Genesis and Other Creation Myths

[Berzerker]

You're trotting out your "you're just assuming" nonsense to someone who has studied astronomy for over 45 years. While lenses were known prior to the year 1600, telescopes were not. The year given for the telescope is 1608, and by 1610, Galileo had used a telescope to look at the planets. As mentioned, he discovered the four largest moons of Jupiter (Callisto, Ganymede, Europa, and Io - all of which were unseen and unknown prior to that time), he saw that the Moon has mountains, he saw that Venus has phases like the Moon has, and he also saw that the Sun itself isn't perfect - it has sunspots (looking at the Sun through a telescope is what led to Galileo's eventual blindness).

I'm not obliged to accept your assumptions as fact. If lenses were around, dont you suppose there's a chance somebody had 2 and held them up to look thru both and discovered magnification? Your "fact" denies that possibility.

WHAT PART OF "URANUS WAS DISCOVERED IN 1781" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

You mean it's not difficult after the fact. So if there are people with such wonderful vision that they can see Uranus with the naked eye, let's have some sources. Surely these people would have an article or two about this remarkable vision.

http://www.space.com/22983-see-planet-uranus-night-sky.html

that... it wont take you 45 years

The Oort Cloud was theorized, not inventd. Are you suggesting long-term comets are imaginary? I've seen Hale-Bopp and Hyakutake with my own eyes. I didn't imagine them. Where do you think long-term comets spend most of their time? Do you also doubt the existence of the Kuiper Belt? (hint: Pluto is now considered a Kuiper Belt Object, as are the other dwarf planets such as Sedna, Quaoar, and others)

I said the cloud was invented to explain long term comets, I dont know how that inspired you to run off after imaginary comets and the Kuiper Belt. I believe future analyses of these comets and the Kuiper Belt will lead us to another planet beyond Pluto. But I do not believe long term comets formed in some distant all-encompassing cloud of (m)billions of comets reaching half way to the next star system.

Do you understand that Earth didn't always have water? Do you understand where igneous rocks come from? Do you understand that some day Earth will no longer have water?

Do you have evidence the Earth didn't have water? Igneous rock can form in water, but I dont know the fate of the Earth. There's a bunch of water in the crust and mantle so I imagine it'll take death by red giant to cook it out slowly enough to disappear before the planet. Maybe thats the ultimate lake of fire...

Okay, this is just repeating the same crap that's in those videos EltonJ posted earlier in the Ask an Atlanteologist thread. I don't need to read your "story" - I already wasted over 5 hours of my life on those dumb videos that repeat the same garbage that has not a single shred of credibility as anything scientific.

I might be confusing you with someone else, but I thought you were an anthropologist of sorts, someone already knowledgeable about the subject of mythology. But you have never read the Enuma Elish? I posted the relevant section and provided a link, you could have read it already in less than a minute. Reading the arguments you're debating is customary, no?

You seem awfully fond of the number 12, yet you forget about the 13th zodiac sign: Ophiuchus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiuchus_(astrology)

The ancient peoples who gave us the Zodiac forgot too. How do you attribute 20th century attempted meddling with the Zodiac to ancient peoples? But 13 is of interest nonetheless, while the Toltec and Inca described the heavens as layered (13) they thought of their creator as occupying 2 levels. The Inca depicted their creator as an ellipse reflecting this duality (OP link).

Of course it's a bit inconvenient to have a prime number instead of one that's so convenient for making arbitrary divisions into groups of 2, 3, 4, and 6. And astrology hasn't caught up to what we now know about precession. Your precious astrology is like a watch that hasn't been set right for millennia.

My precious astrology? I didn't bring up astrology, somebody else did. I think it was Arakhor who wanted to know how astrologers could miss out on unseen planets. I answered him and now you're trying to hang astrology on me?

And thus your credibility has just been completely shot. You have just blithely dismissed the apparatus for making the observations (a fundamental part of the scientific method).

If you want to be taken seriously, you can't just dismiss these things as unimportant.

Again: Nobody back then knew of either Neptune or Pluto. NOBODY.

Then why do they show up in creation stories and pictures with the other planets?

ORLY? The visible planets played an everyday role? Tell me how often you consider the visible planets in your daily life (aside from reading about mythology and typing all the nonsense you've typed in this thread).

People back then were much more in tune with and dependent on their surroundings, the sky was watched closely for signs. Astrology was more important to them. Even Jesus was the lamb and the fish, Aries was giving way to Pisces...

