In the Beginning...

[Birdjaguar]

why not?

the antiquity of mining in S Africa is far older than historical times

they were bred to labor for the gods...why do we have armies of miners in Africa?

They didn't interbreed with them, they interbred with us... And life was born on two worlds, not just here.

Its possible he got some things wrong, his theory is based on interpreting myths... But he is right, both Sumerian and biblical myth claim we were created to work. If a hole exists he didn't create it.

You are assuming that the myth is true and trying to force the data to fit so that it appears to support the myth.

In any case, congrats on the epic troll.

check this out:

http://www.climb-utah.com/Misc/ninemile.htm

The horned deity 6th in line is being stalked by the hunter below and right of the 5 sheep. It matches the Enuma Elish.

No, there are 4 hunters with bows and over 20 sheep. You are parsing the data to match the conclusion you want.

 

[Arakhor]

Otherwise known as apophenia, writ large.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You mean hypothesis. A theory in the field of science (which this is, right?) is a well-substantiated body of evidence.

theory - an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

Yes, it's rather annoying how some people totally miss the definition of a theory when applied to science, especially with the scientific method.

Berzerker, your hero Sitchin doesn't have "theories." He has notions that are straight out of Velikovsky/von Daniken nonsense.

I'm really tempted to send the link for this thread to Lawrence Krauss. If I were to do that, I hope he's not sitting in too high of a chair, because I wouldn't want him to be hurt from falling off it from laughing so hard.

 

[Berzerker]

Berzerker, I decided to ask someone on the Alpha Centauri 2 forum (linked in my sig) who is an astronomy student in university about your notion that Earth formed in the asteroid belt. I asked if he could point me in the direction of any reputable scientific sources to corroborate this idea of yours.

Guess what - he couldn't.

I know Lori from Poly... You should have asked him if there was evidence the Earth could not have formed at the asteroid belt. I already know about the current models, they dont explain how Jupiter formed before planets closer to the sun.

There were no nukes back then. Please read a book on the basic history of warfare. They didn't have nukes then. If you wanted to rain fire on someone, you dipped an arrow in pitch, set it on fire, and shot it at the enemy, or if you had the technology for a catapult you used those. But no nukes.

You're missing the point. For nukes, even a period of thousands of years is recent.

They dont know where Sodom is located, how are they supposed to know what destroyed it?

For the umpteenth time, I wanted you to provide evidence that Earth formed in the asteroid belt. The article you linked doesn't do that. Therefore, it's meaningless.

I provided someone else (not you) a link to show our water came from the asteroid belt. You jumped in to complain the link didn't say the Earth formed at the asteroid belt. I never said it did... And it isn't meaningless, our water came from further away and thats what the link claims.

So Noah was around before modern humans evolved? I don't think so, nope.

He was alive during the Flood, maybe 13-14kya.

I have to wonder why gods would need manual laborers. They're gods, so why don't they just snap their fingers and zap whatever they want into existence? This is like Kirk asking in Star Trek V, "What does God need with a starship?". And if I'm relying on the worst of the TOS movies to show how ridiculous this Babylonian/space alien nonsense is, it's really bad.

What extraordinarily lazy gods. Can't even zap up their own projects.

If they're using nukes and spaceships then you're misreading their capabilities. We not only enslave each other, we enslave animals to carry our burden. Why would the gods in whose image we were made behave differently?

I salute Agent327 for his extraordinary patience when dealing with the rampant nonsense posted here.

Maybe Lori can explain the snow line and Jupiter to him

Yes, it's rather annoying how some people totally miss the definition of a theory when applied to science, especially with the scientific method.

I said it was a theory and the definition of the word shows I used it appropriately. Trying to change that to a "theory when applied to science, especially with the scientific method" doesn't make you look annoying at all.

Berzerker, your hero Sitchin doesn't have "theories." He has notions that are straight out of Velikovsky/von Daniken nonsense.

You haven't read his books

I'm really tempted to send the link for this thread to Lawrence Krauss. If I were to do that, I hope he's not sitting in too high of a chair, because I wouldn't want him to be hurt from falling off it from laughing so hard.

I wish you would, maybe he can explain why the Earth could not have formed at the asteroid belt.

 

[Berzerker]

oh yeah, from Lori's post

So from that it doesn't seem plausible that Earth formed in the asteroid belt, because it would have been subject to the same harsh gravitational influences, and a peaceful migration inward in response is way, way less likely than being destroyed or kicked out of the solar system entirely.

The Enuma Elish actually describes a commotion among the planets in Tiamat's vicinity, but how does Jupiter not only form but become massive before a planet can form at the snow line?

If Earth had been inside the asteroid belt long enough to fully form before migrating inward, why didn't it clear out the asteroid belt?

The asteroid belt was the result of the collision, the debris trail(s) left over when the Earth moved closer to the sun. Jupiter got massive because it was there to swoop up material blown outward.

 

[Berzerker]

No, there are 4 hunters with bows and over 20 sheep. You are parsing the data to match the conclusion you want.

The imagery below is a terrestrial scene, the 8 sheep and horned deity across the top is celestial in nature - their depiction of creation. And it matches the Enuma Elish... The Incan "Genesis" also shows worldly images below their celestial story of creation.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I know Lori from Poly... You should have asked him if there was evidence the Earth could not have formed at the asteroid belt. I already know about the current models, they dont explain how Jupiter formed before planets closer to the sun.

I explained the issue we're having, and asked him if he could point me at any reputable articles that would back up your position. Since he's a current astronomy student and my last formal astronomy class was back in the 1990s - and you don't appear to have any formal astronomy background whatsoever - I'll take his recommendation over yours.

