In the Beginning...

[Senethro]

I think you are confusing what happened, if you mean the very good approximation of the earth's circumference by Eratosthenes, who likely used water wells (distance of water level from the surface; also the shape of the well makes it easy to tell when the sun rays are vertical over it) in two distant parts of the Ptolemaic empire.
You may be confusing this with the calculation of the Great Pyramid's height, using shadows on a stick and making the analogy with the known length of the (visible) shadow of the pyramid and its unknown height, attributed to Thales.

It sounds likely that I was confusing the two.

 

[Kyriakos]

Happens to the best of us

 

[Agent327]

At what point does something without form start to spin?

If it has no form, it's not a planet. I'm a bit puzzled how something without form spins. Perhaps you can explain?

Are you saying that you agree with Berzerker that the Hebrews do not define the phrase in verse 1 to mean the universe?

No, I'm not. quit trying to read things into what I say that simply aren't there.

At the most, it would read, "in the beginning of God creating the universe." You seem to refuse the definition, just to prove your point they are wrong.

Really? Perhaps, again, you should stop making up things about what I said to to try and prove your point?

If the Solar system was not forming at the same time, you seem to think that the earth did form much later, when did the earth actually form?

Google is your friend. 'The solar system forming' doesn't mean everything was already in place as today, by the way.

That would indicate you are not sure that it formed in it's current location.

It 'indicates' no such thing.

Genesis does not say the sun started to shine on the first day. God was still referring to the universe and a earth and solar system still in formation.

God wasn't referring to anything. The authors of Genesis might be, though. But that apart, Genesis says 'the lights' (including the sun, as it is 'a light') were created after Earth. Surely even you would know that's impossible.

The use of the word "good" has been interpreted as meaning mature or complete. It was used for when the earth had a land mass, when the seed of the plant kingdom was in the ground, when the sea life was formed, and when the rest of the animal kingdom was formed. The whole process was on going meaning there was change/evolution still in process.

I have no clue what this even remotely has to do with Genesis.

The light of the sun was not completed, until day 4.

What does this even mean?

That does not mean there was no sun until then.

Seriously? Read Genesis, just the first 4 verses. It seems pretty clear to me.

It means the sun was still changing, evolving, accreting until day 4.

No, it doesn't 'mean' that. Where do you get this 'information'?

It just says that when humans travel across the universe their day will be uniform.

If you travel across the universe there are no days. The moment you leave Earth 'day'and 'night' have no meaning.

If a planet just happened to be out in the middle of nowhere, does it spin or not?

The position of a planet has nothing to do with its rotation.

Is there an agenda that we need to go out of our way to prove that the Bible is wrong?

I wouldn't know. But I do know that if you're trying to prove the opposite you're doing a terrible job.

Isn't that being a little nit picky about what the ancients knew or we think they knew?

How so?

I keep hearing that over the centuries what they wrote and remembered is not even what they wrote or remembered. Then it is turned around and the claim is they did not know anything of relevance to us.

I have no idea where you keep hearing these things. (I bolded the part which is literally nonsensical.)

Where's the answer? Nobody explained how the Earth formed here and in the presence of water located at the asteroid belt.

Indeed. But then, Earth didn't form at the asteroid belt, so that would be kind of hard to 'answer'.

The argument was the scientific evidence doesn't support Genesis. Now y'all have changed the argument to any scientific evidence that does support Genesis is coincidental.

No, 'w'all' haven't. You're just missing the difference between the one and the other.

I was called deceitful and dishonest and neither accusation was backed up.

Not by me. And I gave a clear example of intellectual dishonesty.

"We" is the scientific community... Now where is this explanation?

I'm fairly certain you aren't part of that community. The explanation is in that post you clearly didn't read.

You said:

I wouldn't really know what in Genesis is supported by science....<> The real issue is that there's no reason to suspect anything in Genesis would be supported by science.

And you seem to infer something from that which isn't there.

I haven't seen anyone prove the world was spinning 4.5 bya

I'll simply repost: If the Earth is spinning today, there's no reason to assume that in some point in the past it decided to start spinning.

You said: I know its not basic geology, you were the one who said it was.

Really?

Is it possible for a large object to strike the Earth causing it to spin?

