A Human Paradox

[Valka D'Ur]

There's a world of myth out there that says otherwise... And now we're discovering the date of our emergence falls within the time frame established by the Sumerians. How did they know "we" started appearing <300 kya?

Yeah, right. Myth = real archaeology, real anthropology, real history, real geology, real paleontology?

Nope.

I can rattle off a ton of mythological tales, but they don't prove that any of it really happened, or that the characters really existed.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yes, and what was your point? You wanted the kings list showing 432,000 years divided up into 120 sars, Berossus provided us with that list.

Thanks. Here is your link to a Kings list.

http://cura.free.fr/11kings.html

"The chronology of Mesopotamian kings, the earliest of them being mythical figures, extends from the earliest times up to the 18th century B.C. The record is found on some fifteen tablets, primarily from the archives of Nippur (cf. Thorkild Jacobsen, The Sumerian King List, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1939, and Jean-Jacques Glassner, Chroniques mésopotamiennes, Paris, Belles Lettres, 1993). Several lists exist, with the Sumerian names transcribed into Akkadian and dating from the Amorite dynasty of Larsa (ca. 1800 B.C.) or composed at Isin (ca. 1900 B.C.); the most complete text of the list is found in the collection of Weld-Blundell, and has been translated by Thorkild Jacobsen (op. cit., pp. 70-77):"
King list 1: 241,200 years; 8 kings;

List 2 on that link: "Berossus, the Hellenized Chaldean philosopher/astrologer, proposes in his Babyloniaca (in the first section of Book II) a second list of antediluvian kings who reigned after the appearance of Oannes, this time including ten sovereigns, four cities and 120 periods of reign (the two following sections of his Book II are devoted to a description of the Flood and to the post-diluvian kings).

Berossus borrowed his narrative from the archives of Babylonia-Borsippa, and these archives themselves, with regard to the Creation and the first ages of the world, copied revelations ostensibly inscribed on tablets by Oannes, the first fish-man and "the inventor of letters, sciences and arts, the founder of laws, cities and all civilization. " (Joseph Bidez, "Les écoles chaldéennes sous Alexandre et les Séleucides," in Mélanges Capart, Brussels, 1935, p. 50)."

King list 2: 432,000 years; 10 kings

Wiki's list matches the first list above at 241,200 years and 8 kings.

The Berossus list has two additional kings and the lengths of the reigns for the same kings do not match. For example, on list 1 Alalgar reigned for 36,000 years and on list 2 it was only 10,800. There are others.

So which is to be believed? What makes one list more believable than the others? How does one detect greater reliability in an inscribed clay tablet? What hard evidence can you present that points to the truth that those kings actually lived 36,000 years. The Bible says that the entire earth was completely covered with water. Do you believe that the Himalayas were covered in water?

Why are the Sumerian myths more believable than the Hindu ones? Or the Chinese or Tibetan ones?

The whole problem is that all of your assumptions that are supporting what you propose are just made up. You begin with the assumption that aliens landed on earth and created people 400,000 years ago (no evidence), then you an inconsistent mythological kings list, claiming it is true (no evidence) to support the first claim. And then you top it off by trying to make it appear that paleo archaeology and human evolution fit your time frame. You ignore everything else.

Where are the spaceships and the alien housing? We have found many fossils of human evolution going back millions of years. Where are the left overs from your aliens that were here 400,000 years ago?

 

[Birdjaguar]

The Story of Oannes:

At first they led a somewhat wretched existence and lived without rule after the manner of beasts. But, in the first year appeared an animal endowed with human reason, named Oannes, who rose from out of the Erythian Sea, at the point where it borders Babylonia. He had the whole body of a fish, but above his fish's head he had another head which was that of a man, and human feet emerged from beneath his fish's tail. He had a human voice, and an image of him is preserved unto this day. He passed the day in the midst of men without taking food; he taught them the use of letters, sciences and arts of all kinds. He taught them to construct cities, to found temples, to compile laws, and explained to them the principles of geometrical knowledge. He made them distinguish the seeds of the earth, and showed them how to collect the fruits; in short he instructed them in everything which could tend to soften human manners and humanize their laws. From that time nothing material has been added by way of improvement to his instructions. And when the sun set, this being Oannes, retired again into the sea, for he was amphibious. After this there appeared other animals like Oannes.