So you're claiming that it would be perfectly normal for ancient Babylonians to know the names of the discoverers of Uranus and Neptune?

Where did I say that?

No. Literacy has been around for millennia. The telescope has only been around since ~1608. These are not assumptions. They are FACTS, borne out by primary source historical writings and archaeological evidence.

You said nobody had a telescope before 1600, that is not a fact, its your assumption. Dont get mad at me for pointing that out if you're gonna argue creation myths are false because you decided nobody had a telescope. No telescope would tell them the world was covered by water before the creation of the dry land and life, the Bible would though

 

[Arakhor]

I'm not obliged to accept your assumptions as fact. If lenses were around, dont you suppose there's a chance somebody had 2 and held them up to look thru both and discovered magnification? Your "fact" denies that possibility.

There's also a "chance" that you are actually an uplifted Labrador who functions as well as a human, but it's a ridiculous thing to bring up in a discussion allegedly about observable evidence. Using that same logic, you can say that it's possible that Atlantis existed, but that we lost all records when it mysteriously sank beneath the waves, but that's not even remotely scientific to suggest such a thing.

What about all this guff about Earth being in the seventh orbit and therefore there are seven days of the week? How can Earth being the seventh orbit of anything, backwards or forwards, if there are allegedly 12 objects in this solar system? You also still haven't explained why Sitchen and his acolytes are the only people who do not associate Ishtar with Venus, as reputable Sumerian scholars do.

 

[Senethro]

Basically, by shuffling Pluto, the Moon or others in and out of the category of Planet, you could make nearly any series of numbers/symbols to be representative of the solar system.

So really, is there any evidence that these cultures had an understanding of these objects as planets as they understood them, rather than Berserker wilfully misinterpreting someones tax return?

 

[Berzerker]

There's also a "chance" that you are actually an uplifted Labrador who functions as well as a human, but it's a ridiculous thing to bring up in a discussion allegedly about observable evidence. Using that same logic, you can say that it's possible that Atlantis existed, but that we lost all records when it mysteriously sank beneath the waves, but that's not even remotely scientific to suggest such a thing.

We didn't lose all the records, they appear in the ancient beliefs and depictions of the heavens

What about all this guff about Earth being in the seventh orbit and therefore there are seven days of the week?

Somebody else brought up the days of the week, not me... The symbol for Earth was 7 dots or a 7 pointed star and was associated with Enlil

How can Earth being the seventh orbit of anything, backwards or forwards, if there are allegedly 12 objects in this solar system?

The Earth is the 3rd planet from the Sun and 7th from the outside beginning with Pluto

You also still haven't explained why Sitchen and his acolytes are the only people who do not associate Ishtar with Venus, as reputable Sumerian scholars do.

Yes I did, she was Inanna to the Sumerians and Ishtar to the Akkadians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishtar

But feel free to link to these Sumerian scholars who never heard of Inanna

Basically, by shuffling Pluto, the Moon or others in and out of the category of Planet, you could make nearly any series of numbers/symbols to be representative of the solar system.

Not 5, or 7...

 

[JollyRoger]

Link to video.

 

[warpus]

I didn't say there was evidence, I said claiming there were no telescopes is an assumption.

Unless you have some evidence on hand that shows the evidence of a telescope existing before the 1600s, it's more than just an assumption.

We have no reason to believe that telescopes existed before that time. That seems to be your own personal hope, or something like that.

 

[Berzerker]

What about all this guff about Earth being in the seventh orbit and therefore there are seven days of the week?

Actually you brought up the 7 days of the week and now you're trying to blame me for it

How can Earth being the seventh orbit of anything, backwards or forwards, if there are allegedly 12 objects in this solar system?

By being close to the center

Unless you have some evidence on hand that shows the evidence of a telescope existing before the 1600s, it's more than just an assumption.

We have no reason to believe that telescopes existed before that time. That seems to be your own personal hope, or something like that.

I dont care if telescopes existed, but claiming nobody ever had one is an assumption, not fact. I dont have to prove telescopes existed, I never said they did or didn't.

 

[Senethro]

Not 5, or 7...

Sure you can. For seven you can have the eight modern planets minus Earth due to Earth's special status as where the viewer is standing. For five, just do the same but scratch out Uranus and Neptune.