No.

Was the world spinning before the lunar cataclysm?

Yes.

You said everybody but me knew it was, you got a link for that?a separate account of creation

Seeing as this is basic astronomy, I suggest you google a bit.

Gen 1:1 is not a separate account of creation, God didn't create Heaven and Earth twice. The actual description of God's creation begins with the Light and Heaven and Earth dont appear until the 2nd and 3rd days.

Nobody is claiming that Gen 1:1 is "a separate account of creation". Secondly, as just quoted, Genesis says the exact opposite of what you're claiming. It has God create Earth first, then 'the lights'.

You said: What happened on the 1st day? Day and night, the world was spinning near a star - the sun.

a) This is not in Genesis
b) You can't infer that from Genesis.

God can...

That seems a bit irrelevant. We're not discussing what God can, but what humans can.

The Enuma Elish says a messenger was sent out by Anshar (Saturn) to inform the other gods (planets) of Marduk's supremacy. And there are mathematical relationships between Saturn and Pluto.

Once again, Pluto was unknown till fairly recent times.

Citation?

I referred to an example you just deleted in your haste to comment. If you want further reading, I'm sure you it's available. But apart from the idea of heavenly bodies as disks, there's also the widespread belief that the heavens were 'a fixed abode' (resting on 4 pillars, for example.)

You changed "no flood" to "no worldwide flood". Sea levels didn't rise several hundred feet following the ice age?

Sea levels don't rise hundreds of feet, no. Several meters is definitely possible. But even then, this would take hundreds of years, so hardly a 'flood'. Claiming there were no floods would be rather absurd: river floods were quite common until fairly recent times. (In fact, the economy of Egypt depended on it.) So, I didn't 'change', I clarified. There's a difference between the two.

You said nobody else saw a comet, wheres your proof?

The onus is on you here, I'm afraid. But we can google:

The Chinese have records of comets at the time, but there are other theories.

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

Where we can read:

The star appears only in the nativity story of the Gospel of Matthew

Many modern scholars do not consider the story to be describing a historical event but a pious fiction created by the author of the Gospel of Matthew.[7]

And

Other writers suggest that the star was a comet.[49] Halley's Comet was visible in 12 BC and another object, possibly a comet or nova, was seen by Chinese and Korean stargazers in about 5 BC.[49][56] This object was observed for over seventy days with no movement recorded.[49] Ancient writers described comets as "hanging over" specific cities, just as the Star of Bethlehem was said to have "stood over" the "place" where Jesus was (the town of Bethlehem).[36] However, this is generally thought unlikely as in ancient times comets were generally seen as bad omens.[57]

So, there are plenty of theories, just a bit of lack of proof. Seeing as this 'star' only occurs in the Bethlehem story, and the precise year even of Jesus' birth is undetermined, we are left with little other conclusion than that the author decided on a pious embellishment. Rather successfully, as the story is repeated until this day. (The Chinese didn't record 'comets', by the way, but either a comet or a supernova. Which is rather immaterial, as this is nowhere near Bethlehem, and the phenomenon was said not to move.)

You said there was no cosmic event linked to the return of Jesus and I quoted scripture showing there is.

Which is perfectly fine with me.

The celestial 7 (Earth) is 50 (Enlil's rank)... Enlil is Lord of the Earth, his rank is 50 and his planet is 7 - and the Earth was depicted as a 7 pointed "star" or with 7 dots (in both Incan and Mesopotamian cosmology).

Now that is a proper explanation. Unfortunately, it doesn't follow that 'the celestial 7 is 50', as you claim. Nor does it show any connection with Incan cosmology, so I'm not sure why you bring that into it.

You claimed it was an example, how so? One has text unrelated to the celestial imagery above and the other had no text. One is not an example of the other.

Showing and quoting from a text pretty much is what an example is.

How did I misrepresent the argument?

I gave another example of this above. It appears you do this habitually. And if facts don't agree with your theory, you simply ignore the facts.

No, I dont know - who said the seal represents 7 planets? Once you answer the question I'll know if I care.

I'm not really interested in word trickery.

 

[Lexicus]

If it has no form, it's not a planet. I'm a bit puzzled how something without form spins. Perhaps you can explain?