You have accepted his kings list a correct, but his story of how humans became human has nothing to do with being slaves of the gods. Which storey is true? Or are neither true and both just myths?

 

[timtofly]

This should be a pretty good clue that the "world is only 6000 years old" idea is pure baloney.

There are archaeological sites in India that go back over twice that far, and sites in North America that are at least 14,000 years old.

The OT does not make date claims. The Bible gives list of genealogies, and human ages. Do we figure out the age of the earth by adding up birth and death records? I guess some people have more faith in guess work, than in what humans actually attempted to write down. We cannot even agree on ancient writings.

We think that catastrophic occurances never happen, because when they do, they mess with the ability to reliably date what has happened. The earth cannot be older, except by one day, each and every day that passes. It can be younger than what the dating methods say, because the heated magna resets the clock any time it comes into contact with the material on the surface. That is not baloney, or inconsistent with the solar system being set in place with an already existing age. If you are going to place life into a closed system, and do not want to wait billions of years, the process will either have to go very quickly, or given a pre-existing age that never happened. If one recognized the point the Flood was an actual event, it would change the time frame of every formation found on earth, including the highest mountains and the deepest rifts. The Hebrews had a an interesting thought process that mountains and valleys could be instantly leveled. That is not normal science fiction nor even fictional terriforming. Nor is it reasonable to always see the earth as being rearranged at any given moment without it happening in recent memory. Sure we come up with catastrophic scenarios, and most relating to humans causing climate change. And we know now that the mantle changes. Are you saying without any prior reference humans could conceive scenarios via original thought? Even fictional gods had to have some prior reference point, and not some original concept. Humans are capable of relating what they experience to imaginary ideology, but to create entirely new concepts, seems a huge leap in imagination. Nor am I claiming special pleading so it will fit the narrative. It is already there in the narrative itself.

@ Berzerker

The Bible does not state Adam was inferior, that is deductive reasoning that uses examples outside of the Bible. Perhaps that is why they were left out of the biblical account so it would not be confusing for future generations.

The first chapter is a general account of a general event. The second chapter was a more specific account of the same event, but something that could have happened eons after the first event. Trying to fit too much into one day is belabouring too many unknowns leading to unnecessary specultions.

The biggest reason why it happened was not even seemingly appearant to those whom were given the account. We have one half of the story given almost 2000 years before the second half, and neither group seemingly grasped the importance during the actual revelation. The only reason it seems why God singled Adam out was to change the course of history. That does not contradict the fact humans recognize Adam and Eve as being the first humans, because the genealogy in the record given, states the point in the list of descendants. It is even plausible that the current human genetic diversity is no more than 3 or 4 different samplings from the population before a destructive and major restriction in genetics in the last 10,000 years. If anything the Bible states there were only 2 types before the flood. The humans created on the 6th day, and Adam's descendants. But we have 3 females from a supposedly more diverse sampling from a time frame that no one knows how long it lasted, from before the Flood. Most have to remove the Flood because it messes up their ability to properly date anything with a degree of certainty. And the Hymaylains are probably an after Flood event. Taking into consideration the Genesis account points out the one land mass only started to divide and and have mountain development during the descendants of Cain. Adam was not inferior, because he was given the task to name all the animals, and he was not even called Adam until the task was complete, probably indicating that he had a say in his own name. Mankind or Adam because of the reddish clay humans were formed from on the 6th day. It also points out that Adam was downgraded because work became hard and a great struggle when previously it was relatively easy. It was not just the change in the way the earth had to be worked, but humanity as a whole had it easy as they were the gods of the planet. I would posit they never died either. That is why there are not any remains. The only bones we may find would be offspring between them and Adam's descendants/humans because Adam was changed physically as well as Eve, when they were forced out of Eden.