Any sequence of numbers can fit if you put a silly spin on the cultures understandings and definitions. The trick would be writings that show these cultures believed these sequences to represent planets as they understood them.

And then you've skipped over the most interesting bit as "irrelevant". The most interesting bit is HOW they know of their existence. Explanations could be
1) Aliens/Angels. (boring)
2) Electromagnetic detector. Could be an optical telescope, but probably not a radio array as advanced electronics would be well evidenced. As for optics, what materials might they have made the lenses from? Whatever. Look, just count this option out as it is the method that our current society does. We are extremely well versed in optics, electronics, radio waves etc. Its what we do and we try to do everything with them. We know what they look like and if they were there to find, we would recognise them.
3) Gravity detector. Yes, here we go! Its the other force you can measure at a distance but we do it badly. We might not recognise a highly functional non-electronic gravity detector made with bronze age materials.

Its obvious really. If these civilizations didn't do it our way, then they did it another way. Meaning there must be examples of forgotten technologies of unknown potency and application just waiting to be discovered by an archaeologist, if only they could recognise them.

 

[Ryika]

I dont care if telescopes existed, but claiming nobody ever had one is an assumption, not fact. I dont have to prove telescopes existed, I never said they did or didn't.

By that logic claiming that in 5th century nobody had a cell phone is also an assumption, not a fact.

Assumptions naturally come with a probability to be true, the probability of an assumption that claims that a technology did not exist before the time the technology is mentioned in the records of that time usually has a very, very high probability of being correct, which is why this base assumption is usually considered to be a fact.

 

[warpus]

I dont care if telescopes existed, but claiming nobody ever had one is an assumption, not fact. I dont have to prove telescopes existed, I never said they did or didn't.

It's a very solid assumption from what I understand.

"Berzerker is not an ostrich" is an assumption too, but an equally solid one.

Haven't you been saying that telescopes existed before the 1600s? Isn't that what you're saying in this thread? If not, what are you saying about them, then? Maybe I misread.

 

[Berzerker]

By that logic claiming that in 5th century nobody had a cell phone is also an assumption, not a fact.

Assumptions naturally come with a probability to be true, the probability of an assumption that claims that a technology did not exist before the time the technology is mentioned in the records of that time usually has a very, very high probability of being correct, which is why this base assumption is usually considered to be a fact.

Which has a higher probability of being fact, nobody in the 5th century had a cell phone or nobody had a telescope? A high probability of truth is not fact... You can "usually consider" your assumptions to be facts but I'm not obliged to agree.

It's a very solid assumption from what I understand.

Is it a fact?

Haven't you been saying that telescopes existed before the 1600s? Isn't that what you're saying in this thread? If not, what are you saying about them, then? Maybe I misread.

You misread, join the crowd. Val said its a fact nobody had telescopes prior to the 1600s and I said that was an assumption. You called it a solid assumption, thats fine with me. But I wouldn't call it a fact, that requires proof, not probability.

 

[Ryika]

Which has a higher probability of being fact, nobody in the 5th century had a cell phone or nobody had a telescope? A high probability of truth is not fact... You can "usually consider" your assumptions to be facts but I'm not obliged to agree.

I'd say the probability for both is very low. You do of course not have to agree, but it does not strengthen your argument if you just decline to agree on something that most people would agree with without any evidence to support your position. It just makes you look silly and like a person who has thrown out rational thought to believe in a fairy tale.

 

[warpus]

You misread, join the crowd. Val said its a fact nobody had telescopes prior to the 1600s and I said that was an assumption. You called it a solid assumption, thats fine with me. But I wouldn't call it a fact, that requires proof, not probability.

It's a lot more than just an assumption. As far as we know we have no evidence of anyone figuring out how to do this until the 1600s.

There is no reason to assume anyone would have such a device before the 1600s. There's no evidence that anyone did, and all signs point to such a scenario.

Why would we think otherwise, then?

Just because something isn't fully 100% proven with facts doesn't mean that you can then say that "well it could have happened in a different way, then, in fact - this very specific case that I just made up".

 

[brennan]

I'm not obliged to accept your assumptions as fact. If lenses were around, dont you suppose there's a chance somebody had 2 and held them up to look thru both and discovered magnification?

This would literally have been impossible. Magnification was already known and was the usual purpose of various lenses for a couple of thousand years.

