readily available. Besides, what possible reason whould I have to
>>> make something like that up?
>>
>> Because you are typical of the sort of ill-informed and willfully
>> ignorant sucker pseudo-science books are aimed at. How many of
>> Stichin's books have you bought?
>
> None. I draw my conclusions from the texts.
Odd that these "conclusions" are just what Stitchin claimed, and no
professional anthropologist has agreed with.....
>
>>> The fact of the matter is the Sumerians recorded much that science
>>> can or has confirmed.
>>
>> Not according to the people who have actually *studied* Sumerian
>> texts. The only people who *do* make such a claim are the ones
>> peddling junk science to the ignorant.
>
>
> Bold faced lie
Again, you should have the scientific papers that support your claim....
Where are they?
>
>>> Why do you want to deny all of this information in
>>> such a stubborn fashion?
>>
>>> Besides. All of this distracts from the point of the OP anyway. The
>>> claim is there is another interpretation for man's origins. Did you
>>> care to address that point or would you just like me to get the
>>> links so you can continue denying the information anyway?
>>
>> As the only evidence you have to support your intepretation is
>> unfounded assertions and reference to sources which have been exposed
>> as utterly unreliable, your "interpretation" can be dismissed as
>> unfounded nonsense.
>>
>> RF- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Only an idiot would actually believe that your science is the only
> accurate way to assertain valid information.
Science is the only way that provides testable and confirmable information.
Experience has shown that science provides accurate and valid information
much more often than appeal to the supernatural does. You simply assume
your way is accurate and valid, because it fits what you want to believe.
This results in infomation that is neither accurate, or valid.
>
> Which makes most of you here idiots
Apparently insults is all you have left....
DJT
Boikat
<snip>
> Only an idiot would actually believe that your science is the only
> accurate way to assertain valid information.
>
Only a mentally challenged idiot would believe the crap you post.
> Which makes most of you here idiots-
I guess it's all the "book learning" that you dispise.
Damn, you're a stupid piece of work.
Boikat
richardal...@googlemail.com
No, it isn't.
If you think I'm wrong, produce the evidence than *any* reputable
scholar has *ever* claimed that the Sumerians practised in-vitro
fertilisation. If you can't - and you know you can't - the identity of
the liar is clear.
>
> > > It is not like this information is not common knowledge or not
> > > readily available. Besides, what possible reason whould I have to make
> > > something like that up?
>
> > Because you are typical of the sort of ill-informed and willfully
> > ignorant sucker pseudo-science books are aimed at. How many of
> > Stichin's books have you bought?
>
> None. I draw my conclusions from the texts.
Bullshit. You regurgitate what Sitchin writes and ignore the advice of
the scholars who have real expertise in the subject.
>
> > > The fact of the matter is the Sumerians recorded much that science can
> > > or has confirmed.
>
> > Not according to the people who have actually *studied* Sumerian
> > texts. The only people who *do* make such a claim are the ones
> > peddling junk science to the ignorant.
>
> Bold faced lie
>
I suggest that you are in no position to call anyone else a liar.
>
>
>
>
> > > Why do you want to deny all of this information in
> > > such a stubborn fashion?
>
> > > Besides. All of this distracts from the point of the OP anyway. The
> > > claim is there is another interpretation for man's origins. Did you
> > > care to address that point or would you just like me to get the links
> > > so you can continue denying the information anyway?
>
> > As the only evidence you have to support your intepretation is
> > unfounded assertions and reference to sources which have been exposed
> > as utterly unreliable, your "interpretation" can be dismissed as
> > unfounded nonsense.
>
> > RF- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Only an idiot would actually believe that your science is the only
> accurate way to assertain valid information.
>
I suggest that only a idiot would be hoodwinked by the authors of
pseudo-scientific books. I do not regard the works of such authors as
Velekovsky, von Daniken, Hancock and Sitchin as anything other than
fake scholarship designed to extract money from the ignorant and
gullible. But then, unlike you, I have bothered to check the veracity
of the assertions such con-men make rather than swallowing them
uncritically.