 

[Berzerker]

Yeah, right. Myth = real archaeology, real anthropology, real history, real geology, real paleontology?

Nope.

I can rattle off a ton of mythological tales, but they don't prove that any of it really happened, or that the characters really existed.

Myth - Eve's pain in child birth was multiplied
Science - the pain suffered by women in child birth is a recent phenomenon

Myth - our ancestors, the artificial ones (or mixed ones in Sumerian myth) fought with the ape men
Science - yeah, we did... How long ago? You want evidence of an oral tradition surviving a long time? You got it.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161221-the-real-reasons-why-childbirth-is-so-painful-and-dangerous

That study says farming was a factor by producing shorter people with smaller birth canals and bigger babies based on diet. In other words, they're saying farmers suffer more pain than hunter-gatherers.

The Bible does not state Adam was inferior, that is deductive reasoning that uses examples outside of the Bible. Perhaps that is why they were left out of the biblical account so it would not be confusing for future generations.

Adam was innocent, naked and unashamed, and lacking the tree of knowledge. He was not "us" yet... The clues point to an evolutionary jump in a hominid, Adam and Eve represent that jump - thats why Eve's pain in child birth was multiplied, she was giving birth to babies with larger heads (and shoulders?) and she no longer had the benefit of a larger birth canal enjoyed by her hominid ancestors.

The first chapter is a general account of a general event. The second chapter was a more specific account of the same event, but something that could have happened eons after the first event. Trying to fit too much into one day is belabouring too many unknowns leading to unnecessary specultions.

The 1st chapter was indeed a general reference to 'us' (possibly a few dozen or hundred people) but the 2nd account is different - the 6th day people were told to be fruitful and fill the land. But Adam was taken from that location to the Garden without any woman and he got kicked out at the first sign of babies being born in the Garden. Adam wasn't supposed to 'fill the land' if it meant God's Garden.

It is even plausible that the current human genetic diversity is no more than 3 or 4 different samplings from the population before a destructive and major restriction in genetics in the last 10,000 years.

I saw a study claiming genetic variation has greatly accelerated within the last few thousand years due to diet and population growth, it said we're more different from people 5000 years ago than they were from Neanderthals.

Taking into consideration the Genesis account points out the one land mass only started to divide and and have mountain development during the descendants of Cain.

Genesis doesn't say there was one landmass, it says the water was gathered together to reveal the dry land and the reference to a division of the land after the Flood need not be geological - and wasn't.

Adam was not inferior, because he was given the task to name all the animals, and he was not even called Adam until the task was complete, probably indicating that he had a say in his own name. Mankind or Adam because of the reddish clay humans were formed from on the 6th day. It also points out that Adam was downgraded because work became hard and a great struggle when previously it was relatively easy.

He named some animals, the ones in the Garden... Hard work is not an intellectual downgrade, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was an upgrade - a god-like power. Thats why God was worried, thats why he kicked us out before we could acquire even longer lives. It didn't take long for another visit from an angry God, we started building a tower to reach his heavenly abode. So he broke up the party and sent the offenders to distant lands to confuse their language.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The OT does not make date claims. The Bible gives list of genealogies, and human ages. Do we figure out the age of the earth by adding up birth and death records? I guess some people have more faith in guess work, than in what humans actually attempted to write down. We cannot even agree on ancient writings.

I didn't say the OT makes date claims. People who read it, added up the begats, deaths, and given ages of the characters mentioned are the ones who claim everything was created in 4004 BC. You're a Civ player (or were; your avatar is from the Lalande scenario of Civ II: Test of Time); why do you think the game starts in 4000 BC? It could have started at any point, but it starts then, even though there's a slew of evidence that modern humans were around and had thriving civilizations millennia before that.

Real scientists don't estimate the age of the Earth by adding up birth and death records of people. That's absurd, and something that non-scientists do.