They dont know where Sodom is located, how are they supposed to know what destroyed it?

Ever consider the possibility that Sodom either never existed, or they already found it but know it by a completely different name? Either way, if nukes had been used, we would know.

I provided someone else (not you) a link to show our water came from the asteroid belt. You jumped in to complain the link didn't say the Earth formed at the asteroid belt. I never said it did... And it isn't meaningless, our water came from further away and thats what the link claims.

I pointed out that Earth did not form in the asteroid belt. I asked you for a link to prove it did. You posted a link to that article that says NOTHING that would prove this notion of yours. I really do not give any portion of a rodent's anatomy about the water. Water can come from comets or meteors hitting Earth. My concern is where Earth formed. Nothing to do with water.

So far there is ZERO evidence that Earth formed in the asteroid belt. If you want to prove that's wrong, post a link that actually has to do with what I'm asking.

He was alive during the Flood, maybe 13-14kya.

You're aware that the Ice Age was going on during this time, and quite a bit of the planet was covered in ice, right?

If they're using nukes and spaceships then you're misreading their capabilities. We not only enslave each other, we enslave animals to carry our burden. Why would the gods in whose image we were made behave differently?

You have yet to provide proof that these "gods" ever existed.

Neither the bible nor Sitchins' Book of Blathering Fairytales count as proof.

Maybe Lori can explain the snow line and Jupiter to him

If they were both on the same forum, I suspect they would be on the same side of this argument.

You haven't read his books

I already wasted several hours of my finite life span on those stupid videos EltonJ posted in the Atlanteologist thread. I'm not wasting any more time on a book that, based on your descriptions plus my own research, is equally stupid.

I wish you would, maybe he can explain why the Earth could not have formed at the asteroid belt.

Actually, it's all this religious claptrap that would make him fall off his chair laughing.

 

[timtofly]

Ever heard of this thing called Scientology? That's a cult invented by a science fiction author who decided to invent a religion and get rich. It worked.

Mormonism is a made-up religion, and so is Pastafarianism, and whatever the "official" term is for the people who identify as "Jedi" on the census.

I did not say religion. I said made up gods.

I dont know how many humans were involved in the Garden, it says God took the Adam he made eastward to the Garden (Persian Gulf) so that suggests our ancestral homeland was to the west. Ethiopia is westward of Eden and it is our ancestral home.

Why would God have to take the Adam anywhere? Why not create humans in the Garden? These little tidbits of information are very important, they show there is truth to be found in the story. The God of the Garden didn't want humans proliferating, the Serpent gave them the ability.

What Sitchin has done is translate Genesis based on Mesopotamian myth in light of more recent scientific information. I've compared his rendering of the Enuma Elish to the actual text and its close enough to warrant consideration.

From what I have been reading, even the Mesopotamians thought that God created a fully formed place for them to live in and work in. I still do not see it as slave labor. There is also A strong argument for the Garden to be in Turkey. There is nothing in the account that God said they could not have children. In fact it said to be fruitful and multiply. They were to subdue the whole earth. So much for environmentalism.

The garden insertion is about one human, and the Hebrews seemed to think they all descended from him. I would contend that Cain, and perhaps Able were born in the Garden, before Adam and Eve were forced out. The Garden was probably not that large of an area to begin with. It may have been just large enough to have several offspring in training, before they were sent out to other areas of the planet.

I tend to agree... and the authors unfortunately distorted the story by ignoring the events leading up to Marduk's battle with Tiamat (God's wind over the water). But in the old world people knew the creation myth and they knew the Hebrew version was tailored for a monotheistic culture. And they knew their gods were preceded by other gods, not just the olden gods in the myth itself but "national" gods like Marduk and Assur. The Sumerian creator God was replaced as dynasties rose and fell.

I tend to think that the Enuma Elish is not talking about the creation event though. I think they are talking about the event that happened in 2400 BC. That was the event that caused the Flood, and broke up the crust to allow continental movement.

I know that some keep trying to make the Genesis story a pre-existing earth. That is why the Enuma Elish is not creation. Everything already existed, and a rogue object that was moon size or larger came through at a very high speed. It probably hit a planet that left the asteroid belt, and ended up in the earth. The planets were already formed and in place. That is why the Asteroid belt never formed a planet it is a destroyed planet. It may be plausible that the earth was further out from the sun, because with the "canopy" of divided water, it may have been too hot at this location, but since the canopy was gone, being closer to the sun would have been necessary.

Before the Flood event. The earth was totally different which allowed for longer ages and for reptiles to live and grow larger.

The Hebrews were the only ones who had knowledge of the world before the Flood. There were items that survived the Flood. This is how they started to create the stories of the "gods before the Flood". That and the fact that humans can still interact with the other dimension to some extent.

You have yet to provide proof that these "gods" ever existed.

Neither the bible nor Sitchins' Book of Blathering Fairytales count as proof.

Not everything about "gods" is religious claptrap. I would say that religion is more of a control tool. It is a belief system that is used to mold the way human's view life. It is also a mechanism for like minded individuals to come together in agreement. But religion does not produce offspring. Each generation has to decide for themselves what they believe. Education is a double edged sword. While teaching; it can also indoctrinate, and that seems to be what you are so much against. Humans can attempt to force other humans into a mold, but that is not what being human is all about. There are holes in the evidence on evolution, and yet it is taught to the extent that it is the only information that humans have today, but teaching evolution does not guarantee that it will make sense to every single human. There are some who will be skeptical. There will be some who may care less about it.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's important to not dig in your heels on the definition of 'theory' too much. Firstly, it has an obvious colloquial use. As well, though, it doesn't have a robustly held scientific definition, either. Now, the word 'theory' in 'Theory of Evolution' does mean something different than "I have a theory that you ate my cookies while I was away", but that's just something the conversationalists should strive to agree upon, rather than fight about.