I'll field that one: it's actually pretty simple. Because of how gravity works, two things that are attracted toward one another but don't actually smack into each other will start spinning around each other. This process on a larger scale during the gravitation accretion of the planets is what has caused them to spin. They're spinning because the matter they formed out of was spinning, and it started spinning before it had 'form'.

 

[timtofly]

Google is your friend. 'The solar system forming' doesn't mean everything was already in place as today, by the way.

God wasn't referring to anything. The authors of Genesis might be, though. But that apart, Genesis says 'the lights' (including the sun, as it is 'a light') were created after Earth. Surely even you would know that's impossible.

It would be nice if you would say what you mean. I did google it, and the consensus came back that the sun and earth formed at the same time. That is what I said, and you keep insisting that your (wrong) interpretation means that the Genesis account is wrong. If you interpreted it right, then there would be no contradiction.

Genesis does not say the sun was created on day 4, that is your interpretation, but that interpretation is wrong. Perhaps the only reason you keep insisting on that is to prove your point that the Bible is wrong? I am not even claiming the Bible is right or wrong. I am just pointing out from what the Hebrews have believed, and how it is actually written, that your interpretation is wrong. Neither the sun nor earth were created in a completed state. They were "works" in progress, and were completed on the 4th day, when God declared it good at the end of verse 18.

Verse 14 is not an act of creation, but a determination for the earth to have two lights. Verse 15 is not an act of creation, but an accomplishment of that which was determined. Verse 17 is the setting of the two lights in their proper location, and is not an act of creation. The act of creation was in verse one, when God created all the material to accomplish multiple tasks in the rest of the chapter. Light was not created. Light was the result when God set things in motion and to allow for a homogenous universe with an equal amount of matter and dark matter. It does not say that the universe was created complete. It just says that God (in the beginning or first act) created the material that was needed to accomplish an ongoing action, that is still ongoing today. That is proper grammar. Not some twisted interpretation that has been going on, since the Hebrew was translated into another language. The grammar was held intact, but the words have changed meaning over time, and the original concept seems to have been lost. Unless you think there is no such thing as lost in translation, and there is no way to view the original words and meanings, it seems you just want your interpretation to be correct, to prove the Hebrews were wrong.

Genesis does not say anything. It is just words on a page, to show what God was thinking and doing.

 

[Berzerker]

God made two great lights to govern day and night

The word 'made' doesn't mean create, and the word 'create' means to fashion by cutting, shape or form

God didn't create Heaven(s) and Earth from nothing and the waters of Tehom preceded all three, even God.

God cut her up to fashion Heaven and Earth

 

[timtofly]

God made two great lights to govern day and night

The word 'made' doesn't mean create, and the word 'create' means to fashion by cutting, shape or form

God didn't create Heaven(s) and Earth from nothing and the waters of Tehom preceded all three, even God.

God cut her up to fashion Heaven and Earth

If anything it would be causing form to come from chaos. If cutting chaos creates form, that would fit. Besides, how does that square with the moon being the result of an impact? If there was chaos, the moon would have been cut out of chaos. Is that the same thing as an impact?

You keep claiming that the earth came first, and then it was split to form the moon and the sun? If the sun was not till after the earth split, where did the light come from before the split?

If you want there to be a split, then the heavens and earth was the gas nebulae, that then was rent into the sun and planets forming the solar system. Earth was not a planet, but a nebulae.

 

[Berzerker]

Is it even a Cosmic Event? It's a shattering of all reasonable paradigms about how stars work. It's not just a disruption, it's a changing of what is.

Stars falling from the sky sounds like a meteor(ite) storm and the darkening of sun and moon could refer to dust/vapor from volcanism and/or an impact. Wormwood falls from the sky and its described as a mountain.

 

[Agent327]

God made two great lights to govern day and night

The word 'made' doesn't mean create, and the word 'create' means to fashion by cutting, shape or form[/QUOTE]

If a carpenter makes a table he creates something that wasn't there before.

A case of selective reading:

It would be nice if you would say what you mean. I did google it, and the consensus came back that the sun and earth formed at the same time.