We think that catastrophic occurances never happen, because when they do, they mess with the ability to reliably date what has happened. The earth cannot be older, except by one day, each and every day that passes. It can be younger than what the dating methods say, because the heated magna resets the clock any time it comes into contact with the material on the surface. That is not baloney, or inconsistent with the solar system being set in place with an already existing age.

You really don't understand how solar systems are formed, do you? They don't just pop into existence with already-formed planets.

If you are going to place life into a closed system, and do not want to wait billions of years, the process will either have to go very quickly, or given a pre-existing age that never happened. If one recognized the point the Flood was an actual event, it would change the time frame of every formation found on earth, including the highest mountains and the deepest rifts.

So you're claiming that all rocks are now young?

Ever hear of the Canadian Shield? There are surface rocks there that have been dated to billions of years ago.

It was not just the change in the way the earth had to be worked, but humanity as a whole had it easy as they were the gods of the planet. I would posit they never died either. That is why there are not any remains.

So now you're claiming that there are immortals running around, presumably thousands of years old?

"Highlander" was just a movie and TV series. It's just a story. It's not real.

Myth - Eve's pain in child birth was multiplied
Science - the pain suffered by women in child birth is a recent phenomenon

Myth - our ancestors, the artificial ones (or mixed ones in Sumerian myth) fought with the ape men
Science - yeah, we did... How long ago? You want evidence of an oral tradition surviving a long time? You got it.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161221-the-real-reasons-why-childbirth-is-so-painful-and-dangerous

That study says farming was a factor by producing shorter people with smaller birth canals and bigger babies based on diet. In other words, they're saying farmers suffer more pain than hunter-gatherers.

Interesting article. It says absolutely zip, zero, NOTHING about Eve, the Sumerians, the Babylonians, kings, aliens or any of the other stuff you've been posting incessantly. I don't see one syllable in there about any oral traditions.

 

[Berzerker]

The Story of Oannes:

You have accepted his kings list a correct, but his story of how humans became human has nothing to do with being slaves of the gods. Which storey is true? Or are neither true and both just myths?

The story you quoted is about the fish-god culture bearer, not our purpose for being created. I already quoted the story explaining how the gods rebelled against the forced labor and created us to do the work instead. Why are you talking about different myths?

The Berossus list has two additional kings and the lengths of the reigns for the same kings do not match. For example, on list 1 Alalgar reigned for 36,000 years and on list 2 it was only 10,800. There are others.

So which is to be believed? What makes one list more believable than the others? How does one detect greater reliability in an inscribed clay tablet? What hard evidence can you present that points to the truth that those kings actually lived 36,000 years.

You've cited the difficulty in maintaining an oral tradition for hundreds of years, why do you expect traditions going back much further to be identical in every detail? I accept Berossus' list because the 10 monarchs match up with the biblical patriarchs and the 120 years (sars) before the Flood, so apparently the Hebrew compilers had access to the knowledge too. And as Joseph Campbell noted with surprise, 432,000 shows up in Angkor Wat's architecture, the Norse myth of Ragnarok, and the Vedas of India.

The Bible says that the entire earth was completely covered with water. Do you believe that the Himalayas were covered in water?

Of course not, but I believe a flood left a lasting impression on mankind and 13-14 kya seems to be when it happened.

Why are the Sumerian myths more believable than the Hindu ones? Or the Chinese or Tibetan ones?

Who said they are?

The whole problem is that all of your assumptions that are supporting what you propose are just made up. You begin with the assumption that aliens landed on earth and created people 400,000 years ago (no evidence), then you an inconsistent mythological kings list, claiming it is true (no evidence) to support the first claim. And then you top it off by trying to make it appear that paleo archaeology and human evolution fit your time frame. You ignore everything else.

What did I ignore? I posted the story of mankind's creation to work for the gods and instead of discussing it, you wandered off looking for myths about other events.

Where are the spaceships and the alien housing? We have found many fossils of human evolution going back millions of years. Where are the left overs from your aliens that were here 400,000 years ago?