I've collaborated between sciences, and their colloquial uses of the words were different from ours.

 

[Berzerker]

From what I have been reading, even the Mesopotamians thought that God created a fully formed place for them to live in and work in. I still do not see it as slave labor. There is also A strong argument for the Garden to be in Turkey.

God took the man he made eastward to his Garden. If Ethiopia was our ancestral homeland then Turkey's north. The 4 rivers become 1, thats the Persian Gulf when sea levels were lower.

There was no man to till the ground, the Adam was to maintain the Garden and commanded do this and dont do that. Adam was to do as told and he was told to work.

This story reflects the older Mesopotamian version that claims we were the product of a process begun by mixing divine blood with an existing creature to produce a primitive worker.

Adam's mate was sought from among the animals but none was found. Adam was innocent, without the knowledge of good and evil - a state of being we generally attribute to animals. The story is about our emergence as "humans" and it shows us in a primitive state of existence before the Serpent's intervention.

There is nothing in the account that God said they could not have children. In fact it said to be fruitful and multiply. They were to subdue the whole earth. So much for environmentalism.

That command was given to the 6th day people. I dont know how far into the process God was when he made the Adam and took him to his Garden, but Eve was made in the Garden and was not one of the 6th day people.

The knowledge they acquired there appears to be both an intellectual and sexual advance. According to Sitchin's work on Mesopotamian mythology the process of our creation involved trial and error including hybrids who could not procreate.

The garden insertion is about one human, and the Hebrews seemed to think they all descended from him. I would contend that Cain, and perhaps Able were born in the Garden, before Adam and Eve were forced out.

Given the sexual connotations of the story I think procreation was part of the knowledge they acquired. The curse upon Eve was suffering in childbirth and Cain and Abel were conceived after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden.

I tend to think that the Enuma Elish is not talking about the creation event though. I think they are talking about the event that happened in 2400 BC. That was the event that caused the Flood, and broke up the crust to allow continental movement.

I know that some keep trying to make the Genesis story a pre-existing earth. That is why the Enuma Elish is not creation.

When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together...

Heaven and Earth didn't exist yet according to the opening verses of the Enuma Elish

Before the Flood event. The earth was totally different which allowed for longer ages and for reptiles to live and grow larger.

The Flood wasn't all that long ago and if it accompanied the end of the ice age reptiles would have appreciated a warmer world.

The Hebrews were the only ones who had knowledge of the world before the Flood.

Flood myths including descriptions of the world before appear all over the globe

 

[Arakhor]

That command was given to the 6th day people. I dont know how far into the process God was when he made the Adam and took him to his Garden, but Eve was made in the Garden and was not one of the 6th day people.

The knowledge they acquired there appears to be both an intellectual and sexual advance. According to Sitchin's work on Mesopotamian mythology the process of our creation involved trial and error including hybrids who could not procreate.

And of course you don't have a single stitch of evidence for all this Star Trek stuff, do you?

 

[onejayhawk]

And of course you don't have a single stitch of evidence for all this Star Trek stuff, do you?

That's too strong. It's thin air, not vacuum.

J

 

[Berzerker]

I explained the issue we're having, and asked him if he could point me at any reputable articles that would back up your position. Since he's a current astronomy student and my last formal astronomy class was back in the 1990s - and you don't appear to have any formal astronomy background whatsoever - I'll take his recommendation over yours.

You asked him a question but I cant because you're more educated? I already know current theory, its based on Jupiter becoming a gas giant before a planet could form at the asteroid belt followed by its migration into and out of the asteroid belt.

The snow line is at the asteroid belt, Jupiter is twice as far away from the sun. So I have two questions, can we prove the Earth didn't form at the asteroid belt and how did Jupiter form faster than a planet at the snow line?

Ever consider the possibility that Sodom either never existed, or they already found it but know it by a completely different name? Either way, if nukes had been used, we would know.

Why would we know it? I believe it existed, the surrounding cultures have legends about the city. And I'm inclined to believe an air burst destroyed it, although I cant rule out a weapon used by god.

I pointed out that Earth did not form in the asteroid belt. I asked you for a link to prove it did. You posted a link to that article that says NOTHING that would prove this notion of yours.

I posted the link for Lexicus to show our water came from the asteroid belt. You complained my link didn't say the Earth formed at the asteroid belt. Where is your link proving your point?

I really do not give any portion of a rodent's anatomy about the water. Water can come from comets or meteors hitting Earth. My concern is where Earth formed. Nothing to do with water.

So far there is ZERO evidence that Earth formed in the asteroid belt. If you want to prove that's wrong, post a link that actually has to do with what I'm asking.

My link said the Earth may have formed in the presence of water preceding even the lunar cataclysm. That didn't happen here this close to the sun. That is evidence the Earth formed where it was wetter, and the asteroid belt is where we find the water above Heaven, the snow line.

You're aware that the Ice Age was going on during this time, and quite a bit of the planet was covered in ice, right?

The ice age was ending and seas would rise over 300 ft within 3-4 millennium in spite of the Younger Dryas cooling. If an ocean impact was involved the resulting tsunamis would have disrupted ice shelves and buried coastal populations. Sitchin thought a gravitational tug from "Marduk" triggered the Flood.