The various planets are thought to have formed from the solar nebula, the disc-shaped cloud of gas and dust left over from the Sun's formation.[28]

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

And again:

Genesis does not say the sun was created on day 4, that is your interpretation

No, its not. You are actually contradicting both yourself and Genesis. See below.

I am just pointing out from what the Hebrews have believed, and how it is actually written, that your interpretation is wrong.

We don't actually know 'what the Hebrews have believed'. Secondly, it's not 'my interpretation: it's literally what it says in Gen. 1: 1-4.

However, this:

Neither the sun nor earth were created in a completed state. They were "works" in progress, and were completed on the 4th day, when God declared it good at the end of verse 18.

is your interpretation. Gen. 1: 3-5 clearly says how the light was created "and God saw it was good". The first day.

This is repeated (or elaborated upon) in Gen. 1:14-18. However you might read it, it still follows Earth was created before the sun. Which is quite incorrect.

Genesis does not say anything. It is just words on a page, to show what God was thinking and doing.

How are we to know "what God was thinking and doing" from "just words on a page"? I wouldn't pretend to know God's thoughts.

I'll field that one: it's actually pretty simple. Because of how gravity works, two things that are attracted toward one another but don't actually smack into each other will start spinning around each other. This process on a larger scale during the gravitation accretion of the planets is what has caused them to spin. They're spinning because the matter they formed out of was spinning, and it started spinning before it had 'form'.

I would point out that matter, by definition, has form. I know how things attract and spin, I asked how something without form can spin. That would be something that isn't matter. That I would find interesting.

 

[Berzerker]

Get your head out of your Sitchin.

It is more likely that the knowledge of secret planets and aliens was never there, rather than it was recorded in these few locations AND yet somehow never referred to in the rest of their cultures documents or in neighboring cultures.

You're misrepresenting ancient semitic cultures so yeah, pretty dishonest.

Which ancient cultures didn't believe in ETs interacting with humanity? Are you now misrepresenting them? Does that make you pretty dishonest?

<crickets>

What actually happened was you mentioned the water, then you babbled frothily about life transfer and where gods come from. When I suggested this was nonsense, you dishonestly tried to say I was referring to the water, not the frothy babble.

You did refer to the water (and this world)... It was "at the asteroid belt" - you chose those words to begin your quote. Maybe you shouldn't have mentioned the water's location if your objection was to something else.

I already posted a link to research suggesting our water formed at the asteroid belt while also suggesting the world formed in the presence of its water - no mechanism brought us our water, it came with us. So you dont believe in aliens, you may think thats nonsense but it sure aint completely unsupported. A world of people have religions based on ETs and those religions contain knowledge ancient man shouldn't have had.

So let me be clear. I am objecting to the frothy babble about life transfers and "gods" that I highlighted in red that followed after the bit about water. I am not objecting to the water.

Panspermia is complete unsupported nonsense too? "At the asteroid belt" is where the water was, remove that relevant bit of information from your red quote and I wouldn't think you were saying the water (and this world) at the asteroid belt was "complete unsupported nonsense". That was your mistake and you accused me of being dishonest.

Pardon me for the misreading then.

What kind of mind deliberately misreads my post as to imply Earth as being secret, and then try to burn me for this wild inaccuracy? How do I even reply to the coherent parts of your writing when you're like that?

You should be asking to be pardoned for that. You misread what I say and call me a liar and accuse me of misreading what you say and call me a liar. The hatred and hypocrisy ooze from your posts, please dont let me keep you around.

The early solar system was energetic and chaotic. So what?

The Enuma Elish describes the chaos

It doesn't mean there were aliens or references to planets in texts that were only visible when Sitchin looked at them, despite the complete absence of these planets in the rest of the culture, or indeed when actual scholars read the texts.

The Enuma Elish says Marduk was crowned by the halo of 10 gods. That translation came from those actual scholars. Thats the sun and 9 planets.

 

[Agent327]

Something without form spinning.

God: I'm spinning, I'm spinning!

- Sir, we can't see you.

God: I'm telling you I'm spinning!

- OK, Sir...

Which ancient cultures didn't believe in ETs interacting with humanity?

Actually, that would be all of them. (You might wish to equate gods with 'extraterrestrials', but they're not the same thing.)