You want a 400,000 year old house? I imagine they didn't leave their spaceships lying around much, but its the fossils that reveal their intervention in our evolution.

 

[timtofly]

Adam was innocent, naked and unashamed, and lacking the tree of knowledge. He was not "us" yet... The clues point to an evolutionary jump in a hominid, Adam and Eve represent that jump - thats why Eve's pain in child birth was multiplied, she was giving birth to babies with larger heads (and shoulders?) and she no longer had the benefit of a larger birth canal enjoyed by her hominid ancestors.

Perhaps that is plausible, but that is not how it is written. When we go from general to specific, we do not change the whole narrative. The point about taking one from among the many was just that. Adam was the same as the others, and they all were innocent, naked, and shameless. The change to Eve was from great to worse does not have to do with just anatomy. I do agree though that everything was perfect for those created on the sixth day, and the descendants of Adam now had a body subject to decay, and all the diseases associated with this decaying body. Because even the Sumerians told about the difference between the artificial, 6th day created beings, and current humans. The 6th day beings had perfectly genetic offspring, until they mated with the decaying descendants of Adam.

The 1st chapter was indeed a general reference to 'us' (possibly a few dozen or hundred people) but the 2nd account is different - the 6th day people were told to be fruitful and fill the land. But Adam was taken from that location to the Garden without any woman and he got kicked out at the first sign of babies being born in the Garden. Adam wasn't supposed to 'fill the land' if it meant God's Garden.

Adam was fired because that was the result of eating the fruit from the tree that God said not to. Besides being forbidden, it was the door to freedom of will, and a choice between perfect obedience, and doing one's own choices in life. We do not know how long or how many offspring Adam had with Eve while they lived in Eden.

I saw a study claiming genetic variation has greatly accelerated within the last few thousand years due to diet and population growth, it said we're more different from people 5000 years ago than they were from Neanderthals.

Genesis doesn't say there was one landmass, it says the water was gathered together to reveal the dry land and the reference to a division of the land after the Flood need not be geological - and wasn't.

It says the water was in one place. That one place was surrounding the land. The only other explanation is that there was only land and one Sea. However, it said Seas meaning if you traveled far enough in any direction you would find a Sea, but it was always a large body of water, just like it is now, but we still divide it up into different named oceans.

He named some animals, the ones in the Garden... Hard work is not an intellectual downgrade, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was an upgrade - a god-like power. Thats why God was worried, thats why he kicked us out before we could acquire even longer lives. It didn't take long for another visit from an angry God, we started building a tower to reach his heavenly abode. So he broke up the party and sent the offenders to distant lands to confuse their language.

If God sent animals to Adam to name, that does not seem just the ones Adam kept in the Garden, nor does it mean they all stayed in the Garden after they were named. The only animal ever mentioned hanging around was a serpent that lost it's legs and could communicate reasonably well. Normally a garden still can have snakes hanging out, but gardens normally mean vegetation, not livestock. Unless we incorporate the livestock tended by Able, who seemed to deviate from the family business of gardening.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil just introduced free will and the ability for humankind to think for themselves. It was not an upgrade or a downgrade. The downgrade happened as a result of disobeying. It was the choice that started all choices to forgo obedience to God. Even Satan has to get permission from God for every choice Satan makes.

The rest of the 6th day created beings were not subject to obedience outside of being fruitful and multiplying on earth, but we do not have much to go by, other than the ancient gods are portrayed as being subjected to the same human ethics, that come with living in human society. Especially one where bad things can now happen. It was stated that their imaginations were only evil continually by the time Noah was born.

I didn't say the OT makes date claims. People who read it, added up the begats, deaths, and given ages of the characters mentioned are the ones who claim everything was created in 4004 BC. You're a Civ player (or were; your avatar is from the Lalande scenario of Civ II: Test of Time); why do you think the game starts in 4000 BC? It could have started at any point, but it starts then, even though there's a slew of evidence that modern humans were around and had thriving civilizations millennia before that.