The purpose of the second lens is to properly focus the magnified light from the first lens. Not simply to magnify and anyone trying this before the 17 th century or thereabouts likely wouldn't have seen a thing because the technology for making the glass and shaping lenses was poor before this time. Serious scientific work on optics had to wait until the era of Newton, Snellius etc.

Almost as soon as the telescope arrangement was discovered it, inevitably, found a military use. If anyone had discovered it earlier the same thing would have happened.

Altogether there's a lot to say against the notion that someone may have invented the telescope before 1608.

 

[Berzerker]

I'd say the probability for both is very low. You do of course not have to agree, but it does not strengthen your argument if you just decline to agree on something that most people would agree with without any evidence to support your position. It just makes you look silly and like a person who has thrown out rational thought to believe in a fairy tale.

You think a cell phone is about as complicated as looking thru 2 pieces of glass and its silly and irrational to disagree with you?

It's a lot more than just an assumption. As far as we know we have no evidence of anyone figuring out how to do this until the 1600s.

Is it fact?

There is no reason to assume anyone would have such a device before the 1600s. There's no evidence that anyone did, and all signs point to such a scenario.

Then why make the assumption? I dont mind if people think the recent invention of the telescope precludes more ancient peoples from knowing about the outer planets, but calling it a fact and ignoring the evidence they gave us showing their knowledge of those outer planets requires a closed mind.

Just because something isn't fully 100% proven with facts doesn't mean that you can then say that "well it could have happened in a different way, then, in fact - this very specific case that I just made up".

Until something is fully 100% proven it aint a fact

This would literally have been impossible. Magnification was already known and was the usual purpose of various lenses for a couple of thousand years.

The purpose of the second lens is to properly focus the magnified light from the first lens. Not simply to magnify and anyone trying this before the 17 th century or thereabouts likely wouldn't have seen a thing because the technology for making the glass and shaping lenses was poor before this time. Serious scientific work on optics had to wait until the era of Newton, Snellius etc.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/505216?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf053/sf053a02.htm

Almost as soon as the telescope arrangement was discovered it, inevitably, found a military use. If anyone had discovered it earlier the same thing would have happened.

Sometimes knowledge is lost

Altogether there's a lot to say against the notion that someone may have invented the telescope before 1608.

Would you call it a fact?

 

[Arakhor]

The 7 dots appear in the Incan creation too and they show up on more than one glyph. They represent Enlil and his planet - the Earth. Venus was represented by an 8 pointed "star" and Mars by a 6 pointed star. Thats their order from the outside looking in based on the Enuma Elish. Tiamat was the 6th planet and it was replaced by a sunlit 7th planet - the Earth. Genesis says Heaven and Earth were made in 6 days and a 7th day represented God's "rest" - the Earth's new orbit.

Well, if we're quoting Wikipedia now, Jupiter was associated with Marduk, Venus with Ishtar, Saturn with Ninurta (Ninib), Mercury with Nabu (Nebo), Mars with Nergal, the Moon with Sin and the Sun with Shamash, with their movements representing the activity of the gods listed. Strangely, the other planets aren't mentioned at all, let alone the farcical idea that a single trans-Neptunian object, unique amongst all the occupants of the Kuiper Belt, was chosen as one of the gods' vessels (Pluto, allegedly).

Basically, every single objection posted in this thread so far is either irrelevant, merely an assumption or has instead been ignored or deliberately misinterpreted, with all the overwhelming circumstantial evidence to the contrary being simply dismissed.

 

[Ryika]

You think a cell phone is about as complicated as looking thru 2 pieces of glass and its silly and irrational to disagree with you?

"Looking thru 2 pieces of glass" is a gross oversimplification of how telescopes work, but that is not important. The invention of the thing is not the issue, it being used for this very specific thing but never being mentioned or used in any other fields is.

 

[warpus]

I dont mind if people think the recent invention of the telescope precludes more ancient peoples from knowing about the outer planets, but calling it a fact and ignoring the evidence they gave us showing their knowledge of those outer planets requires a closed mind.

I asked for evidence and you said it doesn't exist. Now it does?

If this evidence is good enough then "telescopes were invented in the 1600s" would no longer be taught as fact. We'd be teaching our kids something else, instead. Wikipedia would say something else, instead. Other encyclopedias, too.

But nope, everywhere you look you see "telescopes were invented in the 1600s" - leading me to believe that such evidence doesn't exist.

As for what a "fact" is, you can't have a fact when your sentence is saying something negative.