Why not get an education in the subjects on which make such ignorant
assertions?
> Which makes most of you here idiots
I suggest that the evidence shows that the idiot here is you.
RF
Dana Tweedy
>>Just
>> provide them and we'll see.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Much of this is common and established knowledge.
If so, then providing links to the primary literature should be no problem.
>
> Why play so dumb?
Why is it "dumb" to request support for claims made by an unreliable person?
DJT
Kermit
> On Nov 17, 7:39 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > > On Nov 17, 3:17 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > snip
> > >> I saw a statue of Jesus once. That proves he's not real, right?
> > >> Kermit
> > > You are regressing emotionally K
> > > The evidence for a Sumarian civilization existing in the past and
> > > doing some real scientific discoveries is overwealming.
> > Then provide some citations from scientific journals supporting your claim.
> > "Ancient Astronaut" claims don't cut it.
>
> Common knowledge.
Scientific papers on obscure subjects are common knowledge? Maybe
among historians of science.
>
> > > The evidence for Barbie doing science is... the fantasy of a child.
> > So is your claim about Sumerians and aliens.
>
> The evidence is there.
<snort>
>
> > > Barbie would only be used as an example by a child or by a child like
> > > mind.
> > As would aliens, and Sumerians.....
>
> Denial is not just a river in egypt.
Any alien bodies? Alien technologies?
>
> > > You have arrived.
> > ....at the conclusion that you are wrong.
>
> Look. You can deny this information exists all you want. And guess
> what? It will still be there. The Sumerians were first on record to
> use a place value numeral system and a type of slide rule in
> astronomical calculations. They were the first to find the area of a
> triangle AND the volume of a cube. That is quite a task for "goat
> herders" eh? These types of maths were being used during the Uruk
> period which was 9,000 to 5,000 years ago.
Yes, this seems to be true.
>
> This kind of information is so common that it can even be found in
> wikipedia. So stop shaking your fist for "evidence". What does that
> tell you? It should tell you there is even more information if you go
> look for it.
>
An early civilization developing geometry is not the same as aliens
interbreeding with, or genetically engineering, humans.
> How could nomadic goat herders that just flew in from the jungle where
> they hunted and gathered food for their livelihood go from such a
> primitive existence to using a slide rule and calculating the area of
> a cube WITHOUT SOME KIND OF ASSISTANCE?
The same way we recently went to the Moon? Oh, that's right; you think
we humans were incapable of this. And modern science is just a long
series of coincidences, because we really don't understand how the
world works; all possible ignorant speculations are equally likely to
be true.
The Sumerians developed writing, concentrations of resources, and a
scholar class. I am impressed but not astonished that over several
hundred years they invented what I was taught in seventh grade.
>
> Now. What does the bible and other ancient tradition say? It says
> Angels left their proper places, came to earth, gave man knowledge and
> slept with their women.
The bible isn't evidence. Many old myths say many things which are
silly if read literally.
>
> So. The possibility that man is the result of ET genetic manipulation
> is there, and it becomes another explanation for the origins of man.
> (do not confuse Hollywood's version of ET for my use of ET above)
So... they manipulated us, even though Sumerians were identical in
every perceivable way to other humans, both elsewhere in the world and
preceding them in the fossil record. The human genome has been looked
at in many samples from all over, and there are no differences not
accounted for by simple mutations over time.
What unusual abilities do the descendants of Sumerians show? What
bizarre string of DNA is in their genome?
Where are the alien bones? Where is the alien technology?
>
> None of us have to subscribe to this. However. The possibility is
> there nonetheless because there is not the SLIGHTEST hint that the
> Sumerians recorded all of this information just to be a tale and to
> lie to you all these years latter.