Real scientists don't estimate the age of the Earth by adding up birth and death records of people. That's absurd, and something that non-scientists do.


You really don't understand how solar systems are formed, do you? They don't just pop into existence with already-formed planets.

So you're claiming that all rocks are now young?

Ever hear of the Canadian Shield? There are surface rocks there that have been dated to billions of years ago.



So now you're claiming that there are immortals running around, presumably thousands of years old?

"Highlander" was just a movie and TV series. It's just a story. It's not real.


Interesting article. It says absolutely zip, zero, NOTHING about Eve, the Sumerians, the Babylonians, kings, aliens or any of the other stuff you've been posting incessantly. I don't see one syllable in there about any oral traditions.

Technically every rock formation on earth is the same age. For the most part everything has been recycled and re-exposed to that which can give it some form of radiometric dating. The point being nothing allegedly has changed any given formation since it's initial exposure to such ability to have a date. Technically scientist are still using birth and death records of suitable material instead of records of human birth and death. Accept there are a lot more variables and unknowns to radiometric dating than there are humans writing down how long a human lived and when they had offspring.

I never claimed to give any dates. The reason given for the earth being 4+ billion years old is because nothing has been found older than that, and it corresponds fairly well with the age of the rest of the system. All I said was that the system could have been set in motion at a pre-determined age, and did not have to start out from a newly formed star. This really has nothing to do with how all stars are formed or not, nor the speed in which they do.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You want a 400,000 year old house? I imagine they didn't leave their spaceships lying around much, but its the fossils that reveal their intervention in our evolution.

Oh, cool. Show us the peer-reviewed papers in which reputable anthropologists and paleontologists state they have found fossils that are ironclad evidence that aliens intervened in our evolution. What a shame Carl Sagan didn't live long enough to see it! His documentary series Cosmos could have entirely eliminated the whole portion where he discusses the requirement for extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims.

I imagine they didn't leave their spaceships lying around much

At least you're being somewhat honest in admitting this is all in your imagination.

I suppose you believe the tale of Barney and Betty Hill, too, and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" was a documentary instead of an entertaining movie starring Richard Dreyfuss.

All I said was that the system could have been set in motion at a pre-determined age, and did not have to start out from a newly formed star. This really has nothing to do with how all stars are formed or not, nor the speed in which they do.

Of course it has to do with how stars form, and how planets form, as well. It's ridiculous to suggest that the solar system could have "been set in motion at a pre-determined age." That's not how it works. With the exception of the first generation of stars, which formed from hydrogen and helium, the rest of them are formed from the recycled remnants of older stars that went supernova. There's a definite beginning and a definite ending. They don't just suddenly pop into existence, already several billion years old. They actually have to experience that time, with all the changes that go along with it.

You are demonstrating beyond all doubt that you simply do not understand how stars form, or how any subsequent planets they may have are formed (not all stars have planets, and not all stars will live long enough to produce mature planets capable of harboring organic life as we understand it).

I think Isaac Asimov might have written a children's book explaining how stars and solar systems form; maybe I'll look it up and give you a link. Mind you, I didn't need a children's book to understand this stuff, even though I was only 12 when I started studying it.

 

[Berzerker]

Oh, cool. Show us the peer-reviewed papers in which reputable anthropologists and paleontologists state they have found fossils that are ironclad evidence that aliens intervened in our evolution.

Brain size increased, birth canal decreased - Eve suffers greater pain. Ironclad...

At least you're being somewhat honest in admitting this is all in your imagination.

I suppose you believe the tale of Barney and Betty Hill, too, and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" was a documentary instead of an entertaining movie starring Richard Dreyfuss.

I didn't write these myths

have a nice day

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Brain size increased, birth canal decreased - Eve suffers greater pain. Ironclad...

How is it that you constantly miss the point? SHOW ME THE PROOF OF THE ALIENS!

You can't, because there isn't any, or at least nothing anyone has found.