If they were both on the same forum, I suspect they would be on the same side of this argument.

I think its possible the Earth formed at the asteroid belt. You dont. I didn't see Lori taking a side.

I already wasted several hours of my finite life span on those stupid videos EltonJ posted in the Atlanteologist thread. I'm not wasting any more time on a book that, based on your descriptions plus my own research, is equally stupid.

You can read about the battle between Marduk and Tiamat online in 5-10 minutes.

Actually, it's all this religious claptrap that would make him fall off his chair laughing.

I thought you were dropping his name because of his expertise in the field of astronomy. If he doesn't study religion he'd be no more informed than a book critic who doesn't read the books they're criticizing.

 

[Berzerker]

And of course you don't have a single stitch of evidence for all this Star Trek stuff, do you?

it comes from Mesopotamian myth and I dont think we're too far from the ability to produce an ape/human hybrid if we wanted

 

[Agent327]

I'm sure. However, that would be kind of redundant, seeing as we still are 99 % ape. Biologically, that makes us apes - hybrid or no hybrid.

You asked him a question but I cant because you're more educated? I already know current theory, its based on Jupiter becoming a gas giant before a planet could form at the asteroid belt followed by its migration into and out of the asteroid belt.

That's not current theory: it's a theory - and not the strongest. And you can ask any question you want: however, what she said is that she will take his answer over yours.

The snow line is at the asteroid belt, Jupiter is twice as far away from the sun. So I have two questions, can we prove the Earth didn't form at the asteroid belt and how did Jupiter form faster than a planet at the snow line?

Jupiter being a planet, it didn't form faster than a planet. Also, the point is not whether we can prove Earth did't form at the asteroid belt (the asteroid belt wouldn't be there yet, so that's kind of redundant). Astronomy and cosmology being science, the question is not: 'Which is the most quixotic theory we can come up with?', but rather 'What is the most probable that would have happened?' Science deals in probabilities, not quixotics.

Why would we know it? I believe it existed, the surrounding cultures have legends about the city. And I'm inclined to believe an air burst destroyed it, although I cant rule out a weapon used by god.

Actually that can be ruled out quite easily: an omnipotent being wouldn't have any use for 'a weapon'. Secondly, the only culture that has a legend about Sodom and Gomorrha is the Hebrew one. Similarly, you won't find any references in surrounding cultures to Exodus - which is a whole book.

I posted the link for Lexicus to show our water came from the asteroid belt. You complained my link didn't say the Earth formed at the asteroid belt. Where is your link proving your point?

Nobody would need a link for that. That Earth's water came form asteroids (not: the asteroid belt), is one of the possible explanations. It's not the explanation - which you seem to think it is.

My link said the Earth may have formed in the presence of water preceding even the lunar cataclysm. That didn't happen here this close to the sun. That is evidence the Earth formed where it was wetter, and the asteroid belt is where we find the water above Heaven, the snow line.

If 'your link' said that, then it's saying something very unscientific: 'the Earth may have formed in the presence of water' is a nonsensical statement, purely scientifically speaking. Even assuming you are referring to the asteroid belt again, that's not water, but ice.

The ice age was ending and seas would rise over 300 ft within 3-4 millennium in spite of the Younger Dryas cooling. If an ocean impact was involved the resulting tsunamis would have disrupted ice shelves and buried coastal populations. Sitchin thought a gravitational tug from "Marduk" triggered the Flood.

The ending of an ice age is not something which happens from one day to the next. There would have been no tsunamis, because it's a process that lasts thousands of years. And what Mr Sttichin thought caused 'the Flood' is, scientifically speaking, not really relevant. There are various legends from various cultures about floods. However, there was no such thing as a global flood - not since humans were around anyway.

You can read about the battle between Marduk and Tiamat online in 5-10 minutes.

I'm sure. Unfortunately, that has very little to do with Earth's formation or events in the early solar system.

 

[timtofly]

God took the man he made eastward to his Garden. If Ethiopia was our ancestral homeland then Turkey's north. The 4 rivers become 1, thats the Persian Gulf when sea levels were lower.

There was no man to till the ground, the Adam was to maintain the Garden and commanded do this and dont do that. Adam was to do as told and he was told to work.

This story reflects the older Mesopotamian version that claims we were the product of a process begun by mixing divine blood with an existing creature to produce a primitive worker.

Adam's mate was sought from among the animals but none was found. Adam was innocent, without the knowledge of good and evil - a state of being we generally attribute to animals. The story is about our emergence as "humans" and it shows us in a primitive state of existence before the Serpent's intervention.

That command was given to the 6th day people. I dont know how far into the process God was when he made the Adam and took him to his Garden, but Eve was made in the Garden and was not one of the 6th day people.

The knowledge they acquired there appears to be both an intellectual and sexual advance. According to Sitchin's work on Mesopotamian mythology the process of our creation involved trial and error including hybrids who could not procreate.

Given the sexual connotations of the story I think procreation was part of the knowledge they acquired. The curse upon Eve was suffering in childbirth and Cain and Abel were conceived after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden.