Again, you insist that myths have to be lies if they are not literally
true. And again you insist that old books are never lies, even though
you say we lie all the time now. Do I have to give you the list of
alternatives to lies and concrete truth, *again?
> They stored this information in a
> fashion to preserve their discoveries and to extend their capabilities
> through accumulated knowledge. The smallest of minds can see and
> understand this.
Um, yes. They wrote much of it down, and repeated the rest verbally,
and showed students how to do it. Most folks understand this. Where
do the aliens come in, and what evidence do you have for them?
>
> Now before the flood Seth is described as wanting to build two towers,
> one of stone and one of metal to preserve man's knowledge.
This confirms the truth of the Lord of the Rings!
> This would
> mean that the people of the day knew the disaster was coming way ahead
> of time.
That, or, if there was a catastrophe, somebody wrote a story
afterward.
> Time enough to build such towers. What does the bible say? It
> says Noah warned the people hundreds of years before the impending
> disaster. The Sumerian version says there was a warning as well.
But what do the Greek myths say?
There were undoubtedly many local floods. So what? They are not
evidence for aliens, nor evidence refuting the Theory of Evolution.
The myths of Australian aborigines usually occur in the desert. OMG
aliens!!1
>
> Some of this is circumstantial evidence, Some more has correlations to
> other items around the world. They are mounting up.
No, only your unsophisticated cherry picking and distortions are
accumulating.
>
> And since Dawkins says circumstantial evidence is more then enough to
> believe evolution takes place you should therefore have no problem
> considering this information as another interpretation for man's
> origins as well. Right?
No, because there is no supporting evidence for your ideas, and they
are refuted by the evidence that exists. Your fantasies are not
evidence.
Yes, the Sumerians discovered and invented much. No aliens.
>
> --
Turning a blind eye to reality:
> all seeing I
Kermit
Mike Dworetsky
So you think that if only the stupid engineers had applied general
relativistic corrections to the bridge designs, everything would be OK?
The usual reasons that bridges occasionally collapse (like the one in
Minnesota a year or two ago) are that politicians ignore the warnings by the
engineers. The bridges are getting old and weakening from corrosion and
constant pounding, and should be replaced for the sake of safety.
Politicians (many of whom are creationists) are not governed by Newton's
laws or any other science or logic, which is why there are often problems
with bridges. Not because engineers don't know everything about science.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 17, 7:39 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>>> On Nov 17, 3:17 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> snip
>>>> I saw a statue of Jesus once. That proves he's not real, right?
>>>> Kermit
>>> You are regressing emotionally K
>>> The evidence for a Sumarian civilization existing in the past and
>>> doing some real scientific discoveries is overwealming.
>> Then provide some citations from scientific journals supporting your
>> claim. "Ancient Astronaut" claims don't cut it.
>
> Common knowledge.
Common knowledge is often wrong. That's why I want you to provide some
actual sources for your claims.
>
>>> The evidence for Barbie doing science is... the fantasy of a child.
>> So is your claim about Sumerians and aliens.
> The evidence is there.
>
>>> Barbie would only be used as an example by a child or by a child
>>> like mind.
>> As would aliens, and Sumerians.....
>
> Denial is not just a river in egypt.
Indeed it's not. You appear to be in denial about the the speciousness of
your claims.
>
>>> You have arrived.
>> ....at the conclusion that you are wrong.
>
> Look. You can deny this information exists all you want. And guess
> what? It will still be there.
Where is it? For someone who seems sure of it's existence, you seem very
reluctant to show it.
> The Sumerians were first on record to
> use a place value numeral system and a type of slide rule in
> astronomical calculations.
\
Citation please. It's not that I don't believe you, but frankly, I don't
believe you.
>They were the first to find the area of a
> triangle AND the volume of a cube. That is quite a task for "goat
> herders" eh? These types of maths were being used during the Uruk
> period which was 9,000 to 5,000 years ago.
Citation, please. "Common knowledge" is not an acceptable citation.
>
> This kind of information is so common that it can even be found in
> wikipedia.