You did refer to the water (and this world)... It was "at the asteroid belt" - you chose those words to begin your quote. Maybe you shouldn't have mentioned the water's location if your objection was to something else.

I don't see why.

I already posted a link to research suggesting our water formed at the asteroid belt while also suggesting the world formed in the presence of its water - no mechanism brought us our water, it came with us.

The latter would be your interpretation. It doesn't follow from any research (linked or otherwise).

So you dont believe in aliens, you may think thats nonsense but it sure aint completely unsupported. A world of people have religions based on ETs and those religions contain knowledge ancient man shouldn't have had.

Well, to paraphrase yourself, that's your belief. Science it is not.

Panspermia is complete unsupported nonsense too? "At the asteroid belt" is where the water was, remove that relevant bit of information from your red quote and I wouldn't think you were saying the water (and this world) at the asteroid belt was "complete unsupported nonsense". That was your mistake and you accused me of being dishonest.

Making a mistake is something quite different from being dishonest.

The Enuma Elish says Marduk was crowned by the halo of 10 gods. That translation came from those actual scholars. Thats the sun and 9 planets.

Once again, no 9 planets were known in antiquity - and for most of the Middlle Ages.

 

[Senethro]

Which ancient cultures didn't believe in ETs interacting with humanity? Are you now misrepresenting them? Does that make you pretty dishonest?

<crickets>

Keep asking, it makes you look sane.

You did refer to the water (and this world)... It was "at the asteroid belt" - you chose those words to begin your quote. Maybe you shouldn't have mentioned the water's location if your objection was to something else.

I already posted a link to research suggesting our water formed at the asteroid belt while also suggesting the world formed in the presence of its water - no mechanism brought us our water, it came with us. So you dont believe in aliens, you may think thats nonsense but it sure aint completely unsupported. A world of people have religions based on ETs and those religions contain knowledge ancient man shouldn't have had.

This whole thread has been a Sitchin trojan horse and its been dishonest to pretend otherwise.

You're not really interested in pinning down the early history of the Earth, you're trying to railroad this line of discussion into Sitchins daft collision in the asteroid belt creating both the asteroid belt and delivering water to Earth (or something, I last read his wikipedia article a few days ago). I invite you to consider that water is a relatively small component of the earth so focusing on the water to the exclusion of all else is symptomatic of your pattern of behaviour.

Panspermia is complete unsupported nonsense too?

We're a bit short of actual examples, not that that will stop your baseless conjecturing.

"At the asteroid belt" is where the water was, remove that relevant bit of information from your red quote and I wouldn't think you were saying the water (and this world) at the asteroid belt was "complete unsupported nonsense". That was your mistake and you accused me of being dishonest.

You are so dishonest. In a sentence where you say a thing that is sensible and a thing that is daft, you ignore my objection to the daft and insist i'm objecting to the sensible. Then you get sulky that I'm not falling for it and defending the position you assigned me.

The Enuma Elish says Marduk was crowned by the halo of 10 gods. That translation came from those actual scholars. Thats the sun and 9 planets.

Ramifications, man. Hella ramifications.

Nah, when other scholars than sitchin say that in naming and describing all the planets the Sumerians knew about, the total doesn't even approach 9, I'm disinclined to believe you.

 

[Berzerker]

Indeed. But then, Earth didn't form at the asteroid belt, so that would be kind of hard to 'answer'.

Whats proving hard to answer is how the Earth formed here when our water formed further away.

No, 'w'all' haven't. You're just missing the difference between the one and the other.

If I had missed the difference I wouldn't be saying the opposition's argument has changed. You missed the difference, arguing science does not support Genesis and then arguing its only a coincidence when science supports Genesis is moving the goal posts.

Not by me. And I gave a clear example of intellectual dishonesty.

By them, so why are you here telling me what you think they meant. I know what they said, they (and I) dont need you interpreting their insults.

I'm fairly certain you aren't part of that community. The explanation is in that post you clearly didn't read.

That was a collective "we" with the scientific community representing modern man's state of knowledge.

I'll simply repost: If the Earth is spinning today, there's no reason to assume that in some point in the past it decided to start spinning.

I didn't say I assumed it wasn't spinning in the past, I said I dont know if it was or wasn't based on the description provided by Gen 1:2. What the text does say is light and darkness were separated into day and night, so the world was spinning near a star at that point in the story.