You add a lot of assumptions and then you say the bolded part. I don't know what happened either, but I do know that the Hebrews are telling the story, and they think they descended from Adam. They even list out genealogy after genealogy. Some of them even doubled, but accorded to two different people. The claim made by Adam that Eve was the mother of all living is both right, and wrong. It was not true because Adam and Eve were not the only created humans. It was true, because at the time of the writing all humans allegedly came through Noah, one of her descendants. They even gave the genealogy of Noah's 3 sons to show how the earth was re-populated. Now we can dismiss the whole story. I am not sure why one would assume points that are not in the narrative though. Enuma Elish was written after Noah, and Noah passed the story along. It would seem that one source had the genealogy, else where did they get the information of where they came from.


The only thing that the story states is that Adam was to take care of the Garden but that was his purpose not a command. The only command was to not eat of one particular tree. Adam must have seemed lonely but naming all the animals is not the same thing as interbreeding with them. Adam was carrying out a part of science by naming the animals. We do not assume that it is natural for scientist to have sexual relationships with lab animals as part of their scientific duty. Why would we think Adam did? There was not enough things to keep him busy enough to hide his loneliness. There usually never is if one thinks that a mate would make them happy. The story is not a representation, it was an actual person who went through actual human experiences. Adam was a perfect "Son of God" human as all the other created humans.

Think of it this way: It is plausible that there was no Mediterranean. There was only one sea, and it surrounded one land mass. All the humans were placed on the western part of this land mass that included the area that is known today as Africa and Europe as one. It was not until after the Flood when the earth was divided, and the two continents separated. The Mediterranean is the oldest divide and the one with the least amount of history. While it was produced by melting ice that formed immediately after the Flood, eventually there was no more ice other than the current ice caps, and the levels of the oceans stopped rising and filling the Med. The Med emptied out into the Black Sea, back into the Atlantic, or just dried up.

Adam was placed in the Garden and it was east of the rest of the humans, and more than likely there were other humans placed even further east on the same land mass. The second chapter is only about Adam and not the rest of the humans. Talking just about Adam does not mean he was not created in the same way. All humans were created from the dust of the ground and had the spirit of God in them, to give them life. It is assumed that the spirit/breath of God was eternal life. Later God took that eternal life away and gave humans a 120 year life span. Later that was reduced to only 70 years.

Throughout the OT it seems that God claimed there was constant strife with humans, because they had their own will and God allowed them to do their own thing. Even making covenants with them (the Hebrews) they still proved to God that they did not seem to want to have anything to do with God. I am not saying that the Adam was exactly the same as the others. IMO, he was the baseline or chosen sampling, like the Hebrews were the baseline and chosen sampling. The account is for and by the Hebrews so it would seem that they had a historical and direct connection with the creator. This was then assumed and passed on with Jesus, except it was no longer a family connection, but one in spirit. In fact Jesus claimed that the spirit of God would once again be in the human body. It was no longer a direct or instant thing. It was still by choice. Even the early church did not comprehend this fully and they instituted infant baptism to assure that it would happen. That is not how it works though. It is not forced upon humans.

There is no divine blood either. The spirit and God have no blood. Jesus was the first "begotten" and only human that had divine blood. I am sure there are some Christians being misled by drinking the transmuted blood of Christ often, but the blood only needed to be spilled once. Doing it for remembrance is just that, a remembrance. There is nothing mystical and life changing in eating normal grape juice, and only God can turn wine into blood. That does not prove that it is done though.

Sex and reproduction are the most basic natural things and really need no education. The account says that Eve's childbirth would be increased with pain. That would indicate that she had already experienced birth without pain. The fourth chapter picks up the story just like the second/third chapter, inserting it, not in a chronological order but it was entwined in the whole human experience and like the first three chapters was happening at the same time, but with different actions in the narrative. The four chapters are not consecutive, but overlap each other and quite a bit. The second chapter says there was no one to till and cultivate. That was true, for at least 3 days if not longer. Vegetation was on the third day, and humans were not created until the sixth day. God is not singular in words and actions, so things were happening at the same time every where. To make sense to us the accounts were written in a certain order to explain the actions that were going on in a sensible form. That God appears and leaves is not God doing the leaving, but our ability to perceive and interact with God. God is not limited by the physical aspects of creation.

Genesis 2:20 does not say that a female was created for sexual purposes, even though it is the very basis of reproduction. It just says that Adam had no helper in his labor. It was God who placed a single human in this certain area (as a baseline), but even then the baseline needed amendment as one human was not enough to do all that was needed in the garden. At that point there did not even seem to be a distinction in who would do what, but that they would be treated equal in the task of running the garden. But even two humans each have their own will and ability to choose seemed to have consequences on the model. Not even marriage changes that. Marriage is just a contract for two humans to attempt to live life in agreement giving up their wills for the family unit.

When in the height heaven was not named,
And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,
And the primeval Apsu, who begat them,
And chaos, Tiamut, the mother of them both
Their waters were mingled together...

Heaven and Earth didn't exist yet according to the opening verses of the Enuma Elish

Wait?? You say that earth did not exist in the Enuma Elish, and then switch and say the Genesis account says that it pre-existed? It would seem to me that they both say the same thing. They both state that a single creator begat them in one form and the spirit/tiamut was the "mother". It may point out that a creator existed and created all, but it is not a creation event. It is the formation of the solar system. I could point out just like you did that it is a prepositional phrase giving a time indicated when there was a solar system. It is the actions of this solar system, though and not the creation of it. If you deny that Genesis says that God created everything ex nihilo, then it would be hard to even claim that the Enuma Elish says so. While acknowledging that there is a single creator, the act of creation is assumed. Genesis says in verb form, that God created the heavens and the earth. The Enuma Elish just takes that as a given, but does not state it as an action.

The Flood wasn't all that long ago and if it accompanied the end of the ice age reptiles would have appreciated a warmer world.