You keep making extraordinary claims, for which you offer not one shred of ordinary evidence, never mind anything remotely approaching extraordinary.

 

[timtofly]

Of course it has to do with how stars form, and how planets form, as well. It's ridiculous to suggest that the solar system could have "been set in motion at a pre-determined age." That's not how it works. With the exception of the first generation of stars, which formed from hydrogen and helium, the rest of them are formed from the recycled remnants of older stars that went supernova. There's a definite beginning and a definite ending. They don't just suddenly pop into existence, already several billion years old. They actually have to experience that time, with all the changes that go along with....

I guess that depends on what your pop is.... perhaps one day you will receive your extraordinary evidence. Not everything that is artificial has to evolve. We do not keep track of an automobile evolving in our driveway from organic substances floating by over thousands of years. That would not be very efficient of us. Not sure why God has to wait for a solar system to evolve over billions of years. Can you prove that time does not start and end? I am fairly sure we do not even know the actual size of the universe, and besides that we think it is only 14 billion years old. We really have no clue on the length of it's existence. Technically it cannot be younger, by your acceptance, unless it is. It could be a part of an infinite process, of which it is as insignificant as a speck of dust on one of your cats.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Just to go back to the OP. There's still no paradox, so none of this is needed to explain anything.

 

[Berzerker]

How is it that you constantly miss the point? SHOW ME THE PROOF OF THE ALIENS!

They're the ones responsible for the change in Eve, they're the ones who told her she'd suffer greater pain - and she did. You dont think thats relevant, oh well...

Not sure why God has to wait for a solar system to evolve over billions of years.

According to Genesis God arrived after Tehom, the dark, water covered world in Gen 1:2... I know God appears in Gen 1:1, but the verse merely announces his creation of Heaven and Earth and they dont appear in the story until the 2nd and 3rd days.

Just to go back to the OP. There's still no paradox, so none of this is needed to explain anything.

Over 200,000 years to leave Africa and less than half that time to reach the Moon. Something changed and I dont think it was population density or climate driving people to the ends of the world.

 

[Synobun]

Moderator Action: Please stop arguing in bad faith with other members. You already used this thread as a bait-and-switch (which was let go) and now you are intentionally refusing to provide evidence for your claims and structuring your statements as though the problem is with everyone else. This is entering trolling territory.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I guess that depends on what your pop is.... perhaps one day you will receive your extraordinary evidence. Not everything that is artificial has to evolve. We do not keep track of an automobile evolving in our driveway from organic substances floating by over thousands of years. That would not be very efficient of us. Not sure why God has to wait for a solar system to evolve over billions of years. Can you prove that time does not start and end? I am fairly sure we do not even know the actual size of the universe, and besides that we think it is only 14 billion years old. We really have no clue on the length of it's existence. Technically it cannot be younger, by your acceptance, unless it is. It could be a part of an infinite process, of which it is as insignificant as a speck of dust on one of your cats.

Do you have any clue at all how mind-numbingly INCORRECT this is? You're seriously claiming that the solar system is "artificial"???




Do you ever look up at night and see the other planets and think, "Oh, there's Venus, Jupiter's over there - isn't it cool that an Italian guy named Galileo Galilei discovered Jupiter's four largest moons back in the Renaissance, over 400 years ago and we've sent probes there that discovered all kinds of fascinating things, and hey, look at Mars - we could actually go there if enough money and researchers' time and resources could be diverted away from more useless wars"... or do you just keep sitting in closed rooms, making up whatever ludicrous nonsense pops onto your computer screen to try to convince me that all the drivel posted over the years actually means something?

I'm betting it's the latter.

They're the ones responsible for the change in Eve, they're the ones who told her she'd suffer greater pain - and she did. You dont think thats relevant, oh well...

You should be a politician. You keep repeating the same stuff over and over, with absolutely not a shred of awareness that you're really not answering the question that was asked. Or maybe you think that if you repeat the same talking point over and over, people are eventually going to just throw up their hands and say, "Okay, after the 157th time of hearing this, I have seen the light, Berzerker was correct all along, and we must immediately begin building a monument to Sitchin!"