No.

Yes.

And you have a link ??? to a basic HS geology text book that says everybody but me knows the world was spinning 4.5 bya and that a major collision could not cause an object to spin? Ever play pool?

Seeing as this is basic astronomy, I suggest you google a bit.

Its not my job to support your claims

Nobody is claiming that Gen 1:1 is "a separate account of creation". Secondly, as just quoted, Genesis says the exact opposite of what you're claiming. It has God create Earth first, then 'the lights'.

God didn't create the lights, he made them to serve Earthly observers.

a) This is not in Genesis
b) You can't infer that from Genesis.

The separation of light from darkness resulting in day and night is in Genesis and I do infer from it the world was spinning near a star - thats why we have day and night.

Once again, Pluto was unknown till fairly recent times.

Yet it appears in mythology as a satellite of Saturn... And Saturn's rings point to it.

I referred to an example you just deleted in your haste to comment. If you want further reading, I'm sure you it's available.

I want you to support your arguments with links and you expect me to do it for you.

Sea levels don't rise hundreds of feet, no. Several meters is definitely possible. But even then, this would take hundreds of years, so hardly a 'flood'. Claiming there were no floods would be rather absurd: river floods were quite common until fairly recent times. (In fact, the economy of Egypt depended on it.) So, I didn't 'change', I clarified. There's a difference between the two.

Hehe... Sea levels rose ~400 ft after the ice age ended. During that time the Flood happened, but it wasn't simply a rising sea that caused it - the fountains of deep opening up suggests a tsunami and that was followed by the deluge, 40 days of rain. Not only did the ocean burst forth water vapor filled the atmosphere.

The onus is on you here, I'm afraid.

The onus is not on me to support your arguments.

But we can google:

Where we can read:

And

So, there are plenty of theories

The link offers some of those theories and they dont involve a comet.

The Chinese didn't record 'comets', by the way, but either a comet or a supernova. Which is rather immaterial, as this is nowhere near Bethlehem, and the phenomenon was said not to move.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1991QJRAS..32..389H

Now that is a proper explanation. Unfortunately, it doesn't follow that 'the celestial 7 is 50', as you claim. Nor does it show any connection with Incan cosmology, so I'm not sure why you bring that into it.

The celestial 7 is 50 means Earth is Enlil's domain. And both the Sumerians and the Inca depicted the Earth as 7 dots.

Showing and quoting from a text pretty much is what an example is.

There was no text to quote from in the Fremont cosmology. There was text on VA 243. You cant argue one is an example of the other. Well, y'all can do what you want but you're wrong nonetheless.

I gave another example of this above. It appears you do this habitually. And if facts don't agree with your theory, you simply ignore the facts.

Above where? What facts have I ignored?

I'm not really interested in word trickery.

I gather you see the illustration on seals as evidence of some kind. But if the illustration represents 7 planets, why then are there other references to 11 planets (orbs)? Either the one is incorrect, or the other.

I'll ask again, who said the illustration represents 7 planets?

 

[Berzerker]

If a carpenter makes a table he creates something that wasn't there before.

But Genesis doesn't say God created the 2 great lights and the wood was already there.

 

[Berzerker]

If anything it would be causing form to come from chaos. If cutting chaos creates form, that would fit.

Thats how the myths describe it, order came from chaos. Marduk slays the source of chaos (Tiamat) and sets the gods on their proper destinies (orbits)

how does that square with the moon being the result of an impact? If there was chaos, the moon would have been cut out of chaos. Is that the same thing as an impact?

The lunar cataclysm was ~4.5 bya... Genesis is describing the late heavy bombardment ~4 bya just prior to the appearance of dry land and life.

You keep claiming that the earth came first, and then it was split to form the moon and the sun? If the sun was not till after the earth split, where did the light come from before the split?

The sun and moon preceded the Earth (dry land), they only came to rule day and night once the new born Earth acquired a new orbit closer to the sun - both the sun and moon were now much brighter as a result. In the Enuma Elish the leader of Tiamat's forces (Kingu) was slain by Marduk and became the moon.