Nothing was long ago, but humans have felt the need to claim it was. If Sodom was a nuclear event, God wiped away all evidence, and people find that claim just as extraordinaire as saying that God created perfect (mature) physical aspects in the creation. Meaning that they show an age that they did not necessarily experience. It seems to me that it would be more important to God to leave a habitable area, although the Salty sea is now basically dead, than to leave proof that he exist or not.

I think that part of debunking a water canopy is that the surface of the earth would be too hot for most biological life at a temperature of 400 degrees Fahrenheit. No ice would have been possible, that is why even Creation Scientist gave up that notion and gave into the perceived notion of ice ages happening before the flood.

The other claim is that when God said that the moon and stars were for signs and seasons in verse 14, that it meant then. It did not mean then, it meant that was their purpose. It did not say that is what they did immediately. It was after the Flood when humans tried to make contact with the pre-flood "gods" that they started mapping the stars and it was after the flood that there were seasons. There was no rain, nor seasons between the time of creation until the Flood. Even scientist agree that with a vapor canopy both would be impossible. Today during the summer months the ice on the polar caps melts and during the winter months it re-forms. That started with the Flood. There was a period because of all the geological action that could have blocked out the sun that allowed for ice to form quicker and larger ice fields over the continents. Since the Flood there has been an equilibrium and ice ages no longer exist like they did after the Flood. In fact they have found a Mammoth frozen alive with undigested food in their stomachs. That would not take days, much less thousands of years to accomplish, but hours. The argument is that such actions need time, and there is no proof that that is true. Saying that dating shows there has allegedly been time, is not the same as saying that such time is necessary. A frozen Mammoth proves it is not necessary.

Flood myths including descriptions of the world before appear all over the globe

There is a difference between a descriptive rhetoric mode and a narrative rhetoric mode. Having knowledge would indicate an account that can be taken literally. Descriptive mode is more metaphorical, although they may include literal events. If the Genesis account can be understood as sensible to some and metaphorical to others, then it would be the reader that determines how they perceive it, but that does not determine how it was actually written. The scholars think they have proof, but in doing so, they have to call what was written as fabricated. There is no proof that it was, but that has been the accepted norm even without proof.

If humans want to throw out all the evidence that you say provides a global picture of a Flood, they have the ability to do so. Having accounts all over the globe does not prove that they maintained them from actually surviving the Flood. The stories would have evolved over time as the culture of the people changed. Even the actual events handed down from Noah's 3 sons, could have been mixed with geological events that happened after the Flood and it took some time for an equilibrium in nature to arrive. I would contend that even the Mediterranean as the divide between Europe and Africa happened was not a news worthy event because it was always a never ending occurrence of filling and emptying up to a possible 7 times. Even the influx of the Sea Peoples that keep coming up in the narrative of some text from Anatolia to the Levant, and the last major push into Egypt has been noted as a possible geological event. It sounds like a people who came and left as the sea dried up, and filled back in again. These people were displaced by geological events, and were known as great warriors. They came in ships as well as by land. The last time never being able to return to their home (Atlantis?). The term referring to the people who lived near the Atlantic, but after the Mediterranean filled up the last time, they could never return to their homeland.

While it is probably futile to convince people that events can be condensed down in time, I am not sure why they deny they happened. Some here even mock that the ancient Mesopotamians and Egyptians were not concerned about news events or had newspapers, yet mock me when I explain that the natural events that they claim happened over millions of years did happen while people in the near east lived through them. The only "news" we get is the way they address their token gods and fight each other. Why would a 40 year trek through the desert be retained by the ancient records? For one thing, the records were written as victories and not defeats. Why would the Egyptians admit they were defeated by the Red Sea closing in on them? They did account when they defeated the "Sea" Peoples, but if they had lost would we have had any mention of them in history? The Hyksos were an invading group that took over control of Egypt, and they were not recorded as a defeat, but as just another part of their ruling dynasty. They were eventually overthrown, and the victory was recorded. But was it an actual victory or did they just leave and the vacuum was filled by a new ruling dynasty in Egypt? Remember that defeats were not usually recorded, but a win could be made up to make a ruler look greater than he actually was.

 

[Arakhor]

This insistence on people proving a negative shows that you are arguing in bad faith, Berzerker. "You can't prove the Earth didn't form at the asteroid belt." <insert raspberry>

 

[El_Machinae]

As a pro-active Immortalist, I recognize that the conclusion of my beliefs are aberrant (even if oodles of the foundations are perfectly reasonable positions to hold). I usually watch myself, since I know I am 'out there' when it comes to the spectrum of weirdness.

It's neat how far off we can be from mainstream in certain ways.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I did not say religion. I said made up gods.

The Pastafarians worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's a blob of spaghetti credited with divine powers. I'd call that a made-up god.

Spend some time on the Cheezburger.com site, and you'll see people actually praying to Ceiling Cat (not the one that peeks through a hole when you're engaged in personal activities - this version of Ceiling Cat is simply any white-haired cat). Some have expressed the ages-long battle between good and evil as a supernatural battle between Longcat (a white cat) and Tacgnol (a black cat). Some refer to black cats as Basement Cat - aka something evil.

There is nothing in the account that God said they could not have children. In fact it said to be fruitful and multiply. They were to subdue the whole earth. So much for environmentalism.

I'll agree with you on this point. And the way it's interpreted today is "why bother cleaning up the planet? Jesus is coming back any day now/I'm going to heaven so who cares about the oil spills, filthy water, unbreathable air, and extinct species?"