So, provide the wikipedia link.
> So stop shaking your fist for "evidence". What does that
> tell you? It should tell you there is even more information if you go
> look for it.
It tells me that you are bluffing. I'm calling your bluff. If that
information exists, you should be able to provide some credible source for
it.
>
>
> How could nomadic goat herders that just flew in from the jungle where
> they hunted and gathered food for their livelihood go from such a
> primitive existence to using a slide rule and calculating the area of
> a cube WITHOUT SOME KIND OF ASSISTANCE?
This not only is insulting to the cultures involved, but begs many
questions. You haven't shown that any of your claims are correct, so why
should I accept that "assistance" was required at all?
>
> Now. What does the bible and other ancient tradition say? It says
> Angels left their proper places, came to earth, gave man knowledge and
> slept with their women.
Which are folk tales and legends. None of these stories have any actual
support.
>
> So. The possibility that man is the result of ET genetic manipulation
> is there, and it becomes another explanation for the origins of man.
> (do not confuse Hollywood's version of ET for my use of ET above)
That 'possibility' is remote, at best. Since there isn't any evidence
that supports your claim, it can be safely regarded as hogwash.
>
> None of us have to subscribe to this. However. The possibility is
> there nonetheless because there is not the SLIGHTEST hint that the
> Sumerians recorded all of this information just to be a tale and to
> lie to you all these years latter.
Again, you are begging the question. You haven't established that they
*did* record "all this information". All you have is some fanciful
interpretations by some nut author. The actual scientists who have spent
their careers studying the Sumerian culture don't claim that they were
visited by aliens, or that they knew anything about genetics, or invitro
fertilization, or that they knew the existence of planets beyond Saturn.
All of the 'information" you are talking about is unsupported rubbish.
More to the point, when ancient cultures write down legends, and folk tales
in the culture, they didn't do so as a "lie". This has been explained to
you many times now. To them, their stories were important to their
culture, and they had no way of knowing it woudln't scientifically accurate,
because they didn't have science.
> They stored this information in a
> fashion to preserve their discoveries and to extend their capabilities
> through accumulated knowledge. The smallest of minds can see and
> understand this.
Again, you demonstrate a small mind, undboutedly, but you don't grasp that
what they recorded was not "knowledge" in the modern sense, but folk wisdom,
legends, and stories. There's no evidence that any of the folk tales, or
oral tradition left behind was accurate or reliable in modern scientific
sense.
>
> Now before the flood Seth is described as wanting to build two towers,
> one of stone and one of metal to preserve man's knowledge.
There was no global flood. If there was, the evidence would show one.
There's no evidence that Seth existed, much less built anything.
> This would
> mean that the people of the day knew the disaster was coming way ahead
> of time.
Yet they couldn't build their own boats?
> Time enough to build such towers.
But not boats, rafts, or canoes?
> What does the bible say?
Why would that be relevant?
> It
> says Noah warned the people hundreds of years before the impending
> disaster. The Sumerian version says there was a warning as well.
But no one thought to build a boat, just in case?
>
> Some of this is circumstantial evidence, Some more has correlations to
> other items around the world. They are mounting up.
These are not evidence, but rationalizations. They make no sense in
context.
>
> And since Dawkins says circumstantial evidence is more then enough to
> believe evolution takes place you should therefore have no problem
> considering this information as another interpretation for man's
> origins as well. Right?
Wrong. Fanciful interpretations, and wild assumptions are not
circumstantial evidence. Cherry picking stories from different cultures,
and trying to mash them together is not evidence. Assuming your
conclusions is not evidence.
Evolution is accepted because it can be observed now, and it can be inferred
from the evidence. Your own claims are, to put it gently, hogwash of the
highest degree.