In science, a fact is a repeatable careful observation or measurement (by experimentation or other means), also called empirical evidence

So you could never have a scientific fact that's equivalent to: "X never existed before Y". I don't think, anyway.

 

[brennan]

Would you call it a fact?

You appear to want to assert that a whole mess of ludicrous notions should be considered. By your standards, yes it's a fact.

 

[Berzerker]

Well, if we're quoting Wikipedia now, Jupiter was associated with Marduk, Venus with Ishtar, Saturn with Ninurta (Ninib), Mercury with Nabu (Nebo), Mars with Nergal, the Moon with Sin and the Sun with Shamash, with their movements representing the activity of the gods listed. Strangely, the other planets aren't mentioned at all, let alone the farcical idea that a single trans-Neptunian object, unique amongst all the occupants of the Kuiper Belt, was chosen as one of the gods' vessels (Pluto, allegedly).

http://www.ancient.eu/Inanna/

They say the same thing wiki did, Inanna is the Sumerian Venus, Ishtar is the Akkadian Venus.

Where is your link? You said Sumerian scholars claim Ishtar was the Sumerian Venus. Now you're "quoting" an unlinked wiki page with her Akkadian name. Marduk wasn't the Sumerian creator god either.

As for the rest of that, in the creation myth Kishar is Jupiter, Marduk is the creator brought forth by Nudimmud/Ea from the deep, from beyond. The hero god had another name in earlier or different cultures and the celestial gods had their earthly counterparts, the "gods" who made mankind in their image to do their labor.

Thats why Utu/Shamash was associated with the Sun but doesn't appear in the creation story. The primordial gods were co-opted or largely ignored, except for the story of creation and its hero.

So, consider the logic - Utu, Inanna/Ishtar, Nergal, Nabu, Ninurta, and Sin were all associated with these celestial objects but none of these gods appear in the Enuma Elish. Was there no Sun and Moon or planets in their story of creation?

And Pluto may be unique, if it is the god Gaga in the Enuma Elish it was once a moon orbiting Anshar (Saturn) and was released into its own orbit by Marduk's approach. Saturn's rings point to Pluto at its perihelion and subtracting Saturn's distance from the Sun from Pluto's extremes ~doubles its eccentricity creating a 2:1 ratio. They also share ascending nodes, albeit this could be coincidental due to precessing points.

Basically, every single objection posted in this thread so far is either irrelevant, merely an assumption or has instead been ignored or deliberately misinterpreted, with all the overwhelming circumstantial evidence to the contrary being simply dismissed.

I've had to correct far too many of your mistakes to let that slide. From your Sumerian Ishtar to no pantheon of 12 gods in pre-classical Greece, your posts need an editor who knows the subject matter. I've been doing that but your attitude is increasingly hostile and insulting. You and Val should get together

"Looking thru 2 pieces of glass" is a gross oversimplification of how telescopes work, but that is not important. The invention of the thing is not the issue, it being used for this very specific thing but never being mentioned or used in any other fields is.

Well, if you had two lenses and understood something about magnification having ground and polished lenses for that purpose, wouldn't you put a lens in each hand and look at the sky thru them? To say its a fact nobody ever did that before the 1600s is an illogical appeal to authority and misuse of the word. You can believe that, but it aint a fact.

I asked for evidence and you said it doesn't exist. Now it does?

I didn't say it doesn't exist, I've been posting the evidence - thats what the thread is about but it got sidetracked with a debate about the "fact" nobody ever used a telescope before the1600s.

If this evidence is good enough then "telescopes were invented in the 1600s" would no longer be taught as fact.

Telescopes were invented in the 1600s, that is a fact... what is not taught as fact is nobody ever had a telescope before the 1600s.

As for what a "fact" is, you can't have a fact when your sentence is saying something negative.

A fact is something thats true, it is not something that might be true, or is likely true, or probably true.

You appear to want to assert that a whole mess of ludicrous notions should be considered. By your standards, yes it's a fact.

So you believe people were grinding and polishing lenses for a very long time to magnify objects but you think its a fact nobody ever magnified an image produced by a 2nd lens before the 1600s?

Pardon me if I dont join you out on that limb, I bet damn near every kid in the world would do that within minutes of having two lenses. I remember doing it as a kid. It isn't a fact by my standards, assumptions dont qualify as facts and I'm not the one claiming facts are on my side. So I dont know why you're blaming me for your facts, you've asserted 1 and I haven't asserted any.