I tend to think that the Enuma Elish is not talking about the creation event though. I think they are talking about the event that happened in 2400 BC. That was the event that caused the Flood, and broke up the crust to allow continental movement.

Oh, please. Continents have been forming and breaking up for billions of years. Even Pangaea, the one we know most about, started breaking up hundreds of millions of years ago. That's a hell of a lot longer ago than a mere 4400 years.

That is why the Asteroid belt never formed a planet it is a destroyed planet.

There's not enough material in the asteroid belt to even begin to make a planet. It's not like the chase scene Han and Leia had in The Empire Strikes Back. The asteroid belt is pretty spread out. You're not going to trip over an asteroid every other step.

Before the Flood event. The earth was totally different which allowed for longer ages and for reptiles to live and grow larger.

I assume your 'longer ages' refers to the ridiculous figures given for characters like Methuselah? Newsflash: humans and dinosaurs (what I assume you mean by your reference to large reptiles) did not co-exist. There are over 60 million years between the last non-avian dinosaur and the first humans.

The Hebrews were the only ones who had knowledge of the world before the Flood. There were items that survived the Flood. This is how they started to create the stories of the "gods before the Flood". That and the fact that humans can still interact with the other dimension to some extent.

What other dimension? There are only three that we can experience directly - four, if you count time as a dimension. Not that this was something the Hebrews knew about. But honestly, have you never studied anything about ancient civilizations that weren't connected to Christianity?

There were civilizations that predated the Hebrews by thousands of years. There were people in North America thousands of years before them. It's ludicrous to say that the Hebrews were the only ones who had knowledge of the world before this flood (that never really happened).

I would say that religion is more of a control tool. It is a belief system that is used to mold the way human's view life. It is also a mechanism for like minded individuals to come together in agreement.

Okay, I'll agree with these statements. From an anthropological perspective, religion provides a kind of "social glue" that can help a society maintain social cohesion. However, if that society decides to punish individuals who choose not to believe, then the religion has become a means of control and the result is injustice and, eventually, violence. If the religion is one that preaches peace and love, inflicting violence on non-believers is not something that makes me respect that religion.

It's important to not dig in your heels on the definition of 'theory' too much. Firstly, it has an obvious colloquial use. As well, though, it doesn't have a robustly held scientific definition, either. Now, the word 'theory' in 'Theory of Evolution' does mean something different than "I have a theory that you ate my cookies while I was away", but that's just something the conversationalists should strive to agree upon, rather than fight about.

I've collaborated between sciences, and their colloquial uses of the words were different from ours.

This thread is an attempt to convince us that the bible and Babylonian myths are equivalent to science texts. Therefore, the scientific definition of theory should be applied. These myths are not proper scientific theories. They're notions.

And of course you don't have a single stitch of evidence for all this Star Trek stuff, do you?

Even the crap that is Abramstrek makes a tiny smidgen more sense than this nonsense. Including magic transporters and magic blood that zaps a dead person back to life in less than 5 minutes.

You asked him a question but I cant because you're more educated?

Where did I ever say you couldn't ask Lorizael a question? Ask him on the site where you know him, or register at AC2 and ask him there. We've got a whole section of that place that's dedicated to science discussions.

Re-read my post. My own formal astronomy education hasn't been great because not many schools around here think it's important at all. But I've taken every astronomy class that's been offered, and the rest has been private, independent study. Lorizael is in a current astronomy program at university, so I thought he would be a reasonable person to ask about this stuff you've been saying. I'm actually trying to find something that would corroborate your claim that Earth formed in the asteroid belt.

But I can't. I haven't found anything at all from reputable astronomy sites that backs up your tale. Lorizael isn't a member here, and he's got no reason to lie to me. I didn't even mention your name when I asked him.

Why would we know it? I believe it existed, the surrounding cultures have legends about the city. And I'm inclined to believe an air burst destroyed it, although I cant rule out a weapon used by god.

Your "belief" does not mean it actually did. As for legends, there are legends about Ogopogo, a freshwater "sea monster" that lives in Okanagan Lake in British Columbia. Nobody's ever proved such a creature is real, though. I doubt anyone ever will. That reward money is going to go unclaimed forever.

IF there was a city named Sodom, and IF it was destroyed by fire, why couldn't it just be a normal fire? Fires happen, either by arson. lightning, or human carelessness. Many years ago I was watching an archaeology documentary in which it was theorized that it could have been a natural gas leak and someone happened to light a fire in the wrong place at the wrong time. Some fires get really, really hot, depending on what caused them and what there was in the way of fuel to keep it burning. No weapons or gods are required.

I posted the link for Lexicus to show our water came from the asteroid belt. You complained my link didn't say the Earth formed at the asteroid belt. Where is your link proving your point?

This became tiresome a loooong time ago. The conversation is basically this:

Berzerker: Earth formed in the asteroid belt. That's why Earth and Vesta have water with the same properties.

Valka: Got a link for that?

Berzerker: (posts link)

Valka (after reading the article): This article doesn't say anything at all about Earth forming in the asteroid belt.

Berzerker: I don't care. I believe Earth formed in the asteroid belt. Prove it didn't.


And so on and so on and so on...

The ice age was ending and seas would rise over 300 ft within 3-4 millennium in spite of the Younger Dryas cooling. If an ocean impact was involved the resulting tsunamis would have disrupted ice shelves and buried coastal populations. Sitchin thought a gravitational tug from "Marduk" triggered the Flood.