DJT
Devils Advocaat
> On Nov 17, 7:37 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > All-Seeing-I wrote:
> > > On Nov 17, 4:00 pm, Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > >> The Sumerian stories are real enough. It's the events described
> > >> in the stories that seem a bit dodgy. Obviously, any story about
> > >> a flood coming from the land between the Tigris and Euphrates
> > >> rivers would have some historical basis. I'm sure they have had
> > >> some simply awful floods in the past.
>
> > > Modern science confirms many of the Sumerian discoveries which can be
> > > read in their texts.
>
> > Citation from the primary scientific literature, please.
>
> > > Now what
>
> > Anyone can say that "science confirms" but unless you can show some actual
> > scientific papers that support your claim, no one is going to believe you.
>
> > DJT
>
> Damn Dana. It is common knowledge that astronomers have confirmed the
> Sumerian astrology that is described in their tablets that
> archeologists have discovered. In vitro fertilization is confined as
> well; And in vitro fertilization is described in the Sumerian texts
> too. It is not like this information is not common knowledge or not
> readily available. Besides, what possible reason whould I have to make
> something like that up?
How about quoting from a source rather than making an unsupported
claim?
Dick C.
57b9b2...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> Don't look at me, you repulse me & I am taken.
I'm sure spinny will be glad that you told everyone.
>
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@gmail.com
Dick C.
0e1924...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 17, 1:56�pm, Inez <savagemouse...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 11:41�am, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 17, 12:10�pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Nov 17, 12:56�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYI9qC56mGs
>>
>> > > > Yet another interpretation of the evidence.
>>
>> > > Wow.
>>
>> > > Wow.
>>
>> > > You're k00kier than I thought.
>>
>> > are you so closed minded that you will not consider all
possibilities?
>>
>> If you consider all possibilities, you have to include the possibility
>> that Barbie created life in her Pepto-Bismol pink science lab. �Have
>> you put a lot of thought into that or are you close minded?
>
> That is not an apple to apple comparison, freak.
>
> We can established Barbie is not real.
Really? I can find Barbie in all sorts of stores, she seems real to
me.
>
> The Sumarian stories have a probability of being true and we know they
> were real
Actually, the probability of them being true is next to none. But yes we
know they are real, real in the same way that the stories from all the
other ancient cultures are real. Why not worship the Norse Gods, or
follow the same religion as the ancient Celts?
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 17, 7:37 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> All-Seeing-I wrote:
>> > On Nov 17, 4:00 pm, Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>> >> The Sumerian stories are real enough. It's the events described
>> >> in the stories that seem a bit dodgy. Obviously, any story about
>> >> a flood coming from the land between the Tigris and Euphrates
>> >> rivers would have some historical basis. I'm sure they have had
>> >> some simply awful floods in the past.
>>
>> > Modern science confirms many of the Sumerian discoveries which can be
>> > read in their texts.
>>
>> Citation from the primary scientific literature, please.
>>
>> > Now what
>>
>> Anyone can say that "science confirms" but unless you can show some actual
>> scientific papers that support your claim, no one is going to believe you.
>>
>> DJT
>
>Damn Dana. It is common knowledge that astronomers have confirmed the
>Sumerian astrology that is described in their tablets that
>archeologists have discovered.
Knowledge is very rarely common, and no, you pathetic numbskull,
astronomers have done no such thing.
> In vitro fertilization is confined as
>well; And in vitro fertilization is described in the Sumerian texts
>too.
Fairy stories.
>It is not like this information is not common knowledge or not
>readily available. Besides, what possible reason whould I have to make
>something like that up?
You are always making things up.
>
>The fact of the matter is the Sumerians recorded much that science can
>or has confirmed.
Rubbish.
>Why do you want to deny all of this information in
>such a stubborn fashion?
Because you claims are, as usual, hogwash.
>
>Besides. All of this distracts from the point of the OP anyway. The
>claim is there is another interpretation for man's origins.
Find one.
> Did you
>care to address that point or would you just like me to get the links
>so you can continue denying the information anyway?
Go on, find another scientific theory to replace the ToE.
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.