If you want there to be a split, then the heavens and earth was the gas nebulae, that then was rent into the sun and planets forming the solar system. Earth was not a planet, but a nebulae.

Earth was submerged in Gen 1:2 by water and revealed on the 3rd day when that water receded into seas...

 

[Berzerker]

Keep asking, it makes you look sane.

Running away from your hypocrisy looks cowardly. You said it was pretty dishonest to misrepresent ancient semitic cultures and thats what you did, not me.

This whole thread has been a Sitchin trojan horse and its been dishonest to pretend otherwise.

A trojan horse is a surprise, I haven't been hiding him or his theory.

You're not really interested in pinning down the early history of the Earth, you're trying to railroad this line of discussion into Sitchins daft collision in the asteroid belt creating both the asteroid belt and delivering water to Earth (or something

Delivering Earth with some of its water to a new orbit... You've been ignoring Earth's early history but I'm the one who isn't interested?

I invite you to consider that water is a relatively small component of the earth so focusing on the water to the exclusion of all else is symptomatic of your pattern of behaviour.

The article I linked said the planet may have formed in the presence of water and that this water may have formed at the asteroid belt. It doesn't matter what the water's mass is compared to the planet and I'm not focusing on the water to the exclusion of all else. The article said the Earth may have formed in the presence of water. That didn't happen in this orbit. The water was out there at the snow line.

We're a bit short of actual examples, not that that will stop your baseless conjecturing.

You said it was complete unsupported nonsense. Now you're changing that to "short of actual examples".

You are so dishonest. In a sentence where you say a thing that is sensible and a thing that is daft, you ignore my objection to the daft and insist i'm objecting to the sensible. Then you get sulky that I'm not falling for it and defending the position you assigned me.

You said the water at the asteroid belt was complete unsupported nonsense. And you said the same thing about panspermia. Adding your disbelief in aliens doesn't make what you said true, there's support for all three so that leaves us with the totality of your brilliant argument - nonsense. Thats it... Not that throwing in complete and unsupported made your argument any more convincing, but you seem impressed by the additional words.

Ramifications, man. Hella ramifications.

Nah, when other scholars than sitchin say that in naming and describing all the planets the Sumerians knew about, the total doesn't even approach 9, I'm disinclined to believe you.

Marduk was clothed with the halo of 10 gods... That sentence followed a description of the sun and 9 planetary gods. If scholars dont accept these as planets, they need to explain why. I'd bet their explanation would be the same as yours, the Sumerians didn't know about the planets so dont bother us with evidence to the contrary.

This is worth an edit:

In a sentence where you say a thing that is sensible

So now you think its sensible that our water (and planet) formed at the asteroid belt?

 

[Berzerker]

Actually, that would be all of them.

http://www.native-languages.org/definitions/sky-beings.htm

Not them

http://www.ancient-code.com/the-wandjina-cave-paintings-depictions-of-sky-beings/

or them

God wasn't born on Earth, God revealed it, God is an ET

The latter would be your interpretation. It doesn't follow from any research (linked or otherwise).

Lets see... Earth formed in water and the water formed at the asteroid belt. I dont see how the Earth formed here if our water was/is out there.

Making a mistake is something quite different from being dishonest.

Calling someone dishonest based on a mistake you made is slimy

Once again, no 9 planets were known in antiquity - and for most of the Middlle Ages.

There were 9 planets in the Enuma Elish, the Incan "Genesis", the Toltec 9 Lords of the Night, and 9 awaiting the hunter stalking the horned deity in the Fremont cosmology. In Norse myth 9 worlds are supported by Yggdrasil and 9 levels in Dante's Inferno which is based on earlier Roman and Greek cosmology. The list goes on and on...

 

[Senethro]

God is an ET.

This thread would have been much shorter if that had been established at the start.

 

[Arakhor]

Berzerker is an ancient alien enthusiast. It's as crucial to reading these threads as knowing who is or isn't a creationist in such threads.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It's a pretty simple logical deduction from the facts that 1) you can't see any planet past Saturn with the naked eye and 2) the ancient Sumerians lacked any instruments that would enable them to see further than the naked eye.

You can actually see Uranus too.

As has already been said, so never mind. Stll, any post that adds facts to the thread can't be a bad thing, even if they're repetitious.