My point is that much of the Northern Hemisphere was locked into an ice age. Ice literally covered everything. The place where I'm sitting right now, typing this post, was under a couple of miles of ice. Even today I see the evidence of it, with the debris the glaciers left behind as they retreated.

How much evidence do I see for a global flood happening on top of this 2-mile-thick ice sheet? None. Zip. Zilch. ZERO.

I think its possible the Earth formed at the asteroid belt. You dont. I didn't see Lori taking a side.

Lorizael answered what I asked. If he wants to jump into this argument, he knows where it is.

The difference is that I consulted a science student to find out if he knew of any reliable references I could go to to confirm your notions. You consulted someone who writes pseudoscientific nonsense and ancient mythology.

You can read about the battle between Marduk and Tiamat online in 5-10 minutes.

In that same amount of time I could do several turns in my Civ game, write several paragraphs of my NaNoWriMo entry, or clean the cats' litter box. Any of those would be a more productive use of my time.

I thought you were dropping his name because of his expertise in the field of astronomy. If he doesn't study religion he'd be no more informed than a book critic who doesn't read the books they're criticizing.

Lawrence Krauss is an astrophysicist who is also an atheist. Considering that he regularly debates creationists and Muslims and has partnered with Richard Dawkins in some of his speaking tours, I'd give him credit for at least having read the bible and doing some of his own studying.

it comes from Mesopotamian myth and I dont think we're too far from the ability to produce an ape/human hybrid if we wanted

Why on earth would anyone want to do that? Humans ARE apes. We're the most capable at manipulating our environment through the use of technology and adapting to new conditions, but it doesn't negate the fact of our place in the animal kingdom.

Think of it this way: It is plausible that there was no Mediterranean. There was only one sea, and it surrounded one land mass.

Not during historical human times, there wasn't. Aside from the odd island or peninsula here and there, the continents were as they are today.

All the humans were placed on the western part of this land mass that included the area that is known today as Africa and Europe as one. It was not until after the Flood when the earth was divided, and the two continents separated. The Mediterranean is the oldest divide and the one with the least amount of history. While it was produced by melting ice that formed immediately after the Flood, eventually there was no more ice other than the current ice caps, and the levels of the oceans stopped rising and filling the Med. The Med emptied out into the Black Sea, back into the Atlantic, or just dried up.

Current theory states that the Mediterranean had dried up, but was revived 5.3 million years ago when the Atlantic Ocean flooded the area via the Strait of Gibraltar (Source).

That's pre-humans.

Today during the summer months the ice on the polar caps melts and during the winter months it re-forms. That started with the Flood.

You have very odd notions of geology and meteorology. Earth's water cycle has done its thing for billions of years. No humans are required for ice caps to melt and re-freeze. This did not need a mythical flood to get it going.

There was a period because of all the geological action that could have blocked out the sun that allowed for ice to form quicker and larger ice fields over the continents. Since the Flood there has been an equilibrium and ice ages no longer exist like they did after the Flood. In fact they have found a Mammoth frozen alive with undigested food in their stomachs. That would not take days, much less thousands of years to accomplish, but hours. The argument is that such actions need time, and there is no proof that that is true. Saying that dating shows there has allegedly been time, is not the same as saying that such time is necessary. A frozen Mammoth proves it is not necessary.

Ice ages come and go. We're just in a warm period right now. As for a mammoth that died of hypothermia, so what? It doesn't really take that long to die of hypothermia.

I would contend that even the Mediterranean as the divide between Europe and Africa happened was not a news worthy event because it was always a never ending occurrence of filling and emptying up to a possible 7 times. Even the influx of the Sea Peoples that keep coming up in the narrative of some text from Anatolia to the Levant, and the last major push into Egypt has been noted as a possible geological event. It sounds like a people who came and left as the sea dried up, and filled back in again. These people were displaced by geological events, and were known as great warriors. They came in ships as well as by land. The last time never being able to return to their home (Atlantis?). The term referring to the people who lived near the Atlantic, but after the Mediterranean filled up the last time, they could never return to their homeland.

That was over FIVE MILLION YEARS AGO. There were no Egyptians then. There were no Sea Peoples then. There was no Atlantis then (not that Atlantis has ever been proven to have existed). There weren't even any humans then.

Some here ... mock me when I explain that the natural events that they claim happened over millions of years did happen while people in the near east lived through them.

If you would stop claiming that all this stuff happened when we know it couldn't possibly have happened, the mockery would cease.

 

[Berzerker]

This insistence on people proving a negative shows that you are arguing in bad faith, Berzerker. "You can't prove the Earth didn't form at the asteroid belt." <insert raspberry>

Hehe, you're one to talk about arguing in bad faith... Your posts are little more than insults, ridicule, and petty gripes like what the word theory means. The thread is about myth and science but who could tell by reading your contribution?

Valka repeatedly asked me for links (for the umpteenth time no less) proving the Earth formed at the asteroid belt. She's arguing the absence of those links proves me wrong. So I asked her for a link proving the Earth didn't form at the asteroid belt. Does the absence of that link prove her wrong? Of course not, thats ridiculous.

But both of you missed the point, if neither of us have links proving where the Earth formed then pretending the absence of those links proves anything is illogical. You're accusing me of doing what she did, that was the point of my question.

Now I happen to believe there's a possibility the Earth did form at the asteroid belt and I've provided evidence. If someone says I'm wrong, they're welcome to explain why. I dont see you explaining why. Seems to me people claiming the Earth formed here are not exempt from supplying the evidence or at least countering the evidence Earth formed elsewhere.