Not gonna happen. I asked for proof and you just keep jumping up and down and repeating, "Because I said so! That's your proof!"

 

[timtofly]

Do you have any clue at all how mind-numbingly INCORRECT this is? You're seriously claiming that the solar system is "artificial"???




Do you ever look up at night and see the other planets and think, "Oh, there's Venus, Jupiter's over there - isn't it cool that an Italian guy named Galileo Galilei discovered Jupiter's four largest moons back in the Renaissance, over 400 years ago and we've sent probes there that discovered all kinds of fascinating things, and hey, look at Mars - we could actually go there if enough money and researchers' time and resources could be diverted away from more useless wars"... or do you just keep sitting in closed rooms, making up whatever ludicrous nonsense pops onto your computer screen to try to convince me that all the drivel posted over the years actually means something?

I'm betting it's the latter.

Actually I am currently at a doctor for a follow up visit for my son an hour away from my house, and this morning I was at the Dentist for my bi-annual cleaning.

What is wrong with artificial?

Especially if it can look so real and authentic. I am not sure why claiming we are in a closed system is any less an extraordinary claim, than we exist by some long drawn out process that just happened to coincidentally work out just right.

 

[Berzerker]

I've provided the evidence... I posted links showing the increased pain women suffer in child birth is a recent phenomenon. I showed how Genesis describes this event as a curse upon Eve as a result of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (babies with bigger brains exiting a narrowed birth canal - and that farming may worsen the pain), and I showed via Berossus' Kings list and the biblical 120 pre-flood years that both happened within human 'history'. The myth is the evidence... Somebody knew Eve would suffer more pain and that information found its way into the Bible and was attributed to God. You dont agree thats evidence of alien intervention, fine...

 

[Ryika]

I hereby offer an alternative theory that does not require gods and aliens to be part of the story:

At some point in history, some men realized that childbirth is pretty painful. They already believed in a God, so of course it couldn't always have been like that, because why would God make them suffer needlessly? So clearly, there was a point in the past where childbirth was less painful, and women did something that prompted their almighty and fair God to punish them. This was accepted quickly, because men at that time had low opinions of women, and high opinions of their God, and thus, the myth was born.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Actually I am currently at a doctor for a follow up visit for my son an hour away from my house, and this morning I was at the Dentist for my bi-annual cleaning.

How is this relevant to anything I said?

What is wrong with artificial?

Especially if it can look so real and authentic. I am not sure why claiming we are in a closed system is any less an extraordinary claim, than we exist by some long drawn out process that just happened to coincidentally work out just right.

What's wrong with it is that you're claiming that the solar system isn't real, that some supernatural entity created it already 3 billion years old, and you seem utterly incapable of understanding why that's just nonsense. There's not a shred of evidence to support this, whereas there are plenty of fossils, archaeological sites, and the probes have been sending back information about the other planets and moons for decades.

You are also demonstrating that you don't understand that evolution and nature itself doesn't give a damn if humans exist or not. Sure, it worked out just right for us, because we're here and able to talk about it. It didn't work out all that well for the species that could have been in our place - able to to contemplate their own existence and understand how the universe began.

I've provided the evidence... I posted links showing the increased pain women suffer in child birth is a recent phenomenon. I showed how Genesis describes this event as a curse upon Eve as a result of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (babies with bigger brains exiting a narrowed birth canal - and that farming may worsen the pain), and I showed via Berossus' Kings list and the biblical 120 pre-flood years that both happened within human 'history'. The myth is the evidence... Somebody knew Eve would suffer more pain and that information found its way into the Bible and was attributed to God. You dont agree thats evidence of alien intervention, fine...

Where are the alien artifacts? That means tangible items of off-world manufacture. Where are they? You're not offering anything at all that proves aliens were involved with these myths, or that anything even slightly supernatural had to do with changes in women's reproductive capabilities.